I like the way they give you the option of not finding the Trump presidency disturbing, even though — if that's your choice — you can't follow the instructions and "please choose four." I guess that last option is for a laugh. Who could read through the preceding push-pollery and not, by the end, be disturbed?
Posts
275 comments:
1 – 200 of 275 Newer› Newest»I notice that immigration isn't on the list.
Good stuff. All of these questions, loaded as they are, point toward more Trump. Rile up your party members against Trump. Not working so far.
What does the intellectual architecture of this questionnaire reveal about the questioner?
Even behind the mirror glass your sweat will show.
"His ability to get me to run around like my hair is on fire every bleating about Russia every day!"
Who doesn't like dangerous and hateful rhetoric.
The winning! All that damned winning!! I'm a loser and proud of it!!! And I always will be!!!! Damn him for Making America Great Again!!!!!
"His dangerous and hateful rhetoric."
From the party of terrorist appeasement and fear-mongering that the GOP will kill people by dismantling the lie-filled ACA. The party of death in park, the party of James Hodgkinson? From the party of Colbert and Griffin?
Ok then.
I got a push poll call a couple of weeks ago. It started out very normal. Quite a few questions from a recording that sounded like a normal legit call. Then the questions changed to:
Who do you think is a bigger liar, Trump or Nixon?
Who do you think is more corrupt, Trump or Nixon?
Click.
Neither immigration nor trade on the list, his two signature issues. Apparently those are the two Dems want to keep off the agenda. In other words, Trump's stand on civic nationalism (as opposed to cosmopolitan globalism, which is the default position of both political parties).
"Which aspect of the Trump presidency do you find most disturbing?"
He won.
That's all it is.
He won.
And they can't stand it.
"Which aspect of the Trump presidency do you find most disturbing?""
The homicidal response of the Democrats. Seriously.
I wonder if claiming the opposition with whom you have policy differences are "mass murderers" is 'dangerous and hateful rhetoric'?
What amuses me is the debate I have been having with Trump haters over at Patterico.
The enemy of the good is often the perfect.
Here, we mostly see left and right. Over there they have right, a few left, and the super duper right that hates anyone not Ted Cruz.
I wonder sometimes if some people could even be talked into a win for their side.
Kathy Griffin would like to remind you - you are filled with hate. You filthy deplorable.
It'd be nice if the Dems started to focus on ISSUES and POLICIES, rather than personalities, tweets, phony claims about Russian collusion, pussy hats, phony claims about hate speech, riots, etc, etc.
When I lived up in Dave Obey's district, he would send out questionnaires with questions like this:
"Do you think we should protect the environment?" Ummmm, I'll go with yes.
Then a few weeks later he'd be in the news saying that his constituents have responded overwhelming that we should cut back on logging and ban mining.
Get it? You word a question to get the response you want, then you define mining and logging as destroying the environment.
"Choose four" isn't really an option. It's either the last answer, or all except the last answer. Either you don't have a problem with Trump, or else everything he does is wrong. I'm surprised that "His crazy hair" and "His tiny hands" weren't included in the laundry list of Democrat Trump disturbances.
I answered "Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States" to every question.
"His election has revealed the true nastiness and depravity of American progressives, including their lack of liberalism, decency, compassion and belief in free speech."
Dave from Minnesota said...
I got a push poll call a couple of weeks ago. It started out very normal. Quite a few questions from a recording that sounded like a normal legit call. Then the questions changed to:
Who do you think is a bigger liar, Trump or Nixon?
Who do you think is more corrupt, Trump or Nixon?
Click.
You shoulda really pulled their chains on those last two questions and answered "Hillary Clinton." Then you could have heard what an exploding head sounds like over the phone.
I think you should have tagged this Democratic Party derangement syndrome. It's not like you haven't done some push polling yourself.
My personal favorite is a National Rifle Association push poll where if I filled it out and sent it in, they said they would send me a knife. My absolute favorite is the time John McCain sent me a $1 bill - no homework required on that one!
I like the way they give you the option of not finding the Trump presidency disturbing, even though — if that's your choice — you can't follow the instructions and "please choose four."
Perhaps a Democrat might find it very disturbing not to find Trump disturbing. Then it would still be ok to rank the others in terms of reverse order of not disturbing.
Oops, my bad, didn't read carefully. I don't guess you can get a recording's head to explode. Although I'm sure a lot of people in GA-06 would probably consider that to be a good idea, from what I've heard.
"He usurped the throne from its rightful successor"
tcrosse said...
"He usurped the throne from its rightful successor"
He paid the Iron Price!
I think you should have tagged this Democratic Party derangement syndrome
When did laughing at funny stuff get defined as "anger" and "derangement"? That is seriously funny. I know God is probably going to punish me for enjoying the Trump presidency as much as I have, but there it is. I enjoy it. I feel happy. Content. Not deranged.
"His disregard of the US Consititution"
After 8 years of Obama, this is suddenly a concern.
His complicity in the generation of surveys such as this'
"His ability to make us dump $30 million to lose a House race"
I think you should have tagged this Democratic Party derangement syndrome
Isn't "disturbed" pretty much a synonym for "deranged"? I think "deranger" means "to disturb" in French. Who is talking about people being "disturbed" here? Maybe you should read the post again.
"When did laughing at funny stuff get defined as "anger" and "derangement"?"
It's like last night, when Once Written kept asking us why we were so angry. Nobody was angry in that thread, we were enjoying the victory.
"Why are you so angry?"
"We're not angry, we're having fun."
"I'm asking you again, why are you so angry?"
Making fun of Democrats is verboten. If you do so, it's because you're deranged and angry.
"His disregard of the US Consititution"
Ha ha ha!
[Congressional] oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. - Wikipedia
So doesn't setting up your own email server so that you can hide stuff from Congress directly flout the Constitution of the United States of America?
No! Because REASONS!
When do the angry Dems get to stab him in the Senate and hold up his severed bloody head? And the Eternally Investigated Russian Myth does not count. They are stabbing themselves with that silly pretending to be Senators.
I think they need to re name their Party as The Actors Guild.
I am very, very distubed.
all of them except the last one
"His verbal and physical assaults on women?"
Who did he physically assault?
I think they have him confused with Slick Willy.
Hagar: "I am very, very distubed."
You're telling me more than I want to know.
There is an explosion waiting to happen in the USA. And the demolition man is DJT. He is diligently imploding the GOP and the Dems and their Media Propagandists, clearing away the rubble and building something beautiful in their place ...like Andy Jackson did it 200 years ago.
North Korea is who should be worried about DJT's demolition schedule right now. Their time is up.
And that - sans immigration - sums up the entire Dem platform going forward. Hate Trump.
But the hate Trump campaign has worked remarkably well. That is all the Dems have now.
"Which aspect of the Trump presidency has you the most deranged?" That is the only way this could have been any more perfect.
"He made me support left-wing political violence. And overeating."
The H>illary Clinton campaign did little else but demonize Donald Trump (with no small help from his own words) at great length and at greater expense. So it should be no surprise that the gulls are ready to believe the worst of him. Maybe this is to define which of his many sins to emphasize when H>illary runs again in 2020.
"His disrespect for President Obama"
Ex-president, former President, no longer President, the not on the ballot President, he who is not even in the country to my knowledge President, the President currently pining for the fjords, the President formerly known as Obama, the holds no office whatsoever Obama.
But in a Galaxy long ago and far away I'm sure he's still President of something.
Assumes facts conceived, believed, and created.
The Trump campaign sends out equally silly polls. Who benefits from this dreck?
What really disturbs them is that Trump asked the citizens to vote for him, and enough in enough places did.
That's what really galls them.
My daughter went down to a south Texas immigration detention center to do pro bono work, and she happened to have traveled with a few big city lawyers.
The big city lawyers were spooked to be staying overnight in a town "that probably voted for Trump." They were creeped out as though Trump voters were going to, like zombies, come after them.
(My daughter pointed out to them that the town was clearly majority Hispanic and thus not likely Trump voters.)
"Disrespect for President Obama"
hahahahhahahah!
sunsong said...
all of them except the last one
Its racist to say things like this about the President.
The homicidal response of the Democrats. Seriously.
Exactly. Democrats have zero clue on how to respond, and it's satisfying to watch -- because watching politicians of either stripe flounder is satisfying.
Sunsong,
Did you pause to reflect upon how many of those many statements were actually true, or did you comment reflexively without thinking?
The most disturbing feature of the Trump presidency so far is the Dem derangement. Second most disturbing: judicial coup d'etat.
No option for "insouciant bricolage".
For the media, the most disturbing thing about the Trump presidency is that it demonstrates that they are not nearly as powerful as they (and we) thought they were.
They are talking to themselves and the Party Faithful. Nobody else gives a damn.
Yeah, no mention of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform forced by elective wars, elective regime changes, and extrajudicial trials, and given incentive by redistributive change (e.g. welfare industry), gerrymandered districts (i.e. democratic leverage), insourcing (i.e. labor arbitrage), and Planned Childhood replacement.
"Please choose four" is an insult to Trump and his efforts to be disturbing in every possible way.
I sure most people here are familiar with the expression "living in a persons head rent free". I don't think there's an individual who occupies even close to as much psychological real estate in the hive-mind of the modern Left as Donald Trump. He's erected vast walls, towers, and casinos across the imagination of Progressivism. It's truly amazing. Barrack Obama was greatly disliked by the right, but this... the left's feelings about Donald Trump... the blinding incandescent rage... it's like comparing a candle to Wolf-Rayet star.
Most disturbing is Trump's lack of lists of various disturbing aspects.
And Melania looks a bit like a vampire.
A good-hearted irreverent sexy vampire, though.
I don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything.
Why no mention of Hitler?
Snark said...
I don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything."
That's true. Just look at the mess Obama made.
" don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything"
Oh, after the last 8 years, we're very realistic about that!
As a "anyone but Hillary" voter, I have to appreciate the efforts the left have expended to push me [day by day, little by little] into the "happy to vote for Trump's reelection" camp.
Trump not only spent less than Hillary (a lot less) to win the Presidency but he is goating the left (directly and indirectly) into staffing and paying for his reelection campaign since the day after he won.
Now THAT is a smart business man!
"choose four" -- I'd do it the same way I ask for anchovies on my pizza: 4 checkmarks next to the item.
Nonapod said...
casinos across the imagination... the blinding incandescent rage...
When I imagined an imaginary casino it included wheelbarrows full of cash, but no rage.
all of them except the last one
We know, honey, bless your heart.
Ann, there is no way you don't know that both sides engage in this. But you only focus your blog on the Democrats. That is why it is dishonest for you to claim the mantle of "cruel neutrality." It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed. It's your blog and obviously you have every right to cultivate a conservative readership and discourage liberals from participating. But please at least be honest about it.
This (below) brought up a cause/effect calculus that I'd not given any consideration to: the downside of Dems abandoning the localization of politics.
"The point is: nationalizing House elections probably hurts Democrats these days, because the Democratic Party is less the old pork barrel machine than it is an identity politics machine. When you centralize everything in Washington right down to access to public school bathrooms, and politicize more and more aspects of life and tie it to personal identity, you choke the life out of local politics." As they say, read the whole thing.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/when-no-politics-is-local.php
Wednesday bonus: 10 minutes with Mark Steyn on the Georgia election (among other topics), including his comments on the "Deep State Dinner Theater":
https://youtu.be/TICdyNqNjhw
Snark said...
I don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything.
I know! We told you about Obama over and over but you just wouldn't listen!
you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed.
She showed a Democrat fund-raising letter un-censored. I would think she is doing liberals a favor by getting this material from the Democratic Party out there for all to see. Maybe she wants the Democrats to up their fucking game! Ever think of that?
I don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything.
We were, and Hillary lost because of it. What you don't like is for your political opposition to succeed, which is fair enough, but this use of psychiatric terms to describe political differences? Well, the Soviet Union was big on it, for one thing.
White guilt:
Hello from Oberlin! You've probably received a phone call, e-mail, or letter from our office during the past year. That's because you have a connection to Oberlin, and have shown a willingness in the past to support Oberlin students.
We've noticed, however, that you haven't made a gift to Oberlin's Annual Fund just yet. With only about a week to go, I'm asking you to respond so that we can count you as a participating donor today.
It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed.
Wow, Onesie, you ain't from around here are you? How long have you been reading this blog?
I don't think that kind of transparent manipulation will work on La Emerita, though you are welcome to try. I think NASA or somebody doing optics would value it more.
don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything.
Yeah, when I was a little boy I used to get mad at the squirrel that wouldn't go into my box trap so I could pull the string. I called the squirrel "almost certainly sociopathic" too!
or did you comment reflexively without thinking?
It's sunsong, so yeah.
Once written, twice... said...
It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed.
In order for leftists to feel welcome the site has to ban and censor opposing viewpoints.
The issue is that everyone knows every shitty thing the republicans do because the media saturates the environment with stories about republican evils and stupidity. Belaboring republican shittitude is boring and we give them enough shit without help.
But democrats? The media is basically the democrat party. Nothing negative comes out about democrats and when it does it is the media spinning it for them as much as possible.
And we get don you your biggest weakness as an individual and as a movement: You have zero self awareness.
Snark said...
I don't think people are realistic about the destructive impact an almost certainly sociopathic president can have on virtually everything.
Obama was your last president. He spied on political enemies.
Hillary was your last nominee. Yeah. Hillary Clinton.
Self awareness = 0.
He doesn't like custom cupcakes, and his taste in wine is appalling.
It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed
YES! This blog should have been the final redoubt of liberals, who are shunned everywhere else on the internet but this one blog! Conservatives own all of the big newspapers! All of the TV networks, all cable news, Wikipedia, Snopes, on an on and on I could go, but if. we liberals could just have this one little blog. where our point of view could be heard, one place where conservatives were kept in check by proper censorship and story selection, it would be a start. There can't be more than a few million blogs, after all.
Althouse is a Democrat who thinks that the party has lost its way and should get back to what they once championed, and to represent the people they once championed. That makes her the enemy.
The Dems are a sanctimonious bunch. The believe their intentions (save the planet! help the poor!) are noble, therefore their policy prescriptions and preferred candidates are noble.
It is a farce.
Currently, most of the elite in this country are Democrats. See Manhattan, Upper West Side; Pacific Heights, San Francisco; Beverly Hills, CA. These are all massive Democrat strongholds.
This is where most of the Dem money comes from. If you add the government employee unions, you get the rest.
The other wing of the Democrats are near these rich enclaves -- the miserable urban centers. See, South Bronx, NY; Fillmore District, SF; South Central, LA.
This is where the Dem voters are.
These aren't ordinary, hard-working, small businessmen/women-types, trying to pay the bills, raise their kids, watch a few football games, and have a few beers.
These are wealthy elites in a strange bromance with the inner-city poor.
Who wants to be part of that coalition?
The Dems deserve to be mocked. They are eminently mockable. Their idiotic rich donors in Marin County and Hollywood gave $24 Million to Jon Ossoff for a simple Congressional race in Georgia --- and still lost. Why did they flood the campaign with all this dough? Because Trump bad.
The Republican party has major flaws, no doubt. Too many spineless weasels.
But, the Dems are actively trying to undo the values, institutions and traditions of this country. So, when they lose, good things abound.
His reckless foreign policy? Yes. Everything else? Not one whit.
St. George said...
He doesn't like custom cupcakes, and his taste in wine is appalling.
6/21/17, 3:35 PM
Oh yeah I do have an important and substantive criticism of President Trump.
He orders steaks well done. This is a big sadz.
"These are wealthy elites in a strange bromance with the inner-city poor."
Concern for others can be motivated by love. Or it can be motivated by guilt.
The former leads to finding ways to lift people out of hardship and struggle.
The latter seeks to alleviate the guilt.
The former is willing to work to provide real ways forward, and willing to work with whoever can make things happen.
The latter will fight against anyone who undermines their guilt-alleviating gestures, even if the gestures don't actually change anything.
The party has become a Top Bottom coalition that uses the White Left as foot soldiers. The thing that billionaires value the most are people who can be bought with their money, that is to say Democrats.
Paddy O said...
"These are wealthy elites in a strange bromance with the inner-city poor."
It's kinda like Titus and his, er, dates.
File this under "hypocrisy". The gay crowd has banned the gay police unit from marching in their gay parade in Minneapolis. Even the mandatory police car to lead off the parade (required for all street parades) will be an unmarked car.
Does this mean they can refuse to bake me a cake also?
What is particular qualifies as a disregard of the U.S. Constitution? There are lots of things that the Left has not liked and a subset of those that are of dubious wisdom, but I do not recall anything significant that is a gross violation of the Constitution. The only thing that would come close is the EOs for those seven (now six) countries which were blocked in the courts and the judges are on extremely weak ground in those cases.
What is most disturbing is all the winning.
Crush the enemies! See them driven before you! Hear the lamentations of their women! This is good.
We know, honey, bless your heart.
Thanks, :-) It's a rough road for us but we're playing it the best we can. I know you understand that the polarization is so intense and nearly complete that, neither side can bear its demise by the other. I don't know where we are headed right now or how we're going to get there, but I know I'm not turning back. So stay tuned :-)
Known people in Trump administration who've hired lawyers:
1. The Attorney General - Jeff Sessions
2. The VP - Mike Pence
3. The President - Donald Trump
4. The President's Son-In-Law - Jared Kushner
5. The President's Lawyer - Michael Cohen
And, those are the ones we know about so far.
If you have done nothing wrong then why would you need to lawyer up.
Put your head back in the sand Trumpski's.
(World Famous Lurker says....)
To Once Written...
You mad bro?
(You've seemed really angry for a while now.)
I wonder if there is a Spanish version of this survey, and if there is, does it ask the same questions with the same choices?
@Unkown:
If you have done nothing wrong then why would you need to lawyer up.
An utterly naive statement that cannot be made by someone who knows the first thing about how the American criminal justice system works.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. Exercising this right will also be used against you. In fact everything will be used against you. You are guilty and any protest against your guilt is yet more evidence of your guilt because someone who is innocent would not have to protest their guilt."
I thought we were talking about political mailings, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Once written,
You are free to attend AA' salon, but you have not been invited into her kitchen.
Hiring a lawyer is proof that you're guilty?
It's good to see you haven't learned a thing from your numerous defeats:)
Happy today? I sure am!
"If you have done nothing wrong then why would you need to lawyer up."
Unknown in 1600 at the witch trial:
We're going to throw you into the lake. If you sink and drown, that will show you're innocent. If you float, we will know you are guilty and will fish you out of the lake and burn you."
" Trumpski's."
I hesitate to address someone with such a deplorable grasp of English grammar.
Once written, twice... said...
It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed.
Perhaps Ann has seen sites like the Democratic Underground and the Huffington Post and realizes what happens when too many liberals show up.
I get the same kinds of polls, from the National Rifle Association. I don't get anything from Planned Parenthood; but they do this too, right?
(And I see someone else posted a similar observation up above, particularly related to the NRA.)
Ewww, like, he's so creepy! Ick!
Tommy Duncan: "Perhaps Ann has seen sites like the Democratic Underground and the Huffington Post and realizes what happens when too many liberals show up."
One too many lefties/lifelong republicans and there goes the neighborhood.
Definitely his disrespect for President Obama. I was hoping for some serious disrespect. Open contempt openly expressed, with vicious calumny and personal slurs. And get after that fat-ass bitch Moochelle while you're at it. Maybe even some Trumped-Up Charges. Throw a scare into the jug-eared little fuck. But so far the closest we have come to any real disrespect for the Community-Organizer-In-chief is down-sizing a few bogus National Monuments. So yeah, I am way dissatisfied with Trump's disrespect for President Seas-Stopped-Rising.
"you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed. "
This is the last place a lot of us who used to read and post comments at leftist blogs have left. I'm sure you are welcome at HuffPo and DU and DailyKos.
I read and commented at Washington Monthly when Kevin Drum was blogging there. Then they began to delete my comments while leaving the hateful responses like those Ritmo posts here.
Eventually I was banned and you know why ? I did not agree with single payer and tried to explain why.
The leftists would go to my personal blog like Ritmo has done to find things to make an obscene response with.
You are not banned, as best I can tell, and that is more than the leftist bogs will do for us.
Once: "But you only focus your blog on the Democrats."
Well, they are the ones attempting to assassinate their political opponents and burning stuff down.
But in a "good way", no doubt.
"Trumpski's" could be the name of a corner bar in a Polish neighborhood.
If you have done nothing wrong then why would you need to lawyer up.
Didn't Hillary bring 8 lawyers to her unrecorded deposition where she was not put under oath?
Apparently if you have done something wrong, one lawyer is not enough.
□ His inhabiting of my every thought.
□ His making my wife go to Georgia to visit some 30 year old man.
□ His making me cry as I await my removal to a Republican-controlled gulag.
□ The encroaching Russian menace!
□ His ruining of my social media feed with my posts about him.
His early morning Tweets
The Tweeting! The Tweeting! Oh Lawd, stop the Tweeting!
Every time the President Tweets, a Democrat goes insane. And I don't just mean Mika.
Known people in the corruptocrat party who waste tax payer money....
all of them.
BTW, I think we should all stop referring to him as "Trump" and make a conscious effort to refer to him as "the President".
Not only is it his proper address, as we learned under Obama, but it drives half the country insane when their eyes are forced to register the word.
OBJECTION; LEADING
The choice: "His admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin" is my favorite.
Nothing says I love you like shooting down a Russian built fighter plane, piloted by Russian trained, Russian supported, Syrian pilot.
Where is the box for "His effect on my libido"?
And it should be worded that way to capture those with both a negative and a positive effect.
From Politico:
"-- DEM OPERATIVE QUOTE OF THE DAY: “We no longer have a party caucus capable of riding this wave. We have 80-year-old leaders and 90-year-old ranking members. This isn’t a party. It’s a giant assisted living center. Complete with field trips, gym, dining room and attendants.”
You notice they don't put in his immigration policy, his policy towasrd Syrian refugees, or the wall.
Opinion is divided maybe on those maters. Oh, there are plnety of people distrbed about that, but they want tobe very careful theer.
Not so with made up charges.
"His admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin"
I love that one, as well.
Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right? Why continually focus only on the left? This is more and more a conservative rightist blog.
"His admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin"
Is this love... that I'm feeling?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to talk to Poot. Lock her up!
"His admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin"
You can almost hear the ear-stabbing cackle.
inga questioned: "Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right?"
Feel free to post one on this blog. I am fairly certain our hostess would not censor it.
Every time the President Tweets, a Democrat goes insane.
That's not bad. Try this one on for size:
Every time the President Tweets, a Democrat gets kicked in the Ass.
The Democratic agenda is evidence for this conclusion. They lost with that agenda.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be playing pin the tail on the Donkey. Time, and freedom from the Press, will tell if he is following in their hoof prints, or if its a path through agendas past.
Again I ask,
Who is this Ritmo person everyone keeps dishing on?
Inga: "Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right? Why continually focus only on the left? This is more and more a conservative rightist blog."
Is there such a thing as a "conservative" non-rightist blog?
Or is Inga still discombobulated over the fact that it was an illegal alien who murdered the 17 year old muslim girl and she cannot process those facts?
Inga and Oncey take time out from their meanderings at leftists-only safe space blogs to complain that there are too many conservatives on this one.
Make of that what you will.
Tim Gilliland: "Again I ask,
Who is this Ritmo person everyone keeps dishing on?"
His current persona is "The Toothless Revolutionary". He has had several handles in the past but he is always immediately recognizable.
Ritmo is Balls. Balls is Ritmo = the toothless revolutionary.
Michael K states:
"I read and commented at Washington Monthly when Kevin Drum was blogging there. Then they began to delete my comments while leaving the hateful responses like those Ritmo posts here."
I've been banned at any number of liberal sites for responding to liberal assholes with 1/8 the venom they threw at me. Even worse are the #Nevertrumper sites like Rod Deneher, National Review or Right Scoop all of which banned me for simply sticking up for Trump AFTER he got nominated. Imagine so-called Conservative sites which ban Reagan Conservatives!
Blogger Inga said..."Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right? Why continually focus only on the left? This is more and more a conservative rightist blog."
I'd be willing to bet Althouse doesn't get conservative emails and mailings.
The Democratic Party has a point. Obama's legacy in elective wars, elective regime changes, and forcing catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform should and must be celebrated as a progressive achievement.
His views on women's reproductive freedom
Do progressive liberals deny human evolution?
Do they really believe that babies are delivered by stork?
Are women and men incapable of understanding the science and responsibility of sexual relations?
His admiration of Russian President...
No Judgment.
His dismissal of...
The prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. At this point, not even the models have a consensus.
inga wrote: Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right? Why continually focus only on the left?
I suspect because Althouse lives in Madison.
Another reason is frustration with your own side.
"Inga and Oncey take time out from their meanderings at leftists-only safe space blogs to complain that there are too many conservatives on this one."
Nope I don't comment on any liberal sites. I don't like echo chambers, unlike you folks. If I was looking for safe spaces I wouldn't be here. You wouldn't last five minutes on a liberal site, you'd be running for the safe space of Mama Althouse.
"His views on nuclear proliferation"?
Did President Trump come out in favor of my more countries having the Bomb?
I must have missed that one. Maybe I got up late, and missed one of those "disturbing" early AM Trump tweets.
When did Trump get "Physically violent" with "women"?
His disregard of the U.S. Constitution...
[class] diversity, congruence ("="), excessive immigration, elective wars, extrajudicial trials, redistributive change, [effective] eminent domain, Pro-Choice Church, and abortion rites.
It emanated from the twilight fringe.... The tell-tale hearts beat ever louder.
>Why don't we see the silly emails and polls from the right?
>Why continually focus only on the left?
>This is more and more a conservative rightist blog.
My guess is the Right has boring emails, and Althouse hates boring.
The Right, compared to the Left on the emails and polls and probably still way behind. With President's Obama's last Presidential campaign, they had a brilliant strategy and execution on the email side that was years ahead of the Republican. Continual A/B Testing of headlines with small groups, see what got the clicks, and then release the remaining list to the headline the worked using cutting edge demographic information for segmentation.
A survey like this, no matter how silly it seems on the surface, gives a HUGE amount of information. And as a marketer, the answers are gold. My guess is based on the 4 answers, this segments you into certain psycho-graphic groups to enable better targeting as a way to influence their target segments vote and fund raise. And combine this with district information plus friend information from FaceBook, and you can increase voter turn out at a low cost, by using the referral and trust power of friends. It's also click bait for those with TDR, and feeds the base. See, we wrote this survey that exactly matches your intense feelings toward Trump, can you donate again a bit now. Or may be the pitch email comes in another couple days, so it seems natural. You need to have a mixture of content and pitch (asking for money) emails, everything can't be a pitch or it loses effectiveness.
Trump is a twitter person and campaign rally type, and social media with Bannon's insights/backgrounds. My guess is not email focused.
"You wouldn't last five minutes on a liberal site,"
I do have a weak stomach.
"I suspect because Althouse lives in Madison."
I doubt Althouse associates with many liberals in Madison Henry. I suspect the people she identifies with are the conservatives here on this blog's comments sections.,
"Another reason is frustration with your own side."
Althouse is no liberal, that has become exceedingly clear, the left is not her "side".
"Althouse is no liberal, "
She's a liberal, she's just not nuts.
When did Trump get "Physically violent" with "women"?
It started as a Democratic baby hunt that exposed witches, then underwent a semantic change in order to remain viable. The Party and Press remain hopeful.
Freeman Hunt - lol.
"She's a liberal, she's just not nuts."
No she's not and I wouldn't be so sure.
I doubt Althouse associates with many liberals in Madison Henry.
If you mean the pussy hat-wearing, looking or any reason to impeach, severely depressed about Georgia 6 liberals, then I suspect you're right.
If you mean classical liberals who value individual freedom and see the Constitution as a means to ensure it, then I suspect she hangs out with quite a few.
Part of the reason we have President Trump is because the Dems haven't realized how far left they've drifted. People like Ann could tell them, if they ever designed their surveys to solicit such inconvenient truths.
Inga: "You wouldn't last five minutes on a liberal site, you'd be running for the safe space of Mama Althouse."
Lefty snowflakes ban any opposing viewpoints on their Lefty-only safe space sites.
So, by definition, no conservative can possibly last more longer than the time it takes to post once.
Poor Inga.
Poor, poor dear Inga.
Who could read through the preceding push-pollery and not, by the end, be disturbed?
Uh, a normal person.
I'm assuming you never found Republican push-polling to be anywhere near as disturbing. Particularly, an especially invidious and revolting example when the George W. Bush campaign (one of your favorite presidents!) called South Carolina voters during the 2000 primary and asked them if they'd be disturbed to know that John McCain had a black child.
And Republicans want to know why normal people think they're prone to racism and bigotry! 2000! The way your commenters here act, you'd think they'd believe that must have been medieval times, or something. And a bunch of Democrats!
Will you ever give up your cruel bias toward coddling the toddler Trump and treating him as if he were some client of yours? He has enough lawyers already. And apparently more are on the way.
But no, let's pretend the prosecution has no case. It's perfectly normal for a president to require this much representation.
Inga, I think you are wrong. If you have been posting here for years, you would know that. She's reactionary though, right?
Drago, chicken shit to venture onto a liberal blog, he loves his Mama Althouse's 99% Trumpist blog. It's all yours folks.
Why would a Leftist conclude a conservative has the option of living in a bubble? That genuinely confused me.
We read Left leaning papers. We get Left leaning movies. We get the Leftist news programs. We get to pay for Leftist NPR. We get indoctrinated in Leftist teaching.
And despite all those disadvantages the Republicans keep winning elections.
We should play a game where any of the conservative commenters leaves the Leftist comments and the Leftist commenters try to make conservative arguments. I can make the Leftist arguments effortlessly.
Inga: "No she's not and I wouldn't be so sure."
Comments such as these are often accompanied by thumb-sucking and soiling ones self.
Let's hope it hasn't progressed that far.
Inga still cannot accept that her angry lefty friends DONT ALLOW conservative commentators!
Lol
Inga is one angry little elf this evening
Whatever could be troubling her?
Who could read through the preceding push-pollery and not, by the end, be disturbed?
Uh, a normal person.
I'm assuming you never found Republican push-polling to be anywhere near as disturbing. Particularly, an especially invidious and revolting example when the George W. Bush campaign (one of your favorite presidents!) called South Carolina voters during the 2000 primary and asked them if they'd be disturbed to know that John McCain had a black child.
Would not the normal person be disturbed by the push-polling of both the Left and the Right?
Yeah, if I had a prosecutor out for blood after me for "REASONS!", no way I would get a lawyer unless I were guilty as hell because that's how our system works.
Only guilty people need lawyers.
I doubt Althouse associates with many liberals in Madison Henry. I suspect the people she identifies with are the conservatives here on this blog's comments sections.,
Like Trump, I figure she felt "bad" that not enough of the side she used to identify with had much use for her, so she instead decided that she was never ideologically consistent or principled enough to care more for that than for the cheap fans and their cheap recognition on the right - and decided to cater to their Pavlovian instincts instead. They drooled with delight over the prospect of someone adding a razor-thin veneer of intellectualism to the many hatreds and prejudices that drive them.
@Inga, I think you presume too much. Unless the bicycles, dogs, and onion rings are a bizarre front, Althouse is not blogging from her basement in her pajamas.
Within the realm of the quixotic is the critic seeing plain the folly and stupidity that surrounds them.
Sports fans and artists should get this.
"His views on nuclear proliferation"?
Did President Trump come out in favor of my more countries having the Bomb?
No, they mean not letting Obama's buddies like North Korea and Iran have them. That would disturb some on the left who wish more countries have nuclear weapons to deter US aggression.
Assuming, that is, they're not just throwing chum into the water to see what kind of fish it attracts.
Every Stalinist knows mounting a potential future defense is evidence of criminal Wrongthink, felonious anti-Leviathanism and misdemeanor reckless anti-collectivism.
President Trump is on notice.
I have been banned from more liberal blogs than I can count. No point going someplace where your comments are deleted as soon as you score a point. I guess the fact we aren't banned proves Inga's case.
Who could have guessed that so much of the lefties hopes and dreams were invested in a pajama boy who couldn't be bothered to move into the district in play.
Tsk tsk.
Missed opportunities must haunt Inga.
Why would a Leftist conclude a conservative has the option of living in a bubble? That genuinely confused me.
As is typical. Bubbles can be self-imposed, esp. when they derive from a hatred of the modern world and all that modern humans have discovered about the evidence of how it works.
There is also a sensibility that zealots don't get, the view of politics as theatre and the belief in process over results.
Somebody here has "many hatreds," our own bourgeois revolutionary.
"Did President Trump come out in favor of my more countries having the Bomb?"
Maybe Japan, which is a damn good idea.
Would not the normal person be disturbed by the push-polling of both the Left and the Right?
I guess, on a case-by-case basis. But given how appalling the tactics of the right have been in very well-publicized recent history, it's interesting to note her focus on this extremely mild example by comparison.
But I guess that's how it goes. She got a letter, for Pete's sake! They contacted her! Oh wow!
Mama Althouse's 99% Trumpist blog
Wait, did Inga just call herself, Once, Toothless, and Chuck the 1%ers?
I hope she feels better tomorrow. I come here to attack the NYT, the idea that off-term Congressional races have any larger meaning, and the idea our principles should be shaped by which party an item might help.
I wish Inga had let us in on her top four. It might have been interesting to see what didn't make the cut.
Bubbles can be self-imposed, esp. when they derive from a hatred of the modern world and all that modern humans have discovered about the evidence of how it works.
Oh crap, I feel a biology lecture coming...
Tell us again how we could trust the Hyannis police to treat their wealthiest and most powerful citizen with complete impartiality and that we can trust their findings completely Mr Revolutionary.
The letter is highlarious.
Somebody here has "many hatreds," our own bourgeois revolutionary.
Given how well-funded your party is, it's interested that you prop up your own hatred of "bourgeoisie". If the smug, self-interested billionaire brothers of Koch Industries aren't too bourgeoisie for your own tastes, then it appears you don't really have a leg to stand on with this phony criticism.
GOP = Party of Money. (Almost-billionaire) presidential party head. But only low-class bourgeoisie need apply. The crass, rude, hateful kind. Refinement, as evidenced by civil and normal human behaviors, will not be tolerated in the Party of the Rich - which just spent how much money defending a safe Georgia congressional seat to within 2 points?
Well, you can't ever accuse a GOP henchman/voter of making any sense, that's for sure.
Oh crap, I feel a biology lecture coming...
So which do you hate more, then? Life, or the scientific study of life?
"Oh crap, I feel a biology lecture coming..."
If you read it, you have only yourself to blame.
The person who wondered who Ritmo is now can see the phenomenon.
I've been banned at any number of liberal sites for responding to liberal assholes with 1/8 the venom they threw at me.
You don't have to throw venom at all at leftist sites (They aren't "Liberal") to be banned. Just disagree.
The person who wondered who Ritmo is now can see the phenomenon.
You sure like to talk about people in their absence, I notice. When they're not present to defend themselves.
Just another one of your typical, dishonorable, conservative-narcissistic traits.
You don't have to throw venom at all at leftist sites (They aren't "Liberal") to be banned. Just disagree.
And persist in that disagreement. With as little evidence as possible.
Insist that your emotions and obscure, unstated motivations are what make you right.
Defend a rich, powerful interest as the arbitrary source for all your righteousness. Justify the ill-treatment of the unfortunate by turning a blind eye to it, pretending it away, or insisting that they must deserve it.
Make sure that Republican congress critters are never held to account. See everything as partisan.
So which do you hate more, then? Life, or the scientific study of life?
Neither. I just don't need another "scientific discussion" of which bathroom people who sexually identify as an Ikea bookcase are supposed to use when they visit North Carolina for the furniture show.
Virtually Unknown said...
"It also points to the fact that you don't want your blog to be a place where liberals are welcomed"
I'm a liberal an I'm here. I think you mean a place where disingenuous leftists are welcomed.
Then no. But enlightenment, true classic liberals are already here.
Hell. Meade helps run the place.
Actually Once said that not VU.
Tim Gilliland,
I answered your same question within minutes of you asking it on an earlier thread. Clearly, you weren't serious enough to check the thread then, and I can only assume you're playing with us now. So my guess is that you're a Ritmo sock puppet having some fun.
I just don't need another "scientific discussion" of which bathroom people who sexually identify as an Ikea bookcase are supposed to use when they visit North Carolina for the furniture show.
Nonsense. You don't need any scientific discussions. Because you hate science. Especially as it applies to longstanding beliefs, assumptions or customs. So I'll make it a simple logic exercise for you instead.
What's fascinating about your hatred of the transgender is that it makes the same uproariously embarrassing error that you conservatives made about homosexuals: You presumed that sexuality was all in the mind, and that heterosexual behavior had no instinct to it - it had to be all social.
With the trans, what you're doing is saying that gender is in the rational mind. Really? Conservatives now believe that men and women are not different psychologically? I don't know much about your movement, but I know that's news to me - as it would be to all of you if you actually thought about it for a millisecond.
If gender is not all thought-out, as any common sense will dictate - even to a conservative - then obviously it can be deviant due to no fault at all of the subject. Babies are born intersex - I don't notice conservatives rejecting that phenomenon. I guess because an infant with ambiguous genitals or the wrong genitals is something they can see.
But since you hate "science," I won't bring up the fact that science can now visualize brain structures that give rise to gender and how they differ in these people. I will just point out how bone-headed it is to assume that an instinctual trait such as gender has to be rationally derived, on account of the fact that you assume the brain is not an organ with natural variation in the population but that genitals are!
You keep believing. Seeing is believing! If we can't see it it doesn't exist!
But enlightenment, true classic liberals are already here.
i.e. the ones who think that money can replace virtue - especially civic virtue.
I just don't need another "scientific discussion" of which bathroom people who sexually identify as an Ikea bookcase are supposed to use when they visit North Carolina for the furniture show.
Annnnd thank you Toothless for providing one anyway.
The "scientific discussion" I set up above had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. It neither made an assumption that the person sexually identifying as furniture could or could not do so. It left the entirety of the science of gender and sexuality out of the discussion. it focused only on the problem that people might suggest that this person might use this bathroom or that, and would be supported in doing so by this group or that, meaning that our news would be filled with discussions of whether this or that were "proper".
But instead of recognizing this, you made a bunch of assumptions and launched into a "scientific" lecture about what can and can't be seen, and therefore what should and should not be believed.
You had no idea what my current knowledge, feelings, or beliefs were on the subject - pro or con - and yet into the copy and paste outrage bank you went to teach me about "science".
You want to know why Democrats keep losing elections? Because they can't wait to tell everyone they meet what they should believe. Nobody wants to give people like that any more power than they already have.
For the record the correct answer, if there is one, seems to be bookcases in men's, coffee tables in women's, and lamps can use either. But that's just current convention. Nothing scientific about it.
If you read it, you have only yourself to blame.
Fool me once...
So which do you hate more, then? Life, or the scientific study of life?
Life was really good. Blue Planet too. Currently we're watching Earth II, which in which Richard Attenborough waxes wonderfully anthropomorphic about the scientific study of life captured on film. The sloth hears the call of his mate...
Michael K, that's weird to me. I actually worked for the Cruz campaign, and not as an unpaid volunteer. It killed me when he lost, but I supported Trump because I knew if Cunt Hillary won, it was game over for the rest of us.
Maybe I'll swing by and beat up on the NeverTrump cucks. The liberals here don't have much meat on their bones.
Fen:
Patterico too, if you want to take some whacks.
CWJ said...
Tim Gilliland,
I answered your same question within minutes of you asking it on an earlier thread. Clearly, you weren't serious enough to check the thread then, and I can only assume you're playing with us now. So my guess is that you're a Ritmo sock puppet having some fun.
6/21/17, 6:44 PM
Assuming you are sincere (hmm, could you be outing yourself, are you the true identity of Ritmo), this is the chronology: montana urban legend became Ritmo Brasileiro became Rhythm and Balls became The Toothless Revolutionary. Guys, have I missed any of them? I'm thinking there might have been one more.
I don't know why he changed identities, as Althouse didn't ban any of them, but the general presumption is that he found himself painting himself into corners with overheated rhetoric and changed skins, the older version of deleting your account. I can't understand why he would change his name if he didn't have to.
Blogger Kevin said...
If you read it, you have only yourself to blame.
Fool me once...
This is what I'm saying. When he goes on these tears he's barely worth reading, let alone replying to. Let him get it out of his system, and if he says anything interesting reply to that, otherwise just don't.
"But please be honest about it"
Ritmo just asked Ann Althouse for a safe space. Film at 11.
Sadder still to watch it die
Than never to have known it
For you the blind who once could see
The bell tolls for thee
- RUSH, Losing it
The "scientific discussion" I set up above had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
Then count me out. Be a partisan feces on your own time.
It neither made an assumption that the person sexually identifying as furniture could or could not do so.
It was a stupid attempt to dumb it down into a joke, which is a way for you to feel better about your disrespect for these persons.
It left the entirety of the science of gender and sexuality out of the discussion.
Which would be the whole factual basis for having one. So of course you discard that part.
The de-rationalization and de-scientification of knowledge. Behold, the conservative contribution to civilization's downfall!
it focused only on the problem that people might suggest that this person might use this bathroom or that,
What problem? That other people are having an emotional, selfish, ignorant reaction to these people? That doesn't concern me, either.
and would be supported in doing so by this group or that, meaning that our news would be filled with discussions of whether this or that were "proper".
Because you already proceed on your foregone conclusion that the reactionaries' reactions are "proper," which I reject.
But instead of recognizing this, you made a bunch of assumptions -
I made assumptions? Your whole assumption is that a primitive social reaction to demean these people deserves some kind of respect. I see no reason for assuming that it does.
...and launched into a "scientific" lecture about what can and can't be seen,
Which must somehow be inferior to your lecture about what should or should not be felt.
...and therefore what should and should not be believed.
Probably because I value true beliefs as much as you value phony and irrational beliefs.
You had no idea what my current knowledge, feelings, or beliefs were on the subject - pro or con -
Oh, I do know what you invest a lot of time and emotional energy defending, as opaque as you would prefer to come across when it comes to revealing your obvious bias. Or perhaps you don't even believe what you would like to spend so much time defending - which just means you lack integrity, I guess.
- and yet into the copy and paste outrage bank you went to teach me about "science".
Oh boy. Scare quotes! Well, let the record show that when you actually care to make the point you feel a need to defend - (even though you're apparently not sure if you believe it - you get just as lengthy. Or is it "copied and pasted outrage?" Oh, that's right. It's only outrage if you actually believe it. And you're not sure if you have the decency and integrity to clarify if this is actually your belief or just a belief you have no stake in, but have a compulsion to defend for god knows what reason.
You want to know why Democrats keep losing elections?
Because they have integrity and you only care about money, political power and your party. You want to know why the Nazis "beat" the Jews?
You want to know why colonizers "beat" the American Indian?
Because they can't wait to tell everyone they meet what they should believe.
Especially when beliefs can be bought and sold - to people like you who are cheap and not mentally strong enough to know what to believe anyway.
Nothing scientific about it.
Although you sure are rich... in bullshit. The guy who declares the scientific facts behind a phenomenon that discomforts him to be off-limits up and declares what is and is not scientific. You talk more nonsense than a fucking monkey.
Make sense or get lost. I don't have time to waste with people who don't know what to believe, while bs'ing endlessly on what they want to believe.
Bad Lieutenant,
You missed one or two. I seem to recall (s)he went through multiple handles incorporating "ritmo" as part of the name.
CWJ said...
Bad Lieutenant,
You missed one or two. I seem to recall (s)he went through multiple handles incorporating "ritmo" as part of the name.
6/21/17, 7:39 PM
It may be so, in fact I'm sure you're right. C'mon, Althive Mind, cough up, who else has he been?
Post a Comment