redcairo

I think it is a mistake to call "being mature and professional and supportive" of a coworker you are replacing or getting promoted far above -- even if you think they are a vile reptilian -- evidence of being a liar.

This is how the adult world works: you don't go, "Haha sucker! Beat you and I hate you! Go home and cry!" You say, "I'd like to thank Jack for all the hard work he's put in for years, he's a great guy and he's done a great job, and I hope you'll join me in wishing him well in his future career."

This is appropriate. It does not represent a character flaw, it represents an ability to win gracefully.

As for Trump saying stupid things, of course he's said stupid things, geez the list is endless!

Most were off the cuff casual personal response, which of course is seen as if he had drafted and voted in an entire policy or something, and which both he and his VP attempted to correct for (disallowed by anyone hating on him or media).

A few were spontaneous cheerleading at rallies, which most people take seriously for intent (e.g. yes he wants to address our problems with illegal immigration) but don't take literally (it'll be a miracle if he even gets to the two MILLION convicted criminal illegals out the door and vastly better security in place to reduce the insane numbers, and I'm willing to bet once that is secure there will be a massive but gradual amnesty done, but they can't say a word about that now or they will only increase the border numbers by far).

In the past all we've had are career politicians who work very hard to NEVER be honest or spontaneous and ALWAYS have carefully crafted speeches and phrases and what have we got from that? A continuing spiral toward doom. So those things don't seem nearly as important now as someone willing to address the spiral.

RC

He was independent, the Republicans were pathetic for options, the left had people already, and he needed to be with one of the parties. So he took to the right, they didn't want him but nobody on their team could beat him, so they had to let him take the nomination. But definitely against their will. There was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought George Will was gonna have a nervous breakdown over it and he's like William F. Buckley's soultwin.

Both parties are corrupt and a total disaster in my view. In the process of coming in Trump basically kicked over the red side, and in the process of winning out Trump basically kicked over the blue side. We can all hope that both parties take a hard look at the things he is proposing and why that apparently made a difference to a lot of people.

The reality is that if he could do half what he wants, whomever is president next will be able to do other things -- even things all about what the left wants -- far better as a result, I think.

RC

Thanks.

I really liked this one. It kind of emphasizes that he is focused on the people (at home).

Quote of the day:

 

And renewed calls emerged after Election Day 2016, on Tuesday, in large part because voters think the system is no longer needed to safeguard the country from a dangerous president.

Did I not just suffer eons of people ranting about how DJT would be so dangerous as a president? That he was the next Hitler? Yet now a system designed to ensure a moment of popularity in a few densely populated areas (greatly influenced by media putting their money there) alone can't get someone in office, is unneeded because we don't need to safeguard the country from a dangerous president. This is so contradictory to what was said constantly up to the point of the vote it's just -- oh man.

My mind boggles. So I guess we have a month while all of the efforts to talk the electorals into changing their mind if the media can encourage enough people stridently whining to lean on them goes on.

At this point, in this issue, I would consider anybody who did so to be literally a traitor to the entire country's political process and hence its people. This would be regardless of which side had won.

And maybe partly because it is like training a child or a dog. Even if you decide later you might agree with them, if you discipline them and they start kicking, screaming, insulting, begging, etc., at that point if you do anything they want you to do then you have done nothing but entrain them to do that whenever they want their way, and detrained them from taking any answer seriously in the future.

RC

I watched a lot of Trump videos from a lot of sources and I saw no hints whatsoever of any of these characteristics

Since I always assume most people are rational (which keeps turning out to be wrong), I have kept assuming that I must have just missed a lot of stuff. Now that the election is over, and I've been ill so it's kinda like, I feel crappy I might as well watch politics ha, I've been looking for video of the various "horrible things" DJT said that were advertised during HRC's campaign.

I'm finding a lot of things taken wildly out of context. For example if in the process of an outright fight with/about someone specific, he would say, that person is a slob, the claim would be, "D-T said that women are slobs!" because that person happened to be a woman. Several of the 'insults about women' attributed to him are off the cuff comments he made about an individual which were promptly made into something he said broadly about the entire gender of womanhood, which is ridiculous.

I don't know anybody who has never in their life, when irate at someone they had cause to dislike, not said something negative about them or dissed them with some term of reference. Most the people I know use far harsher and more epithet-laced wording than he does.

He did say numerous things about individual women and most were demeaning in terms of what they looked like. Some I found amusing, and not so much injust as too horribly honest, such as:

 ...in November 1992, Trump said that German gold-medal winning Olympic ice skater Katarina Witt was: "Wonderful looking while on the ice but up close and personal, she could only be described as attractive if you like a woman with a bad complexion who is built like a linebacker."

His personal relationship with women romantically seems to be partly as a mentor, and to some degree he keeps them in a degree of designed dependence -- but they become independent as part of his interaction with them, which is to say they grow and change and become successful -- saying it feels a little like a project or buiding and at that point he is done, and it's a little sad. I actually understood that -- I suspect he is simply more conscious of this process than most people, but I know many women and men both who operate like that to some degree with other people romantically.

He is quoted as saying -- in the context of some to-other-men offhand communications -- things like "you have to treat them like s****." I remember actually crying when I read Crowley's commentary on treating women like dogs when I was younger, not because I hated him for it, but because I recognized that humans are animals, and this goes for both men and women not just women, and that humans really do respond to this sort of thing in that way (animal training) and it was just so sad to realize we are not nearly as gloriously above the animal kingdom as we'd like to think. (Of course we hate anybody who recognizes that.) As for women -- read any good pick-up artist book and you'll see the sync with some of his comments. Men who go through a lot of women don't so much say these things because they are horrible -- they say these things because they are experienced, and sometimes the truth just happens to be horrible, though obviously nothing applies to every person ever. It is not for no reason that there are whole cultural memes about why woman friend-zone nice guys and sleep with jerks.

One thing I found repeated in a few articles was this: "D-T joked about dating girls under 17." What he actually said was in some humor

...said he'd promised his daughter, Ivanka, that he'd never date anyone younger than her: "I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great ― Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her," Trump said. "So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited." At the time, Trump was dating 29-year-old Melania, who would become his third wife. He was 53.

Some people have no sense of humor.

He is also well known for being extremely supportive and flattering of his daughter in many ways including her beauty -- she worked as a model and made a ton of money, which he referenced (and was then insulted for the allegedly creepy reference to his daughter having 'a great figure') and then quoted with much hysteria about this:

TV: What would you do if Playboy put Ivanka on the cover of the magazine?

Ivanka: This is going to be an interesting answer!

TV: See he doesn't even want you to have a drink, I know it, so --

Donald: It would be really disappointing -- not really. -- but it would depend on what was inside the magazine.

TV: So if she posed, it would be fine, but if they put her picture on --

Donald: Yeah but it depends on what goes inside the magazine.

TV2: Well that's her (no idea who she's talking about here - rc) gripe, that's this girl's gripe, people "assume" there will be nude photos --

Donald: You do assume that with Playboy.

TV: But if there weren't, you wouldn't have an issue then. If they were using her --

Donald: I don't think Ivanka would do that inside the magazine, although she does have a very nice figure. I've said that if Ivanka weren't my daughter perhaps I'd be dating her.

(Everybody laughs. Then TV says "Stop it. That's so weird!" more laughter, "You know, you are a sick --")

Donald: Is that terrible?

TV2: You're known for saying outrageous things --

Donald: Is that terrible?

TV2: Who are you, Woody Allen?

{much laughter, from everyone including Trump, then applause, then he taps her for attention and says laughing:}

Donald: That's very good!  {meaning her joke}

I guess if you're backseat driving things it could seem inappropriate but it was literally marketed as "joking about incest" in a way that is in my view totally injust. {Woody Allen was reported by a judge in an investigation to have fondled (and 'looked at naked') his 7 year old adoptive daughter.} He was on TV and trying to make light of what to ME was actually an inappropriate reference on TV2's part, more than his.

He was dissed for having said in his book, because he was "comparing women to buildings":

Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.

And that's on the list of BAD things he said. Go figure.

Many of the things he's attacked for were said a> before the campaign and b> in the "shock jock radio" setting with Howard Stern, which is a "say outrageous controversial stuff" kind of environment frankly. Taking stuff from the past and from that environment and acting as if he said this on the campaign trail (how inappropriate!) is itself disingenuous.

Sometimes though it doesn't matter what you say, you burn for it. Howard Stern asks if he's ever "reduced himself" to "sleeping with a fat woman." (Howard you jerk! - rc) In response, DJT said he is actually attracted to women who are a bit chunky. He was attacked for referring to a woman's size like that.

He's said worse -- Howard got him talking about women's breasts, he said he'd been with women who had 'terrible boob jobs' and 'pancake tits' and that he thought any woman who had a breast reduction was insane. Not surprisingly that got press ad nauseum.

He was accused of calling women 'gold diggers' in response to his comments, when asked, on actor Anne Hathaway, who married an extremely successful man, but then left him following his publicized "financial and legal troubles." He said, "So when he had plenty of money, she liked him. But then after that, not as good, right?"  I personally have no problem with him saying that. Maybe that wasn't the cause, but for a rich man, seeing that a young beautiful starlet marries an older rich guy then abandons him when he's not doing so well anymore is hardly a novel observation. Calling her, or calling women, "gold diggers" may be implied there but to me accusing him of this for a comment in response to a question like that is just unfair.

Some of his comments that got lots of "applied to women" as opposed to an individual were about Rosie O'Donnell, that he said is, "...disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.' We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness - Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out." Well he clearly despises the woman but that doesn't make me think he hates the entire gender.

He allegedly insulted the LGBT movement by saying, "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?"  It was assumed he was referring to a man not a woman as 'the friend' and that he was implying a woman would only be with another woman if a man didn't want her. I think that's reading a whole lot into something he didn't say. And again this was part of a brief but harsh rant about an individual. Not a commentary on gayness.

In 2011 during a court proceeding the opposing female attorney said she had to take a break to breastfeed her 3 month old infant. (Why she would volunteer the reason, and/or why she would not have a solution for this -- I used a breast pump ahead of time and my husband fed my baby if I were not available -- is beyond me. - rc) DT's legal team objected to the timing of the break (perhaps it seemed too convenient given the situation) and she pulled out her breast pump and apparently there was some argument about all of it. Eventually DT walked out of the room telling the woman she was disgusting.

Why he said that is unclear, he doesn't dispute any of it at all in fact, but this was promoted as "DJT says breastfeeding is disgusting."  Really? A family man like that, and who openly loves big breasts on women? -- ha, I don't assume he thinks that at all. There is no more detailed context that I could find, than what I provided, on what he said or why. Only a couple factoids in a larger discussion within a larger issue. But you see what I mean about how every possible thing from every point in his highly public history is basically removed from most context, and then overapplied generally to "everyone" not just one person or one situational moment, and then used as the alleged basis for why he is so horrible.

He's an overmacho jerk sometimes, show me a highly aggressive highly successful man who is not. I'm sure they exist I've just never met one. A pronounced sexuality, tendency to be critical even verbally, and focus on physical appearance has always come with those traits with the men I've known, for whatever reason.

He owned multiple "beauty pageants." The contestants are said to have "complained that Trump consistently objectified women." Bwahahahaha!  Women in a beauty pageant complain that a man is objectifying women? Are they not doing this themselves by even BEING in that kind of thing? What the heck?! Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy says: So much of the boardroom discussion concerned the appearance of the female contestant - discussing the female contestants' looks - who he found to be hot. He asked the men to rate the women - he went down the line and asked the guys, 'Who's the most beautiful on the women’s team?'" -- oh brother. Of course he wanted to know their top choices of candidates beauty personally. It's a pageant about beauty. Their views likely reflect the views of future watchers to some degree. Of course they discussed the contestants. I've had board meetings where we discussed our products in the same way, they weren't people but they definitely came up in discussion, that's usually how these things work. It's like every possible attempt was made to "find" a reason to say this guy was horrible --

-- and make no mistake he said plenty of bonehead things on his own --

-- but the "Help" given making him look bad via lack of context, over-offense, invented offense, broadly-applied out of context offense, and more, is really just ridiculous.

He is essentially a rock star as far as women throwing themselves at him goes, and some of his comments reflect this.

He was blamed for "not asking why so many sex assaults go unreported or so many men are not brought to justice", just because he tweeted this:

 

26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military -- only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

If anything it seems to me he was more on the side of women in that statement, but of course if he didn't write a whole term paper on the victimized woes of women then he isn't sympathetic "enough" and is said to be blaming rape not on rapists but on the mere fact that people were living together. Again, a lot of assumption about something he didn't even say.

He referred to a very harsh, out-for-blood female interviewer a bimbo after the fact, and at another point in referring to the interview said "...you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." This was held up as an example of him saying that the interviewer being 'tough on him' was merely because she was on the rag, or menstruating. He said that wasn't what he meant at all. You won't be surprised to learn the feminists don't believe him. 

He pretty much wiped out a huge chunk of women's votes with:

 

...said he has "evolved" on the issue of abortion. He was pro-choice for years before changing his position and backing a ban. He believes the Supreme Court ruling legalising abortion should be overturned and that individual states should be allowed to ban it. His campaign said he believes abortion should be legal only in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was at stake.

His VP is religiously rabid about it so I imagine that was his compromise, but even if true, if there is ever any question about moving a decision to state level rather than federal level I am nearly always for it -- I see that as only better empowering the people to truly cause effect within their governing and to locate themselves in the nation-state they relate to best.

He was accused of unfairly 'reacting' to Hillary's direct insults about his comments on women, by pointing out her own behavior toward the (many) women her husband had accuse him of outright rape. At a rally he said:

 

"Bill Clinton was the worst in history, and I have to listen to her talking about it?!  Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler. And what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."

I am boring even myself at this point so I will stop.

But I just don't think that even when he did say something rude, that it is so horrific as to literally be more important than him being the first NON-SYSTEM, SELF-FUNDED person who truly wants to change the system and restore important constitutional elements to the country.

Funny, I like him better now than I did before the election, because I've gone and read and watched a lot more of his actual stuff and specifically searched for the things he is publicly accused of. If anything I am even more shocked that such trivial BS and most of it years prior and in specific off-the-cuff environments would be used like they had ANYTHING TO DO WITH important political, government issues. And bottom line, he employs lots of women, he gives them ranking positions, he gives them good money -- the very thing that feminists have long said is such an important metric on how well a man truly validates a woman.

RC

Well the left clearly votes for personality and social issues, and the right for constitution and economic issues, I know that's a generalization but it seems to be so.

The left made a huge effort to focus on his assumed personality failings, backed up by a number of public comments on his part, then exponentially increased both by putting some of them out of context and overvictimizing on the rest, sure that having proved he was the devil everyone would reject him. But they already had those voters. It's preaching to the choir, marketing to existing customers.

People on the right that I know (and I know a lot given where I live. All my workmates online around the country are lib, the people local are greatly cons) could look at a person, determine they were a total jerk they wouldn't have a beer with and wouldn't let marry into the family, but still observe that they got a job done and might accomplish what they need to hire. It's just a difference in priorities in a major way.

I have promoted people who clearly disliked me and were even competitive with me solely because I recognized that they were competent and that's what mattered, it was a business decision more than a personal decision. Voting is a government decision -- what best serves the constitution, infrastructure, integrity of government and security of the nation are my first priorities. Whether someone is an obnoxious cretin comes second in consideration.

Had there been a vastly less obnoxious cretin running against Trump who had many of the same platform issues he promoted, and who was not campaigning on a promise to gut the Bill of Rights like HRC was, maybe the left would have inspired me. But we only have the choices we have in any given election. I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton but actually feel bad about that in retrospect, and after reconsidering his 100 day plan. It has issues and it'll be a miracle if the gov't itself lets him do even a fraction of it, but it seems a sincere and really important effort.

RC

Why do you think that Putin is "the bad guy"

Because a> he is a major political leader and I don't trust politicians of any kind, and b> I grew up during the cold war and I have not yet been able to shake the prejudice that all things Russian are fundamentally untrustworthy.

But on video at least, I just can't help but LIKE the guy, even through those biases. One thing is certain at least, while he speaks, he utterly believes what he is saying. Of course I've known pathological liars who are that way but when it works like that it's a personality pathology and I don't think he has that. (That is to say if/when he lies I believe it would be on purpose, not out of delusion.) But he comes across as very sincere.

And of course, it doesn't help that his message -- somewhat consistently everywhere, about everything, and for years -- is always basically like, here we are, we are doing our best to be strong but decent, but the usa doesn't do anything they say, violates everything they promise, gives weapons to our enemies and influences sources all over the world to do us economic harm, and we keep talking but it seems like nobody's listening, and if some of these situations don't improve we're going to end up in another war that forks the whole world, so it would sure be nice if they would be reasonable for once.

I find it pointedly confusing that my own leaders, in addition to being almost stupendously bad at the sort of statesman things he is very good at, don't have any explanation, and don't seem to feel obliged to even try to make one to anybody including us, for what we are doing and why, or why we would keep driving all these things relentlessly as if a leader at his level repeatedly saying these things is not serious.

The thing the video said that threw me for a loop was all about us putting missile launchers in Romania. Really? I had no idea we were doing anything in Romania. I'm not very good at geography so I had to look up a map to see the relationship of Iran to Romania. Here is one that worked to show me where Turkey was in relationship:

And this one showed where Iran, Syria etc. were in relationship to Turkey:

And of course his point about the offshore missiles -- you can put any kind into a missile launcher and they are deployable within hours, since naval vessels move and sometimes at great speed -- is decent.

The effort for good relations with China is fairly obvious if one looks at their border since that's a huge neighbor. Not being on their good side would be like us arguing with Canada. Although I imagine to myself with humor they would be very polite. So sorry! Yes, we don't agree on that eh? :-)

RC

This guy... he has a gift as a statesman.

Every time I see him speak on video I am impressed again. And I consider Russia the enemy and him a bad guy, so this is really saying something.

Someone via Anonymous theorizes that Russia hates the USA and wanted Trump to win solely because they think it will ruin us, like mwahahahaha.

They point out the close relation of Russia with China. Which Trump is the enemy of due to the trade stuff he insisting on.

But I think maybe he just has a point about the whole military and war stuff, namely that we simply do not take him (or anyone else) seriously.

I remember Iran's former lunatic leader whose name I forget right now. He said that he could say the most specific things about his intents to do us in and that our response was basically to wave it away like he couldn't possibly mean it. (I see the left doing that concerning Islam and Sharia as well. Like we simply cannot wrap our brains around anybody thinking differently than we do. A lot of that was seen in the recent election I suspect.)

I found this video interesting. I don't know what room the new President will have for making changes, if any, in our approach to war... but it would be nice if we would at the very least, take more seriously international leaders.

I turned this up to 1.5 speed in the settings which is more reasonable, for reading the subtitles.

RC

Wrong!

"skilled in fighting a plus"

http://www.anonews.co/soros-us-riots/

Wow.

Where's McCarthy when you need him.

There's a lot of different things (fingers in many pies!) in that article.

Coming to this:

 

There are a lot of people who are out there because they genuinely oppose a Trump presidency. The unfortunate thing is, their opposition comes from propaganda that they passionately believe. They are acting based on misinformation and they’re being professionally manipulated.

 

The next step here is martial law, which nobody wants.

 

Well, nobody except George Soros and friends.

 

Someone who wants to see America ripped apart is causing this division. Last summer, it was leaked that Soros attempted to destabilize Russia and depose Putin in 2012. Putin responded by banning Soros and all of his organizations from Russia. In 2014, Putin issued an international arrest warrant for Soros.

 

We could certainly improve both international relationships and our current situation by extraditing Soros immediately.

This is interesting.

Wilfred, this was a good video, thanks for linking it.

From the vid, about the demonstrations after the election:

MoveOn.org released a statement: "Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon."

MoveOn is greatly funded by billionaire George Soros, who was also Hillary Clinton's largest campaign funder.
 

...OK. Well nothing wrong with gathering to sing kumbaya (or beat innocent civilians or destroy local property) (Oh wait). But really I think most of it is not violent -- bozos looking for an excuse to be violent just use this stuff as opportunity.

RC

I kind of thought that at first, but looking into the links in this thread for a while, I'm convinced that it's shady enough to question it just being a pizza place.

Well maybe, but there are a lot of ways to be shady that don't involve child sex trafficking. Right?

RC

I find the pizza thing more confusing than the email thing. I went and looked at a page with details and it mostly sounded like, some guys owns some pizza parlors for kids, lots of people visit them, and they have conversations about -- gasp -- pizza but you have to trust us that when they say "pizza" they really mean "enslave and have sex with small children." Or something. Perhaps you can break it down for me into something simpler the average mortal can understand. Use small words, apparently. ;-)

RC

 

MSM busted again! Pathetic!

Btw, bad acting, dude...

Just fyi, that guy was actually interviewing about the violence and being against it. Then he went off about the EC. Then a guy on the news mentioned on audio the fellow interviewed had worked as a cameraman with him in the past. I know that makes it look like the 'person on the street upset' was in fact a plant from the news station (and such things are easy to believe in today's news M.O.) but I think he was being interviewed mostly because they knew him and he was a witness to the violence and a good person to interview as a result. That he ended up going on -- and that the 'recognition' on the air of him happened -- made it seem like a concocted situation it probably wasn't.

Since CNN has very clearly been trying to incite and maintain violence and hysteria, at this point it's easy to believe anything though.

RC

Trump hasn't said too much about our wars yet.  I guess we'll have to wait to see what he tries to do about them.  There are many people who are making a lot of money from them. 

Well he won't be in office for two months. And he won't have all the information he needs until then probably. And this is way bigger than merely a president. I think if he had his way we'd not be at war mostly so we could use that money at home because it's not the US Gov't that is making that money, it is a few uber-giant contractor corporations and worse they're making it over-there so we don't even see taxes from it. But war is a simply gigantic momentum and I'm not sure how much power he is going to have related to it in most cases. To some degree I think if he took that issue on he'd spend all his time on that one and have no time to address the many critical things on the home front. So I'm suspicious that he might be prone to just not try to 'intervene to change' anything on that front -- alleged experts are already running things -- while he focuses on the home front first.

So far I'm already seeing tons of articles basically lambasting him for every possible thing he is not even in office to do yet. If he seems to be consistent then he's bad because he is not changing his mind from his campaign 'rhetoric.' If he seems a little more compromising in some comment, then he 'has already abandoned his vows and we should expect more lying.' If he hasn't said anything about something because for godssakes, a> he hasn't had time, and b> he is not even in the chair yet, then he is 'already ignoring' important issues. Pretty much no matter what he says or does about anything, ever, there's already a label and insult for his response no matter what it is, and even if he doesn't even have one.

I'm thinking, do all these people seek to undermine any new manager or CEO who comes into their business, too? Is the concept of "the map above me changed, support the chain of command" too difficult for people of today?

RC

OK, I get it, and I will not interfere by defending your intent again. Sorry.

Having a bad head cold is making things seem even more surreal at the moment.

RC

Maybe it is just an overabundance of compassion and projective empathy, outweighing objective discussion with subjective concern. Which is a lovely state of heart but it becomes like that quip about young/old and heart/brain in politics. Politics is probably not the topic to discuss when one is feeling emotionally sensitive.  RC

I guess persons in West Africa are irrelevant persons..

Gah! See, there you did it!

I don't even have to go to a mainstream news media channel for it.

So if someone presents that

a> The constitution is the law of the land.

b> One can make amendments when appropriate. We have a process for doing that.

c> It's inappropriate to do things that violate the constitution outright (without going through b>) just because someone thinks it's a good idea.

(because that is no respect for the constitution at all if anyone in a position of power can arbitrarily ignore it.)

You suggest it's a good idea because disease is horrific.

And someone presents that yes it's horrific (many illnesses are), but that's not relevant to the action needing to be legally within -- or following a proper amendment change for -- the constitution.

And you promptly made it RACISM AGAINST WEST AFRICAN PEOPLE.

(West African lives matter! We are not irrelevant! omg)

I can't even mutter at my screen properly because I have a cold and I sound like Elmer Fudd trying to swear.

RC

This list is actually pretty awesome!

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

 

I agree! I am doing a whole series on every item in that, as threads here. The menu (first two are up) is here:

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42474-djt-100-days-menu/

I'll be interested to see what locals have to say on these things.

RC

Food for thought:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=wmborj

Nice essay. I think of it like a business to a great degree. If I as the CEO tell people under me, bring me business plans for your divisions to accomplish X, and your parameters are, you can't violate existing corp regulations as detailed here, and you have Y budget, then that's what I expect. If they give me business plans that F up one or both areas, me going "Well gosh, I had to choose something, I had to sign it, that was my only choice" is mostly lame, with super rare exceptions -- it's weak management. The appropriate action would be, "It's your job to know these boundaries and operate within them and not, by timing or piling-on of multiple things together, force ME into a position of violating the very boundaries I said were important."

I think that is why I feel, as I said somewhere else, that the greatest danger to the country from DJT's win isn't him, but is the far right since now the red controls everything, trying to push through crappy anticonstitutional legislation because now they'll feel like they can.

That is why gays are worried, or women -- that abortion or gay marriage might be threatened for example or that really stupid bills created (usually by zealots) will actually become law -- and these happen, no doubt, so it's probably a valid worry. I don't think DJT is religiously driven to change either of those, no matter what his personal beliefs or preferences. The question will be whether he is willing to have the backbone to stand up to the leverage all the R's will try to force upon him.

His first goal is to set term limits to undercut the ridiculous amount of corruption that comes of people getting funding to get re-elected continually and being totally in bed with the corporate monies rather than the people of their state. I'm willing to bet that since all the congressmen are actually the ones benefitting from that, they will totally not want to do anything to threaten it, and they have to vote it in. Good luck with that dude!

RC

The other point was that section in the bill passed was not different -- as far as I can tell -- from that of the AUMF, which was signed off on in 2001 -- so if a president is to be blamed for violations of constitution and human rights, Bush should be front of the line, no?

 

Many of the more orwellian E.O.'s (e.g. for emergency powers) have been run through every president going back half a dozen or a dozen. So no, I don't blame BO out of context with the rest. I agree he's not much diff than everyone else in that regard.

PS and thanks again for the detail -- that is a great response and I appreciate that kind of detail. That is the sort of thing I hope to learn in discussion.

For medical reasons I have some serious memory issues from the past decade, and I never know when they're going to crop up so sometimes everything is new LOL.

RC

Thank you Dust, for the details.

Re: hemorrhagic fevers are terrible. Maybe what I should have said instead is that in a system with a profound amount of corruption and not just millions but many billions to be made off immunizations, the amount of fundamental manipulation and deviousness in the industry -- especially one where the ubercorps and shareholders who control licensing and edu also control manufacturing and retail also control medicine and surgery and medication also control the captured government agencies that allegedly regulate them -- there is too much to get into but it's with every single little area to the point it's literally exhausting, and of course, by definition nobody's an expert unless they agree with the money, if they are and don't agree they are instantly un-experted, so huge fear/threat. (Statins are another example.)

The underlying problem is money, any time you make "just convince the government it's good" something that makes billions of dollars, there's going to be an insane amount of carefu l research-as-marketing, re-presentation, stats spin, and more to get everything possible lined up. That doesn't mean a useful immunization never happened but it does mean you just cannot hand government-police power to sources who profit off whatever one is being forced to do. It's just inherently bad even when good intentions and occasionally something decent is involved -- the precedent and larger picture are just never worth it. Meds are almost never tested together in today's world, and there hasn't even been time for medium to long term tests on children on any two recent ones let alone more, and biological individuality is the airbrushed elephant in the living room of the whole medical topic, and there are TONS of these things and we'd be pouring them all into the baby/toddler bloodstream if the sources of profit for it had their way.

The whole medical topic is just horrible especially because good, smart people are part of the distortion of the system itself. And of course because you can leverage any damn thing with "but it's for the children!"

RC

Well I certainly am against 'mandating' people stick chemicals in their body -- especially after spending the last decade of my life focused on a lot of published science and the politics thereof.

Which make the politics of politics look almost well intentioned.

There are a few -- very small number -- for children, and then tetanus. Pretty much everything else is about money, not your health.

RC

Well Trump said he'd work to repeal every "unconstitutional" executive order-etc. that OB made.

That will be a helluva list.

Like arresting and 'detaining' (imprisoning) without notice to anybody; without charge; and indefinitely. When I was growing up we read about that. It was called The Gestapo.

RC

Would you also completely blame it on others like Hillary did?

Because that was the point of the video:

Hillary's typical narcissist behavior.

1. We have no idea what she really said. Someone, told someone else, who told someone else on a news show that lives on ratings and is happy to see her in the mud. This is third person at best! It should never have even been on television. It's completely inappropriate to pass 3rd or more generation gossip as if it's news or something.

All you have to do is listen to this guy while imagining that he's talking like a teenage valley girl and you realize he actually IS, he just doesn't have the lingo/accent.

2. When someone is having one of the biggest upsets of their recent life and they are sobbing helplessly, they are very likely to feel angry at anybody they feel contributed to failure, or didn't help as much as expected. This is called human nature, not some kind of psychopathy.

I do not disagree for a minute she's pathological, I simply find it injust that this is used as an example. :-)

RC