Said "one adviser to the White House," according to Politico.
An "adviser to the White House" is presumably someone who doesn't work in the White House, and the comment is something just about anybody could say. It's the most banal and obvious observation about Trump.
So let me say something unconventional — not because I know anything but just as a hypothesis — and that is: It's not that Trump "doesn't realize how bad this is getting." He realizes everything everybody else realizes and more. He's playing a different game, in a different way, and all along it's looked bad to almost everyone. But he's the President, and 17 opponents went down trying to play against him. He's looking ahead and strategizing and we're the ones with inadequate perception. We don't realize how good this is getting.
Just a hypothesis! I'm just inviting you into the old what-if-you-had-to-argue game. What if you had to argue that it's Trump who is seeing things clearly and making correct decisions?
And to help you get started: The media are so heavy-handed with the Charlottesville story. They're showing so much ugliness and stirring up so much anxiety, but it's not really sensible to think that neo-Nazis are making any headway in our culture. Quite the opposite. Some people are getting afraid and angry, and these people may go too far, making more and more demands. Ordinary people will seek peace. They may get disgusted with the media that won't stop giving air time to unimportant loser clowns who nobody decent supports. Ordinary people may think that the media are giving too much attention to the destruction of monuments, and it's time to build up. Construction! A Trump specialty.
By the way, we haven't heard about the Mueller investigation much later. Is the Charlottesville story blotting out all the other news because the other new is good for Trump? There's one new story about the investigation:
Longtime FBI investigator Peter Strzok has stepped away from the investigation that seemed to be hitting a new stride in recent weeks.... It's not clear what motivated the departure.... Strzok has previously led the FBI's counter-espionage section, and also worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Posts
184 comments:
As we have seen repeatedly, the Media gets a story / meme, and goes 'HAH! We Got HIM! This! Time HE IS GOING DOWN!'. Then, like Wile E. Coyote (SOOOPER Genius), the pundits wind up running in space off a cliff for a few seconds before plummeting to a painful impact. Of course, this time it really might be different, but I doubt it.
“This may turn into the biggest mess of his presidency because he is stubborn and doesn't realize how bad this is getting.”
-- I'd believe this if NBC and the BBC didn't report last night that... Trump was kinda right that both sides were violent. I think Trump is standing firm with: "Racists suck, but it took two to tango in that riot. Nazis killing people is also bad."
But, suppose we'd had a President Clinton, and she'd said essentially what Pres. Trump said: that is, that white nationalists are repugnant, but so are those who would use violence to enforce speech limitations.
So, it's counterfactual, and perhaps she would have stayed more on-narrative, as Trump has not.
IF she'd said the exact same thing, would there be any issue at all? Or is the issue not so much what Trump said, but that Trump said it?
Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement, some advancement of his policy goals?
I would be curious to hear what people think those policy goals are, based on the conflicting statements and actions we have heard and seen over the last year.
So is the Russian thing over?
Trump understands that you don't back down to people who have long since made their rabid enmity clear. Since they control the media, he pays a price in the short term. Long term, this becomes just another layer of Teflon and a further motivation to not play by his enemies rules. The Left have not yet begun to lose their shit.
The mdeia worries about ratings with its own audience. It doesn't matter much what the majority of the country thinks of it, so long as it doesn't damage the self-esteem of soap opera women.
The dems and the deep state are free-riding on soap opera. What Scott Adams mistakenly calls mass hysteria.
It's mass what-the-fuck plus soap opera women.
Clinton benefited from scandal fatigue.
Trump might benefit from fake news fatigue, esp. when the MSM & GOPe lies about Antifa are better exposed by more violence.
Trump has seen people coming to his rallies be attacked since before he became President.
He has seen speeches by his supporters shut down to fears of violence and the mob.
The 'conversation' about the anitifa should have begun months ago, but was willfully ignored by the press.
By media and government silence the antifa was considered acceptable by default.
"The minute he was wrong" is seen that way by people coming late to the story.
I am Laslo.
So is the Russian thing over?
Yeah All the Democrats/Lefties that cried about Russia! are now protecting the Lenin statues.
There is now confirmation of the information I saw that the driver of the lethal car is schizophrenic and was taking medication.
That is disqualifying for the military and failure to disclose is a felony and reason for discharge at 4 months.
Second, Jake Tapper has now admitted that ANTIFA was beating reporters.
3/ a photojournalist with the Richmond CBS station also was assaulted while filming a counterprotest.https://twitter.com/cbs6/status/896941568623509506 …
They will gardually walk this back as the facts trickle out. Too bad the Media is not interested in facts.
"IF she'd said the exact same thing, would there be any issue at all?"
-- Probably not. Remember, the courts told us Clinton instituting the same travel ban Trump did may have been constitutional.
Imus suggested "We shall overcome" at the dead lady memorial was way out of date.
"We like big butts" was suggested as an alternative.
Trump ran against the cultural elites of the US, and he still is. And this includes the GOPe.
Trump is right on this issue and trolling his opponents. They are over playing their hand.
Some have suggested we remove monuments to George Washington since he was a slave owners. What of Plato? The racism of Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Wilson?
When does this stop?
Today in the office the political buzz is all about vacations and the eclipse. The office is in Massachusetts, btw...
"Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement, some advancement of his policy goals?"
I would appreciate this as well. But, relying on the useless GOPe has its disadvantages. The other issue is that Trump is not ideologically-driven, so his "vision" lacks cohesion. Dipshits like McConnell work at the speed of government, and so tax reform won't happen until next year.
Politico?? The blog that lied about the "us" that they said Trump said when talking about Antifa attacking the White supremacists who had a permit???
Antifa keeps showing up at non-racist/non-Nazi events and bashing people over the heads with bike locks and bricks...not a peep from the national media. Antifa actually runs into actual Fascists, "OMG, where did these Fascists come from!?!?"
Personally, think this upcoming event is going to be the topper...
Pro-Trump rally to coincide with Juggalos March
"Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement"
Read the Constitution ARM. Read Article I
It might help with your ignorance,
Remember: Antifa are not like WWII vets, despite what the memedia will tell you. They, as you see above, beat reporters. They shut down non-Nazi speech they don't like, including a Jewish scholar, a female political firebrand and a homosexual troll. They used violence to stop a parade because of one float they did not like. They threw explosives at unarmed people and called for murdering cops.
I don't understand why good people on the left would want to hitch their train to the antifa protesters. Simply being willing to use violence against equally unsavory sorts isn't enough to make someone the default good guy.
I haven't followed this latest thing much at all. Honest question: what has Trump said that people have decided is "racist?"
Trump has turned all those Obama era evil greedy self centered CEOs into the most virtuous saints ever to walk the Earth.
Re: AReasonableMan:
Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement, some advancement of his policy goals?
Illegal immigration is apparently way down, although this has more to do with hysteria over the prospect of longstanding immigration laws actually being enforced than with any change in the law or construction of a wall. The reduction is probably real too, to judge from this human interest story from NPR about human smugglers who facilitate illegal entry into the US.
"Ordinary people will seek peace." They are very nice, those ordinary people. For now, they may even make a difference in elections. But they are up against people who just want to win, and who are scorching the earth, politically speaking, to do so--peace be damned. You may not be interested in their culture war, but their culture war is very interested in you.
Trump's not-saving, grace in this fiasco is that the bullshitter-in-chief happened to tell the truth. That will go some way to shore up his position. But it is weak and getting weaker. As the execs and the GOPe and the NeverTrumpers have already caved, the ordinary people seeking peace will accept the left's terms of surrender before long, for the sake of "peace," of course. At which point Trump's supposed "strategizing" will be for naught. Just an alternative hypothesis.
This is where ARM would like to point out all the economic devastation Trump has caused.
Re: AReasonableMan:
Also, NAFTA renegotiation is underway, though since that's only just begun we can't tell whether Trump's stated negotiation aims are going to be achieved or not.
Anyhow, Trade and Illegal Immigration were his two big issues during the campaign, the issues he persisted in pushing to the fore even as the posh set berated him as "racist." And there's been movement on both.
Another Trump policy success: Europe is slowly picking up more of their tab for NATO.
AReasonableMan said...
Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement, some advancement of his policy goals?
It depends on how you set the goal posts. If your goal posts include having the dipshits in the Senate (McCain, Rubio, etc) actually making plays, then Trump could be Pedro Martinez who still couldn't get the Cubs over the hump (but could get The Red Sox to the promised land).
On the other hand, if you mean international action being applied to bad actors, rolling back pointless regulations, getting judges confirmed (the one thing the Senate appears capable of [Thanks, Harry Reid! You were suck an ass, you inspired McConnell to delusions of competence. You should get an award for that]), at least temporarily depressing illegal immigration, then he is moving forward on a lot of (non-symbolic) issues that matter to health of this country.
And frankly, lancing the boil on our butt of the alt-right and alt-left would be a huge benefit to everyone.
Back to the idea that Trump knows what he's doing? It's not strategy, it's folly from A to Z. The look on his Chief of Staff Kelly's face and his body language during that off the cuff pressor told the tale. So we don't know "just how good it's getting"? Surrrrre. It's fascinating how Trump's sycophants continue to desperately seek a different more acceptable explanation for Trump's incompetency.
Blaming the Press for reporting the news is becoming old and stale.
It is hard to say with Trump. In his defense, what he said was factually accurate. On the opposite end, we currently have a media arguing against reality and being blatantly partisan, a Democratic Party which cannot be described as anything other than rejoicing in violence, and a Republican Party that apparently has decided that supporting communist/fascist street goons to deprive Americans of their rights is just fine with them. Compared to the rest of it, Trump looks good in comparison.
There's also the matter of what is the point of apologizing. For what? He said Nazis are horrible people. He decried the violence from the beginning. The media has decided this essentially makes him a Nazi. When your opponent is overtly dishonest, you do not give them what they want unless it is absolutely necessary.
Anonymous has targeted 11 Confederate monuments to tear down tomorrow 8/18. Many are in small rural southern towns. This is a powder keg waiting for a match. The Antifa are itching to be just that.
The Thomasons told the Clintons long ago NEVER to apologize. One you apologize its all over.
The Clintons learned this a long long time ago.
what has Trump said that people have decided is "racist?"
He hasn't agreed with what the Left is saying. And he won't say he hates white people.
Khesahn69 made a comment in another thread that feels major. That he is even more motivated now as a Trump supporter now. He was tepid to begin with. I have a feeling this is a lot big, and many Trump supporters feel this way, but are afraid to say anything.
The longer the discussion goes on the safe spacing of history, the more trump opponents will be seen as over playing their hand, and the more people will be disgusted and ashamed of their actions. The more the TDS will show. And the more the truth of his remarks will come out.
See correction at the VERY bottom of the article from Politico where they lied about what Donald Trump said .....How many people go back and read an article?? They should have issued an apology...instead, this lie is still spreading. I will NEVER believe a word Politico says because this is not the first time it has happened...They SUCK http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
Considering "The Resistance" his admin has to fight against, he has had a remarkable level of achievements so far.
It's the "good people on both sides" comment that is the unfixable problem. Because one side was Nazis and Neo-Nazis - and those cannot be good people - at best there might be some unwitting dupes.
On the other side you had more of a spectrum - Violence seeking commie thugs, all the way through mush-minded garden variety a Dems.
So there was absolutely violence on and from both sides. And ref Nazis had a permit. But they didn't have any "fine people".
News Flash: Russians may be double secret Nazis just pretending to fight Ukrainians, who are the true Nazis. OK, this needs some work, but CNN has the manpower to put this together.
Trump's strategy is a high risk all in roll of the dice. He stands by the final peace made between the North and the South some 40 years after Appomattox and 20 years after withdrawal of Federal Occupation Armies. The South got its romance and hero worship statues, and Jim Crow Laws approved by the SCOTUS ; and the South became the North's best friend instead of worst enemy. So in 1918 the All American Division fought against the Kaiser instead of against each other.
The trouble was the Blacks were left out until the 1960s and MLK's magnificent political job brought them back in. Now they are mad as hell, and the North has reverted to using the Imaginary Racist South as the joint targets for everybody's wrath.
But Trump is betting the South will stay loyal to the 1900's Peace Terms. However, Trump and Bannon being Yankees do not understand the South. No one here cares about the Confederate monuments anymore.
Unknown: "Blaming the Press for reporting the news is becoming old and stale"
Yes, how dare anyone, anywhere, at anytime question the press and the quality or "truthiness" of its reporting.
Why, questioning the press ought to be against the law. Because questioning the press is racism, straight up.
17 Intelligence Agencies investigated it and validated the criticism = racism connection.
17 Agencies.
And don't you dare, DARE, question that assertion because our Press told us so and what the Press writes is by definition TRUTH.....from our Ministry of Truth.
Gotta love Althouse. A sober insightful voice.
1. Most normal people have no affinity whatsoever to Neo-Nazis or KKK. Most people live in the "day-to-day," not in the Internet world. They are concerned about going to work, paying bills, saving and raising kids. The Charlottesville White supremecists are tiny, unimportant minority in 2017.
2. The Left's playbook is to broadly yell "racism" to smear political opponents and/or get political benefits.
3. The media "colludes" with the Left by pretending that "Antifa" doesn't exist, and doesn't show up at Pro-Trump rallies to squelch speech and commit and provoke violence.
It's a shame because buried within this unpleasant fog are legitimate policy questions: (1) should disfavored groups (such as Nazi and KKK be allowed to march? demonstrate? assemble? How much violent crime in te US is attributed to their bad ideas?
And, as for Civil War Monuments, I'm amazed that in Baltimore, a mostly liberal black city, they've remained up for so long. Which ones should stay, which ones should be removed, and how do we make those decisions?
The Left crowds out all these sober decisions with its loud riots and demands and violent confrontations. And it's awful that a young woman (Heather Heyer) dies in the chaos. The only guy who refuses to play by their rules is Donald Trump.
Has the statue of the inventor of the IQ test been torn down.
I've long contended Trump is NOT playing 3D chess but in fact he's playing checkers. He wins because the media and his opponents are playing chess -- and very poorly, may I add. But here's the kicker: politics is checkers.
That's Trump's winning strategy. He approaches each new issue with a simple take, sees it more clearly than the swamp creatures around him, and wins. I mean, how in the hell can these Republicans who match up to the cameras to denounce racism think that's a winning strategy? While they huddle in their gulags trying to strategize how to placate their Soviet tormenters, Trump just says what is clearly true. He wins, they lose.
Checkers.
Here are a few things I've learned over the past few days:
1) Acknowledging that people with a permit for a rally, even if you don't agree with their ideology, have a right to police protection makes you a Nazi.
2) Antifada are basically storming Normandy when they beat old men with clubs and mace people.
3) A Black Lives Matter supporter assassinating 5 cops in Dallas and saying he wants to kill white people means nothing and BLM should be invited to the White House.
4) A BernieBro attempting to assassinate half of Congress also means nothing.
Interesting lessons.
Blogger Kristian Holvoet said...
"As we have seen repeatedly, the Media gets a story / meme, and goes 'HAH! We Got HIM! This! Time HE IS GOING DOWN!'. Then, like Wile E. Coyote (SOOOPER Genius), the pundits wind up running in space off a cliff for a few seconds before plummeting to a painful impact."
Well said. The Progressive/Media cabal is playing a game of "gotcha" fully expecting the new/latest crisis will sink Trump. With each iteration the hysteria is ramped up. The hysteria is now at a level where the evening news is a parody of itself. Trump's supporters are motivated rather that discouraged by the media coverage. If he has the media in a frenzy he must be winning.
Blaming the Press for selectively reporting/ignoring and creating the news IS becoming old and stale......and sad.
Here's the thing. I think Trump HATES to apologize. I think he HATES to admit he was wrong. But in this case, he was right. Not just convinced he was right. He was right AntiFa showed up with masks, clubs, bats, and bikelocks and were throwing punches.
Given that NBC, the BBC, and now Jake Trapper are all saying that the lefties were violent too, Trump won this argument.
He lost on style points with people that really really want to believe what the NYTWASHPOSTBOSTONGLOBECNNMSNBC media tell them. But those people did not vote for Trump in the first place.
It isn't really the press's fault for not reporting on antifa. They're just trying to avoid being the targets of violence. Understandable. Not particularly brave, but, understandable. It might set up the wrong reward structure though.
The "Trump is a racist" narrative along with "White House in chaos" narrative are taking over. Poll out that 40% favor impeachment. This will be tough to turn around.
One has to hand it to the Dems and MSM. They beat the Russia drum for months and then this crazy thing blew up in VA. Trump played right into their hands due to his natural urges to fight back and his own inarticulate statements.
"Blaming the Press for selectively reporting/ignoring and creating the news IS becoming old and stale......and sad."
...and true.
Sharpton says public funds pay for these statues and he shouldn't be forced to support them.
But Sharpton doesn't pay taxes.
As some who have known Trump for a long time, he's always playing chess while the media is playing checkers. He is a veteran player on the NYC media scene, learning from his mistakes there over the years I am sure. And while the media is screaming bloody murder over this or that perceived error on his part, PDT is getting things done with very little in the way of media scrutiny.
This entire Charlottesville incident was badly misplayed by the media, the noise from Rubio, McCain and Graham notwithstanding.
Just MHO.
Xmas said...
Pro-Trump rally to coincide with Juggalos March
If there was ever a good argument for synergy, this is it.
"Sharpton says public funds pay for these statues and he shouldn't be forced to support them."
-- That argument has never worked for the spending of public money ever. If it did, we wouldn't be funding a good chunk of things, from abortion to zoos.
"It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division."
Maybe he was told to step away, a demotion. Why would an FBI investigator choose to work in Human Resources? The investigation is going full speed ahead. Thinking that it's going away is nothing more than wishcasting.
I have many liberal & lefty friends & acquaintances. Not only do they not have a clue about what anyone outside their political world thinks, they also don't realize that the right wing has its own ecosystem of news & analysis. They think that "right-wing news" is Fox News, the WSJ, & maybe throw in Rush Limbaugh. Well, the hard lefties think that everything except for The Nation, Counterpunch, etc is right-wing news. But, the sites & sources that, for example, we here use everyday to get our news & analyses -- they have no idea that such things exist or what content they contain. Trump, however, does, because that ecosystem got him elected.
Soon enough, it will spread through the ecosystem just what the Antifa clowns at Charlottesville were up to, with photos & videos. The video of about seven Antifa clowns hammering away on the car with baseball bats instantly after the fatal impact will spread. The natures & histories of the left-wing groups who were there will spread. There will be more & more calls & "direct action" by the Left to remove more & more monuments, & news of that "overreach" will spread.
Honestly, that people who would never, ever consider voting for any Republican get more & more pissed of at Trump makes no electoral difference. The question is, can the Left peel off enough of his supporters to make a difference? Maybe, someday. But Charlottesville isn't going to do it.
I'm trying to understand the Democrat's narrative.
Let me see...Trump voters are Neo Nazi white supremacists...and if it wasn't for Putin's meddling they would have voted for Hillary?
Is that it?
I’ve been waiting until it became more clear about what actually happened before commenting on the riot. There was a Rebel Media reporter on the scene – here's what she had to say.
It’s clear now that the police would not protect the pro-statue demonstrators. By the time the pro-statue asshole crashed his car into the crowd the pro-statue demonstrators had already been run off by the much larger anti-statue crowd and the anti-statue demonstrators were in a victorious and celebratory march down the street.
Noted: Any rightwing group must have a permit – which the Democrat-run cities do their best to find a way to prevent. Left-wing demonstrators? No permit needed, no permit required.
This seems to be a pattern we see from Democrat mayors and Police Chiefs – which includes most cities of any size in America.
Unexpectedly, antifa is getting pushback from the left. The ACLU is defending it's stand. This is a remarkable letter:
“Instead, the city’s pleadings said that its decision to revoke the permit was based primarily on the unmanageable numbers of people who would show up. An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000). Yet, the city did not revoke the permits for the counter-protesters, too. In light of those facts, the judge couldn’t get beyond the fact that the city hadn’t revoked all permits for demonstrations downtown on Saturday.
“It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area.
NB: The issue of Passionate Disavowal of Nazis that is at stake is what DJT is gambling will go his way from jobs alone. The Prize is the Northern States of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that swung the election over to him
Balfegor said...
Trade and Illegal Immigration were his two big issues during the campaign
I would add reducing military interventionism to this list of core issues. It is the topic that killed Jeb Bush's candidacy and damaged some of the others. Here he has been, at best, wildly inconsistent.
I see no actual progress on China, the main problem with respect to trade and the whining about Germany just seemed weak. On immigration, through tough talk he temporarily reduced the influx, but that calculus is changing and the numbers are beginning to tick up again. No progress on making E-verify effective, which is the only way to stop illegal immigration.
Trump knows if the media can get him to back down when they wave the "Racist" cudgel they will close in and beat the crap out him with it.
“This may turn into the biggest mess of his presidency because he is stubborn and doesn't realize how bad this is getting.”
These people still haven't realized it's only bad in a decorum sense. But since Trump doesn't care about that it's a meaningless perspective.
So while the media and left wingers keep ranting he and we will ignore their tempest.
@Michael K:
Reason is reporting that the VA State Police are contradicting some of McAuliffe's claims. They're saying they did not find any white nationalist weapons caches in the park prior to the demonstration and they were not out gunned by the militia types.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin
Yesterday--Buffalo Springfield. Today, step out of line and The Man don't come to take you a-way.
AReasonableMan said...
No progress on making E-verify effective, which is the only way to stop illegal immigration.
And yet if anyone but Trump were president we'd be hearing about Amnesty for Illegals every day.
Win!
I don't understand how so many people can't see that Trump has laid a trap for Antifa. I can understand the GOPe not getting it. Those blind squirrels will never find a nut. But seriously, there are only two outcomes going forward.
1. Antifa keeps attacking white supremacists: Trump has already condemned both sides.
2. Antifa attacks someone who is clearly not a white supremacist: the public sees them for the thugs they are and begins to reconsider Charlottesville in light of the new information.
The trap has been set. It's a matter of time before Antifa jumps into it.
"2. Antifa attacks someone who is clearly not a white supremacist: the public sees them for the thugs they are and begins to reconsider Charlottesville in light of the new information."
-- They already have previously. For example... let's see... pretty famous gay guy they went out of their way to silence. Pretty sure the Nazis aren't down with the gays. In the wake of Charlotesville, a group of Antifa attacked an African-American wearing a YAF hat.
The amount of comments on this and associated threads means something. And it's just not people on the left who have been dialed up to an 11 by Trumps opponents.
For every force there is an equal and opposite force.
Those reporting the Russia narrative is dead are wrong. It's just doing a U-turn. Hillary/Obama look out.
the driver of the lethal car is schizophrenic
Also a cat owner.
fNYT sez: "The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech"
They're just kidding around, though - "Left-wing academics across the country face this kind of speech suppression, yet they do not benefit from a strong, uniform legal response."
I think the rest of it is trying to say that only marginalized communities should have free speech because of structural discrimination and some other buzz words.
People hear what they want to hear. Trump clearly excluded racists and Nazis from the "fine people" merely protesting against the statue removal. He probably overstated their total, but it certainly stands to reason such folks were there...at least until the heiling started.
The "Trump is a racist" narrative along with "White House in chaos" narrative are taking over. Poll out that 40% favor impeachment. This will be tough to turn around.
Trump was always going to have to fight the Media and the GOPe. Perot would have had the same problems. I was going to vote for Perot until he started his crazy talk in 1992.
His only chance is to get the economy going and the foreign policy disasters Obama left behind under some control.
The Nork scare seems to be settling down.
If the Nation story is correct on the DNC "hack, that solves the "Russia!" story,"
Iran is next and every 90 days that agreement gets reviewed.
We'll see. The 2018 elections will be huge.
Poll out that 40% favor impeachment. This will be tough to turn around.
I guess the commentor doesn’t know … that the polls are shit. I stopped following the polls after they were ALL wrong about the election. I suspect that Trump was actually ahead of Hillary from the very beginning.
The pollsters get what they want: facetime and citations on the cables – which is worth millions in free advertising.
The MSM gets what it wants: Polls that show what it wants them to show.
Don’t be fooled by the mutual masturbation.
Another win for Trump from all this: the Dems are gearing up to run against him in 2020 on the "Trump is a Nazi" platform.
It didn't work in 2016, but it can't help but work this time. After all, everyone they know thinks he's a Nazi.
traditionalguy said:
However, Trump and Bannon being Yankees do not understand the South. No one here cares about the Confederate monuments anymore.
You are probably correct regarding the smaller monuments. However, I disagree regarding some of the larger, more notorious monuments. Take the Stone Mountain carving of the Confederate generals. This is an issue just beginning to simmer in the Georgia gubernatorial race. The leading democrat has already come out in favor of removing it. This will likely end up becoming a huge issue in the race.
"Reason is reporting that the VA State Police are contradicting some of McAuliffe's claims."
McAuliffe is scum and eventually scum comes to the top.
Anne, any theory that posits that Trump has some sort of coherent master plan, I find it suspect. Every day Trump wakes up and decides to do whatever the hell he feels like. He doesn't do this whole planning thing. When there is coherence in how he operates it is due to the fact that usually he had the same enemies he had the day before and the same friends he had the day before. Of course, when his friends or enemies list changes, he finds it no problem to completely reverse course. That's his only strategy. Everything else that happens, from Russia, Charlotte, Mueller, Sessions, North Korea, China, all this other stuff falls out from who he thinks is his friend and who his enemy is. His attack for example on Mitch McConnell is another example of what happens when he moves someone from his friend list to his enemy list. There's no other master plan no other master strategy than this.
This is Alhouse's verbose way channeling to Dilbert guy & shouting "8th dimensional chess!"
"They already have previously. For example... let's see... pretty famous gay guy they went out of their way to silence. Pretty sure the Nazis aren't down with the gays. In the wake of Charlotesville, a group of Antifa attacked an African-American wearing a YAF hat."
Yes, but that was before Trump put in the public's mind that both groups were hate-filled and violent. Before that people only had media reports as to what happened and how they should think about it.
This is the power of the Presidency. In reporting Trump's words for the last few days ad nauseam, the media doesn't even realize a second meme has been put into the public discussion which will interfere with the media's ability to frame Antifa violence going forward.
"Every day Trump wakes up and decides to do whatever the hell he feels like. He doesn't do this whole planning thing."
-- And, yet, he's president.
Indeed, Trump is more likely to fuel extremism on the left to their detriment.
There are only so many Nazis to counter demonstrate against, and the "antifa" types will not be content simply keeping them in check. Their list of targets and demands will have to grow.
The puppet masters will have to eventually pull the plug like they did with Occupy, if they still hold enough sway.
What you see in Eric Taylor's post is the classic view of Republican presidents, by the way. They are always just lucky idiots who stumble into political victories, like North Korea backing down and China agreeing to stand aside if North Korea were to actually launch an attack. It is always America's fault for being too dumb to elect the right people, never the fact that Bush or Trump or Reagan may have spoken to Americans more effectively than Kerry/Gore, Clinton or Mondale.
It's actually a comforting, familiar story that is almost memetic now.
"Sharpton says public funds pay for these statues and he shouldn't be forced to support them"
No, public funds were not usedfor these monuments. In the South the largest portion of the monuments are the veterans monuments on the courthouse square. These were paid for either by the Ladies Memorial Association or its successor, the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The "Peace Monument" attacked in Atlanta was funded by a group known as the Old Guard of the Gate City Guard, a veterans group. And Anonymous says groups plan to attack that monument again tomorrow. Not very smart. If they think their actions are going to lead to more calls for these monuments removal it is going to have exactly the opposite effect. And there is not much sympathy across the South for removing them to begin with.
"It's not clear what motivated the departure"
It was discovered he had a salad for lunch on March 23, 2015. A salad with Russian dressing.
"The puppet masters will have to eventually pull the plug like they did with Occupy, if they still hold enough sway."
-- The thing with Occupy is that it was a very well organized effort, at the top level. People held control of it, and kept the violence fairly well in check. They set up their Occupy camps and, for the most part, kept violence to a minimum.
Antifa have radically different goals from the people who want to use them to their ends; Democrats want to topple Trump and elect more Democrats. Antifa, for lack of a better phrase, want to watch it all burn and start over.
Unfortunately, Democrats think they can control that, which is why cities and states have been very hands off in stopping them.
The hysteria is now at a level where the evening news is a parody of itself.
This commentor has been reading my mind. Also – the Congress, the eGOP, late-night talk shows(come back, Leno!) and the entire MSM – all have become parodies of themselves. Trump has done a WONDERFUL job of trolling them into what ultimately has become a farce.
I don't understand why good people on the left would want to hitch their train to the antifa protesters. Simply being willing to use violence against equally unsavory sorts isn't enough to make someone the default good guy.
@Matthew, maybe there are no more good left in the left? Maybe they're all gone?
No one here cares about the Confederate monuments anymore.
A monument here and there, yes. A move to remove the Civil War from the entire country is another matter entirely - and the Dems have already moved to remove all Civil War monuments from the public square.
Pick another war - WW2, Vietnam, Korea, as examples - and consider the argument that we should remove all memorials. How far would that get?
The only reason they're targeting these people is as a symbolic way to continue the fight against racism. They are not looking to balance the discussion, but to wipe one side completely out of the public sphere. And as Trump has sagely asked, "where does that end"?
There has been no reply to his question because there is no answer.
JayDee77 said...
Take the Stone Mountain carving of the Confederate generals. This is an issue just beginning to simmer in the Georgia gubernatorial race. The leading democrat has already come out in favor of removing it.
We'll see how Democrats like being called the American Taliban.
"@Matthew, maybe there are no more good left in the left? Maybe they're all gone?"
-- I don't believe that is true; I believe that it seems that way because, like the moderate right, they don't get much media and aren't particularly vocal on the Internet.
"Reason is reporting that the VA State Police are contradicting some of McAuliffe's claims."
Yes, they did. VSP spokesperson called him out on two lies. One, that the VSP had recovered caches of weapons stored in C-ville and that the alt-right protesters out-gunned the VSP. VSP says both of those statements are not true. Pretty bad when your own state police force does not back you up.
Just more evidence that McAuliffe is another slimy Clinton crony. As if we needed any more evidence.
"And as Trump has sagely asked, "where does that end"?"
-- I remember after he said that, people scoffed. "No one would deface the Jefferson or Lincoln memorials or ask for Washington to be moved out of the public sphere!"
Overnight, someone defaced the Lincoln memorial, and the next day someone was saying, "Hey, maybe we should remove Teddy Roosevelt and Washington's monuments."
I'm not a huge Trump fan, but in this case, he was dead to rights.
He realizes everything everybody else realizes and more. He's playing a different game, in a different way, and all along it's looked bad to almost everyone. But he's the President, and 17 opponents went down trying to play against him. He's looking ahead and strategizing and we're the ones with inadequate perception.
I think you have it here. As you observe, he has won when NOBODY thought he would be in the game in the first place. He's not playing the short game--which is the game most political scum engage in. He's playing a much longer game.
By the way, what happened to North Korea? They picked up their sticks and went home, did they not? The Red Chinese told them to do that, did they not? And the US did not gift the NorKs with umpty bazillion dollars, did we?
Not one bomb, not one bullet. Has the Press mentioned this?
Trump's strategy is a high risk all in roll of the dice. He stands by the final peace made between the North and the South some 40 years after Appomattox and 20 years after withdrawal of Federal Occupation Armies.
Trump's strategy is that the nation will not be brought together by refighting the Civil War, and that those who do have no intention of bringing the country together.
I think he's on to something.
"Reason is reporting that the VA State Police are contradicting some of McAuliffe's claims."
Replace McAuliffe with Trump and this would be the lead story on every network.
Not to mention half the posts on this forum.
The only good Lefty is a dead Lefty.
As true now as it ever was.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/comey-fbi-agents-confidence-survey.html
There are two leading candidates for Gov in the GA D race: Stacey Abrams, the black minority leader of the state house and Stacey Evans, a white attorney from Cobb County. Abrams is the one calling for the Stone Mountain removal, which is probably impossible technically and would be extraordinarily expensive. Evans tried to speak at the "Nutroots" conference in Atlanta this past weekend and was shouted down so badly she couldn't deliver her speech. Which is a pity for the D because she would be by far the more attractive candidate. Abrams will get the D nod in the primary and then will go down to a landslide defeat to the R candidate in the general. Even a liberal columnist in the AJC admitted that in his column this morning. If the D keep this up they will begin to look like the D here in TN, which just barely exists.
I haven't followed this latest thing much at all. Honest question: what has Trump said that people have decided is "racist?"
Honest answer: Nothing. That’s why we never see quotes – because none exist.
The media must always serve The Narrative.
"He realizes everything everybody else realizes and more. He's playing a different game....We don't realize how good this is getting."
An interesting and intriguing supposition, Ms. Althouse. In my own mind, the "game" Pres. Trump is playing is to be utterly blunt and honest in a cultural-political time of false and disingenuous nonsense. But even as I think/write this, I am reminded of the quote "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice", etc. Of course, Mr. Goldwater was pilloried for that while ignoring everything included in the "etc" and any fair and honest hearing of even this one line. Below is everything he said on that occasion - the context that was never fairly given. Pres. Trump is braving the same treatment...Bravo! I say, to him.
"“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Why, the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize — the beauty of this Federal system of ours — is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity.
We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.
Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.
Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals.”
"“This may turn into the biggest mess of his presidency because he is stubborn and doesn't realize how bad this is getting.”"
Wait a minute. Are they telling us that this may actually be the "last straw"?
Well, I don't think so. If anything, the left has gone completely psychotic and should never be allowed to carry guns. And if you need proof, just listen to this...
ARM I see no actual progress on China, the main problem with respect to trade and the whining about Germany just seemed weak.
Deals w/China are entwined with North Korea situation. If we keep a status quo wrt trade but with understanding that China must put a muzzle on North Korea, has that improved our trade deals with China? I say yes, but the lens on the Deal matters. Sadly, complicated analysis is beyond our current media and political leadership (all sides).
So let's see what this pearl-clutching by the nattering class drove off the news reports:
1) Trump's good cop(Tillerson)/ insane cop (Trump himself) gambit got Kim Jong-un to publicly back down from his threats to nuke the US territory of Guam. Note that the residents are US citizens by birth, so Kim was threatening American citizens' lives.
2) NAFTA renegotiation begins
3) NATO allies starting to pay their fair share per treaty obligations (dragged kicking and screaming all the way)
4) The discovery of Email traffic directly rebutting the notion that the Trump team collaborated with, colluded with, or had anything to do with Russians.
McAuliffe is scum
Yup. He'll go a lot further into the slime than even Hillary would. This guy is only a half-step from being a Roger Stone or ....what was the name....husband of the (D) Illinois congresswoman....dirty-tricks crapweasel.....yah, that guy.
And maybe McAuliffe is NOT a half-step away.
Abrams will get the D nod in the primary and then will go down to a landslide defeat to the R candidate in the general.
The Dems will blame it on the people of Georgia being "too racist" to elect her. Lather, rinse, repeat.
One has to wonder whether they really want to win or choose instead to keep cherished - and highly profitable - memes alive.
Big Mike said...
So let's see what this pearl-clutching by the nattering class drove off the news reports:
1) Trump's good cop(Tillerson)/ insane cop (Trump himself) gambit got Kim Jong-un to publicly back down from his threats to nuke the US territory of Guam.
Yes that was a genuine threat that had everyone on edge. Trump told the people of Guam that it would be good for tourism.
Trump said...
“I have to tell you, you have become extremely famous all over the world. They are talking about Guam; and they’re talking about you.” And when it comes to tourism, he added, “I can say this: You’re going to go up, like, tenfold with the expenditure of no money.”
The media frenzy has turned me off, so I turned them off.
I see you're focusing on the stupid thing Trump said about tourism and ignoring the fact *North Korea backed down.*
BTW Balfegor et. al.,
So, forcing US companies/peeps to more expensively manufacture stuff here and not letting them squeeze economic advantages by using foreign/illegal labor, will result in more high paying jobs for Americans.
For some reason y'all can't imagine that more folks will simply be replaced by machines. When folks talk about biz costs rising because of the minimum wage, y'all can grasp the economic consequence.
Anywho, maybe you can outlaw self driving vehicles, automated fast food ordering (as is common in Europe and starting in places here (e.g. Wawa).
Likewise, some of ya seem to forget that in recent years overproduction of domestic oil/gas has resulted in lowering prices to the point that rigs need to be shut down. And, yet we are told that the problem is that we're not pumping enough. As if the market place and free markets don't matter. Are you going to have the government force producers to produce, even when it makes no economic sense?
Sheesh.
I've been to Gettysburg. My husband's relative died there. He was a captain in the 6th Wisconsin Volunteers - a unit in the famous Iron Brigade - he died on the first day of the battle holding off Alabama soldiers at the railroad cut. There's all kinds of monuments all over the battlefield honoring the soldiers from both sides who died there. Should all the monuments to the Confederate troops be removed?
Yes that was a genuine threat that had everyone on edge. Trump told the people of Guam that it would be good for tourism.
Yet you and your Comrades on this blog were screaming that Trump was about to get millions of Americans killed and you were calling for his immediate impeachment. Good thing you have two sides of your mouth.
Thanks, Darrell.
Unlike most people, I actually watched President Trump's entire press conference from Tuesday.
I still don't understand what the fuss is about. He said both sides were violent. Does anyone question that or is it just something that, to quote Lenin, is not "correct"
Lenin meant, factually correct but not to be mentioned because it made our side look bad.
Would the despicable American National Socialists have been violent absent the fascists being there? I suppose it is possible, but who would they have attacked?
Would there have been any violence, by socialists, fascists, police or anyone else if the police had simply done their job and prevented interference by the fascists?
The socialists had a permit to be there. The fascists did not. Seems pretty clear who was in the wrong Saturday.
Why the controversy over President Trump's calling a spade a spade?
I'm going with Ann's theory that the hoorah about Charlottesville being a smokescreen for the Russia BS falling apart, for the investigator quitting and other stuff.
I credit Ann but I think a commenter beat her to it a day or two ago. I just don't remember who.
John Henry
John,
Some folks don't think that very fine people would participate in a march that is organized by racists.
You and DJT disagree.
Matthew Sablan said...
I see you're focusing on the stupid thing Trump said about tourism and ignoring the fact *North Korea backed down.*
Here's some news - North Korea was never going to nuke Guam. It is far from clear that they could even if they had wanted to. What was stupid was Trump's childish reaction, which was rightly mocked.
And yet, ARM, they've backed down from the threat. Not only that, but China agreed that if they bombed America (or South Korea, note), that they wouldn't defend them.
Rule 1: Nothing good happens under Trump.
Rule 2: If something good happens under Trump, it happens in spite of him and thus validates Rule 1.
I don't believe that is true; I believe that it seems that way because, like the moderate right, they don't get much media and aren't particularly vocal on the Internet.
@Matthew, I respectfully disagree. I have (had?) numerous Democrat friends. They are among the smartest people I have known (and as a mathematician retired from a lengthy and successful career designing advanced information systems, I've had the privilege of working with a lot of bright people). For all their smarts they are among the least informed people I've known. One tried earnestly to convince me that Trump is suffering from dementia. No, Matthew, the "ordinary people" left that party last November, and the good people have been driven out or allowed themselves to be silenced (which is evil in its own way).
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Here's some news - North Korea was never going to nuke Guam. It is far from clear that they could even if they had wanted to. What was stupid was Trump's childish reaction, which was rightly mocked.
What was unclear, ARM? Whether NoKo had a rocket with the range to hit Guam? I think it is clear they did.
Whether it was accurate enough to hit Guam? Unclear but they never said they were going to hit Guam, did they? What they threatened was to shoot a rocket near Guam. If they had gotten within 100 miles, they could have claimed success.
That they could send a rocket with a nuke? Again, unclear but they do have nukes and they might have nukes that could fit in a rocket.
If Morocco or The Congo had threatened this, we could have laughed it off. No way they could have done it.
But NoKo? When the best assurance you can give us is that it is "unclear"? Yeah, the US President, whether that be President Trump or anyone else, has to take that seriously and address it.
Seems like he did it pretty well to get NoKo to publicly climb down.
John Henry
"One tried earnestly to convince me that Trump is suffering from dementia."
If he tried to convince you that DJT was born in China....you'd vote for him for POTUS....cause you're a well informed con.
I don't buy into the Scott Adams master persuader theory although I do think Trump functions this way at a gut level. It's no master plan but he's found incredible success in his life by diving head first into controversy instead of trying to hide from it as most people do. That kind of brashness has struck a chord politically, at least with one half of the country. How it all ends, I don't think anyone (including Trump) knows.
North Korea was never going to nuke Guam.
This demonstrates the propaganda value of having many voices. The media and Democrats hyped for weeks that Trump's recklessness was putting us in danger. We were getting polls that some 40% of Amerians were very concerned. But when that hype turns out to not be true they fall silent while different voices step up with a completely contradictory narrative. Miraculously the old disappears without mention and blame is maintained on the same people.
To test whether this is a truly held belief or merely a retrenchment to the most damning political position defensible under current circumstances we should consider whether this opinion, which contradicted the conventional wisdom, was advanced while the more damning narrative was nascent. After all any reasonable person who believed that narrative was so obviously false would surely have spoken against it right?
So where are these criticisms? Amazingly enough I can't recall any.
I see you're focusing on the stupid thing Trump said about tourism and ignoring the fact *North Korea backed down.*
Except maybe it wasn't so stupid. Good cop/bad cop is an old strategy that still works.
"North Korea was never going to nuke Guam"
Then if he wasn't provoking anything, why did so many on the left claim that he was bringing us to the brink of nuclear war? Were they lying, or just stupid? (Or both.)
"We don't realize how good this is getting."
Is further marking himself as a racist in sympathy with other racists a good move for his political career and agenda (if he actually has one)? Was it a net plus for his campaign that he openly supported the birther lie (and lied about having evidence to support that lie); that he denounced undocumented immigrants as "rapists and bad hombres?" That he made up accounts of watching Muslims dance in the street after 9/11, denounced a "gold star" family that happened to be Muslim, relying on stereotypes to do so, and proposed a total ban on Muslims? That he apparently doesn't know who Frederick Douglass is, or even whether he is alive or dead? That he proposed moral equivalence between Putin and the US government? That he has launched a national investigation of voter fraud, despite the lack of credible evidence that it is a problem, with the transparent aim of making it harder for the poor and minorities to vote? That he single-handedly moved to bar transgender people from serving, before his own generals had studied the issue or made a recommendation, contrary to the practice of the armies of most the nations we regard is peers and contrary to his own electoral claim to be sympathetic to LGBT issues?
Trump thinks this helped him because a lot of people feel as he does and because those who don't welcome someone who'll actually say what he thinks, even if there is no evidence for what he thinks. My guess is that it did help him in the Republican primaries, because he became a clear brand/rallying point for a substantial fraction of white republican voters, but that on balance it hurt him in the general and its hurting him now. Sure some white enthusiasts came out in the states that swung the election. But in a change year Trump nearly lost (and did lose the popular vote in a pretty big way) against a pretty awful Democratic candidate, and did so despite undeniable help from Russia and Jim Comey. A basically decent, moderate and non-racist candidate like Kasich would have cleaned up in the general, and would have a much more impressive and productive legislative record by now. Trump could have turned that way after the election, and then if he had worked hard with Congress and reached out to the Dems, we'd have a lot of systemic improvements underway already. Instead, he has doubled down on discrimination.
So the idea that it has worked is, I think, a pretty bad mistake. Will Trump turn it around by showing MSM and left wing overreaction so that people actually decide he must be right and come to support his agenda and his candidacy in 2020? Well I don't see him doing that with anyone who voted for Hillary, and we were the majority. I don't see him doing that with independents who voted for him, unless he gets much more traction on a legislative agenda that speaks to them even though he has lost the most promising window for such legislation. I also don't see his continued erratic and undisciplined behavior as suggesting he knows how to or wants to do legislation in a hands on way or that he brings much to the table as a deal maker. I have less insight into Republicans, but the fact that no senior Republican would go on Fox yesterday to defend him isn't very promising.
So I'm guessing that the best evidence of what's good for Trump is that he should move away from race and division as a central theme, start sounding like Kasich, and actually start delivering on a genuine policy driven economic agenda that he can demonstrate lifts all boats. But his interest in doing so and capacity to do so are both extremely doubtful.
hawkeyedjb: I haven't followed this latest thing much at all. Honest question: what has Trump said that people have decided is "racist?"
"I am officially running for [the Republican nomination for] president of the United States..."
"Professional lady" said: "There's all kinds of monuments all over the battlefield honoring the soldiers from both sides who died there. Should all the monuments to the Confederate troops be removed?"
No monuments should be removed. There have been articles about Gettysburg all over Facebook. They are just click-bait. One, the NPS will never remove monuments. They protect them vigorously and actually wish they had more Southern monuments at Gettysburg. Why? Because there really aren't any.
Of the 1400 monuments at Gettysburg only a handful are from the South. There are 12 state monuments along Confederate Ave. on Seminary Ridge. There are 6 unit monuments. And there is one (truly awful) monument to Longstreet behind Seminary Ridge. That is it.
Monuments started to be put in at Gettysburg by Union veterans well before the War Department created the first four battlefield parks - Vicksburg, Shiloh, Chickamauga and Chattanooga, and Gettysburg - in 1890. The first few decades of Gettysburg's operation the park commission was controlled entirely by Union veterans and they created rules that made it almost impossible for the Confederate veterans to put monuments there. Another issue for the South was that the governments and people were very poor and had no money for them anyway, nor was it expected that many Southerners would travel that far. By the time the park relented and was willing to accept Confederate unit monuments most of the veterans were dead and there was practically no one left to help identify where they should go. Some of the state monuments are very recent. TN monument dates from 1982 and the MD monument, honoring soldiers from both sides, was not erected until 1994.
If you want to see a really well-developed and maintained park that has equivalent monuments from both sides that will really will help you to understand the battle as it was fought you should go to Chickamauga.
exiledonmainstreet said...
"start sounding like Kasich"
Because sounding like Kasich worked so well for Kasich in the primaries.
Kasich refused to endorse Trump at the convention. Trump won Ohio anyway.
Mountain Man, that's very interesting. I would love to go to Chickamauga. I went to Gettysburg a long time ago and don't remember the discrepancy in the number of monuments for each side. That being said, I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that only Union or Confederate troops fought there or that the people who died there weren't valued by their communities.
I don't think it is just strategy. Trump can be bullying, insulting, etc., but I think he plays that as a game, trash talk if you will. But he isn't a hater and feels uncomfortable expressing hate, which is what some folks want him to do. How this goes over long term will depend on how many others react the same way. That isn't easy to judge from the MSM and comment threads, where emotional extremism is all the rage.
In the Trump apologists worldview, Trump advised tourists to visit Guam even though there was a genuine threat of a nuclear holocaust. Thus, either
i) Trump was sending American citizens to a certain death
OR
ii) Trump was promoting Nuclear Holocaust tourism.
In my world view Trump is just a bumbling nincompoop.
I ask you, which worldview reflects more poorly on Trump's character?
In the Trump apologists worldview, Trump advised tourists to visit Guam even though there was a genuine threat of a nuclear holocaust.
It was Trump's opponents, not Trump, who claimed there was a genuine threat. ARM is so interested in blaming Trump he can't even remember which party is which.
Rick said...
It was Trump's opponents, not Trump, who claimed there was a genuine threat.
Well, if this is true, then you cannot also claim that stopping a nonexistent threat was an achievement.
If Congress became Trump, their approval rating would double.
In my world view Trump is just a bumbling nincompoop.
He managed to beat a bunch of brilliant, well-qualified nincompoops to the Presidency.
AReasonableMan said...
Well, if this is true, then you cannot also claim that stopping a nonexistent threat was an achievement.
The fairly obvious connection your blind spot prevents you from understanding is that he expected his reaction to work.
But the point is advancing our understanding of how to recognize propagandists.
Lost me at "according to Politico.
Rick said...
he expected his reaction to work
Let's concede the unlikely proposition that Trump thought any of this through rather than just reacting emotionally on twitter. He could, of course, not be certain that his blather would succeed in turning this mortal threat, so my argument still stands. Certainty lies outside the realm of humans.
He could, of course, not be certain that his blather would succeed
By this standard any travel encouragement is recklessly encouraging death because we cannot be certain the plane won't crash. Maybe once try forming an opinion without regard to who is to blame and perhaps once you won't find yourself asserting nonsense.
Re: Unknown:
Maybe he was told to step away, a demotion. Why would an FBI investigator choose to work in Human Resources?.
That is odd. I wonder if he was caught leaking.
PB&J above made the argument that conservatives have been making against the $15 minimum wage. (10:16 AM above)
PB&J is now a heretic.
Rick said...
any travel encouragement is recklessly encouraging death
A diversion and refusal to address the argument. According to you guys this was a big achievement so it must have been an unusually significant risk. Talking someone out of plane travel does not normally count as a 'big achievement'.
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Anywho, maybe you can outlaw self driving vehicles
This is actually an interesting topic. Of all the bullshit ideas that currently infest our society at the moment the idea that self-driving cars are going to happen any time soon must rank pretty close to the top.
This does not include self-driving cars running on specifically designed motorways, which already exist.
Imus suggested "We shall overcome" at the dead lady memorial was way out of date.
"We like big butts" was suggested as an alternative.
Of course it's racist. But you must admit it's clever.
According to you guys this was a big achievement so it must have been an unusually significant risk.
False. According to left wing media and Democrats this was a huge risk and thus they should be crediting him. Again you decided who was wrong before you built your argument and got all mixed up.
If you let the analysis determine the blame instead of defining the blame and trying to figure out how to make the parts fit maybe you wont make this mistake every time you comment.
But if it wasn't a significant risk then it wasn't a significant achievement and my original point still stands.
Let us discuss the accomplishments of President Hillary Clinton.
Lost me at "according to Politico.
That's fine. You and your children tell us what they are talking about at InfoWars.
Exile on Main Strett
ExileonMainStreet
"Because sounding like Kasich worked so well for Kasich in the primaries.
"Kasich refused to endorse Trump at the convention. Trump won Ohio anyway."
Well yes. But what it takes to govern a nation and win a second term may be different from what it takes to win a Republican primary before a first term--and probably should be. If Trump had any real skills at reaching out to others and advancing legislation (as he claimed he did in winning the election), he could move toward Kasich on race, gender and discrimination issues without any real political cost now and dominate the next round of primaries and the general from closer to the center. If he stays right and racist, he may still be OK in the Republican primaries (though I wonder, if he can't get a legislative agenda going), but not in the general. Or at least that feels like the most plausible account to me.
Moving toward Kasich's position is moving toward the bigger government position of the Bush family and other DC insiders.
No thank you.
AReasonableMan said...
But if it wasn't a significant risk then it wasn't a significant achievement and my original point still stands
It certainly stands as proof you are a propagandist. After all you claim to have held this theory which contradicted left wing / Democratic prevailing commentary and not once asserted that commentary was untrue. Then the second their theory is proven false you pipe up. Why it's almost like you have no positions of your own and merely advance whatever criticism is handy in the moment.
None of your responses address this.
Because it is untrue - self evidently.
@Stephen,
If Trump had any real skills at reaching out to others and advancing legislation (as he claimed he did in winning the election),
The question is not how good Trump is at advancing an agenda, the question is how good is the Republican controlled Congress? The answer is: awful.
The Congress flubbed health care. After all this time & promises to the electorate, the Republicans had no serious replacement plans ready to propose. I'm sorry --- how fucking stupid is that? Every time the Executive branch did something of dubious legality under Obama, Congress launched a committee to investigate the issue. Did any of those committees produce anything that had any legal import? Nope.
Trump will not be held responsible for a do-nothing Congress by the folks who elected him because it's an article of faith among the Republican electorate that the Republican Congress can't find its butt cheeks with both hands & a mirror.
Maybe Trump will be held responsible for a bad economy. Maybe for a high-level "real" scandal. But, from the viewpoint of Trump's electorate, his Executive Branch is the only branch that actually doing anything.
Re: YoungHegelian:
The Congress flubbed health care. After all this time & promises to the electorate, the Republicans had no serious replacement plans ready to propose. I'm sorry --- how fucking stupid is that?
It really is kind of funny. The Republicans were caught completely flatfooted by the fact that they won everything in 2016 -- the world absolutely did not work the way they thought it did.
What is it with this checkers/chess thingy? Anybody who frames this analogy has never bet the rent on two pairs. The game we're watching is table stakes no limit poker, and Trump is pretty good at it.
"Honest question: what has Trump said that people have decided is "racist?"
He beat Hillary 304 - 227.
That's all the racism they need.
"Wouldn't a well-played game on Trump's part involve some legislative achievement, some advancement of his policy goals?"
Maybe you could fill us in on Hillary's legislative achievements and policy goals.
Oh, wait.
See. This is what people like you STILL don't get. As good or bad as Trump may be, he's still not Hillary.
And that is more than enough for me.
Jim,
Re racism, I'd say that pushing the birther canard and sticking to it for years counts as racist by any reasonable criterion. But perhaps you still believe the birther stuff was in good faith all along. There are, of course, many more examples, but I'm not sure that repeating them would help.
Re whether Trump or Hillary looked better to you in 2016--that's no longer the issue and its not what Althouse was seeking to probe. Trump needs to hold or attract people who are closer to the center than you if he is to succeed in his first term and in 2020. What suggests to you that he is doing so or is likely to do so?
“ ... hypothesis ...”
Glorified daddy-trained ‘killer’ rent collector failing internationally to collect transactional rents and in need of competent excuse makers and subject changers.
Here's my Occam's Razor explanation of why President Trump has said what he said:
Donald Trump's father Fred was arrested at a KKK rally in Queens in 1927. Let's say Fred was at that rally to protest whatever it was that the Klan was protesting, not as a Klan member, and got drawn into the melee that got him arrested. Isn't that the situation President Trump is sympathizing with? He could just be drawing on his personal family experience.
"What was stupid was The Left's childish reaction, which was rightly mocked"
FIFY. Your welcome.
He was clumsy. he wasn't wrong. It isn't wrong to wait for some solid facts, and to not just accept initial reports. They are often wrong. This country has suffered mightily from people blindly accepting initial reports.
He wasn't wrong that in American politics there is violence from both ends, and he wasn't wrong to condemn all of it.
He wasn't wrong to condemn hatred tout court as well as specifically neo-nazis, the KKK, and others of their ilk.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/164297628606/how-to-know-youre-in-a-mass-hysteria-bubble
He's playing chess in the fourth, maybe even the fifth, dimension.
Blogger Stephen said...
Jim,
Re racism, I'd say that pushing the birther canard and sticking to it for years counts as racist
Why "racist", Stephen?
It might be impolite, slanderous, factually wrong or a whole bunch of other things. If the pusher knew it was false, it would also be dishonest.
But "racist"?
How do you get there?
John Henry
I always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii. I do have some questions about the birth certificate and fatherhood, but I believe he was born in Hawaii. The BC and fatherhood have nothing to do with his qualifications to be president. (I have always been a strong Obama supporter. I still think he is one of our greatest presidents. Most people would say I think that for the wrong reasons, though)
I did say, back in 2008 that IF he had been born outside of the US that would be disqualifying for the presidency.
I also said the same thing about McCain in 2008 and about Cruz in 2016.
You could go look at old comments of mine here.
So does believing that the "natural born citizen" provision requires constitutional citizenship (born in the US) not just statutory citizenship (like McCain & Cruz) make me a racist?
Yes, I know there are many knowledgeable people, including our hostess, who think that Cruz, McCain and (if he had been born in Kenya) Obama qualify as "natural born"
there are a lot of others, just as knowledgeable, who claim that they do not.
I tend to think the president should be a constitutional citizen.
But what do I know. I'm just a racist in your eyes so my opinion doesn't count. Right?
John Henry
AReasonableMan said...
3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Anywho, maybe you can outlaw self driving vehicles
This is actually an interesting topic. Of all the bullshit ideas that currently infest our society at the moment the idea that self-driving cars are going to happen any time soon must rank pretty close to the top.
This does not include self-driving cars running on specifically designed motorways, which already exist.
8/17/17, 11:44 AM
Here's an example of Leftist discipline. PBJ believes in self-driving cars like that guy in The Music Man* believed in monorails. You just shanked him on that and gave him a sadz. Yet it will not get into an argument let alone a fight, because that would be Blue-on-Blue.
Just see if he has the chance to do you later...
* Simpsons version
RE: John:
I always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii. I do have some questions about the birth certificate and fatherhood, but I believe he was born in Hawaii.
The Kenyan birth theory was always absurd. And it's absurd because (1) Obama's parents met in Hawaii, (2) neither of his parents were fantastically wealthy, (3) Obama was born in 1961, and (4) his father was a bigamist.
International air travel in 1961 was time consuming and expensive. To get from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 probably required a lot of stopovers (even today, I think you need at least two stops to get there). I don't have a firm basis for this (other than the general price schedule in the Gizmodo article I linked there, which includes neither Honolulu nor Nairobi), but just in light of the distances involved, I think it would be the equivalent of at least $10,000 today. A very expensive ticket. So you have to assume that his mother -- a 19 year old college student at the time -- bought (or had bought for her) an expensive plane ticket. His father was in the US at the time on a scholarship programme which paid for his ticket. Seems implausible that either of them would have been in a position to make such a huge expenditure.
Next, you have to assume his mother decided to have her baby in a third world country rather than at a modern hospital in the United States. I can't understand why one would do that, if one had the option of giving birth in the US (I have family members who were born in hospitals in a desperately poor developing country, and they all came out fine, so it's not like they're terrible, but why would an American risk it?).
And lastly, his father was a bigamist. Why on Earth would he be okay with his American concubine coming to his home country and finding out he was already married? It's just crazy.
Blogger Stephen said...
"We don't realize how good this is getting."
Is further marking himself as a racist in sympathy with other racists a good move for his political career and agenda (if he actually has one)?
I don't know the names of all the fallacies you are invoking, so let me just wade in: Trump hasn't said or done anything racist. He's been insulting or disrespectful to some people, some of whom are members of races or other privileged groups.
Being black, or Jewish, or crippled, or Muslim, or gay, or the worst pilot in the Navy, I mean a war hero, doesn't entitle you to launch attacks on a man and not be attacked back.
He's done just right in this instance. I would have been terribly disappointed if he did not fire back at the bolshiefas. Anarchists have been killing and destroying in this country before Hitler was a gleam in his daddy's eye. Communists have been tearing us apart longer than the Civil War.
What, the birther deal? Feh. Tactical opportunity. Obama or his publisher said something stupid, HRC pounced on it, and it was free money to pound on him with it. Made him flinch. McCain and Cruz received similar scrutiny as have others, all whitey white.
Obama laid himself out there to attract anything that might resemble racial remark, and battened on it. That's a scumbag for you. Again, there are white scumbags, that is not a racial remark. Saying he seemed like a wimp is not a racial remark. Saying he never met a Communist he didn't like is not a racial remark.
We can't have people as sacred cows in this country. Not who haven't done a lot more than burn tax money at Altgeld Gardens and put their name on two autobiographies. What does an Obama type do when a Putin type calls him an [sigh] N-word? Curl up?> Give over the Balkans? Push the button?
If you want to call the President a racist it is because you think it will be useful to do so. Nothing more. If you thought it would cost him votes you'd call him a Jew-lover.
Trump was right to call out both the [class] diversitists and color blocs. The Antifa fascists who arrived with the intent to deny civil rights, to stoke conflict, and their competitors who not only exercised their constitutional rights, but with a license, and presumably with oversight of the government.
@Balfegor,
The Kenyan birth theory was always absurd.
Yeah, pretty much. But, the jerking around of folks who had the temerity to ask that question of the Magical Mystery Tour that was the Obama campaign was ridiculous, too. It's a legitimate question, & one that was asked of McCain. Produce your birth certificate, be done with it, & move ahead. Acting like anyone who asked about that basic constitutional concern was racist to the bone was just another scene from what has now become the standard Democratic opera seria.
Next, you have to assume his mother decided to have her baby in a third world country rather than at a modern hospital in the United States. I can't understand why one would do that, if one had the option of giving birth in the US (I have family members who were born in hospitals in a desperately poor developing country, and they all came out fine, so it's not like they're terrible, but why would an American risk it?).
Ideological = - haha I don't need no white Western doctors, look at what Cuba/China/Kenya could do with barefoot medics or whatever! The young are often unrealistic.
Obama made his bones on getting a wedge into people's private business and prying to see what would fall out. I have no problem with any tactic that would shed some light on his antecedents. If there's any dirt on a BC/COLB that could be used against him, why would that bother me or anyone really?
Trump's "genius"-- if you want to call it that -- is in not being afraid to state the obvious-- ie that there were bad players on both sides at Charlottesville-- at a time when the PC narrative declares that one group is pure and the other is deplorable. He's willing to withstand the ensuing criticism because he knows that after the hysterical media has exhausted itself, the obvious facts will still be there to back him up.
Maybe courage is a better word than genius. No other GOP member has the balls to fight the PC narrative. This is why Trump won and they lost. As imperfect as he is we need Trump for this one reason: the over-the-top dishonest media attacks on Trump are destroying their credibility.
If the mainstream media refuses to go back to something resembling normal reporting, then the outlets should be destroyed and the divisive, shrieking hysterics should be replaced with intellectually honest people. Already there are thoughtful, credible freelance reporters on alternative media like Youtube taking their place for the under 50 crowd.
I'm amazed at what's happening in this country when the President of the US can state an obvious, empirically evident truth(ie both sides were violent and are bad dudes), videotape is freely available to show what happened, numerous first hand accounts corroborate him (even some honest reporters--I know, pretty much an oxymoron, yet he's then labelled a racist, moral equivalency purveyor, and wrong to have stated the obvious truth. Its like the importers clothes, only its the MSM, Left, Democrats, and GOPe who are naked. And soooo cowardly are the GOPe politicians that they cannot even support their own truthful president on this point.
Speaking of GOPe cowards, I live in Arizona, so I sadly have McCain, Flake and Martha McSally as my congressional contingent, none of whom deserve my vote. McSally was among the first GOPe to call for Sessions to recuse--which is what really gave the RUSSIA slur momentum. Flake can't keep from falling all over himself criticizing Trump and Trump supporters. I intend to support the strongest primary opponents of McSally and Flake to the max degree my family can legally do in 2018, as both of these idiots are up for reelection then. If they (McSally and/or Flake) win the primary, I will not vote for them, I will sit out the election. McCain, happily, wont be with us much longer.
Re Trump's base, etc, I belong to a large, very geographically and politically diverse sports club (made up of permanent residents here in Tucson, and myriad snowbirds from anywhere north of the sunbelt). I can state with absolute certainty that none of the people here who voted against Trump have changed their minds, and that none of the Trump voters have changed theirs. Given the fact of the electoral college being the determining factor in our Presidential elections, unless something changes, I don't see the 2020 election being much different from 2016, so you liberals can cry all you want about popular vote, but that just means you are over-represented in places that don't carry enough electoral votes to win, despite huge margins in CA, NY, IL, and MA.
And for ARM and Steve, otherwise known as the willfully ignorant, a President can't have legislative victories unless the legislature legislates. Since the GOP Congress can't get anything positive done (they waste their time on RUSSIA because.. the MSM and Democrats) despite controlling both houses end every single committee in both houses, there hasn't been anything to sign on the big deal items, like Healthcare, Tax Reform, Border Security, Infrastructure, etc. Thus I will also contribute to whomever opposes Ryan in a primary next year (yes, he could lose--see Eric Cantor losing to an unknown a few years ago)as he's done absolutely nothing to progress the agenda we voted for.
make that the Emperors Clothes, NOT "importers clothes". Shame on the word fill app.
Cue the 4 dimensional chess / chess-checkers / poker metaphors. So what is happening or will happen to show Trump is "winning"? How will we know that? Is it getting re-elected? Not being impeached? Popularity in polls goes up? What are the true stakes of this supposed game? (Other than the base being juiced up, it seems like everyone else doesn't like him or is mad.)
Put another way, how do we know when a President is doing a good job? Have the things Trump has said or done increased our well being / safety / patriotism / mental health?
Two thoughts.
In response to those who say Trump hasn't said or done anything racist, I note the following:
a. participating in housing discrimination against African Americans that led to a settlement of claims by the federal government.
b. the Kenyan birth lie--why tell it, and repeat it long after it was debunked, except to appeal to racism and xenophobia?
c. the comment about Judge Curiel being unable to decide a case fairly because of his Mexican heritage, which Paul Ryan called a textbook example of racism.
d. the repeated slurs aimed at illegal immigrants--"rapists," "bad hombres" etc.
e. the lie about having personally seen American Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11.
f. his conduct with respect to the Central Park 5, both in demanding their punishment and refusing to recognize their full exoneration.
g. Not knowing that Frederick Douglas was dead--a sign that his pretense of inclusiveness on MLK day was just that.
And no acknowledgement or apologies for any of this stuff.
I think it's a very reasonable inference that someone who does these things and doesn't apologize for them is racist. It seems to me undeniable that someone who does these kinds of things and doesn't apologize for them cannot possibly be serious in his claim that he wants to bring the country together unless he's delusional.
As for wbfjrr2's suggestion that I am wilfully ignorant in suggesting that the quality of Presidential leadership and political skill is an important and often decisive factor in getting legislation passed, contrast FDR and LBJ with Jimmy Carter. I'd say the historical evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. Put another way, wbfjrr2, Obama care repeal/reform failed by 1 vote in the Senate. Don't you think that a more politically skilled President could have moved one more vote? Seems obvious to me....
Post a Comment