Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

In any case, I find that any comparison of this sort lends self to encourage a cult-like following, and that makes me very nervous. No matter who it is! Trump or anyone. 

Yeah, I dont' like it either. And the metaphor doesn't even work. A reelection isn't a second coming of anything.

This makes me remember the Press Association dinner where Obama made a good joke about the whole idea. He said that no, he was certainly not born in a manger and sent by God etc. He was born on Krypton and sent here by his father Kal-el.

[Pixel]

8 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, I dont' like it either. And the metaphor doesn't even work. A reelection isn't a second coming of anything.

This makes me remember the Press Association dinner where Obama made a good joke about the whole idea. He said that no, he was certainly not born in a manger and sent by God etc. He was born on Krypton and sent here by his father Kal-el.

Dammit. I always knew he wasn't born in the US. 

[sistermagpie]

Great article here on dealing with Fake News (it starts with recognizing your own biases):

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/12/blind-spot-part-ii.html

Holidays are always that time where you're up close to how different people see the world. A family member said the other day that now that he wasn't president he thought Obama would join a mosque, then brought up the anti-white church he went to, then said he really just worshiped himself. This while presumably supporting Donald Trump, the guy who told a group of evangelicals, iirc, that he never had anything to ask God's forgiveness for, whose whole campaign was about how only he alone could fix the world in a few days, whose supporters happily claim is God's personal choice for president, who puts his name on everything he can and who just yesterday on Twitter took credit for bringing hope to the world. But it's Obama who worships himself and that's a problem.

[KerleyQ]

9 hours ago, film noire said:

Yep -- completely different situation-- but in a post-truth alt. right world, facts don't matter.

Exactly.  False equivalencies are in this year.  

[DollEyes]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:59 AM, ruby24 said:

The Rockettes are being forced to perform at this asshole's inauguration against their will! They are being strong-armed by their union and  threatened with termination. We should all email the producers directly. I've already done so.

Or they could have just said that they've contracted a contagious case of "bone spurs." If that could get the Pumpkin Prick out of serving in Vietnam, maybe it could get the Rockettes out of the Inauguration. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by DollEyes

[MulletorHater]

16 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Just saw a spot on CNN. If Obamacare goes away so might Black Lung monthly benefits for miners and their widows. Coal country was Trump country- they aren't so supportive now. 

I don't know why not.  It is what they voted for, isn't it?  

All because they couldn't get past the "Obamacare" pejorative and their hatred of the president, they failed and refused to see how the law actually benefited them.  Did they not hear Drumpf state on the campaign trail (like the rest of us did) that he would repeal the ACA on day one?  Didn't he repeat this at one of the debates?  But, I guess that's one of those little lies they chose to ignore because "he didn't really mean that" or "they won't let him do that."  They're just like those self-righteous Bible thumpers who love to cherry pick which of the Ten Commandments and other laws (including dietary ones) they will obey while willfully ignoring the ones that don't allow them to have fun.

They willfully invited a known thief, con man, liar, crook and fraud into their home only to come back from the store and realize that he totally cleaned them out.  Even worse, they had no renter's or homeowner's insurance to mitigate the cost of the theft.  It's like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

Enjoy that buyer's remorse, y'all, because you ain't seen nothing yet!

[KerleyQ]

1 minute ago, MulletorHater said:

But, I guess that's one of those little lies they chose to ignore because "he didn't really mean that" or "they won't let him do that."

"He didn't mean for me!  He meant all those lazy freeloaders!"  

[rallymantis]

11 hours ago, film noire said:

Yep -- completely different situation-- but in a post-truth alt. right world, facts don't matter.

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  Some unsolicited advice, that is truly well-meant, as I have a number of liberal friends, and I wish the same for them:

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

[Chicken Wing]

10 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  Some unsolicited advice, that is truly well-meant, as I have a number of liberal friends, and I wish the same for them:

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

Eight??? Bite your tongue.

[proserpina65]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:25 PM, Padma said:

Of course! No more need for the pretense that he cares about products "Made in America"!

Are the hats still $25, though? Because the given reason for them costing that much was that it's so expensive to make things in the US.  (I'm going out on a limb and guessing they're at least as much now, even though made in China.)

Once a con man, always a con man....

Yeah, they were always made in China.

[navelgazer]

11 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

... it's going to be a looooong eight years.  

Don't you mean forever?  Isn't Putin Twitler's BFF?  Doesn't Twitler want to be Putin, as rich, as powerful?  A shit-covered man-child to lead us to Armageddon, oh, what fun.  

[backformore]

19 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years

I bet he won't last 4.

[film noire]

43 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Yes, indeed: it's always different when it's your guy, right? SMDH

 

Actually, it's different because it's different ; ) The Obama cover was a media headline created from outside Obama's party/political circle, and slapped on a magazine.  But this Jesus/The New King comparison came from a GOP party leader, which gives us a clear snapshot of the mindset at work WITHIN the party  -- big difference between those two circumstances. (And Trump as a holy royal did at least create a moment of unity in that it offended Christians,  Jews, atheists and agnostics -- way to go Priebus!)

Quote

Pace yourselves, or it's going to be a looooong eight years. 

I doubt he'll get past two years without being impeached. He's corrupt down to the bone,  and even his most devoted followers will be forced to address Trump's debased behavior pretty quickly.  But even conceding your argument,  there is no "pacing" when it comes to Trump -- that implies normalizing this election, which millions upon millions of us will never do. 

Quote

If everyone's a Nazi, then no one is.  

I hereby invoke my new pet meme -- Godwin's Martial Law  -- which says: in any online discussion of Trump/ the alt right/ the friends of the Kremlin who helped put Trump in power, the denial of Nazis will immediately arise ; ) 

Edited December 27, 2016 by film noire

[Guest]

13 hours ago, rallymantis said:

You guys are right.  Who on earth would compare a president to the Lord?

 

This is what is called a "false equivalence." That's a magazine headline that wasn't written by a member of Obama's administration. For a more apt comparison, say, if David Axelrod had written that and released it as a press statement then, yes, those sentiments would be on par. 

I Googled that cover because it looked fake to me, and to my non-surprise, the only hits I got about it were all from right-wing websites whose own special snowflakeness was on full display when it was originally published. I was unable to track down the contents of the actual article due to lack of time and knowing that whatever the contents were, they'd be of little interest to people who don't value facts. 

[Pixel]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Great article here on dealing with Fake News (it starts with recognizing your own biases):

http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/12/blind-spot-part-ii.html

Holidays are always that time where you're up close to how different people see the world. A family member said the other day that now that he wasn't president he thought Obama would join a mosque, then brought up the anti-white church he went to, then said he really just worshiped himself. This while presumably supporting Donald Trump, the guy who told a group of evangelicals, iirc, that he never had anything to ask God's forgiveness for, whose whole campaign was about how only he alone could fix the world in a few days, whose supporters happily claim is God's personal choice for president, who puts his name on everything he can and who just yesterday on Twitter took credit for bringing hope to the world. But it's Obama who worships himself and that's a problem.

That's a really good article. Although I try, I am not immune to wanting to believe stories if they fit my preconcieved ideas. The difference between me and fake news deniers is that I do the research (not every time, but almost every time. Sometimes I get lazy), and if someone corrects me and shows me I've shared something fake, I correct it and post an apology right away. I am far more interested in forming opinions based on truth than opinions based on what I want to believe. I have no problem with different viewpoints, as long as they are informed and not based on false information. But even those who are vigilant can be duped by their own bias. It's human nature. The key is to recognize your own bias and remain open to other ideas. 

[rallymantis]

48 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

Eight??? Bite your tongue.

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Trump wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

[navelgazer]

29 minutes ago, rallymantis said:

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Drumpf wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

And everything here is classic projection, except Twitler's followers shoot up pizza parlors with assault rifles.  .  

[BBDi]

Close your eyes and try to erase the present discussion from your mind. 

Now imagine if you heard someone talking about another person being "the second coming, thinking he's the second coming, etc. What would come to mind?

I have almost never heard the term "second coming" (except when actually talking about Jesus, of course) used without some sarcasm or at least skepticism intended. Not to mention that the subtitle asks whether Obama can deliver. I highly doubt he was being anointed by Newsweek there. 

If you are still in doubt, think back to the last time you referred to anybody or anything (again, except Jesus) as the "second coming," and the context you said it in. Be honest. Did you say it in a 100% positive way? Most likely not. 

ETA: Nothing good comes from expecting a president or other public figure to fix everything and solve all your problems for you - whether it's Obama, Trump, or anyone else. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by BBDi

[NinjaPenguins]

Quote

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

I've been reading up and down this thread looking for where someone referred to righties as human garbage. I dislike dehumanizing language no matter who it is aimed at. This post exists, right? Right? Anyone? 

The term cuck is used almost exclusively on the right. 

Newsweek is part of a media organization. It has nothing to do with government nor does it have the imprimatur of the government behind it. The GOP is a political party that participates in government. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and hand grenades. I'm a liberal and disapprove of authoritarian hero worship; instead of denying and making false equivalencies and hemming and hawing, conservatives might say they flat out reject this cult of personality garbage. Neither side should be treating politicians like saviors.

[backformore]

Only -    it's all bullshit!

Donald Trump Claims 100 Percent Of His Foundation’s Money Goes To Charity. That’s A Lie.

Quote

The Donald J. Trump Foundation, established in 1987, admitted to the Internal Revenue Service just last year that it engaged in “self-dealing,” a prohibited practice in which a nonprofit leader uses an organization’s money to benefit his or her own interests.

According to a Washington Post report earlier this month, the foundation’s 2015 tax filings confirmed it had transferred income or assets to a “disqualified person” that year (in this case, a “disqualified person” could be Trump himself or a member of his family or business) and had engaged in similar practices in previous years.

Trump also came under fire this year when The Associated Press reported his foundation had donated $25,000 to a political fundraising group associated with Florida’s Republican attorney general, Pam Bondi, in 2013.....................................................

Another Washington Post report from September found Trump used $258,000 from his foundation to settle lawsuits ranging from self-dealing fines to quarrels with with the town of Palm Beach, Florida, over the height of a flagpole at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club.

The Mar-a-Lago lawsuit was settled in 2007 after Trump agreed to donate $100,000 to the Fisher House Foundation, a charity for veterans. Instead of reaching into his personal piggybank, Trump settled the lawsuit using his foundation’s money.

Under investigation, Trump tried to close the foundation.  But he is prohibited from dong so, because of the ongoing investigation .   Oh, And despite his claims, Trump himself has not donated any money to his foundation since 2009.

Edited December 27, 2016 by backformore

[Duke Silver]

^^^ Just more gaslighting from Trump.  He knows at this point that he can lie with impunity.  He (& the GOP in general) rarely, if ever, pay a political price for crap like this.  He is going to do it on a much, much larger scale, however. 

[MulletorHater]

14 minutes ago, backformore said:

Only -    it's all bullshit!

Donald Trump Claims 100 Percent Of His Foundation’s Money Goes To Charity. That’s A Lie.

Under investigation, Trump tried to close the foundation.  But he is prohibited from dong so, because of the ongoing investigation .   Oh, And despite his claims, Trump himself has not donated any money to his foundation since 2009.

The pitiful thing is that it is such a brazen lie and so easily exposed.  It's as if he believes that if he repeats the lie over and over, somehow it becomes truth.  Then the Crypt Mistress and the aging satyr, Newt Gingrich, have to come behind him and spin his lies as something other than what he actually said.  

I've never seen anyone who takes the concept of "charity begins at home" so literally.  He does nothing unless it benefits himself and some of his fambly members.  It's well documented that despite pledging millions to charity, less than $10,000 was actually distributed in over seven years.

  And, this prolific liar wants people to actually trust that his "wonderful son" will donate money through his own "foundation" to St. Jude?

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, rallymantis said:

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Trump wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

I think part it the problem with this election, though, is that Trump's rhetoric was so aggressive it goes beyond "political leanings." I can still recognize the things about Trump supporters I know that I like, but it definitely changed the way I look at them. When it comes to friends some opinions really are a reason to not want to be friends with them anymore if they really bother you. Some political ideas, especially in terms of the ideas those ideas are based on, really do say something about the person. Especially when the person isn't doing anything to change the impression that they're okay with or even passively support a totally bigoted worldview. I think everyone makes a distinction between that and, say, a person just disagree on whether regulations are the reason the coal industry has changed.

Re: the second coming thing, as much as I think people can definitely say "but it's different because reasons!" in this instance the difference is pretty glaringly obvious. There were often jokes about Obama's rock star status being too much and expectations being too high--expectations he himself downplayed. Trump's a guy who's going to Tweet about how much hope he's brought to people while lying about charity he pretends to give. It's not like we're even starting from the same place here.

Finally, while I don't think all Trump supporters are anti-Semitic he does have a faction of people who at that to the point of targeting Jewish reporters and sending them threatening pictures of their children in concentration camps etc. While your evidence of Obama being anti-Semitic is his position on Israeli settlements, which really doesn't have to have anything to do with his feeling about Jewish people at all and is in fact an opinion that actual Jews share. I think it is actually a good thing to be able to separate the two. I mean, Trump obviously doesn't like China but I don't think that comes down to him being just racist against Asians.

Then there's also the issue of not wanting to normalize stuff when you think that's dangerous. For instance, another family member I was talking to on the holiday was basically rewriting history to suggest that all presidents have always had the attitude of conflicts of interests that Trump has. Which again isn't a Nazi-type opinion, but still struck me as dangerous.

52 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

The RNC didn't compare Trump to Christ,  the unhinged left saw the words new King, which to any rational person that took in the context of the greeting knew referred to Jesus and had an epic meltdown over it and started shouting and yelling and pointing New King He said Trump is Jesus!!

Yeah, no. As has been pointed out, this was not some creation of the "unhinged left" that rational people did not see. He says that this Christmas heralds the good news of a new king just like the first Christmas. The new king *is* Trump in that sentence. You can certainly argue that he just means that Trump is a new leader and therefore like a new king (which is a very unusual thing for an American to be saying given our attitude about kings of the US), but your version, where the "new king" is Jesus simply makes no sense in the context of the sentence. Although I'm sure it's considered top-notch interpretation in certain quarters!

2 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

The pitiful thing is that it is such a brazen lie and so easily exposed.  It's as if he believes that if he repeats the lie over and over, somehow it becomes truth.

Of course, in many ways it does. You know it's been filed away as "fact" by many supporters already. Many of them already believed he was secretly giving millions to charity. Whatever they want him to be at any given moment he is.

[mythoughtis]

2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

I don't know why not.  It is what they voted for, isn't it?  

I think they are one of the many that has no understanding of where their benefits come from. They are probably the same people that don't understand ' entitlements' are code for Social security and Medicare. They think ending Obamacare and entitlements  will only cut off benefits from the people who choose not to work. 

 

I wish people would educate themselves about where their money and benefits comes from. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by mythoughtis

[film noire]

1 hour ago, rallymantis said:

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years. 

Several people disagreed with you, and explained their logic -- how is that "hysterical"?

Quote

"It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

For what it's worth; if I felt that way,  I'd rebut  the (as you put it) "Reasons!" instead of labeling it all hysteria.

eta:

Quote

The RNC didn't compare Trump to Christ,  the unhinged left saw the words new King, 

I'm not a member of the "unhinged left" and I clearly see the link being drawn between Jesus/The New King and Trump.

Edited December 27, 2016 by film noire

[Padma]

1 hour ago, rallymantis said:

....Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Trump wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

Others are entitled to their own opinions, not to their own facts. (DP Moynihan).  When you see opinions that are not based on fact then, yes, they'll be criticized, too.

Good for you for not "tossing away a friendship and family over politics.  The trouble for those of us who see him as a sexist, hateful bigot and a dangerous authoritarian with no respect for the Constitution is -- how do you keep respect and good feelings toward friends and family who are perfectly fine with that? (And with his lying). That is about core values in people. How do you know these are their core values and still feel "I'm fine with you, no problem?"

As for Obama, not everyone shares the view that the right-wing govt of Netanyahu = "Israel" any more than the right-wing govt of Trump = "America".

[Bastet]

Chris Lehmann (author of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream), wrote an article in The Nation about Trump's "gospel of positive thinking."  It's a review of several books about (and one by) Trump, but if you're familiar with The Nation's book reviews, you know it's much more than that.  He delves into Trump's "deft rhetorical maneuvering between the poles of apocalyptic despair and spectacular optimism":

Quote

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

He also quotes David Cay Johnston's analysis of Trump's success with our idiotic media:

Quote

Many reporters accurately quote what they are told, but don't know much about the underlying issues.  For Trump and others like him, this makes it easy to manipulate most of the press.  Those who see through the manipulation and make connections themselves get a different response: complaints to editors, threats of litigation, and occasionally public denunciations.

But what really made me think of this article again - it ran about a month before the election - is this latest conversation about how Trump is prone to tweeting out blatant lies that can easily be fact-checked, as if he cannot help himself of self-aggrandizing.  Because what Lehmann really digs into is how Trump's fear of being publicly perceived as "an also-ran or a bankrupt loser" was influenced by the positive-thinking creed preached by the pastor of the church young Donald's family attended:

Quote

[M]any features of Trump's message that traditional political observers find so exasperating and resistant to critical inquiry can be traced to the reverend's influence.  In fact, Trump's sprawling record of policy reversals and flat-out lies isn't just a personality quirk, but the logical extension of the reverend's gospel of positive thinking. ... Like his positive-thinking spiritual master, Trump clearly believes that the manic repetition of what he desires to be real, in both the pecuniary and political realms, is enough to make it a reality.  ... This is why the mere suggestion that reality is otherwise sends [him] into unappeasable transports of fury.

When Trump sued a NYT reporter for not labeling him a billionaire (in a book Trump admitted he never actually read), in his deposition, Trump responded to a question of whether he exaggerated his net worth by saying, "I think everybody does.  Who wouldn't?" and later explained that he regarded his 30 percent interest in a development as 50 percent, because "if the seventy percent owner puts up all of the money, I really own more than thirty percent.  And I have always felt I own fifty percent, from that standpoint."  Pressed for an actual, accurate accounting of his net worth, Trump replied, "My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with my feelings."  Asked, basically, if he really just said that last part, he answered, "Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day."

Lehmann explores the connection between Trump's "fiercely defended citadel of megalomaniacal self-regard" and this positive-thinking gospel he heard as a child and praised in his book.  It's an interesting read.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Bastet

[Padma]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

Only -    it's all bullshit!

Donald Trump Claims 100 Percent Of His Foundation’s Money Goes To Charity. That’s A Lie.

Under investigation, Trump tried to close the foundation.  But he is prohibited from dong so, because of the ongoing investigation .   Oh, And despite his claims, Trump himself has not donated any money to his foundation since 2009.

A headline using the phrase "It's a lie". Yay!  Hopefully the media will do this routinely with him. Headlines with "lie" and no more wimpiness or equivocation.  David Fahrenthold has proven --over and over in carefully documented research--that Trump's claims above are lies.

If they WEREN'T he'd provide documentation to back them up. But he's lying--and knows his followers won't question him (and won't listen, per his training) to the "lying media".  So he just continues lying big and lying bigger!

Eventually it will catch up with him legally. Personally, I can't wait.

[Broderbits]

17 minutes ago, film noire said:

Several people disagreed with you, and explained their logic -- how is that "hysterical"?

Because logic doesn't mean anything to people just trying to stir up shit.

[sistermagpie]

18 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

Fascinating post and quote here. It reminds me how one of the things that often strikes me about the attitude he seems to play to is the fact that as excited as people get about all this success that's going to come to them and that they're owed, they don't seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for doing things to get them to it. I don't mean just some flat out "you're lazy" thing, though that might be true for some people, of course. I mean having no interest in it. Like we know that many people just equate money with hard work. So you can inherit a lot of money and never work a day in your life and still be considered hard-working while a person who works 18 hour days for little pay is lazy because it's all judged by the bank account.

But I mean, for instance, things like "Make America Great Again" or "bringing prosperity back to coal country." It never comes along with being motivated to do a thing to make that happen. Like if you want the US to be #1 at things you need to have a great school system to produce really competent students etc. Or you need to train for new jobs for the future, as HRC talked about during the campaign for instance, grabbing the opportunity to be a leading producer in new energy. Instead it's always no, we want less education, less retraining, no eggheads, no languages other than English etc. It's like doing everything you can to *not* succeed in the 21st century while demanding everyone acknowledge your greatness.

But I heard a thing once about how dreaming and visualizing success often had this effect--you trick your brain into thinking you already did the work and spend your time daydreaming instead of doing it. It's like people want America to be those American Idol contestants who come in thinking they can sing, but can't, and when they don't get in they just crow more about how they know they're great.

[SoSueMe]

22 hours ago, Pixel said:

Dammit. I always knew he wasn't born in the US. 

lol @Pixel

19 hours ago, backformore said:

I bet he won't last 4.

I'm torn. That would leave us with Pence. Hmmm, sane evil or insane evil, hmmm?

Edited December 28, 2016 by SoSueMe

[KIMBERLYANN11]

1 hour ago, NinjaPenguins said:

I've been reading up and down this thread looking for where someone referred to righties as human garbage. I dislike dehumanizing language no matter who it is aimed at. This post exists, right? Right? Anyone? 

The term cuck is used almost exclusively on the right. 

Newsweek is part of a media organization. It has nothing to do with government nor does it have the imprimatur of the government behind it. The GOP is a political party that participates in government. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and hand grenades. I'm a liberal and disapprove of authoritarian hero worship; instead of denying and making false equivalencies and hemming and hawing, conservatives might say they flat out reject this cult of personality garbage. Neither side should be treating politicians like saviors.

I may possibly in a thread here somewhere have referred to righties as human garbage.  I don't know if I did or not, but it's a term I use so I wouldn't be overly shocked to find out I did.  If I did, I won't apologize for it - if people don't like being called human garbage, they shouldn't act like human garbage. 

I don't use cuck though - it sounds like a baby who isn't mature enough to enunciate "ka-ka"  Yes - I know it's short for cuckold - only the right is that paranoid that their sexual prowess isn't good enough to keep a mate that they use it as an insult.  Little do they know that that's not the reason they can't keep a mate. 

[SoSueMe]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

A headline using the phrase "It's a lie". Yay!  Hopefully the media will do this routinely with him. Headlines with "lie" and no more wimpiness or equivocation.  David Fahrenthold has proven --over and over in carefully documented research--that Trump's claims above are lies.

If they WEREN'T he'd provide documentation to back them up. But he's lying--and knows his followers won't question him (and won't listen, per his training) to the "lying media".  So he just continues lyingn big ad lying bigger!

Eventually it will catch up with him legally. Personally, I can't wait.

I am confident that you meant bigly and more bigly, lol.

[FilmTVGeek80]

2 hours ago, rallymantis said:

Hey, if you guys keep this hysterical up, you better believe = 8 years.  I've been joking around, but WOW.  Even when I write, "It's no different!" your response is the same: Yes it's totally different because, uh, Reasons! you rascistsexisthomophobicIslamophobicpiece of human garbage Cuckservative!!!

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  But I was horrified to read here that some do it with pride.  Families you have no choice in, but suddenly, Trump wins, and you discover old friends are terrible people?  

P. S.: Be careful with the anti-Semite darts. It was the current president, just threw Israel under the bus.

 

As others have pointed out, plenty of people have explained in rational - not hysterical - terms of how Priebus' comments and that Newsweek article aren't quite the same thing. Plus, you seem to be ignoring the people who remarked that no matter who is making the comparison any political figure being referred to as some kind of savior is not right. But, sure, chalk that up to "Reasons!" And, yeah, cuck is used by conservatives, not really by the left.

As for the "echo chamber" yes, how dare people actually agree with each other. I'm sure if you go to conservative websites no one ever agrees with you or shares the same opinions, right? Of course, people are allowed to their opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't expect pushback if people don't agree with what you're saying. Before this election, it would never have occurred to me to toss away a friendship because of someone's political leanings - and I still wouldn't. I wouldn't drop a friend simply because they were a Republican or Libertarian or something else. This year's election was different, though. Trump was not a normal candidate and his racist, sexist, xenophobic views were disgusting. If I find a friend who actually agrees with him or sees no problems with those opinions, then hell yeah, that changes my opinion of them. You can be horrified that some people here's opinion changed about their friends. I'll be horrified at finding out my friends think racism is a-ok.

[Ocean Chick]

Trump is so opposite everything Jesus Christ is/was, that I think it's fair to label Trump the Anti-Christ.

[Lunata]

Rep. Maxine Waters says Democrats are too ‘nice,’ vows to fight Trump ‘every inch of the way’

If you want to see a Republican's head spin around, just mention Maxine Waters.

Rep. Maxine Waters made clear she has no plans to reach across the aisle to work with Donald Trump, vowing on Monday to fight the president-elect “every inch of the way.” The California Democrat told MSNBC correspondent Jacob Soboroff that her party has a problem of bending over backward to work with Republicans.

“I tell you, that has been a problem in my party,” Mrs. Waters said. “That when we’re in power, we’re nice. We bend over backwards to work with people. Trump has stepped on everybody. He has no respect for his own colleagues, let alone those on the opposite side of the aisle. “He’s called names, he’s lied. He’s done everything to show that he doesn’t have good values and he can’t be trusted,” she continued. “Why should we work with someone that we can’t trust? He’ll tell you one thing today and another thing tomorrow. As a matter of fact, those people who voted for [him] ought to be really concerned about the fact that he has already backpedaled on some of the promises he made.

“I have no intention of pretending everything is all right, that we’re going to work together,” she added.Mrs. Waters said she has a duty to fight Mr. Trump on his campaign promise to repeal some of the reforms that came about after the 2008 financial crisis.

I hope the Republicans understand what they put President Obama through for eight years. The top 12 Republicans made a pact to fight him at every turn, every decision, every inch of the way on Inauguration night, Jan. 2009. Now, they're going to get a taste of their own medicine and Maxine Waters, it seems, is ready to lead the charge.

[film noire]

Quote

Trump is so opposite everything Jesus Christ is/was, that I think it's fair to label Trump the Anti-Christ.

When your stormtroo-I mean supporters are arguing whether or not they should shower you on your "inauguration" day with Nazi salutes,  I think that's a decent call ; )

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-fans-deploraball-party-descends-into-chaotic-infighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/

Edited December 28, 2016 by film noire

[Rae Spellman]

3 hours ago, rallymantis said:

Look at the echo chamber that exists in these threads.  No room for understanding that others are entitled to opinions you do not share.  It would never cross my mind to toss away a friendship or family member for the simple fact of their political leanings.  

It's possible that the people who seem to be unified in their disdain for the president-elect to be more diverse in their political leanings than you think. 

As Donald began his acceptance speech, I ended a relationship that has spanned my entire adult life. A relationship that survivived during the Clinton, G W Bush, and Obama years. I didn't end the relationship because she's a Republican. Despite being a California, I have Republican relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Often enough, I disagree with other progressives. The reality of a Trump presidency, helped me reevaluate who I am, what I value, and who I can trust, and who I want close to me.  

When we met, my friend seemed like a nice person who just happended to be a Republican. Over the past eight years, she has become so angry and resentful. The world is changing. And, she doesn't like it. To her, Donald Trump is a way to reverse the change. She is entitled to her opinions. She is entitled to yearn for a time when she didn't feel threatened by the progress of minorities. And, I'm entitled to let her share her views with people who aren't me. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Lunata said:

“I tell you, that has been a problem in my party,” Mrs. Waters said. “That when we’re in power, we’re nice. We bend over backwards to work with people. Trump has stepped on everybody. He has no respect for his own colleagues, let alone those on the opposite side of the aisle. “He’s called names, he’s lied. He’s done everything to show that he doesn’t have good values and he can’t be trusted,” she continued. “Why should we work with someone that we can’t trust? He’ll tell you one thing today and another thing tomorrow. As a matter of fact, those people who voted for [him] ought to be really concerned about the fact that he has already backpedaled on some of the promises he made.

“I have no intention of pretending everything is all right, that we’re going to work together,” she added.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Maxine Waters for the first time many years ago at a Roe v Wade anniversary event.  In the years since, we've interacted quite a few more times, and my respect and admiration have grown each time; it was quite a highlight when I realized she knew me by name (she came up to congratulate me on a case I'd just won).  I am heartened by her words, and not at all surprised by them.  She takes her job seriously, and she does not suffer fools gladly.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Bastet

[Lunata]

12 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I had the pleasure of speaking with Maxine Waters for the first time many years ago at a Roe v Wade anniversary event.  In the years since, we've interacted quite a few more times, and my respect and admiration has grown each time; it was quite a highlight when I realized she knew me by name (she came up to congratulate me on a case I'd just won).  I am heartened by her words, and not at all surprised by them.  She takes her job seriously, and she does not suffer fools gladly.

I especially like the video of her five years ago telling the Tea Party "go to hell".

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

When your stormtroo-I mean supporters are arguing over whether they should shower you on your "inauguration" day with Nazi salutes or not, I think that's a decent call ; )

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-fans-deploraball-party-descends-into-chaotic-infighting-over-nazi-salutes-and-book-burnings/

I feel like it's only fair to say that Raw Story is super left biased and is not above the fake news game. Having said that, I went to Twitter and yeah, the infighting is there for all to see.  So I did go to the source to vet the info. No offense, and I'm not implying you didn't do the same. I just figured since we are quick to point out fake right news I should also check out the left. All news sources are to be vetted these days!

Edited December 28, 2016 by Pixel

[SmithW6079]

Quote

Trump isn't just a tireless doomsayer; he's also an apostle of the upward-striving mantras of self-help, a lay preacher of the deepest fantasies and longings of the aspirational American soul.  He draws his power from the age-old gospel of American success, the spiritual-cum-motivational faith that beholds the most lavish spectacles of unequal accumulation and pronounces them duly anointed blessings of the divine will.

Emphasis mine. Little Donnie Trump advocates "self-help"? I wish my daddy had "self-helped" me to the tune of one million dollars to get started in business. And then a multimillion-dollar inheritance when daddy died. You know, that totally indicates "self-help" to me.  

[film noire]

10 minutes ago, Pixel said:

I feel like it's only fair to say that Raw Story is super left biased and is not above the fake news game. Having said that, I went to Twitter and yeah, the infighting is there for all to see.  So I did go to the source to vet the info. No offense, and I'm not implying you didn't do the same. I just figured since we are quick to point out fake right news I should also check out the left. All news sources are to be vetted these days!

No offense taken, Pixel -- I get it! -- but just so you know, I don't post a link unless I've traced it back/ checked the source.

Edited December 28, 2016 by film noire

[Pixel]

5 minutes ago, film noire said:

No offense taken, Pixel -- I get it! -- but just so you know, I don't post a link unless I've traced it back/ checked the source.

I didn't figure you did. I just wanted to be clear that I don't just point the finger at fake news when I don't agree with it. :) You know, since I'm admittedly biased toward the left. 

[Duke Silver]

^^ I posted the same story in the OK what's next forum.  Hell, the story itself is largely comprised of tweet arguments among the nazis.  Not difficult to ascertain accuracy.

[film noire]

20 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

^^ I posted the same story in the OK what's next forum.  Hell, the story itself is largely comprised of tweet arguments among the nazis.  Not difficult to ascertain accuracy.

Great minds ; )

Quote

You know, since I'm admittedly biased toward the left. 

The Unhinged Left! (Sounds like a nefarious gang out of a Sherlock Holmes story, no? "The game is afoot, Watson - the Unhinged Left have a rendezvous with Moriarty!")

[Lunata]

21 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

The consequences of Harry Reid thinking that the democrats would be in charge forever:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/12/dems-nuclear-option-will-allow-trump-to-fill-over-100-court-vacancies-quickly/

Haha, good times, thanks Harry! Seems like he was a victim of the OOOPS! section of this brilliant article:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

I try to avoid the opinions of bloggers, they aren't actual journalists, they're only someone's personal perspective, aren't they? But since the 'nuclear' word was brought up in the article, I'm wondering about real threats like how President Donald Trump plans to deal with Kim Jong Un and his intentions of developing a nuclear warhead to attach to his missiles with the objective of sending one to the US West coast? I mean, Donald Trump has already pissed off the Chinese, does he really want to fuck around with Kim Jong Un and piss them off even more? How he handles Kim Jong Un may determine what happens and possible war with China. He has to do something or Kim Jong Un will proceed with his intentions on destroying S.Korea, Japan and possibly the continental US. Then there's the caldron of potential nuclear war with Israel and Pakistan or Arab States. Yeah, there's a lot of other 'stuff' that's a little more important than Harry Reid who is officially retired now.

[Lunata]

2 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

@Lunata  I agree, the links I provided are blogs discussing current events. Here is a link to The Hill, in an article pre election when Reid was still thinking Hillary would win (hahaha, damn polls were wrong and media bias didn't push her over the top, and collusion was a bust, yadayadayada so sad):

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees

When changing the rules comes back to bite ya. LOL

Harry Reid wasn't the only one that predicted a Democratic win. If for nothing else, the loss of a Supreme Court candidate like Merrick Garland is a huge loss for our democracy. The Republicans refused to even give Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote for more than eight months. They argue that the vacancy from Justice Antonin Scalia's death should be filled by the president's successor which is nothing less than playing party politics. To intentionally filibuster for eight months is obstructionism of the democratic process. Now, the Republicans are going to find out what they've fought against for the last eight years. The Democrats are going to fight, filibuster and object to every move the Republicans try to make. I am looking forward to watching it all unfold.

[FilmTVGeek80]

13 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

 

@Lunata  I agree, the links I provided are blogs discussing current events. Here is a link to The Hill, in an article pre election when Reid was still thinking Hillary would win (hahaha, damn polls were wrong and media bias didn't push her over the top, and collusion was a bust, yadayadayada so sad):

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/302513-reid-dems-could-change-rules-for-supreme-court-nominees

When changing the rules comes back to bite ya. LOL

 

 

Collusion? What collusion? And, yeah, some media bias. Giving Trump tons of free media coverage, asserting false equivalency between him and Hillary, letting his millions of lies go mostly unchecked, etc.

I'm not clicking on that link because I don't trust it, but the link says "dems could change rules" not that they did. Unlike the Republicans refusing to meet with Garland. So what rule came back to bite them? If anyone's been bitten in the ass by this election it's sane Americans who don't want the country destroyed. Not exactly funny.

[Lunata]

7 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I give you Biden, back in 92:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

He disagrees with you @Lunata  as does Schumer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WCG2bKQjg

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the bench. There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill. There was no nominee to consider. The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election. The vote was never made by the Senate.