Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

Scott Pelley asked that question (anchorman at CBS News). I don't know why they wouldn't have voted. Maybe a few of the few young violent ones didn't, but most of the protesters were just regular folks of all ages, and of course they voted for Hillary.

[Odin]

(11-15-2016, 12:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Three questions for protesters:

1) Did you vote?

2) If yes to #1, did you vote for President?

3) If yes to #2, who did you vote for?

It's important to note that in many states people with a felony on their record can't vote, and this is often becomes a de-facto way of disenfranchising minority voters due to racist policing.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 03:58 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 12:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Three questions for protesters:

1) Did you vote?

2) If yes to #1, did you vote for President?

3) If yes to #2, who did you vote for?

It's important to note that in many states people with a felony on their record can't vote, and this is often becomes a de-facto way of disenfranchising minority voters due to racist policing.

Yes indeed, and one report also says that eligible non-white voters were stopped from voting in Scott Walker's Wisconsin because they didn't have the proper ID; more than enough to swing the state to the Trumpie. I don't know to what extent that's true. But the voting rights act has been eviscerated in many middle and southern US states and that along with gerrymandering is helping to keep America in the lap of the plutocrats. But of course, that's no excuse for how the vast majority of people who could vote, voted. And that's how we got the Supreme Court we have, and the gerrymandering that we have, and the state governments we have, etc.; people voted it in.

[Copperfield]

(11-15-2016, 03:58 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 12:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Three questions for protesters:

1) Did you vote?

2) If yes to #1, did you vote for President?

3) If yes to #2, who did you vote for?

It's important to note that in many states people with a felony on their record can't vote, and this is often becomes a de-facto way of disenfranchising minority voters due to racist policing.

It's also fairly irrelevant. The government has always set limitations on who can vote and why. It was never and has never been about democracy. If it had been then no one would have won in a landslide victory.

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone either. No one always wins. But that's because it was never about the people choosing leadership but instead it was all about a system designed to legitimize the leadership that already runs that particular system of control. Wanting to believe it's somehow about disenfranchisement is just another way they keep you outraged and as a result, voting to legitimize them.

[Eric the Green]

Trump is getting a "fresh start." How is that going? Obama is giving the con-man some pointers.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:58 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 12:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Three questions for protesters:

1) Did you vote?

2) If yes to #1, did you vote for President?

3) If yes to #2, who did you vote for?

It's important to note that in many states people with a felony on their record can't vote, and this is often becomes a de-facto way of disenfranchising minority voters due to racist policing.

It's also fairly irrelevant. The government has always set limitations on who can vote and why. It was never and has never been about democracy. If it had been then no one would have won in a landslide victory.

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone either. No one always wins. But that's because it was never about the people choosing leadership but instead it was all about a system designed to legitimize the leadership that already runs that particular system of control. Wanting to believe it's somehow about disenfranchisement is just another way they keep you outraged and as a result, voting to legitimize them.

Funny though, when given that choice officially on the ballot, it doesn't do very well. But I guess it has won a few times. In Nevada you can go vote that you're not voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_These_Candidates

[Eric the Green]

I wish President Trump failure
on November 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM, updated November 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index....ilure.html
By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON -- The people chose Hillary Clinton. But it's the electoral vote that counts, not the popular vote, so Donald Trump will be president. And no, I'm not over it.

No one should be over it. No one should pretend that Trump will be a normal president. No one should forget the bigotry and racism of his campaign, the naked appeals to white grievance, the stigmatizing of Mexicans and Muslims. No one should forget the jaw-dropping ignorance he showed about government policy both foreign and domestic. No one should forget the vile misogyny. No one should forget the mendacity, the vulgarity, the ugliness, the insanity. None of this must ever be normalized in our politics.

The big protests that have followed Trump's election should be no surprise. You can't spend all those months trashing our nation's values and then expect everyone to join you in a group hug. Trump made the bed in which he now must lie.

How did the unthinkable happen? Is Trump, like Brexit, part of some world-sweeping populist wave? Are the Rust Belt hinterlands in open rebellion? Was Clinton just a spectacularly flawed candidate? Did FBI Director James Comey boost Trump over the top? Did too many anti-Trump voters stay home out of complacency?

There is evidence to support all of those theories. But the urgent question isn't why, it's what now.

If a normal Republican had been elected, I could say the polite and socially acceptable thing, something like, "I didn't support So-and-So but he will be my president, too, and I wish him success." But I cannot wish Trump success in rounding up and deporting millions of people or banning Muslims from entering the country or reinstituting torture as an instrument of U.S. policy. In these and other divisive or cruel or unwise initiatives, I wish him failure.

I do hope he succeeds in avoiding some kind of amateurish foreign policy blunder that puts American lives or vital national interests at risk. And let me be clear that I am not questioning his legitimacy as president. When the results are certified and the Electoral College casts its votes, Trump will be the nation's duly chosen leader, ridiculous though that may be.

But he has not earned our trust or hope. Rather, he has earned the demonstrations that erupted in cities across the country. He has earned relentless scrutiny by journalists, whom he shamelessly made into scapegoats during the campaign, and he has earned the constant vigilance of the public he now must serve........

[Copperfield]

(11-15-2016, 06:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 06:17 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:58 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 12:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Three questions for protesters:

1) Did you vote?

2) If yes to #1, did you vote for President?

3) If yes to #2, who did you vote for?

It's important to note that in many states people with a felony on their record can't vote, and this is often becomes a de-facto way of disenfranchising minority voters due to racist policing.

It's also fairly irrelevant. The government has always set limitations on who can vote and why. It was never and has never been about democracy. If it had been then no one would have won in a landslide victory.

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone either. No one always wins. But that's because it was never about the people choosing leadership but instead it was all about a system designed to legitimize the leadership that already runs that particular system of control. Wanting to believe it's somehow about disenfranchisement is just another way they keep you outraged and as a result, voting to legitimize them.

Funny though, when given that choice officially on the ballot, it doesn't do very well. But I guess it has won a few times. In Nevada you can go vote that you're not voting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_These_Candidates

Of course not. The act itself of going to vote is a legitimization of the system in that there is an implication that if you vote, you have to accept the results (even if it's grudging acceptance). You can be unhappy with the result. You can even be disgusted with the result. But you still consented to the ultimate result by casting your vote (any vote). By voting, you consent to the system as it has been designed. Now that you have given your consent to the system, you have legitimized everything it does in your name. Theft, pillage, murder. You own it. You didn't abstain.

Those who did? They have the voice to complain now. Dissent, not consent, is the most powerful of human statements.

[Mikebert]

Copperfield
[quote pid='13075' dateline='1479251825']
Of course not. The act itself of going to vote is a legitimization of the system in that there is an implication that if you vote, you have to accept the results (even if it's grudging acceptance). You can be unhappy with the result. You can even be disgusted with the result. But you still consented to the ultimate result by casting your vote (any vote). By voting, you consent to the system as it has been designed. Now that you have given your consent to the system, you have legitimized everything it does in your name. Theft, pillage, murder. You own it. You didn't abstain.
[/quote]

And if you abstain you still consent.  To stay is the consent. To not consent requires that one leave or stage a coup/revolution.

[playwrite]

Breaking News!

FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States
 http://trib.al/TuSxXjz


[img][/img]

Quote:WASHINGTON—Putting the nation on alert against what it has described as a “highly credible terrorist threat,” the FBI announced today that it has uncovered a plot by members of al-Qaeda to sit back and enjoy themselves while the United States collapses of its own accord.

Multiple intelligence agencies confirmed that the militant Islamist organization and its numerous affiliates intend to carry out a massive, coordinated plan to stand aside and watch America’s increasingly rapid decline, with terrorist operatives across the globe reportedly mobilizing to take it easy, relax, and savor the spectacle as it unfolds.
“We have intercepted electronic communication indicating that al-Qaeda members are actively plotting to stay out of the way while America as we know it gradually crumbles under the weight of its own self-inflicted debt and disrepair,” FBI Deputy Director Mark F. Giuliano told the assembled press corps. “If this plan succeeds, it will leave behind a nation with a completely dysfunctional economy, collapsing infrastructure, and a catastrophic health crisis afflicting millions across the nation. We want to emphasize that this danger is very real.”

“And unfortunately, based on information we have from intelligence assets on the ground, this plot is already well under way,” he added.

A recently declassified CIA report confirmed that all known al-Qaeda-affiliated organizations—from Pakistan to Yemen, and from Somalia to Algeria—have been instructed to kick back and enjoy the show as the United States’ federal government, energy grid, and industrial sector are rendered impotent by internal dissent, decay, and mismanagement. According to statements made by top-level informants and corroborated by leading Western terrorism experts, if seen through to its conclusion, al-Qaeda’s current plot could wreak far more damage than the events of 9/11.

In the past year, money transfers to al-Qaeda cells around the world have reportedly been accompanied by instructions to use the funds to outfit safe houses with the proper equipment to receive American cable news broadcasts and view top U.S. news websites, allowing terrorists to fully relish each detail of the impending demise of the last global superpower.

Additionally, FBI officials made public an internal al-Qaeda video today in which the terrorist organization’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri chillingly exhorts his followers to “take a load off” and “unwind” in the name of jihad, and really cherish the victory over their enemy.

“Praise Allah, for soon every American city shall be plagued with disaster and hardship,” al-Zawahiri said in the video, which includes several minutes of footage of young, masked al-Qaeda militants casually sipping beverages as they thumb through the latest issues of Time and U.S. News And World Report. “The infidels have brought this pain and destruction upon themselves through their arrogance and callousness. Soon, the United States will watch in horror as its bridges crumble, its desperate citizens suffer in want of medicine and paying employment, and its once vast riches are reduced to naught. The righteous warriors among our ranks must now unite, get comfortable, and look on from afar at the calamity unfolding in the West.”

“We vow that we will not cease sitting around and laughing it up until America is reduced to rubble,” he continued.

Al-Zawahiri, who is seen in the video reclining back in his chair, putting his feet up, and flipping on CNN, later shouts “Allahu Akbar!” when a story is aired about the decade-long trend of stagnant wages among American workers.

The FBI has also warned that numerous al-Qaeda agents may have established sleeper cells for the purpose of “getting a kick out of” the nation’s downfall on American soil. The bureau urged U.S. residents to use caution around schools, hospitals, legislative bodies, prisons, and other decaying institutions whose imminent failure terrorists may wish to observe up close.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one high-ranking U.S. counterterrorism official has described the present situation as a massive failure of intelligence.

“The warning signs were there all along, but unfortunately we failed to heed them,” said the official, who advised Americans to brace for widespread devastation. “If we’d listened to experts or even our own common sense, we would’ve realized that this plot was being actively orchestrated within our own borders. But we didn’t, and now every one of our citizens and our very way of life is at risk from this threat.”

“Sadly, al-Qaeda has us right where they want us,” the official added, “and at this point, I fear it is too late to do anything about it.”
Responding to the allegations, a spokesperson for al-Qaeda reportedly confirmed the terror group’s plot and praised the American people as martyrs of the highest order.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 04:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Copperfield
[quote pid='13075' dateline='1479251825']
Of course not. The act itself of going to vote is a legitimization of the system in that there is an implication that if you vote, you have to accept the results (even if it's grudging acceptance). You can be unhappy with the result. You can even be disgusted with the result. But you still consented to the ultimate result by casting your vote (any vote). By voting, you consent to the system as it has been designed. Now that you have given your consent to the system, you have legitimized everything it does in your name. Theft, pillage, murder. You own it. You didn't abstain.

And if you abstain you still consent.  To stay is the consent. To not consent requires that one leave or stage a coup/revolution.
[/quote]

Uh yeah Copperfield; leaving is a quick hike north/northwest through your lovely wilderness.

[Eric the Green]

First Trump, a serial crony capitalist, says only he can fix it. Now he wants to drain the swamp by hiring some alligators to do the job. Only they can fix it. How much further do you want us to strain credibility, Trump supporters? Maybe we should hire the Devil to convert people to Christ?

Oh, but Hillary made money giving a speech on Wall Street, SO vote for Trump because he said "drain the swamp" and "I am your voice?" Is that what you want us to believe?

[Eric the Green]

Carrie Bailey says:

After being lectured about the poor behavior of election-losers by Republicans twice today.......

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 04:35 PM)playwrite Wrote: Breaking News!

FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States

Actually, the plan was laid out, way way before this, man.

antiwar.com Wrote:January 19, 2009

How Bin Laden Bankrupted America


The five ways

by Jon Basil Utley
For a man who spent years living in caves, Osama bin Laden sure knows his Sun Tzu and the basics of jujitsu. Sun Tzu's famous dictum was "know yourself" and "know your enemy." Jujitsu is based upon using your enemy's strength against him, e.g., like Jack in "Jack and the Beanstalk," who used the giant's own size and anger to get him to crash from his own weight. Bin Laden understood that the way to beat America was to turn its power back upon itself. His early stated aim was to bankrupt America. He knew his own weaknesses, and he profoundly understood America's, how its pride and fears could trigger irrational, self-destructive reactions.
The genius of bin Laden's pinprick attacks, costing a few hundred thousand dollars, has left America reeling with two unending multi-trillion-dollar wars it doesn't know how to get out of. He knew that his own strength was mainly in his appeal to the minds of men, particularly to the lost dignity of Muslims trampled under the heel of their own dictators, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and America's military. Getting rid of the "far" enemy was the way to take on the "near" ones.
Instigating America to destroy Iraq was a triumph of genius. He must have known about the neoconservative cabal in Washington that was itching to start wars and destroy Iraq. In bin Laden's wildest dreams he then imagined that he could get an enraged America to destroy his enemies while, at the same time, isolating itself from allies and becoming seriously weakened. His prime Arab enemy, secular nationalist socialism, was embodied by the Ba'athist rulers in Iraq. Once destroyed, Muslim resistance could be channeled to religious fundamentalism as the only remaining force honest and profound enough to challenge Arab dictators and American soldiers successfully. In that sense he was allied with Israel, again an intelligent strategy of harnessing his enemies' strength, which, for different reasons, feared Iraq as the most modern, secular nation among the Arabs far more than it feared Muslim fundamentalists. Indeed, in Palestine, Israel built up Islamist Hamas at first as a counterforce to the secular PLO. Successful terrorists come from the well educated, not from fundamentalist fanatics.
Next was his hope that he might get America to destroy his Shi'ite enemy, Iran. He almost succeeded in this too. His prime aim, though, was to get America bogged down in endless, resource-sapping wars on the Asian landmass and disrupt oil flows that benefited his enemies.
Bin Laden understood how America's religious fundamentalists, who had inordinate power in Washington, could be encouraged to sustain religious wars. He "knew" them precisely because he understood his own Muslim fundamentalists, as indeed also the Israeli ones. All could work together in his scheming mind to wreck the global economy, which so benefited American power. In 2002 at a party in my home, I said to Peru's brilliant economist Hernando de Soto that, of course, bin Laden's objective was to drive America out of the Middle East. He replied to me, "Not just that, out of the whole Third World!"
The actual crash in America came about because of the wars, in several ways:
First, financing the wars with debt was the final straw that broke the camel's back. No one knew how much debt would break America, but doubling the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, with new trillions being borrowed now, finally did it. A government at war seeks political support. Spending billions for an unpopular war and its waste makes it far more difficult to deny billions for more welfare. That's why America is called a warfare-welfare state. Welfare began in Germany in the 19th century when Bismarck sought popular support for his military ventures. It was the trade-off.
Second, the destruction of Iraq, and Bush's constant threats to start bombing Iran, which could have closed down the Strait of Hormuz, brought about sky-high oil prices, which then busted world prosperity. Still, bin Laden might not have imagined that hedge funds would feed the speculation, and that Bush would not release oil from the petroleum reserve, which could have broken the price, because he wanted to keep it in reserve for war against Iran. Then the subsequent collapse of oil prices dried up a major source of foreign buyers for U.S. government bonds, which finance America's wars and reckless debts.
Third, all of Washington's attention was absorbed by the wars, leaving little time or energy for dull domestic issues such as debating reforms to the financial markets. Anyone who questioned the wars' costs was dismissed as unpatriotic. Lies are part of waging war, and losing discredits and exposes the leaders' lies. From discredited American leaders, it was a short step to discredited American financial markets.
Fourth was the toxic alliance of neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists. The neocons were academic Washington policy wonks who dreamed of ruling the world. The "fundies" provided electoral support, because they viewed America as doing God's work among the foreign heathens. Their extremists indeed wanted chaos in the Middle East to "hurry up" God's plans for Armageddon. Instead they served bin Laden's goals.
Fifth, war spending deficits were in effect a massive Keynesian pump-priming operation, bound in the end to leave an economic hangover. Wars make the economy boom with seeming prosperity, but they are actually incredible wastes of resources. Over $200 million for each new fighter plane, $1,000 a day for mercenaries, massive corruption and incompetence in the military occupation – even bin Laden could not have anticipated how costly the war would become.
All of this was indeed foreseen by the wars' many critics, but they could not break through in the major media against the powers and lies of the Bush administration.
Editor John Feffer forecast the wars' consequences precisely in 2002:
"The successful realization of bin Laden's secret strategy will happen not with a bang but with a whimper. Having failed to use the unipolar moment for the world's advantage, the United States runs the risk of following the examples of Russia and England and Turkey, all faded empires whose ambitions overreached themselves. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. will become the sick man of North America, a victim of military hypertrophy, extremes of wealth and poverty, decay of civil infrastructure, and loss of competitive economic advantage."
At least Americans are told that Washington "succeeded" in preventing any more attacks on the homeland. Maybe, but the more likely reason there have been no further attacks was explained in a letter to the editor of Foreign Policy magazine [.pdf] by researcher Laura Garcés:
"But one could venture that Osama bin Laden has no reason now to expose himself and expend massive resources when he accomplished exactly what he wanted: billions of dollars of expenditures in launching wars, the total neglect of infrastructure, the loss of thousands of tourists who are wary of staying in line for hours dealing with airport. Decay and bankruptcy is what he sought, and fear is what he wanted to instill. Can anyone doubt that he succeeded?"

And...   MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!


Then come 2008,  Rags saw a lot of these around Wall $treet for even more wasted money.

  

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

Trump Surrogate Cites Japanese Internment Camps As 'Precedent' for Proposed Muslim Registry

http://jezebel.com/trump-surrogate-cites...socialflow

[pbrower2a]

That's an old joke. In the 1950s it might have been baseball great Mickey Mantle, Senator Joseph R. (I have Commies to expose) McCarthy, the Pope, and a ten-year-old boy. "Don't worry. Senator McCarthy took my schoolbag".

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 07:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

First Trump, a serial crony capitalist, says only he can fix it. Now he wants to drain the swamp by hiring some alligators to do the job. Only they can fix it. How much further do you want us to strain credibility, Trump supporters? Maybe we should hire the Devil to convert people to Christ?

Oh, but Hillary made money giving a speech on Wall Street, SO vote for Trump because he said "drain the swamp" and "I am your voice?" Is that what you want us to believe?

Trump is dumping the lobbyists.  They were mostly brought in by Christie, who has also been dumped in favor of Pence.

Say what you want, Trump is good at firing people.