The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ...

Posted by: grelber

The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 02:01 AM

(Perhaps the only way for poetic justice to prevail.)

Trump Stands Up for Saudi Arabian Values [New York Times editorial]

Surprising? Not in the least. What do you expect from a malignant imbecilic narcissist?
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 02:40 AM

...dictator wannabe.

He sucks up to dictators because he admires their "accomplishments".
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Maybe 45 needs to end it with a .45

...and replace a dunce with an ultraconservative religious fanatic like Mike Pense❓‼️❓. Shades of the Spanish Inquisition. Trump is like a drop of water on a hot griddle bouncing from issue to issue attempting to hide his incompetence, but Pense is single minded in wanting this country to be a theocracy. We would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.

My hope is our representatives and senators will "person up" (enough of the new faces are female to make "man up" seem inappropriate and ill advised), quit the overly partisan in-fighting and focus on the nation's greater good. One Washington reporter noted there are a lot of former military among the new faces in the next congress and he has found that they have a common objective to not get caught up in partisan wrangling get the job done. If they can retain that attitude, Trump will still be an annoyance for the next two years, but better Trump than Pense
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 08:39 AM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Originally Posted By: grelber
Maybe 45 needs to end it with a .45

...and replace a dunce with an ultraconservative religious fanatic like Mike Pense❓‼️❓ ...

The title premise could apply to 45' (45-prime) too. Even the 1873 Colt had 6 chambers, not to mention the 1911 Colt M1A1 semiauto with even more capacity. There's enough 'solution' for every 'deserving' body.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 08:50 AM

Here's something to ponder...

Considering the constraints of the Constitution, and the makeup of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the military, has Trump got a better or worse chance of turning the country into a dictatorship than Pence has got of turning it into a theocracy?
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/18 09:50 AM

Good point Artie but given Republican senators are now calling Trump to task for his stand on the Saudi prince's actions, a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and although the military does tend to be conservative it has been dragging its feet on many of the presidential hot buttons until they fall off the Hair God's radar and forgotten. I am not sure how much real influence he has. He does make a lot of noise, gets a lot of press, is an international joke, and an embarrassment to the nation but we can survive that.

Pense isn't the brightest candle on the alter of ultra-conservative Catholicism, but he knows congress and is cagier than Trump in dealing with them. (Trump appears to consider congress an unnecessary impediment to his reign.) As president I think Pense is far more likely to get truly onerous legislation past. The best analogy I can think of is John F Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Both very intelligent but Kennedy was far more urbane and charismatic but in spite of that was unable to get any meaningful social legislation through congress. On the other hand, although he was personally leery of most of the civil rights legislation espoused by Kennedy and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, when Johnson became president he was able to push it all through. Not because he was likable or liked but because he knew congress and where all the bodies were buried. Mike Pense is no Lyndon Johnson, but he does have that insider knowledge that makes for effective politics.

Something else to consider, have you looked at the ages of all of the leading Republicans in congress lately? Some of them are old enough to have invented dirt. How many more terms in office can 80 and 90 year olds serve survive?
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/24/18 11:13 PM

I had to get Thanksgiving and our Colluder In Chief's humble declaration that he's thankful that America's got him deep in the background of my rear view mirror before I could get back to this.

Pence's ability to deal with Congress is something, but it's not at all comparable to LBJ's. The influence he gained during his twelve years in the House (two as Chair of the House Republican Conference) pales into insignificance by comparison to that gained by Johnson during his twelve years in the House and twelve in the Senate (two as Majority Whip, two as Minority Leader, and six as Majority Leader) back during the days when the two parties were separated by a mere aisle, not a barbed wire entanglement.

And although Catholicism has more adherents than any other religion in the U.S., I suspect that a lot of adherents of the other religions are at least a bit wary of it (In his next incarnation, Mueller could be investigating Vatican interference with the democratic process. shocked ), not to mention that its largest voting block, Latinos, is hardly enamored of Republicans of any persuasion.

Trump's personality cult (Perish the thought that he ever starts cultivating Generals!) may actually give him more sway in Congress and the streets than Pence could ever hope for.

I'll believe the Republicans' indignation over his kowtowing to yet another dictator when I see, not just hear, their response, and the Democratic controlled House is a fait accompli for both.

The wild card is the Supreme Court and how far its commitment to the principles of the Constitution has strayed.

This, by the way, is Trump's prototype uniform for when he takes over. (Even kinda looks like him.)

Footnote: List of current United States Senators by age (That list as of November 24, 2018 includes John McCain, so I dunno.)

Those in their 80's may actually have an election or two left in their careers.
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 09:55 AM

Abilities and talent aside, Pence himself said: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 12:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
....Pence himself said: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."

Given all the unChristian things that Trump has done and said, and which Pence has ignored, perhaps he should have said: "I'm a malleable Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 12:58 PM

"Malleable Christian"? Is that synonymous with hypocrite?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 01:33 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
"Malleable Christian"? Is that synonymous with hypocrite?

Not necessarily. All religions and ethical persuasions have built-in "safety valves" which allow for inconsistencies to be tolerated/legitimated within their constructs.
Thus, for example, could the Inquisition and the behavior of its Christian practitioners be justified.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Originally Posted By: jchuzi
"Malleable Christian"? Is that synonymous with hypocrite?

Not necessarily. All religions and ethical persuasions have built-in "safety valves" which allow for inconsistencies to be tolerated/legitimated within their constructs.
Thus, for example, could the Inquisition and the behavior of its Christian practitioners be justified.

Ha! So codification negates hypocrisy?
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/18 10:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
Abilities and talent aside, Pence himself said: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order."

He calls himself a "born again, evangelical Catholic, Kabbalist", which sounds more like an attempt to cover all bases than a forthcoming description, and indeed, some of his responses to questions about his faith leading up to the election (What it means that Mike Pence called himself an ‘evangelical Catholic’) seem to support that line of thinking.

But I"m not sure that addresses your point.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/27/18 07:48 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Ha! So codification negates hypocrisy?

No, but when any religious group takes the position their particular ethos is the ONLY correct understanding of God, they become a sect and the lifespan of sects are notoriously short. They either disagree among themselves on the exact meaning/interpretation of scripture and splinter into ever smaller groups until they become inconsequential or in extreme cases drink Koolaid.

All of the great teachers and prophets such as Isaiah, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Guru Nanek, etc. have been tolerant of a wide range of interpretation. In fact in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was crucified because he, "sat and ate with sinners". In my faith tradition, Presbyterian, one of our fundamental principals is mutual forbearance for differing opinions. There have been divisions (and reunions) in our denomination over the centuries, but the divisions always arose from the failure/inability of a group to follow that one basic principal and I would venture that is true of all human organizations.

Back to Mike Pence. As a good Roman Catholic he has confessed the Pope as his spiritual leader, but he has expressed strong opposition to the Pope's leadership on many "hot button" issues (typically sex or gender related such as the status of LGBTQ persons in the church, and the possibility of ordaining women) where the Pope has expressed a far more open position than his predecessor. Pence is bordering on becoming a member of an ultra- conservative sect.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/24/18 12:45 PM

This article is truly frightening because its statements ring true: Time for G.O.P. to Threaten to Fire Trump. I cannot have confidence that Republicans care more for our country than they do about their own power.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/24/18 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
I cannot have confidence that Republicans care more for our country than they do about their own power.

But they've already seen their power begin to erode, and they may be able to retain what's left of it, if not reverse the erosion, by dumping Trump in favor of Pence; and, and I hate to say it out loud because they may be listening, giving him two years in office before the next election might be their best path to retaining the White House in 2020.

More: Unfortunately, though, they'll never do the job in time to limit him to only one full term, so if he should be elected in 2020 he'll be able to run again in 2024.

But at this point, I don't know if I can see him as worse than Trump. frown (I think his agenda will more subject to Constitutional restraint than Trump's is.)

More: 25 seconds to post
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/24/18 05:54 PM

I am a big fan of Tom Friedman and generally find his comments thoughtful and worthy of attention. But in this case, many equally knowledgeable commentators and more than a few notable Republicans are convinced that Trump and the alt-right have successfully neutered the Republican Party and there is no effective party apparatus or leadership remaining. So who or what are these Republicans, Tom Friedman is calling on to "fire" Trump? The Republican leadership in both the house and senate are firmly in Trump's camp if not his pocket. The arch conservatives have pretty much driven any moderate Republicans out of congress if not out of politics altogether. Even Trump himself in one of his twitter storms has declared that the remaining Republicans in congress are members of "his" party and he has no use for "Republicans".

So my question, "...who or what are these Republicans, Tom Friedman is calling on to "fire" Trump?" remains along with the equally important question, would Trump give a D@&* if they called on him to resign?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/28/18 10:21 PM

The plethora of recent actions/proclamations by Bozo in Chief indicates just how irrational nigh unto psychotic he is, and his behavior just keeps crossing boundaries of the extreme. He makes Caligula and Nero look like human rights activists.
How by any stretch of the imagination is this making America great again?! confused

And, when, oh when, are (rational) Americans going to be able to dance in the streets and sing "Ding Dong The Wicked Witch Is Dead"?!
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/31/18 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
How by any stretch of the imagination is this making America great again?! confused

Under Trump. America has become the GREAT...
  • JOKE to the industrialized world,
  • DUPE to the worlds despots,
  • DISAPPOINTMENT to the worlds tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free
  • FOOL to the world's scientific community
  • TERROR of those who have counted on us to act as a stabilizing influence in world politics
  • NOTHING to the international community
  • OBJECT OF PITY to the world
  • EMBARRASSMENT to the majority of its citizens with more than a Junior High School education and those living urban areas
Trump said he would make America great again and he certainly has made America "great"in many arenas but I don't think in any arena the American people want to be great in.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/31/18 04:22 PM

Well said.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/01/19 03:28 AM

And thanks to the Wacko in Chief's vision of Great America and license to kill, "the purge" begins, slowly but surely:

Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/01/19 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
And thanks to the Wacko in Chief's vision of Great America and license to kill, "the purge" begins, slowly but surely:

Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars

When you realize that Chandler is in Maricopa County, Arizona where Sheriff Joe Arpaio reigned supreme and pointedly ignored constitutional law for years, attacks on self driving vehicles shouldn't be surprising. It fits the context.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/08/19 12:34 AM

Borderline Insanity

President Trump rained cruelties on immigrants and asylum seekers and now wants hundreds of millions of dollars to address the humanitarian crisis he caused.

The Gangster-in-Chief's — to use Chuck Lorre's epithet — destruction of the real American way of life is gradually coming home to roost and to rot.

And this might be the week when his psychotic in(s)anity is recognized by his "base". They didn't seem to mind his killing children, refugees, asylum seekers et al, but now that he's killing the underemployed and undereducated in his base, as well as a few more solid middle Americans, they're likely to get a clue.

As noted in the media, because of the government shutdown, national parks are being polluted by human excrement — bringing us full circle to which nation is a "shithole" now (and we're not talking about any place on the other side of the world)!

Not only does he grab them, he is one — ie, a true c*nt in the finest British sense and tradition.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/18/19 01:10 AM

Washington as Unruly Sandbox: Squabbles, Antics and Tantrums

As the shutdown drags on, Trump-like behavior proliferates. The president "does generally force people to play down to his level" ....

Closer and closer to everyone's having to live on food stamps.

When is Congress ever going to get it through their heads that the tail is wagging the dog [sorry for the mixed metaphor] — there should be enough who have the requisite IQ to understand the problem rationally — and take out the Petulant Infant in Chief (or at least give him a time-out — preferably in a pit in the outback)?!

It continues to amaze me and force me to suspend my disbelief that most of the world still misconstrues what the current Putz-in-Chief means by his battle cry "Make America Great Again".

If nothing else, his shutdown of government services — so far the epitome of his egregious behavior — makes it abundantly clear that he planned to demonstrate his disdain for and tear down America the Great if elected to the prestigious position of President and that MAGA refers to what the nation will have to do once he is no longer in office.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/08/19 01:19 AM

Have a gander at Bob Woodward's thorough and deeply-researched FEAR : TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE (2018), which over the course of 42 chapters again and again demonstrates #45's pettiness, erratic behavior, relative ignorance, inability to learn, dangerous views, inter alia. Simply put, as Rex Tillerson (his erstwhile Secretary of State) did, "He's just a moron."

A much more accurate title would have been LOONEY TUNES & MERRIE MELODIES : TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE — but I suspect that copyright issues with Warner Bros might have precluded such.

It's worth a read if you can tolerate immersing yourself in the behavior and machinations of a loopy loco in a cuckoo's nest.

Ah! Oui! la bell(iqueus)e epoque!

Or perhaps that should be Bela Lugosi ... in his last role in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE (which is just turning 60): "Hailed as the worst movie ever made.... So mesmerizingly awful it actually improves (so to speak) with each viewing. And remember: it's all based on sworn testimony!" [Leonard Maltin's 2007 Movie Guide] Sound familiar?
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/08/19 07:25 AM

Come on Grelber, tell us what you REALLY think of the Trump! laugh

FWIW, I generally agree withy you but there are several areas where Trump deserves recognition and acclaim for his unique accomplishments:
  • He has the lowest approval rating of any President since approval ratings have been measured
  • By his own words he is "The King of Borrowers".
  • He is the "King of Bankruptcy'
  • He is a salesman's salesman.
  • He is wildly successful at financing a lavish living style from businesses that operate almost exclusively in the red.
  • His is an extortionist nonpariel when dealing with smaller businesses.
  • He is as con man's con man.
  • He is adept at dealing with corrupt organizations.
  • In spite of his television persona he is a coward
  • He has raised nepotism to new heights
  • He has the highest number and rate of Pinochio's of any past or present politician
  • the list goes on — and on — and on.
So rather than denigrate his actions, I say we should carefully document and highlight his multitudinous accomplishments dubious though they may be.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/15/19 01:17 AM

Time to get on with it ...

McCabe Says Justice Dept Officials Had Discussions About Pushing Trump Out

The former deputy FBI director, in a “60 Minutes” interview that will air fully on Sunday, said top department officials had considered recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Release the lions!
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/17/19 12:24 AM

Someone on Quora asked, “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

Pretty much reflects the majority of comments in this forum.

Aside: The Russian transliteration of Trump's name is Трамп which transliterates back into English as "tramp" ... which raises the ancillary question of why one would denigrate beggars, vagrants, or Charlie Chaplin, for that matter.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/17/19 07:28 AM

"You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man." shocked

That pretty much sums it up. frown

Very nicely done! grin
Posted by: freelance

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/17/19 08:44 AM

A female Trump supporter was being interviewed by Louis Theroux. When asked about Trump's flaws, she said, "Yeah, he's an #$!&, but he's our #$!&."
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/18/19 07:03 AM

When my brother worked in Washington, he told me that threatening any federal official was against the law, whether you are doing it in print or speech, in jest or not. I discourage everyone from engaging in this kind of thing, for many reasons, regardless of one's political views.
Posted by: freelance

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/18/19 10:08 AM

Good point, but I think they'll be going after Saturday Night Live first.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/18/19 12:13 PM

Originally Posted By: deniro
When my brother worked in Washington, he told me that threatening any federal official was against the law, whether you are doing it in print or speech, in jest or not.

Define "threatening a federal official". I have to assume that a threat would mean some specified action to bring physical harm, which is quite different from exercising one's freedom of speech rights to voice an opinion.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/18/19 01:55 PM

Maybe he'll be coming home from Hanoi in a casket ... attached to the head of an ICBM ... or so one might fervently hope.

Ooh, shades of Dr Strangelove ...
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 05:33 AM

I don't like to argue subjects like this on a tech forum, but freedom of any kind isn't absolute. There are always limits. Obviously there are things you can't say and shouldn't say. As adults at least we should think more about responsibilities than rights, about how we ought to act responsibly and decently, rather than try to do whatever we can get away with.

In his 20s, my brother worked for a senator. He had to answer letters from people. If a person threatened the senator, if he wished him harm in any way, that's a federal crime. You can easily wind up on some list. As it should be. Threats of violence do occur in the lives of elected officials and sometimes actual violence. Presidents are shot at and killed. In recent years a senator from Kentucky was assaulted by his next door neighbor, a doctor, simply because the man disagreed with is opinions. The senator was hospitalized. This is primitive and barbaric. There's something sick and pathetic about people who can't disagree with each other in a civil way.

Wishing any person were dead or harmed is immature and unethical. No good comes from it, and possibly a lot of bad can come from it. It's not cute or funny or amusing or helpful.

It's not the kind of thought I have had often in my life. I can't think of a politician, or anyone, that I have agreed with all the time about everything. But that doesn't mean I want something bad to happen to them.
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 05:40 AM

This behavior is especially common among those who consider themselves good, compassionate people. Which ought to make all of us stop and think.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: deniro
I don't like to argue subjects like this on a tech forum…..

I’d say this is a perfectly acceptable topic for The Lounge. Going back many years, to when FineTunedMac was MacFixit, The Lounge has always been designated as the forum for discussion of any non-technical issue.

Originally Posted By: deniro
If a person threatened the senator, if he wished him harm in any way, that's a federal crime.

I don’t know American law but I assume that the same principle (a threat is a crime) applies, whether or not a person is a politician.

That’s how it works in Canada. If you came up to me and threatened to punch me in the face, and I believed you would do it, I have been assaulted and you could be charged. And I agree with the principle. Any citizen has a right to live without intimidation.

However, I don’t recall any threats like that in this thread. Even the unfortunate (IMHO) title of the thread, “Maybe 45 needs to end it all with a .45”, isn’t a threat. It’s an opinion and opinions are okay, as is the right to disagree with them.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 07:51 AM

Originally Posted By: deniro
This behavior is especially common among those who consider themselves good, compassionate people. Which ought to make all of us stop and think.

In the absence of verifiable data, I have trouble with the "especially common" conclusion. It makes me think about Donald Trump's dubious pronouncements about the people in the torch-carrying procession at Charlottesville:

“But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me….”

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,”

“The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,”
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 08:56 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: deniro
This behavior is especially common among those who consider themselves good, compassionate people. Which ought to make all of us stop and think.

In the absence of verifiable data, I have trouble with the "especially common" conclusion. It makes me think about Donald Trump's dubious pronouncements about the people in the torch-carrying procession at Charlottesville:

“But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me….”

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,”

“The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,”


But in reference to the title of this thread, even Donald Trump was aware of the gravity of presidential threats. When the Dow Jones dropped a little over 1000 points one day during Obama's tenure, Trump-the-citizen said that "anyone who is president when the market drops a thousand points should be shot…out of a cannon."

He knew, or was told, that if he stopped at "shot", he could be subject to investigation or arrest for threatening the President. So the title of this thread, while a clever number play, may just be…

Of course, during his reign #45 has seen two daily drops of over 1000 points. So where is that cannon? crazy
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 09:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
Of course, during his reign #45 has seen two daily drops of over 1000 points. So where is that cannon? crazy

No disagreement here. laugh
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 09:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
So the title of this thread, while a clever number play, may just be…

But the title of this thread is merely A SUGGESTION THAT HE OFF HIMSELF...not even a vaguely implied threat.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
... So the title of this thread, while a clever number play, may just be ...

The title explicitly relates (grammatically) to suicide ... as a grand exit, maybe even as a tweet.

Rats! Artie beat me to it by 2 minutes.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/19/19 04:03 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
The title explicitly relates (grammatically) to suicide ... as a grand exit, maybe even as a tweet.[/i]

Maybe it won't be necessary. What kind of brain tumour could a person get from malignant narcissism?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/19 08:49 AM

Stroke risk = handicap (but not for golf):

According to a recent study, More Evidence Ties Diet Drinks to Greater Stroke Risk, drinking two or more artificially sweetened beverages (such as Diet Coke) per day was associated with a greater overall risk for fatal and nonfatal stroke.

It's also been reported that the Трамп consumes 12 cans of Diet Coke per day (just 2 cans shy of the recommended dietary limit).

So, hope springs eternal.

Aside: Cool new Abby Roade avatar, ryck; downright elegant (although the puppy one was beyond cute).
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/19 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
...drinking two or more artificially sweetened beverages (such as Diet Coke) per day was associated with a greater overall risk for fatal and nonfatal stroke.

It's also been reported that the Трамп consumes 12 cans of Diet Coke per day (just 2 cans shy of the recommended dietary limit). (Emphasis added)

Huh?

What am I missing?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/19 09:46 AM

That "two or more ... beverages" refers to standard cans (each 12 fl.oz = 355 mL). Ergo, he drinks at least 6x that.
14 cans would be the dietary limit.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/19 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
That "two or more ... beverages" refers to standard cans (each 12 fl.oz = 355 mL). Ergo, he drinks at least 6x that.

Yeah, I got that part.

Originally Posted By: grelber
14 cans would be the dietary limit.

But from where does that "dietary limit" come?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/03/19 12:25 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Originally Posted By: grelber
14 cans would be the dietary limit.

But from where does that "dietary limit" come?

It was reported this past week on a Canadian radio program, Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly, CBC Radio One.
The podcast can be found at https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/03/19 12:43 AM

Aaah... The missing link.

I"m astonished by that 14 can limit; it seems enormous...far more than I'd have ever guessed would be an acceptable amount.

Makes me feel better abut the 24 cans of Pepsi/day I downed at one time; at least they contained real sugar. tongue

More: I heard the other day that he weighed in at 243# at his annual physical...just north of his obesity benchmark; he needs to drink more of that diet crap.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/03/19 05:51 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
....he needs to drink more of that diet crap.

Actually, Coke would like him to stop.

In the radio program, which is well worth an ear-check, this episode pointed out that Coke has been trying to gain appeal in a younger demographic but President Bonespur is defeating their objective. Every time he says something about the amount of Diet Coke he drinks, the image of the Diet Coke consumer becomes a person who is old and overweight.

When the Orange Aerie-in-Chief heard about Coke's concern, he quite predictably tweeted something along the lines of, 'I understand that Coke's not happy with me. That's okay. I'll keep drinking their garbage anyway'.

PS: I was happy to hear about the 243 pounds, although I would have guessed higher. With that much excess weight, and the amount of junk food he wolfs down, can a major cardio infarction be far behind? We can only hope.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/03/19 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
I was happy to hear about the 243 pounds, although I would have guessed higher. With that much excess weight, and the amount of junk food he wolfs down, can a major cardio infarction be far behind? We can only hope.

I'm with you, and I'll guess that at least 20-25# disappeared under the C-i-c's orders to his military MD, i.e. "OK, we'll tell them that I've crossed the obesity line, but NOT by how much."

The junk he consumes constitutes a major cardio infraction, so, hopefully, a mere two letter transposition isn't very far behind. grin

Y'know, at this point, I think I'd prefer to see him survive until very shortly before the next election and then throw the Republican campaign into complete disarray by becoming incapacitated...or worse...or faaar worse, rather than have Pence become President sooner and solidify his position as the basis for his own run...and potential second run.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/11/19 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Y'know, at this point, I think I'd prefer to see him survive until very shortly before the next election and then throw the Republican campaign into complete disarray by becoming incapacitated...

He may already be there, mentally at least. A few months ago he addressed the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Marilyn Hewson, as Marilyn Lockheed and now Tim Cook becomes Tim Apple. Har har har. I'm willing to bet that, if he met with the head of General Motors, Trump would ask him why he didn't wear his uniform.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/19 01:37 PM

I was just dropping in to say hello, but it looks like this thread could use some intellectual diversity, so I thought I'd just say I'm a serious Trump fan, right down to the MAGA! I think he's doing a remarkable job, especially considering the headwinds (not to mention the bogus investigations) he's been facing.

But never mind that, I hope everybody's doing well. For once, I don't actually have a tech problem that needs fixing!
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/09/19 05:52 AM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
I was just dropping in to say hello, but it looks like this thread could use some intellectual diversity...

Good point….and welcome too, I’m sure. It’s always good to hear the opinions and rationale of another view.

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
....I'm a serious Trump fan, right down to the MAGA! I think he's doing a remarkable job, especially considering the headwinds (not to mention the bogus investigations) he's been facing.

I think the dialogue would be furthered if you could put some meat on these bones. For example, what are the things Trump has done that you believe are good for America and why do you believe the investigations are bogus?
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/09/19 06:56 AM

Hi JM, and welcome back....it has been too long.

I would second ryck's request for some more meat in order to get a real-world conversation started and try to avoid a divergence into emotional name calling if at all possible.

As a retired Naval Officer, with direct experience in many other countries and cultures, my personal concerns with our President's actions, policies and performance as a world leader are based on the broader picture of our Nation's perception and position on the stage of international policy and effectiveness as a result. I would welcome your inputs on how he is helping to make America great again when viewed through this window.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/09/19 11:10 AM

Hello ryck and MacManiac!

Yes, it has certainly been a long time. I'd be happy to put some meat on my pro-Trump position, but it will probably be this weekend before I have time to collect my thoughts on 'paper.' I appreciate being asked!
Posted by: Alam

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/09/19 01:00 PM

So that's where the old crowd lives now!

Nice new home... cool smile
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/09/19 09:05 PM

Hi Alam, welcome back to you as well!
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/11/19 10:15 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
I think the dialogue would be furthered if you could put some meat on these bones. For example, what are the things Trump has done that you believe are good for America and why do you believe the investigations are bogus?

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
As a retired Naval Officer, with direct experience in many other countries and cultures, my personal concerns with our President's actions, policies and performance as a world leader are based on the broader picture of our Nation's perception and position on the stage of international policy and effectiveness as a result.

Big questions! My response ended up being at least three comments long, so I decided that's how I'd post it. If I tried to make it shorter it would just take longer, and it doesn't look like I'll be interrupting another conversation. I'll start by just referring you to this article: Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping in the Washington Examiner, and then concentrate on responding to the investigation and foreign policy questions. That list was as of last October, so I'm sure the count is higher now. smile

Yes, it includes a lot of cheerleading, and the Wash. Examiner is a decidedly conservative outlet, but if you want to hear anything positive about the President, that's where you have to look. It seems to me that most of the coverage devoted to Trump in other mainstream news outfits is just inside the Beltway gossip which almost none of the gazillion anonymous promulgators wants to own up to. It has also practically drowned out substantive coverage about a lot of what else the President has been doing.

In any case, while we may disagree about what constitutes desirable change, the article will give you a general idea of how Republicans on a whole see Trump. I do think that the economy has been chugging along nicely. The numbers are looking good and we're basically at full employment. Black unemployment, in particular, is way down, and that's not an accident. Trump has paid more attention to inner cities than any prior Republican in my memory. That's also why he's doing better, approval wise, in black and hispanic/latino communities than former Republican White House contenders, and I believe that's a healthy change. I think he gets a bad rap on the immigration front, but that is yet another discussion.

And on to Part Deux...
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/11/19 10:28 PM

On the 24/7 Investigations

The Russian "collusion" meme seemed absurd to me from the start. People just repeated the same shallow talking points, almost in unison, over and over, when nothing that Trump was being lambasted for came any where close to questionable long-standing Clinton/Russia connections, including facilitating the sale of American uranium to the Russians, and campaign manager John Podesta's firm, which lobbied on behalf of Putin's Russian bank for years. Podesta's brother was up to his eyeballs in Ukraine. Shoot, even Joe Biden's son was involved in a tangle there. Sharyl Attkisson reported some of the basics at The Hill back in January, but it's been public knowledge far longer than that.

Even before Mueller closed up shop, it was obvious from the lack of Russia related indictments, that he wasn't finding anything. He'd pull people in for process crimes, hoping they'd offer up information in exchange for plea deals, without success. Even Manafort, whom I do not defend, was hauled up on Ukraine related charges that other prosecutors had declined to pursue years ago, and again, had nothing to do with Russian interference in the election.

If Mueller and his crack team of partisan prosecutors couldn't find anything after 2 years and $30 million, then I think it's safe to say there's just no there there. It's not like Democrats and the media haven't been trying just as assiduously to find something on Trump ever since he won the election, either. The revival of demands for Trump's taxes is about as transparent as a fishing expedition gets. They can't tell you what they're looking for, they just know there's got to be something there they can use!

The fact that the US government was spying on the opposition Presidential candidate's campaign is the real scandal here, IMO. Democrats can call it surveillance, as if that makes a difference. We've known for some time that the document on which the intell agents based their FISA application for the original and subsequent warrants was a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FISA judge was never informed of that fact. As if that weren't bad enough, when a Special Counsel is appointed, it is incumbent on the DoJ to include the crime which is to serve as the predicate for his investigation in the grant of authority. No underlying crime was specified, and that wasn't a simple oversight. There's a lot more info out there, but those are some of the highlights.

I think the rolling investigations make things more difficult on the international front. It's not the investigations per se, it's the uncertainty about what the Democrats are trying to do. People like the former Ambassador to Ukraine, who told the Ukrainians not to worry about heeding Trump, because there was no way he would be serving out his full term, are not helping the US! Sheesh!

Continuing right along....
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/11/19 10:50 PM

On Foreign Policy

I have to say up front that I consider Obama's handling of foreign policy was disastrous at almost every level, so I think almost anyone would have been an improvement.

MacManiac, as navy man you must have looked on in dismay as China started building new islands in the South China Sea, no? It struck me as a patently obvious attempt to push for hegemony over the busiest sea lanes in the world. The Chinese knew what Obama wanted more than anything else from them was an environmental agreement, and they played him like a fiddle. Xi agreed (in principle!) to stop increasing emissions some time around 2031, and Obama essentially left him alone in the sandbox. If even I figured out a decade ago that the ultimate flash point was likely to be maritime, I'd have thought it must be obvious to the swells in Washington, but the previous administration did little but watch as Xi extended his reach..

The Chinese have always seen themselves as a maritime power, and controlling the South China Sea, which handles a huge percentage of global transit, would change global dynamics in substantive ways. Trump has taken Xi on directly and indirectly. Previous Presidents have complained about currency manipulation, but never did anything about it. Trump has put Xi off balance, which scares a lot of diplomats, who are all about protecting the status quo. That may seem safer, but it also inhibits positive change. The whole thing is a work in progress, but here again he's moving the needle. Xi really likes Mar-a-Lago, btw. Did you know that he's the one who asked that their first meeting take place there and not in Washington? There were other reasons for that original choice, of course, but I think he may have requested that their next meeting take place there too. It certainly doesn't hurt that Trump's granddaughter can sing and dance in Chinese.

Ditto on moving the needle with Kim Jong Un. Although their last meeting stalled out, and there will be all sorts of posturing in its wake, Trump has done more to change Kim Jong Un's trajectory than any of our previous presidents. They all eventually caved in and sent the food with which the Kims propped up their regimes. Trump even persuaded the Chinese to stop shipping coal to NK, which while largely symbolic, was still more than anybody else had managed to get them to do. South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who was not originally a Trump fan, is in Washington right now, I believe, for consultations. He has certainly welcomed the space that Trump has created for further discussions on the Korean Peninsula, and Kim Jong Un is considerably further away from launching rockets willy nilly than he was when Trump took office.

On the other side of the globe, Obama was willing to sacrifice almost every other interest to sign an agreement with Iran before he left office. He crossed a lot of red lines to get that deal done, and we still don't know what else he agreed to in the secret side deals. Iran is a bad actor, and they were in breach before the ink dried. In the aftermath of the Libya debacle, or in the midst of it, the Revolutionary Guards were stealing huge quantities of major weaponry, and dropping it off in Sudan for safe storage. BTW, Kim Jong Un was reported to view Obama's "kinetic exercise" in Libya as a cautionary tale, in re what happens to dictators who give up their nukes.

Trump has changed the whole dynamic in the Middle East. Taking down ISIS, without permanently setting off Russian and Turkish trip wires was no small achievement. Instead of focusing on brokering an Israeli/Palestinian resolution, as so many Administrations have spun their wheels trying, without success, to do, he did something new. He recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, which other Presidents had shilly shallied around, and he encouraged regional "stake holders" to take a more active part in their own defenses, particularly vis a vis Iran. The Israelis and the Saudis have even been doing some joint operations, which is certainly a first.

I don't know if you have any particular hot spots in mind, but those are a couple of the places where I think President Trump has already made a positive difference, as I see things. The picture is more mixed in Europe, but I think he may actually end up revivifying NATO, much to a lot of folks' surprise. I wonder if people generally are aware of how steady the stream of heads-of-state visiting the Trump White House has been.

I'll just arbitrarily stop here, and say again, thanks for asking, and hope you don't regret it!
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 09:42 AM

I have always been able to discuss politics with anyone of any political persuasion, from liberal to conservative, from hedonist to totalitarian. People can differ on what they think is a good and proper political agenda. I also believe that all politicians are corrupt to some level, or they would not have gotten as far as they have; it is a dirty game if one chooses to play. What I cannot tolerate is the hypocrisy of the current administration, the constant changing of stories and backpedalling, and the ignorance of the roles of the branches of the government and of a free press in a democracy.

Most people accept that pretty much beginning with Gary Hart's tryst, the sexual behavior of candidates and of sitting presidents is under a public microscope. Right or wrong, the current players jumped all over a past president and sitting senators and congressmen for their peccadillos; yet, for the current administration, as long as corporate taxes are cut or a wall is built, sexual behavior does not matter. To me that is hypocrisy.

For the current administration to condemn the past one for excessive travel expenses and then in the first year of this administration exceed the costs of the previous 8 years, that is hypocrisy.

To condemn deficit spending, even if for a national good like fixing the infrastructure, and then to create and pass a budget that creates one of the fastest growing deficits in the history of the United States, that is hypocrisy.

To announce in one of the Presidential Debates of 2016 that "when [not if] I win, I will release my tax returns" and then not do it, that is hypocrisy.

To accuse the Clinton Foundation of being a pay-for-play organization and then create a Trump Foundation that buys portraits of Trump to hang in Mar-a-Lago and that as a foundation gave $0.00 in charitable donations until the "fake news" press brought the fact to light; that is hypocrisy.

And don't get me started on the welcoming of neo-Nazis literally into the White House. I am sorry, there is no such thing as a "good Nazi." Yes, I am sure that Goring loved his 6 children, maybe even doted on them. That might make him a good father, but the values he imparted to his children are not values of humanity. That makes him not a good person. If someone who participates in a white power rally imparts those similar attitudes, they are not "good people". Good people do not participate in torchlight rallies with signs condemning specific religions and races. That is hypocrisy.

Until the current administration shows an understanding, no an empathy, for those who are different from themselves, whatever that difference may be, I personally will have a hard time seeing all the good. The ends do not always justify the means.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
...the ignorance of the roles of the branches of the government and of a free press in a democracy.
(Emphasis added)

On the mark, and very well said, Ira, but I'd say "disdain for" is a more correct description of Trump's attitude.

There is a growing number of "Americans" who don't like the Constitution because it doesn't mesh with their personal agendas, and very unfortunately, one of them has been elected President. frown

No success, either real or imagined, that Trump can claim can negate his assault on the traditional values that had already made America great long before he decided that its greatness needed to be remade in his image.

VERY mad !
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
If Mueller and his crack team of partisan prosecutors couldn't find anything after 2 years and $30 million, then I think it's safe to say there's just no there there.


Making any conclusions about the contents of the Mueller report based on the Attorney General's 4 page summary makes as much sense as saying you know all about a movie just from seeing a trailer.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 12:30 PM

Hypocrisy is the rule, not the exception, in Washington, on both sides of the political aisle. Everybody decries deficit spending, and budgets keep going up. Of course, the budgets are designed in the House of Representatives, not the White House, separation of powers being what it is.

If you haven't seen any empathy for those who are "different" from this President, we must be looking in very different places. I do think it takes a lot of work to cast Trump as a Neo-Nazi cultivator, when his daughter has converted to Judaism for her husband, and Trump's approval in Israel is running at something like 90%, among other markers. He has been meeting African American pastors and other leaders in their communities, where they have good things to say about both his understanding and his empathy. He was New York born and bred, but he certainly understands this country's blue collar workers, and the Americans in flyover country, better than most of his opposition and certainly far better than anyone in the press, to whom all Trump supporters seem to look alike.

I'd be very interested in hearing some examples of where you and Artie believe Trump and those "Americans" who elected him have traduced the Constitution. I thought it was folks on the left who embraced the "living constitution" approach.

As for the Mueller report, I think we can safely assume that he did not recommend any indictments, and there plenty of conclusions that can be drawn from that. Perhaps the Democrats who are pounding on the table for full release now, should have looked at the Special Counsel regulations which don't, in fact, require the AG to release anything to the public at all, before they embraced the Mueller appointment so unreservedly. I suspect that they were so sure he'd find something, that they didn't bother to check, which seems typical at this point. The fact that the Atty General is planning to release an appropriately redacted report goes much further than required, and actually ignores DoJ policy, which is not to release any information about an investigation which does not result in an indictment -- for what we used to call the protection of the innocent. If Barr's summary (including the statement that nothing requested by Mueller was denied to him), misrepresented Muller's findings, would Mueller sit idly by?
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 01:43 PM

Thanks for taking the time, effort and thought to provide the details. I'll try to stay within the dotted lines in responding and keep our discussion moving forward....

Let me open with totally agreeing that our last president did many things on the world stage with which I took issue. He misused the military as an international police force and gave away more of the US leadership role in so many ways as to be nearly uncountable, however, this was meant to be a discussion of our current president's strengths and weaknesses, so rather than trying to make one look better by comparing him to the other I'd like to focus more on actions versus results for our current president.

I disagree that almost anyone would have been an improvement....we needed a world statesman in office to lead our nation back into a position as world role-model. Someone who could unwind and repair the damages created by past presidents (who shall remain nameless). Someone who could take input from a well-balanced staff of people holding the knowledge and experience that he might not have personally held. Someone who chose the higher path when confronted with conflicting inputs. Someone who wanted to present a consistent message to the world on values, integrity and ability. Someone who understood the deeper impacts of actions and who could anticipate the consequences before the action was presented as a "fait accompli". Someone who could be outraged in private, yet be calm in public.

The Chinese have always taken the long view....on everything. I personally was shot at in the South China Sea as a young sailor, on a US Naval vessel, nearly 50 years ago when our ship transgressed what they felt was their territorial waters (while still in International waters, by the way). Building up those same atolls to become man-made islands, then populating them with military facilities is an action that they have been planning for decades....and we have known about it and had contingency plans in-place for just as long.

Diplomacy regards the status quo as a starting point, not an ending point....and views the pace and scale of change with very cautious regard to consequences. Our current president has not yet shown any regard for the law of unintended consequences in his actions toward other nations, other political entities, his chosen staff, or even the underlying laws and standards that guide him in his duties as the leader of this nation....and when confronted with advice on how to better deal with the very real challenges that he faces, he has chosen to publicly "shoot the messenger". The level of apparent chaos and discord that is publicly displayed in the current administration has hamstrung many long-standing and effective international relationships to the detriment of our nation.

North Korea is and has been an extremely complicated situation....they are still in an active war (an armistice is NOT a treaty) with South Korea and to approach that rogue nation's loose cannon leader while being perceived by the leaders of the the rest of the world as if he too were a loose cannon leader holds way more potential for disaster than any of us want to imagine. I've spent considerable time in Korea and have seen how seriously they take the fact that the peace there is fragile....very fragile.

The Middle East....where to begin? The Western world has been interfering with and attempting to change things in that part of the world for centuries. It remains different from the Western world for a good reason....they want it to be different. Changing national boundaries (Pakistan / India / Jordan / UAE / Israel / all the rest) and assuming that all of those entities in that part of the world will follow the same cultural norms as the Western world is a huge mistake. Most folks here in the US who have never traveled outside of their home nation have a false sense of expectations for how the Middle East thinks and responds. It is different. Recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital was not done in the past for some very good reasons.....there will be consequences for that action as a result. Most of those potential consequences were clearly recognized and considered in the past by knowledgeable advisors to past presidents, who were then expected to make an informed decision regarding what action(s) to take.....I'm not convinced that our current president was open to such advice.

Our current president did NOT defeat and eliminate ISIS....any more than any of his predecessors were successful in defeating and eliminating the Taliban or Al Qaeda. We as a nation created the environment where the ISIS movement could flourish and expand in the view that through their actions (or inactions) as a nation, the US was a weak and inadequate outside influence to their region. We as a nation were responsible for creating the diplomatic alliances needed to bring effective military action into the region to overcome our past mistake(s). How we are viewed as a nation by other world leaders, European, Pan Asian, Middle Eastern, et al (BOTH our allies AND our adversaries) is critical to how effective our efforts might be when confronted by such things as ISIS.

I lived and worked in Turkey and one of the most common questions that I was asked was "What do you feel about your new President?".....to be culturally sensitive, I had to bite my lips and remain very neutral in my response while suppressing my urge to offer the same question to my Turkish friends about their "President". When the political climate there became too unstable, I had to turn my back on further work in Turkey....theirs is a challenging time, far more so than ours.

As to NATO, while I may not agree with his actions regarding our NATO relationships, I do agree with our President's analysis that our relationship, as a nation, with NATO is out of balance and change is needed.....I just think that there might be better ways to approach that need than I've seen demonstrated so far.

I really regret that we, again as a Nation, have been unable to present a consistent face to the rest of the world as we address the issues currently confronting us.

One of the predecessors to our current president once declared that, "The Buck Stops HERE!".....it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see that level of leadership once more in my lifetime.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/12/19 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
One of the predecessors to our current president once declared that, "The Buck Stops HERE!".....it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see that level of leadership once more in my lifetime.
🇺🇸 AMEN 🇺🇸
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/14/19 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
I'd be very interested in hearing some examples of where you and Artie believe Trump and those "Americans" who elected him have traduced the Constitution.

I'd say "shown contempt for." ("Traduce" is what Trump does to people he doesn't like or who don't agree with him.)

As evidenced by his constant attempts to suppress the media with his "false news" rhetoric, and more to the point, his openly expressed desire to make it illegal for the media to criticize him, Trump has shown contempt for for the First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press.

And his constant attacks on the Judiciary demonstrate contempt for the separation of powers so wisely imposed by the Constitution. (*)

Representative of Trump's constituency, I've seen right-to-life literature that complained about "nine people who weren't even elected to their positions," i.e. the Supreme Court Justices, and by extension, the Constitutional wisdom of not filling positions on the Court based on the results of popularity contests which would inevitably revolve around the expression of opinions about cases future Justices may have to hear.

The Constitution is, indeed, under attack by Trump and his minions.

(*) I've often wondered how Trump's ex-federal judge sister truly feels about his attacks on the judiciary.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/14/19 07:04 PM

Well, I'll back off my hyperbolic statement that almost anyone would have been better, but I think it's very difficult to take about foreign policy in a vacuum. We could all design better Presidents than the ones we have at any given point in time.

Yes, the Chinese take the long view, but if we've had contingency plans in place for countering the Chinese island building, you could have fooled me. I'd have thought it wiser to do some pushing back before all those new military outposts became fully operational.

I you could anticipate unintended consequences they wouldn't be unintended. I personally think the whole "choas at the White House" theme is seriously overplayed. Some of it is simply Trump's management style, to which I'm sure people who have spent their lives in government, in particular, have some trouble adjusting. As for North Korea, Trump has certainly moved the ball further than anyone else has managed to do, and it seems to me that the South Koreans, on the whole, are pretty supportive of what he has been doing.

I'm aware of Middle Eastern history, and the west's role in carving it up to their own satisfaction, and I see no indication that this president thinks that part of the world operates according to the same norms that we do. I have to say that was an illusion that the former administration seemed to hold to. Yes we and our allies under Obama's international leadership allowed ISIS to flourish, and we and our allies under Trump's international leadership brought it to its knees. It is important to distinguish between ISIS and other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, which I believe is what you were alluding to. ISIS had clear territorial goals, and managed to set up a very effectiely functioning bureaucratic state (which I have recently learned depending on taxation, not things like ransoms, for the bulk of its revenues). That state has now been virtually wiped off the map, and that represents an existential defeat in my book. Could they rise again elsewhere? Only time will tell.

As for NATO, getting recalcitrant members to meet their agreed upon obligations which they have been allowed to shirk for decades was never going to be pretty. I always thought it was the height of irony to hear Europeans disparage the amount of money the US dedicates to it defense budge, while touting the social programs that the US defense umbrella allowed them to pursue. George W. Bush, pushed for Europe to ante up, but also to begin developing specialist expertise, by country, rather than duplicating standard military structures, which hopefully is something that this President will also pursue.

I personally believe that history treat this President considerably better than a lot of his contemporaries do, but of course, that' just my opinion, and I was interested to hear yours. Thanks.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/14/19 07:47 PM

I appreciate your reply, but it strikes me as pretty weak anti-constitutional tea.

Originally Posted By: artie505
As evidenced by his constant attempts to suppress the media with his "false news" rhetoric, and more to the point, his openly expressed desire to make it illegal for the media to criticize him, Trump has shown contempt for for the First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press.

Considering the fact that the mainstream media has spent more than 2 years pimping Russian Collusion gossip and lies 24 hours a day, I'd say the President is justified in condemning fake news. Even if you still believe Trump was assisted by the Russians, I have to wonder where you were when Obama was issuing subpoenas for AP reporters' phone records, and dusting off the Espionage Act to go after journalists, surveilling James Rosen's computer, and pursuing James Risen for years. According to whistle-blower-in-chief Risen himself:

Quote:
“If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.”

Trump may have briefly rescinded Jim Acosta's White House credentials, but that's not oppression, that's a President's privilege. He certainly makes himself available to the press often enough. On the flip side, we still aren't entirely sure who masterminded the spying on Candidate Trump, but that operation beats Watergate by several orders of magnitude.

The President may not respect the press, but that's not a first amendment infraction. It's not like the press shows any respect for the President. As far as I know, all his detractors are still out there going strong, from congratulating each other on Pulitzer Prizes for stories since proven without basis in fact, to giving each other awards for bravery and integrity. What I'm not seeing is any chilling effect. If anything i'd have said the 1st amendment is under assault from the left, when you look at the hysterics that greet even fairly mainstream conservative speakers on college campuses, and the demands that they not be allowed to speak.

Originally Posted By: artie505
And his constant attacks on the Judiciary demonstrate contempt for the separation of powers so wisely imposed by the Constitution.

Representative of Trump's constituency, I've seen right-to-life literature that complained about "nine people who weren't even elected to their positions," i.e. the Supreme Court Justices, and by extension, the Constitutional wisdom of not filling positions on the Court based on the results of popularity contests which would inevitably revolve around the expression of opinions about cases future Justices may have to hear.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, something about electing instead of appointing the Supremes? The only issue I'm aware of that I would call "representative" of Trump's constituency would be consensus on the importance of his promise to appoint conservative, if not originalist, Justices to the Court, as vacancies allowed. The current talk among Democrats of packing the Supreme Court with additional Justices is a far more radical offense than anything I've heard from the right. I must admit the having District Court judges taking it upon themselves to issue nationwide injunctions from the bench is habit we should not want to encourage because it ultimately wreaks nationwide legal havoc, especially when other judges in other states issue oppositie rulings. Conservatives call that legislating from the bench and are admittedly agin' it. There's nothing anti-constitutional about expressing such differences in judicial philosophies, however. Trump has complained about judges, but he has not been refusing to obey court orders.

Just as an addendum, on the treatment of others, I hope folks who have followed the "children in cages" stories from the border are aware that that practice originated under the previous administration. It was not something newly instituted by the current one. I believe they are working on ways to keep families together.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/14/19 07:59 PM

I just happened to run across this item at the Washington Examiner, right after I posted my comments.

Jimmy Carter says Trump called him to talk about China

I'd say that definitely looks like seeking input from someone with "knowledge and experience that he might not have personally held."
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/15/19 06:02 AM


The President who said,"The buck stops here," is also the President who wrote to Washington Post critic, Paul Hume:
Quote:
"I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.".

Then there's his letter to Dean Acheson:
Quote:
In the salty letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Post, Truman rails against newspaper writers and columnists, calling them “more dangerous” than street walkers.

“Presidents and the members of their Cabinets and their staff members have been slandered and misrepresented since George Washington,” Truman wrote in the hand-written diatribe. “When the press is friendly to an administration the opposition has been lied about and treated to the excrescence [sic] of paid prostitutes of the mind.”

In the present context, perhaps it's worth worth remembering that:
Quote:
When Harry S. Truman left the presidency in January 1953, he was one of the most unpopular politicians in the United States.

History has treated him kindly, but his reputation was only rehabilitated after he left office.
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/15/19 10:11 AM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
… congratulating each other on Pulitzer Prizes for stories since proven [emphasis added] without basis in fact,…


To which stories are you referring?
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/15/19 11:58 PM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
I appreciate your reply, but it strikes me as pretty weak anti-constitutional tea.

Originally Posted By: artie505
As evidenced by his constant attempts to suppress the media with his "false news" rhetoric, and more to the point, his openly expressed desire to make it illegal for the media to criticize him, Trump has shown contempt for for the First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press.

Considering the fact that the mainstream media has spent more than 2 years pimping Russian Collusion gossip and lies 24 hours a day, I'd say the President is justified in condemning fake news. Even if you still believe Trump was assisted by the Russians, I have to wonder where you were when Obama was issuing subpoenas for AP reporters' phone records, and dusting off the Espionage Act to go after journalists, surveilling James Rosen's computer, and pursuing James Risen for years. According to whistle-blower-in-chief Risen himself:

Quote:
“If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama.”

Trump may have briefly rescinded Jim Acosta's White House credentials, but that's not oppression, that's a President's privilege. He certainly makes himself available to the press often enough. On the flip side, we still aren't entirely sure who masterminded the spying on Candidate Trump, but that operation beats Watergate by several orders of magnitude.

The President may not respect the press, but that's not a first amendment infraction. It's not like the press shows any respect for the President. As far as I know, all his detractors are still out there going strong, from congratulating each other on Pulitzer Prizes for stories since proven without basis in fact, to giving each other awards for bravery and integrity. What I'm not seeing is any chilling effect. If anything i'd have said the 1st amendment is under assault from the left, when you look at the hysterics that greet even fairly mainstream conservative speakers on college campuses, and the demands that they not be allowed to speak.

Originally Posted By: artie505
And his constant attacks on the Judiciary demonstrate contempt for the separation of powers so wisely imposed by the Constitution.

Representative of Trump's constituency, I've seen right-to-life literature that complained about "nine people who weren't even elected to their positions," i.e. the Supreme Court Justices, and by extension, the Constitutional wisdom of not filling positions on the Court based on the results of popularity contests which would inevitably revolve around the expression of opinions about cases future Justices may have to hear.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, something about electing instead of appointing the Supremes? The only issue I'm aware of that I would call "representative" of Trump's constituency would be consensus on the importance of his promise to appoint conservative, if not originalist, Justices to the Court, as vacancies allowed. The current talk among Democrats of packing the Supreme Court with additional Justices is a far more radical offense than anything I've heard from the right. I must admit the having District Court judges taking it upon themselves to issue nationwide injunctions from the bench is habit we should not want to encourage because it ultimately wreaks nationwide legal havoc, especially when other judges in other states issue oppositie rulings. Conservatives call that legislating from the bench and are admittedly agin' it. There's nothing anti-constitutional about expressing such differences in judicial philosophies, however. Trump has complained about judges, but he has not been refusing to obey court orders.

Just as an addendum, on the treatment of others, I hope folks who have followed the "children in cages" stories from the border are aware that that practice originated under the previous administration. It was not something newly instituted by the current one. I believe they are working on ways to keep families together.

We're not focusing on this or that specific, and neither the actions of previous administrations nor executive privileges belong in the discussion. (Quite frankly, I'd think very little of any President who didn't test the limits of hir authority in an attempt to get what se thought was best for America...regardless of what I thought of it. Such an individual would be a weak, unfit leader.)

Trump has expressed a desire to silence criticism, which is step two in the dictator's handbook...a shot across the bow of the Constitution.

And because the Constitution won't allow him to silence those segments of the media that he doesn't like he's attempting to circumvent it and minimize our First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and of the press by incessantly demonizing their proponents...a lesser shot, but a shot nonetheless.

I'm no pollyanna. I understand editorial policies and priorities and slanting news, and I support Tump's right to object and fight back, but NOT in the manner in which he's doing it.

Do you seriously believe that everything published about Trump in the Washington Post is false while everything that comes across Fox News is fact?

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes

The President who said,"The buck stops here," is also the President who wrote to Washington Post critic, Paul Hume:
Quote:
"I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.".

Then there's his letter to Dean Acheson:
[quote]In the salty letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Post, Truman rails against newspaper writers and columnists, calling them “more dangerous” than street walkers.

“Presidents and the members of their Cabinets and their staff members have been slandered and misrepresented since George Washington,” Truman wrote in the hand-written diatribe. “When the press is friendly to an administration the opposition has been lied about and treated to the excrescence [sic] of paid prostitutes of the mind.”

And do you also seriously believe that HST's PRIVATE correspondence rises to the level of Trump's attacking the opposition media using every mic that's held in front of his mouth as a weapon?

A father's irate response to a critic who panned his daughter... C'mon!

And in a different vein, I respect people's right to object to unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, and I respect their right to object to the makeup of the Court that handed down those decisions, but when they take issue with the wisdom that resulted in the makeup of that Court, it's another shot across the bow of the Constitution.

It's not as obvious as Trump's attacks, but it's nonetheless indicative of an underlying, very dangerous to America rejection of one of the principles on which America was founded.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/16/19 02:04 AM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
I do think it takes a lot of work to cast Trump as a Neo-Nazi cultivator, when his daughter has converted to Judaism for her husband, and Trump's approval in Israel is running at something like 90%, among other markers.

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
He recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, which other Presidents had shilly shallied around....

Of course Trump's anti-semitic!

If he truly embraced his daughter's Judaism he'd adamantly reject Neo-Nazis rather than coddle them and give them credibility. "Some good people," indeed.

And if he respected it, he wouldn't have tried to misuse her Rabbi's good intentions to his advantage.

I'll guess that the only thing about her marriage he approves of is that she married into a family of slime-buckets that rivals his own.

Previous Presidents have not "shilly shallied" in not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, rather they've stood fast with the international community, and rather than being the result of thoughtful consideration of the issue, Trump's moving the American Embassy was in all likelihood a birthday present to his daughter with locking down a large portion of the Jewish vote as its ultimate goal.

Of course Trump's approval rating in Israel is sky high; he's given them what they've wanted more than anything.

Orthodox (at the least) Jews, both Americans and Israelis who've maintained their American citizenship, do NOT vote for America! They vote for Israel, and they'd vote for the Frankenstein monster if it ran on a "move the embassy" platform.

Their support for Trump even as he's tolerated if not helped foster a culture of anti-Semitism is appalling and to their GREAT discredit.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/16/19 10:12 PM

Originally Posted By: artie505

We're not focusing on this or that specific, and neither the actions of previous administrations nor executive privileges belong in the discussion.

Says who? If I think something is relevant I'm going to bring it up. When most of the biggest complaints against Trump seem to be that he violates civilized/political/constitutional norms, then the actions of previous Presidents and administrations are absolutely on point.

Originally Posted By: artie505
And because the Constitution won't allow him to silence those segments of the media that he doesn't like he's attempting to circumvent it and minimize our First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of speech and of the press by incessantly demonizing their proponents...a lesser shot, but a shot nonetheless.

Suggesting that the President refrain from exercising his first amendment rights seems an odd way to defend the 1st Amendment, but never mind. Have you been listening to the Democrats lately? This President has no monopoly on demonization!

Here's what trying to shut down freedom of speech looks like: Campus radicals harassing conservative black speaker Candace Owens at U. Penn, screaming "Get the **** out of here," among other civilities. And this video is relatively tame, it's just the most recent one that showed up; far worse has been happening to conservative speakers (and Owens herself) on campuses all over the country. Oddly enough, it rarely happens in reverse.

Originally Posted By: artie505
I'm no pollyanna. I understand editorial policies and priorities and slanting news, and I support Tump's right to object and fight back, but NOT in the manner in which he's doing it.

So it's his style you find so deeply offensive. I get that impression from a number of the OK/but comments here.

Originally Posted By: artie505
And in a different vein, I respect people's right to object to unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, and I respect their right to object to the makeup of the Court that handed down those decisions, but when they take issue with the wisdom that resulted in the makeup of that Court, it's another shot across the bow of the Constitution.

The big difference between us is that you came across an idea that disturbed you in a pro-life pamphlet somewhere that nobody ever heard of, while I heard the court packing scheme from leading Democrats and Presidential hopefuls. Monkeying around with the Electoral College, in ways that would also horrify the Founders, seems to be pretty popular among the Democrats too, so to speak.

Originally Posted By: artie505
Do you seriously believe that everything published about Trump in the Washington Post is false while everything that comes across Fox News is fact?

Are you seriously posing that question to me? If so, you apparently know so little about Trump's actual constituency, you've got nothing to work with but politically convenient stereotypes. I do think the Post's coverage has deteriorated since Bezos took over -- and the Nicholas Sandmann defamation suit isn't going to help their credibility -- but I don't even watch Fox News. Do you? Are you an MSNBC junkie? One of the reasons I originally posted here was because everybody seemed to be reading from the same script.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/17/19 01:39 AM

Thanks for sharing that with us, Kellyanne. smile
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/17/19 08:59 PM

OK, I'm not a Moderator for this forum, but I'm gonna put on my Moderator hat none-the-less.....we're starting to get off the path of civility and logic here, and veering uncomfortably toward the direction of name-calling and bombast. Please take a turn and let's not go there. I know we can do this.....
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/18/19 01:03 AM

As Pogo long ago noted: We have met the enemy and he is us ... not to put too fine a point on it. tongue
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/18/19 02:21 AM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
OK, I'm not a Moderator for this forum, but I'm gonna put on my Moderator hat none-the-less.....we're starting to get off the path of civility and logic here, and veering uncomfortably toward the direction of name-calling and bombast. Please take a turn and let's not go there. I know we can do this.....
Amen to that. Politics has turned into a lot of name-calling, sarcasm, insults, you name it. Politics should be above all that, even if we at FTM can't control it. But, we can set an example and, in a small way, try to return to a tradition of civility in political discourse.
Posted by: freelance

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/18/19 10:27 AM

Brings back fond memories of the old MacFixit Lounge days.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/19/19 08:33 AM

Originally Posted By: freelance
Brings back fond memories of the old MacFixit Lounge days.

Should that not be in "facetious quotes"?!
I seem to recall that several out-of-control exchanges resulted in members being banned from MFI despite numerous warnings.
So far that's been reasonably sidestepped in FTM.
Posted by: freelance

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/19/19 11:56 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Should that not be in "facetious quotes"?!

Now where did I leave those? They must be lying around here someplace! Oh, yeah! There they are: " "
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/20/19 06:50 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
Amen to that. Politics has turned into a lot of name-calling, sarcasm, insults, you name it. Politics should be above all that, even if we at FTM can't control it. But, we can set an example and, in a small way, try to return to a tradition of civility in political discourse.

As I recall the rule for POLITE conversation has for millennia been, "Never discuss sex, religion, or politics." There are too many in today's political world who seem determined to inject all three into the political discourse at the same time and sometimes personified in a single individual.

Of course eliminating sex, religion, and politics can make conversation pretty dull. wink

Originally Posted By: grelber
I seem to recall that several out-of-control exchanges resulted in members being banned from MFI despite numerous warnings.
So far that's been reasonably sidestepped in FTM.

Maybe there haven't been any bannings on FTM, but suspensions have been and will be issued when discussions turn personal.

Differences of opinion are acceptable on FTM and expected in politics. Problems arise when one side or the other begins to label the other and/or one or both parties begin to take disagreement as a personal attack. Unfortunately in today's political environment it is pretty hard not to view opposition as a a personal attack because it too often is.
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/21/19 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: JM Hanes
Well, I'll back off my hyperbolic statement that almost anyone would have been better, but I think it's very difficult to take about foreign policy in a vacuum. We could all design better Presidents than the ones we have at any given point in time.

Yes, the Chinese take the long view, but if we've had contingency plans in place for countering the Chinese island building, you could have fooled me. I'd have thought it wiser to do some pushing back before all those new military outposts became fully operational.

I you could anticipate unintended consequences they wouldn't be unintended. I personally think the whole "choas at the White House" theme is seriously overplayed. Some of it is simply Trump's management style, to which I'm sure people who have spent their lives in government, in particular, have some trouble adjusting. As for North Korea, Trump has certainly moved the ball further than anyone else has managed to do, and it seems to me that the South Koreans, on the whole, are pretty supportive of what he has been doing.

I'm aware of Middle Eastern history, and the west's role in carving it up to their own satisfaction, and I see no indication that this president thinks that part of the world operates according to the same norms that we do. I have to say that was an illusion that the former administration seemed to hold to. Yes we and our allies under Obama's international leadership allowed ISIS to flourish, and we and our allies under Trump's international leadership brought it to its knees. It is important to distinguish between ISIS and other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, which I believe is what you were alluding to. ISIS had clear territorial goals, and managed to set up a very effectiely functioning bureaucratic state (which I have recently learned depending on taxation, not things like ransoms, for the bulk of its revenues). That state has now been virtually wiped off the map, and that represents an existential defeat in my book. Could they rise again elsewhere? Only time will tell.

As for NATO, getting recalcitrant members to meet their agreed upon obligations which they have been allowed to shirk for decades was never going to be pretty. I always thought it was the height of irony to hear Europeans disparage the amount of money the US dedicates to it defense budge, while touting the social programs that the US defense umbrella allowed them to pursue. George W. Bush, pushed for Europe to ante up, but also to begin developing specialist expertise, by country, rather than duplicating standard military structures, which hopefully is something that this President will also pursue.

I personally believe that history treat this President considerably better than a lot of his contemporaries do, but of course, that' just my opinion, and I was interested to hear yours. Thanks.


...let's see if we can re-estrablish a dialogue....

My point on the Chinese contingency plans was not that we would prevent their building islands, then populating same with military facilities.....that is their right on their declared territory. We make plans for how to respond, counter and mitigate such actions on their part. Defending the freedom of passage on the international waters adjacent to those facilities is what we do.

There is a very real difference in defining and exercising LEADERSHIP versus management. We need a national leader, not a national manager....managerial styles can be varied, but leadership requires a much more consistent standard. I think we could talk to this subject extensively.

This BBC article highlights what I was expressing about NOT having defeated ISIS (et al)....the rules of international warfare have gone out the window when we as a nation are confronted with a NON-NATIONAL entity such as IS which does not exist within national borders or conform to national mores as established through eons of international conflict from which springs such little tidbits of law as the Geneva Convention. There is no binding treaty to constrain the actions of the loser in that conflict which has been touted as the defeat of ISIS.

I think we share many of the same views concerning NATO....how NATO views us as a nation is dependent on how they view our Leadership in the White House.
Posted by: JM Hanes

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/25/19 11:37 AM


Since Joe Biden has apparently decided to base his entire campaign message on the President's supposed endorsement of neo-nazis and white supremacists at Charlottesville, I decided it was important to address that issue with the President's actual remarks -- in which he specifically excluded neo-nazis and white supremacists from his description of "fine people."

You can find a full transcript at Vox. They left out some of the crosstalk and interruptions, to make it easier to read. I am posting the relevant passage, because I believe it is incumbent on everyone to read it themselves, in toto, before passing judgment.

Quote:
Q: Mr. President, are you putting what you are calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

Trump: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane. You had a group on one side and the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible. It was a horrible thing to watch. There is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You have just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. You can say what you want. That's the way it is.

Q: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

Trump: I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame object both on both sides. I have no doubt about it. You don't have doubt about it either. If you reported it accurately, you would say that the neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville. Excuse me. They didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis. You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group -- excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me. Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him. Good. Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.

You had people and i'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

Q: You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

Trump: No, no. There were people in that rally. I looked the night before. If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I am sure there were some bad ones.
The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest. I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit.

So I only tell you this. There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

If anyone wants to check the transcript, I'm sure there is video around. I would just suggest looking for video of the entire press conference, and not relying on soundbites.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 12:52 AM

Rancid, racist America.
Can another civil war be far behind?
Forget Gort. Where is John Wilkes Booth when the nation really needs him? tongue
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 08:31 AM

I assume you’re thinking about the recent tweet that included the description of the four coloured women senators as troublemakers who “….should go back to the broken and crime-infested places from which they came”. The fact that the sentence structure is grammatically correct, tells me that Trump is getting help with some of his tweets.

Let's face it, the President is a guy who can barely spell and, if he had constructed the sentence, would have said “….….broken and crime-infested places they came from.”

And, why would someone help him with a racist tweet? Simple, because it is not just about racism. It’s also about changing the public perception of the Democratic Party. Trump’s tweet, and the predictably ongoing press coverage based on racism, keep a few of the more radically progressive elements of the party out front. The Republicans love it (and therefore don’t condemn the racism) because the Democrats are seen as a party of socialists who will bring the country down if they form government.

And why would Trump need help with a tweet that has such a nuance? Because he’s too stupid to think of it on his own.
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 09:06 AM

I am sure there were many, but this editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle seems to capture the essence of what is wrong.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 11:31 AM

Don't get me wrong....I don't dispute that his tweet was racist. It was, absolutely. However, I think there was a secondary and hidden motive which Trump doesn't have the wit to devise on his own.

And, my suspicion continues based on the grammatical content. When a guy who is borderline illiterate correctly avoids ending a sentence with a preposition, I smell a rat.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 02:22 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
..... I smell a rat.

And, speaking of rats, most Republicans are lined up behind Trump claiming that there is nothing wrong with his recent comments. One wonders how much proof they need before they realize that their leader is a white supremacist.

Note: Since posting, I see some Republicans (3 at this time) are breaking ranks and voting with the Democrats to condemn Trump's comments.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 07/16/19 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
Note: Since posting, I see some Republicans (3 at this time) are breaking ranks and voting with the Democrats to condemn Trump's comments.

In the end it was 4 Republicans out of 197 who had the jam to condemn Trump's comments. And, incredibly, the Trump supporters are making claims such as Trump "really meant that where you came from includes places like the Bronx". (Kris Kobach, Kansas).

I assume his remark was directed at other Republican politicians....who else would be stupid enough to fall for that line?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 10/03/19 08:30 AM

Forget about impeachment ... too long and complicated a process.

Given his recent announcements/pronouncements and generally bizarre (compared with normal human) behavior, he is clearly mentally incompetent/unstable (read: certifiably insane).
Therefore Congress should invoke Amendment XXV and remove him from the action.
The only downside would be that Mike Pence would be elevated to the presidency, but his generally strict moral compass would preclude the wholesale destruction of the nation which is currently underway.
Don't say nay, say yay!
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 10/11/19 02:08 AM

Luckily, Trump Is an Unstable Non-Genius

His mental deficiencies may save American democracy.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 10/11/19 09:28 AM

I know a few died in the wool Trump supporters who are becoming disillusioned with him and his administration. Unfortunately rather than moving to another political party their disillusion is so complete that they have lost faith in any form of government and are moving toward total anarchy as their choice for the future of the country. I'm not sure which is the more frightening concept.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 10/12/19 08:26 AM

If you are an iOS user and follow this thread you might be interested in something just discovered in the iOS App Store the Dump Trump for Messages sticker pack. A collection of his famous — Make that infamous — Facial expressions and gestures you can include in you text messages. They would give your progressive friends a chuckle and annoy the H#!! Out of your Republican family members. At least that is how I use them.

My thanks to keys whose question got me to looking at iOS sticker packs where I found this.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/15/19 10:56 PM

RE Ex-Envoy to Ukraine ‘Devastated’ as Trump Vilified Her
As Marie Yovanovitch testified, President Trump tweeted insults at her, drawing charges of witness intimidation.

Just when you thought that a certain someone's behavior couldn't be more egregious ...

A slime mold has higher ethical standards and a greater sense of morality ... and is cuter to boot.

Someone needs to get "disappeared".
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/15/19 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Someone needs to get "disappeared".

Where is Valentine Michael Smith when we need him?
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/16/19 01:26 AM

In all seriousness, here's what is likely to happen:

The House will impeach Trump but the Republican-dominated Senate will not remove him.

The fallout will continue into the 2020 elections and there may be enough Republicans who have had enough. Hopefully, he will be defeated in a landslide (which he will repudiate as having been "fixed").

It really bugs me that evangelicals, who purport to be morally superior to everyone else, embrace this scoundrel. Talk about making a deal with the Devil...
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/16/19 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
The House will impeach Trump but the Republican-dominated Senate will not remove him.

And this will be followed by a vigorous campaign saying that, in spite of overwhelming evidence, the non-removal really means exonerated. Of course, McConnell, Graham, Nunes, Jordan and other ethically challenged Republicans, concerned only about keeping their snouts deep in the public trough, will go along with it.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/19/19 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
It really bugs me that evangelicals, who purport to be morally superior to everyone else, embrace this scoundrel. Talk about making a deal with the Devil...

The following quote, from a responder at another site referencing a different aspect of Trump's actions, seems equally applicable here:

"The evangelicals who all support Trump unquestioningly should refer to the reference of an "antiChrist" in their favourite book. This guy is the epitome of the description and of course they are all "blinded by the light.""
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/19/19 12:39 PM

I know evangelicals. Most of them don't pretend to be morally superior to everyone else. So that's a straw man.

If anyone considers the current president to be the Anti-Christ, that person has no idea what that word means. Which is a very common problem in today's world and esp. on the internet.

I encourage everyone to think carefully about the words they choose. Impulsivity helps no one. It can be treated with medicine.

Sometime I will address this in another thread: the big mistake of looking for a savior to be president. In America, we don't elect saints or saviors. If you look for a savior, someone will step up and fill that role. That was one mistake the Germans made. They were looking for a savior and they wound up turning their entire country over to a man who had never worked a day in his life. But he said the right words. People who were already half-mesmerized by words. He took it the rest of the way. With words. Don't fall in love with words and ideas. Actions matter most.

Don't romanticize politics. Don't idealize it. If you want romance, try dating. If you want to do good, work for a charity. If you want nice, write a letter to your mother. Politics is a practical business that has very little to do with idealism or morality.
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/19/19 12:44 PM

I don't understand how to square this circle: talking about morality on the one hand, and on the other calling for the president to kill himself. If there is anyone with murder on their minds, it's not the president. It's the person who started this thread. How can one claim the moral high ground and yet encourage such an immoral act?

I request that moderators close this thread due to the inflammatory nature of the subject and title. If these are the kinds of thoughts that go through your head, I feel sorry for you.

The excuse "it's a joke" is not a defense because to some people it might not be a joke and irony doesn't go over well on the internet.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/19/19 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
It really bugs me that evangelicals, who purport to be morally superior to everyone else, embrace this scoundrel. Talk about making a deal with the Devil...

This use of the word "Evangelical" is a classic example of how "labeling" can be harmful to the innocent as well as the guilty. As an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I can attest that most Presbyterians along with Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Friends, and maybe 100 or more other Christian denominations think of themselves as being evangelical in that we are called to publicly proclaim the "good news" we find in the Christian Gospels. But thoughtless labeling of a particular highly vocal segment of Christianity by the media and others has made mainline Christians reluctant and even ashamed to use the term.

The fact is we are all Christians but because we are human some of us feel called to live out our faith one way, and others another. This labeling has contributed to significant strife within most denominations and resulted in schism within many (most?) to the benefit of none and least of all to the mission of the affected churches not to mention God.

Originally Posted By: ryck
The following quote, from a responder at another site referencing a different aspect of Trump's actions, seems equally applicable here:

"The evangelicals who all support Trump unquestioningly should refer to the reference of an "antiChrist" in their favourite book. This guy is the epitome of the description and of course they are all "blinded by the light.""

"The evangelicals who ALL support Trump unquestioningly…" I take umbrage at this blanket naming and/or blaming. Not ALL evangelicals support Trump, I wouldn't even go so far as to say a majority of evangelicals support Trump. In the first place I don't know the facts and in the second evangelicals are no more homogenous than lets say the Chinese, or Democrats, or Republicans, or English. In fact there is evidence that would tend to indicate they are if anything less homogeneous than the general population in that their churches, ministers, etc. unlike mainline denominations are answerable to no central authority.

Personally I abhor most of what Trump has done and is attempting to do but he is getting away with it because in their zeal to retain or attain power both parties have lost sight of what we elected them to do. They need to quit labeling one another remember that in the long run both parties have the same goals for the country and the only difference is in how to achieve those goals and hopefully can relearn how to work together. Ideally that would begin with the electorate, but in either case it will require leadership on both sides of the political aisle.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/20/19 12:21 PM

Thank you for the thoughtful clarification.
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/20/19 09:34 PM

To think that both parties share the same goals for this country is laughable in the extreme. Unfortunately Trump is the iron clad leader of one of those parties as evidenced by his extremely high support within the party which means his goals are the parties goals.
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/19 05:29 AM

The moderators are gutless, hypocritical punks for not closing this thread. They got pissy at me for much, much less.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/19 06:06 AM

Originally Posted By: deniro
The moderators are gutless, hypocritical punks for not closing this thread. They got pissy at me for much, much less.

Wrong. The Moderators responded to an unwarranted attack from you, which was:

Originally Posted By: deniro
How did you become a moderator of a tech forum? Why do I have explain everything to you five times? Is English your first language? You have a real knack for misunderstanding what people are saying.

In spite of this attack on one of our Moderators, two of them still tried to help you with your problem which, as I recall, was mostly caused by your failure to read software instructions. At the time I said you were out of line and today I am saying it again with an additional: “Grow up!”
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/19 06:14 AM

...."Jane, you ignorant slut"....

This should be universally recognized as a familiar Chevy Chase quote from the early days of Saturday Night Live.

It doesn't make it any less offensive, but taken in the proper context it can be viewed as amusing, sarcastic and even as a positive lashing out at the sexist bias that our society can hold. I view your comments above through this same lens in order to give you the benefit of not being a whiney, name-calling poofter.

I'm not a Mod on this forum, thus I can't make any changes directly.....I personally find the title of this thread unsettling and I'm not comfortable with it, however, the content of the thread (with a couple course-corrections through appropriate Moderating) has remained within the guidelines and to close it would be inappropriate.

If you want to lobby for a title change, I would support that whole-heartedly!

....back into your court....
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/21/19 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
I'm not a Mod on this forum, thus I can't make any changes directly.....I personally find the title of this thread unsettling and I'm not comfortable with it, however, the content of the thread (with a couple course-corrections through appropriate Moderating) has remained within the guidelines and to close it would be inappropriate.
If you want to lobby for a title change, I would support that wholeheartedly!

The introductory word "maybe" was chosen to indicate that the intent of the title is clearly to be construed as a musing (not a direction or call to action) and the thread to be strictly opinion. For it to be interpreted otherwise is disingenuous.
[Moreover, given that today is the 56th anniversary of one of the most disastrous moments in history, a hiatus in the discussion is perhaps appropriate.]
Moving right along ....
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 05:35 AM

Wrong. You misread the situation. I'm not the kind of person who "doesn't read the manual". My response was justified given my experience here. I do find that the older I get, the more I lose patience with the antisocial personality disorders who are attracted to the internet and who read between the lines rather than the black letters that contain the meaning. That's always an obstacle to communication, esp. when it comes to people who grew up spending more time watching their thumbs than living in the real world interacting with actual human beings. The only thing that puzzles me at the moment is why I bother responding to a piece of #$!& like you. If this were the real world, you would be on the ground already. Why don't you do everyone a favor and put a gun to your head and pull the trigger?
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 05:42 AM

grelber: What's disingenuous is thinking that the word "maybe" makes your psychopathy socially acceptable and your threats something other than a federal crime. You are a piece of #$!& for starting such a thread and if you were even half a man you never would have done it. You would ask the moderators to delete it. Of course they won't. Because they agree with the sentiments. That's why they are gutless hypocritical punks. If the subject had been Barack Obama, you can bet they would have gotten pissy and threatened the poster and said all kinds of nasty things in the name of compassion and tolerance.
Posted by: deniro

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 06:17 AM

MacMania: You should avoid reading "through lenses". You should read, as Kant said, with an unjaundiced eye. You should read the black letters, not the white space between them. There's nothing in the white space. Contextualizing is relativizing. It's a form of distortion and dishonesty, an excuse to state one's opinions, an excuse to insert one's own preferred meaning into the white space rather than read the meaning contained in the text itself. Sneaking name-calling into your example isn't nearly as clever as you think. It doesn't bolster your case and it doesn't make you look impressive. Quite the opposite.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: deniro
What's disingenuous is thinking that the word "maybe" makes your psychopathy socially acceptable and your threats something other than a federal crime. You are a piece of #$!& for starting such a thread and if you were even half a man you never would have done it. You would ask the moderators to delete it. Of course they won't. ...

Best guess: Your personal insults (name-calling and aspersion-casting) seem likely to result in the moderators' applying FTM's rules of (dis)engagement. Sayonara.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 09:36 AM

You've gone from curiously but acceptably idiosyncratic to unacceptably rabid, if not unhinged.

If your problem is others not subscribing to your utopian, moral high road, maybe you ought to find yourself a more receptive audience to preach it to.

And if there's an underlying medical issue eating at you, you're in the wrong troubleshooting forum.

I can hardly wait! tongue
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 01:04 PM

Well, now we really have gone over the line.....the Mods and Admin have been notified and you can anticipate some of that "pissy" response you've been so vocally espousing.

...or you can take a deep breath, re-evaluate the tone and tenor of your posts and rejoin an acceptable conversation without the derogatory and un-called for personal attacks.

FWIW, to be crystal clear, I was NOT blindly reading between the lines in my response to you.....I was offering you a diplomatically prudent means to tone things down. Don't try to second guess my response....it just makes you appear to be as obtuse as the other folks you are viewing through that same filter.

I'm advocating for a title change. Despite Grelber's stated intent for the origins of the title, it still causes me to be uncomfortable....and THAT says a whole lot!
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/22/19 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
I'm advocating for a title change. Despite [g]relber's stated intent for the origins of the title, it still causes me to be uncomfortable....and THAT says a whole lot!

I still consider the title to be innocuous — unlike the subject of the thread — merely reflecting wishful thinking and ostensibly falling under the notion of freedom of speech.
But if the other moderators and administrators of FTM agree with you — despite the thread and its title having been in largely 'uncontested' play for just over a year now — so be it ... I won't quibble. {sigh}

I'm content in the hope and belief that the malignant imbecilic narcissistic misogynist will soon be dragged from office, kicking and screaming in a strait jacket.
Posted by: Virtual1

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/23/19 07:25 AM

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/22/1900924/-Cartoon-So-You-re-Getting-Impeached
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/23/19 08:28 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
I still consider the title to be innocuous — unlike the subject of the thread — merely reflecting wishful thinking and ostensibly falling under the notion of freedom of speech.

I have never been comfortable with the title of this thread and in retrospect I realize I have essentially blocked it. Your right to free speech is unquestioned but in the present violence tinged political environment it could be construed as a threat against the President. Whether it crosses the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" line or not I don't know, but it seems uncomfortably close to me.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/23/19 09:23 AM

On the other hand, this thread has been up for a full year, so if it's been flagged, we're all under surveillance already, and changing its title would accomplish nothing in that respect.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/23/19 11:35 AM

I just saw this bumper sticker:" I Never Thought That I Would Miss Nixon".
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/23/19 01:20 PM

LOL
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/24/19 01:13 AM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
I have never been comfortable with the title of this thread and in retrospect I realize I have essentially blocked it. Your right to free speech is unquestioned but in the present violence tinged political environment it could be construed as a threat against the President. Whether it crosses the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" line or not I don't know, but it seems uncomfortably close to me.

I'm not sure how a "musing"* qua "wishful thinking" could be construed as a threat or as a "fire".
(* musing: meditation, thinking, contemplation, deliberation, pondering, reflection, rumination, introspection, daydreaming, reverie, dreaming)

If the thread and its title wasn't sufficiently "uncomfortable" at the outset, it's hard to see why/how it's become so.

In fact, joemikeb was a prime mover in shifting the thread into a parallel discussion about Mike Pence almost immediately after it was posted — without a hint of its being uncomfortable or contentious.

But, as I said and hereby repeat, if it's become so offensive to those who control FTM content, then by all means erase it in its entirety, and let's move on.
(And I'm removing myself from any further discussion on this topic.)
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/24/19 08:21 AM

Quote:
I'm not a Mod on this forum, thus I can't make any changes directly.....I personally find the title of this thread unsettling and I'm not comfortable with it, however, the content of the thread (with a couple course-corrections through appropriate Moderating) has remained within the guidelines and to close it would be inappropriate.

I would like to apologize for not having expressed my concerns with the title of this thread when it was first started just over a year ago....my concerns are shown by the fact that it took nearly 5 months for me to make my first post to this thread, however, that doesn't mitigate the tacit approval that my silence projected. Waiting another 7 months to rejoin the conversation for the 2nd time did nothing to help resolve my feelings of discomfort and only further added to the tacit approval that existed for a year of conversation.

In my defense, I would say that I have a very strong disagreement with today's trend for trying to make everything "politically correct" and thus I just let my feelings on the title remain unspoken.....I was wrong!

Just because something has been in existence for over a year does NOT make it right. Is this thread out of line? No, not in my view. Are the discussion points presented within this thread always couched in temperate terms, based on seasoned logic and presented without discord? Not a chance....but that is what Moderators are here to mitigate and re-direct back into reasonable compliance with our Board Rules. In my 2 participations with this thread I have tried to set the example for other participants to follow and calm things down when they started to get inflammatory.....it didn't work.

I think this conversation is valid and should continue. I do NOT think the title should remain!

I challenge you to provide the Moderators and Admin with a suitable, non-inflammatory, not necessarily "politically correct" alternative so that we can continue the conversation.

I would propose - "The thread formerly known as...Should 45?"

How 'bout you?

edited to clarify my suggested re-title...
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/24/19 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
If the thread and its title wasn't sufficiently "uncomfortable" at the outset, it's hard to see why/how it's become so.

While I have never been particularly comfortable with the implications of the title of this thread, I feel that with the exception of a few brief excursions, the content has remained within bounds. So I elected to let my discomfort remain mine alone, until someone else brought it up. When they did I expressed my agreement. No criticism of the OP or any of the participants is intended or implied.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/24/19 10:59 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
I challenge you to provide the Moderators and Admin with a suitable, non-inflammatory, not necessarily "politically correct" alternative so that we can continue the conversation.

I would propose - "The thread formerly known as...Should 45?"

I really don't give a rat's patoot. But if you go that route, you might like to get (at least) the first two words of the title correct and use a proper grammatical stylesheet (for punctuation).
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 08:12 AM

So put a cork in the rat's patoot that you don't give and give me a counter proposal that shows how YOU would do the rename.

Work with me here....I'm trying to defuse the inflammatory tone of the title WHILE NOT surrendering to becoming "politically correct" and losing the value of the thread....it ain't easy!
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
So put a cork in the rat's patoot that you don't give and give me a counter proposal that shows how YOU would do the rename.

You're asking the wrong person. I wouldn't rename it (for reasons given earlier) and because I originally spent a fair bit of time and effort in constructing the title so that it wouldn't be 'offensive' or 'risky' (by any definition), even if risqué.
I'm sure that the assembled talent among the moderators and administrators can come up with what you and they construe as a reasonable solution couched in proper English.
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 11:55 AM

Mon ami, you misunderstand my request.....help me out with the suggested additions, grammatically corrected, that you are requesting. I obviously don't understand to what you refer, or I would have made my original suggestion with your corrections included to start with.

Your opening post in this thread, with the article linked was perfect - your 2nd post, where you espoused additional handguns that would be suitable for the same titular treatment of our elected VP....THAT is where I should have expressed my concerns with the title. Instead, that is where I left this thread for 5 months.....my mistake.

If you could do me the honor of forgiving my tardiness, I really need your help to rectify my mistake from over a year ago. My posts to this thread from last April will clearly show that I am NOT a rabid Trump supporter....but they will also show that I am also NOT a rabid Never-Trump advocate.

So, please help...n'est-ce pas?


edited to fix a typo....
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
Mon ami, you misunderstand my request.....help me out with the suggested additions, grammatically corrected, that you are requesting. I obviously don't understand to what you refer, or I would have made my original suggestion with your corrections included to start with.

Oh puh-leeze: Where do you see "should" in the title?!

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
Your opening post in this thread, with the article linked was perfect - your 2nd post, where you espoused additional handguns that would be suitable for the same titular treatment of our elected VP....THAT is where I should have expressed my concerns with the title. Instead, that is where I left this thread for 5 months.....my mistake.

Anyone who has followed the gun control debate (even peripherally) over the past several decades knows that the AR-15 is NOT a handgun but a selective-fire longarm designed by Armalite and meant for military use and not generally available to the civilian population (although semiautomatic versions of same are).

If you go the route that you suggested, such title would properly read:
"The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ..."

I really don't appreciate having to punish myself for doing a job with which I heartedly disagree.
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 05:17 PM

Thanks for calling my attention to the fact that I can't read.....[headslap]DUH! [/headslap]!

Of course it should have been "Maybe" -not- "Should".....

Your self torture to offer guidance is truly appreciated here....

Now my turn:

Quote:
The title premise could apply to 45' (45-prime) too. Even the 1873 Colt had 6 chambers, not to mention the 1911 Colt M1A1 semiauto with even more capacity. There's enough 'solution' for every 'deserving' body.


Not seeing any mention of a long-gun in your 2nd post to which I referred....just sayin'. blush FWIW, I have an AR15 civilian semi-auto long gun in my personal armory.

EDIT: now I have to admit I'm not reading properly AGAIN....I was seeing M1911A1 instead of what you were writing! I still remember my M1 thumb from initial qualification at the rifle range in boot camp...although the M1A1 didn't come into being until 1941.

I think that your corrected version of my alternative title offering is perfect....and still not quite politically correct, which suits just fine.

I'll propose "The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ..." to the Admin for her consideration and thank you!

Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/25/19 11:56 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
Now my turn:
Quote:
The title premise could apply to 45' (45-prime) too. Even the 1873 Colt had 6 chambers, not to mention the 1911 Colt M1A1 semiauto with even more capacity. There's enough 'solution' for every 'deserving' body.

Not seeing any mention of a long-gun in your 2nd post to which I referred....just sayin'. blush FWIW, I have an AR15 civilian semi-auto long gun in my personal armory.

EDIT: now I have to admit I'm not reading properly AGAIN....I was seeing M1911A1 instead of what you were writing! I still remember my M1 thumb from initial qualification at the rifle range in boot camp...although the M1A1 didn't come into being until 1941.


Now I must admit to misremembering (even after "re-reading" that second post) and confounding AR-15 with 1911 Colt M1A1 semiauto. Mea culpa. Blame it on "purple rain". blush tongue
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/19 12:17 AM

President Trump Signs Federal Animal Cruelty Bill Into Law

Perhaps the only halfway decent thing the man has done ... and not just in his presidential term of office.
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/19 09:15 AM

Quote:
Blame it on "purple rain". blush tongue

Personally, I blame it on the damned statins..... crazy
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 11/26/19 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
Quote:
Blame it on "purple rain". blush tongue

Personally, I blame it on the damned statins..... crazy

I wish I had the (dubious) "luxury" of such an excuse.
I'll just have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune ... ta-roo, ta-ree.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/17/19 03:50 PM

The only reason that 45 is 45 (and hopefully not much longer) is because of the Electoral College which was established by the founders to make sure that hoi polloi didn't get too uppity, just to make it so that the rich and educated and politically powerful retained their power in the face of true democracy.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/18/19 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
The only reason that 45 is 45 (and hopefully not much longer) is because of the Electoral College which was established by the founders to make sure that hoi polloi didn't get too uppity, just to make it so that the rich and educated and politically powerful retained their power in the face of true democracy.

In defense of the electoral college consider this: between 70 and 80% of the population of the United States live within 50 miles of either the Atlantic or Pacific coast. Without the electoral college that would leave a 2,300 mile long swath of this country with little or no voice in electing the President.

It would save the candidates millions (billions?) of dollars in campaign funds as there would be no reason to campaign anywhere but on the two coasts. Arguably there would not even be a reason to have the presidential candidate's names on the ballot in say 35 of the 50 states.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/18/19 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
... Without the electoral college that would leave a 2,300 mile long swath of this country with little or no voice in electing the President.

Not true. In a real democracy every vote counts; this has nothing to do with distribution of population and/or whether sub-groups such as states are involved.

By definition — Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/18/19 10:37 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Originally Posted By: joemikeb
... Without the electoral college that would leave a 2,300 mile long swath of this country with little or no voice in electing the President.

Not true. In a real democracy every vote counts; this has nothing to do with distribution of population and/or whether sub-groups such as states are involved.

By definition — Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.


Hmm. What if 51% of the voting population lives within 50 miles of the oceans, as Joemikeb has stated. Then for the only nationwide offices—president/vp—those few states are the only ones that matter.

As grebler says, there are other channels for democratic representation through elected representatives.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/19/19 05:57 AM

Impeachment: When America moves its president to the spam folder.
— Courtesy of Trevor Noah of The Daily Show (2019-12-18)

Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah!

Ah luvs it! Reely bigly!
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/19/19 06:52 AM

In a very short number of years, 70 Senators will be elected from states with about 35% of the total population. So 35% of the country will control the country through the US Senate. Is that democracy?
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/19/19 11:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Douglas
In a very short number of years, 70 Senators will be elected from states with about 35% of the total population. So 35% of the country will control the country through the US Senate. Is that democracy?

The United States has NEVER been a true democracy rather we are a very carefully crafted Federation striking an ingenious balance between individual and regional interests needs, and aspirations. Without that balance the United States of America, as we know it, would never have come into being and much of the continent would still be held in allegiance to the Queen of England and our biggest concern would be Brexit.
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/21/19 07:01 AM

Exactly where is the balance when 35% of the population will control literally everything with 70 Senators?
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/21/19 08:46 AM

The House of Representatives represents the population at large. The Senate Represents regional interests but as shown by the current stand off between the House and Senate, the Senate most definitely does not control everything no matter what the Senate Majority Leader may think. The power of our system of government has always been the fact that neither house has control making compromise between individual and regional interests essential. The problem is compromise has disappeared from the political discourse. It is compromise that must be restored if the republic is to survive. If either individual or regional interests are allowed to dominate would inevitably result in tyranny and probable dissolution of the nation into smaller nation states.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/29/19 02:45 PM

At this point, a little humor is in order. I won't spoil the surprise by describing it. Get a load of this!
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 12/31/19 02:06 PM

Similar products reflecting other world political figures (Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden) come to mind.....
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/01/20 03:41 PM

Ah, but this instance presents us with an unique opportunity...to each buy a roll and send some soiled paper to the White House.

In fact, a national "Give Back To Trump Day" when millions of Americans would do it would be a neat (well, sorta) idea.

But it wouldn't make the least bit of an impression on him, because it wouldn't smell any different than it always smells where his head is.

Could even the most self-righteous of us find fault with that?
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/03/20 07:28 AM

If Trump can order the assignation of an Iranian General, why is it wrong for Trump's enemies to wish ill of him?
Posted by: Ira L

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/03/20 08:59 AM

Two wrongs make a right?

It is wrong because we would like to think we live in a world where the United States does not meddle in the affairs of a foreign country, that Congress and only Congress can declare acts of war, and that regardless of political preferences, the President of the United States should be respected.

That world is now an E-ticket ride in Fantasyland. tongue Does anyone else remember the A,B,C,D,E tickets at the original Disneyland? That's a semi-rhetorical question; don't want to hijack this thread.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/03/20 12:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Ira L
Two wrongs make a right?

Nope, but the worrying question is: "How many more wrongs are going to be committed by the cowardly President Bonespur....now that he's had a taste of killing without personal risk?" It becomes even more of a worry when he finds that he can do it in violation of American law, knowing the equally spineless Republican Senators will facilitate his itchy trigger finger.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/03/20 02:54 PM

IMHO, the real reason that he did it is to distract his supporters from his impeachment and build up his creds for the coming election. This is shades of Nixon, who secretly persuaded the North Vietnamese to hold off settling the war so that he could be credited with making peace when he was elected. Never mind that thousands of soldiers, on both sides, were killed because of this.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/06/20 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
IMHO, the real reason that he did it is to distract his supporters from his impeachment and build up his creds for the coming election.

Oh. I'm sure that's part of it....particularly since The Cowardly One's tweets have shown how itchy his finger is getting. The assassination of General Soleimani is beginning to look a lot like the invasion of Iraq - make up a phoney-baloney reason and then act. The Cowardly One and Secretary Pompous keep saying there was an imminent threat but clearly they have no evidence.

I find it incredibly ironic that they both talk about Soleimani having "blood on his hands" and I think: "Really? I'm sure it pales in comparison to the blood of the nearly 1/2 billion innocent Iraqi men, women and children who have been killed as a result of the unwarranted American invasion."
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/06/20 06:53 PM

Wasn't Assange anti-Hillary because he thought she'd start a war?
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/07/20 01:09 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
... The Cowardly One and Secretary Pompous keep saying there was an imminent threat but clearly they have no evidence.

Of course they do. Didn't you see the little vial of WMD powder which was proffered to the UN as proof? Oh, wait. That was 17 years ago. My bad. tongue smirk blush crazy

No, this time round we're just dealing with a certifiably insane narcissistic megalomaniac with the Joker's entourage of sycophantic morons bound and determined to turn the world into a smoldering slag heap. But as usual divine intervention ain't gonna happen. The sperm and egg on that ship have sailed. God's still laughing — although it's hard to tell if Jehovah is a sadist or masochist ... let's just split the difference and go with sadomasochist.

Also note that 45 has taken a page from the Taliban guidebook by wanting to destroy cultural sites. What goes around comes around.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/07/20 02:04 AM

At least there are still some sane people around: Pentagon Rules Out Striking Iranian Cultural Sites, Contradicting Trump
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/07/20 06:17 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
At least there are still some sane people around:

But not enough of them. According to the New York Times, and others, Trump was offered a menu of options with the most extreme being the Soleimani assassination. The pinheads offering the menu did not want President Bonespur to choose the assassination. They just wanted the other options to appear palatable.

So, it seems, there are some blockheads running the world's most powerful war machine. Note to the Military Blockheads: If you don't want someone to choose the extreme measure, don't put it on the menu....especially when you're offering it to someone who is as moronic as you.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/22/20 12:27 AM

How sweet it is! ... to see a Swedish teenager on the spectrum hobble the dismal/minuscule intellect of the Great Satan's chief representative. It's almost as though all's right with the world.

Trump and the Teenager: A Climate Showdown at Davos
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 01/22/20 07:48 AM

Just when you think Trump couldn't stoop any lower, he surprises you. He may have the bulk of a beached Beluga, but Greta's the bigger person.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/03/20 01:12 AM

The Simple Reason Trump Does What He Does
Because he can.

And with his renowned sports acumen, he bought the New Jersey Generals (USFL) for $9M in 1983 and 2 years later put the team in the dumpster, losing $22M.
He's applied that astounding ability to bankrupting the nation ethically and morally.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/04/20 04:11 AM

I wonder if the Republicans realize that their thirst lust for power has them supporting a president who's ultimate goal is to strip them of their power?
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/04/20 06:45 AM

It's clear that Republican Senators do not know what republican means, which creates the giant irony in all this. By giving Trump the blessing to do whatever the hell he wants without regard for the citizens, the "Republicans" are setting him up to be, effectively, the emperor of the United States.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/10/20 04:15 PM

From Andrew Cohen in today’s Globe and Mail. He is a journalist, professor of journalism at Carleton University and author of Two Days in June: John F. Kennedy and the 48 Hours That Made History.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

On the last day of January, shortly after the United States Senate declined to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, Jon Meacham went on national television with something to say.

Mr. Meacham is one of this country’s decorated historians, a savvy interpreter of events with an owlish authority. Unlike talking heads given to the big declaration, he scrupulously avoids generalities and superlatives.
So, when Mr. Meacham told MSNBC that Mr. Trump “is the most politically powerful president in American history” and “functionally a monarch,” it was jarring. That’s because, at some level, we fear it’s true.

With the trial ending in acquittal on Wednesday, it isn’t hard to see the President of the United States as a de facto monarch. Perhaps a constitutional one, with some legislative, administrative and judicial checks on his authority. But a sovereign nonetheless, animated by impulse, anger, hyperbole, vanity and revenge, too.

Before impeachment, Mr. Trump was a strongman unfazed by convention, unmoored by law and unencumbered by decorum. His self-described “perfect telephone call” – asking the President of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, in exchange for releasing U.S. military assistance – was why Democrats in the House of Representatives charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

After impeachment, Mr. Trump remains a strongman unfazed by convention, unmoored by law and unencumbered by decorum. Now, though, he has beaten the rap (on a vote strictly along party lines other than dissenting Republican Mitt Romney, a new moral tribune). Mr. Trump remains largely unaccountable as long as the Republicans control the Senate and he controls the Republicans. This he does, masterfully, as puppeteer-in-chief.

Having been caught, Mr. Trump will not be chastened. Rather than repent, he will repeat. Like any good card-shark, he will double down on the bet that nothing can stop him now. In this he has licence from naïfs such as Maine Senator Susan Collins ("the President has learned from this case,” she says). But why change now? This President has been acting brazenly for three years: invoking executive privilege to defy congressional oversight; declaring a national emergency to build a medieval wall on the border with Mexico; dismantling a regime of industrial, commercial and environmental regulation “choking” growth; pardoning friends, sycophants and special pleaders.

If he wants to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, who traffics in conspiracy, he can. If he wants to use profanity in public and mock the heroic John McCain, he can. If he wants to call the media an “enemy of the people,” he can. To this self-proclaimed “very stable genius” with thickening royal jelly, criticism is lèse-majesté.
Behold, then, King Donald. With the economy purring, his popularity holding, his party cowering and his rivals sputtering, this is Mr. Trump’s moment. Perversely, his show-trial has carried the accidental president to a new, higher station: America’s modern monarch.

As any child in the United States knows, this country was born in opposition to King George III. The framers designed a system of government – the legislature, the judiciary and the presidency – with checks and balances. Such was antipathy toward the Crown that George Washington was hailed for renouncing it. As historian Clinton Rossiter wrote: “It has been said of Washington that he could have been a king but chose to be something more exalted: the first elected head of the first truly free government.”

Americans have always worried about presidents overreaching. After all, they’re already heads of state with a broad suite of powers. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt tried to “pack” the Supreme Court and interned Japanese-Americans. Richard Nixon covered up Watergate.
Their critics probably called them tyrants. Mr. Trump sees himself in Andrew Jackson, the country’s seventh president. Mr. Trump made an early pilgrimage to Jackson’s home outside Nashville, the Hermitage, and hangs his portrait in the Oval Office. “Old Hickory” owned slaves, killed Native Americans and clashed with Congress. To some, he was a populist. To others, he was “King Andrew I.”

As biographer H.W. Brands argues, there is no parallel between Mr. Trump and Jackson (a victorious general and a seasoned politician, self-made and deeply flawed). But King Donald savours the comparison as much as he does imperial flourishes. This President enjoys the perquisites of office, as do most presidents, from the White House (“very elegant”) to Air Force One, which ferries him, on command, everywhere. He stages a grand military parade on July 4 and refers to “my generals.” His chaotic West Wing gives new meaning to “palace intrigue.”

Like a sovereign, he trades in bombast and braggadocio. He has the swagger of Mussolini (swelling chest, jutting chin) and the ignorance and detachment of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He is neither, of course. But that doesn’t stop him musing about the Trump dynasty (with Ivanka as heir apparent) while his courtiers talk of a third term, as if constitutional term limits are irrelevant. Maybe they are. Michael Moore and Bill Maher, both with large followings, insist that if Mr. Trump loses narrowly this year, he will cry “fraud” and refuse to leave the White House. Seriously.

When Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the historian and presidential adviser, published The Imperial Presidency in 1973, he worried about the expansion of executive power in the nuclear age. His reservation was the president’s unfettered ability to wage war without the consent of Congress. Another concern was swelling federal agencies, executive appointments and the rising federal budget.
While Mr. Nixon’s forced resignation quieted the debate, it has returned. The growth of the national security state – as well as using presidential power to address energy, immigration and the environment – have strengthened the office. It’s not Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency any more, much as this president recalls Father Knows Best.
At his trial, Mr. Trump’s defenders argued that as president, he can do largely what he wants. If it is in the national interest, it is not a crime. Alan Dershowitz peddled this, falsely, and the Republicans embraced it, slavishly.
If one thing defines Mr. Trump, it is his towering confidence. He never apologizes for flouting rules and denying norms. That’s how he can blithely resist demands from Congress to summon witnesses and release documents. He simply stonewalls.

The Democrats didn’t take him to court because it would take too long. They chose impeachment instead. Given the assault on their constitutional oversight, did they have any choice? Critics say they should have kept investigating. They note that impeachment has barely moved public opinion, although a near majority wanted Mr. Trump removed.

The danger is that he has so cavalierly and loudly dismissed his impeachment (“a hoax! a witch hunt!”) that he has drained its power to shock. Publicly, Mr. Trump treats it like a presidential parking ticket. This is the insouciance of a monarch.

Privately, though, impeachment for him is a humiliation, a stigma, the first line in his obituary. Says Nancy Pelosi, whose hand Mr. Trump refused to shake before his reality-show State of the Union Address: “Whatever happens, he has been impeached forever.” He will wear it this fall in an election likely to be a referendum on his presidency.
In the meantime, Mr. Trump is untouchable as long as he remains Marshal Pétain to the Vichy Republicans. It begs the question: Are there any checks on Absolute Trump? In fact, several.

The Democrats control the House, retaining the power to investigate and subpoena, as well as to pass bills. Mr. Trump will get nothing through, limiting his first-term legislative legacy to taxes and trade.

The courts constrain the President, sometimes, although he is changing their ideological balance. Civil society remains mobilized. The Deep State constrains Mr. Trump, too, through whistle-blowers and bureaucrats, who presumably leaked the contents of John Bolton’s book. The liberal media acts as watchdog (as the conservative media, led by Fox News, acts as guard dog). Mr. Trump’s “failing” New York Times has five million digital subscribers and Rachel Maddow is queen of MSNBC.

Ultimately, the strongest check on the President is the people. Public opinion still remains against Mr. Trump, narrowly though not inevitably. It’s too early to know. But he understands instinctively the anxiety of his rural, conservative, less-educated constituency, and exploits it shamelessly.

King Donald offers his loyal subjects bread, circuses and a magical kingdom of a generation ago – a border wall, a travel ban, tax cuts, protectionism, political incorrectness, deregulation, conservative judges and the red-meat rhetoric of God, guns and the rights of the unborn. If he is re-elected in November, he will be emboldened as no president before. He will be free to try to reshape the high court, withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dismantle social security, shrink government, abolish regulation and end abortion.

In that new, uncharted United States, with his army of loyalists turned royalists cheering his coronation, King Donald, unbound, will reign for four more years – and perhaps beyond.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/27/20 12:02 AM

Trump Has a Problem as the Coronavirus Threatens the US: His Credibility

Even his allies worry that President Trump has undermined his ability to appear presidential in a moment of national emergency.

Wouldn't it be sumpin if tiny little COVID-19 brought down PREZ-45 without even threatening his own immune system?!
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/27/20 06:53 AM

On Tuesday Trump said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, would be the point person on COVID 19 issues and planning. At the press conference, one day later, Trump blind-sided the Secretary by announcing that Mike Pence would have that role.

However, I’m sure Trump must have changed his mind because Pence has proven superior healthcare credentials. Gads. Even the health of the nation's citizens has no place in Trump's agenda.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/27/20 09:35 AM

And, in a probable departure from reality (translation: burying your head in the sand), see Pence Will Control All Coronavirus Messaging From Health Officials I hope that the newly-minted Medal of Freedom winner and medical expert, Rush Limbaugh, is not miffed.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/28/20 03:39 AM

This editorial says it all: When a Pandemic Meets a Personality Cult
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/28/20 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
And, in a probable departure from reality (translation: burying your head in the sand), see Pence Will Control All Coronavirus Messaging From Health Officials I hope that the newly-minted Medal of Freedom winner and medical expert, Rush Limbaugh, is not miffed.

Trump doesn't want anyone that knows what they are doing in such a visible situation so he will someone to blame any failure on. Pence with his proven record of incompetence in handling medical disasters is a perfect scapegoat. On the other hand, Rush's ego is inflated enough he might have the temerity to contradict the stable genius.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/28/20 10:08 AM

A good definition of reality is "that which does not go away when you close your eyes". Trump bluster has no effect on a virus (and, I recall, the weather is not susceptible to his rants either).
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/29/20 08:08 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
A good definition of reality is "that which does not go away when you close your eyes". Trump bluster has no effect on a virus (and, I recall, the weather is not susceptible to his rants either).

Add the stock market to the list of things that are not susceptible to his bluster and ranting.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/29/20 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
....Trump bluster has no effect on a virus...

No, but his bluster gets his followers to believe it's no big deal. At a rally yesterday he referred to it as "the Democrats' latest hoax" while attendees cheered. Yet again, President Bonespur demonstrates just how capable he is of incredibly stupid and irresponsible behaviour.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 02/29/20 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
... Yet again, President Bonespur demonstrates just how capable he is of incredibly stupid and irresponsible behaviour.

Doncha think this equally applies to his "base" = "Morons R Us" ?! (After all he did get elected by a major clique of Tweedledumbs and Tweedledumbers.) tongue
And if the Democrats don't get their act together and get focused ... Well, you get the drift.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 06:30 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Doncha think this equally applies to his "base" = "Morons R Us" ?!

From the mouths of boobs... Trump addressing a rally of his base: "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. They're politicizing it. One of my people came up to me and said, 'Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That did not work out too well. They could not do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. This is their new hoax.”

And they all cheered.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: grelber
Doncha think this equally applies to his "base" = "Morons R Us" ?!

From the mouths of boobs... Trump addressing a rally of his base: "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. They're politicizing it. One of my people came up to me and said, 'Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That did not work out too well. They could not do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. This is their new hoax.”
And they all cheered.

I know. It's so very sad. It's too bad that hoi polloi isn't subjected to some sort of "reality check" or intelligence test. But given the results of the last election (at least), there would only be a limited number of countable votes.* The founding fathers tried to circumvent such issues, but clearly they failed.

(* The same holds true on this side of the 49th parallel. Sheesh. If NZ's immigration policies didn't discriminate so dramatically for folk of my vintage, I'd long since been gone to live out my dotage in a Hobbit house.)
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 09:56 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
From the mouths of boobs... Trump addressing a rally of his base: "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. They're politicizing it. One of my people came up to me and said, 'Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That did not work out too well. They could not do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. This is their new hoax.”

And they all cheered.

He's really stuck his neck out this time, because neither a captive Senate nor a captive Justice Department can make the coronavirus go away if it spreads as scientists in the wild expect it to.

He'll try to label everything that doesn't come from Pence as false news, but the day his base realizes that it's dying of terminal Democratic hoax will be a bad one for him.

Tough question: Considering the possible consequences of things going in either direction, do we want him to be right or wrong?
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Tough question: Considering the possible consequences of things going in either direction, do we want him to be right or wrong?

Good question! 👏

Unfortunately I don't think anyone will have a choice in the outcome. 😱
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 10:04 PM

In a completely different vein, I wonder if we can count on the Chinese to try to sabotage Trump's campaign in favor of a more domestic minded and likely internationally naive Democrat?

Maybe they'll hack the Russians and find out what they've got on Trump.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/01/20 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: artie505
He's really stuck his neck out this time, because neither a captive Senate nor a captive Justice Department can make the coronavirus go away if it spreads as scientists in the wild expect it to.
He'll try to label everything that doesn't come from Pence as false news, but the day his base realizes that it's dying of terminal Democratic hoax will be a bad one for him.
Tough question: Considering the possible consequences of things going in either direction, do we want him to be right or wrong?

The potential upside — in probably the most perverse way possible — is that those who believe that Covid-19 is a "Democratic hoax" will take no counteractive measures to prevent infection, thereby potentially removing them from the electoral process. So sad. crazy Bigly. tongue
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/20 12:14 AM

Deleted, because it didn't make anywhere near as much sense when I reread it as it did when I wrote it.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/20 05:42 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Deleted, because it didn't make anywhere near as much sense when I reread it as it did when I wrote it.

Au contraire.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/02/20 08:19 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
Originally Posted By: artie505
Deleted, because it didn't make anywhere near as much sense when I reread it as it did when I wrote it.

Au contraire.

OK, then, but specific this time...

In the context of Trump's "hoax" stance and its potential effect on the campaign, we've got a win-lose, lose-win situation.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/09/20 12:34 AM

Remember this?

Originally Posted By: grelber
Trump Has a Problem as the Coronavirus Threatens the US: His Credibility

Even his allies worry that President Trump has undermined his ability to appear presidential in a moment of national emergency.

Wouldn't it be sumpin if tiny little COVID-19 brought down PREZ-45 without even threatening his own immune system?!

And now ...

For Trump, Coronavirus Proves to Be an Enemy He Can’t Tweet Away

A president who is at his strongest politically when he has a human target to attack has found it harder to confront a growing outbreak that has rattled the country.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/10/20 04:41 PM

I just watched a report that the CDC had prepared a number of recommendations to protect American lives. One of them was that older people (high risk of death if they catch the COVID 19 virus) should avoid air travel. Trump blocked the release of that recommendation. It has only become known because of a whistleblower.

The U.S. has a president who is prepared to roll the dice on citizens' lives in order to protect his political goals.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/10/20 05:40 PM

A recommendation that older people avoid cruises was ultimately released, but not before administration officials argued against its release because it would hurt Florida economically.

This administration is totally lacking morals and scruples.

The title "Good King Wenceslas" has always made me pause for a moment and wonder what living during the reign of a bad king might be like. I'm sorry to say that I'm learning. frown mad
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/11/20 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: artie505
This administration is totally lacking morals and scruples.

Donald Trump has suggested a payroll tax cut to help businesses through the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic. He didn't bother to mention that the money would come from cuts to social security and healthcare. Neither did he mention that a prime benefactor would be the hotel industry. Hotels? That says it all about lacking morals or scruples.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/12/20 04:39 PM

Republicans have reached the bottom of the barrel and are now starting to dig. They want to include abortion restrictions in the emergency bill now being debated, not to mention being against paid sick leave. A pox on all of them! (Or, may they become ill with COVID19. BTW, Trump has been exposed to the virus.)
Coronavirus Live Updates: Talks on a Sweeping Aid Package Stumble
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/12/20 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
BTW, Trump has been exposed to the virus.

I have my fingers crossed.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/13/20 01:53 AM

It’s a MAGA Microbe Meltdown

Trump utterly fails to rise to his first real crisis...
So what’s going on? What we’re seeing here is a meltdown — not just a meltdown of the markets, but a meltdown of Trump’s mind. When bad things happen, there are only three things he knows how to do: insist that things are great and his policies are perfect, cut taxes, and throw money at his cronies.
Now he’s faced with a crisis where none of these standbys will work, where he actually needs to cooperate with Nancy Pelosi to avoid catastrophe. What we saw in [March 11's] speech was that he’s completely incapable of rising to the occasion. We needed to see a leader; what we saw was an incompetent, delusional blowhard.


Amen.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/13/20 07:06 AM

And, just as telling.....

"His big idea for the economy is a complete payroll tax holiday. According to Bloomberg News, he told Republican senators that he wanted the holiday to extend “through the November election so that taxes don’t go back up before voters decide whether to return him to office.” That is, he apparently said the quiet part out loud."
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/15/20 01:53 AM

Trump Oversold a Google Site to Fight Coronavirus

After Jared Kushner liked the idea, President Trump inflated the concept. The disconnect is the latest example of the president exaggerating or making wholly inaccurate statements about his administration’s response.

Big surprise. So sad. Bigly.


Trump Tests Negative for Coronavirus, His Doctor Says

Rats! Doubly so sad. Really bigly.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/16/20 12:10 PM

Looks like Trump has got to send out a second round of autographed stock charts. (Trump signs chart showing stock market rally...)
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/17/20 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Looks like Trump has got to send out a second round of autographed stock charts.

Just as his view of COVID 19 has changed so dramatically. In this morning's news conference he's moved from his original statement "It'll all go away in April with the warm weather" to "I've always known this was a pandemic."

Oh, I see. You knew all along but you thought it best to waste precious time in responding.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/17/20 09:18 AM

He thought the "D" stood for Democrats.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/18/20 01:26 AM

Trump Now Claims He Always Knew the Coronavirus Would Be a Pandemic

The president tried to rewrite his history with advising Americans about the coronavirus. His own words prove him wrong.

Demented shmuck.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/18/20 12:25 PM

Everything comes down to a President who has no idea how to act in an emergency. Citizens should be happy that this isn't some nation invading the country. By now they'd be saluting a different flag.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/19/20 04:43 PM

When asked why the Whitehouse wasn't prepared, Trump responded: "We were prepared. The only thing we weren't prepared for was the media."

Would some infected person please sneeze on that jerk.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/19/20 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
Would some infected person please sneeze on that jerk.

Nowhere severe enough. Go with Ebola. Gift an infected monkey from DRC.
Posted by: alternaut

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/19/20 06:33 PM

Tremendously harsh! shocked grin
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/20/20 12:54 AM

This thread has now officially doubled back on its original title! shocked grin laugh
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/20/20 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
This thread has now officially doubled back on its original title! shocked grin laugh

If I can flip the sails to a new tack…..

The most aggravating thing to me is that most problems facing the U.S. today, vis-a-vis the COVID 19 crisis, are due to gross mismanagement on the part of the President. The virus didn’t sneak into the country. Everyone knew it was coming.

Instead of anticipatory action (Management 101) the President launched into a bizarre campaign of demonizing China, suggesting the virus was a hoax perpetrated by the Democrats and making bizarre predictions like “by April it will go away with the warm weather”, et cetera. Instead of showing concern for the American people, Trump politicized it in whatever manner he thought it would help him. Even now, when Governors are looking to the President for central leadership in getting the supplies they need, Trump's flippant response is: "the federal government isn't a shipping clerk".

I think the handing of the COVID 19 invasion explains why the President had so many business failures - he is only capable of mismanagement.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/20/20 07:37 AM

Check out "Before Virus Outbreak, a Cascade of Warnings Went Unheeded" in the COVID-19 forum.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/20/20 04:15 PM

In these dark days of fake fake media, fake alternative facts, fake dishonest media, fake Democratic hoaxes, etc [i]ad nauseam[i/], especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, one cannot emphasize enough — just as Abba Eban originally opined about Joseph Goebbels — that:
"Every time he opens his mouth, [America's shmuck in chief] subtracts from the sum of human knowledge."

Q. How can you tell when America's shmuck in chief is lying?
A. His lips are moving.
(How's that for repurposing an oldie but goodie?)
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/21/20 05:09 PM

Today the Great Orange Airhead pronounced: "We expect to be celebrating a great victory very soon." I guess, when your entire life has been one where lies are your stock-in-trade, you just can't help yourself.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/22/20 01:22 AM

(Just repairing faulty italics in my previous post.)

In these dark days of fake fake media, fake alternative facts, fake dishonest media, fake Democratic hoaxes, etc ad nauseam, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, one cannot emphasize enough — just as Abba Eban originally opined about Joseph Goebbels — that:
"Every time he opens his mouth, [America's shmuck in chief] subtracts from the sum of human knowledge."

Q. How can you tell when America's shmuck in chief is lying?
A. His lips are moving.
(How's that for repurposing an oldie but goodie?)
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/23/20 09:10 AM

Trump's Coronavirus Calendar
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/23/20 11:06 AM

I think that of all the things he's said, saying that he'd rather leave those people stranded on that ship than have them added into the numbers was the most reprehensible and, in a single sentence, glaringly demonstrated his total lack of humanity, forget altogether about concern. (It was also a remarkably stupid thing for a politician to have said on camera!)

I wonder if the people who were wearing MAGA hats when they boarded that ship were still wearing them when they debarked?
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/23/20 11:31 AM

His inaction has been well-described by one writer as "irresponsible nonchalance".
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/23/20 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
His inaction has been well-described by one writer as "irresponsible nonchalance".

I think "disdain" is a more accurate characterization of his attitude towards both COVID and his constituency.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 03:02 AM

Trump Considers Reopening Economy, Over Health Experts’ Objections

The president is questioning whether stay-at-home orders have gone too far. But relaxing them could significantly increase the death toll from the coronavirus, health officials warn.

Could the Hadean tunnel Trump is dragging America down get any darker and deeper?! Probably; he's just full surprises which are really not prizes. If there's any "Chinese virus", he's it.
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 06:58 AM

Trump is no Chinese Virus.

Trump is a full blown stage 5 cancer on this country.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
The president is questioning whether stay-at-home orders have gone too far. But relaxing them could significantly increase the death toll from the coronavirus, health officials warn.

You'd think that someone in the White House would look at the numbers on a global basis. The U.S. Has more than 10% of the worldwide cases even though the U.S. has under 5% of the world population. And the number of infected in the U.S. has been reached very fast.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
You'd think that someone in the White House would look at the numbers on a global basis. The U.S. Has more than 10% of the worldwide cases even though the U.S. has under 5% of the world population. And the number of infected in the U.S. has been reached very fast.

All of WH advisors (except Dr Fauci) must toe the shmuck in chief's line otherwise they're shown the door (if history is any clue). So don't wait for rational or otherwise intelligent responses. They're gonna make Italy's situation look like kindergarten.

At least north of the 49th we've got a better handle on things, both nationally and provincially. And remember we wrote the book on pandemic management with SARS and H1N1. We ain't doing too badly.

It's all quite simple: Go home and stay home. (Courtesy the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau. His dad would've been more dramatic in his admonition.)

If you don't, do not pass go and go directly to jail. (Essentially Boris Johnson's edict.)
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 09:59 AM

If you listened carefully to what the Bloviator in Chief said in yesterday's press conference it is his position the financial health of corporations is more important than human lives. (I am confident that does not include members of Mara Lago or his family however.)
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 10:57 AM

He refuses to accept that the potential for loss of life is reality and not a figment of the imagination of some scientist whose expertise doesn't come close to matching his own. (You can't have missed the expression of complete boredom on his face while Dr. Fauci was debunking his claims.)

He thinks the few thousand lives that may be lost will be more than compensated for by a strong stock market.

He is obscenely stupidly one-dimensional!

More: Not that I wasn't a huge fan of death pre-COVID 19, but I certainly hope he doesn't luck into being right! frown
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 11:54 AM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
If you listened carefully to what the Bloviator in Chief said in yesterday's press conference it is his position the financial health of corporations is more important than human lives. (I am confident that does not include members of Mara Lago or his family however.)

I am certain you are right. I'd go so far as to suggest that his inner thought is: "I'm the President of the United States so, even if I or my family catch this thing, we'll be fine. A team of doctors will be assigned to make sure."

Not to put too fine a point on it, Trump doesn't give a crap about anyone else.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 11:58 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
He refuses to accept that the potential for loss of life is reality and not a figment of the imagination of some scientist whose expertise doesn't come close to matching his own.

I assume you saw the press conference where he refuted the scientists and doctors cautions, and substituted his own opinion with: "I think I must have a natural ability for this stuff."

Natural ability, indeed. Unfortunately when Trump quacks, some people listen, then die.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 04:08 PM

Hmmmm???? Would it be possible for someone who takes Trump's advice and get sick with COVID-19 be able to sue for malpractice. Or maybe the various state's attorneys general could bring suit against him for practicing medicine without a license?
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Or maybe the various state's attorneys general could bring suit against him for practicing medicine without a license?

Interesting idea. Taking it a step further, I wonder if there's lawsuit potential for practicing presidency without competence.
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/24/20 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: ryck
Interesting idea. Taking it a step further, I wonder if there's lawsuit potential for practicing presidency without competence.

I think the intent was for the voters to take care of that. But as a former Republican I feel that Trump is elected proof of the ancient salesman's adage, "There is a sucker born every minute." Hopefully this year enough suckers will have wised up and we can throw the bum and his sycophants out of office. Hopefully some of them will land in various state and federal long term residence facilities where they belong. Rumor is the New York AG has a nice income tax fraud case prepared to welcome Trump home to Trump Tower.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 04:28 AM

Trump's brain might be best described as a latter-day incarnation of "The Emperor's New Clothes" which only his sycophantic acolytes can see; however, there's significant doubt that he can himself.

The current pandemic might just be what's going to unmask the fraud, especially if the shmuck in chief continues down the road he's on and particularly if he lifts emergency measures by Easter (which will result in killing thousands).

Of course, the wonder chimp's prediction that "lockdown will lead to 'thousands' of suicides" is among his other proclamations just so much more gaseous bloviation with which he could have filled the Hindenburg, if it hadn't already burned and crashed. It'd be way too much to hope that he would fall on his own sword in the circumstance.

Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 05:46 AM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Rumor is the New York AG has a nice income tax fraud case prepared to welcome Trump home to Trump Tower.

It is a day I look forward to with great anticipation. I expect there will be a lot of other charges from an investigation into things he has done to enhance his (and his family's) finances while president, as well as many non-financial misdeeds.

He should stop pardoning so many of his cronies, or he won't have anyone to talk to in prison.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 12:17 PM

The Final Hoax
Posted by: joemikeb

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 01:02 PM

Well just to put icing on the cake this just in from the Union of Concerned Scientists
Quote:
the Trump administration has chosen this moment to release its long-planned proposal for the restricted science rule. This rule would allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exclude or give less attention to countless critical scientific studies during its decisionmaking processes.
I am reminded of Mao Tse Tsung's regime in China when the only requirement for practicing medicine up to an including brain surgery was having read Chairman Mao's Red Book and anyone who had an education was sent to Re-education Camps to learn how to farm and tend pigs and chickens. Give the Bloviator-in-chief another term and that could be the United States although without the book because the Bloviator can't doesn't read.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: joemikeb
Give the Bloviator-in-chief another term and that could be the United States although without the book because the Bloviator can't doesn't read.

And, has no idea of history....hence he praises a tweet that has just plunged a satirical dagger into his chest. He writes: "Who knows what this means?" Well, Mr Bonespur....pretty much everybody knows.

Where I come from, we have an expression for people like Trump...thicker than two short planks.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/25/20 06:56 PM

And at this very moment, as we're laughing at him, he's crafting his next platform - "I fixed the economy once, and ONLY I can do it now, and if you ever want to see your 401K back where it was, vote for ME, ME, ME!!!" - and counting on people being blinded to the carnage he's caused and causing by the bright dollar signs he's going to flash in front of their eyes.

And, very sadly, many will be blinded. frown

The possibility of his turning the perceived vehicle of his downfall into the vehicle of his reelection is terrifying!
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 01:12 AM

One can only hope that Humpty Trumpty can't be put together again after he's fallen.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 05:52 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
And at this very moment, as we're laughing at him, he's crafting his next platform - "I fixed the economy once, and ONLY I can do it now, and if you ever want to see your 401K back where it was, vote for ME, ME, ME!!!" - and counting on people being blinded to the carnage he's caused and causing by the bright dollar signs he's going to flash in front of their eyes.

I don't doubt that for a moment. However, I believe there will be an opposing wild card - the information that Bloomberg has gathered and will make public in a scorched earth campaign against Trump and his entire family. It’s clear that Bloomberg hates Trump and that he has the information, the resources, and the motivation to bring Trump down.

I also believe Trump will crack under the strain and that we’re in for some interesting viewing.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 07:47 AM

America's shmuck in chief apparently wants to have US troops all along the US-Canada border.
Does he think that any Canadian in their right mind would want to head to the States under the current circumstances?!
It would seem that the effete gomers aka Morons Я Us™ in Trumpington* are working overtime to disguise their ineptitude.
(* No, not the village on the outskirts of Cambridge, England)

And even with all that's been going on and Humpty Trumpty's wholly incompetent and irrational attitude and behavior towards same, that apparently has garnered him a 49% approval rating in the States (5 points higher than when last measured).
It's not coronavirus that Americans have to worry about, it's whatever is causing mass dementia.

Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!
(Courtesy of "Monty Python's Life of Brian")
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: ryck
...I believe there will be an opposing wild card - the information that Bloomberg has gathered and will make public in a scorched earth campaign against Trump and his entire family. It’s clear that Bloomberg hates Trump and that he has the information, the resources, and the motivation to bring Trump down.

I wonder if that would "trump" Trump's promise of economic prosperity?

There's a whole lot of VERY irrational thinking going on out there! frown

Originally Posted By: ryck
I also believe Trump will crack under the strain and that we’re in for some interesting viewing.

I think that's not only a possibility, but that a good debater may be able to get him to crack on national TV.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: grelber
America's shmuck in chief apparently wants to have US troops all along the US-Canada border. Does he think that any Canadian who is mentally competent would want to head to the States?!

That kind of decision is to be expected not only because of Trump's peculiar rationales but also because he has surrounded himself with similar wackos.

Example: The foreign ministers of the G20 met to discuss COVID but were unable to release a statement because Pompeo insisted that the document only refer to the disease as either the Wuhan Virus or the China Virus. Great....focus on demonizing instead of your citizens' health. Totally wacko.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/26/20 09:15 AM

Job Vacancies and Inexperience Mar Federal Response to Coronavirus When the fish stinks, it starts at the head.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/27/20 12:35 AM

I think the Times and other media ought to start simultaneously publishing stuff such as your linked doc in comic book form for consumption by the deplorables.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/27/20 03:15 AM

Hardcore Trump supporters can be accurately portrayed as a cult. The same type of unquestioning fanaticism is in evidence. In fact, cult members ignore evidence, of which there is an abundance. Trump doesn't even try to hide it.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/27/20 07:03 AM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
When the fish stinks, it starts at the head.

For sure.... In this case, the giant orange head is demonstrating it with his insistence, against the advice of medical experts, that American businesses open up again. Clearly that idea is self-serving. Social distancing means he has to shut down his businesses but he wants them to stay open, no matter how many people die as a result.

Doesn't get much stinkier than that.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/27/20 12:45 PM

Originally Posted By: jchuzi
Hardcore Trump supporters can be accurately portrayed as a cult. The same type of unquestioning fanaticism is in evidence. In fact, cult members ignore evidence, of which there is an abundance. Trump doesn't even try to hide it.

Can't argue with that, but I doubt that all of them would be happy to drink COV-aID for him if they realized that he was selling them down the river to benefit the rich.

Sure there's a bottom layer that's dumber than stones and would follow him to their deaths, but I'm sure there's also a higher, smarter layer - the one just below the "Never Trumpers" - that's vulnerable to the right "reprogramming" effort.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/28/20 03:46 AM

Seattle Is Living Your Coronavirus Future

Among other things ...
President Trump’s talk of opening the United States for business by Easter is greeted in this precinct of sanity as the heartless bluster of a career con man. The public radio station in Seattle, KUOW, has stopped airing Trump’s live briefings because the volume of misinformation he puts out cannot be corrected in real time.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/29/20 12:00 AM

More disgusting crap out of the far right:

Medical Expert Who Corrects Trump Is Now a Target of the Far Right

Dr Anthony Fauci, the administration’s most outspoken advocate of emergency virus measures, faces a torrent of false claims that he is mobilizing to undermine the president.
Posted by: alternaut

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/29/20 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: artie505
Can't argue with that, but I doubt that all of them would be happy to drink COV-aID for him if they realized that he was selling them down the river to benefit the rich.

That's why he'd fall back on COVfefe, instead of calling it COV-aiD... blush grin
He'd say that proves he 'knew it' all along.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/29/20 03:44 PM

It'd be the ultimate COVfefe Klatch. tongue
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 03/31/20 12:55 AM

This Land of Denial and Death

COVID-19 and the dark side of American exceptionalism.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/03/20 12:02 PM

Touting Virus Cure, ‘Simple Country Doctor’ Becomes a Right-Wing Star

How Dr Vladimir Zelenko's claims for his coronavirus treatment spread from a New York village all the way to President Trump.

As much as it would be tremendous to find a real treatment for COVID-19, let us hope that Zelenko's coronavirus "cure" winds up decimating Trumpty Dumpty's base who take the "cure" as gospel. Every little bit helps in casting out the White House demons.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/03/20 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: grelber
.....Dr Vladimir Zelenko's claims for his coronavirus treatment spread from a New York village all the way to President Trump.

Of course President Bonespur jumped in....the miracle cure was promoted by Sean Hannity over at that bastion of well-thought-out reporting, Fox News. And that other great American thinker, Rudy Giuliani, praised Zelenko for “thinking of solutions, just like the president.”

Interesting that the doctor with the miracle cure could only be reached by phone because he's in self-isolation. Tilt.
Posted by: jchuzi

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/04/20 02:59 AM

Snake oil is starting to look good.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/07/20 11:14 AM

Earlier in the United States inadequate response to the COVID pandemic, President Bonespur said: "I don't take responsibility at all." In The Atlantic, David Frum presents considerable evidence that it is all Trump's fault.
Posted by: ryck

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/07/20 12:24 PM

A few days ago the Obese Orange One ordered 3M to stop shipping medical masks to Canada and Latin America. Today, Secretary of State Mike PompousOne walked it back with a statement about "....because we are a good and generous people".

Right, Mike....it had nothing to do with:

* the fact that you can't make the masks without a special pulp that you get from Canada

* the fact that 1,600 Canadian Nurses cross the border at Windsor every day to work in Detroit hospitals

* the fact that Canada manufactures rubber gloves and test kits shipped into the U.S. daily

* the fact that, if Canada pulled the plug on the above, President Bonespur have to eat a giant portion of crow

Someone needs to sit Trump down and explain that Free Trade is a two-way street.
Posted by: grelber

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/20 07:30 AM

Experts Recommend Disinfecting Television After Trump Has Been On

Do it! Do it now! Do it often!
Posted by: MacManiac

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/20 07:45 AM

On a more germane note:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intellig...ory?id=70031273

THIS is what the reality holds for our current administration......FWIW, I don't even watch TV, so the preceding post holds NO value to me.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/20 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: MacManiac
FWIW, I don't even watch TV....

Nor do I, but I always appreciate good humor, and even moreso during these dark days. (Whether the linked article is good humor is an altogether different issue.)

On a different note: Morbid curiosity keeps me following the links posted in this thread, but what really gets to me is the list of endlessly interesting links on the linked pages, ad infinitum, and two hours later I somehow find myself reading about Kim Kardashian.

My solution to the problem, which took me waaay too long to think of, is to use Roadblock for Mac's "Block and Hide Visually" functionality to hide those links. (Aside from its marvelous ability to hide any HTML element on a web page, Roadblock is also a good content blocker.)
Posted by: Douglas

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/20 09:55 AM

You cannot explain anything to a moron as their IQ is not sufficient for that type of reasoning.
Posted by: artie505

Re: The thread formerly known as: Maybe 45 ... - 04/08/20 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Douglas
You cannot explain anything to a moron as their IQ is not sufficient for that type of reasoning.

And beyond that, the stupider they are, the smarter they think they are.