Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wayward Son

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
General Comments / Re: TikTok
« on: September 17, 2020, 06:06:33 PM »
If you need me, I'll be watching Gilbert Gottfried lip syncing to Katy Perry.

Well, that's why you're not worried about it.  Only a COMMUNIST would view something like that!  :P  ;D

General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 17, 2020, 02:10:26 PM »
And let us know if you ever find the manual to the ring, Lambert!.  :D

General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 16, 2020, 06:13:04 PM »
McCain crashed 5 jets, plus was responsible for the Forrestal fire. There has never been another pilot who crashed more than a single plane and was allowed to keep his wings. But McCain was a legacy and his family had many admirals.

He's not a hero for being a bad pilot, Lambert.  He's a hero for willingly enduring torture at the hands of the enemy, even though he had an out, and chose not to to support his fellow prisoners and to uphold the ethics of the military.

What does his piloting record have anything to do with that?  ::)

Or are you suggesting that, because he was a bad pilot, that sacrifice meant nothing:o

He willingly put himself in a situation where he could be captured and tortured for his country.  And he did get captured and tortured for his country.  What did General Bonespurs ever risk for his country?  And what gives Trump the right to disparage John McCain's sacrifice, and every other American POW's sacrifice, just because McCain called some of his supporters "crazies?"  >:(

If you consider this "unassailable" support of our military and soldiers, then I don't think you know what that word means.

General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 16, 2020, 04:41:56 PM »
He was the instigator of attacks against Trump - not the oether way around.

This was the attack.

“It’s very bad,” McCain, who was eager to talk about Trump, told me on Monday when I stopped by his Senate office. ... He was particularly rankled by Trump’s rally. “This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said. “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

Vicious, right?  To note that some of Trump supporters are crazy.

This is how Trump responded.

Frank I. Luntz
Referring to -- to -- John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a dummy. Is that appropriate in running for president?

Donald J. Trump
You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt me all the time. No, I know him too well, that's the problem. Let's take John McCain. I'm in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel, it's turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before -- they're pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, we cannot handle this, because it will destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have 15,000 people -- the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than -- 15,000 people showed up to hear me speak.

Bigger than anybody, and everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans. I will tell you. John McCain goes, oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had 15,000 crazies show up. Crazies, he called them all crazy. I said, they were not crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you were to see these people -- I know what a crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren't crazy.

So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. I said, somebody should run against John McCain who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him. I supported him for president. I raised $1 million for him. That's a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don't like losers.


But, Frank -- Frank, let me get to him.

Frank I. Luntz
He is a war hero, he's a war hero.

Donald J. Trump
He hit me -- he's not a war hero.

Frank I. Luntz
Five and a half years...

Donald J. Trump
He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you.


He was a war hero because he was captured, OK? And I believe -- perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren't crazy. And very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said, nobody knows that. I said, he graduated last -- or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.

And he was upset, I said, for what? For telling the truth? See, you're not you're supposed to say that somebody graduated last, or second to last in their class, because you're supposed to be like Frank says, very nice. Folks, I want to make America great again. We want to get down to brass tacks.

What a petty little man Trump is.  He supported McCain, and then McCain makes a disparaging remark about his followers, so he insults every single soldier captured during a war.  Because he wants to prove that McCain wasn't a war hero.

Remember that McCain was offered released early from the POW camp because of his father military position, and he refused until all the prisoners captured before him were released.  Who was subsequently tortured because of not leaving?  Who attempted to kill himself twice during that time?  Could you have done that?  Do you think General Bonespurs could have done that?

But, no, Trump is perfectly reasonable to call every POW "not a hero" because McCain attacked some of Trump's followers as being "crazies."  This shows Trump is a man who has only the highest respect for our military and the sacrifices they have made.  That he is "unassailable" in his respect and support.  That he couldn't possibly have called fallen soldiers "losers" and "suckers." Because 5 1/2 years being a captive and tortured for your country doesn't make a person a "hero."  ::)

Sure, its the Never-Trumps who think their man can do no wrong.  :P

On the lighter side, here's a Trump campaign ad that's been on the internet.

Pretty stirring, isn't it?  Brave troops cresting a hill, being protected by the jets above them, with the sun setting behind and the words "Support Our Troops" captioning the picture.

Only one small problem.

This stock photo shows MiG fighter jets above the troops.  And apparently at least one of the troops is carrying an AK-47, the Soviet assault rifle.

A small Freudian slip there?  ;D

One of the latest tweets from the President of the United States:

Was Andy McCabe ever forced to pay back the $700,000 illegally given to him and his wife, for his wife's political campaign, by Crooked Hillary Clinton while Hillary was under FBI investigation, and McCabe was the head of the FBI???

Four out-and-out lies in one sentence.  You think he can't possibly be worse, and he always surprises us. :)

No, not any alternative.  That kind of thinking (anyone but Hillary) gave us Trump in the first place. :)

But certainly Biden is a good alternative.  With over 35 years in government (IIRC), any major problems he has would have come to light a long time ago.

He's not the ideal choice.  He's a gaffe machine.  He's not bold.  He isn't nearly as inspiring as we need.  But none of the contenders were.  And he's sensible, intelligent, listens to people, and his heart is in the right place.  He's not out to humiliate his opponents.  Emotionally, morally, ethically and intellectually, he's head and shoulders above Trump.

But most people are. :)

My prediction when he was elected was that he would be like a 10 year old driving a semi.  He would do fine, until he was distracted, or something happened that he didn't expect.  Well, that something happened.  Covid-19.  He didn't know how to handle it.  He had dismantled the institution that was designed to confront the problem.  He tried to pretend it would go away.  He did half-measures--stopping travel from China but allowing the disease to come from Europe.  He undermined his own CDC and experts.  He refused to take control of the situation, letting the States handle it themselves, then blaming them for not doing a good job.  He knows how to bully, intimidate, order and shift blame, but he doesn't know how to lead.  Now we are rapidly approaching 200,000 people dead, with a little under a quarter of the deaths worldwide.  And he thinks he did a fantastic job.  ::)

Trump is a disaster.  And anything short of another disaster is better.  Biden ain't great, but he ain't a disaster.

General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 14, 2020, 07:04:53 PM »
He has proven his devotion to the nation and to the common man. His support and reverence for the military is unassailable. Saying he called those who died in the support of the nation, "losers" and "suckers" is like saying Mother Theresa talking Smack about poor people.

LMAO. That is hilarious!  ;D

You seriously believe a man who said, “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured,” could not possibly "talk smack" about soldiers?  Who said that sleeping around with women was his "personal Vietnam" because he might have caught VD?  Who got out of Vietnam by getting a doctor to say he had bone spurs?  The support and "reverence" for the military of a person who said those things is "unassailable?"  ;D

Thanks, Lambert.  I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. :)

I wouldn't worry about it, noel.  This thread demonstrates that there are plenty of actual examples of Trump doing wrong for those willing to see.  And, ultimately, it will be a referendum on Trump.  Trump's actual mistakes and weaknesses are more real than the possible ones that Biden might make. ;)

Let us not forget Trump's words on April 17:

Liberate Michigan!

This, after saying, privately, "You just breathe the air and that's how it's passed. ... It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus... This is deadly stuff."

This, after almost 700,000 reported cases and 36,787 reported deaths.

This, after his own CDC recommended everyone wear masks to slow down the spread.

He knew it was deadly.  He knew it was worse than the flu.  He knew how many had died already.  He knew the science.

But none of that was the most important, was it?  >:(

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 10, 2020, 01:45:34 PM »
Don't like it? Get the relevant laws changed.

How do you do that when Trump would just veto any such law, and at least a third of the Senate are such toadies they would never disagree with him? ;)

That's why we need him voted out of office (along with as many of his toadies as we can).

General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 10, 2020, 01:19:16 PM »
I've been working my way through the 236 books and series in NPR's Science Fiction and Fanstasy Finalist List for the last couple of years.  I had already read a bit over a third of them, and the ones I've gotten through so far have all been pretty good, except for one or two exceptions.

The most entertaining so far was The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss.  It deals with a kid orphaned by some mysterious, powerful entities, who grows up on the streets and then gets into a university to learn magic.  Witty, well-paced, fun story.  The sequel wasn't quite as good, at least until he got the kid out of the college.  Rothfuss hasn't finished the third book of the trilogy yet, even though it's been over 10 years since the sequel was published.  ::)

The most surprising one was Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany.  Kind of American magic realism about a drifter who goes to a city that America has forgotten about except in rumors and stories.  Lots of sex, bizarre events, and no real plotline I could detect, but still a compelling read.  I think it captured the zeitgeist of the late 60s so that you really feel it.

Good Omens is a really fun and funny book, about how the Apocalypse goes wrong because an angel switched the baby at birth.  Contains one of my favorite lines of all time:  "It wasn't a dark and stormy night.  It should have been, but that's weather for you." :)  Which brings up other books by Neil Gaiman--Neverwhere, Coraline, The Graveyard Book, Stardust--and Terry Pratchett--Going Postal and especially Small Gods.  (When a storm gets so bad than even Death hides out with you, you know it's bad! :) )

The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu is good hard-SF story with a Chinese perspective.

Lucifer's Hammer by Niven and Pournelle if the current disasters aren't enough for you. :)

The Yiddish Policeman's Union for a detective story set in an alternative world where Israel is located along the Alaskan coast.

World War Z by Max Brooks (Mel's son) was surprisingly good, especially if you're a military-buff.  So was Old Man's War by John Scalzi.

I figure the last 116 of the books and series on the list should keep me busy for the next decade or so.  And if you need a flowchart for the top 100 books and series, SFSignal gots you covered, including an interactive version.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 10, 2020, 11:50:55 AM »
Pretty bad when Politico is more balanced in its reporting than NPR.

Sometimes there is a fine line between official business and personal business.  I won't argue about the cases you cited, but I do ask whether you feel that this case is not over that line.

Would you have been comfortable if President Clinton had the Department of Justice defending him in the Monica Lewenski case?  The incidents for that occurred while he was in office and in the White House itself, which is arguably far more justified than Donald's case.

And if you truly believe Donald's case is far away from the line, where would you draw it?  When Donald lied to the banks (or to the IRS) about the value of his properties?  When he refused to pay contractors for work they had done for him?  Should the Trump University case have been handled by Bill Barr?  Or are you of the opinion that the Presidency is the law, and any accusations for past or present misdeeds are attacks against our country and democracy itself?

I think it is fairly clear that his conflict with E. Jean Carroll is purely a personal matter, not one that involves our country.  And he should handle it personally, not using the resources of the United States government, resources that you and I pay for.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 09, 2020, 04:50:52 PM »
As Electoral quipped on September 9, 2020, under the header "The Justice Department Confirms It Is Indeed Trump's Personal Legal Team:"

The DoJ's justification for this is that when Trump made the allegedly defamatory statements, he was acting in his official capacity as President of the United States. Riiiight. If so, that would mean "E. Jean Carroll is a liar" and "E. Jean Carroll is not Donald Trump's 'type'" are the official policy of the United States government.

Anyone a fan of off-shore drilling?

In a few moments I will sign a presidential order extending the moratorium on offshore drilling on Florida’s Gulf Coast and expanding it to Florida’s Atlantic Coast as well as the coast of Georgia and South Carolina.

Glad to see that Donald Trump is finally coming around.  I guess he'll wait until after he is re-elected before extending it to the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. :)

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 07, 2020, 07:58:39 PM »
The real GOP does not miss them, and actually sees their distance as a plus.

The question is, though, that once you've gotten rid of all these "non-real" GOP leaders and those that respect them, will you have enough of a GOP left to win the election--or an election? ;)

I wonder if this means that "Veterans for Donald Trump" is considering changing their name to "Suckers and Losers for Donald Trump?"  ;D

Or maybe you can believe the president when he tells you what he means...

The president told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got, according to a person familiar with the discussion

The president views the military, and military personnel, in exactly the way he sees most everything else: will it help him "win", and how can it help him "win"?

Oh more "anonymous sources report" stories.  ::)

It would be somewhat consistent with the other view, so I could believe it to a fair degree. I'd hope that DoD managed to explain there is more nuance to it than that when it comes to many POW/MIA's but based on his comments about McCain he may still continue to have blinders on in regards to some of that.

"Why risk the expenditure of XXX Million dollars worth of assets to 'rescue' X million dollars worth of defunct assets? Just declare bankruptcy and move on."

Just for the record, Jennifer Griffin, Fox News security correspondent, confirmed some of the allegations with her own sources.

Trump naturally has called for her to be fired, because that's what he does for people that report the truth about him.  >:(

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 03, 2020, 07:00:07 PM »
And then we have the DHS assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention Elizabeth Neumann, a lifelong Republican who quit her position after over two years working for the Trump Administration.

Neumann saw the diffuse nature of right-wing extremist violence as a particular challenge. "It was hard for the counterterrorism community to put their finger on it, in large part because the movement is more of a movement than a group or an organization," she says.

That lack of official group cohesion reminded Neumann of the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). She watched domestic extremists use the same tactics as the terrorist group.

"They borrowed from ISIS's playbook and they learned how to radicalize people online," she says...

But unlike the urgent interagency response to ISIS, Neumann says there was no clear effort to combat violent extremists on the right.

"If you had a very clear voice at the top, from the president, from other senior leaders in the Republican Party, denouncing this and warning conservatives — warning Republicans — that these groups are trying to recruit you based on things that might sound like a typical conservative belief, but behind it is this insidious, ugly, evil thing, if we had more clear voices talking about it — it would somewhat inoculate people from that recruitment and that radicalization," she says. "But instead, we have the opposite effect. We have the president not only pretty much refusing to condemn, but throwing fuel on the fire, creating opportunities for more recruitment through his rhetoric..."

She says they had already been working on a strategy to combat domestic extremism for a year and a half before the El Paso shooting, and they presented it at the White House...

The White House seemed to support the strategy — but under one condition.

"They just asked for it to be couched in terms of 'preventing violence' and not 'domestic terrorism.' And my sense was they were doing that pragmatically," she says. "They seem to understand that for whatever reason, if we use the term 'domestic terrorism' or we talk about the white supremacist language, that seems to derail things at the White House."

When Trump finally started using the term "domestic extremism" himself in the summer of 2020, it was in reference to the violence and looting that occurred during the protests across the country against police brutality targeting Black Americans, which the president attributed to "antifa." For Neumann, this was an obvious red herring. She says that the numbers don't bear out the idea that left-wing violence is as much of a problem as right-wing violence, and arrests during the summer's protests demonstrate that.

"If you look at the people that have been arrested for that, by and large, I mean, it's the boogaloo movement or it's an association with QAnon. It's the right side of the spectrum. It is not antifa." She's unequivocal about this: "The threat of domestic terrorism is not from antifa. It is from these right-wing movements..."

She's also concerned that people who served as "guardrails" around the president have left the administration. Those "adults in the room," she says, took the heat from the White House in order to allow people like her to keep carrying out their work. This fear is what prompted her to speak publicly, while many other senior administration officials have declined to do so.

"I am really concerned that in a second term, he will not have the ability to make wise decisions because there are no officials surrounding him anymore that have the experience and the gravitas to be able to tell him, 'No, you cannot do this, this is illegal.' Or: 'If you do this, it is likely that this other nation-state will respond in a drastic way that will lead us to war.' That's what's at stake here," she says.

Interesting interview, well worth checking out.

The Administration's response?  "This sounds more like a case of this former disgruntled employee being ineffective at their job..."  Of course, what else would you expect them to say? :)

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 03, 2020, 10:20:02 AM »
I think we can add former Michigan governor Rick Snyder to the list.

President Trump’s answer to people who oppose or disagree with them is to be verbally abusive. In other words, he is a bully.

A great leader treats people with respect even when they present different opinions...

In addition, President Trump lacks a moral compass. He ignores the truth.

Facts and science matter. Good decisions should be based on facts and supported by sound scientific theory whenever possible.

President Trump also has demonstrated that he does not fully appreciate public policy matters, including public health, the economy and foreign relations, nor does he seem to want to learn.

While we have had a strong economy during his term, it reminds me of the old expression that it is better to be lucky than smart. Some regulatory reforms have been helpful. But his tax reform was a failure. It didn’t have real long-term value, enriched large corporations and violated the basic principles of good tax reform to be simple, fair, and efficient. In the foreign policy area, there have been some good agreements, but overall, our nation is no longer respected as a leader on world affairs.

You know you're in trouble when your friends talk about you like this. :)

General Comments / Trump's Strokes
« on: September 01, 2020, 06:52:44 PM »
Normally I wouldn't mention this, being basically a rumor right now:

It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate - FAKE NEWS!

The problem is, a friend of mine mentioned that he checked the main stream media outlets, and all their stories about Trump having mini-strokes have bylines after his tweet.  ???

There are reports that Michael Schmidt's new book will talk about Mike Pence being on stand-by to temporarily take over the Presidency when Trump checked into Walter Reed last November, but none of the reports mentioned the reason.  Not even a possible stroke.

So who said it was a stroke?  Why did Trump feel the need to so vehemently deny it?  If it was a stroke, do we, the voters, have a right to know?

I suppose we'll find out more in the coming weeks, but right now, it seems to me that the President doth protest too much. :)

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 01, 2020, 01:27:44 PM »
Here's another good site/article: The Best Way to Vote in Every State.  An extremely comprehensive guide to making sure your ballot gets counted, no matter where in America you live.

Find your state and make sure your vote is counted! (No matter which side of the aisle you stand.)

General Comments / Re: RNC
« on: September 01, 2020, 10:26:03 AM »
Here's a news flash that should surprise no one.

At least three of the people who appeared in the RNC videos did not know they were being interviewed for the convention.

Ms. Patton told a leader of a tenants’ group at the New York City Housing Authority, the nation’s largest, that she was interested in speaking with residents about conditions in the authority’s buildings, which have long been in poor repair.

Four tenants soon assembled in front of a video camera and were interviewed for more than four hours by Ms. Patton herself. Three of the tenants were never told that their interviews would be edited into a two-minute video clip that would air prominently on Thursday night at the Republican National Convention and be used to bash Mayor Bill de Blasio, the three tenants said in interviews on Friday.

“I am not a Trump supporter,” said one of the tenants, Claudia Perez. “I am not a supporter of his racist policies on immigration. I am a first-generation Honduran. It was my people he was sending back...”

Only after the questioning ended were the four tenants told that the interview was for the Republican Party, Ms. Perez said. But she said she was never told that it was for the convention.

Ms. Perez said she demanded to see the edited version of the clip, but no one ever showed it to her. She added that Ms. Quiñones called her minutes before the clip aired on Thursday night to say that it was about to be shown.

And guess who this Ms. Patton was?

Ms. Patton is head of the New York office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and under the Hatch Act is barred from using her government position to engage in political activities.

Of course, the Administration denies these allegations.  But who do you think is lying, the people you heard endorse Trump or the people who work for him? ;)

General Comments / Re: RNC
« on: August 31, 2020, 01:32:51 PM »
Here's a question from David Brin's site.  Maybe someone has the answer.

During the entire RNC, was there ever a tribute to Ronald Reagan?  He was the most popular Republican President in modern times, and the favorite of most Republicans.  It would seem odd that they didn't give some nod to him during the entire convention.

Did anyone notice when they showed a video or such about Reagan during the RNC?

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

What makes you think it was Antifa?

Apparently a militia group called for armed protesters to show up last night.  What makes you think it wasn't one of them?

Fauci said, "I think if carefully done, according to the guidelines, there’s no reason that I can see why that not be the case,” Fauci told ABC News this week. “If you go and wear a mask, if you observe the physical distancing, and don’t have a crowded situation, there’s no reason why shouldn’t be able to do that."

If you haven't noticed, people still are not following the guidelines.  In fact, there is a group of Republican numbskulls who think that wearing masks is an affront to their Rights as Americans, and actively refuse to wear them.

It's a LIE to say that Fauci said it was safe.  IF carefully done, ACCORDING to the guidelines, IF you observe physical distancing (and everyone around you does, too), and DON'T have a crowded situation, then it would be relatively safe.  But would you be willing to donate $100 to the DNC for every polling place around the country in the next election that doesn't fulfill those requirements? ;)

If not, then you are admitting that it won't be safe, and that there is another good reason to vote by mail other than a Democratic scam.  :P

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 26, 2020, 05:54:19 PM »
So while he may talk about not "voting for the lesser evil," he is either lying or has completely changed his principles from what they were a few years ago.

I disagree, he simply found that Trump, and his base, aren't interested in the things he is interested in.

Now BLM and it's ilk? They're all about the race war, and expanded government structures to go about creating that racially stratified society. What isn't there to love on the part of a racist? Oh, let us also not forget it is the Democrats in California that are working to repeal their equal rights provision in their state constitution with no replacement.

What isn't there to love on the part of a racist?  ;D

While racists long for a racially stratified society, they demand that their race is on top.  How is electing the lackey for the first black president supposed to help them?  How is getting someone who support fairness and equal protections for blacks supposed to help them?

Sure, maybe he hopes that Democrats will give all the power to the blacks, blacks will start treating whites like they were treated by whites, and there will be a Helter-Skelter-type race war.  In that case, he's a pin-headed idiot like good old Charlie Manson and his family.  (Does anyone know if Spencer has taken much LSD? ;) )

(BTW, there is a really good documentary on EPIX about Charlie Manson and the Tate-LaBianca murders.  Definitely worth checking out.)

It would be stupid for the racist organizer of the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally to reject the candidate who thought there were "good people on both sides" to the one who is supporting the most vehement anti-racist organizations in the nation.  ::)  The one who has a black VP.  The one who was the VP to a black president.  The one who's party relies on the black vote.  The one who characterized them as "deplorables."

Any person who embraces racists like Spencer, who also thinks that Biden is the "lesser evil," would have enough cognitive dissonance in his head to shake it apart. :)

(And, BTW, regarding the "equal rights provision" in California, remember it was enacted when California was on a bit of an racist roll, and the result of not taking race into account in rewarding contracts resulted in black and minority businesses going from about 30% of all contracts to about 3%, IIRC.  Does that really sound like black businesses are getting an equal shot at contracts? Are you of the opinion that black businesses are that much worse than whites businesses? ;) )

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 25, 2020, 07:15:05 PM »
Let me get this straight.  Blake was wrestling with two officers.  He gets out of their grasp and then walks around the car and gets in.

How do you get out of the grip of two officers intent on getting you to the ground.  Once he gets away, why would those officers, who were so intent on getting him to the ground, allow him to walk around the car and open the car door?  If they thought he was going for a gun, why didn't they pull out their billy clubs?  Why didn't one of them kick the car door shut when he tried to open it?  Why was the strongest physical restraint they performed on him, after trying to wrestle him to the ground, was grab hold of the bottom of his T-shirt?  :o

No, those police officers were not worried about him getting a gun.  They thought, after a half-hearted attempt to grab hold of him, that pulling out their guns and threatening his life was sufficient to get him to stop.  And he was either too mad, too high, too dumb, or too deaf to realize what they were doing.  So he ignored them.  Which left the police no choice but to try to kill him for not bowing to their authority.

Sorry.  There is no way to justify this shooting.  The police were quite satisfied to shoot Blake seven times in the back at close range to get him to comply.  And not because of fear for their lives.  Because not listening to a police order is grounds for immediate execution in Trump's America.  >:(

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 07:01:41 PM »
As me dear mum used to say, iron sharpens iron.  He united racists and white supremacists under his Alt-Right banner.  People that would never vote for a black man for President, much less a white man who worked for a black President nor a black woman for VP.  Apparently his "principles" were OK with them at the time.  And with shouting, "Heil, Trump."  ::)

So while he may talk about not "voting for the lesser evil," he is either lying or has completely changed his principles from what they were a few years ago.

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 05:57:20 PM »
The question they also reflects back on the Democrats as well. Even though the polling doesn't reflect the possibility at this time. If Trump wins both the Popular Vote and the EC in November. Are the Democrats going to accept that result?

How about an EC win without the popular vote? Will Democrats accept that result or are they going to start screaming about Trump cheating and rioting in the streets?

Considering the last time it happened, Democrats accepted the results.  Sure, there were protests almost immediately, and we've kept Trump and his followers under a microscope.  But Trump is in the White House.

Now, if there was obvious, provable cheating that affected the outcome, all bets are off.  I would expect Republicans to do the same.  But it would have to be a very high level and well-proven before a large segment of Democrats rose up in arms.  An unlucky outcome like in 2016 wouldn't do it, IMHO.

Of course, the Democrats haven't been primed yet with someone saying that the only way we could lose is by a rigged election.  We know better. ;)  I'm just not sure about those Republicans who still believe in Trump and everything that he says. :(

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 24, 2020, 02:36:34 PM »
George Floyd wasn't choked to death, he died from a heart attack likely induced by drug use. Lack of care for said heart attack is the closest thing they have to a claim for homicide in regards to his death.

Hearts tend to stop beating when you're being chocked.  :P

Yes, the autopsy listed as "other significant conditions" that "Floyd suffered from heart disease and hypertension, and listed fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use."  But those were not listed as the cause of death.  The asphyxiation was the primary cause of death.  And it was decreed a homicide by the medical examiner.

It's nice to pretend that Floyd just happened to die of a heart attack while a cop kneeled on his neck for seven minutes while Floyd gasped that he couldn't breathe.  But just because the cop didn't know his dangerous behavior might exasperate an existing condition, and he didn't know the guy wasn't lying when he said he couldn't breathe, doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for murdering the guy.  Floyd wouldn't have died then if he wasn't chocked.

That was the ME said.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 24, 2020, 02:21:50 PM »
Wow.  That is an impressive shooting.  Check out the video, about 30 seconds into the report. 

Point-blank range.  The cop was hanging onto the bottom of the guy's T-shirt when the guy tried to get into his car.  He was close enough to bop the guy on the head with his pistol if he had a mind to.  Instead, he decided to turn him into a piece of swiss cheese.

I have to commend the cops for keeping him alive this long.  After seven shots to the torso, I'm amazed he made it to the ICU.  Would you think that at least one of the bullets would have gone through the heart or a major artery or the spine near the neck.   Even if not, he should have been bleeding like a sieve.

But I guess, since they suspected he may have been someone who may have committed a crime, it was necessary.   ::)

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 12:38:22 PM »
Not that I welcome rhetoric suggesting not respecting the results of an election, but this "Trump wants to be a dictator for life" nonsense makes everyone posting it sound like an idiot, sorry WS (not personally attacking you). Not just an idiot, but actually trying to create and stoke fear for the purpose of making people fall in line. It's really bad, both politically but also socially. Encouraging an entire generation of people that saying untrue things because it will yield a good result (generating Trump hate) will be more destructive to the country than any short-term damage a bad President could do.

No offense taken, Fenring.  I am sincerely hoping that I am being paranoid and making a huge mountain out of a molehill.

But Trump keeps doing and saying things that indicate that, if (or when) he loses the next election, he will declare it rigged, a fraud, and null and void.  And since he has no legal leg to stand on (even if the election was rigged and declared void, he would still lose his job come January 20), he would have to call upon extra-legal means to hold his position.  And since he does not have the support of senior military personnel (from the indications that I've seen), that only leaves his followers.

I want everyone, especially his followers, to consider what they will do if he calls for an uprising.  Are they with him?  Against him?  Going to hunker down in their homes and play "Mine Craft" instead? :)  Call it disaster planning. ;)

It is outrageous and unimaginable that a President of the United States would call upon his supporters to try to overthrow the government of the United States.  But has the year 2020 been overall.  And so is the idea that the President would tell his supporters that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged, when it is obvious to the most disinterested observer that he is not wildly popular and could easily lose.  So it is no longer unimaginable.

I don't want anyone to put their lives and livelihoods on the line for Trump.  But he may ask it from you.  And I want everyone to think about what they would do in that possibility.  I don't want to see anyone on this board hurt. :(

General Comments / Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 11:46:48 AM »
At a recent rally in Oshkosh, WI, Trump warned his followers:

We have to win the election. We can’t play games. Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. ... Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.

"The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged."  Trump is right now behind in the polls.  If those polls are correct (and there are a lot of people who are trying their best to make them as accurate as they can), then he will legitimately lose come November.  But if he's convinced himself that he can't lose without the election being rigged, he will call upon his supporters to rise up and defend him and the country (in that order ;) ).

So, I'm curious.  Who's with him?  Who here will rise up and risk their liberty, lives and livelihood to defend Donald Trump's presidency if he is declared the loser in the election?  Who will stand by him in his hour of need?  Because he's already told you that the only way he can lose is if the election is rigged.  And then you are his only hope.

So who's with him?

General Comments / Re: Official Party Platforms
« on: August 24, 2020, 11:19:08 AM »
Well, this thread has suddenly become very one-sided.

The Republican Party has decided not to adopt a platform this year, and instead support whatever Donald Trump wants.


In lieu of a document attempting to define the party’s beliefs and priorities, the RNC simply states that it agrees with everything Trump has done and will do:

WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the
policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the
Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the
President’s America-first agenda;

RESOVLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a
new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention;

So there's no new platform to discuss.  They are just supporting Trump's America-first agenda, which changes by the hour.  :D

So I guess this should be retitled, "Re: Office Party Platform."  ;D

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: August 24, 2020, 10:45:22 AM »
Getting back to the subject, a few GOP ex-congressmen have come out for Biden.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sens. John Warner (R-Va.)
Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.)
Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Texas)
Tom Coleman (R-Mo.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Chris Shays (R-Conn.)
Alan Steelman (R-Texas)
Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.)

It's starting to look like the GOP consists solely of RINOs. :)

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: August 24, 2020, 10:40:59 AM »
Trump's morality comes up in his consistent inability to stay faithful to his wives.

Wrong again. His former wives all support him and call him a "good man." You are exiled from the "Me Too Movement."

Perhaps you should review his sexual exploits, Lambert.  How Marla Maples bragged that Donald gave her "The Best Sex I Ever Had!" when she was his mistress.  How he bragged to a People reporter how he had three other girlfriends a the time.  How he bragged how great his life was while he was cheating with Marla. How Karen McDougal was paid $150,000 by a good friend of Trump's for a story about their affair that was never printed.  How Stormy Daniels was $130,000 to keep quiet about their sex.  How he walked into the Miss Teen America's dressing room while the children were changing.  How 19 women have accused him of sexual harassment.

Need I go on? ;)

But, I guess, since he's a man, and he's rich, and they all throw themselves at him and let you do anything, even grab them by the p**sy, it's OK.  I mean, you wouldn't mind if your minister did these things, would you?  It's only human nature.  Any guy would do it if he could.  Heck, even you would do it given the opportunity, right?

And since neither of his ex-wives complain, why should we?  It's none of our business.  He's only the President of the United States of America.  He only represents you to the world.

He's just as moral as you are, isn't he? ;)

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: August 23, 2020, 11:00:16 AM »
One exchange was recorded after Barry heard her her brother talk about separating migrant children from their parents at the border.

Said Barry: “All he wants to do is appeal to his base. He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”

She continued: “His g*d****ed tweet and lying, oh my God. I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy sh*t.”

At one point Barry said to her niece: “It’s the phoniness of it all. It’s the phoniness and this cruelty. Donald is cruel.”

President Trump’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, recorded without  her knowledge.

I love the irony that Donald Trump, the one Q-Anon reportedly said was about to swoop down and arrest all these high-ranking, famous pedophiles, says, “If I can help save the world from problems, I’m willing to do it — I’m willing to put myself out there.”

You just know he's going to be so much help.  ;D

Well in the case of the Epstein investigations into that material he was the only associate of his who kicked into "What can I do to help?" mode upon learning about what was going on(by being questioned). Which makes it the bigger irony when it comes to people trying to link Epstein to Trump, investigators (and victims) involved in that process have only had good things to say about Trump on that matter.

You're completely missing the irony, Deamon.  For years, Q-Anon has been saying how Trump knows who these pedophiles are, and at any minute is going to have a mass arrest of all of them, and expose to the world the entire conspiracy.

And when a reporter asks him about Q-Anon, he says, "Oh, uh, well, gee, yeah, ah, of course, I'd be willing to help.  Tell me what can I do?"   ::)

I'm just imagining how comforting that is to Q-Anon followers.  It's like Christ coming back to Earth and asking some apocalyptic Christians, "Hey, I'm back.  Is there anything you'd like me to do?"  ;D

I love the irony that Donald Trump, the one Q-Anon reportedly said was about to swoop down and arrest all these high-ranking, famous pedophiles, says, “If I can help save the world from problems, I’m willing to do it — I’m willing to put myself out there.”

You just know he's going to be so much help.  ;D

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: August 20, 2020, 05:07:19 PM »
Speaking of voting mechanisms, if you (or someone you know) wants to know about how to vote by mail on Nov. 3, Represent.US has a page that details on how to go about it.  It has a map of all 50 states.  You click on your state, and it takes you to the entry with deadlines, rules, etc. for your state.  It also provides links to the applications, including some downloadable pdf files you can fill out yourself.  One-stop shopping for your vote-by-mail needs. :)

General Comments / Re: Cops should beware lying about millionaires
« on: August 19, 2020, 07:52:05 PM »
While you are correct that the problems are systematic and widespread, we mustn't forget that they are also not evenly spread.  Some minorities, like blacks, suffer proportionally more than average.

So while it is a problem for all, it is a significantly larger problem for some.  And a significantly smaller problem for others, like, most likely, rich people, although they might disagree... ;)

General Comments / Re: Cops should beware lying about millionaires
« on: August 19, 2020, 06:57:30 PM »
You think this will start a RLM (Rich Lives Matter) movement? :)

At least there will be some professionally-printed signs at the rallies...

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

Oh, that story became more interesting in time. The gun had been used as a prop in a court case the year before and never used since. As part of its use as a prop, the firing pin had been place in the gun backwards. There was no way for that gun to fire a round.

That said, after the police confiscated the gun in question, they logged this fact, and an agent of the prosecutors office had them assemble the gun correctly(firing pin placed into the gun as designed) and then used that to justify pressing charges. IIRC the prosecutors office now has someone being investigated for evidence tampering, among other things.

The prosecutor's office will certainly have to explain why they changed the firing pin, but I don't see how that has much to do with the assault charges, since there was no way the people she was pointing the gun at could know that the gun was disabled.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why the Republicans think a couple brandishing guns deserves to speak at their convention.  ???

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him?  ;D

Not nearly as bad as actively promulgating Russian propaganda, but it does show how utterly clueless our current President is:

“You’ve seen what’s going on in New Zealand? Big surge in New Zealand. It’s terrible. We don’t want that.”

— President Trump, quoted by the Washington Post, after New Zealand reported 22 new coronavirus cases in two days. The United States is currently averaging 50,000 new cases every day.

If someone is about to shoot you, does it matter if the person is doing so because he hates blacks, or because he hates poor people and you are poor because society actively made your parents were poor?  Either way, you're about to be shot because you are black, and the person shooting you hates you.

Your example is more telling than you perhaps intended, because it invokes an adrenaline-filled and reactionary tone to a situation that in real time unfolds over decades. But reacting to it as if it's a bullet heading your way is part of why people seem to have trouble telling the differences between (a) improvement versus total completion of a goal, and (b) underlying causes and visual effects. In both cases if it's a bullet then it doesn't matter, you need to react immediately and with a direct and focused action, right or wrong. If it's a 10-50 year solution type of problem, then reacting fast (right or wrong) is wrong, even though it taps that feel-good button right now. Social media has only exacerbated the 4-year election cycle tendency to look at things only in the short term.

How do you know it is a 10-to-50-solution-type problem?  How do you know there aren't things we can do to solve the problem now, or at least make it nearly solved?

You know who most strongly believes it is a 10 to 50 year problem?  Those who don't want it to be solved.  Then they can tell you, "oh, well, it's just a few more years out..."  >:(

But to the person who is having the problem, to whom the injustice is happening to, it is an immediate problem.  Why should anyone tell him that he has to wait to get justice?  Justice delayed is justice denied.

Maybe we have to wait 10 to 50 years for the problem to be solved.  But that in no way means we must not do everything we can now to mitigate the problem.

Is it really so much better to want to keep poor people away instead of colored people? ;)

Why does it have to be better or worse, why can't it both be bad? Do you take hurricane insurance when you're in earthquake country, because 'what does it matter which way my house was destroyed'?

That's the point--they are both bad.

So why argue that it is actually suburban people disliking poor people living in their neighborhoods and not suburban people disliking blacks and minorities living in their neighborhoods?  What is the substantive difference between these two nearly-equally bad reasons, that have an equal affect on minorities?

But is there really much difference between classism and racism?

Racism was used over the decades to make sure certain races (blacks, hispanics, etc.) were kept in the lower economic levels, which is most likely the primary reason large fractions of these minorities are still in those levels.

That the outward effect may be momentarily overlapping has nothing to do with whether they're the same thing. If classism is at the heart of it then the rich wouldn't want the poor around regardless of their skin color, and would take concerted efforts to keep anyone down who is already down. If racism is in play then these people wouldn't approve of black neighbors whether they are rich or poor. Not saying these don't both happen, but saying they may be the same thing is specious, unless you subscribe to the new far-left playbook where nothing is relevant for discussion other than final effects. Under that rulebook, if more blacks are poor than whites proportionately then that IS racism, regardless of any other considerations or motivations. But for most people, it does involve both intention and personal outlook and actions, and as such I think you will find that hatred of the poor is quite different from hatred of members of different ethnic backgrounds.

If the outcome is the same (blacks are being held down) and the basic reason is the same (because they are poor, which is because they are black), then it is specious to argue there is any significant difference between the two.

If someone is about to shoot you, does it matter if the person is doing so because he hates blacks, or because he hates poor people and you are poor because society actively made your parents were poor?  Either way, you're about to be shot because you are black, and the person shooting you hates you.

Is it really so much better to want to keep poor people away instead of colored people? ;)

But is there really much difference between classism and racism?

Racism was used over the decades to make sure certain races (blacks, hispanics, etc.) were kept in the lower economic levels, which is most likely the primary reason large fractions of these minorities are still in those levels.

Classism keeps people in their current economic levels.  Which means that blacks, hispanics, etc. are still being kept in the lowest levels.

So while discrimination may not be occurring just because they are part of certain minorities, they are still being discriminated against, and because they or their parents were part of those certain minorities.  The effect is the same, and perpetuates the same thing.

A rose by any other name...

General Comments / Re: The Squad
« on: August 12, 2020, 04:06:19 PM »
Probably something like a propaganda machine, like Fox News or Brietbart. ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33