Reality TV

1235»

Comments

  • One of the talking heads on TV has a theory that Trump is actually silencing witnesses by removing security clearance. There is a big reason why he pulled it from people that would have been in a position to act or monitor what Russia was doing over the last ten years.

    They potentially lose access to notes and research if they contain classified data, for example. It makes it slightly harder to act as a witness, refresh their memories, or discuss things with people still active in the intelligence community.

    Its an interesting (read: scary) theory.

    Personally I hope he's just lashing out like a child. It would make more sense, and it improves the chances he'll not completely make us an oligarchy by January.

  • So, this story didn't get much press on Thursday, so I didn't catch it until yesterday.

    Apparently, climate change doesn't have anything at all to do with the California wildfires... It's actually Canada's fault: https://globalnews.ca/news/4392206/trump-canadian-lumber-imports-california-wildfires/

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4394201/trump-canadian-lumber-california-wildfires/

  • Eeek. I missed the Canadian lumber imports thing too. That's... really bizarre.

    I think I first saw the Time/Ice Cream thing thanks to late night TV hosts. Several left-wing radio personalities have started to refer to Trump as "Donnie Two-Scoops"

  • I don't know about this "reality" show any more... I think the writers have lost the plot... They've gone too far... The shit they're doing on the show now are so far beyond plausible, it's ridiculous. If it gets any sillier, I'm going to call bullshit on this being anything like "reality".

  • You know what would be funny... If it came out that it was Ivanka that wrote the OpEd… Implausible, but hilariously funny.

  • It's odd to consider that Ivanka hangs around with, and I guess still works for, a guy who per sworn testimony raped her mother.

  • Things are pretty tense this week...

    https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-senate-committee-vote/

    So what do people think... Is the frat boy going to make it onto the court?

    It occurred to me yesterday that this may be Trump's only chance to turn the Supreme Court conservative. If Kavanaugh doesn't get in, it's very unlikely they will be able to ram someone else through the process before the November elections. If that happens and the Dems take control of the House and Senate in the November elections (I think it's likely they will), then Trump will not get any other conservative judge, like Kavanaugh, confirmed.

    Depending on what happens after the election, we may be seeing Mike Pence's compromise pick (likely another swing-voter) being confirmed... (because Trump will be too busy, getting himself impeached, to get a reasonable pick through the process).

  • edited September 29

    He's getting in. I don't like it, but he's getting in.

    The 'compromise' is that the FBI investigation will be limited to only the exact items described already (nothing new that comes up during the course of the investigation) and they have to report their findings to the White House. The White House will redact what they don't like and pass it on to the judiciary committee. The judiciary committee head seems to have absolute power and will redact it further before release to the rest of the senate.

    This will somehow satisfy either Flake or Murkowski and they'll vote for him.

  • So, Pence has just announced that Justice Kegger has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

    {sour face}

  • I'm interested in seeing whether the Republican backlash or the Democrat backlash turns out more voters this November.

  • edited October 7

    The Republicans and their base are happy... they got their way... If the election were within the next couple weeks, that would carry over to the polls. By the time the election rolls around in November, it will have been forgotten. It seems like getting what you want is the biggest de-motivator for the electorate.

    The democrats, independents and swing-voters, however. I don't think you can underestimate how angry they are with Trump and the Republican-run congress.

  • As far as I can tell, Republicans are angry, too.

  • Oh I know there are lots of Republicans angry about the confirmation process and how it went down, but it will be difficult for a large number of them to remain angry enough, given that they got what they wanted.

    The problem that I see with all this anger (on both sides), is it doesn't matter; if it's all centered around districts that are solid and safe districts. It doesn't matter how upset with the Dems the voters in Oklahoma are. Nor does it particularly matter how upset the voters in Oregon are. Everyone can be super upset about the whole episode and run to the polls and vote vehemently for the person they would have voted for, regardless.

    It only really matters in the swing states, where the battles are tight. Are there enough angry republicans, who will still be angry a month from now, in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado? I doubt it... Conversely, I don't know if there will be enough angry liberals and swing-voters to pick up seats... I hope so... I think it's a stronger likelihood.

  • edited October 9

    Lets put it this way: The 'respectable' Republican media sources are floating the 'elevator ladies were Soros plants' stories and embracing the idea of calling Democrat [sic] gatherings "mobs" and Republican gatherings "rallies". They also kept having guest speakers on that were experts in... being on TV. Also maybe Bro-Economics I guess? Well, in any case the experts have convinced their viewers that Dr. Ford doesn't know how memory works. They also don't mention Kavanaugh's perjury in 2006, his hands in torture policy, the hacked emails Kavanaugh recieved knowingly in 2004/2005, his actions selecting controversial judges for the Dubya administration, or his actions during the Clinton administration (likely the source of his 'Clinton Revenge' prepared remarks). Not to mention the 90% of records that were declared privledged.

    Of course it goes without saying they left out the perjury he did in 2018.

    Add to that and the rumors being spread that Feinstein leaked the identity of Dr. Ford (despite evidence pointing at a Republican member of the committee). Or that she sat on the accusation for an unreasonable amount of time (spread by the committee chair and the nominee himself). Oh, and Facebook/Twitter bots making half the country believe teenage Ford was a drunk, a slut, or worse: ugly.

    Where am I going with this? Well, if they can keep up the "mob taking down attractive white men that used to play boyish pranks" angle for a few weeks they'll motivate plenty of Trump voters to the polls. Unfortunately liberal protests and pissed off liberal women will help with that conservative motivation.

    It will also motivate conservative women. The press and social media work on them too. Even (especially) against their own interests.

    Finally... what demographic is most likely to vote in a midterm already? Elderly republicans and their spouses.

    But there is hope. Do you know what else pissed off women help to motivate? Other women. Their friends. And (hopefully) armchair liberals. By no means am I saying protests should stop!

    Pissed off women are both the solution to liberal apathy and a fuel for conservative hatred.

    Let's see who wins.

  • Ok. I was anticipating some stupid shit over the next few weeks, but I wasn't expecting THIS stupid shit...
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rand-paul-warns-of-assassination-peril-after-kavanaugh-confirmation-i-really-worry-someone-is-going-to-be-killed/ar-BBOalB0?ocid=spartandhp

    Rand Paul warning of the threat of assassination, and both him and his wife blaming violent rhetoric from Democrats for it. Specifically calling out Corey Booker.

  • I'm surprised you find it stupid. The insanity of the rhetoric is such that I find his fear reasonable.

  • You think a senator saying "get up in the face of congresspeople" is insanely dangerous rhetoric? After two years of the president calling everybody and their uncle traitors, enemies of the people, joking about violence against his critics, etc?

  • He was talking about more than one senator.

  • thatsneatsamequestion.png

  • You are being disingenuous.

  • I don't even have a guess what that means. What rhetoric have the dems (more than one of them!) used that holds a candle to what the president says daily?

  • edited October 11

    In other media outlets, Mr. Paul [and his wife] are also retroactively calling the neighbor he got into a fight with a violent Democrat so they can use that as an example.

    So instead of being a 'stupid misunderstanding' (which was the original explanation after the fight) or admitting that it was actually a case of toxic masculinity on both of participants parts, they are saying the fight was purely because his neighbor was a 'violent Democrat'.

    Also, its time that Mr. Paul remembers that people already have died due to political violence over the last few years. It just wasn't anyone he cared about.

  • edited October 22

    Remember when Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to protect LGBTQ rights?

    Yeah... Good times...

  • @Rufus said:
    Remember when Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to protect LGBTQ rights?

    Yeah... Good times...

    I read the article. It seems much ado about nothing to me. Most of the complaining is about transgender "rights." Transgenders are a tiny fraction of the population, and they are mentally ill. There is certainly room for good faith debate over just what their rights should be. They certainly don't belong in the military. Being wary about the transgender agenda has nothing to do with the rights of mainstream homosexuals.

    Then there is complaining about Trumps judicial appointments. Of course most homosexual activists are going to complain. Trump is attempting to appoint those who believe in judicial restraint. Most gay victories have come from judicial fiat. Of course they aren't going to like Trumps appointments. That doesn't prove he is against gays.

    When Trump proposes a law prohibiting homosexuals from civil service, or making homosexual relationships illegal, or prohibits positive portrayals of gays on regulated media, then I'll be concerned.

    The article is a "progressive" hit piece that is politically motivated.

  • @Bill said:
    Transgenders are a tiny fraction of the population, and they are mentally ill.

    We have debated this before... We disagree... While the nature of transgender individuals is not necessarily fully understood, to refer to them as "mentally ill" is prejudicial and ill informed. There isn't a respected mental health professional in the world who would take that position.

    @Bill said:
    There is certainly room for good faith debate over just what their rights should be.

    I would assert that they should have the same rights as everyone else, though I hope you're suggesting a more nuanced discussion of some specifics.

    @Bill said:
    They certainly don't belong in the military.

    There's no proof that this is true, aside from conservatives prejudices and willful misunderstanding... Any argument to the contrary, would be no different than the argument that women don't belong in the military.

    @Bill said:
    Then there is complaining about Trumps judicial appointments. Of course most homosexual activists are going to complain. Trump is attempting to appoint those who believe in judicial restraint.

    No... he's appointing judges who think transgender and homosexuals are icky, and should not have the same rights, privileges and freedoms as normal people.

  • edited October 23

    @Rufus said:

    @Bill said:
    Transgenders are a tiny fraction of the population, and they are mentally ill.

    We have debated this before... We disagree... While the nature of transgender individuals is not necessarily fully understood, to refer to them as "mentally ill" is prejudicial and ill informed. There isn't a respected mental health professional in the world who would take that position.

    What Is Gender Dysphoria?

    @Bill said:
    There is certainly room for good faith debate over just what their rights should be.

    I would assert that they should have the same rights as everyone else, though I hope you're suggesting a more nuanced discussion of some specifics.

    They aren't looking for the same rights as everyone else; they are looking for special rights, such as forcing society to conform to their delusion.

    @Bill said:
    They certainly don't belong in the military.

    There's no proof that this is true, aside from conservatives prejudices and willful misunderstanding... Any argument to the contrary, would be no different than the argument that women don't belong in the military.

    They are mentally ill. Claiming that they aren't is either insane or a lie.

    @Bill said:
    Then there is complaining about Trumps judicial appointments. Of course most homosexual activists are going to complain. Trump is attempting to appoint those who believe in judicial restraint.

    No... he's appointing judges who think transgender and homosexuals are icky, and should not have the same rights, privileges and freedoms as normal people.

    Oh, bullshit. I doubt if Trump gives enough of a rat's ass about the issue to even consider it in his judicial appointments. He's looking for judges who don't believe the are legislators (or dictators).

  • A: Show me somebody who can't discuss an issue without claiming the other side is mentally ill, and I'll show you someone who has no coherent opinion on the topic at hand.

    B: Bill might disagree with that.

    A: Who cares what Bill says? He's mentally ill.

    B: That's not a reasonab

    A: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/depression/what-is-depression

    B: But that page isn't claiming th

    A: Look I'm not saying it's okay to discriminate against Bill. But he shouldn't get any "special rights", by which I mean that the rest of us should decide which rights he gets.

    B: Anything else?

    A: I believe Trump is more concerned about legal nuance than about divisive headline-grabbing social issues.

    B: I think there's some evidence to the co

    A: Mentally ill

  • I bet these people just can't take all the winning they're doing, under the Trump administration: http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/news/2018/11/01/bak-usa-buffalo-closing

  • Today's phrase of the day is: "willful ignorance".

    I sense that this phrase has become an over-riding theme in American politics.

Sign In or Register to comment.