Donald Trump, answering a question from Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" just now.
This was after he laid out his plan for dealing with ISIS, which is to go in and take their money, take over the oil fields and use that money to take care of the wounded veterans and their families.
This is a real, in-person interview, not a phone-in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
93 comments:
So, now will the commenters on these shows use Trump's comment as proof that he is a dope?
If it happens, that'll be Trump's greatest accomplishment.
Yuge.
'Politics is just show business for ugly people.'
"which is to go in and take their money, take over the oil fields and use that money to take care of the wounded veterans and their families"
Why isn't this guy CiC already?
He should add government efficiency to his platform: no need for briefings, committees, and so on: just watch the shows.
Hey, watching the shows is how Obama learns what's going on in his own administration, so why not use them for Military Strategy too????
You can tell he's too old to be president, because a younger person would have said "I read the blogs."
Next time someone should ask which shows guide him.
Hopefully he'll do better than:
"Um, all of 'em, any of 'em that, um, have, have been in front of me over all these years."
He probably won't be that lost. He's already mentioned that Bolton has influenced him, so we can assume that he's watching Fox shows.
"which is to go in and take their money, take over the oil fields and use that money to take care of the wounded veterans and their families"
Well at least he has a plan...Obama doesn't even have a plan yet...or a clue.
I seriously wanted Bolton to run for president. I hope he ends up as Sec. of State at least.
Trump did not look very smart this morning. Specifics are not his friend.
ISIS is only a problem due to modern sensitivities. Saudi Arabia and America were built from the ground up using the same slash and burn. The only people left alive when Ibn Saud created the country, was people who kissed his feet. The only people left alive in America was the European settlers.
So, It's not really a military problem, per se, it is a New World Order type problem. Iraq, Turkey, and Syria are valuable to the Rothschilds and thus they have ordered the USA to go in and try to find a way to keep a new nation from forming. Saudi Arabia was a disaster for the Rothschilds, and they certainly don't need a Saudi 2.0 which will destabilize the oil futures markets.
People don't follow the Rothschilds much any more, but it may be an interesting footnote that there are mini-states that do their bidding:
1. The US Federal Reserve - NOT part of the USA.
2. Washington D.C. - NOT part of the USA.
3. The City of London - NOT part of the UK.
4. The Vatican City - NOT part of Italy.
These institutions all function as individual states, operating under their own laws, hence there is no court of law on Earth that could ever preside over them.
The people in the USA should be supporting ISIS. They are building a nation (just like Arabia, just like America).
It wasn't pretty for the American Indians, so it probably won't be pretty for the Shia infidels. In the end though, America slaughtered all the tribes and was victorious. Same with Arabia, hopefully the same with ISIS.
Trump would be simple for foreigners to manage. I can't remember who wrote this but it's true; just insult him if you want him to fight, flatter him if you want cooperation. It's all about the Donald. We've got a Jupiter sized ego in office now. Enough of that.
I've thought for some time that presidential campaigns start way too early. Maybe there's so much room now that we start with a reality show before we get serious. One can hope.
"Let's kill all the Arabs and take their oil." -- Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live
What shows does Coupe watch?
Coupe watches al Jazeera.
Trump's world is much smaller than he imagines.
"which is to go in and take their money, take over the oil fields and use that money to take care of the wounded veterans and their families"
Shouldn't take more than a month. Explain "take over the oil fields". Who? Military? Sub it out to Exxon? What about the original owners, Iraq? Blood for Oil? Does anyone follow up these answers with more questions?
AllenS said...What shows does Coupe watch?
AK Operators Union
I just traded for a nice 50 cal last month, and blasted my first Billy Goat off a mountain just north of Sisteron.
Haven't watched much Trump or Mrs. Clinton stuff on TV. Youtube is my entertainment channel. This family is better than All In The Family was:
The Heavy Shevy's
FYI :-)
Trump has the secret hiden wisdom,. We don't kill off our allies with oil and give it to Jihadists. We do the opposite. We kill off the jihadists and give the oil to our allies. That is the exact opposite to Obama and Hillary's tactics calling it an Arab Spring.
Egypt survived that trick by Obama but Hillary in Libya gave it all away to the ISIL guys.
Trump can hire any Secretary of Defense he wants. The secret is targeting enemies and not friends.
The only people left alive in America was the European settlers.
Really?
Where from and when did we import all of these Indians? Or Blacks? Or Mexicans?
The French cooperated with the Indians, the English drove them away and the Spanish enslaved them.
So yes, ISIS is a little like the Spanish......
Aha..coupe finally reveals it's colors...it is all an evil plot by the Jews!
"Trump has the secret hidden wisdom,..."
I thought this was going to mention that he sleeps at a Holiday Inn Express.
My wife makes me watch JAG reruns. I'm ready to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff! #DumpTheTrump
Well, it can't turn out any worse than it did for Bush Jr.
Gahrie said...Where from and when did we import all of these Indians? Or Blacks? Or Mexicans?
Survivors still mate. As long as you keep them on the Reservations and Inner Cities you can control their health care, and thus most get fat, with diabetes, and croak early.
It's almost time for another purge, as people with new money are trying to incite the vanquished. That's why the toleration of homosexuals and African rioting are being tolerated by them. The old money will swing the pendulum back. It's been that way since The Flood.
We'd elect Trump to defeat soap opera women and their news media, not for his good ideas.
Once PC is out, we can get to business again.
Well, it can't turn out any worse than it did for Bush Jr.
Things turned out fine for Bush 43. Remember...Obama, Biden and Hillary all came out and claimed victory in Iraq and the War on Terror, largely based on the actions and policies of Bush 43.
Then the three of them fucked things up.
Trumpalicious
Well, his ideas are overly simplistic enough to explain his right-wing/TP appeal.
It's like when Howard Stern ran for NYC mayor or whatever. The only memorable proposal he had was to use the bodies of executed criminals to fill in the city's potholes.
So ridiculous ideas that sound hilariously obvious are apparently a feature of either NYC celebrity candidates or just plain old joke candidates in general.
Thanks, Tea Party, for showing us how serious you are!
And, Trump is in good with Giuliani!
That should go over well with the "social conservatives."
Right-wingers are nothing if not completely weird.
Trump = Idiocracy. As long as I don't have to think about how any of what he says might actually happen, he's great. Let's just feel like he's helping.
Gahrie said...Aha..coupe finally reveals it's colors...it is all an evil plot by the Jews!
I didn't say it was an evil plot. I mean it is an institution, well past plotting.
I think the biggest threat to the world is New Money. New Money is the Bill Gates, Apple, Google type stuff. These people are taking their billions into a part of the world that was already bought and paid for.
They are messing with people they don't understand. If you save a billion Africans from starving, then you have to find crops to feed them. There are barely enough crops to feed the bourgeoisie and proletariate. If you suddenly allow all the la bohème (vagabonds, Lumpenproletariat) to line the streets begging for food and handouts, it will be a bad day in Hooterville for sure.
These billions of people are supposed to die. The faster the better. Even aborted or use of contraceptives to keep the live births down).
Yet Brand Trump sometimes offers more truth in advertising that Brand Clinton.
A rather buffoonish, mildly principled NYC real estate developer with a flair for self-promotion vs. a vaguely corrupt, wooden, careerist oft-hypocrite burning through people and important positions until she gets to the Presidency?
Trump's ascent and position in the Republican polls is proof positive of the right-wing's preference for bravado, image and ego over anything serious at all.
If they could nominate a comic book hero, attribute to him naturalized status and the minimum age requirement, that's who they'd elect. A three-dimensional, physical presence should not be required when it comes to Tea Party leadership. That would assume too much of what they're capable of.
The party of pretend fiscal discipline shows just how politically undisciplined it is.
Can't the Republican Party be shot already, like a lame horse waiting to be put out of its suffocating misery? Clearly it no longer has any better days ahead of it.
Ritmo is favoring us with his intelligence again.
Energetic go getter should put together all of the clips that Obama says "Yea well um gee I um well just saw that on the news". About the dozens of times he was asked to comment about the failure of his governance.
The juxtaposition of Trumps answers to questions and Obama's in 2007 is funny, Who knew Trump is as smart as Obama.
Strange. Conventional wisdom had Trump self-destructing months ago and Hillary was simply waiting to be inaugurated. But ... the wizards of smart are talking about Trump's issues while Hillary is in so much trouble that she's eating comfort food in Iowa.
Imagine if the clown car that is Donald Trump swamped the rest of the Republican crowd and calls Hillary a dummy while she's promising free college to her shrinking band of followers. You do know that Hillary puts her audience to sleep even when they pay her a quarter million bucks.
Oh, there's no favor being shown to you, bowtie-wearing cheesy porn-stache guy. You're way too unintelligent to realize what the Trump phenomenon says about your ideology.
But I'm sure you'll go write a thousand-word blog post on it that no one will ever read.
There are barely enough crops to feed the bourgeoisie and proletariate.
Bullshit. even India and Pakisatn are exporting food these days. Hunger and starvation in the modern world are due to politics, not scarcity.
These billions of people are supposed to die. The faster the better.
World population will peak around 2050, and then rapidly decline, especially in the developed world. Unless of course the West reawakens.
Listen, Balls, the right's offering a bit of a clown show, but let's please agree on the broader clown show.
A fossilized open socialist stealing the limelight from a rather seamy, pandering coattail-riding careerist while driving the party Left under a a long on style, short on substance activist?
I believe the reservoirs that keep the Republic going are not too much associated with the current show, but the good in people far away from politics will still have to deal with it. The people are not happy with their leadership, and the systems designed to solve problems.
The populist sentiment aiming at 'our political class' may prove highly useful, but perhaps not fully honest about the fact that we get the politicians we deserve.
They are us, to some extent, and the process of a couple of generations of hubris. Some recognition of this may prove useful in making it better.
What Moneyrunner wrote at 1:07PM
If in an election, it looks like either the Crazy Party, or Stupid Party is a slam dunk, I vote for the Libertarian Party. My vote won't affect the outcome anyway but it might give Libertarian ideas a little more respect. However, if the vote is going to be close, I will vote for the Stupid Party with hopes of keeping the Crazy Party out. This time that might mean voting for Trump.
>>Can't the Republican Party be shot already, like a lame horse waiting to be put out of its suffocating misery?
Unlike horses, we'd shoot back.
Bernie Sanders is a goofy-looking, goofy-sounding fossil (much like Michael K.), but at least you can't say that he's short on substance. Most of what he wants is aligned with a larger American people and voting public who actually don't agree with the idea that it's the billionaire class being besieged in a way that is taking America down, or that our military is underutilized.
Trump is merely the driver of a clown car that's been in production ever since Reagan had his last coherent memory. And the funniest thing about his political "conversion" is that his previous convictions were actually correct.
But your clown show-goers think it's actually the unhinged naked overblown ego he's revealed since that makes him important, in their eyes. It's a good expose on why their populist sentiments are wrong, whereas the sentiments of a larger and less imperialistic, less corporatist voting public are completely right.
With any hope, it will pull Hillary back to the left, once she's gouged the eyes out of every Republican who fears her aggressive, terrifying, deep understanding of exactly what they're all about.
It's Republicans who have always had a "political elitism" problem within their party. So celebrate this moment all you want. But any similar problem for Democrats is much, much less - and was already reconciled 45 years ago and 6 years ago.
Unlike horses, we'd shoot back.
Like horses, probably with similarly poor aim.
And a lot of change going on right now: The Chinese and Indians are eating many lunches when it comes to cheaper, talented mobile labor in tech.
The hacking, espionage, propaganda, space-race, arctic-race, info-wars are heating up.
We make things better by getting back to competition, not protectionism. Some honest criticial reflection and a desire to do better is worth all the bitching and moaning about a political and legal setup that at best, responds to many of these problems and comes up with solutions by offering reasoned Constitutional signposts (as I see it).
It's a shame to see one party driving itself deeper into the collectivist and ideological woods of Europe, and the other fiddledicking around with demographic changes, bloated, overpromised programs, and its own vague mercantilism.
We can ride these waves, people. In fact, as Americans, we're uniquely positioned to do so. I'd also say we can do it without losing track some of most important freedoms and traditions we've got.
If you had to vote for the two candidates most likely to be crooks, I think most people would go for two front runners. Troubling.
Bernie Sanders: The substance is socialism, which leads to the gulag. Why you can't see this I don't know? It doesn't work. No...socialism lite doesn't work either except in generally making us all lead poorer lives.
Personally, I think Donald Trump doesn't care enough about conservative principles, and even governing principles enough to be taken seriously. He's a symptom of the deeper dissatisfaction across American political life with its governance, however.
It's not my clown show, jackass. It's a general clown show, quite serious and quite unserious. Take the plank out of your eye.
Gahrie said...World population will peak around 2050...
I forget, but I think the coastal areas of the US are supposed to be under water by then, as the Antarctic crumbles.
Thus pushing the population inward. You can imagine the food situation in the US if you remove California and Florida from the equation.
Bernie Sanders: The substance is socialism, which leads to the gulag. Why you can't see this I don't know? It doesn't work. No...socialism lite doesn't work either except in generally making us all lead poorer lives.
The substance is FDR's, who is regarded as one of the best U.S. presidents historically. And if it's gulags you're worried about, don't. The only thing remotely resembling gulags then were applied to Japanese, not to the white Americans whom I presume it is that you pretend to care so much about. I don't notice any love for Asians in your comments anyway, and without a militarist, imperialist Republican governing, they can take their anti-immigrant sentiment out on Mexico anyway, rather than on people living here.
Personally, I think Donald Trump doesn't care enough about conservative principles, and even governing principles enough to be taken seriously.
Meaning: He spoke the truth earlier about GDP growth under Democrats vs. Republicans.
He's a symptom of the deeper dissatisfaction across American political life with its governance, however.
That Tea People are too stupid to understand what creates that dissatisfaction doesn't mean that all other Americans are wrong because they do.
It's not my clown show, jackass. It's a general clown show, quite serious and quite unserious. Take the plank out of your eye.
Surely gong ad hominem shows how unserious you are. No, you are being like Trump and throwing a tantrum just because the facts didn't allow for you to get your way.
Enjoy your joke-candidate and your partisan joke-politics-of-the-day. Crises are simply not something that right-wingers know how to successfully handle. They simply aren't mature enough to direct their excessive emotionality constructively.
The Chinese and Indians are eating many lunches when it comes to cheaper, talented mobile labor in tech.
I know. Slave labor allows for the eating of many lunches, so saith the Republican plutocrat apologist. I mean, slaves eat very, very well! And very gluttonously!
We are not competing effectively enough with slave labor in 2nd-world economies, saith the Republican corporatist! We must find a way to make our economic conditions and standard-of-living comparable to theirs!
It's astounding that a Republican corporatist shill essentially doesn't realize when he's arguing that the problem with America is that we don't make our economy more like the economies of nations that are further behind both economically and in terms of overall human development. There must be a way we can scale back our progress and become more like them!
May his ideology reap all the idiocy and political loss that it so richly deserves.
Ritmo:
-FDR's 'substance.' A link to Wikipedia as an appeal to authority? Guilt by association with Japanese internment camps during WWII?
Surely you can do better.
-We can talk about GDP growth under each party, but it's complicated, and almost invariably trotted out to support one's preconceived beliefs. Where the truth lies is another matter.
-I don't associate all Democrat voters with Bernie Sanders, nor Hillary Clinton, why do you insist on doing so with Republican voters and Donald Trump?
-From your comments on this and other threads, forgive me if I mistook you for a jackass. It's true that calling you a jackass probably detracts from my other arguments.
-I'm a registered independent, but I suppose I'll be a 'right-winger' as far as this discussion goes.
Allow me to dissociate from your fear of encyclopedias. I don't find the claim that FDR is ranked among the top three presidents historically (usually 2nd) to be controversial, and if you do, you can show me a group of authoritative historians who do. I consider it actually to be tantamount to a well-known fact, like when I peer out the window and notice the sky is blue. So no, surely it is you who can do "better" when it comes to contesting well-understood realities.
I know better than to associate all Republican voters with Trump. In fact, as I said many times, he's the Tea-Candidate who represents this internal Republican tussle that their "grass-roots" have with their party leaders. I am less ignorant of their politics (and U.S. politics generally) than you imagine. As for Sanders, you don't have to associate "all Democrat voters" with him. The claim is that his positions, as articulated, are largely mainstream. This is a fact.
Perhaps you are an independent, but you obviously harbor bias against the positions of both Sanders and FDR that resonates most strongly with the right-wing clamoring for Trump and practiced in the art of worshipping his wealth as if it were on its own a strong credential for public service.
I've worked for a Chinese company, so I do know some of where I speak (I'm happy to defer to your global humanist perspective and heart of gold, however)
Labor costs, lower standard of living and various other factors mean very smart Chinese and Indian software engineers, developers, are willing to work hard at lower wages. In order to compete (stay in business) this means American firms utilize that labor.
Please explain a solution that doesn't involve ignoring these realities and creating mazes of often bad protectionist legislation that encourages nativism, protectionism, nationalism and greater conflict and fewer jobs.
-You're still pretty high on the jackass meter. A lot of noise and not much substance.
All right, thanks for your apology. I apologize for calling you a Republican corporatist shill/plutocrat apologist, etc.
I forget, but I think the coastal areas of the US are supposed to be under water by then, as the Antarctic crumbles.
Actually, at this point it is more likely that the glaciers will return and cover Chicago and Detroit under a mile of ice again. This would significantly drop sea levels.
Labor costs, lower standard of living and various other factors mean very smart Chinese and Indian software engineers, developers, are willing to work hard at lower wages. In order to compete (stay in business) this means American firms utilize that labor.
Please explain a solution that doesn't involve ignoring these realities and creating mazes of often bad protectionist legislation that encourages nativism, protectionism, nationalism and greater conflict and fewer jobs.
If one doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. But I don't think an obsessive need to compete with them leads you away from the direction you want to avoid, either. The fact is, that nations, like people, also do well in what they're naturally good at or what reflects their conditions as best suited to the economies of the time, as well. The fact that China is growing (i.e. "doing well") doesn't need to be a threat to us. We can still specialize and "dominate" in what we choose to be good at. As much as you say that "socialism" must be feared, there are more than a number of advanced European economies that have done just that - stayed with their strengths, governed with the recognition that their mature economies have their own particular strengths worth maintaining, and kept it at that. Invested in their own infrastructure. We can do the same. I doubt Germany or Scandinavia or Monaco or any country in a similar position is as obsessed with the "rise" of China as our politicians seem to want to convince us that we should be. Why should they? Why should we? I thought it was all the conservative "free-market" types who tell us that wealth is non-zero sum and that the success of one millionaire detracts nothing from a construction worker. Same with the rise of China and our own economy, more or less.
Well, Ritmo, 30 Helens agree that Calvin Coolidge was the best President. Or was it Polk? They have an association and an office in D.C., so it must be true.
I'll send you the literature.
I harbor bias against socialism, Ritmo, because not only does it not work, it's been proven not to work in a most horrible fashion.
Because it is a post-Enlightenment theory of history that apes the sciences, and purports to go beyond science, politics, economics etc (predicting what WILL happen) it lives on as a corpse providing warmth, solidarity and moral compass for folks like Bernie Sanders.
No, the gulag may not be next, but endless activism, increasing authoritarianism, less wealth, less opportunity, higher taxes and lower growth will likely be if people choose that route. It's utopian promises and collectivist impulses are well documented to get human nature and actual nature VERY wrong.
We still have Communist and post-ish Communist regimes in Russia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea (a real Stalinist revolution). It was the primary source of conflict and a defining feature of this past century. It could have won but we all would have lost.
I will however join you in the clown show that is Donald Trump, the pandering that is involved in politics in general, though I hope you are able to get a chuckle out of that socialist-in-amber Bernie Sanders, the seamy dissembling of Hillary Clinton (and just how much she may have compromised our security and freedom for personal/political ambition).
Like I said, a clown show, quite serious and quite unserious.
Well, Ritmo, 30 Helens agree that Calvin Coolidge was the best President. Or was it Polk? They have an association and an office in D.C., so it must be true.
You know this is not how Wikipedia (or other encyclopedias) work (of which it is only just another, anyway), so you can cut it out anyway. Encyclopedias are not "suspect" sources of information, and if you think so, you have a problem with how common knowledge accumulates, not with anything I or any reasonable person can argue against.
Besides, Jimmy Wales is filthy rich and your hatred of non-anti-social behavior suggests that you believe wealth makes someone more likely to infallible than the rest of us.
I'll send you the literature.
Of course you won't. But it's your way of admitting a retreat on FDR's greatness so I'll let the issue die, along with your fatuous stance on it.
I harbor bias against socialism, Ritmo,
Personally, I harbor bias against the antisocial.
because not only does it not work, it's been proven not to work in a most horrible fashion.
As have the machinations of the antisocial. Psychopathy is a horrible fashion in which to work things. It's been proven again and again.
Because it is a post-Enlightenment theory of history that apes the sciences, and purports to go beyond science, politics, economics etc (predicting what WILL happen) it lives on as a corpse providing warmth, solidarity and moral compass for folks like Bernie Sanders.
Oh, so are you opposed to all "post-Enlightenment theories"? (Relativity is one. Quantum mechanics another. Not sure if Wiki or encyclopedias in general have anything informative to say about them). Or just those that don't kowtow to the imagined theory (to which it seems you subscribe) that says governments elevating attention to the complaints of the wealthy and powerful are better than those that don't?
No, the gulag may not be next,
It's so refreshing when you actually hedge your presumptions with the uncertainty they deserve.
but endless activism, increasing authoritarianism, less wealth, less opportunity, higher taxes and lower growth will likely be if people choose that route.
And which "post-enlightenment theory" told you that? Reaganism? Lafferism?
It's utopian promises and collectivist impulses are well documented to get human nature and actual nature VERY wrong.
You mean the utopian promise that cutting taxes on billionaires will improve the economy?
You mean the collectivist impulse to gather in large mobs and anoint a patrician fat cat like Trump as King of the American Nation and Economy?
We still have Communist and post-ish Communist regimes in Russia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea (a real Stalinist revolution).
We still have corporatist and post-ish corporatist regimes running Washington, and attempting to take over other governments.
It was the primary source of conflict and a defining feature of this past century.
Corporatism is the primary source of conflict and a defining feature of the current century. You should get with the times, but if you prefer living in 1950 I'm sure it can't be helped.
It could have won but we all would have lost.
You will be on the losing end of corporatism.
Balls has Hillary.
The corrupt money grubber. No matter how clown-show the R-party is, Hillary will always beat it with her corruption.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464
The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/
You talk about all this 'corporatism' like you have a better solution for human nature. Of course corporations (associations of freely associated people, under contract) aim to influence politics, law and consolidate power and influence once they get big enough. Your post assumes you have knowledge that human beings won't seek to consolidate power and influence if somehow 'corporations' are abolished or made more powerful by having to work with activist legislators drafting laws.
You might want to check 'A Theory Of Moral Sentiments'. Not a bad read.
Oh, God. Another ritmo thread. See ya.
I think we're done here.
Michael K does have a 70's porn stach.
She is like an ad for a pube-old, white, unatrractive and male!
The bowtie is hideous too!
She looks like a dried up turnip.
While all the smart people are laughing at The Donald, he’s consistent and successful. Is it just luck, or some fault with the American people? Not at al. Trump is a successful negotiator. That’s how he got so rich.
And about this “rich” thing. He says he worth $10 billion. Critics say he is worth far less (but still billions). But it’s all beside the point. He is making all of us “think past the sale.” The exact number makes them look like foolish quibblers. The takeaway is that “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.
And $10 billion is a nice round number. It sticks in your mind even if some jackass says he’s only worth $4 or $5 billion. No one remembers their claims.
By the way, Obama uses this trick with numbers. Remember the $2500 each family was to save under ObamaCare? Nice round number with absolutely no relation to reality. An outright lie. Unlike Trump’s claim to the size of his wealth, at least his is in the right direction.
Remember the debate? As Trump was about to be described as a sexist pig by Megyn Kelley he made a quip about Rosie O’Donnell. His mention of Rosie O’Donnell anchored people’s minds on this fat, loudmouthed unpopular woman. After that he said that he had said bad things about other people as well.
Do you see how this works? If the idea of “Trump insults women” had been allowed to pair in your mind with the nice women you know and love, you would hate Trump. That jerk is insulting my sister, my mother, and my wife! But Trump never let that happen. At the first moment (and you have to admit he thinks fast) he inserted the Rosie O’Donnell anchor and owned the conversation from that point on. Now he’s not the sexist who sometimes insults women; he’s the straight-talker who won’t hesitate to insult someone who has it coming.
You probably cringed when you heard Trump say Mexico was sending us their rapists and bad people. But intentional exaggeration is an anchor, and a standard method of persuasion. It helps Trump’s case when Mexican rapists and killers actually come here to do what they do.
Trump been derided for saying that he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence. But if you have a neighbor who sends his dog over to dig up your yard and poop on the steps, you may end up telling your neighbor to build a fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it. That’s not crazy talk unless you’re a metrosexual who can hardly wait to vote for Hillary.
In the last month Trump has kicked the Republican Party – and the mainstream media - in the balls, took on FOX News and won, and created the talking points that are dominating the political season. Pretty good for a crazy guy with $10 billion dollars and his own fleet of aircraft.
News from the Charismatic circles has Trump as a Cyrus like man sent to reveal the corruption and evil in American institutions as a final warning Trump blown to alert us to repent and change our ways. He is certainly doing that job and mesmerizing the listeners.
No extra charge for that.
I just watched the interview. I have to say, I liked what he had to say.
Oh, God. Another ritmo thread. See ya.
There was so much bullshit to correct. It couldn't be helped.
I mean, the guy thinks encyclopedias are suspect and that FDR was probably not a very good president. That's premium-class, Grade A bullshit. Aggressive ignorance parading as skepticism of the world as everyone knows it.
And it's not as if the sources themselves can't be checked. Whichever historians were polled is cited, and can be checked in the original.
But fact-averse pretend "independents" can't be bothered with objective source facts.
That attitude echoes what's happening with the Republicrazies. And will probably be as unsuccessful.
Michael K does have a 70's porn stach.
It's actually like a shorter version of the HItler stache, with a salt-and-pepper style.
Imagine if Hitler had made it to old age and gone gray. That's how Michael K's stache looks.
While all the smart people are laughing at The Donald, he’s consistent and successful.
What bullshit. DT inherited around 500 million from his daddy and his businesses by the mid-nineties, with all assets thrown in. If all that had been simply invested the value would be greater than the few billion it's all worth today. And that's not even considering that he bankrupted himself of it all at least FOUR times.
It shows how gullible the loons are. It's evident that what they need is simply a rich cock to suck.
I think we're done here.
Run away, Chris. Run away.
Remember, when you can't beat 'em, it's because they were wrong. Lol.
FDR was certainly the top President since Lincoln. I agree that Roosevelt's New Deal was a shot in the dark attempted to do something in a total disaster, but it did preserve capitalism.
Meanwhile he was ready for the Commander-in-Chiefs job by 1939 which was done by FDR brilliantly and near perfection including putting Truman in as his certain successor. The great man understood men by character and could pick good men for the jobs and support them in winning the War. Handling WWII was a big deal.
So, in response to arguments about political philosophy and socialist political doctrine you responded with 'antisocial' behavior and 'psychopathy.'
In response to the logic allowing you to deride Trump without applying similar derision to Bernie Sanders and his socialist populism, you linked to a wikipedia page implying the ideas are manifest in FDR, and FDR was popular and 'good', therefore you 'win.'
By all means, take a victory lap full of ad hominems and childish taunts.
And we have spoken before. I've actually given your tendency to cover the threads with excitable postings a pass in favor of decency.
Well Chris, it's good to see you take another decent try at what you attempted before. I was worried that it was a case of: If you can't beat 'em, don't join 'em and walk away instead. But contrarily, it looks like you've at least got the bravery to try the "socialism is evil" mantra on me one more time. As well as the "We don't really know if FDR was a great president," thing - as if that had anything to do exclusively with his popularity anyway.
As for the latter, this has gone on for too many rounds without insight. But I can't offer you any more without you first defining your terms. Although there's a publicly available (i.e. encyclopedic) entry summarizing many, many historians' polls on great presidents' rankings, I can't know if you'll accept that - as it's also summarized in a handy Wiki link. So instead of appearing like a stubborn curmudgeon for whom NO evidence would suffice, you must first name the sort of source that you would find authoritative. Because I can't argue with someone for whom no evidence is ever good enough.
As for hating socialism as if it were as doctrinaire as Reaganism, I remind you that you talked all apocalyptic gloom and doom and the road to doomsday and gulags, as if Scandinavia, France, or Germany - all countries that seem to take their social obligations more seriously than we do - would be recognizable in the format you described. They aren't. That should be evidence enough.
Further, why "socialism" should even be a dirty word that requires defense at all is something I question in the first place. Human beings are social animals. They have social concerns. It's not like being socially oriented means you can't value your individualism or individual rights at all. Only sociopaths (i.e. the "antisocial") believe otherwise. So you came up with a political religion (anti-socialism) that you expect me and everyone to convert to, even though your reasoning for this ("gulags") was flimsy and your reward for the alternative (corporatism) even flimsier.
So no, I don't need to deride Bernie Sanders for championing an honest, coherent, socially responsible, popular alternative to Trump worship. Trump makes no coherent arguments. His popularity is about people worshiping his wealth, as well as his rudeness. Sanders only argues that our priorities are better placed by paying attention to what government can do for the many including the least among us, rather than what it can't really do much more of for the most powerful. It's not a bad philosophy, it works well in almost every mature industrialized society, and you can't argue that it's a disaster in the many countries (none of them tyrannies) that I mention OR why the alternative of political wealth-worship is better.
Lastly, you'd do well to read traditional guy's comment - an even-handed, even-tempered guy if ever there was one. Nothing argued by FDR or Sanders means that free enterprise would end. FDR, it is often argued, saved capitalism, rather than harmed it, let alone destroyed it. Without recognizing that there are excesses with any approach, many competing interests in a society and a need to balance as much of our need as possible, there is no such thing as political leadership - something FDR and Sanders understand much better than the ME-FIRST blowhards in the 1% like Trump and the many cult-like fawning, golden calf worshipping admirers he collects among the less mentally fortunate. Even though they seem to be a necessary partner to your very own philosophies of political economy.
Watching the interview now. Very impressive.
Ritmo, thanks for the response.
You're the one applying the value judgment of 'evil,' while I'm simply suggesting: Incorrect, badly designed, unfalsifiable etc.
Socialism, or what it's morphed into in Europe in the form of socially democratic parties and political coalitions, as well as the kind of European Statism varying country to country is complicated indeed, but much is based largely on Marxist political philosophy, and upon a theory of history that tried to address the sudden explosion of factories, freer flowing capital and labor that dislocated people from their families, towns, guilds and traditions.
Marx recognized this industrialization was 'the future' to some extent, and from a mishmash of many influences (including Hegelian idealism and British economics) created his most important work. Ultimately though, I see it as a failed theory of history, one that tries to predict how the future will actually be, and which fails on many fundamental levels, including understanding a proper definition of value.
After Marx, in the real world, over generations, this lead to differing factions who attempted rule through revolution by the intelligentsia, or groups of often earnest intellectuals who tried to put the theory into practice and figured the perfect society, molding perfectible humans, was possible and they had the knowledge to do it. A new age with its own telos was not just born, but inevitable.
As is evident but still not all too common knowledge in some quarters, this little experiment failed miserably nearly across the board, giving way to thugs like Stalin taking control, and truly did lead to 'evil' as much as it exists in this world. The murder of millions of people. Rule by secret police and corrupt deep state actors. The remnants are still visible today, and the consequences all around.
It's as close as we'll get to applied theory.
***Why you brought up FDR as a good President, thus bolstering your clear sentiment and alignment of some principles with Bernie Sanders campaign (while deriding Trump and smearing everyone with your commenting) as an open socialist is still unclear to me, but not particularly persuasive.
Perhaps you're sympathetic to some of the ideals, but I'm suggesting there are many good reasons to place your sympathies elsewhere.
Regardless of FDR's merits as a leader, I think many of the New Deal programs overpromise and underdeliver and the bills are coming due, and I believe the 'good' society I wish to see does NOT LOOK LIKE EUROPE with its movements between hard left and right, ethnic nationalism, low defense spending and possibly dangerously designed Euro state in Brussels.
This leads to long-term instability, bad incentives, and political stagnation.
Such systems, to my mind, have an appearance of stability over badly cracked infrastructure, ancient class hatreds and splits and lead to less for less people in Europe, and would be quite ill-designed over here.
I won't deign to predict the future, but if the past is any guide, these ideas simply don't work.
"Imagine if Hitler had made it to old age and gone gray. That's how Michael K's stache looks."
Do you ever write anything intelligent ?
When I take a moment to think about why you come here, I can't figure it out. Some sort of seizure disorder ?
I appreciate your providing clarification for where you're coming from. If I may however, I note the following limitations:
1. Tyrannies have sprouted up everywhere since the beginning of time for reasons stated or not, truly stated or feigned. More of them recently under "socialist" pretenses, but I don't see why that should make us less wary of tyranny than of the age-old balance between aristocracy and democracy as understood by everyone since Plato.
2. More of what you say is theoretical than practical, but you do give concrete examples of differences between us and Europe. Like any American I share your concern in that I recognize the dynamism of a place like, say for instance, Silicon Valley that we should never deter, no matter how concerned we are of competition at the expense of everything else. In some regards we might truly be much better off than any given European country. Certain things are indeed trade-offs.
Nevertheless, I believe many of the problems in social spending result moreso from inefficiencies rather than from insufficient expenditure. And I do think that we could reduce defense spending to the levels agreed to by the Pentagon without being threatened with invasion or even less influence. Our current spending eclipses those of the dozen or so - 43% of the global total. I think this is ridiculous and can be reduced at least 10% or more without a problem. And if it incentivizes us to be more creative with our alliances, so be it. That's also a good thing. Or less pre-emptive. Or less imperialist. All good things. Relying too much on the military as a first-resort is a road to over-use, over-extension, a self-perpetuating over-funding and over-involvement argument, and disaster.
And that's the kind of theory for which there is much real-life historical experience. We know how empires grow. And how they inevitably, because of that insatiable growth, die. Imperialism is the foreign policy equivalent of political cancer.
3. In a global economy, it's hard to see what we gain by having more billionaires (not that you even argued it) here as opposed to wherever. People can conduct business anywhere around the world that they want. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett won't move if you raised (at least slightly) better revenue from them and I doubt many others would, either. The idea that Mitt Romney can't pay something closer from his "carried interest tax" than the <15% that he currently does to the top rate is grossly obscene, and a threat to any stable society and the fairness and cohesion required of it.
Michael - I come here to see how far you will go in your efforts to please Titus.
Also, seizures are disorders affecting motor control, not behavior.
It looks like St. Lucia needs to revamp its medical school curriculum.
Hasn't Obama said more than once that he heard it on the news? That is a sitting president.
---Tyrannies have indeed been around for a long time, but totalitarian nightmares, Soviet client states, and people being failed by social democracies are all around, just as people being failed by freer market systems can be found on a daily basis.
It's practical indeed, Ritmo, to link socialist theories to real suffering, however. Just ask a Venezuelan member of the opposition or a man who died waiting for a common procedure in Cuba while the old man drools and keeps his boots on.
---As someone who thinks the best reason to have a government is to provide for the common defense, our current defense spending is very bureaucratic and full of pork and waste. Too many pigs at the trough.
At the same time, I believe the 'liberal' world order and the Anglo-American model will be vital in creating not only opportunity for me and you, but also some rules of the road and common projects for important players who think quite differently from us.
---I don't care how many billionaires we have, for I don't know by what standard you're judging how many we SHOULD have. I'd prefer my family and friends are safe, my property secured, and my freedoms left alone.
**I know this is near heresy for the global humanists, internationalists, equality and fairness folks, but I suspect they want much the same when it comes right down to it.
Ritmo has to find a new routine. I try to remember what thread he has infected but forget.
Another comment thread with great potential ruined by the pigeons. Professor, you do have a number of decent commentators from the left that leave comments from time-to-time, but they aren't here today. Instead, we have pigeons playing chess. (They knock over all the pieces on the board, crap everywhere, then strut around pretending they've accomplished something.) When obnoxious trolls threadbomb your posts, use slurs and other personal insults against other commentators, and insist on responding insultingly to anyone with a differing opinion, you have a pigeon problem. Since the (usually) intelligent comments to your posts are the main attraction here, I'm going to take a break from your blog for a while while you decide if you want to continue to live with the pigeons. I sure don't.
Trump's ascent and position in the Republican polls is proof positive of the right-wing's preference for bravado, image and ego over anything serious at all.
Hillary's ascent and position is proof positive of the Left Wing's preference for graft and violation of federal laws, apparently.
Bernie Sanders is a goofy-looking, goofy-sounding fossil (much like Michael K.), but at least you can't say that he's short on substance.
The Hell you can't. Wishful thinking and dreams are an abysmal attempt at substance.
Most of what he wants is aligned with a larger American people and voting public who actually don't agree with the idea that it's the billionaire class being besieged in a way that is taking America down, or that our military is underutilized.
Isn't he polling below Trump currently?
But your clown show-goers think it's actually the unhinged naked overblown ego he's revealed since that makes him important, in their eyes. It's a good expose on why their populist sentiments are wrong, whereas the sentiments of a larger and less imperialistic, less corporatist voting public are completely right.
With any hope, it will pull Hillary back to the left, once she's gouged the eyes out of every Republican who fears her aggressive, terrifying, deep understanding of exactly what they're all about.
That you condemn Trump's ego and then champion HILLARY speaks volumes.
FDR was certainly the top President since Lincoln. I agree that Roosevelt's New Deal was a shot in the dark attempted to do something in a total disaster, but it did preserve capitalism.
It was also, per his own advisors, doing what Hoover did.
It was also wildly unsuccessful.
FDR is "great" because the industrialized world was leveled and the US was the main industrial power standing. That is the only reason he's not a long-serving failure without any economic sense.
Meanwhile he was ready for the Commander-in-Chiefs job by 1939 which was done by FDR brilliantly and near perfection including putting Truman in as his certain successor. The great man understood men by character and could pick good men for the jobs and support them in winning the War. Handling WWII was a big deal.
If he died one year earlier, we would've had Wallace as President. Keep that in mind. No President has ever had a VP so horrid as FDR.
FDR is "great" because…
Um… um… um… because he wasn't an isolationist Republican shit like his opponents who dreamt small dreams for America while telling the people to merely put their faith in the hands of the greedy, like you do? And to accept economic disaster and mediocrity as the natural state of affairs, like you do?
Keep up the Republican dream. And the petty nitpicking. The only thing I like about Hillary is that she's a better liar than your candidates, who can't handle the truth anyway. I know full well that she's a bastard. But I'll accept that she's our bastard. Your bastards are boring, nauseating, primitive cowards who are full of more shit than a septic tank. I'm done with honorable candidates. I want one who's finally going to be as conniving, sneaky and slimy as one of yours.
damikesc's only argument is that she, as a voter, should work FOR Mitt Romney. Not that Mitt Romney or David/Charles Koch, or Sheldon Adelson should work for HER.
She considers it an honor to find ways of ingratiating herself to them.
And thus she doesn't understand why any voter should have any other priority.
She's a slave to the political dictates of the wealthy. Her own needs don't concern her.
She's sublimated them all to the greediest lobbyist she can.
I'm done with honorable candidates. I want one who's finally going to be as conniving, sneaky and slimy as one of yours.
Are you fucking kidding me? Obama is off the chart on conniving, sneaky and slimy.
After Clinton and Obama, the Left has given up any moral authority it ever had to judge Republican candidates.
After Clinton and Obama, the Left has given up any moral authority it ever had to judge Republican candidates.
Good. There's no point in judging them, anyway. We already know how congenitally horrible they are and that you will never expect anything decent of them anyway. Which is exactly my point. Character doesn't matter anymore, but reason never did when it came to your dildos. We will now vote for the ones Machiavellian enough to crush you. Compete on your party's level of sliminess, as that's obviously the only way to get ahead.
You don't seem to be getting it.
Rhythm and Balls said...
FDR is "great" because…
Um… um… um… because he wasn't an isolationist Republican shit like his opponents who dreamt small dreams for America while telling the people to merely put their faith in the hands of the greedy, like you do? And to accept economic disaster and mediocrity as the natural state of affairs, like you do?
Hitler got us out of the depression. If it wasn't for lend lease there still would have been high unemployment and we wouldn't have been geared up to face Japan. Which is ironic since we are attacked by Japan and then immediately invade Algeria. If FDR wasn't such an anglophile we might have avoided Tarawa, Pelilieu, etc.
Post a Comment