— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017
Wow. He really is doubling down and apparently not worried about the recent accusation that his statements about journalists are going to lead to violence against journalists.
As a metaphor, there's a bit of a fakeness muddle. Fakeness 1: CNN is — in the Trump rhetoric — fake news. Fakeness 2: that kind of wrestling is fake. So Trump has himself fake-fighting fake news. Might be kind of like writing a sentence with a double negative.
Anyway, a President showing us video of himself physically brutalizing the news media... that's something we've never seen, and if the question is whether that's presidential, we know Trump's answer is it's modern-day presidential.
Meanwhile, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison calls for censorship: Twitter should kick Trump out. Twitter does have the power to pull the plug, but what are the consequences?
What happens to Twitter after it shows itself looking plainly political? There's always another social media platform. It wasn't that long ago when Twitter didn't exist. There's nothing that special about Twitter other than that it has a lot of users. They could have them today and lose them tomorrow. Trump has 33 million followers. Anywhere he goes, he will be followed, leveraging Twitter's competition.
As for the censors like Ellison, why do they not worry about how they will be seen? Why don't they worry about the demands for equal treatment? Ellison said: "I personally think that Twitter should treat him like any other social media harasser and snatch his account." Turn that around. If Trump's account is snatched, then everyone else whose account was equally "bullying" toward anybody would have to get their account snatched. That would be a lot of snatches.
In last night's post about Trump's tweeting, the commenter rcocean wrote that he was "surprised Althouse isn't pulling out her 'Civility Bullshit' tag." I see the point. This is squarely within what I use that tag to mean, which is that calls for civility are always bullshit. That is, I have observed again and again that when somebody issues what purports to be a lofty call to civility, they're bullshitting. They don't really mean it. They just want someone who's not on their side to disarm, tone it down, and recede into boring innocuousness. If their side were coming on strong, scoring hits, they'd be exulting and proud of their effective rhetoric.
পোস্টগুলি
৩০৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 307 এর 201 – থেকে 307Should be "aren't being said by some blogger".
Trump:
* Understands civility is not possible when the press has no desire or use for it. He will be demonized regardless of his behavior.
Actually, when Trump delivered his State of the union address it was well received. He had lowered expectations enough to get positive press for adequate work. If he had continued meeting the "Presidential" standard he would have been more effective in pursuing his legislative agenda. He made other choices.
As with YoungHegelian, its not "some" but nearly all, and this is indeed top-down policy.
These are huge media operations with the editorial line driven from the top, not by random employees.
Trump is fighting giants, not pygmies.
Wow. He really is doubling down and apparently not worried about the recent accusation that his statements about journalists are going to lead to violence against journalists.
That's because it's all fainting couch nonsense. Does anybody really believe journalists are in any danger of violence? They're just using it as another way to criticize the president.
We keep hearing about the looming threat of violence from leftist journalists, but somehow nearly all of the actual violence is coming from their fellow travelers. Maybe they could, you know, do their jobs and check into that. We might respect them more.
The SOTU response lasted about 5 minutes before it was replaced by "Russians" 24x7.
This is not an honest press, it is a propaganda system operated by enemies of the people.
I'm with Laslo: "Twitter Ted Baxters and Tar babies". Brilliant analysis.
What we see today is the logical consequence of strategic decisions taken by the managing editors at CNN and other news organs in 2000 when G.W. Bush narrowly defeated the Clintonista sock puppet called Al Gore. By then open political partisans were being openly posted to influential positions*. The Clinton's played by Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a tome Hillary was very familiar with, and the MSM adopted that rulebook in loyal emulation of their demigods.
Bush resisted the temptation to defend himself against the coordinated attacks by CNN and especially the thugs at MSNBC and he never recovered. Score one for the tormented shade of Saul Alinsky. (Don't try to excuse the likes of Olbermann and O'Donnell as anything but thugs and goons, that is a task for Sisyphus.) Now Alinsky tactics are being waged against the masters, and they don't like it. Tough titty. They have only themselves to blame. Their whingeing yelps are about as convincing as German complaints about the use of poison gas by the British in the trenches of Flanders.
* How else does one explain the seamless migration of George Stephanopoulos, White House Communications Director (for that you may read "Minister of Propaganda") into a permanent seat at ABC's Sunday morning news and public affairs roundtable?
Do you simply not understand the modern network/newspaper production process?
I was addressing people who read and write on this blog. There is no divine system of justice that governs the press, mistakes are made. I'm all for putting pressure on the media to be more accurate and to maintain a clearly defined line separating reporting from opinion and to be very careful with the use of anonymous sources. But that's work and simply pounding away at the "MSM" will not make it happen.
He really is doubling down and apparently not worried about the recent accusation that his statements about journalists are going to lead to violence against journalists.
Why should he be? The MSM and the Democrats isn't worried (and actually kind of hope) that their statements about Republicans and conservatives have actually led to violence......
antiphone wrote: I'm not saying it's unfair; I'm saying it's inaccurate.
That's a very ephemeral ethic you have, antiphone. Are you sure you don't wish to clarify because by that standard Trump's metaphorical takedown of CNN is both fair and accurate, which makes one wonder why you are not defending the President rather than indicting him?
"Renee said...
The President as unorthodox as he is,doesn't do this bat sh!t crazy stuff without a good reason. The media hates him, they always hated him. They called him nasty things for years before he even ran for president, thinking of the time Seth Myers tried to get under his skin at the White House Correspondence Dinner in 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Km4R377s4M
Trump didnt flinch. He didn't tell anyone to be condemned or censored. President Obama didn't step in and say 'Hey Seth, that was too much'. Nothing.
7/2/17, 2:53 PM"
You left out the punchline: I thought that was the moment Trump decided to run for POTUS. Now that's revenge, served cold.
But that's work and simply pounding away at the "MSM" will not make it happen.
Not according to Alinsky.
This is not an honest press, it is a propaganda system operated by enemies of the people.
Welcome to the free press governed by the free market. You sound like a cheerleader for the cultural revolution.
Blogger antiphone said...
Do you simply not understand the modern network/newspaper production process?
I was addressing people who read and write on this blog. There is no divine system of justice that governs the press, mistakes are made. I'm all for putting pressure on the media to be more accurate and to maintain a clearly defined line separating reporting from opinion and to be very careful with the use of anonymous sources. But that's work and simply pounding away at the "MSM" will not make it happen.
Oh, I dunno. I think Trump will help bring about what you're looking for there.
Certainly not previous Republican Presidents and their abject surrender to the media.
Lloyd naively asks: Has he made his week any better, or simply distracted from what was very good news for him?
What? Do you honestly believe that the MSM will report good news about Trump? He and his cabinet have actually accomplished quite a bit but we only hear about his tweets.
You know things are really grim when Laslo has taken the moral high ground.
The leftist reaction to this, as exemplified by Once Written, shows the Narrative has been turned on its' head. Remember when the Leftists were the irreverent ones, the ones who mocked and ridiculed everything and the conservatives were the prim Church Ladies, who pursed their lips and said "That's not funny!" Well, it's been clear to many of us for years that PC has turned the Left into the prissy, censorious side, but their reaction to Trump just underscores it. They really can't abide it when they are the ones being mocked.
What I am waiting for are some of the braver young people to start jeering at the campus SJWs instead of being cowed by them. I can't imagine many people enjoy being lectured and threatened and pushed around by their peers, especially characters like the pathetic crew patrolling Evergreen with baseball bats.
What's so embarrassing about having small hands?
Quaestor nails it: Anyone with any education can see that what the President has done is use Twitter to publish what amounts to an animated political cartoon.
Best description yet.
The media hate Trump. The media are why we have Trump.
Quaestor said...
Every cartoonist has used the image of a boxing ring, with one well-known figure in the guise of pugilist dealing a black eye to some other politico also attained in trunks and boxing gloves. Trump, not being a cartoonist has created (or someone created for him) the exact analog of such a caricatured cartoon in digital video.
"attained", eh. Is that a lawyerly Freudian slip?
I am Myrt
If the media were honest, Hillary would have been forced to drop out, Trump would have been side-lined by the weight of his own weirdness, and we night have president Rand Paul.
The media are why we have Trump.
In large measure, yes. Funny how neither the MSM nor the GOPe have realized that yet.
has realized that yet.
small hands, huge penis.
When someone suggested that "it would be divine justice for people to start attacking all the Democrat operatives with press bylines", antiphone wrote (5:29pm):
"That's the definition of terrorism, how patriotic."
He doesn't seem to have noticed that the FBI declared the actual shooting of a Republican congressman and several other people NOT to be terrorism, even when the shooter had a list of Republicans to kill in his pocket, and that the press doesn't seem to be interested in criticizing or mocking the FBI for their obvious lie or calling for the resignation of whoever made that decision. Why is that?
Blogger antiphone said...
This is not an honest press, it is a propaganda system operated by enemies of the people.
Welcome to the free press governed by the free market. You sound like a cheerleader for the cultural revolution.
In a free market buyers and sellers enter into agreements freely and without coercion. There are laws and regulations that are intended to prevent deceit, misrepresentation and fraud in buyer/seller transactions. Most people, conservative and liberal, agree to the need for at least some laws and regulations governing commerce.
Where are the laws and regulations that govern situations where CNN makes up fake stories with a clear intent to damage Trump? What prison was home to Dan Rather after his "fake but accurate" story about GW Bush? What laws protected Sarah Palin when the media smeared her?
What the media publishes is subject to the 1st Amendment and libel law. Whether a media corporation survives financially is subject to free markets, assuming the media corporation are not the plaything of some rich individual.
Myrt wrote: "attained", eh. Is that a lawyerly Freudian slip?
No, that's Safari up to its accustomed mischief.
Freudian?
Actually, when Trump delivered his State of the union address it was well received.
While rioters trashed DC. Is your memory short ?
Also, the media was all about how "Dark" his inauguration speech was. "Dark" was the magic word for a couple of weeks until the Russian thing got going.
@Rene Saunce,
small hands, huge penis.
How could you get that so wrong? I thought so much better of you.
That should be:
small hands, yuuuuuuuuuuuuuge penis!
Once written, twice... said...
Thirty years ago conservatives use to rail against the degrading of the culture. Do you remember that?
7/2/17, 11:00 AM
Sure we do. We also remember how you laughed, and laughed, and laughed...
Good times, eh?
You won. Be happy you won. Why aren't you happy you won?
Welcome to the free press governed by the free market. You sound like a cheerleader for the cultural revolution.
Bullshit. There isn't a single big market newspaper that operates profitably. The same is true of CNN and MSNBC. While it is true that CNN posts a profit regularly, the opportunity costs incarnadine that technically black ink. Bezos and Slim are the exact analogs of Charles Foster Kane, who became a newspaper magnate because he thought it would be fun to work some mischief on society.
When Jeff Bezos finally croaks, what will his last words be? "Plan B"? (This is an intelligence test. Solve it, if you dare.)
Now if his hands were teeny-tiny, that might be embarrassing, but merely small? That's nothing to be ashamed of.
When Jeff Bezos finally croaks, what will his last words be? "Plan B"? (This is an intelligence test. Solve it, if you dare.)
Bezos' refusal to accept a 'backup plan' for planet earth?
I googled it. But maybe that's not where you were going with it.
antiphone said...
"... If he had continued meeting the "Presidential" standard he would have been more effective in pursuing his legislative agenda. He made other choices."
Don't you mean "even more effective"?
Because he's gotten quite a bit of his agenda enacted while you were watching the clown show on CNN. He's way ahead of where, for example, President Obama was at this point in his presidency.
If you really did mean to suggest that he's been comparatively ineffective in pursuing his legislative agenda -- what exactly are you comparing him to?
While the MSM loses its mind over a Trump joke, Trump demonstrates once again he means business. "The Trump administration conducted a second sea patrol close to a China-controlled island in the South China Sea, following a series of moves in recent days that appear to signal Washington’s displeasure with Beijing."
Next week Trump will be in Poland and the betting is that in addition to plugging Poland using US LNG ( they got their first shipment last week), the betting is he'll help arm the Ukraine against Putin's incursions. He is wiping out Obama's wishy washy foreign policy in record time.
Also next week Angela Merkel - the leader of the free world - is going to try to tell Trump what he should do about The Paris Accord, his nasty attitude toward NATO shirkers, immigration, and how the US should relate to the EU. I would like to be a fly on the wall for that. There will be a lot of whinging and crying in the press after that meeting.
I submit Trump knows Polite Society better than most-
I submit his tweets are somewhat of on inside joke-
Sending a message....
It's apt. His administration is about as professional, presidential, authentic and accomplished as WWE. One's just as much for show and bravado as the other.
"Actually, when Trump delivered his State of the union address it was well received."
While rioters trashed DC.
But, but, but... he's a man of the people!
ROFLMAO!
I don't know why something like "Repeal/Replace" is only Trump's agenda. The operative word is legislative. Trump runs the executive. The executive seems to be moving right along. The legislative branch is being shown up for what it is: a bunch of self-important cowards for whom the interests of the American people fall far below their own interest in continued power. You have to love that the Senate could pass a bill when it didn't count, but when it counts they run for cover.
BTW my source for the 7:56pm post was the WSJ.
The leftist reaction to this, as exemplified by Once Written, shows the Narrative has been turned on its' head. Remember when the Leftists were the irreverent ones, the ones who mocked and ridiculed everything and the conservatives were the prim Church Ladies, who pursed their lips and said "That's not funny!"
Right. Which is why conservative comedy and entertainment media pays so well!
ROFLMAO!
You and your kind were not uneased by the coarsening of the national dialogue because it served your purposes.
Had it not been for Buckley's "uncoarsening", all your Birchers et al would have been just as crude and loud and as visible a part of your party now that Trump and his Boss Bannon have given them a front-row seat. They were always there, just muted and coded.
I instantly took it as a non serious depiction of him bitch stomping the fake press in the court of public opinion, or at least among his fans.but only liberals would get so incensed as to say it was a call for violence.
He was beating up a LOGO people. No person in existence has a logo for a head. It's a metaphor.
It would be different than if he did a gif of a battle from the street fighter game where ryu has trumps face superimposed and his opponent ChUn Li has CNN's logo imposed over her face. And ryu/Trump does his Harukwn move (https://youtu.be/WYgMG3_rsOE) and knocks out chun Li/CNN to win.
Only a liberal would view that as a call to violence as opposed to an "IN YO FACE CNN! U just got PWNED!" style brag.
The left, on the other hand has actually pushed violent rhetoric. They profess to be a RESISTANCE to an ILLEGITIMATE leader who is a TRAITOR in league with Russians, and who is also A NAZI RACIST. And they already asked if it was ok to punch nazis when an actual person was sucker punched. And of course, the standard argument is that republicans are nazis. So the inference, of course is, thst it's ok to punch trump supporters or republicans. We have weekly calls from celebrities to commit violence on trump.
We already have a lefty loon shooting Steve scalise. If you go to his Facebook page u see he bought every single talking point the dmeocrats put out and incorporated it into his rage, there is a clear line between democratic rhetoric and his murderous shooting.
But that rhetoric had NOTHING to wiht do with anything.
Trump however beating up a LOGO in a fake wrestling match style beat down is of course a call to violence. If anything has pushed me into defending trump it has been liberals overreaction to literally every thing trump tweets to says.
But, liberals I'll do it again. This was not a call to arms. CNN is not a person. It's a logo. He's beating up a LOGO (personified) it's a metaphor. He's saying CNN is like wrestling, FAKE, and their attacks are fake. And he will be victorious. PWNED!
And your are triggered by a gif? The reaction is so over the top you only make trump sound reasonable.
Why does Trump need to have a "legislative agenda"? He's President, not Congressman. He has an "executive agenda".
What was Obama's executive agenda?
!. Make Obama Great
2. Make Obama Great Again
3. Profit
He got elected and will be elected again.
On a record of doing WHAT?
Outrage candidates don't tend to stay in office. Their job is to channel outrage, not to govern. Thus is as it appears with Dr. Drumpf.
Some other goings on TTR and Chuck may have missed: (source WSJ)
"The U.S. and the Philippine navies conducted a joint maritime patrol off the southern Philippines on Saturday, as a government’s battle with Islamic State-aligned militants is raising fears that the conflict could spread to other parts of the region."
"The Senate Armed Services Committee approved a major change in U.S. policy toward Taiwan as part of an annual defense-policy measure, voting to allow regular stops by U.S. naval vessels in a move that is likely to anger China."
"Days before President Donald Trump is expected to meet his Chinese counterpart for the second time, Beijing accused the U.S. of violating the “spirit” of their first meeting by approving arms sales to Taiwan and unilaterally sanctioning Chinese entities linked to North Korea."
Next week -
President Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at next week’s G-20 summit, senior administration officials confirmed Thursday.
"Mr. Trump also plans to meet with a number of NATO allies and is set to hold one-on-one discussions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Mexican President Enrique Pena-Nieto among others, according to national security adviser H.R. McMaster."
But, shit, let's all run around in circles because of Trump's joke video - of course no one is talking Russian "collusion" at the moment. That's not a coincidence; and the Chinese, I suspect, don't think Trump is going to be a walkover like his predecessor.
What was Obama's executive agenda?
!. Make Obama Great
2. Make Obama Great Again
3. Profit
Wow. That says a lot that that's all you see/saw.
Let's take one, minor example. What's the country's interest in mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, other than to make millions of fathers unavailable to low income families?
Oh wait, another example! What's the country's interest in letting bin Laden slide out of the mountains that billions are wasted on pummeling while tribesman who can hide him better anyway? Too bad Obama didn't try that move instead of working the human intel and shooting him dead! All for ego! (Instead of a MOAB)!
What's the country's interest in 20 million more uninsured, kids without access to healthy nutrition... oh, sorry - that's right. There I go again talking about actual policies instead of the all important issue of personality. My bad!
Onward with the promotion of President Gameshow Host.
@meade 8:15pm Well said!
Oh wow, Khesan. So he's going to "talk" to people! What a leader!
Hopefully the people he talks to will butter him up with plenty of flattery, like his cabinet did!
Listen, it's possible some of his unconventional thinking here or there will actually work out well: Taiwan, for instance. But everything else you note is nothing more than standard diplomatic openings - standard, of course, other than for how he constantly undercuts his much more competent SOS.
Reverting to cuddling up to the Saudis, like he did on his last trip - utterly conventional, and stupid.
And then there's the abomination of his abdication of U.S. leadership on renewable technologies and Scott Pruitt's coup to turn the EPA into a a polluter's paradise. Just despicable.
More activity in Trump's executive:
"President Trump is having a hard time getting legislation through Congress, but his Administration is moving fast to roll back Barack Obama’s pen- and-a-phone lawmaking. The latest example, which barely registered in the press, is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last week to rescind the unilateral rewrite of the Clean Water Act."
"Thirty-one states sued the feds for violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the rule nationwide."
"Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury last week announced new sanctions to reduce the flow of money through China to North Korea. Treasury said it will cut off the China-based Bank of Dandong from the U.S. financial system for “facilitating millions of dollars of transactions for companies involved in North Korea’s WMD and ballistic missile programs.” Treasury also sanctioned Dalian Global Unity Shipping Co., and two Chinese citizens, Sun Wei and Li Hong Ri."
WSJ 7/2/17
My sources tell me (how authoritative that sounds - I bought a mirror and talk to it) but, anyhow, my sources tell me that Congress is struggling with the legislative agenda. They can't decide whether to repeal Obamacare on their own or wait till the Democrats come in because Obamacare has totally failed. They can't do the tax bill till they do Obamacare. Delay is bad for Republicans but delay will not help the Democrats because 1) as time goes on it will show how bad Obamacare is and 2) Democrat states and cities are beginning to implode financially.
The net is that Republicans can argue aloud what to do while the Dems can do nothing but trash Trump personally. It's been shown that attacking Trump will not win elections so the Dems feel hopeless and helpless and so more attacks on Trump.
Trump meanwhile is doing stuff: Gorsuch, Paris Accord, pipelines, fighting for jobs, lowering immigration numbers. His trust numbers are higher than Democrats, Republicans, Congress or the media. And he is far more interesting than anyone else. I had to laugh at the gif and then had to laugh again as I imagined the response at FNN. I dropped ribs and grease all over on the keyboard - but I'm not tired of the winning.
brylun said...
Rick, what does "Law Enforcement reform" mean to you?
Increasing professionalism, ending the aggressive militarism that leads to events like these:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grenade-no-indictment/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/nyregion/eric-garner-police-chokehold-staten-island.html
Trump is the White Obama: An empty vessel into which we pour our hopes, dreams, and grievances.
"What's the country's interest in mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders?"
I don't know. Ask the Clintons. That was part of their executive agenda.
"20 million more uninsured, kids without access to healthy nutrition"
He insured 20 million people who had, what, no other way of purchasing their own insurance? Okay.
And he gave kids "access" to "healthy nutrition." No, you're right — those count as executive accomplishments.
I beg your pardon — it was unfair of me. Obama's presidency wasn't entirely about Obama.
The latest example, which barely registered in the press, is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last week to rescind the unilateral rewrite of the Clean Water Act.
Yeay!!! Let's hear it for dirtier water! This is something that really needed to happen! The biggest and richest polluters told us so.
Abominable. He's the Republican ideal, personified. Money over lives. That's how the Republican governor got Flint Michigan's water leaded. Trump will do the same, in a million new ways. His incompetent plant in the EPA administration, unsuccessfully brought suit against the EPA fourteen times! What he failed at so miserably in the courts will now be accomplished by his gutting of the agency from the top.
This is a guy who said he only wants to work on "tangible" pollution - while still gutting Superfund monies by 25%. I guess that means nuclear radiation is something they're cool with - it's not tangible, after all. So is almost any other dangerous chemical. What an asshole. Every chemical that he refuses to regulate should be leached directly into his family's tap and air supply. If he dies from it you couldn't call that assassination, technically. It's just helping the polluter financially - which is after all his higher purpose.
This morning I watched Trump at the Al Smith Dinner in Oct 2016. He was largely charming, funny and very effective against Hillary, who had the good sense to laugh. His final bit about her was none of the above, and the pro Hillary audience responded in kind. I can't figure out the point of that part.
TTR: "What's the country's interest in mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, other than to make millions of fathers unavailable to low income families?"
Would you mind listing for us all crimes which are considered "non-violent"? Should be interesting.
I don't know. Ask the Clintons. That was part of their executive agenda.
That's true. And entirely fair. You know, many of us who could never vote for Trump still wanted to keep another Clinton just as far from the White House. Interestingly enough, all five major policy changes under Bill were not very left-wing: DOMA, Crime bill, welfare reform, NAFTA and Glass Steagall repeal.
But just because Clinton did it doesn't mean that Jeff Sessions should bring that policy (changed under Obama) back with a vengeance.
I beg your pardon — it was unfair of me. Obama's presidency wasn't entirely about Obama.
This is what I don't understand about the Obama detractors. They seem to hate him for being popular and/or liked. But that's not a suspect or evil or strange thing in and of itself. Being liked is often a consequence of doing good for others. I really wish one of the Obama detractors will one day explain to me why that's a bad thing. Do they just resent his popularity and the good people feel he did for them?
If you can explain how that isn't putting party over country then maybe I could see merit in the support for anyone willing to crush Obama's legacy - as Trump seems dead-set on doing.
I'm not seeing even a fraction of cult-of-personality with President Trump as I saw and still see with Obama. Though, you Obama voters have to admit — the bloom has been off the Obama rose for quite some time.
And he gave kids "access" to "healthy nutrition."
You can lead a kid to vegetables, but you can't make him eat.
Would you mind listing for us all crimes which are considered "non-violent"? Should be interesting.
Well I don't see the point of making a game of it, but I suspect (based on my limited knowledge of every relevant statute) that you're probably talking about trafficking. Or major trafficking. Violence seems self-explanatory: There's no real need to call a possession-related offense violent in itself. Killings or other coercive acts are already covered under their own statutes.
Though, you Obama voters have to admit — the bloom has been off the Obama rose for quite some time.
First off, many if not most voters who swung the election to Trump were Obama voters.
Second, what they were voting for in 2016 was probably different from what motivated their vote in 2008 - not just due to some aura around Obama but actual bread-and-butter issues.
Third, Obama's approval ratings never dropped to those held by Trump at every point since November.
Is focusing more on perceptions and popularity really the right thing to do for the country?
Okay, TTR, it's not lack of action that has you upset, it's action you don't like.
Don't diplomats talk? I mean, most people would say they talk too much. Giving Ukraine the means of self-defense just talk?
More just talk: "The U.S. has deployed a tank brigade to Central and Eastern Europe and is conducting exercises in the Baltic Sea region."
Where is the abdication of self-supporting renewable technologies (source please)? Also, please explain why should I subsidize Warren Buffet and Elon Musk?
Pruitt is actually forcing the EPA to deal with the environmental laws as written. Perhaps you don't like that either. Note that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the Obama WOTUS rule as illegal So the EPA has to do something about that no matter who is there ..... and wasn't it the EPA that was in charge of that dam that burst in CO?
What was that business about Bin Laden? If you think Trump cooperating with the Saudis is more dangerous than Obama clearing the way for Iran's nukes I have a bridge, etc.
If you believe the CBO's numbers you a bigger fool than I thought and what's that business about healthy nutrition? You mean like MIchelle's school lunch program that every administrator hated and the kids wouldn't eat?
"Being liked is often a consequence of doing good for others. I really wish one of the Obama detractors will one day explain to me why that's a bad thing."
Where in the Constitution or even in the Declaration does it say that we the people formed a government in order to "do good for others"? Modern so-called liberals and progressives just made that idea up out of whole cloth.
You can lead a kid to vegetables, but you can't make him eat.
True, but you also don't have to inundate him as much with junk food. And there are ways to make healthy food taste well. They just go beyond loading them up with salt, fat and sugar - as the industry has figured out how to do. Along with how they figured out how to make their product so cheap and ubiquitous in low-income neighborhoods and establishments that it's basically become cost-ineffective to eat healthy. That's a shame, and it can and was starting to be changed.
As it's a shame that Trump basically wants to trash the White House garden. I just read that a major benefactor for it is trying to woo Melania to its care and involvement by planting a Slovenian onion developed by her grandfather there. If that's the sort of self-centered appeal that will get someone in the WH to stop patting themselves on the back for every decent and kind initiative of Michelle or Barack's that they destroy, then I'll take it. But seriously, how sad.
Being liked is often a consequence of doing good for others
Except that he'd done nothing but promote himself when "you" fell for him. You gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up and smiling at you. We're even more disgusted with your world for it than with him.
you also don't have to inundate him as much with junk food.
Why must the WH run school cafeterias? Shouldn't other people exercise their judgment before they lose it?
You did hear the WH garden soil had too much lead in it?
"You did hear the WH garden soil had too much lead in it? "
I did. That was part of the Clintons' executive agenda back in the 90s: Make Bill and Hillary's Lawn Great Again. I could have told them not to use sewage sludge for fertilizer. Guess they didn't need my advice.
Where in the Constitution or even in the Declaration does it say that we the people formed a government in order to "do good for others"? Modern so-called liberals and progressives just made that idea up out of whole cloth.
...to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States. (Article I, Section 8).
Conservatives are actually the innovators and fabricators, here. It's a chimera to ignore that the laws affect the welfare of the people for good or for ill, or that a preference for the former is natural and better. The country was founded on post-enlightenment ideals from Locke etc. that proposed that reason - in government, no less - could improve the human condition. He and the Founders said nothing about how that improvement was supposed to be non-collective or non-corporate. The first health insurance mandate was legislated in 1790, in a Congress packed by Framers.
Conservatives in 1776 would have supported the Tory monarchists, as did a third of the U.S. population at the time. The Declaration called for national independence, but said nothing about how neighbors were to leave one another to starve, go sick, unclothed, whatever - as American conservatives today seem to wish it would have.
You gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up and smiling at you.
I did this?
We're even more disgusted with your world for it than with him.
Lol. Like I said months back, the conservative anthem should be: "We hate the world! We hate its children!" etc.
Why must the WH run school cafeterias?
Because universal education is mandatory and conservatives haven't figured out how to keep that in place without having some publicly run schools here and there. Much as they pretend it would be a utopian panacea to have everything completely privatized.
Typo: ...supposed to be non-collective or corporate. (Fixed).
"The country was founded on post-enlightenment ideals from Locke etc."
Go dig up your AP Government flashcards. Find the one that asks: "What was the sole purpose of Government according to John Locke?"
Report back to us.
Jeez, TTR, you really don't understand my points, do you? Or do you just ignore them to pleasure yourself.
I know you're on the Nobel committee, quit trying to hide it!
@ Tommy Duncan
You nailed it!
Locke was writing at a time when governments were usually too autocratic to expect anything more of a rebellion to or challenge against them to respect/protect natural rights. But he was a liberal who believed (as we do) in using reason to improve the human condition. If you think his words trump those of the Founders and Framers who came several progressive (pun intended) generations later - after a few more revolutions in his native England - then petition your congress critter and ask for a constitutional amendment to retract that clause about "providing for the general welfare."
As with many things, I feel compelled to ask: Is there a personal reason you have for believing people have it too good? Do you feel something in life was deprived to you that the government should be depriving of the people, at the expense of all the economic interests of billionaires that they're instead so focused on improving?
I certainly don't notice any absence of activity on the part of a generation of Republican and corporatist Democrat legislators when it comes to providing for the general welfare of their donors. Or of the economy as a whole, which is benefited when those non-billionaires and non-millionaires are also doing well.
"...to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States. (Article I, Section 8). "
Okay, "whole cloth" was slightly hyperbolic on my part. But do you really believe the framers believed General Welfare included mandatory health insurance? All health care within the state; no health care outside the state?
I'll take your answer off line. Try not to stay up too late. It's not generally good for the welfare of one's health to fail to get enough rest.
The framers did not believe General Welfare included mandatory education, but try and make a case against it now.
But do you really believe the framers believed General Welfare included mandatory health insurance?
Well, clipping out the Mussolini quote (Trump quotes him more than I or any lefty do - ha) - I will just say that with other economic conservatives or those sympathetic to them, I think the difference boils down to whether people think the idea of welfare changed after industrialization.
As for framers and mandatory health insurance - see this. It circulated widely in 2012.
After industrialization there were too many extremes of wealth and changes in living requirements to ignore the fact that the definition of poverty changed. No society is the same after industrialization as it is before. Beforehand, agriculture is the primary occupation and needs are meager. But industrialization brings urbanization and with that, it's a lot tougher to just live off the land. If at that point, the government focuses on the interests of only the tycoon or corporate raider and not the mother, infant or job-seeker, it will incur too much social stability to justify its hold on power.
Ok, I'll try. It's true - sleep is important.
But for me that might already be a lost cause. ;-)
Have a Happy 3rd and 4th, Meade.
Sorry - meant to say social instability (instead of "stability") in that last sentence (9:44 PM).
We spent 8 years telling Tr why we didn't like Barry and he still doesn't know?
Go through old posts.
Blogger Rene Saunce said...If the media were honest, Hillary would have been forced to drop out, Trump would have been side-lined by the weight of his own weirdness, and we night have president Rand Paul.
--
Big jump at end of that..
If I handed out OPM, I'd be liked, too.
Its funny to watcb Ritmo try to gaslight everyone.
But I think we are out of popcorn. Is someone bogarting the popcorn? STOP doing that please. Okay I'll take pretzels. No? Someone snarfed all the pretzels? Damnit.
What's the country's interest in mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, other than to make millions of fathers unavailable to low income families?
I would venture a guess that the drugs themselves made millions of fathers unavailable to low income families. Quite the role models they were.
There were three environmental stories on PBS tonight in less than 30 minutes. 1) EPA head, Scott Pruitt is trying to undo all of Obama's actions to slow down global warming; 2) The "bleaching" destruction of the Great Barrier Reef due to increasing ocean temperatures; 3) The rapid melting of Antarctica due to Climate Change.
We have an orange clown for a president who engages in slapstick while Rome burns/melts. I don't think he will be impeached, but he may fully lose touch with reality, and become the first president removed from office due to a psychotic break.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotic_break
Trumpit, if I had to predict a psychotic break in either you or Trump, you would be my choice.
Besides, Trumpit, even NASA reports that the Antarctic ice cap is growing, not shrinking. Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum
"Undo all of Obama's actions to slow global warming"
Hahahahaha.
Your global warming "scientists" said he only had 3 years to stop global warming of Doooom.
This was in 2009.
Dude, it's over. Maybe you live in some Matrix false reality, but unplug and step outside. Sulfuric acid storms have destroyed everything.
It's just 230 of us up here in Arctic Arc #3, and another 150 spread out across Antarica. And you are in a cryo tube. Game over man, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LISTEN back in 2009 when the scientific consensus was we only had 3 years to stop Global Warming Doom.
PBS would never steer you wrong. Never.
I would venture a guess that the drugs themselves made millions of fathers unavailable to low income families. Quite the role models they were.
Right. Far better to make a jailed father out of an imperfect father.
And Hockeystick Mann just had an article admitting the earth isn't acting like the climate models suggest.
Hide the decline, baby!
First of all mockturtle,the article you liked was last updated March 24, 2016 and secondly if you read the editors note right under the headline there's this:
While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.
Climate change is a process of destabilization not just a gradual rise in temperature.
Antiphone, Trumpit said that PBS ran a program about "The rapid melting of Antarctica due to climate change." Either he is full of shit or PBS is. I suspect both.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...Right. Far better to make a jailed father out of an imperfect father.
--
From what my brother's experience tending to babies in the Milwaukee foster care system has been, forget the fathers..non-existent (or just hanging around when not authorized)..the moms have plenty O' issues themselves..paired with questionable supervision by case managers.
I'm assuming that 'nonviolent drug offenders' include--in fact largely consist of--drug dealers. Are you [Ritmo] suggesting that they aren't at least indirectly responsible for deaths?
It's hard to keep up with the strategies of CAGW worshippers/researchers..what with the ever-moving goal-posts doom and changing standards of measuring that.
Why..it's as if they are invested in furthering their religion.
Gore is Camping dressed in Green...the shade of $$
antiphone said...
So, frankly, I think it would be divine justice for people to start attacking all the Democrat operatives with press bylines.
That's the definition of terrorism, how patriotic.
No, antiphone: A Bernie supporter finding out where the Republican House baseball team practiced, and going there and shooting the Republican Congress members was the definition of terrorism. The press and the Democrats response was to brush it under the rug, because they're happy it happened, and just sad that he didn't manage to kill anyone. http://takimag.com/article/progressively_sicker_jim_goad/print#axzz4laONgFIr
The "antifa" using violence to deprive conservatives of free speech is the definition of terrorism. And the press cheer them on. Hell, Politico just published a love letter to the Portland antifa (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/how-liberal-portland-became-americas-most-politically-violent-city-215322).
When you support people who are violently depriving Americans of their free speech rights, you no longer have any free speech rights to consider. As that is what teh press is doing, I will sit back and laugh whenever and wherever anyone body slams them.
mockturtle wrote: Bezos' refusal to accept a 'backup plan' for planet earth?
Congrats! For being the only Althousian to even attempt my challenge you are one full standard deviation to the right of the median on the IQ bell curve. Though you didn't answer correctly it was a game try. I'll give you a few hints: Who did I compare Slim and Bezos to? Answer: Charles Foster Kane, the central character in Orson Welles' classic film Citizen Kane who was famous for his enigmatic final word, Rosebud. What was Rosebud? What rideable toy has replaced Rosebud and its ilk in the imagination of American boys? Answer these and you'll know why Bezos will mutter Plan B with his dying breath.
"...We're talking team productions here. This all involves editors, reporters, producers, on-air talent, directors, writers, support staff. All of these people can be canned by management if they go over the line for any reason."
Exactly. I'd like to believe these are one-off incidents, but the lack of journalistic response (tightening journalistic guidelines and adding checks and balances to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen in the future) implies that this is the sort of thing they are ok to have happen. These are the few that got caught.
Same with education policies in schools; it isn't some rogue teacher, but an approved school policy going through N layers of administration.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন