May 14, 2016

The NYT does 50+ interviews with women who've worked with Donald Trump — in real estate, modeling and pageants — and who've dated or socialized with him...

... and the NYT finds "unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct, according to the interviews, as well as court records and written recollections."
What emerges from the interviews is a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization. Some women found him gracious and encouraging. He promoted several to the loftiest heights of his company, a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time.
He simultaneously nurtured women’s careers and mocked their physical appearance. “You like your candy,” he told an overweight female executive who oversaw the construction of his headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next. 
"You like your candy" is the best quote they have for the proposition that Trump "mocked" women's personal appearance. Is that even mocking (as opposed to a gentle, indirect observation of weight gain)?

I read the whole article and think that, for all the slanting, what it shows is a dearth of bad material. The article begins with the story of him offering a bathing suit to a woman — a model — who arrived at a pool party without a bathing suit. When she put the bathing suit on, he said "wow." Would he have been mocking her if he'd failed to say "wow"?

There's a fair amount of material about how involved he got in the pageants. One participant wrote: "Donald Trump walked out with his entourage and inspected us closer than any general ever inspected a platoon." That doesn't sound leering and sexist, but like the business that it is. That pageant participant is Carrie Prejean, and the Times says nothing to prompt us to remember how the liberal press excoriated this young woman back in 2009 for her answer to a pageant question about same-sex marriage. (Using the awkward term "opposite marriage," she said she was raised to think that marriage was between a man and a woman.) Here's a contemporaneous report at ABC News:
On television, there could be heard the sound of boos, drowned out somewhat by applause. [Perez] Hilton has been blogging about what he called the "worst answer in pageant history" since the show ended.

In a video blog posted Sunday night, he called Prejean "a dumb b----." He later apologized in the blog, offering to take Prejean out for coffee and a "talk."... He also believes her answer cost her the contest because, to his knowledge, no Miss USA contestant has ever been booed during the question-and-answer portion of the show.
But she's useful to the other side now, so I guess we're supposed to have forgotten that. Anyway, pageants are not interesting to everyone, but much of America likes them, and if we're going to have them, we've got to admit that they involve inspecting young women's bodies and getting very judgmental and comparative about it. If that's beyond the pale of social acceptability, why is it still on television?

And quite aside from pageants, is the love for the beauty of the human body something serious people are expected to rise above? Obviously not. Seeing and enjoying seeing other human beings is central to our lives. The force of beauty can lead a man to do wrong, but we should identify exactly what is wrong — rudeness, selfishness, job discrimination — and we should take care not to yield to the force of the ugliness that is envy and contempt.

168 comments:

jr565 said...

So did trump ever walk into a room and unzip his pants and out his penis on the table like Bill dlinton did with Paula Jones?
Did he RAPE people like Kathleen Wiley alleges Clinton did? Does the media really want to go there?

Jake said...

"He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next. "

So... Normal?

Scott said...

It's too bad the New York Times didn't apply its rigorous pseudo social science methodologies to 50+ women who worked with Bill Clinton prior to his nomination.

BDNYC said...

If only women knew how men spoke to each other. We are brutal, especially about appearance. We treat women differently because if we treated them the same we would be disciplined, fired, sued, etc.

David said...

This is part of a long series still in development. Get used to it.

Roughcoat said...

What's the big deal? Seriously. Women complaining about a man who just wasn't that into them. Sour grapes, and all that. Anti-Trumpers who are going after him by showing how he's behaved with the women in his life are barking up the wrong tree. As issues go, it's a non-starter. Bill Clinton saw to that.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, it's the Times, for Pete's sake. Don't you realize by now that facts matter little -- innuendo matters a lot? Sheesh. I'm almost seventy and I'm still learning every day. You're younger, you're surrounded by bright young minds, and yet you continue to think that the Times of the 21st century is like the Times of decades ago.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next. "

Well, he's a guy....so.....

Limited blogger said...

Good, this diverts 50+ reporters from doing slavish puff pieces about Obama. Remember Obama?

ndspinelli said...

"You like your cheese curds."

Mike Sylwester said...

In this regard, how does Donald Trump compare with Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Teddy Kennedy?

ndspinelli said...

This is the MSM/Clinton cabal's response to Trump's hitting Bubba. The LEAD story on NBC News[I know, my bride watches it] was the Trump imitating a publicist 25 years ago. If this is all they are getting, they got jack dog shit.

ndspinelli said...

Mike Sylvester, Maybe on of Trump's chauffeurs left a woman to drown?

tim maguire said...

Everything is open to inerpretation, and when a liberal publication writes about a Republican politician, everything will be interpreted in the worst plausible way. If Donald Trump were instead the Democratic nominee...well, they wouldn't have interviewed any women from hs past, let alone 50. But for the sake of argument let's say they did. In that case, you can bet your sweet bippy that same set of facts would have been used to portray Trump as someone interested in women's equality, who could take risks to see them succeed without failing to appreciate them as full sensuous human beings.

Robin Shea said...

Thank you, Professor. My reaction to this article was exactly like yours. I'm not a Trump fan, but the NYT was straining. Sad! Robin

Unknown said...

So Trump is Bill Clinton. When is the NYT endorsement?

traditionalguy said...

What, no sex tape? With those sheer numbers of women marketing themselves among the rich and famous in Manhattan, how can no one have made a sex tape. They are the usual PR move for over the hill performer's careers. And models must love to be photographed.

Trump must be camera shy.



madAsHell said...

Why should I believe they actually found 50 people claiming they were acquainted with Trump?

Michael K said...

Some of us appreciate you reading the NY Times so we don't have to wish we had. There is no way I will read it. I only read the LA Times sports page in football season.

Ambrose said...

I love when they do an in depth research and find that the results - wait for it - confirm exactly their initial opinion.

Big Mike said...

@Mike Sylwester, neither Donald Trump nor John Kennedy are known to have sexually assaulted any woman against her will. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy on the other hand ...

n.n said...

A naturally conservative male who is insufficiently social liberal. The abortion zone.

Phil 3:14 said...

Carla Fiorina still had the best response:

"I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,"

I love the Trumpkin response "Yeah, but Clinton was so much worse"

Is that what this election will be:

Would you like a Shit Sandwich or a McDouble Shit Sandwich?

Phil 3:14 said...

And the Republican establishment asks

"Does the McDouble Shit Sandwich come with fries?"

buwaya puti said...

In progressive circles, love of the human body does seem to be something enlightened people are expected to rise above.
I don't know how it goes in your law school, but this seems ubiquitous elsewhere.
It seems to lie at the core of feminist thought. Something about the male gaze and objectification and social construction and all that.

Tank said...

The desperate search for something ... anything ...

Sebastian said...

I appreciate the fisking and all, but it seems "you continue to think that the Times of the 21st century is like the Times of decades ago." As if they would try to report news and just happened to distort Trump's record. As if they are honest and just sadly, unfortunately made a mistake, easily remedied by some gentle heartland chiding from Madison, WI. No. They are tools. This is who they are. This is what they do. Anything and everything for the one single cause.

Mark said...

Now there is a great campaign slogan for you -- "At least he's not a rapist."

The fact is - before the summer of 2015, if you were to look at what Trump said and did and how he acted, you would think he was a Clintonian Democrat. And now his supporters are acting just like Clintonistas.

Look, you are in a tough spot now. It has got to be tough to look in the mirror without getting that sick feeling. Having long tossed aside your self-respect to support this obnoxious third-world dictator clown who deep down is still a Democrat with prentensions of being Hugo Chavez, you either have to muster the courage to admit to yourself - and hence to your everlasting shame - that you actually did voluntarily support him, or you need to accelerate your sycophancy even more in order to avoid that everlasting shame.

David Begley said...

This is only the first of many stories. Many people will be offended. Cumulatively it will be a problem for Trump.

Mark said...

Phil --

This is the third time around, so it is not a question of a single or McDouble. And after forcing themselves to eat those prior offerings, most have no appetite for a McTriple. They will simply go without.

But we should be clear that what is left on the menu will not be the cause of utter societal collapse, but is instead a symptom of it already well underway.

shiloh said...

Trump really isn't a Republican or a conservative so there's no need/reason for Althouse or her majority con followers to try to apologize/rationalize all of Trump's shortcomings.

ok, go ahead anyway as I'd be disappointed otherwise.

damikesc said...

Odd...they don't seem interested in interviewing people not in Hillary's immediate circle of associates. Wonder why. Seems inconsistent.

tim in vermont said...

Said the Clinton shill.

Amadeus 48 said...

Trump, baby. Living the dream.
I don't find anything here surprising. The remarkable thing about low expectations is how they normalize everything. I guess it is a version of beer goggles.
I must confess that it hasn't worked with Obama. He still looks like an over-promoted putz to me. I think it's the self-confidence coupled with an almost preternatural determination to remain uninformed by reality that singles Obama out.

tim in vermont said...

These are our choices Mark, we have to decide which is worse. Not sure why you think such a discussion is out of bounds.

Fernandinande said...

I like the picture of Ms. Brewer Lane with her tits ready to pop out; it reminds me, somehow, that the NYT's major stockholder is a corrupt Mexican.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats had a clear choice to keep this out of the gutter, but the billionaires chose Hillary and just enough of you fell in line.

AprilApple said...

The pro-Corrupt Clinton NYT hard at work.

iowan2 said...

Lots of comments about the treatment as compared to Clinton. But what about Obama? After 8 years, his history is still off limits to examination. The best we get is an autobiography that he admits is fiction. The media hypocrisy is glaring, and proves the media is willing to lie to steal elections.

buwaya puti said...

Of course they are tools (the NYT).

Carlos Slim isn't just some tycoon; he is a kleptocrat on a massive scale. This is one genuine case of " behind a great fortune there is a great crime". Slims business is entirely about manipulating government policy to enrich himself.
This is not controversial; we are talking about things documented in market reports and industry surveys showing abive-market pricing due to effective monopoly conditions, enforced by policy.

Slim has interests in cross-border business, such as for instance remittances to Mexico, from which he extracts a tax, effectively, besides normal phone and data service.

EDH said...

The article begins with the story of him offering a bathing suit to a woman — a model — who arrived at a pool party without a bathing suit. When she put the bathing suit on, he said "wow."

It's not like he said, "Va-va-va Voom!"

Gahrie said...

"unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary on the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women, and unsettling workplace conduct, according to the interviews, as well as court records and written recollections."

Were they talking about Bill Clinton...or Trump?

I thought none of this stuff mattered anymore?

Does the NY Times actually think this type of story will hurt Trump worse than Clinton?

Phil 3:14 said...

Mark said

"This is the third time around, so it is not a question of a single or McDouble. And after forcing themselves to eat those prior offerings, most have no appetite for a McTriple. They will simply go without.

But we should be clear that what is left on the menu will not be the cause of utter societal collapse, but is instead a symptom of it already well underway."

I'm certainly passing on the McTriple but I'm not clear on your second point. Could you more clear and less apocalyptic?

iowan2 said...

Trump is leading the news cycle, (still), with forced media silence on the Crime family that is the Clintons. Now in its 2cnd generation with Mezvinsky, losing 90% of clients invesments betting on the Greek economy. Clinton foundation funneling money to their personal friends, who (surprise) also were rewarded govt grants, for energy scams that went bust and the Clinton's in the pocket of wealthy Arab nations to the tune of $100's of millions.

They NYT gives us Trump acting like every other male on the planet, and desperately attempting to spin normal behavior into something it isnt.

n.n said...

Decades old reporting of a nuanced (i.e. tempered) natural orientation. They jumped the ass while normalizing trans spectrum disorders (e.g. gender, social, human) and are forced to walk back to regain some credibility as a tabloid publication.

buwaya puti said...

We are in apocalyptic times.
The condemned is on his last walk to the noose.
At some point he struggles, delaying, he hopes, the inevitable. That's the Trump phenomenon, that struggle.
But the hangman will win.

Gahrie said...

Having long tossed aside your self-respect to support this obnoxious third-world dictator clown who deep down is still a Democrat with prentensions of being Hugo Chavez

Let me guess..you think we should have gone down in flames with Jeb.......

Gahrie said...

Trump really isn't a Republican or a conservative

True. But normally that would make the GOP Establishment love him and want to cut a deal with him.

so there's no need/reason for Althouse or her majority con followers to try to apologize/rationalize all of Trump's shortcomings

Conservatives oppose Trump. It is the only thing that the GOP Establishment has in common with Conservatives.

Trump supporters are the pissed off Republican base who refuse to be placated and taken for granted/advantage of like the Democratic base. That is really what has the Establishment pissed.

Mark said...

Let me guess..you think we should have gone down in flames with Jeb

No. But I notice that instead of a denial, you responded with a non-denial attempt at deflection.

tim in vermont said...

Mark knows a deflection when he sees one too! What was that irony mark again?

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul said...

Mark, who was your first choice in the Republican field of candidates?

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark said...

We are in apocalyptic times.
The condemned is on his last walk to the noose.
At some point he struggles, delaying, he hopes, the inevitable.


That struggle would indicate some degree of awareness, rather than the delusional state that most people are in. And that is what is so devastating -- in the past you could count on most people to be firmly grounded in reality and now, not so much. We have passed the tipping point where most live in fantasy land.

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

How prescient those words. Well, the building is complete now. The relativism that was pervasive previously is now entering into dictatorship. Truth is no longer something that objectively is, but is instead a tool of power. Slavery to error is the new freedom. What was always wrong is now right. And all too many people look at the stark naked emperor and marvel at his wonderful clothes.

And through this New Dark Age, the people are not struggling on their way to the noose, they are eagerly dancing their way into the abyss, laughing at the light they leave behind them.

Gahrie said...

No. But I notice that instead of a denial, you responded with a non-denial attempt at deflection

You haven't been paying attention. I compare Trump to Hitler and take major shit for it.

Everybody is mad at me...the Dems hate me because I rag on Hillary and Bernie. The Trump supporters hate me because I compare his rise to Hitler. The Republican Establishment hates me because I call them out for their shit.

The thing I hate most about the Establishment? The fact that for thirty years they demanded party loyalty as they nominated Establishment types, but the base rebels once, and suddenly Party loyalty means nothing.

buwaya puti said...

Mark, you don't understand who the hangman is, nor the nature of the noose. Nor, I think, do you understand the condemned, nor his struggle.
Not that it matters all that much.

Mark said...

Mark really isn't the issue. And anyone who thinks so is missing the point entirely.

But if you really must know, if it will help you in your own personal life to know the political philosophy of some utter stranger -- I am what is most accurately termed as a classical liberal.

Now, of course, there will be more than a few ignorant buffoons out there who will misinterpret that and twist it into meaning the exact opposite of what it means.

buwaya puti said...

To add analogies to analogies, some people think the condemned should struggle with due attention to the rules of the boxing ring. While he is bound and walking to his execution.

Paul said...

" Truth is no longer something that objectively is, but is instead a tool of power."

This is new? You are describing postmodern philosophy and its practical application, political correctness. If you haven't noticed Trump is at the forefront in the battle against PC and whose blue collar style and "vulgarity" are about as far from postmodernism as you can get.

Michael K said...

Trump supporters are the pissed off Republican base who refuse to be placated and taken for granted/advantage of like the Democratic base. That is really what has the Establishment pissed.

Yup. The drones are fine with Hillary because of her "experience," which includes the foreign policy disasters that Rhodes is bragging about.

Hari said...

"[A] shrewd reliance on ambitious women" = “You’re gonna make the same if you do as good a job.”
"He promoted several to the loftiest heights of his company, a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time."

tim in vermont said...

Sorry Mark but that philosophy lost in 2016, you can live with a lockstep 5 -4 majority appointed by Hillary? I will go with the pig in a poke as the only straw to grasp at.

AReasonableMan said...

The beauty pageants are truly tacky. Whether they are worse than professional wrestling could be debated, but they don't shine a very flattering light on the Donald.

Real American said...

on the other hand, Bill Clinton. The left's arguments are invalid.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"Drag a billion dollar bill through the Upper East Side, you never know what you'll find." -- Iowahawk

Comanche Voter said...

Geez Louise. A reliance on ambitious women? If you are a CEO or leader of any business, you want ambitious hard working people. And it doesn't matter where they fit on the male/female/LGBTQQ scale. I'm not saying that good people of any gender are hard to find=--because that's not absolutely true. I do say that smart leaders find people best suited for the slots that they have to fill.

If that's the best the NYT can do, it says they have a newsroom full of not very bright drones.

Gusty Winds said...

When Miss USA 2006, Tara Conner, got caught drinking underage and tested positive for other substances, Trump gave her a second chance and allowed her to keep her title as log as she was willing to go to treatment.

From Wikipedia, "On The Oprah Winfrey Show, Donald Trump said that he gave a second chance to Conner for personal reasons. His brother Fred died from alcoholism and Trump said, "I believe in second chances, and sometimes it works when you give somebody a second chance."

So rather than hop on the publicly shaming media bandwagon, Trump helped her. What an asshole.

Mark said...

This guy gets it, at least -

A Melancholy Calculation, by David Solway

Perhaps the most evident sign of civilizational devolution is the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge reality, to come to terms with things as they are . . . when thought and action come to be governed by the anarchic principle that what is, is not and what is not, is, a process of social, political and epistemological disintegration invariably sets in. This is the condition in which the West finds itself today. . . . Examples abound of the ubiquitous tendency to replace ontology with myth, the determinate with the fluid and the objective with the delusionary. . . . When a civilization, or its cultural and intellectual curators who wield the instruments of power and authority, re-interprets reality as merely discretionary, decline and eventual extinction are guaranteed, and the Angel of History will preside over the ruins. When pretending becomes believing, and believing becomes mandatory, and calling out the naked emperor is punishable by law or fine or ostracism or loss of employment or worse, and when the scale of such abuses becomes effectively global, the “lifeworld,” or communal nature of daily life, as we have known it has ceased to exist. . . .

tim in vermont said...

Lolita Express vs tacky beauty contests. That's our choice.

tim in vermont said...

Tacky is a class judgment.

Gahrie said...

Mark:

It is the establishment that has been dressing the emperor for the last thirty years and telling the Republican base to just go along with it and pretend he's wearing clothes, and next election we'll tell him.

We got tired of waiting.

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
Tacky is a class judgment.


I don't like opera either.

JaimeRoberto said...

A female colleague has commented on my love of chocolate. I'm so oppressed.

buwaya puti said...

I love Opera.
Check YouTube for the bit of Elina Garanca doing the "Boheme" from "Carmen".
That's a Diva doing her thing as only a Diva can.
That's Opera.

Paul said...

I'd suggest both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would be more susceptible to PC than Trump so Mark's concerns are I'll founded, though I noticed he didn't man up and declare his preferred candidate.These NeverTrump lunatics never do.

eric said...

We have entered the phase of the campaign where the media throws everything against the wall to see what will stick.

We are going to see a lot of lame stories about Trump.

Next they are going to tell us his Butler is racist.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
Check YouTube for the bit of Elina Garanca doing the "Boheme" from "Carmen".


Gag me, although she might do well in one of the Donald's pageants.


exhelodrvr1 said...

"A reliance on ambitious women?"

Shouldn't that be a good thing? Oh, right. He's the Republican nominee.

tim in vermont said...

If you don't like opera, you are just refining your position.

Gusty Winds said...

So Bill took 20 plus flights on the Lolita Express, a few leaving his secret service detail behind, and we're supposed to believe that Hillary didn't know what he was doing on those trips?

There are some pretty iconic planes where men have traveled with beautiful women. Elvis' "Lisa Marie". Hefner's black playboy jet with the buddy on the tail. Trump's navy blue plane with his name on the side is getting up there.

And after having the privilege of using Air Force 1 for eight years, Bill Clinton rides the Lolita Express. Even JFK would be ashamed of him.

Virgil Hilts said...

Gee, its amazing that we don't see more good people running for public office. This kind of A-Hill tactic from the left has even made it into local politics. We had a Rep candidate for City C. and the Dems paid a woman he dated some 12-15 years back to say he was kind of obnoxious and then put a full color brochure with the woman's photo in every single mailbox in the district.
Its a pretty clever tactic for the left -- who the f would want to run for public office given this BS. So you end up with squeaky clean, boring people like Romney or an a-hole like trump who just doesn't give a crap what people think.
A lot of us hate Trump but will hold our nose and vote for him just to say FU to the NY Times and these tactics.

buwaya puti said...

It's a family thing I guess. A great uncle once followed Maria Callas from city to city on a US tour, being at every single show. He lived for her "Norma". I never quite got that, but maybe one had to be there.

Achilles said...

@gahrie

Tramp's rise is less like Hitler and more like Danton. imo anyhow

Gahrie said...

Eh..both were demagogues taking advantage of an angry populace, who used violence for political ends.

R. Chatt said...

Imagine if Trump had a very attractive male personal assistant who was at his side constantly for the last twenty years, and everyone talked about how attractive his assistant is.

damikesc said...

The beauty pageants are truly tacky. Whether they are worse than professional wrestling could be debated, but they don't shine a very flattering light on the Donald.

His opponent and her husband are borderline obsessed with UFOs. I'll take WWF fans and beauty pageant contestants over UFO kooks.

So Bill took 20 plus flights on the Lolita Express, a few leaving his secret service detail behind, and we're supposed to believe that Hillary didn't know what he was doing on those trips?

Mind you, the "Rush Limbaugh is a pedophile" jokes are based on FAR LESS than this. And Progs are quite sure Rush diddles little boys.

Balfegor said...

Sort of following on the very first comment -- one of the dogs that is conspicuously not barking here is sexual assault. Am I wrong in inferring that -- unlike, say, Bill Clinton -- no one has come forward alleging she was sexually assaulted (or raped) by Donald Trump? If I've got that right, then for a serial fornicator and adulterer like Trump, that's honestly quite remarkable, and quite telling. Especially given how low the bar for "sexual assault" has now been set.

R. Chatt said...

There are all kinds of double standards. Did Trump get away with saying things or being aggressive with attractive women, which a poor slob wouldn't have? Yes. Did Obama get away with his dope habit and visits to Chicago bath houses? Yes. Does Hillary get away with a paid girlfriend/assistant. etc. Yes, because she had to deal with Bill. Whatever.

I agree with Ann, if this the worst they can find on Trump he's got no problem with women.

Achilles said...

Gahrie said...
"Eh..both were demagogues taking advantage of an angry populace, who used violence for political ends."

It was the nature of the elite they fought and the internal vs. external nature of the "enemy" that made up the difference. Both were populist nationalist uprisings against diddling ineffectual political classes.

Hitler's ire was primarily external(yes the jews were viewed as a foreign enemy) and the crippling results of WWI and massive inflation caused by reparations. He turned Germans outward toward France.

In France the populace was rising up against internal malefactors that were simultaneously enriching themselves and living large while sending all of the food to troops fighting foreign wars and the people of Paris starved.

I see far more in common with Danton than I see with Hitler. Also note that Danton started going easy on the Bourgeois and joined them. I am more and more optimistic about Trump every time I hear him crush Stephanopolous in an interview. When he said "I pay as little tax as possible because they just take the money and flush it down the toilet" I was sold. But I also know he could end up going to the dark side.

whitney said...

I have noticed the dearth also. As much as they are digging, they are finding very little

TCom said...

Shut up with the "using violence" nonsense, Gathrie. We all know who is paying and sending the violent protestors. We know who is jumping on cop cars. We all know who is using violence here.

Trump is perfectly right to call it out. He's REACTING to it. Not causing it.

shiloh said...

"Next they are going to tell us his Butler is racist."

Racist aside, he's pathological much like his former/present boss. Republicans were looking for someone to lead them out of the desert.

They're still looking.

>

And yes, Reps do well in low turnout mid-term elections, but the big kahuna er prize remains elusive. Enacting laws that disenfranchise minority voters notwithstanding.

Indeed, Reince Priebus outreach program to minority voters is running like a well oiled machine ...

Keep hope alive!

MayBee said...

Obama, who exercises six days a week and has offered not-too-fit staffers salads and suggestions to see a trainer, has a smoking habit has always been something of head-scratcher.


Remember this?

cubanbob said...

The more this goes on the more I'm inclined to vote for Trumpy. I don't care anymore that he is nothing more than an old school Democrat, there are no actual conservatives on the ballot anymore. What I do care is that Trump is just the guy to give payback to the far left-the PC cancer that is infesting this country. He is the big FU candidate and that is reason enough for me. He's 74, by any previous candidates comparison spectacularly wealthy and is married to a youngish gorgeous wife. For him this all for ego and therefore one term will be enough for him. And one term is all that is needed to start the cultural pushback in a serious manner.

shiloh said...

Trump's 69, Sanders is 74 ~ carry on ...

Mark said...

See -- it's not that Trump is Hitler. It is that much of America has become Weimar Germany.

Owen said...

These are just ranging shots. Battlespace prep will occur over the coming months. Expect massed fires by large-calibre tubes and multiple rocket systems, sustained through October, with suicide missions in the final weeks, by women nobody ever heard of.

Trump's best defense is a good offense. Whenever the media ask him if he has been indecorous or chivalrous toward a woman --both being capital offenses-- he should wonder out loud what brand of cigar Bill Clinton favors.

Achilles said...

shiloh said...

"Racist aside, he's pathological much like his former/present boss. Republicans were looking for someone to lead them out of the desert.

They're still looking."

I don't think you know what pathological liar means. I think you just put a big word in front of liar to make it sound better or you are parroting what some other person on a lefty website who also didn't understand what pathological liar meant.

It is also rather humorous that a Hillary supporter calls Trump and his butler "pathological" liars. Hillary is associated with liar/dishonest 80% in the word association game in polls. Hillary is not compulsive so not pathological. She does it to achieve ends. She is a sociopathic liar.

David said...

AReasonableMan said...
The beauty pageants are truly tacky. Whether they are worse than professional wrestling could be debated, but they don't shine a very flattering light on the Donald.


Kind of Lower Middle Class, right ARM? Or whatever class you don't approve of. Your snobbism is showing. Don't worry. You have lots of company. It's one of the primary markers of the dislike Trump crowd.

Those who say that money determines class in the US are incorrect. With the money you have to assume a certain set of attitudes. Trump has assumed very few of them. N.O.C.D.

Phil 3:14 said...

These NeverTrump lunatics never do.

Yes, Paul you got us pegged.

JSF said...

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached by the NYT.

shiloh said...

Reading comprehension aside, didn't say pathological liar. Just called the Butler pathological, much like his boss.

being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal

Achilles said...

Mark said...
"See -- it's not that Trump is Hitler. It is that much of America has become Weimar Germany."

No no no. Pre-revolutionary France. Weimar Germany had external pressures causing the problems.

We are 1785 France. We just spent 8 years under Obama's Dirigism and we are flat out broke. We have wars all over the place that do nothing for the people of this country. You could call Bush Turgot although that would be giving Bush credit as Bush's primary domestic achievement was a cronytastic entitlement and a tax code that took 45% of the taxpayers OFF the taxpayer rolls.(Turgot pushed for essentially a flat tax to tax the nobility) Marie Antoinette and her daughters dance in $20,000 dollar dresses and tell our kids to eat spinach in schools.

If you read a basic timeline it is uncanny.

JSF said...

NOW has no comment on President Clinton and Jeffery Epstein.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use-in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton

Achilles said...

shiloh said...
"Reading comprehension aside, didn't say pathological liar. Just called the Butler pathological, much like his boss.

being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal"

So Trump is not a pathological liar, but his butler is, much like his boss?

Pathlogical lying is the habituation of lying. The lying has little purpose and there is little personal gain from it. They also tend to believe anything said to them is a lie.

How on god's green earth does that describe Trump?

Now a sociopathic liar is someone who lies incessantly to get their way and has little regard for the well being of others. A sociopathic liar would stand on the coffins of dead soldiers and tell their parents that their sons died because of a you tube video when they knew it was an organized terrorist attack.

Hillary is the definition of sociopathic liar.

AReasonableMan said...

David said...
Kind of Lower Middle Class ... Or whatever class you don't approve of


Bernie and Robert Cook would find all this class consciousness on Althouse very uplifting.

buwaya puti said...

Yep. Its 178x
I can hear the tumbrils now. They are out there.
And there are hordes of Madame Defarges recording every grievance in their knitting (that was Dickens only unfunny book)
I don't think anyone will like what they bring, or take away.
Sad that modern musical tastes are what they are.
We could use some of that French stuff.
Ca ira, ca ira
I wonder whom they will sing about.

Achilles said...

David said...

"Kind of Lower Middle Class, right ARM? Or whatever class you don't approve of. Your snobbism is showing. Don't worry. You have lots of company. It's one of the primary markers of the dislike Trump crowd."

I don't like beauty pageants. They are boring. I don't like NASCAR. It is boring. I don't like baseball. It is super boring. I like football. Not boring. MMA also not boring.

We have so much choice in entertainment now that most people are going to dislike most of it. It is just a function of the plethora of choices.

And you might ask ARM what he thinks of Trump before jumping to the conclusion he is a nevertrumper.


ALP said...

I read the whole article and think that, for all the slanting, what it shows is a dearth of bad material.
**********************

Key phrase "read the whole..."

Nobody reads anymore, not full articles. Many people will skim the title and draw their conclusions from that. People digest news in one sentence increments - titles only.

buwaya puti said...

Dansons la Carnagnole
Vive le son, vive le son
Dansons la Carnagnole
Vive le son du canon

virgil xenophon said...

I would remind shiloh of Chris Hitchens' work "No one left to lie to: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton" if he seeks the ultimate definition of a "sociopathic liar."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Another hacked up hatchet job of theirs that just won't work.

They simply don't get it. The stakes are this: Either a nationalistic blowhard who at least actually cares about America or an ambitious money-grubbing grifter who only cares about the fact of her own gender.

America will vote nationalism over gender identity politics and there isn't a fucking thing the DNC and NYT can do about it. Thank goodness for that.

Achilles said...

@R&B

I only know a few Bernie supporters and go on facebook little but I hear things but I am not sure how Warren actually plays. What are you guys going to actually do with the democrat party when they foist Hillary on the party? Is a Warren VP slot under Hillary enough to bring you all around? Is Warren as popular with you all as they say?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Trump really isn't a Republican or a conservative so there's no need/reason for Althouse or her majority con followers to try to apologize/rationalize all of Trump's shortcomings.

ok, go ahead anyway as I'd be disappointed otherwise.


It's so great that we have shiloh the DINO here to tell Republicans and conservatives what it is that they should want. It's not like they'd know without him!

He's an expert on that. He favors candidates who will give them what they want all the time. Not competently but accidentally.

The shiloh effect is to half-assedly give Republicans a little of what they want, while making sure that Democrats get less and less respect from all parties by refusing to figure out what it is that they actually stand for.

So, everyone's pissed, the country goes backwards or in circles and shiloh gets to keep playing out his sado-masochistic dysfunctional Virginia Wolf dream with the dysfunctional co-dependents who represent him best: Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans.

The Single-Ideology/No-Ideology Duopoly.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I only know a few Bernie supporters and go on facebook little but I hear things but I am not sure how Warren actually plays. What are you guys going to actually do with the democrat party when they foist Hillary on the party? Is a Warren VP slot under Hillary enough to bring you all around? Is Warren as popular with you all as they say?

Well, I hear stirrings on both accounts but honestly I think the Bernie-Hillary race has overshadowed that and upended the dynamics.

Bernie's supporters originated from a move to draft Elizabeth Warren to run... but the thing is that Bernie's done such a strong job during this primary that he's heightened expectations and changed the internal Democratic party dynamic.

At this point all I hear about is progressives saying that even Elizabeth Warren is too compromised, mainstream and weak - no matter how much the gender identity warriors want to promote this strange idea of how a two-female ticket is supposed to resolve anything.

At this point, Bernie's campaign has opened up voices that go way beyond Elizabeth Warren. If you want to hear from a true hero, an articulate and decent woman, an unabashed Bernie supporter all the way, and an asset to her country, watch Tulsi Gabbard's videos.

She's the one and her approach is the model. We just have to stop assuming any of these old geezers who've been in the game decades have it right. I suppose Bernie's the exception but he's unusually consistent and outspoken and that's a record that's too rare to expect from probably any of the rest of them. It's his particular gift, I guess you could say.

Anglelyne said...

David: Kind of Lower Middle Class, right ARM? Or whatever class you don't approve of. Your snobbism is showing. Don't worry. You have lots of company. It's one of the primary markers of the dislike Trump crowd.

ARM has been fair-minded and insightful in his comments about Trump. As for being a "snob" because one finds beauty pageants and professional wrestling "tacky", well, guess I'm a snob, too, if not feeling apologetic about one's personal distaste for certain things makes one a "snob".

You shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this makes one a member of the "dislike Trump" crowd in any meaningful political sense, though. If you asked me if beauty pageants, professional wrestling, and reality shows were "tacky or not tacky", tacky it would be. Not my cup of tea. Distasteful.

But I voted for Trump, and intend to vote for him in the general. Unlike a proper Trump disliker, I don't hate people who don't share my class and my tastes. As a matter of fact, I feel a strong sense of loyalty and obligation to a lot of those people, not in any patronizing sense, but because they're, you know, my countrymen. (The sniffy hustling vulgarians always on about Trump's vulgarity, on the other hand...)

Those who say that money determines class in the US are incorrect. With the money you have to assume a certain set of attitudes. Trump has assumed very few of them. N.O.C.D.

No, money doesn't determine class in the U.S., but the tragedy of trying to be a proper snob in the U.S. is that it's such a huge and varied place that one's radius of snob-satisfaction is highly-limited. Outside of it, nobody really gives a shit, if they care about you (or have even heard of you) at all. Part of the anguished butt-hurt now being expressed by our "elites" is an expression of the injured snobbery of mediocre people who have made, and are making, grandiose claims to the respect, and political deference, that they absolutely have not earned.

eric said...

Standing up for ARM here, even though he doesn't need it. I mean, who doesn't think it's tacky? It's probably supposed to be tacky.

But ARM has actually been quite reasonable so far in regards to Trump. I've found that surprising. Those who I've expected to be reasonable, like Chuck, have gone off the deep end. Every criticism of Trump is absolute moral authority of the idioicy of the Republican Primary voters.

Wake me when it's over.

Achilles said...

@R&B

That is what I thought. From what I gathered Warren uniting the democrat party as VP was a political class pipe dream.

They can't afford to nominate her to run with Hillary anyhow because if they do they lose black people. I can see Trump going right up in front of the NAACP and saying "Affirmative action was meant to help you, but this rich white woman with high cheek bones lied and used affirmative action to become a multimillionaire while the democrat party screwed you."

It is funny that people see any path forward with Hillary as the nominee unless...

What is your opinion of Sanders as VP other than he is almost 80 and they would still lose the black vote?

Michael K said...

"doing the "Boheme" from "Carmen". "

I dont; get that comment. I like both "Carmen and "La Boheme." What is "the Boheme from Carmen" ?

I'll be at the La Boheme performance at LA opera in June. It's been a long time since I've seen Carmen done.

I agree that ARM has been reasonable on Trump and I think his appeal is going to be much wider than anyone realizes right now.

I don't like him and can't really watch him speak but think he will flush the toilet on the present ruling class and that can't be anything but good. The country will do fine if he just closes the border and repeats all regulations since 2000.

The rest will take care of itself, even the debt,

Michael K said...

repeals, not repeats.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, the political classes can still run whomever accepts their support, even if their chances remain a pipe dream. They did run (and more importantly, believe in) Hillary Clinton, after all.

No one that I asked about a Clinton-Sanders ticket (or for that matter, a Sanders-Clinton ticket), believes that either one would accept. They are probably not aligned well enough at all to entertain that.

Hillary's too ambitious to be a VP and Bernie lacks the willingness to destroy his message and movement by tainting it with and subjugating it to an administration as corrupt and empty and regressive as Hilllary's would be.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
"Well, the political classes can still run whomever accepts their support, even if their chances remain a pipe dream. They did run (and more importantly, believe in) Hillary Clinton, after all."

The choice is Hillary/Booker or Trump/Scott(SC Senator or Florida Governor).

Are you all going green or voting for either of those 2 tickets? I know it wont be monolithic but there will be a trend. And do you think the Green party would draft Bernie to run for them?

rhhardin said...

Feminism Tweets

Special Report: Donald Trump has repeatedly unnerved women in private encounters over 40 years.

rhhardin said...

Over the same period, I've been encouraging to women.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Unless Bernie pulls off an upset or takes over at the floor of the convention I'd probably vote Green. The guy you mention running with Hillary is just as empty as she is -- just with less power. Pathetic and disgusting.

This is the battle that's being fought. Empty power slugs versus candidates with principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpNezmGvtXQ

I doubt I'd vote for Trump. I think he'd probably be slightly better than Hillary, but probably not by much. Sure, his nationalism is better than Hillary's feminism, but that's not saying all that much since he's almost as unhinged as she is. Even moreso it seems, depending on the day of the week. Probably the only good thing you actually could say about Hillary is that she's cautious every now and then. Sure, not when it comes to regime change in Libya, but at least when it comes to Twitter wars. I know that doesn't sound like much, but I view them as different sides of the same coin when it comes to their narcissism.

That said, either one could surprise me. Trump actually says things I like now and then and is anti-PC, but he will also be compelled to be in favor of a lot of silly things that I'm against. Even Hillary could surprise me and be a decent president, but I have no reason to think that would be the case. I have every reason to think instead that she would be a horrible president in that she lacks any natural political talent, would probably let Billjob run the office, and therefore do everything that we did wrong in the nineties. So I oppose a Hillary presidency as the potentially more dangerous one.

But as Bill Maher said, I don't have much more faith in Trump. He could, "invade Poland, put Hulk Hogan on the nickel, retweet the nuclear codes." And none of that would be good. He gets off on being wily and unpredictable, which is not what I want either.

So both candidates are bad for almost the exact same reasons, and therefore someone who opposes both of them as I do would just hope that the less unhinged candidate wins. And I have no idea which one that would be. They both seem to get off on being unhinged. Just in different ways.

Anglelyne said...

Michael K: I dont; get that comment. I like both "Carmen and "La Boheme." What is "the Boheme from Carmen" ?

Chanson Bohème


ARM: Gag me, although she might do well in one of the Donald's pageants.

ARM, you tacky bastard.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"This is the battle that's being fought. Empty power slugs versus candidates with principles."

The year is 1787 in France. February 22 the First Assembly of Notables meets. France is broke and is conducting a variety of unpopular wars. The economy is shit. The nobles refuse to allow any changes to tax codes or any substantive fiscal reforms demanded by the populace. Populist leaders start popping up. At first they are shunned but eventually they cannot be denied.

This is totally open ended. I know what is coming down the pipe on one side that likes it's guns and wants to be left alone. How do the Bernie supporters see this going?

Achilles said...

Anglelyne said...
"Michael K: I dont; get that comment. I like both "Carmen and "La Boheme." What is "the Boheme from Carmen" ?

Chanson Bohème"

Sorry for the tacky word play, but she has lungs. If she was fat and ugly, like Rosie Odonell, would people watch her sing?

tim in vermont said...

Shill's like a mouse all the cats are batting around. I wish we could have a debate about issues, that would be nice.

And exactly how polarizing does Hillary have to get before she is referred to as "polarizing" by the sycophant press corps? It's a rhetorical question, like "how long is a piece of string?"

Anglelyne said...

Sorry for the tacky word play, but she has lungs. If she was fat and ugly, like Rosie Odonell, would people watch her sing?

Good looks are always an advantage, but great divas are not always easy on the eye.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The year is 1787 in France. February 22 the First Assembly of Notables meets. France is broke and is conducting a variety of unpopular wars. The economy is shit. The nobles refuse to allow any changes to tax codes or any substantive fiscal reforms demanded by the populace. Populist leaders start popping up. At first they are shunned but eventually they cannot be denied.

This is totally open ended. I know what is coming down the pipe on one side that likes it's guns and wants to be left alone. How do the Bernie supporters see this going?


The year is actually 2016. Information is more prevalent than ever before, but no one knows how to be honest and rational about how to make use of it. None of what you say, very few of your historical references matter - if there is no honesty. People pretend to stand for things that they don't actually favor or care about. Every politician is a front for a very slightly different collection of interest groups disconnected from the larger American reality. America gets to, essentially, buy its own reality, and the politicians have become a supercharged steroidal version of this. That's the problem. Revolutionary France's politicians actually knew where they stood. America's don't.

It may be open-ended, but I don't know that violence or those who are nervous about it will determine the outcome. The problem is a crisis of honesty and forthrightness, and part of it is unfortunately baked into the American character. We can keep dreaming, but we can't dream away financial crises or a political class addicted to the whizzbangs determined to make more of them.

We envision a resolution only through the right combination of bravery, honesty and rationality that will bring the country back together around common goals and a willingness to stop lying to itself. "Authenticity" sells well now in business, and reality tv rules the day. We know how to get there. The answer comes when that's put together with the right idealism and willingness to sacrifice. Maybe that sounds vague, but people can tell what's in a public figure's character. And when they see those things,, they will have found and declared their willingness to vote for the person who will take the country out of this mess.

FDR is probably closer to the right model, historically speaking. But then, he had answers. Revolutionary France OTOH is just a conservative's way of saying, "We're all fucked." But I don't believe we are.

buwaya puti said...

French politicians in the 1780s-90s were quite as duplicitous, self-deluded, hypocritical, clueless, self-seeking, poltroonish, misinformed, opportunistic and incompetent as modern US politicians. The big differences were that those Frenchmen were usually extremely brave and much better educated.
Ref the inevitable Simon Schama, but I urge you to have a look at Hyppolite Taine, especially his Ancien Regime.

Achilles said...

In the US the poor people's biggest health problem is they are fat. Transgender bathroom rights dominate the headlines. More people have been put on social security disability than gotten full time work for nearly a decade.

The successful in this country are overwhelmingly in solid marital relationships and they grow up in 2 parent families. They send their kids to well funded public or private schools that educate well. They are connected from the start and go to well heeled liberal universities with massive endowments.

The poor in this country are overwhelmingly single and grow up in single parent families. They are forces into shitty public schools. They get student loans to go to not elite colleges and graduate with mountains of college debt.

Then we have leviathan. It grows every year. It makes new edicts every year. They have made transgender bathrooms the most important issue of the year when we are on the brink of another 2008 correction to atone for Obama's massive spending spree. Small businesses occupy a smaller and smaller percentage of the market every year. The banks consolidate and grow ever larger. All under the watch of Obama.

FDR's model failed in the 1930's. We are living with that failure today. SS is going to lead us to financial ruin. Pensions are massively underfunded. Baby boomers have sold out their kids for an early retirement payed for by nobody.

This is all going to end soon. Math will always win. The US is closer to what you want than what I want so I can understand your skepticism about how precipitous the end will be.

buwaya puti said...

Thanks Angelyne!
I don't know how to embed links.
In the 2000's Garanca and Netrebko were the glamor girls of the soprano set.
Somewhere on YouTube is a bit where both together do the you-know-what from Lakme.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's quite a disjointed laundry list, but you are paying attention to the wrong things.

What does obesity have to do with not mistreating people on account of gender? Nothing.

What does being well-educated and well-compensated have to do with anything? Nothing. It sounds like more of the conservative clarion call to putting ignorance on a pedestal.

College debt has ballooned because the demand for it has been artificially inflated by our gutting of the trades, unions and manufacturing. All things that I'm interested in addressing and that Bernie would have turned around.

"Then we have leviathan?" Then? When the fuck haven't we? It's a condition of life outside of the jungle, as Burke told you centuries ago. We're not getting rid of it, and in a country of over 300 million it's bound to be big. Sorry. Guess we'll have to depopulate. What a nice small government we had when our population was tiny.

Obama is a progressive campaigner, and a more or less conventional establishment in office. We get that. And we're going to change that.

FDR is one of the country's best presidents and it's your mammonism that got us into both the crash after the roaring 20s and the crash after the roaring 90s and aughts. Stop pissing about SSI, etc. and start looking at the Republican need to create bubbles and bling and glitz and wealth instead of basic needs. Yes, people will piss away into a bubble and live for today and not tomorrow and eat unhealthily and live obesely when you keep telling them that they should live at the end of a rope. Stop screwing over the people and giving them erratic, corrupt government and maybe they'll stop pinning all their hopes on winning the lottery and living like it in the meantime.

We need a more stable country and Don Trump is the last gasp of people who apparently prefer all things erratic to a government and society that actually cares about itself. Unless that changes, we don't have a society, let alone a country. And nothing will be fixed. Those 1950s you liked so much were not the result of today's conservative ideology, that's for certain. At least Trump gets that much.

Michael K said...

"Chanson Bohème"

Thanks. I didn't know that name. I have just spent a half hour watching You Tube versions and she is terrific.

My favorite was always Leontyne Price but that dates me pretty badly. Her voice was similar. A sort of contralto.

Michael K said...

FDR is one of the country's best presidents and it's your mammonism that got us into both the crash after the roaring 20s and the crash after the roaring 90s and aughts.

I was starting to agree with you until that. Socialism gets you Venezuela.

Roosevelt prolonged the Depression that way Obama has prolonged 2008 after Clinton got us into it with CRA.

Michael K said...

Here is Price doing Seguidilla.

It gives me chills.

HT said...

5/14/16, 6:56 PM

Excellent comment!

Michael K said...

Here is Garanca doing Seguidilla. They sound almost the same.

Similar voices.

walter said...

Buwaya and others:
http://www.easyhyperlinks.com/

Rhythm and Balls said...

I was starting to agree with you until that. Socialism gets you Venezuela.

Being geographically ignorant gets you to pretending that you can convince others that dozens of countries in Western and Northern Europe just don't exist.

Poof!

They vanished! Just like all the trillions that your "investment banks" disappeared in 2008!

Poof!

Roosevelt prolonged the Depression that way Obama has prolonged 2008 after Clinton got us into it with CRA.

Do you wear your skippers hat when you play armchair economist?

Thirty years of flatlining living standards and you've bought the Republican pitch hook, line and sinker.

But hey. The poor are supposed to get poorer. Ditto the middle class. Just another phony lesson in the mind of the narcissists' number one dupe: Michael K.

Gahrie said...

But hey. The poor are supposed to get poorer. Ditto the middle class.

But they aren't poorer. In the United States they have a higher standard of living than 99% of all the people who have ever lived. (However poverty is at record level lows worldwide, even as our population numbers hit new highs)

Most "poor" people today have a supercomputer in their back pocket. They have immediate access to all of the world's knowledge, and the ability to talk instantaneously without anyone around the world.

Most "poor" people today have large screen high definition TVs, a game system, electricity, central heating, a refrigerator, hot and cold running water, and access to a healthier and more varied diet than at any other time in history.

There will always be "poor" people for two reasons:

1) We continuously raise the standard of poverty as things improve for the "poor"

and

2) We have a steady influx of poverty from south of the border.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"FDR is one of the country's best presidents and it's your mammonism that got us into both the crash after the roaring 20s and the crash after the roaring 90s and aughts."

I was starting to agree with you until that. Socialism gets you Venezuela.


Yes. Of course.

So answer the question: What gets us 1929?

No Bernie supporter wants anything to do with triangulator Clinton and the political advice he gladly took from Republican prostitute client Dick Morris.

Which is why I'm sure you took issue with all those other Republican policies he somehow managed to pass with the support of his Republican congress.

And then there was W. Poor, poor W.! So maligned! What was he supposed to do? Just WAIT for Clinton policies to explode in his face? Why, it's almost like he was expected to be presidential and do anything about a looming financial crisis for eight years while in office! So unfair that anyone would expect that! W. would have needed like, maybe 20 to 40 years to stop that train wreck. How can a president be expected to act responsibly in addressing the nation's financial and housing markets in just a mere eight years? That's some real harsh stuff, that.

It's too bad that we had Democrats like Greenspan and Bernanke shepherding us straight into and through this mess, also. All those Venezuelan policies they implemented.

And that Republican congress from 2010 onward (and the supermajority they got rid of just a year before that). They were so helpful in alleviating the crisis.

But it's Obama that did all the wrong things. (Not that Michael K. will ever tell you what those wrong things are). Cutting unemployment in half and nearly tripling the DJIA during his watch, when everyone knows that the ideal position he was handed by his predecessors in 2008 was just Heaven on a platter.

If only Obama could have done the right thing and kept in place the scenario and policies he had in 2008. Clearly that's the utopia America should have returned to.

Not this Venezuelan shit.

But real American things. Like oil!

Rhythm and Balls said...

But they aren't poorer. In the United States they have a higher standard of living than 99% of all the people who have ever lived. (However poverty is at record level lows worldwide, even as our population numbers hit new highs)

Who fucking cares! This is the new standard by which you judge progress or success in America? You are nuts. Here comes the new Republican "GO America!" slogan: Hey! At least we're not sub-Saharan Africa or medieval Europe! We don't have the plague OR Idi Amin!

Sounds like a great slogan for a party that has nothing to offer, you know, Americans.

There will always be "poor" people for two reasons:

1) We continuously raise the standard of poverty as things improve for the "poor"

and

2) We have a steady influx of poverty from south of the border.


But poverty from other countries is the best way a guy like you can convince anyone how great America is. After all, you just said our relatively better standard of living is all that matters and comparing it to how much we've improved it in the past is not as impressive or worthy of us as is comparing it to historical hellholes or other dysfunctional countries.

Gahrie said...

just said our relatively better standard of living is all that matters

I was talking about relative to the time we declared war on poverty. The point I was making is that we won the war, and then moved the goal posts....

Rhythm and Balls said...

I was talking about relative to the time we declared war on poverty. The point I was making is that we won the war, and then moved the goal posts....

Did we? I think if you don't adjust your poverty rate for inflation then that's a pretty backward-moving enough goalpost as is.

Further, the gutting of the middle class is at least as much of a problem. No middle class, no opportunity.

In the past one job used to be enough to have a decent life. Not anymore. Not for the new "working class" who have been shifted into what any American would call poverty, in any case.

Gahrie said...

In the past one job used to be enough to have a decent life. Not anymore

That's the fault of a higher standard of living, illegal immigration and women entering the workforce...two out of three of those are NOT Republican ideas.....

buwaya puti said...

I don't see the point of responding, on one level, but like a moth to the flame...
Just some specifics
- the unemployment rate that was halved has been acknowledged by Bernanke and numerous others like various presidents of the Federal Reserve banks as not being "useful" under present circumstances, because it is far too narrowly defined. Much unemployment is hidden in the sharply decreased labor force participation rate, which has collapsed since 2008, and not recovered. There has been much foolishness said trying to dismiss it, but everything I've seen is intensely...disingenuous is the most polite word.
- importing poverty is a correct statement. The ethnic makeup of, say, US income quintiles changed greatly since the 1970s, there is a fair bit if study on this. The proportion of poor whites for instance in the last quintile has fallen. Another way of looking at it is through median incomes. White median income has increased by about $10K since 1975. Hispanic median income has only increased by about $4K, and there are far more of them. Cohort analysis supports this too.
- Any Republican could do nothing useful since 2008 because the car keys aren't in the hands of any legislature but with the executive, or more precisely with the executive agencies, who actually make nearly all the relevant law in the US. These are the economically relevant people, not any blowhard Congressman or Senator. Let's out it in real terms - the EPA and DOE have organized things lately, with the cooperation of several remarkably stupid state governments, to increase electric rates on average by 1-1.5cents/kW/HR than they should be. That's a hit on growth. Not the only one, but something we can easily measure. A much bigger one is the increase in cost of employment, for which we haven't got good figures but many reasonable estimates. The cost of various mandates due to regulatory actions re "compliance", health insurance, etc. is generally acknowledged to have increased. And then there are regulatory acts closing down various enterprises and industries through harassment, or to which regulatory harassment contributed, including mines (not just coal, and in the middle, at the time, of a resource boom), steel mills, etc.

There is a LOT going on.

narciso said...

the demure miss brewer here,

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-21/features/1990355005_1_rowanne-donald-trump-maryland-usa

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's the fault of a higher standard of living, illegal immigration and women entering the workforce...two out of three of those are NOT Republican ideas.....

So are you for or opposed to a higher standard of living?

I'm fine with women working less. The best way to do that is with better parental leave and paid-time off, though.

If you could do it by offering them 2/3rds as much expected work time as a male hire, fine. But the courts will probably never allow for that.

I'm not for illegal entry but find that it's a bit of a red herring giving how many fewer illegals have entered and many more have been deported over the last eight years.

I won't fight Republicans on that one, though I suspect it's trumped up a bit and driven not just a little by xenophobia. So it's not my biggest priority but everything helps. Knock yourselves out though if anyone wants to focus on that to the exclusion of the other issues.

Achilles said...

Clinton created the housing crisis. Bush let it happen. The republicans are responsible for everything bad sillyness is in your posts again. It is boring you are smarter than that.

Every cyclical crash is a result of market distortions created by government. The bigger the government gets the bigger the banks and insurance companies get. It doesn't matter who is in charge of the government, it will reduce freedom and reduce wealth for the middle class. The government creates nothing. It always concentrates power and wealth.

In all of history there is no time where central planning led to anything other than a small wealthy cadre and mass poverty. The more power the government takes, the smaller the number of wealthy people gets.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"I'm fine with women working less. The best way to do that is with better parental leave and paid-time off, though."

Who is going to pay for this time off? This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to giant corporations and 0 entrepreneurship. Lets make all companies pay people not to work! And you are surprised when small businesses die and we are left with Chase and Goldman Sachs?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't know, Achilles. Ask the Germans. They are as productive or moreso than us, with better unemployment rates, and less obsession with over leveraging their financial industries markets and shuttering their small businesses. But of course, as a true American you must take it as a given that there is nothing to learn from other countries and that we need to have a myopic obsession with proclaiming that all our mistakes are really virtues that prove us to be the bestest country evar.

buwaya puti said...

No, the US doesn't learn from the Germans, and others.
Public education for instance, would improve greatly with intense tracking as the Germans do. Ideological anathema here.
German business regulation is also far, far less complex, risky and whimsical than in the US. It's like their governments actually are in favor of their economy, imagine that.

On the other hand, German wages/disposable median income is rather low by US standards. They are paying a very high price for their heavy pensions burden plus their really dumb energy policies. And especially so if you disassociate by race.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Here's my list of people implicated in creating and watching the housing crisis:

*Clinton (Southern Democrat who did very un-Democratic things like striking assistance for po people who now had to travel hours to get to and from jobs which is somehow very good for raising kids).

*The same insurgent Congress that took out that contract on America. (Republican up through 2006).

*Alan Greenspan (Not a Democrat. Actually an aficionado of Ayn Rand and her weird philosophy that's so beloved by the right. But why bring that up?)

*Ben Bernanke (Not a Democrat).

George W. Bush (Not a Democrat).

Here's another non-Democrat who bailed these bitches out: Hank Paulson.

Every cyclical crash is a result of market distortions created by government.

Ha ha. Including those in which Republicans sit around and do nothing because apparently they're too afraid to touch what it is that's working SO GREAT under the current regime. Ha hahahaha.

The bigger the government gets the bigger the banks and insurance companies get.

Right. You are either bonafide retarded or just that willing to believe the BS you make up. At their height, the market for CDOs dwarfed the national economy by several orders of magnitude, let alone the proportion of GDP occupied by government. You willies simply have this weird obsession with size. Obama called you out on it. He said, name the percentage of the economy taken up by the budget and he'll work from there. But like with abortion, it's another one of those issues you never really want to do anything about because that would deprive you of having a permanent enemy/issue to campaign against and never do anything about. How will Republicans have lifetime sinecures in their elected offices if they ever change the things they say matter so much? They won't. So it's another manufactured issue that you don't really want to change. Either that, or you're just another dupe from the conservative wing of the party that the establishment GOP is happy to delude and use.

It doesn't matter who is in charge of the government, it will reduce freedom and reduce wealth for the middle class.

Whatever.

The government creates nothing. It always concentrates power and wealth.

More unevidenced talking points that take the conversation nowhere. Other than derailing it from the fact that you can't deny that the same Republican agenda running the legislature AND the White House from 1992 - 2008 is not taking the country anywhere great. Other than Iraq, of course.

And Syria, maybe.

Just great places to plunk down trillions of dollars and generations of presumptive obligations.

In all of history there is no time where central planning led to anything other than a small wealthy cadre and mass poverty. The more power the government takes, the smaller the number of wealthy people gets.

Oh god. So just admit that you and your party has no place in it, then. GET OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT IT'S CLEARLY NOT WHERE YOU SEE YOURSELF MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE! What kind of twat demands a role improving what he says he hates so much? GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT IF IT'S SO EVIL! STOP RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

The Cracker Emcee said...

" I was talking about relative to the time we declared war on poverty. The point I was making is that we won the war, and then moved the goal posts....

Did we? I think if you don't adjust your poverty rate for inflation then that's a pretty backward-moving enough goalpost as is. "

In material terms, not even close. Poverty in America today seems to include amenities that were, well within my 55-year lifetime, goals of the middle class. Looking around I see very few Joads and a shit-ton of EBT card-wielding, tattooed, lard-assed halfwits.

tim in vermont said...

Funny how "The Big Short" never addressed the rape of Fanny Mae. Never once showed a clip of Barney Frank saying "Let's roll the dice a little longer on this" while denying that there was any housing crisis brewing.

That's the problem with people who think that movies are like documented history. We have a tendency to believe good looking people, we can't help it. But you know what? Good looking people usually have an agenda like everybody else and know how their looks affect people.

knox said...

But poverty from other countries is the best way a guy like you can convince anyone how great America is.

The flip side being, "No matter how much better things get, America still sucks."

Harold said...

For those of you wanting to vote for Bernie in the general election, apparently he's going to be the candidate for the Working Families Party where they have a ballot line. Which they do in NY.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Before it was a movie it was a book by Michael Lewis, whose financial reporting and research is superb. And I have no idea how good looking Adam McKay is.

You want me to castigate Barney Frank? Here you go: He's a useless blob of sycophancy who did little good in the government and will probably do even more evil in the private lobbying sector. Every time I see him opening his pouty mouth and whine and groan like Elmer Fudd I think he deserves a sucker-punch to his defective voice box. The world will be a better place without him and his yippity yappity fat mouth running tactical interference for the abominable Clintons, and the last time I have to hear his phony sanctimony and halfwit understanding of the world on any media will be a good day.

Sammy Finkelman said...

There's only one (really really) bad story in the article, but there is one really bad story.

In the early 1990s, Jill Harth and her boyfriend at the time, George Houraney, worked with Mr. Trump on a beauty pageant in Atlantic City, and later accused Mr. Trump of inappropriate behavior toward Ms. Harth during their business dealings. In a 1996 deposition, Ms. Harth described their initial meeting with Mr. Trump at Trump Tower.

Donald Trump stared at me throughout that meeting. He stared at me even while George was giving his presentation. … In the middle of it he says to George, “Are you sleeping with her?” Meaning me. And George looked a little shocked and he said, “Well, yeah.” And he goes, “Well, for the weekend or what?”

–Jill Harth, former pageant promoter

Mr. Houraney said in a recent interview that he was shocked by Mr. Trump’s response after he made clear that he and Ms. Harth were monogamous.

“He said: ‘Well, there’s always a first time. I am going after her,’ ” Mr. Houraney recalled, adding: “I thought the man was joking. I laughed. He said, ‘I am serious.’ ”

By the time the three of them were having dinner at the Oak Room of the Plaza Hotel the next night, Mr. Trump’s advances had turned physical, Ms. Harth said in the deposition.

“Basically he name-dropped throughout that dinner, when he wasn’t groping me under the table,” she testified. “Let me just say, this was a very traumatic thing working for him.”

Ms. Harth, who declined to comment, gave the deposition in connection with a lawsuit that alleged Mr. Trump had failed to meet his obligations in a business partnership. Mr. Trump settled that case but denied wrongdoing. Ms. Harth withdrew her own lawsuit against Mr. Trump alleging unwanted advances, but she has stood by her original claims.

Mr. Trump said it was Ms. Harth who had pursued him, and his office shared email messages in which Ms. Harth, over the past year, thanked Mr. Trump for helping her personally and professionally and expressed support for his presidential candidacy.


He settled with her. Maybe even got her on the rebound, or she wanted to get involved with him later, and he helped her at some point.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Harold said.. on 5/15/16, 11:05 AM CDT


For those of you wanting to vote for Bernie in the general election, apparently he's going to be the candidate for the Working Families Party where they have a ballot line. Which they do in NY.

I don't think he (or that party) decided that yet, although there are #neverhillary #alwaysbernie and #dropouthillary hashtags on Twitter.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bernie's supports are very angry at what happened at the Nevada Democratic convention yesterday.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html

tim in vermont said...

Just curious to me that Barney didn't make the movie. After all, it wouldn't even take meticulous research to find him saying that there was no housing crisis, just Google. I mean what a perfect set up for an eye roll!

So I have to assume that the writer had an agenda, or he would have mentioned Frank and his conflicts of interest and why the government was backing so many extremely sketchy mortgages? But that would take one extra thought beyond where you got to where you wanted to be, which was that the whole problem was de-regulation. After all, critical thinking is like a train, once you get to your stop, you get of, n'est pas?

My personal belief is that the actors in this, their bosses, and stockholders should have been bankrupted and left selling pencils in Times Square. But that is only what would have happened if they weren't protected by the state-crony capitalist alliance. A model known to economists as fascism.

walter said...

Barney was a helluva lot more complicit than "did little good"

walter said...

(as was Pelosi)

narciso said...

ah eisner who was one of the 'heroes' of the film, consulted with radke, the acorn leader who ginned up the subprime bubble in the first place,