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

[Warren Dew]

(01-28-2017, 12:04 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:41 AM)X_4AD_84D Wrote: Plus some help from Viagra.

"Absolutely no problem there ... no problem. Trust me."

Uh, that's not the problem, man. Science has already provided an inconvenient truth.

That's hilarious.

Although, if what they say about correlation with shorter index than ring fingers is correct, it's Rubio that's underendowed.

[Eric the Green]

(01-28-2017, 12:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 11:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

As with many of your posts, the above is a good example of demonization.  Obama was depicted as a muslim terrorists and as a monkey.  A hostile press with repeated propaganda can try to poison the public's mind, to build a vile stereotype of what a politician is really like.  Alas, such efforts can to a great degree succeed.  Extreme partisans are willing and ready to make any excuse to present their own leaders as being wise and dignified while believing the worst of the other side's politicians.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with Trump when he presents the press as hostile.  Hostile?  If anyone opposes him in any way, be they press, beauty pageant contestants, gold star parents, whomever, he will attack, insult and demean.  To a great degree he has earned a hostile press and deserves what is coming.

But as a continuous barrage of hateful propaganda seeps into a partisan group, the conversation is poisoned.  Does the above caricature of Trump have any more merit that Obama as a terrorist?  If the above reflects the alternate universe you live in, is there no wonder you can't deal with reality?

Oh Bob, you're such a "nasty" man

I don't think so. I think your second paragraph is reflected in this cartoon, and all cartoons exaggerate. It's part of American tradition.

Let Trump prove who Trump is.

Obama is wise and dignified; Trump is not. That I consider to be fact, regardless of my "extreme partisanship"

I don't see how he can be seen as anything but vile after his appointments, behavior and actions so far. But if and when he does something right and good, I will say so. I give credit where credit is due.

Let's see if he can do anything about trade policy and infrastructure, in the right way. Let's see if he makes peace or war.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2017, 12:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 11:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

As with many of your posts, the above is a good example of demonization.  Obama was depicted as a muslim terrorists and as a monkey.  A hostile press with repeated propaganda can try to poison the public's mind, to build a vile stereotype of what a politician is really like.  Alas, such efforts can to a great degree succeed.  Extreme partisans are willing and ready to make any excuse to present their own leaders and being, wise and dignified while believing the worst of the other side's politicians.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with Trump when he presents the press as hostile.  Hostile?  If anyone opposes him in any way, be they press, beauty pageant contestants, gold star parents, whomever, he will attack, insult and demean.  To a great degree he has earned a hostile press and deserves what is coming.

But as a continuous barrage of hateful propaganda seeps into a partisan group, the conversation is poisoned.  Does the above caricature of Trump have any more merit that Obama as a terrorist?  If the above reflects the alternate universe you live in, is there no wonder you can't deal with reality?

He's using a cartoon created by someone else. President Trump may not be physically ugly, but his language, personality, and  sentiments are ugly. He is easy to debunk. Show a federal employee in an agency for which people have much respect (I have been to three National Parks -- Yosemite, Isle Royale, and Petrified Forest) and expect to visit more of them (where I live, most likely Mammoth Cave, Great Smokies or Shenandoah) as a normal person doing a job that one expect (of course the samizdat is done on free time and not on government property)... and Donald Trump looks stupid and extreme by contrast.

If it was easy enough for the Right to smear Barack Obama with images as a witch-doctor or terrorist, such took some twisting of reality. (He has been the worst President to face as an enemy if one is a terrorist or pirate) With Donald Trump the fault is his and that of his supporters and flunkies. He has no authority to negate science, mathematical methods (including basic statistics), or the historical record. We all know that he will not be on the scene forever, and much that we thought established truth before he was inaugurated will be basic truth again to most political figures.

Comparing him to fascists whose murderous careers have come and gone? OK -- I'd rather that Pilsudski or Schuschnigg, neither of whom had much blood on his hands, came back to life and supplanted Donald Trump as President. But Donald Trump has yet to suppress the unions, outlaw opposition parties, or compel an ethnic or religious minority to wear badges that make them easy targets for abuse. There has been no Reichstag Fire, and no Night of the Long Knives yet. No significant opposition leader has been assassinated. There has not yet been established any new police force with unlimited powers, and there is no private and politicized militia getting overt support from the Trump Presidency. If anyone raises his right arm and shouts "Heil Trump!" then such is unwelcome mockery.

Do I trust him with respect for my political views, my civil liberties, or my dignity as a worker (whether white-collar or blue-collar)? Hell no! I expect to use my First Amendment rights as long as I can against the President who acts more like a dictator than any prior President. I heard enough lies from him as a campaigner and see much the same now that he is President. Would I trust a military coup? No.  We could end up with a Pinochet if such happened, and in that case we would be in deep sewage.

[Eric the Green]

Good to have Bill Maher back; just in time!

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 01:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 11:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

As with many of your posts, the above is a good example of demonization.  Obama was depicted as a muslim terrorists and as a monkey.  A hostile press with repeated propaganda can try to poison the public's mind, to build a vile stereotype of what a politician is really like.  Alas, such efforts can to a great degree succeed.  Extreme partisans are willing and ready to make any excuse to present their own leaders and being, wise and dignified while believing the worst of the other side's politicians.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with Trump when he presents the press as hostile.  Hostile?  If anyone opposes him in any way, be they press, beauty pageant contestants, gold star parents, whomever, he will attack, insult and demean.  To a great degree he has earned a hostile press and deserves what is coming.

But as a continuous barrage of hateful propaganda seeps into a partisan group, the conversation is poisoned.  Does the above caricature of Trump have any more merit that Obama as a terrorist?  If the above reflects the alternate universe you live in, is there no wonder you can't deal with reality?

He's using a cartoon created by someone else. President Trump may not be physically ugly, but his language, personality, and  sentiments are ugly. He is easy to debunk. Show a federal employee in an agency for which people have much respect (I have been to three National Parks -- Yosemite, Isle Royale, and Petrified Forest) and expect to visit more of them (where I live, most likely Mammoth Cave, Great Smokies or Shenandoah) as a normal person doing a job that one expect (of course the samizdat is done on free time and not on government property)... and Donald Trump looks stupid and extreme by contrast.

If it was easy enough for the Right to smear Barack Obama with images as a witch-doctor or terrorist, such took some twisting of reality. (He has been the worst President to face as an enemy if one is a terrorist or pirate) With Donald Trump the fault is his and that of his supporters and flunkies. He has no authority to negate science, mathematical methods (including basic statistics), or the historical record. We all know that he will not be on the scene forever, and much that we thought established truth before he was inaugurated will be basic truth again to most political figures.

Comparing him to fascists whose murderous careers have come and gone? OK -- I'd rather that Pilsudski or Schuschnigg, neither of whom had much blood on his hands, came back to life and supplanted Donald Trump as President. But Donald Trump has yet to suppress the unions, outlaw opposition parties, or compel an ethnic or religious minority to wear badges that make them easy targets for abuse. There has been no Reichstag Fire, and no Night of the Long Knives yet. No significant opposition leader has been assassinated. There has not yet been established any new police force with unlimited powers, and there is no private and politicized militia getting overt support from the Trump Presidency. If anyone raises his right arm and shouts "Heil Trump!" then such is unwelcome mockery.

Do I trust him with respect for my political views, my civil liberties, or my dignity as a worker (whether white-collar or blue-collar)? Hell no! I expect to use my First Amendment rights as long as I can against the President who acts more like a dictator than any prior President. I heard enough lies from him as a campaigner and see much the same now that he is President. Would I trust a military coup? No.  We could end up with a Pinochet if such happened, and in that case we would be in deep sewage.

Since Thomas Nast took on Tammany Hall, there has been a place for demonizing political cartoons in our political system.  To me, however, there is a line somewhere between propaganda and honest reporting.  The recent proliferation of alternate news sources, including the internet, has allowed people to find news outlets that tell them what they want to hear.  Too many people want to listen to people making a living by demonizing others.  This has contributed to a nation disunited, where large parts of the population perceive the world distinctly differently, where many are incapable of understanding or listening to the sincere beliefs of the other half of the country.

You live in one such alternate reality.  I can quite understand how you got there.  I've just got little to no interest in listening to biased propaganda.

[Eric the Green]

No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 09:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

Yes, there are many many blue propaganda / demonization 'news' sources out there.  There are also many many red propaganda / demonization 'news' sources who pushed a predominantly horrific image of Obama.  Sane functional red leaning folk will argue that what they heard on Fox can be verified on Breitbart.  Color me dubious.  I detest the red propaganda organs as much as the blue, perhaps more.

But I don't buy in all in to either alternate reality.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 08:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Since Thomas Nast took on Tammany Hall, there has been a place for demonizing political cartoons in our political system.  To me, however, there is a line somewhere between propaganda and honest reporting.  The recent proliferation of alternate news sources, including the internet, has allowed people to find news outlets that tell them what they want to hear.  Too many people want to listen to people making a living by demonizing others.  This has contributed to a nation disunited, where large parts of the population perceive the world distinctly differently, where many are incapable of understanding or listening to the sincere beliefs of the other half of the country...

There is always a disconnect between ideological cheerleading and what's actually happening.  For some, the differential is small.  For others, it's huge.  If the predominant force in politics and culture is pushing us in a very bad direction, then the disconnect will be huge.  Given adequate time, even strongly held opinions have to  defer to facts on the ground.  The only issue is when?  If things drift (or run at full tilt) in the wrong direction, how much pain will be suffered to correct the mistakes, when it's finally obvious they exist? 

That's where we are.  Whether we are at the beginning of a disaster or just a petty annoyance is still TBD.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 09:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

Yes, there are many many blue propaganda / demonization 'news' sources out there.  There are also many many red propaganda / demonization 'news' sources who pushed a predominantly horrific image of Obama.  Sane functional red leaning folk will argue that what they heard on Fox can be verified on Breitbart.  Color me dubious.  I detest the red propaganda organs as much as the blue, perhaps more.

But I don't buy in all in to either alternate reality.

The big question: is either close to reality, or are both equally wacko?  Until things get a lot better or a lot worse, its impossible to know for sure.  I have my opinion, of course.

[Eric the Green]

(01-28-2017, 09:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

Yes, there are many many blue propaganda / demonization 'news' sources out there.  There are also many many red propaganda / demonization 'news' sources who pushed a predominantly horrific image of Obama.  Sane functional red leaning folk will argue that what they heard on Fox can be verified on Breitbart.  Color me dubious.  I detest the red propaganda organs as much as the blue, perhaps more.

But I don't buy in all in to either alternate reality.

I don't buy into alternate facts or alternate realities too much. I think there's such a thing as truth, at least.

I don't give equal weight to blue and red accounts just to be diplomatic. Truth can lie more on one side than another. Or should we go back to slavery? What'ya think?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 12:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

Yes, there are many many blue propaganda / demonization 'news' sources out there.  There are also many many red propaganda / demonization 'news' sources who pushed a predominantly horrific image of Obama.  Sane functional red leaning folk will argue that what they heard on Fox can be verified on Breitbart.  Color me dubious.  I detest the red propaganda organs as much as the blue, perhaps more.

But I don't buy in all in to either alternate reality.

The big question: is either close to reality, or are both equally wacko?  Until things get a lot better or a lot worse, its impossible to know for sure.  I have my opinion, of course.

From my perspective, there are enough wackos on either extreme that the center hasn't got much in the way of options.  Turning theory suggests that after a Buchanan or a Hoover the old values get sufficiently discredited that a new path can be embraced.  Is that time approaching?  You may be right, it is impossible to know for sure.  Not yet.

I have long assumed that if the unravelling stalemate continues, if problems aren't addressed, the problems will eventually get severe enough that folk can't ignore the necessity for a regeneracy.  I'm not sure that is true, anymore.  Our racial problems are not as severe as they were in the Civil War era.  The economic inequality and distress isn't as bad as the Great Depression.  If the problems are not blatant enough, does the regeneracy never come?  If the elites work hard to prevent the catastrophe from becoming totally catastrophic, can the elites maintain their position of power indefinitely?

I too have my opinion, of course.  It seems safe to suggest that most everyone has an opinion.  A lack of opinions isn't the problem.  

[Eric the Green]

All that's true, but now we have a president who seeks to deliberately stoke both the problems and opinions about them. This is an added factor that was not present in the 1850s or 1930s.

[Eric the Green]

[Marypoza]

    We don't need no education. We don't need no Donald control... hey DONALD! Leave them Mexicans alone!

[TeacherinExile]

(01-28-2017, 02:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:56 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 09:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No we don't live in one such alternate reality; because we read what people say here, and on other sites as well. The reality of Trump just happens to be predominantly horrific, and we don't agree with his policies.

I am concerned about justice, fairness, real freedom, the environment, real equality. I know who tends to advance these causes, and who doesn't.

Yes, there are many many blue propaganda / demonization 'news' sources out there.  There are also many many red propaganda / demonization 'news' sources who pushed a predominantly horrific image of Obama.  Sane functional red leaning folk will argue that what they heard on Fox can be verified on Breitbart.  Color me dubious.  I detest the red propaganda organs as much as the blue, perhaps more.

But I don't buy in all in to either alternate reality.

The big question: is either close to reality, or are both equally wacko?  Until things get a lot better or a lot worse, its impossible to know for sure.  I have my opinion, of course.

From my perspective, there are enough wackos on either extreme that the center hasn't got much in the way of options.  Turning theory suggests that after a Buchanan or a Hoover the old values get sufficiently discredited that a new path can be embraced.  Is that time approaching?  You may be right, it is impossible to know for sure.  Not yet.

I have long assumed that if the unravelling stalemate continues, if problems aren't addressed, the problems will eventually get severe enough that folk can't ignore the necessity for a regeneracy.  I'm not sure that is true, anymore.  Our racial problems are not as severe as they were in the Civil War era.  The economic inequality and distress isn't as bad as the Great Depression.  If the problems are not blatant enough, does the regeneracy never come?  If the elites work hard to prevent the catastrophe from becoming totally catastrophic, can the elites maintain their position of power indefinitely?

I too have my opinion, of course.  It seems safe to suggest that most everyone has an opinion.  A lack of opinions isn't the problem.  

I pretty much agree with Bob Butler's assessment here.  I have maintained--ad nauseum--in previous posts that the financial crisis of 2008 will be revisited, though in different form, in the not-too-distant future (2018-2020).  The salutary benefits of Trump's economic stimulus--as yet not fully formulated, much less enacted into law--will probably "kick the can down the road."  The stock market may even experience a final, euphoric ("blow-off") stage, to boot.  If that were to come to pass, Trump may actually "echo" the history of Hoover.  The more I think about it sometimes, the financial crisis of 2008 bears at least some resemblance to the Panic of 1907, when, according to Wikipedia, "the panic might have deepened if not for the intervention of financier J. P. Morgan, who pledged large sums of his own money, and convinced other New York bankers to do the same, to shore up the banking system."  Of course, Morgan's swift intervention, coupled with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, did not ultimately prevent the speculation that caused a much worse crash in 1929, which, of course, kicked off the Great Depression.  (Does anyone else see the similarities?)

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: All that's true, but now we have a president who seeks to deliberately stoke both the problems and opinions about them. This is an added factor that was not present in the 1850s or 1930s.

He made a bunch of promises that were very popular in the middle of the country.  He seems to be trying to keep them, with the notable exception of draining the swamp.  It seems like many of the promise keeping attempts are generating more outrage than kept promises.

I am not casually dismissing the possibility of a Buchanan / Hover class regeneracy producing catastrophe.   This seems entirely possible.  It doesn't seem inevitable yet, though.  He'll need more than a week to surpass Buchanan and Hover.

Nor does he seem to me to be deliberately stoking problems.  He is attempting to raise his ratings among his base by doing (mostly) what he said he'd do.  That's supposedly democracy in action.

I'm still not ready to join the efforts to demonize the guy.  No great loss, I suspect.  There is no lack of other people willing to step up.

[Eric the Green]

No-one is asking to join in on what you prefer not to join.

It's not just Trump; that's true; his base is also stoking both the problems and opinions about them. But Drump is a talented speaker, star and demogogue who is able to stoke that base, and a bit beyond his base to sway other voters too. I do give him credit for "doing what he said he'd do" to an extent, but because his approach is amateur, much of it won't stick, and much of it is destructive. He has deceptively spoken to real people with real problems too, as well as his base, and swayed them with lies that he is interested in the people. His actions are not what he said he'd do, in that respect. He is doing this stoking of fear and prejudice deliberately, for sure; it was his planned path to power. That's fact as I see it, not demonization. The entire Trump phenomenon is at-least somewhat demonic. That means it has taken possession of people.

[Eric the Green]

Why Building a Border Wall Makes No Sense





He's doing what he said he'd do, tho!

[SomeGuy]

(01-28-2017, 04:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: All that's true, but now we have a president who seeks to deliberately stoke both the problems and opinions about them. This is an added factor that was not present in the 1850s or 1930s.

He made a bunch of promises that were very popular in the middle of the country.  He seems to be trying to keep them, with the notable exception of draining the swamp.  It seems like many of the promise keeping attempts are generating more outrage than kept promises.

I am not casually dismissing the possibility of a Buchanan / Hover class regeneracy producing catastrophe.   This seems entirely possible.  It doesn't seem inevitable yet, though.  He'll need more than a week to surpass Buchanan and Hover.

Nor does he seem to me to be deliberately stoking problems.  He is attempting to raise his ratings among his base by doing (mostly) what he said he'd do.  That's supposedly democracy in action.

I'm still not ready to join the efforts to demonize the guy.  No great loss, I suspect.  There is no lack of other people willing to step up.

Hear, hear!

Although one of his voters, I'm really not that great a fan of the man, but the present moral panic is bloody ridiculous.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 04:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No-one is asking to join in on what you prefer not to join.

It's not just Trump; that's true; his base is also stoking both the problems and opinions about them. But Drump is a talented speaker, star and demogogue who is able to stoke that base, and a bit beyond his base to sway other voters too.  I do give him credit for "doing what he said he'd do" to an extent, but because his approach is amateur, much of it won't stick, and much of it is destructive. He has deceptively spoken to real people with real problems too, as well as his base, and swayed them with lies that he is interested in the people. His actions are not what he said he'd do, in that respect. He is doing this stoking of fear and prejudice deliberately, for sure; it was his planned path to power. That's fact as I see it, not demonization. The entire Trump phenomenon is at-least somewhat demonic. That means it has taken possession of people.

You're habitually into religious thought.  You're into astrology, spiritualism and sometimes religion.  (At times, you seem to distinguish between spiritualism and religion, embracing the former, while distancing yourself from the latter.)

But are you for real serious in this demonic possession thing?  Do you think he'll be outlining pentagrams inside circles in salt in the Oval Office?  Is it time to call in exorcists?