Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, yoink said:

Ayn? Really?? *cue frantic googling

Fuck. Everything I've known is a lie!!

Not at all. You once called me an asshole, so you have that still.

[yoink 321]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

Not at all. You once called me an asshole, so you have that still.

Did I spell it right?

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, yoink said:

Did I spell it right?

You did. Unlike that miserable Kallend who said I was an arsehole.

[headoverheels 291]

15 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You did. Unlike that miserable Kallend who said I was an arsehole.

You can take the Brit out of the UK, but you can't take the UK out of the Brit.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

25 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

You can take the Brit out of the UK, but you can't take the UK out of the Brit.

Obviously.

Edited October 16, 2019 by JoeWeber

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

6 hours ago, normiss said:

I don't understand how we even got here to be honest. I've never seen such broad support for everything anti-human, anti-American, anti-decency, anti-normal.

This isn't who we were as a nation.

 

Sure it is.

It was just hidden for a while.

The sort of behavior we are seeing was typical back in the 50s and earlier.

The rise of the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements made it far less socially acceptable. But it didn't go away.

It became readily apparent that these people were still out there after Obama took office. The 'birther' & "secret Muslim" garbage, the actions that were passive-aggressively racist, all of it. 
The number of people who were appalled that 'one of them' was in the White House absolutely amazed me.

I knew that there were some of that type out there, between the stories about certain college fraternities, the vandalism of memorials to lynching victims, and the fact that the KKK still holds rallies, it was clear that it wasn't gone. I thought that it was 'more gone' than it is.
I had thought we had come further than that.

I was wrong.

Trump didn't cause it. He just recognized it and took advantage of it. He was advocating the birther crap for a while. 
He's a hell of a con man. He saw the opportunity to get 'those people' wound up and chanting ('Build the Wall!!' 'Lock her up!!' 'Send them Back!!') and used it.
Just like he's used everything else (campaign funds, Trump Foundation, power of the Presidency) for his own, short sighted personal gains.

So much of his behavior is appalling, disgusting and criminal, that to ignore that part and pretend to 'support' part of it is moronic.

I said it above, and I stand by it. 

His supporters are either blind, fools, or racist, misogynist pigs. 
To say that they 'support his economic polices' is to show an utter ignorance of economic principles (or that they are very, very rich). 

[gowlerk 1,903]

9 hours ago, yoink said:

Your premise of 'enabling a racist makes you a racist' is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't. You can support Trump's economic policies while decrying his social ones, for example. Not speaking out against racism doesn't make you a racist - at worst it makes you a coward.

It does make you no better than a racist.

[wmw999 2,116]

A. I completely agree with Yoink that one can agree with some parts of what someone says or stands for, while decrying the rest. Because if you let your disdain for a particular characteristic drive the rest of your opinions, you're letting that opponent drive your opinions. Isn't that one of the things we don't like about Rush -- that whatever a liberal says is bad, no matter how innocuous? With Trump, there are so many reasons for disdain, but it still holds.

B. Wolfriverjoe commented on the ease with which Trump re-enabled all the racism and misogyny of the 50's. But, really, he's doing exactly what any populist (or advertiser) does: tell people they deserve x, y, or z, and that he'll give it back to them.

White men did used to have the default opinion in the US. In many cases, they still do. Some people find that comforting, because it means that there's an identified "strong" person to take care of them, others because it means they're still in charge.

The fact that it was not acceptable for years to say so out loud in public really meant that we were waiting for enough of the people who truly held those views to die, or pass into irrelevancy. Because while anyone who honestly holds those views will bring their children up to hold the same ones, without the public approval, they won't be able to reinforce the weaker white-macho socialization of others, and so it'll be weaker.

Currently, my hope is that the impeachment enquiry finds enough strong information to convince a significant number of Republicans that there really is a there there. Or that it finds little enough for the Democrats to say "we can't find enough to impeach." An honest admission on either side would be refreshing. Unlikely, but refreshing.

And C: Ron, if Satan is causing the poop-throwing, and Trump is doing it, does that make him God's tool, or Satan's?

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

37 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

A. I completely agree with Yoink that one can agree with some parts of what someone says or stands for, while decrying the rest. Because if you let your disdain for a particular characteristic drive the rest of your opinions, you're letting that opponent drive your opinions. Isn't that one of the things we don't like about Rush -- that whatever a liberal says is bad, no matter how innocuous? With Trump, there are so many reasons for disdain, but it still holds.

You can believe that, I do not. I find some actions by some people to be so odious as to preclude some partial acceptance of them on another level. By posing it as you did you reduce it to a trivial exercise. It's not a case of refusing to like your otherwise wonderful neighbor, who is alway ready to help a friend, over the way he trims his hedges. Here we are talking about someone, our President, who might be doing you a solid by appointing your sort of judge or putting some coins in your purse but who also will carelessly, and on a whim, marginalize his fellow citizens, corrupt our nations institutions or, just to end a phone call, cause a genocide. Trump doesn't drive my opinions, as you example; my opinions drive my disdain for Trump. 

[kallend 1,621]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You did. Unlike that miserable Kallend who said I was an arsehole.

Please post a link. 

[kallend 1,621]

Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler reduced inflation and unemployment.

They were still evil and so were their enablers. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Please post a link. 

John, I was joking. It was a simple word play thing with the silly goal of getting Yoink to smile not to get you to frown. Don't be so serious. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

A. I completely agree with Yoink that one can agree with some parts of what someone says or stands for, while decrying the rest. Because if you let your disdain for a particular characteristic drive the rest of your opinions, you're letting that opponent drive your opinions. Isn't that one of the things we don't like about Rush -- that whatever a liberal says is bad, no matter how innocuous? With Trump, there are so many reasons for disdain, but it still holds...

To a degree, yes.

But as JoeWeber pointed out, and the Professor reinforced, Trump's behavior is so horrible that what little good he does (and I honestly can't think of much) is overshadowed completely by the 'bad'. 

If someone wants to point to his funding of Autism support, but ignores the felonies he's committed, the damage he's doing to th economy, the damage he's doing to our reputation internationally (which is going to have some serious long term consequences), the way he's lining his own pockets at the government's (taxpayers - you & me) expense, all of that...

 

Then they are a fool.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

A. I completely agree with Yoink that one can agree with some parts of what someone says or stands for, while decrying the rest. Because if you let your disdain for a particular characteristic drive the rest of your opinions, you're letting that opponent drive your opinions. Isn't that one of the things we don't like about Rush -- that whatever a liberal says is bad, no matter how innocuous? With Trump, there are so many reasons for disdain, but it still holds.

How often do you see that, though? Certainly on here in almost every case someone who agrees in part with Trump then defends to the hilt the indefensible things he does. Whether or not they agree with it they’re still knowingly enabling it.

 

To be honest, at this point Trump’s moral shortcomings, ethical misdeeds and then damage he is doing to the institutions and processes that are uploaded to keep the Oval Office in check are so obvious and egregious that anyone who supports his re-election, for any reason, has to own up to tacitly supporting everything else he stands for. Including the racism.

[yoink 321]

Divorce yourself from 'agreeing with ideas' and 'supporting him for reelection'. They're different things.

I can support a tougher stance on immigration or a 'less interference in world affairs' in general without voting for Trump for reelection, for example. I can agree with those broad ideas in general without agreeing with how they've been specifically implemented, and without being a racist, or in any way culpable for the damage that is currently being done.

 

Yes. If you VOTE for anyone you have to understand you're supporting the bad they do, as well as the good. But philosophically I can understand why people agree with some of his ideas WITHOUT them magically becoming Trump.

Edited October 16, 2019 by yoink

[jakee 1,254]

39 minutes ago, yoink said:

Divorce yourself from 'agreeing with ideas' and 'supporting him for reelection'. They're different things.

Yes, but the discussion started with what I just said, not what you just said. You first replied to a post referencing Trump supporters, not people who merely agree with some of what Trump said. You’re now arguing a point that a) is fundamentally irrelevant, b) is like yeah, obviously, and c) is not actually a response to anything that anyone here has said.

 

Or to put it a shorter way, you’ve drifted off topic.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

51 minutes ago, yoink said:

Divorce yourself from 'agreeing with ideas' and 'supporting him for reelection'. They're different things.

I can support a tougher stance on immigration or a 'less interference in world affairs' in general without voting for Trump for reelection, for example. I can agree with those broad ideas in general without agreeing with how they've been specifically implemented, and without being a racist, or in any way culpable for the damage that is currently being done.

 

Yes. If you VOTE for anyone you have to understand you're supporting the bad they do, as well as the good. But philosophically I can understand why people agree with some of his ideas WITHOUT them magically becoming Trump.

Generally speaking, sure, I guess. But specifically speaking Trump is an asshole and, knowing what we now know, his supporters are, too.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

the damage he's doing to our reputation internationally (which is going to have some serious long term consequences),

Hi Joe,

I just had a long conversation with a good friend on this the other day.

If the D nominee defeats Trump next Nov then I think that person should immediately get on airplane & make an around-the-world trip.  This would be to visit our allies, somewhat allies, etc & let them know that there is a new administration in charge & that things will be different.

Then, after taking, office, they put those visits into the work that will have to be completed.

I am a 'the glass if 1/2 full' kind of guy.  As I once posted, we survived the Civil War, we can survive the damage of Trump.

Also, once Trump is gone, the new POTUS IMO is going to have to drive the white supremacists back under the woodwork where they belong.  Or is it down the sewer?

Let's all hang in there, brighter days are ahead.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And don't forget the old saying about pregnancy:  It has to get worse before it gets better.

[DJL 232]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

If the D nominee defeats Trump next Nov then I think that person should immediately get on airplane & make an around-the-world trip.  This would be to visit our allies, somewhat allies, etc & let them know that there is a new administration in charge & that things will be different.

They'll call that an apology tour.  I say let's just get down to business.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I completely agree with Yoink that one can agree with some parts of what someone says or stands for, while decrying the rest. Because if you let your disdain for a particular characteristic drive the rest of your opinions, you're letting that opponent drive your opinions.

To some degree. But like anything, there are limits. Sure Mussolini made the trains run on time, but if you supported Mussolini, nobody is going to believe you did it because of his public transportation policies.

[wmw999 2,116]

I agree with that, too. 

For what it's worth, I support neither Mussolini or Trump (other than supporting our president as the president -- he does hold the office). I support the office of president; I honestly think that's more important than trying to overthrow a particular one, because the act of breaking how things were done will have greater repercussions than the damage he can do if he continues to be limited by terms. 

I honestly think that one of the best things about the US is our ability to trust that elections will, in fact, change the leadership if the vote goes that way. Barring some district history in places like Chicago, S. Texas, and maybe now North Carolina.

Nice way to avoid the H-word, by using Mussolini 

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

To some degree. But like anything, there are limits. Sure Mussolini made the trains run on time, but if you supported Mussolini, nobody is going to believe you did it because of his public transportation policies.

This is actually quite an interesting quote, which illustrates a lot about how authoritarian propaganda works. Mussolini did not get the trains to run on time. However, to some degree there's always a temptation to think that whatever else is going on, the 'strong man' leader is at least going to Get Things Done. And so it's easy for them to get people to believe they are Getting Things Done. The Trump phenomenon is a prime example of this. But it's bollocks. The authoritarian ruler can have all the downfalls of authoritarian rulers and still be completely useless at the admin too.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

They'll call that an apology tour.  I say let's just get down to business.

Hi DJL,

I disagree.  IMO they will see it as a great opportunity to right a lot of things that Trump has f'ed up.

And, it will be a 'get down to business' trip.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited October 16, 2019 by JerryBaumchen

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

This is actually quite an interesting quote, which illustrates a lot about how authoritarian propaganda works. Mussolini did not get the trains to run on time. However, to some degree there's always a temptation to think that whatever else is going on, the 'strong man' leader is at least going to Get Things Done. And so it's easy for them to get people to believe they are Getting Things Done. The Trump phenomenon is a prime example of this. But it's bollocks. The authoritarian ruler can have all the downfalls of authoritarian rulers and still be completely useless at the admin too.

I agree. You actually see this behaviour constantly with Trump. Anything good he attributes to himself, anything bad is the fault of somebody else. This is standard behaviour by Trump, he does it all the time.

Now, he has done some good things. That doesn't mean that his underlying behaviour, attributing all good things to himself and faulting others for anything bad, isn't fucking atrocious and the worst possible trait in any leader.

Edited October 16, 2019 by SkyDekker

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi DJL,

I disagree.  IMO they will see it as a great opportunity to right a lot of things that Trump has f'ed up.

And, it will be a 'get down to business' trip.

Jerry Baumchen

Hey Jerry,

I think he's right. It is what "they'll" call it no matter what we want it called. If the new Prez is sharp enough a lot can be done on the phone. Regardless, friend or foe, a lot of the world will take a bit of pleasure watching us lick our wounds for a while.