"Do Trump’s alleged affairs even matter?" by Callum Borchers (at WaPo).
I did take a look at the top-rated comment: "If President Obama had had an affair, it would have mattered a lot to these same people. Hypocrites without honor, all of them."
If President Obama had an affair, it would matter because we have an opinion of him as a man who has been an excellent husband. It would have mattered to people who love him more than those who hate him.
Trump's affairs don't conflict with much of anything anybody thinks of him. You can't use them because those who want to use them are not those who are genuinely upset about the affairs but people who are looking for ways to attack the man they already hate. And anyone who likes Trump can easily see that about them and moves on. That's not hypocrisy, that's competence — resistance to trolling.
१८ फेब्रुवारी, २०१८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१६ टिप्पण्या:
216 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»With Obama the "live boy or dead girl" standard would have applied.
Obama was more about cop killing rappers.
I only care about successful Judicial appointments.
I never figured out the relationship between Obama, and his "body man" Reggie Love.
Did you fail to see the question mark at the end of the headline??
The revelations confirm my beliefs of Trump's character and my conviction not to vote for him.
Yup, The Donald is what he is---warts and all. He's a braggadocious blowhard, but he's generally headed in the right direction. Most of managerial competence consists of putting people in places where they can use their strengths, and where their weaknesses won't hurt them or the organization.
I don't know whether four, or even eight, years of The Donald will serve to dispel the fog of political correctness that hampers this country. But it will be interesting to see if he can get er dun.
"Did you fail to see the question mark at the end of the headline??"
No. I am reacting to it, answering by doing, showing not telling.
Among the 44 men who have been president (G.Cleveland served twice non-consequently) the percentage is high (if 100% is considered high) that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
For all I know, Borchers is saying exactly the same thing I said. If so, he took longer to say it than I did, and it would take a lot longer for me to read it — a couple minutes — than for me to think of the answer — less than a second. I've got places to go. I'm not tarrying over this columnizing.
This is your failing, Althouse. Your Trumpblindness.
I don't care what a rascal Trump is or was, personally. Yeah, I factored it in when I had a chance to vote for Trump in the Michigan primary -- and I would have voted against him twice if I could have in the primary -- and then a chance to vote for Trump versus Clinton in the general election, which I did, most reluctantly.
It's the lying, Althouse! It's not that he fucked Stormy Daniels; it's that he paid her off, clumsily, with a shell Delaware corporation and Michael Cohen's corrupting facilitation, and has now lied about it. Like lying about Karen McDougal. And turning Ivana trump on her deposition testimony alleging "rape." And challenging the story -- a story which never changed and which was proven on Trump's own security cameras -- of Michelle Fields. And threating legal action (a bogus, illegitimate threat) against the 12 or 13 or 14 women whom he's harassed or abused in the past.
I get it, Althouse; you think that Trump is a known scumbag and that fact is already factored into everybody's respective judgment and so what is the big deal?
What I don't get: Trump is a serial, pathological liar, and that part seems to NOT matter to you at all. Forget Trump for a moment; it's an ugly, disgraceful look for you.
Amen Althouse, amen indeed!
Most probably agree that Trump is a flawed person. But the issue is, what was the alternative?
And let's look at results, we need them badly, badly.
The hypocrisy regarding Trump affairs is that for the most part the left has been fine with this kind of behavior when it comes to their own, i.e. Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and others.
Obama having an affair wouldn't really have made me dislike him much more than I already did on policy, but you can bet every media figure and Democrat activist would have been out there telling us it was a private matter.
I think Trump's affairs are bad, but I spent nearly 15+ years having it beat into me that "consensual sex between adults is not the voters' business."
So... excuse me if the hypocrisy stinks a bit much here.
I thought we had as a country adjudicated this issue during the Clinton years? Or is that only when someone with an (R) next to their name gets in?
What I don’t get: Trump is a serial, pathological liar,
Who ran against a serial pathological liar.
Sure, primary him! I might be with you. But right now impeachment is the goal, and I am not OK with that.
If Trump or any other president attempted (let alone succeeded) to weaponize the IRS and DOJ to go after his her/ political enemmies, while implemented a fraud on taxpayers by having executive agencies participate as defendents in sham litigation designed to funnel settlements to politically favored groups at the same time those agencies agreed to consent decrees that resulted in defacto changes to regulatory law without having to comply with administrative law requirements, then I would want him impeached tomorrow.
I will take an adulterer any day over someone who would would weaponize and corrupt the entire administrative state because the end justifies the means and the American system is not worth preserving.
You Trump haters made it so boring to hate Trump. I don't even like Trump, but you people annoy me.
Above all, I believe Trump won the election, and he deserves support as he attempts to carry out the responsibilities America entrusted to him. We need to help him, not try to screw him up at every turn. I think it's outrageous what has been done to him, and I regard it as an attack on democracy.
I have always found that once the President is elected, we should accept the result and support him when we can and look to the next election if we can't. I think the "resistance" is a rejection of democracy.
And I live through the "This is what democracy looks like" chants of the uprising against Scott Walker. I don't like it.
Althouse hates liberals more than she disdains Trump, although not by much, which accounts for much of her incoherent posting over the last year. Others make a different calculation. However you slice it, disdain for Trump is a broad, one might say normal, response amongst the population.
So many times I voted for the loser, but I always accepted the result, even when it was really hard, in 2000.
I won't tell you how many times I've voted for the loser, because I don't want you to be able to figure out how I voted in 2016, but I did not vote for (or support) a winner in the presidential election until 1992, when I was 41 years old. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I rooted for him throughout the crazy fight through the Supreme Court. But the instant he finally lost, I accepted the result (and he did too, in a very graceful speech). That's the way I feel, quite instinctively. I accept the system in which you can win or lose, and if you lose, you try to win next time, not try to make the winner's job impossible.
If I could hear one leftist state that what Bill Clinton did was evil, I could listen to criticisms of DJT. But I have heard no one on the left admit that Clinton disgraced the office he held by his evil conduct in the oval office.
And let's don't even get started on Obama and what he has done to race relations in this country.
This is another one of those cases (like with Russia) that it doesn't even matter even to those on the Left. They make a big deal about it because they assume it matters to social conservatives. They're flummoxed why it's not working, so they try out the hypocrisy charge.
Obama could have swatted down BLM but instead he rejoiced in it and as a result we have far worse relations between blacks and European Americans than ever before.
I admit I would have Very Surprised if O'Bama had been caught in an affair... with a female
BILL CLINTON.
With Trump, we are finally seeing some serious pushback against the evil leftists in this country. And they can't stand it.
Chuck plays the role of Charlton Heston, screaming down the streets,"Soylent Green is people! Soylent Green is people!"
Paraphrasing Kipling, Althouse is keeping her head on straight, while others are losing theirs.
"Althouse hates liberals more than she disdains Trump"
Why make it all so emotional. Althouse spent her life around liberals, so she's highly aware of their rhetorical patterns and reacts against those.
Don't confuse recognizing liberal tendencies for hatred of them.
She's done her best to try to get liberals how to be more effective communicators!
Althouse wants better liberals, not no liberals.
Blogger etbass said...
If I could hear one leftist state that what Bill Clinton did was evil, I could listen to criticisms of DJT. But I have heard no one on the left admit that Clinton disgraced the office he held by his evil conduct in the oval office.
You are apparently unfamiliar with Joe Lieberman and Al Gore, who were the vice- presidential and presidential candidates of the Democrat party.
Shorter ARM - We hate Trump so much, our hatred is normal. We don't have any problem with Hillary and her private server for secret international deals.
Paddy O said...
Why make it all so emotional.
Because it is emotional for her. I don't hate liberals or Trump. I agree liberals are their own worst enemy, but that doesn't constrain me from freely expressing my thoughts regarding Trump.
I assume that is an admission by BCARM that what Clinton did was evil?
Obama was a wonderful husband and father.
Obama turned the federal government bureaucracies into weapons used to spy on political opponents and persecute his political enemies. He enabled the corrupt Clinton machine and is doing the same things they did after they got out of office.
Obama and everyone who still supports him are enemies of freedom.
If Hillary was elected it was clearly the end of the rule of law. People who get hung up over things they clearly chuckled at Bill doing and fully supported are trying to tear the country down.
Chuck.
Carter was the most clearly "moral" President in recent memory. Or since, possibly, Herbert Hoover, who was born a Quaker.
CNN - the liar network(D)
ARM - Ann isn't emoting, you are. You big Hillary supporting girl.
Obama did have pre-marital affairs, with women, as per his own testimony, and there is corroboration from some of the women. So entirely moral in a traditional sense, no.
If President Obama had an affair, it would matter because we have an opinion of him as a man who has been an excellent husband
Yeah, what the hell happened with Obama? You know that the man must have had women putting the move on him all the time. Remember all those times that Michelle went away on "vacation"? Did he stay lonely, working long hours into the night? If the man stayed true to his vows, then he indeed has won his "Get Out of Purgatory Free" card fair & square.
Well, maybe. My guess is that "things happened" during the Obama administration. "Happened" quite often, actually, & that the press dutifully covered up for him. For the children, you understand, for the children.
Time will tell the tale.
"Carter was the most clearly "moral" President in recent memory."
-- Bush's story of overcoming his alcoholism is also a pretty good story. I'm still surprised that despite that, he managed to get elected. Twice.
"Well, maybe. My guess is that "things happened" during the Obama administration. "Happened" quite often, actually, & that the press dutifully covered up for him"
-- I have no reason to think Obama did that.
Then again, if in 15 years, I learn the media lied and covered up for another Democrat president, I won't be surprised. A bit sad; I do think Obama, the family man, was a good role model as that.
Ann Althouse said...
...
Above all, I believe Trump won the election,...
So do I. And I've seen no evidence, and no likelihood of proof, showing that the results of the election should not be accepted and supported by all Americans as a legitimate election. Anything less is, as you suggest in a rather bland and overly-broad way, is "an attack on democracy." What I'd say instead, is that it is a subversion of our own rule of law.
... and he deserves support as he attempts to carry out the responsibilities America entrusted to him. We need to help him, not try to screw him up at every turn. I think it's outrageous what has been done to him...
Well, I know that I haven't tried "to screw him up at every turn." I supported his nomination of Justice Gorsuch. I supported his selection of Secretary DeVos. I have supported a great many Trump Administration policy initiatives.
What Trump is remarkable for, is not how he is being subverted at every turn; it is how self-defeating the guy is, in terms of stupid and incoherent messaging, and how his own personal foibles get in the way of consistent policy messaging.
Even I would have to concede certain Trump successes. And I'll define the essential nature of those successes: almost all of them have been successes in the area(s) of cultural messaging, to his hardest-core base. It is of course a profoundly divisive sort of success. Trump's successes in cultural messaging -- such as his deriding "shithole countries," carries a cost in terms of alienating a majority of the country, and diminishing his personal credibility in office when he denies having said it.
Be careful, Althouse, in how you categorize and characterize Trump's detractors, Althouse. I voted for him. I don't even know if you did that. I'm not beholden to any left-wing interest groups. My opposition to Trump isn't because I've been a public employee, or a supporter of gay rights, or a proponent of an assault weapons ban, or because I have been pro-abortion. I haven't been any of those things.
I am a critic of Trump because, on a regular basis, Trump is untruthful, and unclear, and self-dealing, legally obfuscating.
Althouse hates liberals more than she disdains Trump, although not by much, which accounts for much of her incoherent posting over the last year. Others make a different calculation. However you slice it, disdain for Trump is a broad, one might say normal, response amongst the population.
She’s not even worth quoting, so I’ll quote this guy instead. To support Trump out of spite and misplaced patriotism is pathetic, ignorant and quite shocking coming from someone who I previously thought had a normal level of intelligence and insight.
And I live(d) through the "This is what democracy looks like" chants of the uprising against Scott Walker. I don't like it.
Agreed. Democrats don't like it when they lose. They think it's not over 'til they win. (Insert clip of Feingold saying that very thing) That's ludicrous thinking.
This months-long tantrum by Liberals -- years-long, if you factor in Walker -- is just tedious.
And now I read that Biden is considering a run at the Presidency in 2020. At age 78. Way to appeal to the young, Democrats. Enjoy your time in the wilderness if this happens.
Matthew Sablan said...
"Well, maybe. My guess is that "things happened" during the Obama administration. "Happened" quite often, actually, & that the press dutifully covered up for him"
-- I have no reason to think Obama did that.
Then again, if in 15 years, I learn the media lied and covered up for another Democrat president, I won't be surprised. A bit sad; I do think Obama, the family man, was a good role model as that.
Reason to think Obama was covered for by the press or acted inappropriately around. women.
Your fears are well founded.
"What Trump is remarkable for, is not how he is being subverted at every turn; it is how self-defeating the guy is, in terms of stupid and incoherent messaging, and how his own personal foibles get in the way of consistent policy messaging."
-- Honestly, there's an echo chamber designed to stab Trump in the back. Remember when Obama called a reporter sweetheart or sweety or something and dismissed her question? If Trump does that, we'd have days of #MeToo #WarOnWomen. When Trump tells people to work together and give him legislation, he's called a weak leader; when Obama "leads from behind," it is viewed as a skilled leader respecting the separation of powers.
Trump may be incompetent -- but the fact that the courts took his comments to use as stopping the temporary order on keeping certain people from entering the country (including people from non-Muslim majority nations), yet the courts refuse to consider Obama's comments about auditing his enemies when looking at the IRS tells us that it doesn't matter what he does or did. He's a whipping boy with the courts, left and media just looking for excuses -- and when he doesn't give them one, they'll edit video of him feeding fish to make him look like a doofus.
@Matthew S,
I have no reason to think Obama did that.
I do. Liberal women adored Obama, & not just in the political sense. Remember that article in the New Yorker, I believe, where the authoress said she imagined having a threesome with Obama & Michelle? Do you think she'd put her reputation on the line with an article that whack if she didn't already know that that fantasy was common among her social set?
A man can be fully intent on staying faithful, but how many times is he gonna turn it down if beautiful women keep offering it to him without him even asking? Turning down Lena Dunham is easy. Turning down Scarlett Johansson or Salma Hayek is another matter entirely.
It is, needless to say, not a moral problem that afflicts most of us mere mortal men.
(Sidenote: I don't like Trump. I just think that the reaction against him is overblown and it negates the legitimate complaints about what he's doing wrong. Whereas the right rallied behind Bush and overlooked his big government, compassionate conservatism, it seems like the opposite is happening with Trump, where he's going to be knee-capped because he doesn't put up enough a nice guy facade.
Which is fine, I guess. Like I said: I'm not a big fan. A few years of a not very effective Trump, without disaster striking, seems to me to maybe be the best way to reset the right-left angst of the country and maybe step back from the radicalism and street violence that we're seeing from the left, and slowly more and more, the right.
We desperately *need* a reset on the national tone, and Trump may be the best shot we get at that in awhile.
I’m laughing my ass off that Althouse has become Hillary Clinton.
If this video got tenth as much play as the Trump pussy grabber tape got people would hate Obama even more.
This video is 10 times worse than the comment Trump made.
Those are reporters tittering and giggle at Obama's cock. They sat on this video.
The mystique that Obama is a nice decent person is a media fabrication. People who indulge in it are dupes to an obviously corrupt press machine or they are complicit.
Apparently, I was supposed to vote for the non-liar in the 2016 election.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
I’m laughing my ass off that Althouse has become Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton's primary attribute is cynicism. I don't believe Althouse is a cynic.
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I rooted for him throughout the crazy fight through the Supreme Court. But the instant he finally lost, I accepted the result (and he did too, in a very graceful speech).
Personally did not like Gore but always felt distancing himself from Clinton cost him the election. Hillary and her gang ignored Bill's advice and lost also Bill a weasel but a political winner.
See a few taking titty twisters style: try to get (their)mommies attention by insulting her.
SAD!!
Oh my Althouse at last honestly reveals her thoughts that Trump deserves our support and suggests that resistance is a rejection of democracy. I guess a democracy can include dissent but not too much dissent. Does this mean I can’t question the great leaders to support dismantling of EPA regulations or consumer protection or self centered tweets that use the murder of seventeeen teens to talk about him self? Was I not suppose to resist Bush when he called for war in Iraq any more than I protested the escalation of drone warfare under Obama? I love this country for many reasons and think we are on very dangerous ground when a careful thinker and strong supporter of free speech like Althouse suggests that resistance is a rejection of democracy.
If I'm understanding Prof. Althouse correctly, she thinks that it's "trolling" for people to point out that the sort of immoral conduct that Republicans insisted was disqualifying for Bill Clinton is perfectly fine for Donald Trump, thereby revealing that Republicans' arguments have never been made in good faith but rather only for the purpose of electoral advantage?
I don't care where Trump puts his dick. I didn't care where Obama and Clinton put their dicks. History shows there is zero correlation between where a President puts his dick and his Presidential legacy.
I'm not affiliated politically, but I will say this: If the politicians of only one party are going to be held to account for their actions, that's a pretty good reason to favor that party when voting.
"If President Obama had had an affair, it would have mattered a lot to these same people. Hypocrites without honor, all of them."
Apparently the commenter forgot his Mencken: "In politics, man must learn to rise above principle."
If I'm understanding Prof. Althouse correctly, she thinks that it's "trolling" for people to point out that the sort of immoral conduct that Republicans insisted was disqualifying for Bill Clinton is perfectly fine for Donald Trump,
This lefty nonsense is so common. Please mr Jr Commie, when has Trump been shown to commit perjury ?
Clinton was NOT impeached over sex. He lied under oath in a lawsuit.
You're welcome.
Does this mean I can’t question the great leaders to support dismantling of EPA regulations or consumer protection or self centered tweets that use the murder of seventeeen teens to talk about him self?
You can question them but not ok to murder them while they play softball.
Not ok to beat Trump supporters at rallies.
Not ok to vandalize homes of Trump supporters
Not ok to fire a guy for supporting Trump.
Certainly you agree?
" ...the sort of immoral conduct that Republicans insisted was disqualifying for Bill Clinton is perfectly fine for Donald Trump,"
Did I miss something, jonny?
Did Trump lie to a Federal judge under oath, rape a woman, physically harass another, have state troopers bring a woman to his room to "kiss it", and use his position for White House blowjobs from a subordinate barely out of her teens? There is probably much more, but that's enough about Bill.
Tell me what Trump has done that is equivalent to Clinton.
they assume it matters to social conservatives
It does matter. However, it was not involuntary, it was not superior, and, despite the journolistic effort, he has made no effort to normalize it. There were no babies Planned. It's a private issue that the husband and wife have or will need to reconcile. Also, after the failed coup, this attack vector not only matters, but seems exceedingly petty. When did they stop stalking Sarah Palin?
"we are on very dangerous ground when a careful thinker and strong supporter of free speech like Althouse suggests that resistance is a rejection of democracy."
If you consider Althouse to be those things, then maybe you should consider her arguments more carefully (than you appear to do).
You're admitting that Trump has lowered the expectations of his supporters.
So how much longer do we have to wait for them to just stop being involved and voting at all?
"Trump deserves our support and suggests that resistance is a rejection of democracy."
I certainly hope you don't teach logic or any hard science.
We have elections. The winner is elected and conducts the office until the next election when you have a chance to defeat him and elect your candidate.
"Resistance" is what the Civil War was about. I guess you want that again.
In 2000 I voted for Gore, but in the mess that ensued switched over to root for Bush. It was all the irrationality and emotion coming out of the left. I think that was the start of the modern craziness. It would be nice to still have a sane left to listen to. All I got now is Mickey Kaus.
Not to be all reductionist, but I suspect it was Bush punching his prolife ticket that made them flip out.
So what, Chuck? Why is it so important to you that others share your monomaniacal focus on Trump. ALL presidents are liars. What they lie about differs and IMO the lies Obama told were quite significant and led me to distrust him even more over time. Trump’s “lies” are often of the white variety, the kind meant to keep personal issues private. The kind of discretion we used to appreciate in people. Most the time I don’t think he’s lying st all. The ones you elucidate fall into the “who cares” category and do not in any way erode my trust in his judgement (and this is the important part so pay attention) as president to faithfully, far more faithfully, execute his duties better than the person he ran against. He won. Let him govern. Stop being a swarm of gnats for a change.
And stop badgering Althouse to adopt your stupid, insufferable, monomaniacal, off-topic, overly digested take. I one here agrees with you, and I’m offended by your repeated mansplaining to our hostess. You're sick.
Paco to r/V: "we are on very dangerous ground when a careful thinker and strong supporter of free speech like Althouse suggests that resistance is a rejection of democracy."
If you consider Althouse to be those things, then maybe you should consider her arguments more carefully (than you appear to do).
drama queening:thinking::drinking:driving
("Friends don't let friends..." and all that.)
"I guess a democracy can include dissent but not too much dissent."
You mean like when Obama weaponized the IRS & the JD? "Dissent" like that put forward by the Tea Party?
"Reactionary" is more apt than "Resistance." This, BTW, is how the "Resistance" views dissent:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?”. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."
"And stop badgering Althouse to adopt your stupid, insufferable, monomaniacal, off-topic, overly digested take. "
Geez, Mike. What a spoilsport.
Chuckles gets his jollies by showing what an insufferable little twit he is.
In the old days, we would have said that he is cruising for a bruising.
We have elections. The winner is elected..
So you're a member of the electoral college, then? Which popular minority elected him?
All the time the minoritarian Trumpists here talk about how we're not supposed to have a democracy. With all the popular vote losers they've selected over the past few decades, I guess that's to be expected. Supporting Trump IS a rejection of democracy, especially if you find his overreach efforts following the popular vote loss that elected him to be beyond legitimacy.
Trump is the underachiever of presidents. Finally we have the Bart Simpson president. Or maybe the Combover in Chief is the Homer Simpson president, given his girth, ego, lack of hair and carelessness with nuclear devices.
Add to that his diet, laziness and ignorance.
Poor comprehension RV is back. Let me correct the record: Althouse said “EVERY PRESIDENT DESERVES OUR SUPPORT.”
So what part of that is wrong?
Trump’s low character is undermining the Republican party the same way Clibton’s did for his party. Not particularly profoundly. I wonder if the apparent immunity to hypocrisy will last long or extend to other candidates.
ALL presidents are liars.
Trump tells dozens of documented lies each week at least, and thousands so far. More than any president.
They're not "white" or personal - but often policy-related and meant to blur people's grasp on the truth or accuracy of a policy understanding in any way. I can see Republicans like that, but Republicans are a minority - especially the Trump die-hards.
The ones that are personal are too numerous (and tenacious) to have any faith that he sees the office as something other than just another vehicle for mindless and defensive, angry self-promotion.
He's in his seventies and can't admit that the back of his head looks like a plucked turkey rump. He spends hours each morning covering it up. And hours more watching promotional FOX State TV propaganda aimed at pumping up his ego.
Sure he offsets some of that by not sleeping much but look at the waste of presidential resources. Oh wait, don't look. He reduces daily presidential briefing reports by 95% and requires the content to be reshaped to mention him personally more often and reassure him of his self-image.
And then there's the fact that he gets his primary intel from Alex Jones. That in and of itself tells you how unqualified he is.
“You are apparently unfamiliar with Joe Lieberman and Al Gore, who were the vice- presidential and presidential candidates of the Democrat party.”
Oh, yeah. Their strident denunciations of WJC’s behavior ring in my ears to this very hour. You must be (and are, of course) kidding.
Also, Juanita Broaddrick. It’s generous of Lefties to show up just so they can be so effortlessly slapped down.
Failure to govern is undermining my party more than Trump is. His personal failings are human. His opponents are often inhuman. The fact Democrats ran around saying “everybody lies about sex” and “he deserves one free grope” and “drag a dollar through a trailer park” and tried to excuse his lying under oath are what damaged the D party. Come back when you see the R party actually making the same lousy arguments like Ds did.
Failure to govern is undermining my party more than Trump is.
Hey, well yours is the "anti-government" party so go figure. It's a logical absurdity to ask for a job that you think should consist of doing as little as possible, making itself as unaccountable as possible, while griping about why you're not considered legitimate.
The lobbyists are your shareholders. They're getting theirs.
The voters - not so much. You rallied them with hate and authoritarianism and permanent tax cuts for their economic masters accompanied by temporary tax cuts for everyone else while adding a $trillion to the debt in a time of global economic expansion. Your geopolitical doctrine is written by Putin your economic policy decided by China and your social cohesion policy invented by Hitler.
Just leave office already. How many more schoolkids are you gonna get killed so that you can prove your greater love for the gun instead?
Just totally unfit.
Failure to govern is undermining my party more than Trump is. His personal failings are human.
Yes, the GOP Congress was happy to talk about issues until they actually had someone who would sign what they passed.
The donors of both parties have far too much influence. At least the GOP donors seem to have some logic, even if I disagree with it.
The Democrats like Schmidt and Steyer make no sense except a lust for power over the rest of us.
Hillary was their perfect candidate except she was unelectable.
Lem is right about Freeman's succinct point: Trump is on his third marriage and none of his prior wives are dead.
Nobody voting for him will be surprised if he has a problem with marital fidelity.
Yes, the GOP Congress was happy to talk about issues until they actually had someone who would sign what they passed.
And prove - finally - just how hated and unpopular it was.
The donors of both parties have far too much influence.
Thanks to Republican preferences for equating money and bribery with speech.
IF ONLY the Dems had some standard other than retaining absolute power or entitled to retain power and removed Bubba from office, Gore probably would have won the election and this anger and distrust that we have might not be as bad.
It amuses me on a daily basis that holding Trump to the same standards that Democrats hold other Democrats drives those Democrats batshit crazy. Is almost the funniest thing going right now.
And IF the msm didn’t call Glorida early...
And let the Panhandle vote, there might have been a couple of thousand more votes for W.
Gore probably would have won the election and this anger and distrust that we have might not be as bad.
I was pretty neutral about Gore v Bush. I was not a fan of Bush or Rove, who convinced him not to tell about the DUI.
I thought Gore was more sensible than Clinton but I think Gore was a weak candidate and went crazy after he lost the election.
The post 2000 election hysteria is the most logical explanation for the Democrats' current insanity.
Nobody voting for him will be surprised if he has a problem with marital fidelity.
He’s 70. Meh.
Then there are the “trial marriages” of the young.
The society seems to be heading for more than 1 marriage if they marry at all.
At least he married them. Liz Taylor still has more.
What pissed me off is David Boise lied to the FLSC and for some reason my vote only counted once where Floridians sometimes got counted 5-6-7.
I am a critic of Trump because, on a regular basis, Trump is untruthful, and unclear, and self-dealing, legally obfuscating.
I’m still waiting for my $2500 from Obamacare.
But I will give props to Obama, he did follow thru by unleashing the IRS on his enemies like he said.
"The post 2000 election hysteria is the most logical explanation for the Democrats' current insanity" So true Michael K. IN 2000 I liked neither candidate and voted for Nader but became increasingly appalled as Gore tried to dumpster dive himself into the presidency. A real turning point for me was listening to NPR gleefully speculate that Floridian's who had gotten mail in ballots and voted for Bush would have their votes tossed out due to some technicality. They couldn't make it any clearer it was all about winning, voters be damned. That is all I see with "Resist". Dead enders who can't process losing like adults.
If I'm understanding Prof. Althouse correctly, she thinks that it's "trolling" for people to point out that the sort of immoral conduct that Republicans insisted was disqualifying for Bill Clinton is perfectly fine for Donald Trump, thereby revealing that Republicans' arguments have never been made in good faith but rather only for the purpose of electoral advantage?
Nope. Times change. The bar was lowered. The same people who once told us to stay out of people’s Bedrooms (1980s) now want sex contracts before the nasty is done. So we go with the flow.
Now that as Insty says, “They’ve morphed into the Moral Majority so slowly I didn’t notice” works for some. The pendulum always swings.
Althouse shows genuine reasonableness and leadership and the usual suspects are all over her for being a sellout to Trump.
The usual suspects have a reading comprehension problem.
Trump’s low character is undermining the Republican party the same way Clibton’s did for his party. Not particularly profoundly. I wonder if the apparent immunity to hypocrisy will last long or extend to other candidates.
Only those with (D) after their names if the metooers don’t get ahold of them.
I thought Gore was more sensible than Clinton but I think Gore was a weak candidate and went crazy after he lost the election.
The post 2000 election hysteria is the most logical explanation for the Democrats' current insanity.
So you're an expert on insanity, now.
How do you explain Trump's insanity?
I’m still waiting for my $2500 from Obamacare.
But I will give props to Obama, he did follow thru by unleashing the IRS on his enemies like he said.
We can't talk about leftwing lies. *Because racist and good intentions. I don't even buy the good intentions crap. The left want to break it so they can re-build it in the image of "Fuck you, pay me."
Stolen from williamson and goodfellas.
I believe it was Althouse who wrote: I think the "resistance" is a rejection of democracy, and I questioned this because while I prepare for the next election in 2018 I can not help but point out what I consider the short comings of Trump and some Republicans--- this is the expected dissent of democracy. And yes Full Moon I agree with all your examples of violence; the forms of resistance I advocate have always been non-violent.
I think the "resistance" is a rejection of democracy
Right. Which is why they're pushing to end the EC and increase voter turn-out.
What is it about this blog that gets everyone to say the opposite of what is really true?
"the forms of resistance I advocate have always been non-violent"
I hope so. Question: Have you ever advocated for a "resistance" in the form of delegitimizing and overturning a legal democratic election?
Resist is simple Hillary Lost Butt-Hurt.
Resist what? Are the US laws void because you didn't get your way? Funny, Hillary knew she could fly above the law.
We do not have a "democracy" in the United States. The Country is a Representative Republic.
Each individual State can run it's elections as it sees fit for the Primaries and in how it allots the Electoral College votes. Some States are more "deomcratic" in this process. Others are more "representative".
Irregardless of how many votes nationwide a candidate garners (ha!) the legal method as dictated by the constitution is that each individual state can vote it's electoral votes. The number of those votes are determined by the number of Representatives and Senators each state has.
The reason for this for the dimwitted and TR are to allow EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE a representative vote for national office of President. The founders were, rightly, afraid of a pure democracy in that a more populated State, at that time, like New York would out vote the smaller and more rural states.
The purpose of the Electoral College IN the Constitution was to assure the smaller states that they would not be crushed by the larger state and to encourage them to actually join the Union of the United States. If not, there would not BE a United States but instead regional areas that were separate countries or entities.
That Hillary got more individual votes nation wide means literally jack shit. She lost.
Rusty said...
"Althouse shows genuine reasonableness and leadership and the usual suspects are all over her for being a sellout to Trump.
The usual suspects have a reading comprehension problem"
Althouse is a woman, and a liberal who doesn't blindly toe the party line. Nothing enrages the Left more than that except if Althouse were black, too.
Gore didn't go nuts, he simply monetized.
He made huge piles of money as an agent of the Qatari government, and who knows who else.
The final payoff (crazy overpriced buyout by Al Jazeera) was a fabulous exercise in creating a plausible transaction.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
We do not have a "democracy"
DBQsplaining.
Right. Which is why they're pushing to end the EC and increase voter turn-out.
What is it about this blog that gets everyone to say the opposite of what is really true?
Ending the EC is called tyranny.
Obviously the idiots here need DBQsplaining when they talk about “democracy” in childish terms and slag on the EC. Very obvious.
DBQsplaining.
Well...it is painfully obvious that many here do not get "it" for whatever reasons. Head up butt? None so blind as those who will not see? Willfully ignorant?....so someone has to do it
You're welcome :-)
"If President Obama had had an affair, it would have mattered a lot to these same people. Hypocrites without honor, all of them."
Well, no.
We were told during the Clinton years - countless times by you hectoring leftists - that it didn't matter.
You should be happy we've adopted your position on this critical issue.
You Trump haters made it so boring to hate Trump. I don't even like Trump, but you people annoy me.
The worst thing about Trump-haters is that they're so over-the-top it's nearly impossible NOT to like (or at least tolerate) Trump. Stop making me like Trump, dammit!
move on. amiright?
For cloudy thinking here is Ann at about her foggiest. Competence and hypocrisy, if Ann thought about it, aren't mutually exclusive. Ann argues Trump's hypocrisy is a strength.
Overall though it's Ann's befuddlement and anger over why many Americans hate Trump. She sees an honest, thoughtful, decent and competent President who's trying to do his best, and doesn't understand why many Americans, even in her own tribe, see a lying uninformed coarse adulterer and sex harasser who has demeaned his office and may even be a Russian stooge. This says nothing about the specific acts by Trump to arouse the hatred of blacks, brown-skinned Americans, immigrants and their families, some women, and so on. Ann can't even to begin to imagine that those people have a viable constituency in the U.S.
Ann, who I once thought had a better imagination, has decided that echo chamber is her best role. Call that literary agent!
(eaglebeak)
Bill "You'd better put some ice on that" Clinton and Donald Trump are not equivalent vis-a-vis women, and although you may deplore Donald Trump's sex life (if you insist), Bill Clinton's seems to have been felonious.
Otherwise: Someone in these comments attacked Trump by declaring that the back of his head looks like a defeathered turkey rump.
That is what I call some high-class, dialectical invective right there.
With argumentation skills like that, someone is well on his way to a high-IQ late-night comic gig.
We were told during the Clinton years - countless times by you hectoring leftists - that it didn't matter
It sill does not matter for progressives, liberals, and female chauvinists who exploit women, men, and babies, too, for political, social, and personal progress.
What does matter is whether the relationship was involuntary, superior, or predatory. Also whether the principal(s) repented, or progressed to indulge in their natural appetites. From the perspective of society, what matters is if there is an effort to normalize a dysfunctional orientation and its expression.
So, we know Trump is not a diversitist (e.g. racism, deny individual dignity). He is not a female chauvinist. He was a social liberal in liberal land, but he did not progress. He is not politically congruent ("="). He is not a social justice adventurer (e.g. elective wars, CAIR). He does not promote redistributive change schemes (e.g. the Jews have too much). He does not conflate logical domains (e.g. CAGW prophecy). He does not deny human evolution and lives deemed unworthy. As he evolves, he may Change, but that future is difficult to discern through the liberal and progressive noise, violence, and bigotry of his critics.
Presidential Cheaters
FDR - Yes before in office, In office ?? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Mercer_Rutherfurd
Truman - Not likely
Eisenhower - Rumored during the war, in office not likely -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby
Kennedy - Are you kidding? More like Hugh Hefner than any other president.
LBJ - Tried to keep up with Kennedy but failed. Tied with Clinton in boorishness.
Nixon - Nope, though rumors of gay affair are there 'cause everyone hates Nixon
Ford - Rumors no definite proof
Carter - Only in his heart
Reagan - First divorcee in the White House but nothing on the side.
Bush 1 - Rumors again, denied, but not while in office
Clinton - Another Kennedy wannabe, whether they wanted it or not.
Bush 2 - National Enquirer had a story but it looked fabricated.
Obama - Nope
Trump - Yeh, before office but he still has a ways to go to catch up with the big three of Kennedy, Clinton, and LBJ
So do I care? No. As someone once said, "At this point what difference does it make?"
"If President Obama had had an affair, it would have mattered a lot to these same people. Hypocrites without honor, all of them."
Yes, and if POTUS starting having an affair with a Playboy Bunny NOW, AS PRESIDENT, it would matter. But we're talking about something that happened 12 YEARS AGO, when Trump was private citizen.
NOBODY believes the Nevertrumpers/Liberals care about Adultery or give a rats ass about Marriage vows when Liberals/RINO Politicans are involved. So all their Alinsky playbook crap about "making the Christian Trump supporters live up to their own Standards" is boring.
I never had much use for Jonah Goldberg, but he's lost all my respect with his pathetic "How can you be a Christian Evangelical and support Trump? Where are your standards?" As if we elected a Pope instead of a POTUS.
Bravo, and this is one of the reasons Dr. Althouse is stop down viewing every day. My only quibble is that I DO like trump because if it were another republican, the democrat-media would be doing exactly the same thing. I want my republican potus in this environment to just say F off. And honestly I do not ever see the environment change as long as the democrat party is around.
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
You Trump haters made it so boring to hate Trump. I don't even like Trump, but you people annoy me.
Above all, I believe Trump won the election, and he deserves support as he attempts to carry out the responsibilities America entrusted to him. We need to help him, not try to screw him up at every turn. I think it's outrageous what has been done to him, and I regard it as an attack on democracy.
I have always found that once the President is elected, we should accept the result and support him when we can and look to the next election if we can't. I think the "resistance" is a rejection of democracy. "
Trump never pretended to be a choir boy. Nothing about this is interesting or surprising.
This callum birchers
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2016/07/02/fact-checking-washington-posts-callum-borchers
Or just recently:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/10/19/washington-post-performs-uranium-one-scandal-spin-control
Does a good job of Ben smithing certain stories
OH I expect there were peccadillos in obamas past, but hell we just went almost a decade with his picture with Farrakhan buried. I imagine the democrat-media was scouring the planet to find his liaisons.
The real reason we don't have Democracy - or even representative government - is that both parties are controlled by Wealthy Donors.
The Republican Senators and Congressman are listening to the Chamber of Commerce, Paul Singer and the Koch Brothers - not their Republican voters.
It was front page news that some character called "Hoffman" told the RNC he wouldn't write a another check unless "we do something about guns". Why should the views of this One obscure man be so important?
Well he was part of jebs voyage of no return campaign, you think that should induce a certain reticence. Just burn the money in a cold snap.
Then there was this story, when the bureau allowed the contamination of the crime scene, had shut down the investigation into the network years before:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2016/02/06/callow-borchers-tries-juicy-story-gambit
They hate him because he beat Hillary.
(Even tho they knew what he was in 90? After that 60 minutes interview) and a lot of them happily voted to put Bill back in office. And then back in as First Man)
They hate him because he has an (R) after his name
They hate him because they hate us.
As to coarse? Lolol teabagger with everything thrown at our side, he’s coarse?
Or does he just reflect the coarse American public?
Who lowered the language standard?
They hate him but will cash those paychecks and enjoy the extra money in their pockets.
What Bill was in 1990.
Commenter Pickering sniffed: "For cloudy thinking here is Ann at about her foggiest. Competence and hypocrisy, if Ann thought about it, aren't mutually exclusive. Ann argues Trump's hypocrisy is a strength."
Chuck, is that you in a sober state?
You can't fool me. I can sniff out an insufferable little twit a mile away.
he still has a ways to go to catch up with the big three of Kennedy, Clinton, and LBJ
Not just in numbers but in sheer depravity. Ping me when Trump deflowers a teenager in his wife's bed, then forces her to orally service one of his aids
What I don't get: Trump is a serial, pathological liar, and that part seems to NOT matter to you at all.
What you're saying is that someone with the moral character of Bill Clinton is President. I'm trying to figure out how you can be the least exercised about that at this late a date.
It was front page news that some character called "Hoffman" told the RNC he wouldn't write a another check unless "we do something about guns". Why should the views of this One obscure man be so important?
They aren't. Things don't make "front page news" because they are important, they make "front page news" because the media wants you to hear about them. If you can't discern the difference, really, you should stop trying to think about public affairs; it's too complicated for you.
I'm not affiliated politically, but I will say this: If the politicians of only one party are going to be held to account for their actions, that's a pretty good reason to favor that party when voting
I am politically affiliated, but I did not support or vote for Trump. He was an unknown and what I DID know, was a loudmouth with poor character. However, he was, AFAIK, never known or associated as a racist in any sense more than a person of his age and his upbringing. (Senator Byrd anyone?)
That being said, I saw only TWO upsides to a Trump presidency.
1) Unlike Hillary Clinton, the press WOULD hold Trump accountable for what he did. (Did they ever! Anything to throw at him)
2) I would be seeing Melania instead of Hillary, which is well worth avoiding the mental scarring. Hillary's lack of character and perchance of lying and committing crimes just oozes out of her. I feel unclean every time I watch her.
So when Chuck and Voltaire speak of how bad Trump is, I think of the 30 years of Clintonism where that Dynastic Duo avoided felony persecutions simply because of the Fifth Amendment and cheap flights from America back to China.
You Trump haters made it so boring to hate Trump. I don't even like Trump, but you people annoy me.
This blog has become boring. It used to be entertaining to read, but now is no different than reading commentary on any run of the mill right wing rag.
The reason for this for the dimwitted and TR are to allow EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE a representative vote for national office of President. The founders were, rightly, afraid of a pure democracy..
That was then, before it was established that states were not sovereign over the federal government and senators got to be directly elected. The vast majority of Americans nowadays are not autistic enough to fear their fellow citizens and as such have no use for curbing their power in favor of aristocracy and an outdated bureaucratic/anti-democratic structure with no purpose such as the EC.
Translation: giving extra power to flyover states cost us an election. WAAA!
LLR and #StrongDurbin/BlumenthalDefender Chuck has apparently already forgotten that he is on record supporting the impeachment of a duly elected President without a shred of evidence rhat President has done anything worthy of even thinking about impeachment.
Because "true conservative" "principles".
LOL
You should feel free to draw obvious conclusions.
"The post 2000 election hysteria is the most logical explanation for the Democrats' current insanity" So true Michael K. IN 2000 I liked neither candidate and voted for Nader but became increasingly appalled as Gore tried to dumpster dive himself into the presidency. A real turning point for me was listening to NPR gleefully speculate that Floridian's who had gotten mail in ballots and voted for Bush would have their votes tossed out due to some technicality. They couldn't make it any clearer it was all about winning, voters be damned. That is all I see with "Resist". Dead enders who can't process losing like adults.
@FF,
but now is no different than reading commentary on any run of the mill right wing rag.
Because it really has become the same shit over & over. Out of five press stories on Trump:
In one of them, Trump is lying through his teeth.
In two of them, there is a clear & more charitable reading of Trump's statements/actions that explains what he's doing & how it's basically in the American political mainstream/
In the last two, the press is just absolutely either making shit up or simply misreporting the facts.
This has happened over & over & over, & and unless you just enjoy Trump hating, it's really boring & tiresome. Go read the Althouse archives during the election in 2016. Basically, only a couple of commenters thought Trump had a chance of winning. Only a few of us were in any way enthusiastic about him as a candidate. Most of us just loathed Hillary, & couldn't believe that the Dems had sunk so low as to nominate her. Hell, there was more support for Bernie Sanders here than there was for Hillary. He might have been a socialist nut-job, but at least he was an honest socialist nut-job.
FF, your side has a major credibility problem with everyone who isn't already on your side. You guys need to re-build that credibility. Stop the obfuscation, stop the lying, stop the equivocations. You gotta be Caesar's wife pure. None of us think that's gonna happen. Surprise us all.
Bill Clinton had his affairs after becoming President of the United States. Trump, if he had affairs, did it years before. End of story.
Nice try, Lefty cocksuckers.
giving extra power to flyover states
WAAA!? You're the fucker in (or wishing he was in) one of those shithole states in the first place. What the fuck have they done for America? Not a fucking thing. Let them get "crushed." No culture, no economy, and agriculture can be brought indoors into high-rises anyway. Better use of land. Those aren't states; they're farms with a couple redneck shitheads roosting on them while they molest their kids, breed with their cousins, read bibles, shoot guns, make meth, and busybody about in their neighbors' business. What's their contribution to national elections? Providing enough Evangelical retards to give their "blessing" to a pathological liar/serial philanderer/shameless draft dodger and mob sympathizer as the nation's top law enforcer. Because he needed to use the office to cut his own taxes, drive up a trillion or so more $ in debt and spend eight hours a day in the Oval Office doing his hair, raging against his personal critics, spilling intel to the Russkies and anyone else who'd bought him out.
Nope, we can do without the "special", non-population-based "contributions" to our national politics of Missouri, Nebraska, Alabama and the other couple dozen freeloader states. They take in more federal outlays then they bring in to our nation and its high time these layabouts were cut off at their knees, politically. They are a drag on the country; it's time they got the message and what we productive states intend to do to these useless dregs about it.
Michael K - I didn't refer to impreachment or perjury. I'm talking about the many Republican voters and leaders who claimed that Clinton's immoral behavior was disqualifying. That was an obvious lie.
Seeing Red - no one on the left is trying to impose the standards of the Moral Majority. I was merely pointing out that the moral arguments against Clinton were disingenuous.
You're going to end up stating a lot of bad-faith arguments if you rely on Glenn Reynolds for talking points.
TTR: "Those aren't states; they're farms with a couple redneck shitheads roosting on them while they molest their kids, breed with their cousins, read bibles, shoot guns, make meth, and busybody about in their neighbors' business."
LLR Chuck could not have said it any better.
You Trump haters made it so boring to hate Trump. I don't even like Trump, but you people annoy me.
During the primary, I used to tell people that Trump wasn't the problem, it was his supporters. I believed this because I could agree with Trump, but his supporters were over-the-top and annoying. I didn't hate Trump. I simply preferred another candidate in the primary.
And then I met the Trump haters. It was like they saw the Trump supporters, thought they could be more annoying, and yelled out the immortal words, "hold my beer". Or perhaps in their case, "hold my latte".
To FF above who wrote: "This blog has become boring." I've had problems with the blog before. What I did was leave, for several years. You see, nobody is making you come here but you. Grow up and learn to use a search engine. Ann has already made it clear she agrees with Oprah. She's older now and not going to take shit from anyone. So your dump on her blog isn't going to move her or her commenters. Ann gets hundreds of comments per post, so I feel comfortable saying the democratic majority find her and her comment section: interesting.
LLR Chuck could not have...
Could not have... been a better scapegoat? No, he's the best scapegoat you have. Much better to focus your difficulties on the other Republicans - the ones who think for themselves - than on the vast majority of Americans who agree with him. The Republican circular firing squad is always in need of tightening.
Michael k
Might the live boy be Reggie Love?
John Henry
B.O.R.I.N.G
What a way for this blog to wind down in the Althouse twilight years. No one except Trump cultists are interested in defending Trump anymore. This commentariat and the blogress are the loyal 35%. Yawn.
No one except Trump cultists are interested in defending Trump anymore. This commentariat and the blogress are the loyal 35%. Yawn.
And don't forget. They hate democracy, too!
Yet somehow, they think that they are America in its entirety and speak for it and deserve to run it.
Not very mentally competent.
They like democracy.
I however, am opposed to it, being a royalist and partisan of the Bourbon dynasty.
My ultimate objective is to incorporate what is now known as the United States in our empire, as God and the Pope intended.
Granted, that's a bit of a stretch goal.
So, FF, how is that boring?
Engage.
Ann is such a bullshitter. She wrote
“I have always found that once the President is elected, we should accept the result and support him when we can and look to the next election if we can't. I think the "resistance" is a rejection of democracy.”
I don’t remember Ann taking such a strong stand when it was against President Obama. It was even Trump who was the face of the Birther movement questioning whether Obama was even constitutionally legitimate. Show me the tag linking to Ann taking a strong stance against that?
Like I said, Ann is such a bullshitter.
I don’t remember Ann taking such a strong stand when it was against President Obama
LOL, you should try thinking about why you say stuff.
TTR: "No, he's the best scapegoat you have."
Indeed.
Sadly so.
These are difficult times.
We've asked for better scapegoats, but HR says there is intense competition for quality scapegoats.
We must, however, persist.
If affairs out of office mattered, no Kennedy would ever have held office.
"We've asked for better scapegoats, but HR says there is intense competition for quality scapegoats."
F-ing diversity quotas.
"In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that 'an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now, 72 percent say so, roughly the same percentage as California cumsluts. I may have embroidered that last bit but the shift is remarkable.
BTW,
IMHO, McDougal is pretty irresistible. Especially considering she's old (though, obviously, not for most folks in these threads).
OTOH, unlike DJT, I've risen to the occasion to do what's right (incl w/ even hotter than Karen staff who wanted dick), by not rising.
Even so, it's hard to stand down for ethics.
At least there's plenty of fish in the sea. Catch and release ain't so bad. Presumably civilized living is not BS. OTOH the Russians, DJT and Althosue say otherwise. What to make of that?
The shift in sentiment comes from one thing:
The Leftist Collectivist guillotine threatened by Obama to be wielded by Hillary focused the minds of evangelicals.
Existential threats have a way of doing that.
Presumably civilized living is not BS. OTOH the Russians, DJT and Althosue say otherwise. What to make of that?
Just spitballing here, maybe they have different criteria for selecting a spouse and a President -- you know, like you might have different standards for selecting a spouse and a plumber.
My ultimate objective is to incorporate what is now known as the United States in our empire, as God and the Pope intended.
One baby sacrificed for social progress, one woman and man at each other's throats (a la Resident Evil), and a mass [Catholic] Hispanic incursion, if you can keep them from losing their religion.
In media there are fairly regular articles re the coarsening of society (not to be confused w/ calls for civility by non-cons, which are always BS (according to A-house)) because of porn (e.g. the recent stuff re Utah). And, NRA-types tell us that video games and rap and such are the reason we have unnatural (gun) death in America--"guns don't kill people." Likewise the good folks who live lives (supposedly) devoted to and directed by a belief in that which is imagined (FTR, this is the good sort of such devotion to imaginary-ness, i.e. this is religion, and not that which requires institutionalization) tell us we need more imaginary beliefs. W/o an imaginary dad who will torcher us for eternity we'll all be F-ing porn stars and playmates when our wives are pregnant. Errr.....except when that's ok (e.g. Russia approved and re a white)........then it's all good in the hood.
Today's con-warriors (like Althouse and Russian hacks) tell us to support a total sleaze who has no shame re truth and morality (at least Bubba bothered to fuss w/ what the meaning of "is" is, demonstrably demonstrating shame. For all of us to see.)
Carry on.
Existential threats have a way of doing that.
Certainly. But, the issue was always normalization (i.e. public promotion) or progressive corruption, and private affairs were matters of conscience between husband and wife and God.
That said, I would hypothesize that the witch trials were carried out by female chauvinists and their male chauvinist conspirators to Plan the former's competition or as comedic stunts to shame women who spurned the latter.
I thought Hillary's campaign started the Birther movement?
Clinton admitted that he had had hundreds of affairs. The press didn't completely cover up for him, but neither did they show any great zeal in tracking down his past lovers. They were content to let those girls who did come forward be characterized as bimbos and pepperpots. The press, in contrast, actively seeks out those women who have a history with Trump and treats them like Joan of Arc for their courage in coming forward......They say the press back in JFK's day didn't cover sex scandals. I'm not so sure. If Nixon had carried on the way JFK did, does anyone think Ben Bradlee would have ignored it.....I sometimes wonder why none of Mary Jo Koepchne's friends or relatives didn't vehemently denounce Ted Kennedy. Or maybe they did, and we just never heard about it.........There's nothing much to admire in Trump's morals, but the sanctimony of the press is even more galling.
Today's con-warriors (like Althouse and Russian hacks) tell us to support a total sleaze who has no shame re truth and morality (at least Bubba bothered to fuss w/ what the meaning of "is" is, demonstrably demonstrating shame. For all of us to see.)
Some voted for Evita because they thought she was less sleazy, others voted for Trump because they thought he was less sleazy than Evita.
"I thought Hillary's campaign started the Birther movement?"
The HRC organization has a record re getting dirt and not doing anything w/ it. This birther stuff, then Steele.
Like her husband re the what "is" means, HRC put on a show re the jig: gingerly dancing around blather. E.g. her being on 60 minutes shuckin' re BHO and Islam. Sure, they're hinting at hits. But, that self restraint is civility. Which is something DJT has no time for. And, he's gettin' folks here (and others, incl Evangelicals) to agree w/ him.
Maybe this can be like deficits. IOW, cons can go back to pretending they care, when libs are running the show. Presumably toothpaste can go back in the tube in some multi-verse, so why not here? The Russians are betting otherwise.
If Obama ever made a "shithole" type comment in a negotiation, you can bet no one would driop a dime on him. And you can bet that if the press reported on such a comment, it would be to vilify the snitch who told on him........Obama may, indeed, be as happily married as he appears to be, but, if he's not, don't expect any front page stories about it.
Obama didn't talk about shitholes, but he did admit to being a first-order forcing of numerous shitshows, including Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform, something that UNICEF has merrily supported.
Hitler was democratically elected too. I don't accept blind responsibility to support someone just becuase they won. I do support most of Trump's efforts, but I will resist those I see as wrong-headed. I think it's good citizenship to resist policy I don't agree with so long as it's done honestly with facts, but much of the resistance to Trump is nothing more than hatred of the man and refusal to accept his election. It's done with little regard to facts or fairness. That is the problem, not the resistance itself. The principles are acceptance of the outcome, and adherence to facts - not winner takes all and an automatic free ride.
Religion and ethics and civility rely on shame. Sad, but true.
So, DJT blows that away. And, he's got his entourage (incl cons/evangelicals/Meadehouse-types) towing that line.
And, the DJT Rs are all for blowing away regulations.
So, limiting honor motivations + limiting legal restraints = MAGA. IOW, who isn't in favor of unrestrained sociopaths taking over?
Got it.
Actually no, he wee selected as prime minister in a minority government broker by the junker chieftains like Von paper and Co.
So I've illustrated the purpose of botchers, covering some stories with a pillow, till it stops moving. Making a mountain out of molehill with others.
Adss: "The HRC organization has a record re getting dirt and not doing anything w/ it. This birther stuff, then Steele."
Yes, adss just wrote that.
The hoax Steele dossier. Gee, whatever became of that thing, one wonders?.....
The lefties are clearly not prepared to discuss any topic with anyone whose memory extends back more than 15 minutes.
I guess this is of a piece with mo dowd laundering kitty kelleys sewage re Nancy Reagan in the times, about 20 years later, Eric wemple speculated wildly on the huntresses fidelity based on rumors spread by the late Joe Mcguinness.
Drago,
Doesn't it have a sorta gay, surrender-monkey vibe to keep calling that information a dossier?
OK, I'll go w/ 'entrepreneur.'
But I (like all real 'Muricans) draw the line at 'french fries' and 'dossier.'
That's "freedom fries" and "lock her up papers," for me.
Well I call it a pile of gornisch that was used to secure a fisa warrant and became the basis for an intelligence estimate, its also the reason why gubarev will end up own buzzfeed, a quixotic exercise.
OTOH,
maybe I gave up too soon.
There must be a more 'Murican way to say 'entrepreneur.'
How about 'job creator'?
[Thanks Frank Luntz.]
adss, I dont blame you for your attempts at maximum deflection.
Thats a skill you are going to hone rigorously in the months to come.
Good luck!
Folks don't even season their socks now? [Never mind the content--Yikes!]
Feb of 2018? WTF?
This place is turning into a slum.
Sheesh.
France's high minded opposition to the Iraq war, was nothing of the kind, they held at least two oil concessions, as part of the oil for bribes program, that involved at least one got minister Charles pasqua.
Unrestrained sociopaths have been in full charge for decades now. All talk of honor and restraint and due process is mere invocation of memories, for use as smokescreens.
What has been happening recently is that the smokescreens are being blown away, and reality is revealed. For many, for the first time.
None of this is real. The only reality is insect politics.
But you see they operate using plates cave, as a how to guide, they project certain images on the wall, hide the rest.
Well buw,
The "smokescreens" are restraints worth maintaining since you're using that term to refer to DJT's abandoning of shame re his public persona and ethics.
Presumably Catholics are not into that, i.e. abandonment of shame. Not that that makes you much different than the rest of us who are worried dad is going to make us burn in hell until the end of time if we don't be lazy today (or yesterday). F me! I'm working!
You are right bolivar (narciso?), it is indeed Platos cave.
Excellent analogy.
All this fluff is just that, shadows on the wall, reality is quite another thing.
Once you see, especially, the manipulators at work, the shadows are easy to spot, their nature obviously immaterial.
One man's hypocrisy is another man's nuance.
A large part of society seems to value nuance above most things. Nuance is romantic, clever, intelligent, vaguely French.
Also deceptive, dissembling, devious. And often contradictory.
Nuance allows discorporate ideas to be held up as an avatar for Truth.
And allows Truth to be deceptive, dissembling, devious. And often contradictory.
Which makes those who employ it feel romantic, clever, intelligent.
And vaguely French.
The Germans have a word for this.
Sin is not the same as shame, nor is shame the same as repentance.
I suggest you look into all that.
The smokescreens arent restraints at all, they have restrained no-one on anything substantial. They have been violated so regularly in your past that they are mere fictions, rhetorical tropes.
Your institutions are all hollow, empty, long since violated, over and over, ad infinitum, until this violation is routine.
What is left is purely ones personal faith in God, not in anything of man. There is no virtue left in mans laws, there should be no shame regarding them. One should respect them no more than some pagan fetish.
"Your institutions are all hollow, empty, long since violated, over and over, ad infinitum, until this violation is routine."
For Fs sake, could ya make the projection re the Catholic church a little less obvious.
Sheesh.
Yes its quite striking how for the better part of three years cosby became designated warlock, they've looking askance at him for about 10 more years, and where does this cone from Gloria allreds trick bag, oddly she never came across weinstein spacey lauer rose's victims how does that happen. Because she knows where her bread is buttered.
The church is eternal but not perfect, it has been corrupted before, as it is now, and will be again. But the faith endures regardless of the church. If a bishop says something absurd we roll our eyes. Soon enough there will be another bishop.
Your human institutions however, depend on human belief, and for that to persist they cannot remain corrupt. They will not endure because they ultimately depend on reality, not faith. They are falsifiable. These, of yours, have been falsified.
You need new ones.
You mean like tariq ramadan, golden boy of the moslem brotherhood, or Linda sarsour hamas fan girl and Co captain of the resistance.
"If a bishop says something absurd we roll our eyes."
Sure, the bishop saying something has been the big problem.
Got it.
Bad they blown the whistle on weinstein back in 2004, how many careers
would have been deepsixed, back then, with cultural Co sequences. Netflix has in part made its brand on spaces artist sociopath if one goes back to seven, psychopathology. Lauer was generally a cipher, whereas rose was feigned wisdom.
"You are right bolivar (narciso?)"
Is narciso the one who more often than not works in an anti-abortion take re any topic? Or is that n.n.? Or both?
I dunno.
Our current Bishop of Rome (the actual Pope, not a metaphorical one) has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth. And the less said of certain cardinals the better.
Your problem, PB&J, is that you elected a problem - not an emperor (or empress), but that kid who pointed out that the emperor (and the whole court) was naked. Thats what Trump is, a 70 year old kid who cant keep his mouth shut and lets the truth out. The truth blasts away a whole lot of false pride and comfortable lies, leaving behind - what? Emptiness, now plain to all.
The kid broke nothing, changed nothing, but your perceptions.
He showed you that all that was just shadows on the wall.
I suggest you develop some honesty and fill that emptiness with something substantial. Complaining about the annoying kid? Thats just your false pride keeping you from your work.
Re anti-abortion - both I hope.
Abortion is a tremendous evil.
Satan on earth, selling stylish affectations.
Just help some poor woman murder her children and you too can pretend to be modern and cool.
"I suggest you develop some honesty and fill that emptiness with something substantial."
Let me guess: Faith!
Come on, you really don't see the irony and projection in your 9:30 comment?
Even after rereading it w/ this vantage in mind? Really? Don't see it? At all? Not even a wee bit?
The weird thing about me is that I am a believer even though I know it's certain that it's stupid and wrong to be so. Probably the definition of insanity. I'm sure it's more common to be like you or Pence, just pushing the blather, staying one step ahead of the doubt by highlighting and jabbering about all the other doubters.
Btw, "Bolivar di Griz" is aka "Big Jim di Griz" aka the Stainless Steel Rat, Harry Harrisons character. Criminal with a heart of gold (well, alloyed with pot metal) sort of thing.
Check those out. Classic "silver age" Science Fiction.
I did not clarify my point - I meant you need to recreate your institutions to be useful and thus trustworthy. I recommend, just as a start, that you begin with K-12 education. And not the way Bill Gates has been going. You have to destroy a great deal before you can build.
As for faith - well, that is a very ancient problem isnt it?
All of the best have struggled, and not all get there. I suggest a nice walk, on foot, from Irun to Compostela. You seem to have money to travel, and time, do that. Take a few books, of the right sort. Stop at every church, chapel and shrine, and try to figure them out.
Yes he was Hans solo and Malcolm Reynolds decades before either. I fear their will come a great jysgement, particularly upon a nation, which more than most was founded on faith.
The lefties are clearly not prepared to discuss any topic with anyone whose memory extends back more than 15 minutes.
Having skimmed the last hour of comments, I have to agree. The clever ones who think they are so sophisticated are probably the dumbest.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा