Yeah, about that... I have a vivid memory of thinking "They're going to blame Obama for this when it goes sideways" upon reading of the JASTA veto override. I figured they would wait until it actually bit them in the ass though - it never even occurred to me that the blame would start within the week. It is utterly amazing, in the literal sense of the word. The Grand Old Party is headed for a Grand Old Singularity and it's accelerating - perhaps they will just disappear in a puff of smoke - *poof*.
A couple of days ago my home team lost another in its alltime record setting summer of poorly played professional baseball, and along about the middle of the event we were treated to the sight of a critical opponent run scoring from third base, on a wild pitch, thrown while our pitcher was attempting to issue an intentional walk (way over the catcher's head, to the backstop). And a clip of that has been put into circulation, as an epitome of some kind, as emblematic of this team's season. But it isn't, really. It blends in, if one steps back and considers. The team has done worse. Just the list of individual players who have done worse things, more than one worse thing, is half a dozen long. A team doesn't have a season like this if something like that is as bad as it got. This JASTA bill blends in, likewise. If one were to choose an epitome of the modern Republican Congress, I'd nominate the sight of the Senatorial sponsor of a bill filibustering it - his own bill - because it obtained Presidential agreement. Identifying the bigot wing as a bigot wing is something other people have to do - journalists, people like that. The Republican Party is not capable of that. It's been obvious, front and center in every Republican Presidential campaign since 1968, and has led to disasters such as W&Cheney's tenure in office, without ever being identified as such outside of fringe liberal analysis. The main problem is that it's not a wing, it's the spine - it's the core. It is the Republican Party membership and voting public, except for some fringe groups and minor factions. Excising the bigot wing would require excising the electoral base of the modern Republican Party. As for the Congressional fuckups (largely Republicans and Blue Dogs, with some reliable collaborators) blaming the very people (largely Democrats, especially liberal ones) who tried to stop them for the stupid shit they just did: that's been a very, very successful media tactic. It has had the full cooperation of every major US news organization for thirty years. Why would they quit using it now? They've got an election coming up, they're going to stick with what's been working all along. JASTA isn't watershed - JASTA is same old same old. Just to pick one of almost exact parallel implication: The establishment of the torture prison archipelago - including the Guantanamo Bay "detention" center right out in public - complete with organized and open violation of international principles of human rights and humane treatment of prisoners (with obvious and quickly demonstrated implications for US citizens in the hands of others), was just as flagrant (and somewhat more spectacular) - and just as readily blamed on "both sides" and "liberals" and "bipartisan" and (as soon as available) "Obama". The biggest difference is the lack of an amnesia interval, but that's just because the stuff that would have needed forgetting wasn't widely known in the first place.
That sums it up nicely, doesn't it? Trump's supporters, i.e. Republicans, really don't care about facts, evidence or reason. The Donald hit the nail on the head when he said, he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters. What's his hypocrisy to murder? Trump's supporters don't care about facts, evidence or reason. They are just mindlessly voting for Trump, because, you know, they're Republicans and that's what they do.
Don't worry about it. It's got something to do with a 97 - 1 vote in the Senate, where the next crop of Presidential hopefuls has obviously learned how to triangulate. The establishment and continuation of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, et al, covered several such votes, and is an obviously parallel situation in its betrayal of international agreement and consequent risking of Americans and the country as a whole, but not the only one. Compare the voting pattern there with the Iraq War Powers vote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution or the Patriot Act - http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
We are in a "post-factual" world. For 20 years now FoxFauxFixed News has lead journalism into a downward spiral, openly rejecting reason and facts in pursuit of a top-down ethiopia with the 1% owning and operating both private and public sectors of the country. News is now a profit center and not the "public duty" it had historically and as such the media companies air sensational stories (i.e. Donald Trump). Donald Trump’s candidacy might not be making America great, CBS Chairman Les Moonves said Monday, but it’s great for his company. "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," Moonves said at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter — perfectly distilling what media critics have long suspected was motivating the round-the-clock coverage of Trump's presidential bid. Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001#ixzz4MKIBr3es
It is obvious that Clinton wants the people believe that Putin supports Trump. Last but not least, all the American media have tried hard over many years to present Putin as evil, so that she can hope that associating Trump with Putin will be bad for Trump. But first of all it is not clear if Putin really supports him. For example, many people believe that he has supported Yanukovich in the Ukraine. But he has not - he has supported Timoshenko. Why? Because he has known that she is corrupt and has known her price. (Yanukovich has send her to prison for a contract with Russia. So, he was not Putin's guy, but Achmetov's.) Similarly, now everybody (including Putin) knows that Clinton is corrupt, and the price to buy her is known too. And some Russian oligarchs have made contracts with the US in the nuclear business in this way, via the connection through the Clinton foundation. So,if Putin follows the same scheme as in the past in the Ukraine - to support the known corrupt guy instead of the unknown - he would support Clinton, not Trump. Officially Putin supports none of them, and tells that it is not his business to support somebody in foreign elections. This is the business of the American people, not his. And, moreover, it is also not at all clear if presenting Trump as supported by Putin will help Clinton. Because those who support Trump don't believe the mainstream, the establishment, anyway. So, they also may not believe the anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda. Of course, it may nonetheless work - many people don't believe the mainstream media in some questions but believe them in other questions. Nonetheless, the number of people who have lost the trust in the media completely is already sufficiently large. Moreover, this fits nicely into the general pattern - Trump demonstratively violates every existing "political correctness" rule, and to say something positive about Putin is sort of politically incorrect too.
That's not the biggest factor. The biggest factor is how deeply Trump is embedded with the Russian mob currently headed by Putin. Not whether Putin supports Trump, but whether Putin owns or can lever on Trump. Not whether Trump admires or favors Putin, but whether his private fortune and interests depend on Putin's management and favor. That's not how it works, with folks like the Clintons in the US. It's a matter of alliances and power and political ambitions, not price. Trump is not an unknown, for Putin. That's the problem. Putin and Trump are apparently connected, via Trump's personal and business associations. And those kinds of interests are far more important to Trump than any kind of political ideology or vision of governance. Clinton is not wasting time trying to change the minds of those who already support Trump. Meanwhile, those who support Trump generally admire Putin without knowing much about him - like knows like and likes it, in the world of fascism - and as with similarly uninformed people under the sway of American media it doesn't make any difference whether they think they "believe" the media or not.
Is it, or is it just blatantly apparent? Is it the media or is it just a matter of fact? The media didn't illegally invade and annex portions of Georgia and Ukraine. The American media doesn't have troops engaged in warfare inside Ukraine. Your beloved Mother Russia, i.e. Mother Putin, do. The American media didn't shoot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine. Your beloved Mother Russia, i.e. Mother Putin, did. Two, American isn't Russia or anything like Russia. Clinton isn't the media. It's only unclear if you are completely blind, deaf and dumb. He has used Russian intelligence in order to benefit Trump. Trump has publicly called upon Russia, i.e. Putin, for help. Trump's key advisers have and may still be employed by the Russia state or agents of the Russian state. Oh, and who is everybody...the state controlled Russian press, your beloved Putin and Republicans? The problem is while the Republican base is that dumb, most folks aren't that dumb. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, we don't throw people in jail because they are politically inconvenient for the ruling party. Unfortunately for you, in the US charitable contributions are transparent. The Clinton's don't take a single penny from the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation is truly a charitable foundation and it is clearly transparent. It files its financials with the government every year and it makes those financial disclosures available to the general public. Unlike Trump's charitable foundation, the Clinton Foundation has filled all the appropriate paperwork and is a legitimate charitable foundation, and unlike the Trump Foundation it is completely transparent. You mindlessly believe everything and everything Putin says. If that were so, why has Putin used Russian state security actors to hack into servers of the Democratic Party and released information, but it hasn't hacked into the servers belonging to the Republican Party or Republican Party members? At least in America people are not as dumb as you and your beloved Putin need them to be. Well, that's what Trump and his Russian backers, i.e. Putin, are hoping for, but that doesn't make it so. Those who support Trump don't believe anything but the party line, and many of them are racists to boot. That has nothing to do with the "establishment". The laws will not change just because Trump and his supporters find them politically inconvenient. Putin doesn't like Clinton because Clinton makes Trump tow the line and he views Trump as being easily manipulated. All Putin need to is complement The Donald and as demonstrated by recent history, The Donald will become as putty, because in The Donald's mind, this is all about The Donald. Additionally, you keep confusing the truth with propaganda. Truth and reason aren't propaganda, they are just truth and reason...nothing more and nothing less. And you think any of that makes sense....?
This would be a point in favor of the thesis that Trump is less evil, because if there is really an association, it means Trump will not start a war against Russia. And this is, last but not least, the greatest danger in the actual world. As if one would have to know much about Putin. One takes a look at what has changed in Russia during his rule, which is now in a much better position than in 2000.
1) Depends on the association. Suppose Trump ends up owing Putin a lot of money? Mob guys use violence in their business dealings quite a bit. 2) Neither will Clinton. But US war directly against Russia is not the most threatening anyway - the specter of nuclear war in the Middle East, or between Pakistan and somebody, is far more immediate. And here we see that Trump is speaking in favor of spreading nuclear weaponry to more countries, poised on the brinks of more wars: South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. He wants to do that to save money. Whatever one would have to know, they don't know it. It's like you with Clinton. Yeah - it's bigger, for one thing. It's picked up some new territory, increased its foothold in various places. And it's getting a lot more practice with combat operations.
You guys do not get it. Trump speaks like the blue collar worker and not the elite journalist and lawyers from Harvard. I am not sure why so many people assume putting on the correct pretentious air, is more important than being straight forward, honest but maybe crude. Liberals seem to be more like a woman in the bar, who wants to be told sweet little lies with a lot of charm. Politicians do not always do what they said, once in office. They will promise to always love you, but then they never call once they have that one night. This is because too many voters will accept sweet little lies. Trump is upsetting the apple cart, by saying what he believes, out loud, and not only behind closed doors or behind a mask. Trump tell the woman in the bar he will leave tomorrow and never call. He is punished for honesty by there being, no tonight. Say we assume Trump has been insensitive on many occasions and has hurt feelings with his PC taboo words. What victimizes the victim more, a one time insult by Trump, or someone gossiping; Hillary, the insult over and over again in public? Trumps says Rosie is a fat slob, once. Hillary and the media repeats that Rosie is a fat slob, again and again, trying to use this against Trump. Does the victim enjoy salt thrown on her wound, day after day? Who is being the meanest? An analogy a husband cheat on his wife causing her pain. Hillary keeps throwing salt, in the wound of infidelity, by gossiping to all your friends, wanting you to relive the pain, like she is a circus act. The continual salt treatment is the real torture. This is a constant social humiliation after a one time event. This does not just get even with her husband, but also uses the wife as a scapegoat for personal gain. Hillary is a mean and self serving. A compassionate person will not add pain on top of pain. Another interesting angle has to do with preparation before the debate. Hillary takes time and an entire liberal village to prepare, which shows in her polish. Trump does not spend the same amount of time, but prefers to think on his feet. This also shows in his performance being less polished. But consider this, the office of president is not a job you can always prepare for, since changes can come quickly. A hurricane can appear, or a new war can break out. Trump's style of minimal prep, is better suited for action in the field. By the time Hillary rehearses to perfection, events can change, so now she is unprepared for the change; more delay for more preparation. Trump can move as fast as change. This is scary for enemies who will not think they have much time to act. With Hillary and Obama, their prep delay, allowed the enemy to consolidate; harder to reverse. How about Hillary showing us, she can do the quick thinking job of president, by using no preparation, for the last debate? She needs to be out on the campaign each day. If both go into the debate, unrehearsed, this will tell us who is better ready to be president; prepared for quick actions on the fly. Hillary has been in around the job of president and professional politics for 25 years. She should need less preparation than Trump, who was a private citizen 1 year ago.
[/QUOTE] You write a lot of words conversely not a lot of thought just like Trump. WSJ Editorial Staffer writes of Clinton: "Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House," Wall Street Journal columnist endorses Hillary Clinton
Well therein lies your first mistake; there is nothing honest about Trump. In fact, his ghost writer even found it necessary to coin a euphemism to note Trump's prolific dishonesty. He called it "truthful hyperbole", and Trump liked it. There is nothing honest about The Donald. That's an unmitigated fact. And you don't think Republicans or called "conservatives" like to be told "sweet little thing"? If you don't then you are grossly delusional. There is a entire multi-billionaire media empire built around telling these self described "conservatives" the "sweet little things" they want to hear. Liberals have no such comparable media empire to tell them the "sweet little things" they want to hear. Yes, politicians don't always do what the promise to do. But that has nothing to do with partisanship. In the case of Republicans and Trump specifically, you had better hope they never do what they have promised to do. The last time they implemented the economic policies Trump has advocated unemployment went from 8% to 16% within a year and subsequently topped out at 25%. You had better pray Republicans never get to do what they have told their supporters they will do. Actually, The Donald called Rose a "pig" and contrary to your assertion it wasn't a one time event. The Donald has a long history of calling Rosie names. The Donald has a long history of calling a number of women names. Contrary to your assertion, The Donald has a long history of calling women names and saying derogatory things about women. Yeah, Trump is a victim of his own making. Whose fault is that? He wants to be POTUS. He's suppose to be a big boy. He should accept accountability for the things he says and does. But he doesn't, and that should be a problem for every red blooded American. But it isn't. Yeah, more nonsense. You don't think Republicans haven't thrown salt in her husband's extramarital dalliance? It's telling how you only see what you want to see, and only hear what you want to hear. Do you seriously think any of what you have written in that paragraph even remotely makes sense? Ignoring the hyperbole, yes, Hilary takes time to prepare herself for the job at hand. That's normally considered a good thing. If you needed surgery, would you go to a surgeon who hasn't taken the time to prepare for the job? Trump wants the job, but he doesn't want to take the time to prepare for the job, and you and your Republican cohorts don't think that's a problem? If I were hiring someone and they showed up totally unprepared as The Donald has done on a number of occasions, I guarantee you, I wouldn't hire him. So why should the American people hire The Donald when he has repeatedly failed to prepare for the job? Hogwash. The office of POTUS is certainly a job you can prepare for and should prepare for; people don't just walk into the office the president totally unprepared. But that's exactly what The Donald and his supporters want to do. We live in an unscripted world, anomalies and externalities always happen whether you are a burger flipper or the president of the United States, but that doesn't mean you cannot and should not prepare for those jobs and shouldn't prepare for those jobs. Professionals prepare for their jobs, and they never stop preparing. Physicians don't stop learning and preparing just because they have a licence to practice medicine, and neither do those who would be POTUS stop preparing. Preparation doesn't mean you aren't a quick thinker. It means you are a better thinker. The Donald clearly has never prepared for anything much less to become POTUS, and that should be of concern to Republicans, but it isn't. That's a problem whether you have the capacity to recognize it or not. Hilary has shown you she can do the job, or were you blinded by your mindless devotion to your ideology? She has been a first lady of the State of Arkansas and The United States. She has been a successful 2 term senator from New York, and she has been a very successful Secretary of State. You have to be quick thinking in order to win these debates, and Hilary clearly won the debate with Trump. The first debate proves Hilary is a faster thinker than Trump. The debaters don't know the questions which will be asked of them. These debates aren't scripted events. The candidates have to think for themselves and they have to think quickly. That's one reason why Hilary won the first debate and the Donald lost the first debate. Contrary to your assertion, The Donald isn't a quick thinker as demonstrated by the last debate. "Quick action" and the lack of preparation along with poor management skills are why the Donald has a multi-decade history of running businesses into the ground. Shooting from the hip is a desperate move and The Donald has had plenty of those. That's why we have business plans. Every good successful business begins with a business plan. Somebody needs to tell that to The Donald, but I doubt he will listen because he appears hopelessly enslaved by his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This old excuse about the Donald being a newbie is nonsense. Trump has been a politician for longer than a year. He has done a number of debates - 7 if my memory serves. The Donald isn't a newbie and he certainly isn't a newbie to debating. And whoever wins, they don't and won't get points for being a newbie. In fact, being a newbie probably works against them as other world leaders like Putin will probably try to take advantage of their newness to the job.
This is what I don't get. He's a certified liar. Politifact tallies him at a lie every 3 minutes. And he certainly does 'upset the apple care' because he's the only politician that doesn't even bother to correct a mistake he just denies he ever said it. What kind of mental malady does he have that allows this to happen and what kind of mental malady do his followers have to ignore it? Donald Trump went for the liar’s gold in Monday’s debate, and scored. Last week he clocked an impressive rate of lying at one falsehood every 3.25 minutes of his public speeches, interviews, and tweets. He blew that record out of the water on Monday night. According to the Toronto Star'scount, he had 34 lies in roughly 90 minutes. Doing the math on that, it's a lie every 2.65 minutes. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...sonal-best-in-debate-A-lie-every-2-65-minutes He's the only candidate ever that can actually debate himself!
And you really think such a situation would lead to a conflict? Putin would, in this case, use such a possibility to get something political in exchange for forgetting about the money. It is the only threat which really endangers mankind. Not sure if the "nuclear winter" is the same type of fake like climate change, but if the chance for mankind to survive depends on that being fake, this is not really a good outlook. First of all, it has survived as a state, which was not clear at all in 2000. It became much more rich, safe, less criminal.
Another interesting event came and went largely unnoticed. This was the week which was suppose to be the Assange, i.e. Russian, surprise which would torpedo the Clinton campaign. For months now Assange has promised Republicans he would deliver a blockbuster on Wednesday which would torpedo the Clinton campaign. Assange failed to deliver. Wednesday came and went and nothing happened. In the preceeding months Assange had appeared on American right wing radio and TV programs promising a October bombshell which would broadside the Clinton campaign. But the date and time for the much vonted and eagerly awaited October surprise came and went without incident. So what happened? Did his Russian backers decide to change strategies? It's a curious non event. Republicans were desperately hoping for a Russian save. It is curious. I'm not sure what to make of it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ection-docs-every-week-for-next-10-weeks.html
