Trump: Illusion, Mist and Bought?

[Emil El Zapato]

Speaking of fences. Will she or won’t she. The fact that she won the last election could sway her but I doubt it. Her time is past. Anyone that runs will beat trump. But I doubt he will be available. So things really could get interesting. There might be one or two non swamp dwellers that I would vote for but the pickins are mighty slim in that regard.

[Emil El Zapato]

Too many white people cant see through the color barrier. Obama conducted one of the cleanest administrations in the last 100 hundred years and mostly white Rebublicans are the ones that are so offended by that truth that it was necessary to create a psychological cushion that would allow their tainted worldview sustainability

[Dreamtimer]

You sure do love to attribute emotions to me, Fred. You do realize that's a fallacy, right? One of dozens.

You're cynical–Empirical observation.


Latest illusion: The 'storming' of the interview room where depositions are being held. Many of those 'outraged' republicans are perfectly able to go into the depositions and listen and ask questions. In fact, many of those who can aren't even bothering.

Then when they say things like, 'I never heard that', it's really their own fault because they were too lazy or too afraid to actually go into the room and listen and ask questions.

Wimps.

[Dreamtimer]

To me, this could also go on the humor thread. But I have no wish to foul it, and this thread is very apropos.


From George Conway (Mr. KellyAnne):

You’re the whistleblower, @realDonaldTrump, and @RudyGiuliani is the second whistleblower, and now there’s a third whistleblower, Mick Mulvaney. Hope that helps.

[Fred Steeves]

Good readers, this is what being triggered looked like yesterday morning:

Whoever it is, I sure hope they don’t have your level of cynicism Fred. If I possessed it, my family would have fallen apart and my husband would be a mess. Fortunately, that’s not the case.

And this is what being triggered looks like this morning:

You sure do love to attribute emotions to me, Fred. You do realize that's a fallacy, right? One of dozens.

You're cynical–Empirical observation.

What will it look like next time? We shall see...

[Dreamtimer]

I don't expect you to listen with an open ear or mind, Fred. And that's OK. I can still learn from you.

I promise that when you do actually show some insight into how I think and feel I will let you know. It will be a great day of growth for you.

Try hard not to put square pegs in round holes. That will help.

[Fred Steeves]

The real problem here is not that people like me destroy families, don't trust fellow human beings and suffer from stunted growth. The problem is that this has become the wrong venue to dare insinuate, even through empirical observation, that US democrats could possibly be every bit as corrupt and war loving as US republicans.

The situation here is now not dissimilar to going on 8Chan and daring to insinuate that Captain Chaos is not draining the swamp, and is by no means taking down the deep state by employing 4D chess. Wrong venue.

What you are doing DT is called deflection. If you have a deep rooted problem with me calling out yours and NAP's democratic heroes then defend their perceived honor by challenging my assertions and observations with substance, not this steady drivel of personal insults.

[Emil El Zapato]

I can't speak for DT but I have done so Fred and a week later you level the same complaint. I've been doing it for about 2 years here. I have never seen any convincing proof. Here's an example...watching Trump unfold it is plain to see how powerful the elites are. Let us call the Republican right semi-elite if you wish. They have been after hillary and now Biden for over 40 years and so far nada! No proof, no convinctions. If you want to compare Bill's freebie against Nixon's attempts and now Trump's attempts to trim the Constitution to one word 'ME' you can but that argument falls on any deaf intelligent, sane, ears. And it continues...I had a chance to digest some of the recent news about 'The New Criminal Investigation" and I'll bet you anything you care to wager that this is going to turn into the same destructive urge fueling it that is part and parcel of the 'true' nature of a conservative. Things truly could not be more simple. I'll go one step further in satisfying your need to hear that Dems are just as corrupt, some of them are, but they aren't true liberals, they are conservatives masked to better machinate their greedy, misanthropic schemes.

Is that better Fred?

[Fred Steeves]

I'll go one step further in satisfying your need to hear that Dems are just as corrupt, some of them are, but they aren't true liberals, they are conservatives masked to better machinate their greedy, misanthropic schemes.

Is that better Fred?

No, as a matter of fact it's pretty damn feeble. Is that the best you can do?

No truly objective political commentator would embarrass themselves, ruining their reputations in the process, by stating something ridiculous like one side of the spectrum is pure, and the other side corrupt. There are no pure political systems, and there are no pure pure political ideologies or parties, these vehicles are only as sound as those driving the bus. Period.

Now according to your logic, the Bush family, from Prescott on down through to Pappy and W, have clean bills of health because they never even had formal charges leveled against them. I think Ellen recently demonstrated this nicely by chillin with Bush Jr. (a war criminal) at a Cowboys game.

Perhaps you should take a look at Chomsky's "Manufactured Consent". One example of manufactured consent victim mentality is cheering for the home team no matter what they do, even subconsciously overlooking wrongs and abuses they commit because hey, "we're the good guys".

You can gaslight us by pointing to blowjobs in the Oval Office as the extent of Clinton corruption, I'll point towards things like The Clinton Foundation and cheating Bernie out of the 2016 presidential nomination; not to mention smearing political rivals as "Russian assets".

[Emil El Zapato]

have you researched if Jill Stein is or isn't a Russian Asset? I never really felt that Junior Bush was anything but stupid. Senior Bush was an American hero I think. The real evil in the family was Barbara Bush...the rest is conspiracy theory as is everything else you cited. Dick Cheney was evil, pure and simple. Chomsky was referring to Republicans.

[Emil El Zapato]

But as usual, you and I aren't even thinking in the same realm Fred. I can forgive corruption if it is victimless...which is why many of Trump's antics have no impact on me....letting his kids make money...so what no one is hurt...but when 'revenge', 'hatred', 'prejudice', 'disregard for human dignity' enter the picture then that gets my attention. That is when I attach 'evil' to the acts. But one thing remains central to the entire exchange...it has to be real, documented by real evidence, investigated by real investigators, charges stimulated by real people, a stream of a real traceable provenance, by real people with no real axe to grind, with no real animus with a real thirst for real justice. Get the picture, Fred?

Otherwise, it is not a real discussion but more one of simple fake discussion regarding fake facts...but that's ok, I can do that too but likely no where nearly as good as you can.

How many laws did Hitler break in Germany? Was he corrupt, some might suggest no, he wasn't corrupt because what he did was legal, but he damn sure was evil.

I will give you this...that Bernie thing was wrong (if it was as actually portrayed...who did the investigation?) And to that...Where is the alleged perpetrator now? Not working for Fox News...that's for damn sure...

[Aianawa]

I feel Fred that what for one is most important nowadays is what one does not know about oneself n not what one does, hencyforth.

[Emil El Zapato]

For Whatever It's Worth:

A 2016 hangover: Some Bernie Sanders supporters still upset
By ALEXANDRA JAFFE, HUNTER WOODALL and MEG KINNARD

The acrimony stems from a fiercely fought campaign and a sense among Sanders loyalists that party leaders privately favored Clinton. DNC leaders at the time scheduled fewer debates than Republicans and sometimes slated them for nights with low television viewership. Often opaque delegate allocation rules also contributed to a belief among some Sanders supporters that the primary was essentially rigged.

Since the election, party leaders have sought to smooth things over with Sanders and his supporters. DNC Chairman Tom Perez is planning a robust debate schedule. The rules governing superdelegates — party insiders who overwhelmingly backed Clinton — have changed.

Sanders has publicly expressed confidence in the process this time around, but in terms that suggest he won’t soon forget 2016.

“In 2016, I think I will not shock anybody to suggest that the DNC was not quite evenhanded,” he said during a CNN town hall in February. “I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anybody else.”

My daughter actually likes him...he reminds me of the guy in "Up" I wouldn't have voted for him...And if Tulsi Gabbard won the nomination I would be looking for a Republican that could be a Democrat...Somebody that has an inner core of decency and concern for humanity.

[Fred Steeves]

Jesus NAP, you're all over the damn board man. You're embarrassing yourself in front of everyone who has two critical thinking cells still left in their brain.

So let me get this straight: you're going to defend as "conspiracy theory" the fact that there is a very well documented history of Bush clan war criminality, and ask that those who Queen Bee decrees as being Russian assets prove themselves innocent.

Why are you dying on the hill of unflinchlingly defending BOTH ends of this turd all of a sudden?

[Emil El Zapato]

Truth, I'm tired Fred, I haven't slept well the last two nights and you took me by surprise...You hardly ever want to even have a discussion.

Here's the thing...You misinterpreted my past statements about 'purity'. There is no 100% purity anything BUT, and this is the big but, when I take a completely one-sided position I am operating from the principle of the Hegelian-Dialectic. In this case, my assertion is based in the Bad, Good, and the resulting conflict ending in something of both that is better if the gods are kind. In complete honesty and I don't know how anyone could deny it, the right is bad and the left is good and the interplay usually results in something that is a little of both. You have to understand that my values are not usually in step with what 'the herd' considers of value. And, of course, the right is not ALL bad, just mostly bad...and the left is not ALL good just mostly good (based on my values)...'human concern'. That's it...my world revolves around that and I believe all that comes forth is sourced in those basic fundamental natures. in my head at least which admittedly is very fuzzy right now...no sleep and 2 beers... not to mention 12 hour work days.

Individual acts are not critical to the formulation of my worldview. It is more a holistic perspective which is very much the way my mind functions typically. Which might be why you and many others for that matter just don't understand where I'm coming from. So solly, it is just me and for the most part I do the Frank Sinatra thing...I gotta be me.

And in truth my assessment of the Bush's are my true thinking...with the exception of certain acts which did nothing to really modify my opinion of the individuals in question or to alter my perception of the overall 'spirit' emanating from the synergized group.