Trump II

[Robert Roaldi]

I agree: jobs and prosperity are way up the list for an America which is hurting in this regard. And most people of most political persuasions probably don't have much time for the latest studenty muppet one-legged transgendered experiment in something or another. They might not much care one way or the other but they don't want it put before their jobs and their families. However, there are ways of working towards these things and ways of blowing the whole thing apart into one big pile of chaos and, ominously, inter-racial unrest. This is playing with fire. The problem is that the Trump-Bannon method involves blowing everything apart - and the results are there for all to see in a failing government. America has deep reserves of good government and it should have deep reserves of politicians skilled at bringing people together, not driving them apart, and skilled at stopping the crazy blame game between two opposing camps which just use it as an excuse to avoid facing up to reality and getting stuff done.

I'm not following. How does worrying about transgender rights decrease the number of jobs available? New social issues arise all the time as society evolves, always have. It's not jobs or social issues. It's jobs AND social issues. You try to look after everything all the time. When has it ever been any other way?

[Schewe]

But to use him as a symbol of equal rights for all mankind is taking things a little too far.

Wow, so you are so desperate to defend Trump you are willing to throw George Washington under the bus to do so?

Did you even read what George wrote to the leaders of the Touro Synagogue, America's oldest synagogue?

It is no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

You know, what George wrote was the basis of America's religious freedom, right? That at the time of the writing, Jews were worried what would become of them during the creation of our new nation? That George was trying to let the Jewish leaders know that he supported their religious freedom.

Yeah, ok, George owned slaves-kinda hard to farm back then without them and George did give his slaves their freedom upon his death. But I'm pretty sure what the article I posted was referring to George rolling in his grave was about Nazis...because those neo-Nazi's marching with the torches weren't yelling about lynching blacks, they were spouting Nazi slogans like "Jews will not replace us!". So, while George was a slave owner, he respected the Jewish faith enough to measure them there would be a place for them in America. I mean it's not like George threw anybody into gas chambers like the Nazis did, right?

While Trump may not be a Nazi, he sure did give comfort and aid to them in in his press conference. That's why they thanked him for being the ‘Most Honest President’ since Washington...



German magazine cover shows Trump wearing KKK hood

The German magazine Der Spiegel has become the latest to depict President Trump as a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan in recent days, posting an image of their upcoming cover on Twitter on Friday afternoon.

Deputy foreign desk editor Mathieu von Rohr posted an image of the upcoming cover on Twitter, which is titled "the true face of Donald Trump" in German. The same editor dubbed Trump's White House a "Confederate presidency" in an earlier tweet.

Das wahre Gesicht des Donald Trump translates to The true face of Donald Trump

And Germans are pretty good at spotting Nazis these days...just sayin'

[Schewe]

Yeah, I was gonna save this for later but since Trump brought it up...

President Trump is a 'liar' and his wine is 'not good' says Patricia Kluge, six years after Donald bought bankrupt socialite's vineyard, renamed it Trump Winery and then fired her

President Trump is getting slammed by one of the very few people in the world who also knows what it is like to be both a billionaire and bankrupt.

In an interview with Town & Country, socialite Patricia Kluge says that President Trump is a 'liar' who produces sub-par wine, two claims that are sure to rile up the Commander-in-Chief.

That second claim is a bit of a shock coming from Kluge, as Trump Winery is produced on the vineyard she spent two decades building in Charlottesville, Virginia.

She does not seem to be all that sentimental about the vineyard these days though, offering a very blunt and too the point assessment of the grappa which bears the Trump name.

'The wine is not good anymore,' says Kluge.

She did not stop there either, noting towards the end of the interview: 'I have had several people in Palm Beach lament that it's the only wine they have at the menu at Mar-a-Lago.'


Compliment sandwich: Kluge did have some positive things to say as well in her interview, particularly about
how Eric Trump (above in 2011 with his father and Kluge) does a 'great job with maintenance'

--snip--

And on Tuesday, President Donald Trump took some time at a press conference about infrastructure that devolved into a back-and-forth with the media about racial unrest in Virginia to talk about the winery he owns in Charlottesville.

Trump Winery is 'one of the largest wineries in the United States' the President told those assembled at Trump Tower in New York City, a perplexing aside given the serious nature of the topic being discussed.

That aside was also factually incorrect, with the 1,300-acre vineyard dwarfed in size by the likes of E. & J. Gallo in California (23,000 acres).

The 36,000 cases of wine that Trump Winery produces each year is also much less than the likes of Pindar Vineyards (100,000 cases per year) and Wolffer Estate (75,000 cases per year) on Long Island.

'Does anyone know I own a house in Charlottesville? Oh boy. It's in Charlottesville, you'll see,' said President Trump on Tuesday.

'It is the winery. I know a lot about Charlottesville. Charlottesville is a great place that's been very badly hurt over the last couple of days. But I own, actually, one of the largest wineries in the United States. It's in Charlottesville.'

'He lies a lot, and he knows that, and everybody knows that, but he can’t stop himself,' explained Kluge during the interview.

'All of us who have known Donald in New York for a long time have always known that, and you have to find a way of working around it because it's part of his makeup.'

And Kluge did have some positive things to say as well in her interview, particularly about how Eric Trump does a 'great job with maintenance' while running the vineyard, which is in his name.

'The vineyard looks absolutely fabulous and everything looks polished,' said Kluge.

Ironic that the Donald says he owns the vineyard because according to the Town & country article:

 "I own actually one of the largest wineries in the United States," he said, referring to the property. There were several things wrong with that statement. The vineyard is not even one of the largest on the East Coast, and has a disclaimer on its website that reads, "Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates."

But that's ok because we all know Trump is a liar! And this person is the President of the United States of America, for now.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Silly boy...

I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.

[Schewe]

So, this happened (no I didn't do it)



The disturbing thing is that trump has a Hollywood star...did he deserve that? I mean I'm ok with Ronald Reagan having a star...heck he actually was an actor and arguably a movie star. But all Trump did was say "You're fired" (which he seems to have done a lot lately).

[Schewe]

I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.

What was insulting?

Silly? or Boy?

Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?

Wow...ok.

Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.

There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy".

[Schewe]

What It’s Like To Have Your Anti-Trump Art Go Mega-Viral

“When something really pisses me off, I get a little extra inspired,” Austin-based artist Mike Mitchell says.

In the wake of the Charlottesville demonstrations, many calls to impeach President Trump have been accompanied by a powerful image: the number “45” rendered like a Swastika behind the international “No” symbol. It’s already appearing on homemade signs carried by protesters, it has flooded Twitter, Facebook, an Instagram, and it is quickly becoming an emblem of who Trump really is.

The person behind the symbol is the Austin-based artist Mike Mitchell. He’s no stranger to activist artwork, but this symbol, which so evocatively represents President Trump’s sanctioning of white supremacy, has quickly become face of a renewed and united resistance movement. “When something really pisses me off, I get a little extra inspired,” Mitchell tells Co.Design via email. The Pussyhat was January 2017. This is August 2017.

#MAGA #DUMPTRUMP :~)

[mecrox]

I'm not following. How does worrying about transgender rights decrease the number of jobs available? New social issues arise all the time as society evolves, always have. It's not jobs or social issues. It's jobs AND social issues. You try to look after everything all the time. When has it ever been any other way?

It's about perspective and priorities. Both are important but voters will always be changing the order of importance of one thing or another. I'd wager it's fair to say that across a large part of the US there's a feeling that something pretty big needs to be done about jobs and the economy. Inevitably that means social issues while still important won't get the prominence they once did. Voters may not want to see a government elected to tackle jobs above all, for example, expending all its energies on social issues instead. A government won't want to do that either because it knows that it will be heavily marked down by voters at the next election if it has failed to deliver on its main promises.

Normally this gets sorted out amid the messy haggling and compromises of democracy. The difference here is the use of deliberately divisive tactics intended to force people into antagonistic camps with the aim of big-upping an authoritarian generalissimo figure. Anyway, it's all backfired, at least so far. When the risks of civil unrest became clear support started to be withdrawn and the generalissimo figure was soon shown up as eccentric to say the least. The author of much of this - memorably described as like "a haggis drawn from memory" - has been shown the red card and sent off the pitch.

[mecrox]

Your first paragraph was reasonable.  But it's been the Democrats that have played the race card for decades.  What you're seeing from the right now is a reaction from people who feel they've been marginalized by the elites, by people who don't care about their problems.  All they want is an even break.  I'm not talking about the Nazis or KKK.  There a tiny group.  You're blaming the victim of social policies that have favored the poor, black, outsiders, illegal immigrant, business sending jobs overseas, globalists who favor foreign countries over America, and well-connected rich supported by liberals and Democrats. 

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, you say get beyond the guy.  Why would I?  Do I want to support people who don't care about me?  Your idea that he should be tied up is an insult.  He intends and I intend that he stay for 4 more years.  If Americans think otherwise, they get to elect another president then.  In the meanwhile, you and everyone else in the world will have to deal with him.  He won't be easy to control.  Like Obama was.

There you go again: the blame game. And the race card. Nothing will change while this goes on. It will likely just get worse. I'd wager that a lot of people think locking Trump down is exactly what the institutions of America have in mind, which is why McMaster and Kelly among others are getting a grip and exerting more and more influence. If that fails then, yes, I'd say it would be quite likely that Trump stepping down will happen in one way or another, though it would depend on the GOP. The US has long-term interests that go far, far beyond four years of potential chaos. Sure, Trump stepping down might not happen but with every new foot-in-mouth tweet or important supporter distancing themselves, the chances of it increase. Meanwhile Mr Mueller and his grand juries are still out there, sifting and sorting away.

[Robert Roaldi]

Interesting podcast about how the Trump administration is altering lobbying-related rules: http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/543876454/in-trumps-government-the-regulated-have-become-the-regulators.

There used to be a 2 year period during which a former industry lobbiest could not be put into a federal regulatory job (in that same field, I believe) without special dispensation, and if so, that dispensation had to be made public for transparency reasons. The rules have been changed, doing away with that 2 year period.

Cleaning the swamp, my butt. This is just institutionalized old-fashioned back-room cronyism, the kind of thing people used to find repugnant in banana republics. I guess it's comforting in a way, knowing that all that talk about eliminating corruption and government meddling was just cover, same-old same-old hypocrisy, familiar territory. We're not dealing with a new species after all.

[Otto Phocus]

Democratic State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal:   "I hope Trump is assassinated."

I would look to that state to start impeachment proceedings against her.

This was not a "slip of the lip" type of mistake.  She had to take the effort to type all those words, in that order and posted it. One does not accidentally post things.

While she still retains her First Amendment rights as a State Senator, she, like the rest of us, are not immune from the consequences of her free speech.

I do NOT think that any criminal charges should be levied against her as her typed message probably (to be investigated by the USSS) is not a legitimate threat.

However, I feel that it is completely unacceptable for an elected official to advocate, in any way, the assassination of any other elected official in the US. We need to have zero tolerance for this.  This is something that we should not even joke about.

Her taking the time and deliberately posting that sort of message makes her, in my opinion, unfit to hold such an elected office.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What was insulting?

Silly? or Boy?

Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?

Wow...ok.

Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.

There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy"

Cute.

But remember, this is your thread an you just opened the door...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.

While I'd agree that making critical responses personal is not the best way of keeping the discussions civil, you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...

Without offering an introduction/context for a comment, or a reference to what is being reacted, discussions become unnecessarily difficult. Maybe that's the goal, just throwing some oil on a fire and running away, in which case you might succeed although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

While I'd agree that making critical responses personal is not the best way of keeping the discussions civil, you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...

Without offering an introduction/context for a comment, or a reference to what is being reacted, discussions become unnecessarily difficult. Maybe that's the goal, just throwing some oil on a fire and running away, in which case you might succeed although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.

Cheers,
Bart

The Left, liberal and Democrats have always used insults and demeaning comments and jokes against their opponents.  As a kid, I saw it against Eisenhower, a guy who was never a politician until he became president.  He also had awful speech leaving dangling modifiers and malapropisms.  Often, you couldn't understand the point he was trying to get too.  The Democrat press made fun of him.  Likewise with Dole, Nixon, and of course Reagan who they always implied was dumb and losing his mind.  Schewe uses it on every post, calling Trump Nazi, and jokes about everything about him.  He's accepted the left way of insulting their opposition for political points with relish.  Of course it works to a certain extent.  Especially for people who only read headlines.  But, it failed in the last election when enough people were pissed off that they saw through the insults and elected Trump anyway. 

If Trump and the Republicans are able to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation that helps the American economy, jobs, trade, health, security, Supreme Court, etc., it won't matter.  The Democrats will lose again if they run on "Trump is a Nazi" "Trump is Unqualified"  "Trump is Disturbed"  "etc."  and have no meaningful platform that helps Americans. 

Frankly, I wonder if this is Trump's strategy.  Keep the Democrats focused on wedge issues so they won't have anything important to say about the real issues Americans care about.  If all they'll talk about are bronze statues, white hoods, LGBT bathroom issues, his mental stability, and stuff like that,  they're going to lose worse.  It didn't work in the last election.  Why would it work next time? 

Insult away. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...

... although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.

Examples, Bart?

When was the last time my comments were not civil, in order to provoke a "response in kind"? You seem to be blaming a victim for your (rhetorically)  own incivility? It is my fault? Was I dressed "provocatively" as well?

[scyth]

What was insulting?

Silly? or Boy?

Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?

Wow...ok.

Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.

There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy".

old fart is true to himself

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Examples, Bart?

Okay, let's take the recent comment, which you happened to address at Jeff (who can respond for himself should he want to, and he did):

QUOTE (from Reply #5341):

Jeff, are you kidding!? 40,000 protesters AGAINST free speach and you call it "true American values"!? I call it a tragedy.

First, I have come to know you as an intelligent person, so I have to assume that your misrepresentation of the goal of the 40,000 protesters was not out of stupidity, but it rather was a provocation. You didn't provide a link to a source, so we have to assume it is your summary of events. You knew full well that they didn't protest against free speech, but against White Supremacists, Nazi ideology supporters, etc. That's all (both positions) fully in line with the USA version of free speech, regardless of the level of repulsiveness, but they (the 40,000 protesters) also have the full right to peacefully protest against such toxic ideologies. Your twisting of the actual events is not funny, and even if it were intended as funny, it's a lame attempt at distorting the truth, a provocation.

So, when you sow (childish) provocation, expect to reap (childish, in kind) provocation.

When was the last time my comments were not civil, in order to provoke a "response in kind"? You seem to be blaming a victim for your (rhetorically) own incivility? It is my fault? Was I dressed "provocatively" as well?

Maybe it was lost in translation (we're both not native English speakers), but my reference to civil was a general introductory remark about making remarks aimed at specific persons or groups, in an attempt to demean them or their remarks, which is not a civil thing to do and often used as an attempt to derail a discussion (to get a thread closed) by provoking the other party into overreacting.

Most of the participants in this thread are too smart to fall for that, but it might trigger some less civil responses, leading to a premature end to the thread. Premature, because it is still (after this many posts) an interesting exchange of viewpoints, a compilation of some great covers of professional illustrators, and other creative cartoons, and useful sources of information. It also prevents pollution of other threads with distractions.

Cheers,
Bart

[scyth]

but they (the 40,000 protesters) also have the full right to peacefully protest against such toxic ideologies.

alt right had to apply for a permit first to protest (which is their right)... alt left also must apply for a permit fitst to counter protest (which is their right)... then whoever approves counter protest within physical proximity is responsible for the outcome... that simple... counter protest w/o permit issued shall be suppressed, with live rounds if necessary...

PS: refrain from labels "toxic", your ideology is as "toxic" as theirs.

[Schewe]

Cute.

But remember, this is your thread an you just opened the door...

I'm still waiting to be told what was personally insulting about the term 'silly boy'...your responce to me about 40k protesting free speech was silly...and calling somebody 'boy' (if the person being called it isn't black) isn't insulting in my book. It's like calling somebody doode or bud or pal.

Seriuosly I don't see how silly boy is an insult...can anybody else take a stab at explaining it?

[scyth]

and calling somebody 'boy' (if the person being called it isn't black) isn't insulting in my book.

so you agree that I can call you as I wish, for as long as it is not "insulting" in "my" book, old fart ?