Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I can't decide which is more surreal, Trump's quest to make the glass all empty, or the millions of voters who put him in charge. I say the latter.
I guarantee you Fox News targets stupid people.

---

There has always been a segment of the US population that incline toward the God, Family and Country ideology fostered by a diverse set of people from evangelical Christians (if indeed they are Christian), to libertarians, Klansmen and so on. What would normally be puzzling is why even Fox News cannot ask the most obvious questions that undermine the performance of the President they defend so much. Just on the US Embassy move to Jerusalem the obvious question to ask of the man who claims he makes the best deals, is: What has Israel given to the US in return for the US moving its Embassy to Jerusalem? The answer: nothing. More than that, the US didn't even ask for anything, let alone demand a concession from Israel. Fox News and other supporters are fully aware that this is a giveaway President so incompetent, so utterly bereft of political nous he is prepared to dance to the tune of anyone who he thinks will make him look good on tv -and what does it mean to fulfill a campaign promise that was not worth anything to the USA anyway?

Just as the President has reneged on his tariff strategy with China, shown that sanctions against Iran can be violated with his approval; that the President can decide to recognize North Korea without the approval of Congress -just as these events illustrate the perils of American Kingship as opposed to American Democracy, so his supporters cheer him on, terrified of losing power. They should be more terrified of losing their freedom as the Head of State of a country that rebelled against an Imperial power imposing its rules on British America now strides across the world imposing -or trying to impose- its rules on everyone else. A King in all but name, until the day his luck runs out and he doesn't look so good on tv anymore.

I'm sure things get clearer when more pieces of the puzzle show up in evidence, to show Trump's guilt and explain some of the curious steps he takes. We'll all find out Trump has a thing for his ego and his gold. It probably is as simple as that.
But it seems like Trump's supporters have all been hypnotized, brainwashed. They hate Hillary and Pelosi more than our enemies in Russia, Iran, N Korea, etc. If Trump gets nailed for being involved with the Russian Mob, where will his Faithful turn? In the long run, Republican v Democrat means nothing, it's the character of the entire Country that matters, that's what scares me more than that little prick Trump.

ONE Donald Trump I can understand, but his 50 million followers seem to defy reality. He doesn't even represent them!
There are two Trumps: the one who pretends to champion conservative media values, and one who cashes in on his newfound good fortune.
Behind it all is the fear that the United State's time as TOP DOG is coming to an end, and this is what that looks like.

I have read three people, that claimed there will be violence, if Trump is impeached. One was Rodger Stone, another was televangelist Jim Bakker. My point is, if this is true, that would mean their loyalty is to Trump over the Constitution, or the rule of law.

In his latest example of policy incoherency, Trump wants to save the Chinese phone company ZTE from being pushed into bankruptcy as a result of fines and trade restrictions imposed by the US for trading with Iran and North Korea. US intelligence agencies are also concerned about cyber-security risks from ZTE phones. This is from the same guy who has been talking about US jobs being lost to Chinese companies breaking the rules, and also wants tighter sanctions on Iran.

One theory is that Trump is trying to curry favour with the Chinese to get a trade deal, although it's an odd negotiating strategy to grant the other side a favour without getting something in return. There are also suggestions that there may have been a quid pro quo already: a Chinese company recently provided a loan to the developer of a Trump resort complex in Indonesia. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...esia-lido-city

Whatever, the real reason, it underscores that if Trump has his way the US will be literally a lawless country where everything depends on his passing whims.

When told that Senator John McCain would not endorse Gina Haspel as the new Director of the CIA, a member of the President's staff said It doesn't matter, he's dying anyway. The White House has refused to apologise for the comment, but the President has made his own statement via Twitter:

The so-called leaks coming out of the White House are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media in order to make us look as bad as possible. With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2018

Does this mean that the 'traitor' who leaks information from within the White House will be arrested and charged, and if found guilty of treason in a court of law be executed as a result? Because Treason is a serious crime in the USA punishable by death, so one would expect the President of all people to immediately order an investigation with the intention of prosecuting the person responsible for betraying the United States of America -right?

Or maybe these days, as Yodajazz suggests above, treason is just one of those things and nobody need worry about it...least of all the justice department.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...rs-as-traitors

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUKKBN1EU0EF

Attachment 1075031

I hate Liberals.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

I hate Liberals.....

---

Do you even know what the word means? Most Americans would define the party you claim to support as liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern..._United_States

The brave internet warrior Peejaye
Wanted to debate politics every day
But he found try as he might
He could not tell left from right
So he had to oppose whatever 'they' say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Do you even know what the word means? Most Americans would define the party you claim to support as liberal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern..._United_States

---

Got it ! .... Cancer of the mouth :claps

You two turds really should get out more, fucking love it! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peejaye

Got it ! .... Cancer of the mouth

---

I don't use my mouth for typing on the internet - do you? Or it it just for putting your foot in.

By the way, here's something you must have overlooked concerning that Peace Prize. We all know how closely you are following this issue.
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/16/...lton-statement

It also looks like those 'liberals' have even infiltrated the Republican-majority senate intelligence committee. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ence-committee

Looks like John Bolton, an enthusiastic supporter of the President's decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Agreement, was not told his boss had actually announced it, and with his rigid attitude to North Korea, he may not last long. As it happens, the President now appears to be ruling the USA on his own, which is how he ran his companies. Congress, as far as I know, has yet to recognize North Korea as a country, but I guess they are not bothered.

Trump is said to feel more and more confident in his presidential abilities without having to depend on advisers. He apparently made the final decision on Iran without final consultations with cabinet members and senior officials about ramifications, and then, as he does, tweeted it. Bolton only found out from a European official who had seen the tweet.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8354206.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

I have read three people, that claimed there will be violence, if Trump is impeached. One was Rodger Stone, another was televangelist Jim Bakker. My point is, if this is true, that would mean their loyalty is to Trump over the Constitution, or the rule of law.

---

How do you logically debate a topic that time after time proves illogical? People vote on a case by case basis, the candidate exists in the eye of the voter, and it's a given that half the country's correct answer will be the other half's wrong answer. If, for any reason, the Russian Investigation got "legally" buried by the Right, I think you would see violence from the Left. So I think the one thing everybody can agree on is that there will be violence.

I gasped when I first saw this:
“I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,”

But it seems that in purely legal terms, the President has realised he can do what he want. The point is that this is a President who has looked at the 'norms and values' that preceded him, and has dismissed them as if they were of no value at all. The assumption that a President would distance himself from the Justice Department because it is good for the practice of law in a democracy, has been exposed as just that, by someone with a deep need to shape everything to his desire, convinced of his own greatness. As with the assumption that was made long ago, that no President would use the Office to line his pockets so it didn't need to be spelled out in law, so this President can cheerfully rack up as much money as he can whether it is charging the American tax payer for his multiple golfing trips or selling out the US for deals with foreign countries that benefit him and has family financially.

There are two contending interpretations of the law but the Reuters link seems to be the best argued. We have had Prime Ministers in the UK who have intervened personally in legal matters, Tony Blair did it twice -over Iraq and the bribery scandal with BAE and Saudi Arabia- but I like to think it is harder for a Prime Minister to govern for his or her personal benefit in the brazen way that is now happening in the USA.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0b0e5a7a5b993
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ot...-idUKKCN1IM2DP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.e8a866c84963

They had to write it out that way because in rare emergencies, you need a President with immense powers ordering "exceptions to the rule" rules for natural and manmade disasters. And who did the American People elect to sit in that seat???? Who did the voters give that sacred power to?......
DONALD TRUMP?????WTF??????
Whatever fuckin happens, the American People OWN this whole mess, we handed the keys to the henhouse to the wolf.
We all knew what we were getting, Everybody saw it, the Republican voters know Trump is playing fast and loose with the law, they figure Hillary would have done the same. Trump voters know if Hillary had won she'd be shitting on them every chance she could, a Posture I applaud, by the way, he he he,
Never in a million years did I think a guy like Trump could command this attention now because the UNWRITTEN RULES say a guy like Trump could never elbow his way through the Senate and House. They have their own ways and means committees, dare I say.
For us to be talking about this is representative of something deeper than Trump, darker and stronger. More Dangerous. Freedom of Speech! ha ha ha. Trump's going down, but the monsters who spawned him will still be large and in charge.
I don't understand this but I have a hunch that if I did it would be pretty much what I think: Trump needs some jailtime to get his priorities straight.
Nothing I can write will change how WRONG that guy is.....
I really do think people are accepting him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

How do you logically debate a topic that time after time proves illogical? People vote on a case by case basis, the candidate exists in the eye of the voter, and it's a given that half the country's correct answer will be the other half's wrong answer. If, for any reason, the Russian Investigation got "legally" buried by the Right, I think you would see violence from the Left. So I think the one thing everybody can agree on is that there will be violence.

---

I have not heard anyone on the left, talking about civil war. And I'm talking about two well known figures on the right; 1. Jim Bakker did it on television, he has a significant television audience. I know someone personally, who watches his sow regularly. And Rodger Stone is a nationally known figure, and is even the subject of a movie, "Get Me Rodger Stone". The third person, was someone, making a post on Robert Mueller's Facebook page! I personally doubt that many would really resort to violence.

But there is a narrative that Putin's goal was to promote acrimony. Looks like Trump is doing the job, constantly attacking American institutions; deep state, FBI and CIA leadership, judges, the press, Obama, Hillary, comedians, etc. Trump's claim of millions illegal voters, is a psychological attack on our electoral system, raises anger, for those, that believe him. So if Putin has ill will toward the US, would Trump be the perfect vehicle?

[QUOTE=yodajazz;1839821]
I have not heard anyone on the left, talking about civil war. And I'm talking about two well known figures on the right; 1. Jim Bakker did it on television, he has a significant television audience. I know someone personally, who watches his sow regularly. And Rodger Stone is a nationally known figure, and is even the subject of a movie, "Get Me Rodger Stone". The third person, was someone, making a post on Robert Mueller's Facebook page! I personally doubt that many would really resort to violence.

--A few points on the above:
1) consider the view that the Civil War, as a military confrontation between the USA and the anti-American Confederacy ended in 1865, but the restoration of the rights of Slave States against the Rights of Man through the compromises made by Congress that stripped Black Americans of their right to vote and segregated them physically as well as politically and economically, means that the Civil War did not end until 1965, 100 years later with the legislation restoring the rights of man to all Americans. The end of the Dixiecrats and the widening polarisation of Democrats and Republicans has grown since 1965 as the Confederacy has united with ultra-Conservatives in the Christian 'Moral Majority' movement, and the Libertarian ideologies of the Koch Brothers and TEA Party activists to restore and promote the Confederacy as the alternative Nationalism of the USA where God, Family and Country means: White, Christian and Heterosexual.

2) What the Republican Party did in 2016 was abandon its identity as an American party, and collapse into a rump of Confederate Nationalists using a con-man and loud mouth incapable of governing as President for precisely that reason: to use this useful idiot for their own purposes: to re-structure taxes to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else; and to facilitate the obliteration of the Rights of Man in the Confederate states on the simple premise that Black people, Latinos and Asians are not Americans and certainly have no right to be considered equal citizens in the USA.

3) Nationalism in the USA if based on the Rights of Man gives every American the right to belong and to share the benefits of the country equally; the nationalism of the Confederates limits the definition to White, Christian and Heterosexual Americans, and nobody else. Steve Bannon lauds Nationalism against Globalism, but associates Black People, Latinos and Asians with the 'sickness' of Globalism, seeking to restore the supremacy of Confederate Nationalism as THE American identity. This is a complete reversal of both the Civil War, and the American Revolution -the Rights of Man were established in opposition to the absolute right of Kings, yet they now revere the President as the King and God, sent to save them from the oblivion of demographic change
.
The armed militias have been fighting their cause for years, from the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, through the Oklahoma Bombing to the Bundy clan. They will fight, but will many more join them to rescue their America from the Rights of Man?

But there is a narrative that Putin's goal was to promote acrimony. Looks like Trump is doing the job, constantly attacking American institutions; deep state, FBI and CIA leadership, judges, the press, Obama, Hillary, comedians, etc. Trump's claim of millions illegal voters, is a psychological attack on our electoral system, raises anger, for those, that believe him. So if Putin has ill will toward the US, would Trump be the perfect vehicle?

-Parallel lines sometimes cross: if you believe the concept of Disruptive Innovation can be transferred from business to politics both the Russian and American Presidents are engaged in it, one to disrupt the system of global politics, the other to disrupt the system in the USA, both with the intention of replacing what exists, with something more congenial to their national interests, as defined by them.
It is thus in Russia's interests to weaken democracy to validate its own autocracy; to weaken the European Union to dismantle an economic bloc that is more powerful collectively than Russia but dismantled leaves only Germany and France as its major European competitors; and to eject the USA from East Asia to strengthen its strategic position in relation to China, Korea and Japan who are set to dominate the economy in the 21st century.

In the American case, the disruptive innovation is designed if not to smash the party political system to pieces, to expose it to shocks that force reform on 'gridlocked' party politics and Congress, after all in the first tv debate for the Republican candidacy he stated without shame he would run as President even if the party did not nominate him. He has no party, he is a maverick.

Crucially, this President has three aims, in this order of priority: 1) to get as rich as possible by using the Office of the President for financial gain for himself and his family. 2) To destroy as much as he can of the legacy of the Obama Administration, to harass and insult and abuse Obama and all and anyone who served in his Administration and by doing so prove to the Confederacy he is as Racist and Sexist as they can be and shares their agenda; and 3) to disrupt the existing economic order in order to benefit the top tiers of the US economy -ie, himself-, primarily through protectionist measures in international trade.

This article explains how this Disruptive Innovation and protectionism in the short term may benefit the US economy, but in the long term leaves sectors of it vulnerable to precisely the foreign intervention/globalization the President is opposed to, while the other offers perspective of how Disruptive Innovation may work in politics.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessrevie...ve-innovation/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/offwhit.../#1d0b1d626854

While we've all done our part to bellyache and complain,............. besides the mid-term elections the United States has a built-in failsafe precaution against injustice called the FBI. In what world WOULDN'T Mueller and his team find enough evidence to BURY Trump under Club Fed? If that world turned out to be the Republican House and Senate, I think you would see the gloves come off, the rule of order lifted and a lot of pissed off Democrats taking it to the streets.
All the shit you see, there's ten times more you don't see, look what's been uncovered just by reporters so far.
I remember Lindsay Graham lamenting that when Mueller started the investigation, the public would never hear about the dirt on Trump anymore because all the sensational stuff would be dished behind doors, under oath, top-secret. Yet every day there's a new swamp water line marked. How can Trump not see the writing on the wall, he knows every crime he committed before and after being elected! If it's proved that Trump knowingly aided Putin in any way because of something Putin had on him, in 1776 that would have been a hangable offense. As protectors of the Constitution, the entire Republican Party needs a spanking. Pence will not pardon Trump. Who knows? We've sped past politics and social scraping, we're deep diving through a 16-hour exploratory surgery into the psyche of the American Mind. It can get pretty dark in there.

@Stavros Thanks so much for your post! I agree with you, about the thing being a continuation of the original Civil War. One thing i see is that the movement, is fueled by negativity. I actually do not mind honoring Confederate war heroes. It's the negativity that grows, into negative consequences. The left is using similar tactic, but it does not run that deep, in my book. But speaking of negativity, it blew my mind, reading about a poll taken, that found that 55% of white americans, feel they are oppressed! And it does not seem like it is the super rich, and corporate elite, as it is minorities, and the government. Here we are having been previously told, we are the richest, and most powerful nation in the world, (american exceptionalism), to now being oppressed?

I'm currently reading an excellent book, called "Dark Money" by Jane Meyer. It's a long and detailed read, (350 pages, plus notes and index). It is about the billionaires, who have basically taken over the republican party, and turned it to be more libertarian, than anything. That suits the bottom line, of the oil magnates, Wall Street tycoons, big business owners, etc. It is anti-union, anti regulation, etc. But the trick is, they have convince, moderate, and poorer people, that it is in their best interests, as well. Now this is not from the book, but more from your point. That is, the racism of the confederacy, is a useful tool, to ally moderate and poor whites, to their libertarian agenda. The government promoting equal rights, and opportunities, is cast as, taking away from whites. Regulations, which are one the few things, keeping big corporations, and Wall Street, in check, is always cast as, "job killing regulations". Meanwhile the richest family in America, got so by importing goods, made from cheap foreign labor.

Anyway the book is fascinating. I never knew that Fred Koch, the father of the infamous Koch brothers, got his first big boost, by hooking up with Hitler, and his nazi regime, in their early part of their assuming control of Germany, to build Germany's largest oil refinery. He then went on to help Stalin, (after the war?). He did express regrets for that later. He became a founding member of a far-right group called The John Birch Society. I remember hearing a lot about them, as a youth.

So my post, is to show you, I agree with your analysis. I will get around to reading your links, later, Thanks!

@Buttslinger Trump is toast, in my book. There is so much there. I feel like Mueller has so much stuff, it's a matter, of who to hit next. And I feel like he is also killing time, so that things get closer to November, and more so January 2019, when the new Congress takes over. There will certainly be more democrats, then. One thing I want to point out, is that Trump's collusion stories, always leave out money as a motivating factor, in russia's interference. It is always framed as, a "dislike for Hillary". But ending sanctions, is very likely the most important reason Putin supported Trump. Very few people believe that 'russian adoptions' had anything to do with the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. However, if adoptions were discussed, that is basically an admission, that sanctions were discussed. However, adoptions were suspended by Putin, in response to sanctions. So in order to have adoptions resumed, the issue of sanctions, would have had to been discussed. I could see that adoptions could have been brought up, as an excuse to the american public, as a benefit for plans to end American sanctions. And remember Michael Flynn was reported to have discussed ending sanctions, while Trump was still on the inauguration stand. it is reasonable to believe that sanctions were discussed in the numerous meetings, between Trump team members, and russians, during the election cycle, and the inauguration. I remember the documented number being 31. Yet in a recent post someone claimed the number was now in the 80's. But even 31 meetings over six months, (nomination to inauguration) comes out to one every week! Yet both Trump and Jeff Session, at first denied, that there were any meeting at all. I have yet to hear of any substantive reason, why they lied.

Yeah, it doesn't even matter much that we're on the same page, or that Trump is a liar, or even the truth, it comes down to what Mueller can find out and prove. Even if Sessions and Rosenstein and Mueller are fired, they've basically already said they'd all be on Rachel Maddow that evening. The Truth is just a commodity these days, if you can't make any money off it, many consider it worthless.

Apparently Mueller is now 'meddling' in the Mid-Term Elections along with a Cabal of crooked Democrats. So if the Republicans lose a lot of seats it will be due to vote rigging, not because the voters rejected the President and his party, because he never loses, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

@Stavros Thanks so much for your post! I agree with you, about the thing being a continuation of the original Civil War. One thing i see is that the movement, is fueled by negativity. I actually do not mind honoring Confederate war heroes. It's the negativity that grows, into negative consequences. The left is using similar tactic, but it does not run that deep, in my book. But speaking of negativity, it blew my mind, reading about a poll taken, that found that 55% of white americans, feel they are oppressed! And it does not seem like it is the super rich, and corporate elite, as it is minorities, and the government. Here we are having been previously told, we are the richest, and most powerful nation in the world, (american exceptionalism), to now being oppressed?

---

I think the point about the legacy of the Civil War is that if there are a proportion of Americans who no longer feel their country 'belongs to them' then Steve Bannon is attempting to re-define American Nationalism to meet their criteria that being American means being White, Christian and Heterosexual, with the as yet unstated claim that if they cannot rescue their country from the effects of Globalization, then they will repudiate the authority of the Federal government and create their own Republic based on their values.

Can Anyone be an American? That is the question.

I am not really sure how far Bannon thinks this can go, as he makes claims that are based on a distortion of historical fact, he is even in a weak position himself as a Roman Catholic, which historically was looked upon with suspicion in the US and has little pedigree if you want to take Jamestown and the Mayflower as nodal moments in the development of an American identity.

The demography of the USA is changing, and appears to cast that 'old' America into the shadows as the 'new' America which is ethnically and religiously diverse asserts itself, and grows. The irony for a lot of people is that America has always been at its best when it embraces diversity, not at its weakest, while those who have benefited most from American's economic history, whether it was isolationist or globalist, continue to share the largest proportion of wealth, and indeed, owe a good deal of their security to the very same 'liberal' President they did so much to smear, and whose eclipse has been greeted with almost religious ecstasy. Because they never could accept the fact that a Black man walked into the White House as President, and yes, it is as crude as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Yeah, it doesn't even matter much that we're on the same page, or that Trump is a liar, or even the truth, it comes down to what Mueller can find out and prove. Even if Sessions and Rosenstein and Mueller are fired, they've basically already said they'd all be on Rachel Maddow that evening. The Truth is just a commodity these days, if you can't make any money off it, many consider it worthless.

---

Truth has no value, UNLESS you tell a lie. Then the truth becomes a secret, and secrets have value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KelliBlueEyes

Truth has no value, UNLESS you tell a lie. Then the truth becomes a secret, and secrets have value.

---

Whew, that sounds scary when you say it......

Truth has value because it corresponds to the way things are in the world. Knowing the truth about science, medicine etc. (regardless of whether it's known to others or not) allows you effectively navigate the world, avoid some of its dangers and enhance some of its pleasures. Truth has value in and of itself. The trick is establishing you've got hold of the real thing rather than falling for a cheap bauble. Donald's babble is generally pure bauble. Has he ever not reneged on a deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Truth has value because it corresponds to the way things are in the world. Knowing the truth about science, medicine etc. (regardless of whether it's known to others or not) allows you effectively navigate the world, avoid some of its dangers and enhance some of its pleasures. Truth has value in and of itself. The trick is establishing you've got hold of the real thing rather than falling for a cheap bauble. Donald's babble is generally pure bauble. Has he ever not reneged on a deal?

---

That sounds so scientific when you say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KelliBlueEyes

Truth has no value, UNLESS you tell a lie. Then the truth becomes a secret, and secrets have value.

---

A post that has me thinking. Thus:

Roseanne Barr posts tweets that insult black people and Jews...and then apologises when there is a shower of public anger in response....and has now quit Twitter. But which of her statements is true and which is a lie?

The Tweet that claimed George Soros was a nazi who turned in his fellow Jews 2 be murdered in German concentration camps & stole their wealth or
I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me – my joke was in bad taste.

When is a joke not a statement or a statement not a joke? Is Twitter a form of entertainment, like her stand-up routine, or Roseanne saying what she thinks?

A lie has no value, UNTIL you tell truth. Then the lie becomes a secret, and secrets have value -and the secret or not so secret admirers of someone who shares her 'truth'?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-racist-tweets

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ie-jarrett-ape

It's hard to come to terms with the fact that there are some people on the right trying to justify this. You cannot get much more openly racist than Roseanne Barr and it has been obvious for some time. She said essentially the same thing about Susan Rice in 2013...it is pathetic that anyone could pretend there's some sort of parallel between her using "ape" as a dehumanizing racist slur and someone calling Trump an orangutan. Orangutan has no history as a racial slur for descendants of European immigrants, but I'm sure they know that.

She is also a pizzagater, a Soros conspiracy theorist, and someone who decent people shouldn't associate with. ABC should be doing some soul-searching right now. They obviously don't deserve credit for pulling the plug on her show when her depravity has been on display for a while and they never should have put it on the air in the first place.

The concept of a show featuring a family whose members are bitterly split on political issues rings true for a lot of people. It would be nice to be able to put aside political differences to find common ground and laugh together. Obviously, we can't bond with many Trump supporters, who are open racists and doing less and less to hide it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's hard to come to terms with the fact that there are some people on the right trying to justify this. You cannot get much more openly racist than Roseanne Barr and it has been obvious for some time. She said essentially the same thing about Susan Rice in 2013...it is pathetic that anyone could pretend there's some sort of parallel between her using "ape" as a dehumanizing racist slur and someone calling Trump an orangutan. Orangutan has no history as a racial slur for descendants of European immigrants, but I'm sure they know that.

She is also a pizzagater, a Soros conspiracy theorist, and someone who decent people shouldn't associate with. ABC should be doing some soul-searching right now. They obviously don't deserve credit for pulling the plug on her show when her depravity has been on display for a while and they never should have put it on the air in the first place.

The concept of a show featuring a family whose members are bitterly split on political issues rings true for a lot of people. It would be nice to be able to put aside political differences to find common ground and laugh together. Obviously, we can't bond with many Trump supporters, who are open racists and doing less and less to hide it.

---

All good points.

I appreciate KelliBlueEyes contrast between truth and lies as a dialectical relationship, although I don't think the truth becomes a secret when it is contrasted with lies, when lies are locked into a conspiracy that insists the lie is the truth, whereupon the 'secret' is that you were lied to all along, reversing the dialectic.

As for Roseanne Barr, I find it frankly pathetic that she now says it was the pills what did it. Does a sleeping pill really make a person relate Valerie Jarrett to Planet of the Apes rather than, say, The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins or Star Wars? Why, when referring to George Soros is the automatic thought not about money, his hair-style, his clothes, or his Open Society programme, but about Jews and Nazis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As for Roseanne Barr, I find it frankly pathetic that she now says it was the pills what did it. Does a sleeping pill really make a person relate Valerie Jarrett to Planet of the Apes rather than, say, The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins or Star Wars? Why, when referring to George Soros is the automatic thought not about money, his hair-style, his clothes, or his Open Society programme, but about Jews and Nazis?

---

I have quite a bit of experience with the sleeping pill she talked about and stopped taking it for the simple reason that I would not fall asleep, would call people and have long conversations that I didn't remember. The thing is, when I asked what we talked about, they assured me they didn't know anything was amiss and that at most I was more talkative, but maybe the associations were a bit looser. It doesn't do more than disinhibit you and if it did more it would likely make you incoherent and not a belligerent racist.

The George Soros one is a bit of a mystery but if I dig into it I can see why it's important for them to portray him as a traitor to Jews. Of course criticizing Soros as a politically active billionaire is acceptable and if it were on par with say the criticism of the Koch brothers the Republicans would never find themselves in trouble. But they want to accuse him of having mystical powers, of paying protesters without leaving a trace and effecting all sorts of global outcomes that he has no causal relationship to. It's only a matter of time before people say, this is your Emmanuel Goldstein, that you use both as a form of catharsis and a scapegoat. So what do they do? They say he's the real hater of Jews and was a Nazi collaborator. Roseanne, who is Jewish, is probably not even aware that this is the underlying motivation, having allied herself with open haters and parroting their poison. The poison she directs at other groups (Arabs and African-Americans) she does seem very well aware of and is her own concoction.

I am curious to what extent the hard right, the people that Roseanne has been channeling and retweeting for several years, are aware of the fact that they're lying. To what extent are they partially aware and have just decided that they can be dishonest and disgusting if they are surrounded by enough like-minded people.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...48460881035265

This is Donald's response. This is someone who has gone his entire life without people expecting him to behave decently and who has never felt the compunction to on his own. I know it's overused, but he's a sociopath. Most people have something internal that would prevent them from responding this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...48460881035265

This is Donald's response. This is someone who has gone his entire life without people expecting him to behave decently and who has never felt the compunction to on his own. I know it's overused, but he's a sociopath. Most people have something internal that would prevent them from responding this way.

---

My signature is my reply to that “make it about me” tweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The George Soros one is a bit of a mystery...
They say he's the real hater of Jews and was a Nazi collaborator.

---

There is no mystery, it is a basic loathing of the Jew. George Soros was 13 years old at the time. Need I say anything more?

Or, maybe he is superhuman, the X-Man of finance, but I guess in fact he is just a guy who is good with money, with the additional fact that what he does with it is legal. There is another man I can think of who brags about his achievements with money, but is not so much an X-Man mutant as a fraud, as his record with money is: very good at pocketing yours, and hiding mine. Just as one billionaire funds the Open Society Programme that promotes democracy, human rights, education and holding the powerful to account, the other wakes up at six in the morning and by 10 has insulted, abused and threatened as many Americans as he can find, for the simple reason they don't agree with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The George Soros one is a bit of a mystery but if I dig into it I can see why it's important for them to portray him as a traitor to Jews.

---

The anti-Soros thing seems to have become a popular meme on the right. Anti-Soros rhetoric featured prominently in the recent Hungarian election, where the ruling party argued that Soros was behind a conspiracy to flood the country with muslim immigrants. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-0...mpaign/9632958

All of this has strong echoes of the international Jewish financial conspiracy, which has long been a popular theme of the far right, though I've never been able to understand how they believed that is was both an international finance conspiracy and a Bolshevik conspiracy. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intern...ish_conspiracy

Of course, people like Roseanne would have no problem with Soros if he used his money to back political causes directed at enriching himself further, like the Koch brothers and the Mercers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The anti-Soros thing seems to have become a popular meme on the right. Anti-Soros rhetoric featured prominently in the recent Hungarian election, where the ruling party argued that Soros was behind a conspiracy to flood the country with muslim immigrants. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-0...mpaign/9632958

All of this has strong echoes of the international Jewish financial conspiracy, which has long been a popular theme of the far right, though I've never been able to understand how they believed that is was both an international finance conspiracy and a Bolshevik conspiracy. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intern...ish_conspiracy

Of course, people like Roseanne would have no problem with Soros if he used his money to back political causes directed at enriching himself further, like the Koch brothers and the Mercers.

---

As for George Soros, certain elements of the right, get their power from a focus of negative energy, of hate, and fear. I like to say, it's from the Hitler playbook. Between Soros, and Hillary and Bill, they are literally demonized. They a given superpowers, with the supposed ability to control others. The supreme irony, is that people who believe this, are the ones who are being controlled. They give their hearts and minds to the leader, and secret leaders, (money suppliers) who say they are in charge of fighting those 'demons'. There are 'positive' manipulation tools also. The main one is the use of 'nationalism'. That makes the people feel powerful, when they are in fact giving up their power, to the supreme leader. American white nationalism, is a resurgent power these days. I noted in the campaign, when I saw Trump's "make America great again", the images, were from a time, when the KKK was riding high, and directly feared by many. Notice how many of Trump's Tweets, that are the subject of broadcasts, are negative.

As I reflect, Hitler did not invent this technique of control. It could literally be called, "the oldest trick in the book".

One of the things I got wrong about the US election, is the belief that a negative, attacking tone turns off voters, who want to hear positive messages that tell them their future will be better than their past. What I think happened, and is crucial, is that the Republicans succeeded in transferring the problems of capitalism from a collective of decision makers in industry, finance and politics, to a personal level where they tapped into a 'politics of resentment' which personalizes political issues and licences one person to blame another for their negative position, and by extension to demonize their cohort.

Thus the book on rural Wisconsin by Katherine J. Crame The Politics of Resentment attempts to answer the question, why did Wisconsin turn Republican? She claims to find a deep well of resentment in 'left behind' rural workers who claim to see other people getting the benefits of living in the USA, and she offers insights into her research and their views in this interview -
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...of-resentment/

However, I assume the book has not taken into account the tariff issue that has emerged in the last year, because Wisconsin farmers who may have tipped the vote in 2016, rely heavily on the export of Soybeans to China, the very sector threatened by tariffs, meaning the man they voted to improve their lives could, if the tariffs are imposed, destroy them, not that he cares about that. Some insight into Soybean and Wisconsin can be found in these two links-
https://badgerherald.com/opinion/201...ture-industry/
http://wisoybean.org/services/soybean-facts/

This leaves the question, why is resentment so strong and an important component in a political discourse that now includes an almost official 'incivility' with racist and hateful language that used to be relegated to the sidewalk and obscure web sites, now both mainstream and a regular feature of the President's daily tweets?

This I think is an interesting take on it, and is worth a read. You get a flavour of the arguments from its opening-

The US has become a country motivated less by anger, which can be used to address the underlying social, political and economic causes of social discontent, than by a galloping culture of individualized resentment, which personalizes problems and tends to seek vengeance on those individuals and groups viewed as a threat to American society.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...rump-s-america

The problem with resentment is that it replaces critical thinking with emotion, and is more likely to find its expression in violence rather than dialogue.

One thing, that promotes this anger is conservative talk radio. In driving, the major entertainment, is listening the radio, if you don't not have your own music media. Their main thrust, in my book, is to feed resentment. Rush Limbaugh, is the most widely known, however that several others, such as Glenn Beck, etc. I happened to have listened to a smaller market one named Bill Cunningham, only because he comes on after the games of our major sport team. So the radio is turn on, riding with my friend, even turned low, as we are talking, and I hear this man, practically screaming in anger. I never turned it up to hear what he was actually saying, so what struck me was the emotional level he was on. But the times, I have actually listened to him, I was the the one, who wanted to scream in anger. lol! I have heard him say, "democrats are trying to destroy America", and "Black are not patriotic..." . And say I decide to turn to another station, I might run into Rush Limbaugh, who is on at the same time! Cunningham also moonlights as a special commentator on television's Fox News. Doing research on Cunningham, it was stated he makes around 250k, a year for his radio work. Rush Limbaugh signed an 8 year deal, in 2008, for 400 million. In the book I'm reading, "Dark Money" a conservative political action group once paid, Glenn Beck 1 million dollars, to blend their message, with his opinion talk. It was not presented as advertising. It was blended into his message. So this is an example, of big money interests, directly shaping public dialogue. An example of this, is framing industrial government pollution standards, as "job killing regulations". Regulations in fact create jobs, because someone inside the plant has to monitor, what their pollution output is, etc. But it does take away from the owners/corporate heads, profit margin. So this is why they are pouring huge amounts of money to influence public perceptions.

Soros is an evil man. Look how he smashed the working people of England by making over a billion in a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BostonBad

Soros is an evil man. Look how he smashed the working people of England by making over a billion in a day.

---

I assume you're talking about Black Wednesday. First of all, Soros is not primarily criticized by the right wing for a single currency trade in 1992. Speculating with large amounts of capital can destabilize markets and cost people lots of money, but I don't personally believe a large currency bet makes someone an evil person.

Would you take the same position for someone who was shorting a stock index in 2000? Of course, I think there was an uptick rule in the stock market in 2000, so short sellers were not responsible for the dip, but rather grossly mis-valued equities were. There are probably people on this forum who know more about finance than I do, but isn't it possible that his bet was successful because he recognized weakness in the pound rather than that he created it by shorting it?