Truthers have always reminded me of the character Lenny in John Steinbeck’s novel Of Mice and Men, arguably they aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed.
A lot was made during the campaign about Trump promoting violence during his campaign rallies – the liberal media was aghast and had plenty to say about it.
Everyone from Maddow to Maher weighed in, and they should have, but indignation should be consistent wherever such things occurs.
I’m not exactly what you could refer to as a fan boy of a single celebrity, I have no hesitation in agreeing or disagreeing with any of them, nor am I inclined to make excuses for them.
And while I believe Maher does an admirable and often hilarious job of pointing out the lunacy so prevalent in modern society and politics he is neither a demi god or the greatest social commentator extant in my opinion.
If the opportunity arose I would ask Maher what is the difference between Trump’s approach to “hecklers” during one of his speeches and that of a “heckler” during Maher’s?
I’m sure Maher would respond by saying he isn’t running for office and his show isn’t a rally – fair enough, but only partially so.
Maher may not be running for office but his show is in essence a Maher rally, it is entirely political.
He knows it, you know it.
Maher might also contend that his show is his “house”, and in a way it is, but it’s also a televised public venue, and Maher doesn’t reside there, do the maintenance, mow the lawn, change the light bulbs, broadcast from his actual living room, or pay the property taxes.
There’s never been a time when it has been as important as it is now to speak up, the manner in which that is done will be as diverse as there are individuals with opinions.
In the exercise of that right what is condemned in one should not be condoned in another – it isn’t “ a wash” because others have done it.
I’m a believer at some point in returning like for like – if someone treats you well return in like measure, if they don’t, give the same in return or lay down because they will take it as permission to run over you.
But I also believe there is more than one way to defuse a situation, the first isn’t necessarily to promote violence, and it may be best to attempt to exercise a different approach.
And this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew25BrkBrUc
Trump has made a lot of noise about “draining the swamp” that Washington, D.C. has become.
Well and good as the reality is that politics has become a swamp, if nothing else Trump and his list of appointees are a proof of that.
What Trump is doing is nothing more than introducing an additional invasive species, the swamp isn’t being drained, it’s becoming even more toxic.
A viral toxicity that will make it’s way out of the swamp to ultimately infect all things from the environment to foreign relations.
In the 1950’s American’s were held hostage for a brief time by a Senator named Joe McCarthy who shook the foundations of Democracy and the Constitution with witch hunts akin to the Brietbart/Alex Jones tales of Communist infestation in the government, film industry, and virtually every aspect of society accompanied by an endless array of conspiracy theories.
I personally don’t see a lot of difference between Trump and McCarthy, neither of which were or are actually concerned about facts.
McCarthy’s thing was the “Red menace” – Trump’s thing is about everyone who isn’t Ivory Snow white and a denizen of the alt right – both played and play to the lowest common denominator of fear, nationalism, and ignorance.
I firmly believe that whistle blowers play an important role in a democratic system of checks and balances – they are however routinely villainized as being “unpatriotic, or worse, a communist – predictable labels when a valid defense cannot be offered.
The current administration has pursued and prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other administration in history – even that of the previous administration…… so much for “transparency” huh?
Julian Assange has in my opinion done a worthy service in the past, but the Assange of today is not the same Assange of yesterday.
Assange currently comes across as something of a spoiled attention seeking brat craving the spotlight – I believe this is the result of Snowden having diverted attention away from Assange and garnering the lion’s share.
His focus on Hillary Clinton is personal and not service oriented – granted there is plenty of blame to direct at Clinton for a number of things – but whistle blowers as should the media should operate impartially seeking to inform minus personal agendas and egos.
Ecuador apparently having had enough of Assange’s personal vendetta and attempt to influence the election from afar has pulled the plug on his internet connection – this of course will lead to speculations of conspiracies and the usual inanities by those who hear nothing but footsteps and creaking floors in the dark, but the truth is Assange has allowed his ego to get in the way and overplayed his hand, doing not only a disservice to whistle blowers in general but also marginalizing them and setting the stage for an even heavier handed crackdown.
Well, well, well – seems like the Republican establishment has developed a case of buyers remorse and casting about to see if there is a applicable lemon law when it comes to their fair haired boy Donald Trump.
Not only has Trump made fools of the home team but individuals who in wanting to demonstrate their commitment to the party uber allies by endorsing him are seeking to distance themselves.
In this seeking of distance talk of a convention fight and an alternative nominee have risen to the surface again.
The casting couch has floated aspiring debutantes like Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, and one time military icon General David Petraeus.
And yes that would be the same Petraeus who was busted for emails containing classified information much the same as Hillary Clinton is under fire for – which in theory would seem to defang the conservative outrage related to Clinton.
But this is politics, a cesspool of contradictions and the nonsensical – so why not Petraeus?
Or why not Ryan as he attempts to wipe the pie ( or is it another substance?) from his face, or everybody’s favorite demagogue Walker?
It’s difficult to imagine the RNC actually believed Trump could retool himself – maybe they believed that in being the B grade actor with the at times affected James Deanesque pouty expression and huckster he is he could pull it off at least long enough to win the election.
That the crown prince twit of twitter could tweet his way out of his now epic episodes of feces flinging.
But they should have known better, not only has the handwriting been on the wall but it’s been there in huge flashing neon letters – the man’s a certifiable idiot, a narcissist with an unlimited capacity to stick his hoof in his mouth and an acute sense of entitlement.
A wall is being built, a wall that isn’t going to keep Mexicans or anyone else out of the country, rather a wall of Trumps construction that will keep him contained, keep him out of the presidency, and the poetic justice is Mexico isn’t paying for the construction of the wall, Trump is.
I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person and Boehner’s take on Cruz had me rolling on the floor.
What a difference a decade or two makes, politics has become a gloves off bare knuckled free for all with any pretense at civility only being necessary when called on the carpet for being egregiously politically incorrect.
The way it’s going it won’t be long before women candidates are referred to as sluts by those running against them, and Trump has done a lot to open the door for doing so with his comments about Megan Kelly and Carly Fiorina.
This has become the year of the woman in politics, so much so the Clinton campaign has hinted that an all women cabinet would be a consideration, and now Cruz in a blatant move to make himself more presentable names Fiorina as his VP choice.
I guess that goes a long way in explaining Fiorina’s emergence as a Cruz acolyte following the dismantling of her campaign.
A gender different version of Christie becoming The Donald’s pet poodle.
Boehner says Cruz is not only a miserable sob but Lucifer in the flesh, I won’t get into what the probability is that’s an accurate assessment but for those evangelicals or quasi religious who are addicted to defining all things on the basis of god and Lucifer and support Cruz their heads must surely be spinning – they may even be on their knees now in fervent prayer calling for divine retribution and referring to this as a Luciferian plot to undermine Cruz.
Poor Cruz, he can’t catch a break, “lying’ Ted, and now this – a miserable sob and Lucifer incarnate.
The public in not running for office or holding an elected office have always been more vocal and less inclined to worry about name calling, and even though Boehner holds no political office and is a private citizen he isn’t so far removed as not to be seen as a politician.
To tell you the truth I think it’s better to know what’s in a person’s heart, what they really believe, than something considered to be polite or socially expedient.
So Boehner believes Cruz is Lucifer, I’m okay with Boehner saying so whether he is or not, at least now we know exactly where Boehner is coming from and something I believe is better in the long run.
One thing that puzzles me though is how does it work that a candidate like Florina or Christie whose campaigns were soundly rejected suddenly qualify as a viable VP candidate or cabinet appointee?
The internet is going to have field day with this, memes will abound as will ps’d images of Cruz as Lucifer.
No wonder the politics of American campaigns has become the laughing stock of the world.
I imagine there are those of the opinion that Trump is the embodiment of all that’s evil, and that leaves the conservative party in something of a quandary – maybe they should mimic the vintage television show, “What’s My Line?” and ask if the real Lucifer will please stand up.
Trump or Cruz, talk about conservative voters being between a rock and a hard place.
But then they brought it on themselves didn’t they?
This Sundays “fourfer”
“The U.S. embargo of Cuba, now a blockade, was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Cold War in response to a 1960 memo written by a senior State Department official. The memo proposed “a line of action that makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the [Castro] government.”
“ To bring about hunger and desperation” – a facet of what is cavalierly referred to in other incidents as “collateral damage”.
Sort of big deal what if innocents suffer or die as long as the U.S. gets it’s way.
Not a fan of Castro, Che, or any of that, but facts are facts and there’s no denying them.
Corporate America is chomping at the bit in anticipation of markets that will open in Cuba resulting from a “normalization” of relations and it wouldn’t surprise me if companies relocated there to take advantage of a cheap labor force.
Benefits for Cubans would be more jobs and more money in the pocket – in theory the Cuban government should assess an equitable tax on such foreign companies to fund their existing healthcare system and whatever infrastructure problems that may exist since it’s doubtful relocating companies would provide such benefits if they were needed.
Marjorie Cohn kind of comes across as though she seeks to portray Cuba as an Eden, and I have more than one issue with the NLG.
Cuba isn’t Eden, but the points she makes are factual and food for thought.
Normalize relations with Cuba? Forget the conservative mumbo jumbo, it’s a no brainer, long overdue, and credit to Obama for opening the door.