The Trump Presidency Ocho :: It Can't Go On. A.K.A. We All Gotta Duck / When The Shit Hits the Fan

But that asks you to believe the logic your given by a narcissist and serial liar. This is what bothers me the most about independents like you and Stanger (let's pretend he is independent for now) along with this guy in the rugby chatroom.

The Rugby guy distrusts government so questions the validity of the FISA and that Pappa D would just get drunk and run his mouth.

Stanger believes it is bad policy and a reluctance to change bad policy and not an inherent cruelty despite it being the dictionary level definition when it comes to child separation.

Now you/reason mag with the disproportionate response to a drone.

Why are you giving this administration the benefit of the doubt regarding something logical and thought out. Of course this is disproportionate but is the treatment of Asylum seekers proportionate to the actual situation? What or when has this administration an ability to be normal and make a normal call?

So pardon me when I don't believe him and I tell reason mag to ******** off. If they have been covering Trump they should know that yes he arrived at the right decision but based on his explanation and track record, he is full of it.

 

But it turns out they have the power to stop one...

 

We passed 10,000. Aint it time for a new, even Trumpier thread?

Trump Presidency Nein - What's Taking Those Big Macs So Long?

 

Your first two paragraphs are barely comprehensible outside of the ad hominems, but I'm pretty sure you aren't in a position to determine "disproportionate" coverage of a publication you would never read in a million years.

So ******** off yourself.

 

Aren't they mostly just speculations about what might happen under certain circumstances? More to the point don't all of us do that at one point or another on these boards?

Now, whether they turn out to be right depends on, a) if the criteria we specified are met, or, b) whether something unforeseen happens and the underlying position changes.

But speculation is just part of political discourse, isn't it?

You mentioned the 'tea partiers' but the problem with them was that, for example, they were saying that Obama WAS carrying out 'socialist policies' which was flatly wrong.

That's not speculation... that's just lying.

 

No, you're not. You have received evidence from ceezmad contrary to the belief you express, and continue to express it anyway.

Come on, man. Stop with this and start thinking again.

 

True. But the problem with the right's discourse goes well beyond lying. The larger problem is that by inventing conspiracies, it opens the door for an outright fraud like Trump, who can peddle inventions because the right's conspiracy theories have destroyed the ability/desire of GOP voters to appreciate and value facts.

For example, the right-wing media constantly suggested that the government invented economic statistics during the Obama administration. That CPI was a manipulated figure, and job growth, etc. This talk disappeared entirely the day that Trump was elected, and the left did not take up the charge, because the left doesn't do that sort of conspiracy talk.

Such deceptions make people stupid and mean. It makes them vulnerable to the blandishments of tyrants. That is the true evil of the GOP.

 

Well, that's an interesting point.

As you say Kansas was, (in terms of political discourse), put on the map* by Frank's book but maybe that simple fact made the dem-inclined part of the state think, 'We've become a punch-line for idiocy and lack of political engagement'. They also must have seen the state's finances drifting further and further off course.

Those 2 facts, (together with Jitty's and other people's best 'Chicken Little' impression ), meant that they reconsidered and went out and voted against the tea party silly sods who were still convinced the other way.

I think the nub of the issue is we have to continue to tell people what can happen if they don't act... then they will


* As much as a state with less than 3m people can be

 

Actually, just today, Reason.com posted an article that is pretty good at calling out a current trend on the right, namely, those who are envisioning a "post-liberal consensus" future.

The Dead Consensus manifesto leans heavily on hopelessly vague generalities like, "We stand with the American citizen" and "We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence." The manifesto has a distinctive vibe, but it's not exactly a to-do list. {Sohrab} Ahmari's anti-{David} French essay argues for "[fighting] the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good." Ah, yes—not only the common good but also the Highest Good. Surely that won't be too difficult to determine. Everyone knows and agrees on exactly what that is, and why it deserves to be capitalized. ​

​

Ahmari is a conservative most famous for for that line in bold, which has literally emboldened those on the right who view themselves as under siege. Reason is not down with them.

What he and the post-liberals like him want is a popular culture shorn of the images and ideas and lifestyles they deem wrong for society, or just plain don't like. Which helps explain why First Things editor Matthew Schmitz, in defending Ahmari's worldview, chided French for watching and referring to "an explicit TV series, Game of Thrones." This isn't a dispute about public funding for libraries; it's about casting scorn on forms of cultural expression that the post-liberals regard as ugly and indecent. It's an argument that some forms of expression cross the line of social acceptability.

Combine this with their stated willingness to use the force of government to achieve their ends and their distaste for individual autonomy, and it becomes clear that much of what they are after is a kind of soft censorship, in which the post-liberals use state power to discourage, if not actively suppress, disfavored forms of expression for political, religious, and personal ends. It's about controlling what people say. ​

​

As my signature suggests, I disagree with people at Reason on such things as funding for public libraries (I'm in one as we speak), but we have a common opponent on this one.

That is what the post-liberal right wants, perhaps more than anything else: To control the venues for speech, both public and private, and to discourage and punish lifestyles and ideas and expressive acts they view as unpleasant or depraved or inappropriate or immoral, using the force of the government if necessary. They are pursuing this campaign under the usual social-conservative guise of helping families and protecting children and restoring decency to an immodest and vulgar nation…presumably with someone modest and tasteful, like Donald Trump—who Ahmari praised as someone whose "instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion"—as president. This isn't about families, not really. It's about power.

The post-liberal worldview is priggish and intolerant, an ideology rooted in a moralizing authoritarianism. For it is predicated on the assumption—the assumption that the censorious always make—that the world would be better if people weren't free to speak and live peacefully as they choose, because they, the enlightened few, know best. ​

​

I switched my "out-of-bubble" routine to checking Reason regularly instead of The American Conservative because the latter has become increasingly hysterical and convinced that they are being oppressed and in danger of being wiped out.

That's pretty frightening. Reason is almost never hysterical in that way.

 

If ceezmad has evidence of what we'll know in a year, why the hell isn't he a billionaire from lottery tickets and putting a million dollars on Leicester City a few years back?

 

I have no idea what this means.

And you have no grasp on what I believe.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-not-appropriate-for-megan-rapinoe-to-protest

"President Trump on Monday said he does not think it's appropriate for Megan Rapinoe, a co-captain of the U.S. women's soccer team, to protest during the national anthem."

""I think a lot of it also has to do with the economics," Trump said. "I mean who draws more, where is the money coming in. I know that when you have the great stars like [Portugal’s Cristiano] Ronaldo and some of these stars … that get paid a lot of money, but they draw hundreds of thousands of people."

"But I haven’t taken a position on that at all," he added. "I’d have to look at it.""

 

How do you know he isn't?

ceezmad, for 100 million I'll stop telling people how rich you are.

 

Trump Preisdency Nein - No No No No No

 

You're the worst proponent of Libertarianism imaginable.

 

Signs on the unlocked doors “ Free Candy This Way!”

 

BUTBUTBUT POT-SMOKING RETHUGLICANS!!!!!!!

 

You're not the audience. You're entirely too convinced of your own ideas of it to bother with swaying you.

 

No, see, everyone here is utterly qualified to tell you what you believe. It's their Gift.

 

The party of family values.....contd

“Federal Prosecutors have accused Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) of improperly using campaign funds to pursue numerous romantic affairs with congressional aides and lobbyists,” Politico reports.

“Hunter’s wife has pleaded guilty and agreed earlier this month to cooperate with prosecutors.”

 

You're right. Most here aren't. But see how Wankler did it above and learn something. Your natural skunk-like toxicity turns off anyone who may be receptive.

 

Wankler is expressly NOT a libertarian.

Also, having posted in this ********ing cesspit with the likes of you for years, I come by that "toxicity" pretty honestly given how ********ing "toxic" this place is regarding non-orthodox Prog-ism.

 

We know @American Brummie isn't on Hunter's defense team...

Hunter’s attorneys took an unusual tack, explicitly arguing that their client should be tried in a place where more voters cast ballots for President Donald Trump in 2016.

“As President Trump’s first and most arduous supporter, it is hard not to see how a juror would be predisposed to cast their vote based on their politics,” Hunter’s lawyers wrote. “Hillary Clinton beat Donald J. Trump in San Diego County by 56.1% to 38.2%.”​

​

 

@American Brummie

There's no high road. There never was. The GOP forces everyone to fight in slime, and if you don't wanna fight in slime, you should prepare to watch everyone else lose whatever's left of anything we value.