Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(07-31-2016, 08:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-30-2016, 11:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Wikipedia has a dictionary, and it has a definition for the word hit as a verb.

hit ‎(third-person singular simple present hits, present participle hitting, simple past [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hat or (rare, dialectal) het, past participle [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hitten)
  1. (heading, physical) To strike.
    1. (transitive) To administer a blow to, directly or with a weapon or missile.  [quotations ▼]One boy hit the other.
    2. (transitive) To come into contact with forcefully and suddenly.  [quotations ▼]The ball hit the fence.
    3. (transitive, slang) To kill a person, usually on the instructions of a third party. Hit him tonight and throw the body in the river.
    4. (transitive, military) To attack, especially amphibiously. If intelligence had been what it should have been, I don't think we'd ever have hit that island.
The third meaning is particularly ominous.

Ah, but you are assuming the use of English.  Every once in a while in political discussion on the net, you get Humpty Dumpty linguistics.

Lewis Carroll Wrote:"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
 Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
 "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

If someone makes an assumption, such as Humpty does in the above example, that he is the Master, no truth or fact matters except the proclamations of the Master..  Always keep this in mind when dealing with wannabe Masters and you'll get along fine.  Smile

I don't know whether Donald Trump even understands the possible meanings of what he says. Contrast Sarah Palin, prone to create such a neologism as "refudiate" (which does not pass my spell checker as the infamous "normalcy" of Warren G. Harding), a warning sign as much for suspect words as for spelling errors and tpyos) or using a word in an unorthodox way (as in "Barack Obama pals with terrorists"). Is the word salad of of Donald Trump more sophisticated than the word salad of Sarah Palin, or does he not understand the significance of some of his word choices? At least we all understand what Sarah Palin meant with the effort to blend the words "refute" and "repudiate", and we can figure out what Sarah Palin means when she uses the word "pal" as a verb.

Verbal integrity is an essential part of a minimal standard of honesty. If one is to use a word in a way that has multiple meanings with significance to someone else then one must demonstrate which meaning applies to that word at that time. Then, another important part of  the minimal standard of honesty, one must act in a way consistent with the meaning that one has expressed.

...Lewis Carroll was not only the author of two of the greatest works of the childhood canon of literature, but also a superb mathematician... and logician. His "Humpty Dumpty" is, of course, a dangerous liar. Lewis Carroll is unsurpassed in teaching an important lesson to children. If uses a word in a way in which it has two or more different meanings and one of those can be extremely hurtful, then it is up to the person who uses that word to make clear which meaning that word has.  Donald Trump obviously does not mean that he is going to slap his opponents and critics in the face. Neither is he going to give someone a forceful strike as in a block or tackle in football (he is obviously too old and not in shape to do that). Military force upon a military target is obviously never a one-man task today. So guess what that leaves! Al Capone used hired killers on an impromptu basis. Leaders without responsibility use a secret police like BOSS, the Mukhabarat, SAVAK, Stasi, KGB, or the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. (I made some edits to Wikipedia to put the latter in the same league as the Gestapo and the OGPU -- "secret police" -- and those have stuck). Yes, America has some precedent for a secret police, even if not at the federal level. The FBI is unlikely to do such dirty work for the President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, the Supreme Court, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff; it needs some violation of federal law (like occupation or destruction of federal property) for it to act. Should Donald Trump try to form some federal law enforcement agency or use an existing one to enforce his will in violation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, then we have a Constitutional Crisis.

One can lie using any language. Just think of the nightmare of 1984  in which the vile regime of Oceania has turned practically every noun, verb, adjective, or adverb into a lie as "Newspeak" and made any communication other than command meaningless. Were I to imagine a sequel  to 1984  in which people reacquire their freedom, then much of the cure is the abandonment of Newspeak (that word passes my spellchecker) for practically anything else. Classical Latin, Old English, Cherokee, Korean, Quechua, or Esperanto would all suffice -- but not the English barbarized into something practically useless in a free society with an active culture.
CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.
(07-30-2016, 08:15 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.
Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

There's a huge gap between calling your opponent unfit for office (see the 1st Amendment) and  'hitting' back that you will put your opponent in jail once you come to power.  We are NOT a banana republic.

The fact that you can't grasp that difference clearly indicates that you are a sheeple wanting to be ruled by Comrade Trump on the behalf of Tsar Putin.  It is people like you that cause democracies to die.
We are on the path to becoming a banana republic. All one has to do is look at the growing divide in your party. The right ain't socialist dude. The left is about half socialist and more in tune with the views of the world. You better wise up. The working class Democrats are starting to move over to the Republican side. The old uppity Republicans ain't happy but who cares. It's people like you who offer people one viable choice (your choice) that causes democracies to die. Don't blame me, I'm not dumb enough to attach free college, free health insurance and $15 an hour wage to a poor vote. How long do you hope this blind stupidity is going to last? Let me guess, long enough for you die and not be around to experience the ickiness when the split begins between the haves and have not's.
(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?
The Republicans are also to blame for the fifty people slaughtered in a nightclub, because they put the guns in the hands of the madman with their permissive gun policies. The Democrats certainly could not have deported an American citizen just because he was a Muslim. To suggest otherwise is to change this country into Saudi Arabia.
(07-31-2016, 07:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]We are on the path to becoming a banana republic. All one has to do is look at the growing divide in your party. The right ain't socialist dude. The left is about half socialist and more in tune with the views of the world. You better wise up. The working class Democrats are starting to move over to the Republican side. The old uppity Republicans ain't happy but who cares. It's people like you who offer people one viable choice (your choice) that causes democracies to die. Don't blame me, I'm not dumb enough to attach free college, free health insurance and $15 an hour wage to a poor vote. How long do you hope this blind stupidity is going to last? Let me guess, long enough for you die and not be around to experience the ickiness when the split begins between the haves and have not's.

The split is long since here, because we DON'T have the things you oppose and call socialist, like free college for the middle class, health insurance (which is not free but should be reasonable cost) and a livable, non-poverty, non-slave minimum wage of $15 an hour. Banana Republics are those where the rich own everything. That is what your policies lead to, and have been leading to in America for 36 years and counting. Reaganomics has got to be put out to pasture; the sooner the better.
(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.
CNN reports on John McCain: Trump defamed Khan, does not represent GOP

John McCain Wrote:While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us...  I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.

As most everyone here should know, I am not the greatest fan of unravelling era Republican values and disagreed firmly with McCain's 'stay the course' position during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Still, there are certain aspects of recent Republican values that I can applaud and there are places where many Republicans and Democrats are not at odds.  I am pleased to see so many Republicans putting basic American values ahead of partisan politics at this point.
(07-31-2016, 10:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.
I'm of the mind that we should all be viewed as equals and treated as equals. I don't believe in social preference or special rules being granted to a particular group or race of people. I'm ok with the fact that Tom Brady was born (blessed) with the skills and personality to be one of the greatest quarterbacks. Who brought them up, so to speak? Was it Trump or The Democratic party that you are associated with? Who voted to invade Iraq and send their son into harms way? Was it Trump or Hillary Clinton? My attitude towards gays is that they are equals who are entitled to the same rights and protections as me. I don't view gays or Muslims in general as people who are some how exempt from criticism and the laws and rules that are applicable to me. I don't view Muslims as being more special than me and more entitled than me or a Jew or a Catholic for that matter. I don't automatically feel bad about blacks because they're black. I don't automatically feel bad about Muslims because they're Muslims. You are free to criticize Catholics about the actions of wayward priests. What's so special about those two Muslims? Are they more special than the mother who lost her son during a terrorist attack in Libya? Certainly they must be intelligent enough to understand the reason Trump wants to reduce the flow of Muslims at this time. I assume they've seen the same attacks as I have lately. I assume the man is pretty smart (well educated) based on his ability to speak and articulate his liberal views to you, me and the person who represents the policies that he obviously doesn't like.
Refugees to the USA are already tightly vetted and restricted. Trump is using a non-issue to get folks like Classic Xer to vote for him.
John Oliver mocks BOTH sides, as only he can.



(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.  Wink  I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.
(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.  Wink  I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.
Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.
(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.
Hmmm... Lot's a confidence in a Hillery win, I see.  So... let's get to some nitty gritty shall we?

Herewith are Rag's predicted appointments:

Secretary of Treasury :  Mr. Looten Plunder.   Noted for achieving the appointment by Democratic Party acclamation due to his ownership of the staff of Republican heads.


[Image: Dontdrinkthewater142.jpg]


Secretary of Energy - Duke Nukem  .. As we all know, Mr. Nukem loves the higher end of the electromagnetic spectrum [X-Rays, Gamma Rays] and those assorted particles [alpha,beta, and positrons]
[Image: Deadlyransom138.jpg]

Since we're all PC now , here's the secretary of Education

[Image: Heatwave45.jpg]

Mad scientists need love as well.   Big Grin

Here's her puter, MAL
[Image: Deadlyransom05.jpg]



With all the issues of not enough consumption we have the ultimate expert - Department of Commerce - Hoggish Greedly
[Image: Deadseas50.jpg]


Verminous Skumm - Secretary of Defense.  Biowarfare strategiest is his forte . 
[Image: Rainofterror26.jpg]


Department of the Interior - Sly Sludge.   Just use active volcanoes as trash incinerators. Sheer genius.

[Image: Volcano122.jpg]


Watch this post for updates!  Awaiting more info from:






Edit 1.  Crystal ball is getting clearer.


Press Secretary - Barney :  Obvious has prior experience!

[Image: pictured-barney-the-dinosaur-of-barney-f...d141298668]
(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

If one buys into the Reagan memes, that the government is so flawed and corrupt that all it does is failure, that low tax small government is the way to go, you can see how Trump's projections might seem meaningful and potentially accurate.

Those buying into the progressive ideas are echoing the New Deal notions that coming together from the common good is beneficial.  They want a return to the rewarding policies of the 1950s and 1960s when the crisis values of working together for the common man made America great.

I see you locked into the Reagan Memes.  Not surprising.  They've been hammered home for decades now, and voting for tax cuts gives such an immediate return that it's tempting.  Thus, you're going to stick with the Reagan Memes and project the future as if they were true.

But the Reagan Memes have been driven way way beyond the point of diminishing return.  There can be governments that try to do too much, and governments that try to do to little, and we've been pushing way too far in the too little direction during this extended unravelling.  Time to move back to the center.  I expect that if we do start moving back to an effective engaged government, we will move too far.  Any time a party takes control it will push it's memes to far and too long.  While its a concern, it might take us a decade plus to reach that point.  Believe it or not, I half expect to start pushing the Reagan memes myself many years in the future.  Leave any party in power too long and they will take their ideas too far.  If the S&H cycles or something like them continues, another unravelling will eventually come, and Reagan's time may return.  For the moment, though, we have unravelled quite enough, thank you.

Meanwhile, Republican borrow and spend economics has been discredited.  Bush 41's career died with 'It's the economy, stupid', and Bush 43 drove the economy into collapse.  Republican Bush 43 neo-con serial unilateral preemptive nation building has been discredited as a foreign policy.  The troops are home and won't be going abroad in numbers at any time soon.  Nixon's southern strategy's success has been diminishing.  With an ever more diverse electorate and increasing tolerance, playing the race card in Nixon's vicious hateful way has become a more desperate and risky ploy.  Trump is giving it one more go.  We'll see where it takes him.  Obama Care has shown that big government projects can benefit the common man.  The Republican projections that it would fail proved false.  Obama Care has been a positive for Hillary.

If one has one's eyes open, recent history says a lot to suggest Trump is playing to a diminished remnant who are still clinging to the unravelling world view and values.  That diminished remnant is still mighty.  It is not to be ignored.  It is, however, diminished and diminishing.  

We look at the world through different lenses.  To me it seems like you are living in an echo chamber.  You can't see the blatantly obvious.  I suspect you see me exactly the same way.  This is human nature.  It is easy to see what reaffirms one's values and hard to see reality when it conflicts with one's values.  Thus, meaningful conversations between partisans on opposite extremes are rare to impossible.  It seems easier for a human to pull out a gun and a bomb to fight for one's principles than it is to honestly reevaluate one's principles.  Destruction is often embraced sooner than Truth.

In 2008 and 2012 on these forums, as the elections approached, the partisans on both sides got ever more partisan.  Most were projecting victory for their own values and party and heaped scorn on the other guys.  We seem to be falling into that rut again.  In the last few months since the new forums opened I've gotten drawn into pushing the Blue partisan points.  I'm not sure how necessary this is.  There are enough Blue partisans about without one more.  Still, I like to think I put a different if still left handed spin on things.

But I don't know how much more is left to be said this side of November.  November will bring a reality check that even the most partisan can't ignore.
Oh dear.  Now Trump is taking on fire marshals.  It seems he is getting into the habit of hiring halls insufficient to handle the number of people one of his events is apt to draw.  Any fire marshal that attempts to enforce the fire codes is presumed to be acting improperly.

Putting his followers at risk so he can save money by hiring smaller halls?  Yep.  Demonizing first responders trying to enforce the law and protect the public?  Sounds like Trump to me.
(08-01-2016, 06:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh dear.  Now Trump is taking on fire marshals.  It seems he is getting into the habit of hiring halls insufficient to handle the number of people one of his events is apt to draw.  Any fire marshal that attempts to enforce the fire codes is presumed to be acting improperly.

Putting his followers at risk so he can save money by hiring smaller halls?  Yep.  Demonizing first responders trying to enforce the law and protect the public?  Sounds like Trump to me.

He's also handing out more tickets than there are seats in the hall.
Seth takes down Trump during maybe his worst week yet.



(08-01-2016, 11:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 10:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.
I'm of the mind that we should all be viewed as equals and treated as equals. I don't believe in social preference or special rules being granted to a particular group or race of people. I'm ok with the fact that Tom Brady was born (blessed) with the skills and personality to be one of the greatest quarterbacks. Who brought them up, so to speak? Was it Trump or The Democratic party that you are associated with? Who voted to invade Iraq and send their son into harms way? Was it Trump or Hillary Clinton? My attitude towards gays is that they are equals who are entitled to the same rights and protections as me. I don't view gays or Muslims in general as people who are some how exempt from criticism and the laws and rules that are applicable to me. I don't view Muslims as being more special than me and more entitled than me  or a Jew or a Catholic for that matter. I don't automatically feel bad about blacks because they're black. I don't automatically feel bad about Muslims because they're Muslims. You are free to criticize Catholics about the actions of wayward priests. What's so special about those two Muslims? Are they more special than the mother who lost her son during a terrorist attack in Libya? Certainly they must be intelligent enough to understand the reason Trump wants to reduce the flow of Muslims at this time. I assume they've seen the same attacks as I have lately. I assume the man is pretty smart (well educated) based on his ability to speak and articulate his liberal views to you, me and the person who represents the policies that he obviously doesn't like.

What sanctimonious horseshXt.  Sick

It begs the question - "but would you let your sister marry one?"

Dude, you are supporting a Presidential candidate that wants to us a religious test to differentiate people in a governing process (i.e immigration policies).  This is not just against one of the founding principles of our Nation, it is against, debatably, THE founding principle of our Nation. 

The fact that you can't grasp that, and instead offer up a mush of horseshXt, lays complete waste to any notion that there needs to be a better understanding of each other's values and coming up with rational compromise.  No, instead, from a political perspective, we need to beat the bloody pulp out of your kin and cripple you forever in having ANY national political power.

I think you all sense that inevitability, and that is the primary reason you clutch so hard to the 2nd Amendment and disregard all the rest.
(08-01-2016, 03:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-01-2016, 01:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-01-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you catch Fox News Sunday? They had an interview with H.R. Clinton then a panel. Money quote from the panel was of all people Karl Rove, pointing out that undecided GOP voters are the highest percentage since 1992. There will be many Republicans voting if not a straight Dem ticket, at least for Clinton, in November. Meanwhile: A decent number of Indy voters voting for Clinton is an inevitability at this point.

I'm afraid Faux News isn't one of my primary sources.  Wink  I hadn't caught the Rove thing.  Still, what you say doesn't surprise.  I for one don't expect to see a lot of Republicans voting a straight Democratic ticket.  I see Trump as a rogue politician who is more crashing the party on a one time basis than permanently changing it.  

Still, a lot of us have been thinking that the United States needs a new political alignment.  This might mean establishment parties changing positions or fading, opposition parties shifting to embrace those fleeing the sinking ship, and new parties rising to fill vacuums.  In Highlander fiction there is the saying that only one immortal can remain.  In American politics, there are generally two political parties that dominate.

Trump could possibly be forcing the split.  He is pulling out the most devout followers of the Nixon southern strategy and Reagan's unravelling small government - low taxes - all the government tries to do fails memes.  Obama has established that the government health care program can work, and that a more nuanced approach to foreign policy is an improvement on the Bush 43 era neo con preemptive serial unilateral nation building.  Democratic stewardship of the economy under Clinton 42 and Obama 44 has recently clearly done better than under Bushes 41 and 43.  

It even plays on the level of tone and feel.  Carter spoke of the national malaise, how the United States was faltering.  It was true, but saying so wasn't the sort of thing that wins popularity contests and votes.  Reagan came in all optimistic and patriotic and kicked butt.  Today Trump is talking about failure and fading, while the Democrats are talking change, hope and waving American flags with enthusiasm.

Yet, the Nixon - Reagan values remain strong in parts of the country.  I don't expect them to lose their position in the big two quite yet. 

Seems to me it's too early to say whether Tump's faction will become dominant over the Establishment Republicans and whether many Republicans who might well choose Hillary over The Donald might stick with the Democrats depending on how well Hillary does in office.  Still, quite a few have been wondering about how the major parties might realign.  We might possibly be seeing the beginnings of it, possibly the core of it.

If so, it might speak to the possibility of regeneracy.
Trump has been talking about the fading and failure that we'll be experiencing as a nation in the future  unless we make certain changes now. He's right. We all see the decline that's coming. Progressives view the decline as their opportunity to rise above and impose their values. If one is willing to ignore and support ignoring, one who is judging must assume that is your goal.

Your problem is you are confusing your decline in political power with the decline of the Nation.  Yes, there are problems of income inequality on the domestic front and a more complex world on the foreign front.  BUT, not only do the problems not add up to anything close to the USA in decline, those problems can only be made worse by what you all have to offer - that is fundamentally why YOU ALL are in decline, not the rest of us.

Bye-bye, and don't let the screen door hit you in the ass as you leave.