Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Leonid said:

FYI, most of the DNC, including the top two (Schumer, Pelosi) voted for a border fence/wall in 2006. A video of Schumer in a 2009 speech outdoes Trump in anti-immigration rhetoric.

The DNC finds the wall acceptable when it suits them.

It didn't have the same coverage so didn't have the same issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, fliptopia said:
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

FYI, most of the DNC, including the top two (Schumer, Pelosi) voted for a border fence/wall in 2006. A video of Schumer in a 2009 speech outdoes Trump in anti-immigration rhetoric.

The DNC finds the wall acceptable when it suits them.

It didn't have the same coverage so didn't have the same issues. 

imo. part of the reason for it not being such an issue then is that it didn't come out of Trump's mouth . Anything Trumps says or does is incendiary ...

 

Again, I have to wonder how people living in a country with it's own fully natural border aaalll the way around it, is so hett-up about people in another country wanting to make their country harder to infiltrate . I read somewhere that Pelosi chooses to live in an area protected by a section of border wall ... not sure if that's true ... it might be fake news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

On a McChuck napkin does make a kind of sense, probably served by a hard working illegal immigrant...

If memory serves the Dems did indeed support a fence, I don't recall the details but it was nowhere near as grandiose as the Trump folly. the Dems also seem to recognise that the number of illegal immigrants is actually falling and the number apprehended at the border has been rising, effectively the extant border protection systems are doing rather well.

Trump is using the latter numbers to drum up the need for a wall but the facts are against him - no fake news there, except from himself.

Some much less extravagant measures would see the problem completely under control I'd suspect.

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, eveln said:

imo. part of the reason for it not being such an issue then is that it didn't come out of Trump's mouth . Anything Trumps says or does is incendiary ...

 

Again, I have to wonder how people living in a country with it's own fully natural border aaalll the way around it, is so hett-up about people in another country wanting to make their country harder to infiltrate . I read somewhere that Pelosi chooses to live in an area protected by a section of border wall ... not sure if that's true ... it might be fake news

Maybe in part. When someone consistently comes up with "facts" from nowhere and says everything said about him is fake news while he constantly struggles with the truth, you find that people will judge his ideas a bit more harshly.

As for why would Australians care about such a thing? It's a circus, a spectacle. It's also a distraction from what goes on here with our government. Almost enough to make you happy with what you have...

And for Pelosi living where she does... If it was a real concern to her she could live in any part of America that isn't bordering any county. There are a lot of options there. Maybe she chose the spot for the wall or maybe they walled off a nice spot that she likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

When someone consistently comes up with "facts" from nowhere and says everything said about him is fake news while he constantly struggles with the truth, you find that people will judge his ideas a bit more harshly.

I tend to agree. Or rather, an older version of me tended to agree.

But as I get older, the less I believe that "fake facts" as determined by the fifth column (the fourth estate) are actually facts, and not just shit thrown at a wall until something sticks.

 

I do like facts. Don't get me wrong.

 

But lets talk about recent facts.

  • June last year. Some of the major US networks all report that C-SPAN got hacked and its feed was hijacked by the Russkies. Pity that didn't happen.
  • June last year. Trump's aide Scaramucci -apparently is involved in some Russian do-hickey hedge/equity fund that is under Senate investigation. From CNN. Bullshit. Utter, bullshit.

Do you want to go to July? It gets better 🙂

Guess how many people got fired? Guess how long the corrections reels ran for to make sure the bullshit sold in wall-to-wall coverage was adequately un-sold?

 

Western Democracy is NOT in danger from Trump. It's in danger because the gatekeepers we've always trusted (the press) are now manipulating the asylum for perverse personal pleasure. In fact, I'd say that Trump represents democracy - people who've never voted went out there and voted against a version of democracy where everyone has to conform to some ridiculous standard of behaviour and "no past skeletons" that nobody will ever be able to meet, especially in a social media future. The only ones who do, will be political dynasties who will breed children with a "born to rule" mentality who will know how to behave politically for the attainment of power.

 

Just consider this - every single person on this forum should have the right to become a leader of our country, even if we're wrong about something. Do any of you actually think that you could if someone trawled your social media, locker room conversations and private in-jokes with the boys/girls whilst drunk AF?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you Leo, but Trump doesn't need anyone to distort his words, he goes right out and bypasses the middle man of the media by using Twitter to put his falsehoods up for all to see along with his crazy ideas - the media how ever debased can't "trump" that, all they can do is print his tweets...

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree about skeletons. I know I've said all sorts of stuff I wouldn't agree with now. You hope everyone learns with age. It's when people seem consistent with their skeletons that you have concerns. Or more so when they wear their skeletons on the outside with pride (not a trump specific metaphor there). 

And I agree about the media too. It's ridiculous the way media is run these days. I honestly don't know how you change that at the moment because sensationalist made up nonsense gets the clicks/views and when you have most of the mainstream media outlets run by a very select few, what law maker tells them to change without fear of losing their job? 

I get how Trump appeals to people. But for all his "straight talk" he seems very much a rich guy telling the American battlers to watch out for those Mexicans coming to take their jobs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fliptopia said:

I get how Trump appeals to people. But for all his "straight talk" he seems very much a rich guy telling the American battlers to watch out for those Mexicans coming to take their jobs. 

You ever wonder why people who've been fed bullshit their whole lives that they didn't want to hear, might want to change the variables to hearing bullshit that they do?

4 hours ago, chrisg said:

the media how ever debased can't "trump" that, all they can do is print his tweets

I mean certainly. There's no way they could out-Trump Trump.

The only way they could do that, is by creating a headline prime-time story about how he hogs the remote and gets two scoops of ice-cream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now I just want to play you out something - because you lot have been fed that Trump is a psycho, war-mongering sociopathic rapist with a hard-one for dead kids. I mean, that's the media narrative right?

Assume just for one second that he is not as dumb as you think he is. And for evidence I bring the following:

  • He won the presidency raising just over half of the Clinton campaign.
  • He manipulated the media into giving him more airtime than any other candidate.

If that's blind luck, I think it's probably you that description applies to.

 

How does he make all this work? I suspect the reason we don't know, is we forget what he actually is. He's a salesman.

 

I'm a business owner. I need to sell so that my business gets ahead. And I do. Oddly I'm not too bad at it, despite no sales training.

 

Here's what I've learned over the years:

  • Nobody cares if you know your shit backwards. Charisma is far more important. It's why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is thicker than a stack of bricks on issues of policy and economy, still has a giant following - she's charismatic, good looking, young and confident. That's attractive, and people want to listen to her. Trump is extremely charismatic. And he knows, just like AOC, that you don't need to know what you're talking about. Hell, I don't agree with AOC on anything but I'd love to grab a beer with her and I'm 100% certain I'll like her. If I was single, I'd go for it too.
  • Where this falls apart is ideology. If you're convinced, utterly convinced that your way is the right way, you'll lose your audience. That why AOC will fail, and why Trump succeeds. Ideology is not a strategy - it's a set of values you must be willing to compromise, put on hold and reconsider. It's why Trotsky left this mortal ream via icepick to the brain while his former brothers-in-arms adjusted to the reality that Communism is great and "power to the people", but only after one of them became the Commissioner for Excrement Removal, a wholly unexciting, un-revolutionary job.
  • People do not buy your shit for your reasons or even for your evidence-based arguments. They buy your shit for their reasons. Trump does not need to justify the wall, because his people want the wall. It's a weird thing to get your head around. I read a fantastic statement on that the other day: “The greatest spiritual danger facing 21st century democracy is that liberal intellectuals increasingly dismiss the moral right of less-educated people to have opinions that conflict with the consensus wisdom of the expert class”.
  • The product you're selling doesn't matter. It's an artefact. What matters, in order, is people, ideas and then the product - wrapped in a strategy.

 

I don't know how this plays out, but Trump makes deals. Deals require strategy - and sometimes you need to lose a battle to win the war.

 

The fifth column is already printing that Trump has folded on the wall with re-opening the government for 3 weeks. If I was Trump, I'd have done the same thing. It buys three weeks for the Honduran caravans to remind the American public what happens at the Southern Border. It shows the moderate Republicans and Democrats that Trump is giving deal-time a chance.

 

And it means that in 3 weeks if there's no deal, Trump can say "I gave them a month of shut down, and 3 weeks to make a deal. They refused. I am now invoking my emergency powers to get the money for a wall. I did not want to do it this way, but I did say I could. The Democrats could have avoided this - now there's going to be a wall, and the shutdown happened for nothing - that's on them. I gave them an extra 3 weeks to make good, without the extreme pressure, but I cannot contain crisis at the border crisis any longer."

 

It doesn't matter whether any of that is true. What matters is the optics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Now I just want to play you out something - because you lot have been fed that Trump is a psycho, war-mongering sociopathic rapist with a hard-one for dead kids. I mean, that's the media narrative right?

Assume just for one second that he is not as dumb as you think he is. And for evidence I bring the following:

  • He won the presidency raising just over half of the Clinton campaign.
  • He manipulated the media into giving him more airtime than any other candidate.

If that's blind luck, I think it's probably you that description applies to.

How does he make all this work? I suspect the reason we don't know, is we forget what he actually is. He's a salesman.

he is also a boorish blowhard shyster and poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect who capitalises on the disquiet and exhaustion these qualities inspire in his betters.  

that quote you provided is from a book by Salvatore Babones, a Sydney University sociology professor and contributor to the (pro-Hillary) Sydney Morning Herald (eek!  set "fifth column" alert level to: watch and act)

i point this out, not because it contradicts anything youve said.  it just provides a little nuance.   aah, nuance :)  but since i know you dont speak it, i have a hypothetical for you:

     You're out and about in a crowded city centre when suddenly a Trump speech is broadcast on one of those big screens. 

     Do you :-

       a) scramble for something to hide your raging boner
       b) put your hands on your hips and thrust them outwards, hoping others will notice your raging boner

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only fact I've come across that indicates to me that Trump is smarter than he seems, is that he's scrupulously avoided mentioning AOC on Twitter. 

I'm spewing that he's not quite dumb enough to get involved in a direct confrontation with her... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

he is also a boorish blowhard shyster and poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect who capitalises on the disquiet and exhaustion these qualities inspire in his betters.  

that quote you provided is from a book by Salvatore Babones, a Sydney University sociology professor and contributor to the (pro-Hillary) Sydney Morning Herald (eek!  set "fifth column" alert level to: watch and act)

i point this out, not because it contradicts anything youve said.  it just provides a little nuance.   aah, nuance 🙂 but since i know you dont speak it, i have a hypothetical for you:

     You're out and about in a crowded city centre when suddenly a Trump speech is broadcast on one of those big screens. 

     Do you :-

       a) scramble for something to hide your raging boner
       b) put your hands on your hips and thrust them outwards, hoping others will notice your raging boner

c. At this point, I listen. 

Because people like you are fundamentally wrong about everything you have said about Trump and the world of 2016-> thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@~thehung

That's why the fucking DNC and the Democratic electoral college were so goddamn criminally negligent to sideline Bernie. They had an obligation to go with the candidate with the best chance of winning and Bernie would have fucking crushed it. 

If it was a choice between two candidates the establishment hated (as it totally deserved to be, by the way), it would've been a piece of piss to say that only moronic racists voted for Trump.

But those stinking fucks figured they had folks over a barrel, and gambled the whole goddamn democracy, not to mention pretty much the last chance the biosphere had, on people holding their noses yet again. 

Edited by Kimmo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Kimmo that Bernie could have won because he can out-Trump Trump. Or maybe it’s better to say that’s Trump can’t out-Bernie Bernie.

He’s also old enough and experienced enough to realise that pure ideology will have consequences.

And so he would have lost the support of his diehard supporters who invested their ideological fixation upon him. As is happening now.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leonid said:

he would have lost the support of his diehard supporters who invested their ideological fixation upon him. As is happening now.

You are listening to different people to me, obviously.  I'm not seeing *any* disenchantment with Bernie - unlike Elizabeth Warren.  Quite the contrary, I'm seeing people chanting "Bernie 2020".

Which is pretty amusing, since many of those same people are also hard for AOC to run.  I wonder how they imagine that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leonid said:

You ever wonder why people who've been fed bullshit their whole lives that they didn't want to hear, might want to change the variables to hearing bullshit that they do?

Well that's my point. You tell them people with nothing are their problem, well they can fight that. People with nothing are a lot easier to beat than people who have taken nearly everything and you have no real hope of beating. Like most advertising/media stuff it's a great sell if you've got a large enough base of people who want to believe it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

The U.S. is, and has been for a long time, all about selling Leo, in particular selling an image which is why the minders are vital to success in politics and that is not just the case in the U.S.

Trump appears not to make much use of minders, probably why he has fired so many of the people around him, he sits watching T.V. cellphone in hand and tweets out his image, if he thinks that image is what people want to hear, to a portion of the U.S. electorate he is correct but that portion is essentially the red-necked minority, the ones who still think the K.K.K. is a good idea. Those who mutter about immigrants stealing their jobs whilst doing little to nothing to improve their lot, except spew hatred - pretty scary, that's the foundation of fascism.

There are certainly exceptions within that minority, truck drivers are a very hard working narrow minded group who are as convinced their country is being stolen from them as are typical cabbies, many of whom are less than a decade off the boat themselves. But if those people are the heart of America then the country is doomed, fortunately they are not, neither are the ivory towered intellectuals.

Moore, who is also a salesman selling Moore has a point, the middle class of America  has moved to the right because of the financial  inequality that has seen the money move into a smaller and smaller minority of hands whilst pushing those in the middle down towards poverty and they are not happy about it but the right wing salesmanship of Trump is not the answer.

Distrusting the salesmen and women, and it is self-selling that has taken that money away from them into the hands of the big self-promoters, the Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet etc clique who are anything but what they seem, their motivation is all built around grabbing all they can get for themselves and fuck anyone in their way, is what is needed to begin to restore financial balance in the U.S.

An entire book could,  possibly even has, been written about the charlatans who have stolen America for themselves. But America is built around battling to the top and only a minority can sit on the peak.

That smells of the beginnings of revolution.

From Australia we don't quite see that societal disconnect, although we are infected with it, but you cannot lay the political pendulum of the U.S. over Australia, yet, and have alignment. The U.K. has been through that pain, with less disposable cash and it is still struggling with it but the political pendulum does not align there either.

Capitalism is the virus that ends up producing that schism, especially when there is nothing to hold it in check. Communism is no answer either, we need a new system, a fairer system but it has not appeared as yet and I doubt a revolution would force its birth.

Just what that system could look like I have no idea but the death of capital might be a start.

Cheers

 

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Which is pretty amusing, since many of those same people are also hard for AOC to run.  I wonder how they imagine that would work.

AOC can't run until she's 35, so... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Capitalism is the virus that ends up producing that schism, especially when there is nothing to hold it in check. Communism is no answer either, we need a new system, a fairer system but it has not appeared as yet and I doubt a revolution would force its birth.

What first-world countries had going on between the forties and the seventies seemed to work pretty well, before the scum indoctrinated folks into lining up to hand over their wealth to those who deserved it least.

I have such a hard time considering neoliberal apologists as anything better than traitors to all life on Earth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

What first-world countries had going on between the forties and the seventies seemed to work pretty well, before the scum indoctrinated folks into lining up to hand over their wealth to those who deserved it least.

I have such a hard time considering neoliberal apologists as anything better than traitors to all life on Earth...

🙂

 

You obviously were not living in the U.K during that period 🙂

Australia was pretty good overall during that time, before we caught the virus from the U.S.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

🙂

 

You obviously were not living in the U.K during that period 🙂

Australia was pretty good overall during that time, before we caught the virus from the U.S.

Cheers

@Kimmo‘s just historically ignorant.

The inequity, poverty and anti-dynamism of the UK in the 40s-70s laid the groundwork for Maggie Thatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

Without the technology to Tweet to the masses Thatcher was nonetheless to the U.K. what Trump is to the U.S. They of course rewarded her by making her a Baroness and voting her back for 11 years...

Old money still ruled in the U'K then and to a degree still does, eerily similar to the U.S. situation of money in too few hands with the twist of new money grabbers like Branson, whom they of course brought into their elite by knighting him...

Anyone who lived through the U.K. on forced three day working weeks and rolling utility outages in the 70s would not think that much of a successful time for the country.

Delaney understood the progress of influence and money up the chain when he wrote "time considered as a helix of semi-precious stones."

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, chrisg said:

You obviously were not living in the U.K during that period

So what did Thatcherism wind back?

AFAIK, the UK had a great deal of common wealth that was pillaged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×