Holman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:30 pm
Narcissism is about constant and constantly escalating reinforcement and aggrandizement.
Imagine being a narcissist with a Twitter following in the millions.
My point is that unless you're brickshit house insane (like, jacket, padded room, the full deal) then even a narcissist should know to stay away from things that don't reinforce his narcissism. People who are delusional naturally shy away from things that might negatively impact those delusions. If I think I live on mars in an underground tunnel, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time looking out my window and I will have a rationalization for when I do (or something forces me to).
If he doesn't like being criticized, holding up something that will clearly result in him being criticized for millions of people to see is the exact opposite of what I would expect from a narcissist. Telling the world you're awesome? Sure. Telling the world that this guy who is an enemy of all the people I'm trying to get aggrandizement from seems like a bad idea, even for a crazy narcissist.
Ok, pretty poorly expressed, but I hope the meaning comes across.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.
But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.
It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.
Pyper has this to say which I think is true, but I haven't been paying attention for that long. Personally I don't think these comments apply to the Bush years, but I do think they apply to the Obama years, and I don't see how anyone could argue that they don't apply to the current administration.
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:35 am
I'll give Frum an incomplete. What he fails to mention is that the GOP gave up on any sense of Duty years ago, and instead opted for cowardice.
Especially anyone in the Trump administration.
With regards to the Bush years, it does apply, IMHO:
Lying in order to get us into Iraq
Outing Valerie Plame
Deficit-funding of Wars/Tax Cuts/Programs (No child left behind/Medicare Part D)
Firing AG's who wouldn't launch politically motivated smear investigations into Democrats
Using 9/11 as a Wedge issue
Etc. - the list goes on - there was a duty they had to NOT do all of the above, which they willingly shirked.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
YellowKing wrote:I just finished the James Comey book and it seems almost quaint that we used to think that it was an example of "explosive revelations."
Was the book worth a read? All of the books that have come out so far have seemed self serving. Comey seemed like he was trying to save face after 2016. The Fire & Fury guy has known accuracy issues. Omarosa is... Omarosa.
Woodward is the first book I’ve seriously considered. The man is a legend in journalism, and I don’t think he would publish something if he didn’t believe it was true and have a way to back it up.
Except that lie detectors don't detect lies (which is why they aren't allowed as evidence in court), they detect a galvanic skin response which can occur for a number of other reasons besides a person telling a lie.
They are also pretty easy to throw off by messing with the baselines they establish at the beginning of the test.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.
But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.
It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.
No worries. I'm not losing sight of anything. My POV that the author is painting with too broad a brush in trying to lay Trump at the feet of "40 years of conservative thought" doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion that (1) Trump has to go; or(2) a secret "resistance" within the White House is not the mechanism to make that happen.
I just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump. It's not like we haven't gone over what led to Trump on these boards before (gross tribalism, balkanization and growing disparities between urban/rural communities, a depressing decline in civility, etc.), and a lot of that can certainly be attributed to Republicans and conservatives (especially the Gingriches of the world and Teabaggers like Palin and Bachmann and their financial backers), but to put it all on "conservatives" seems off base and misleading.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Slate today is taking the rare step of publishing a letter someone sent us from inside an ongoing bank robbery. We have done so at the request of the author, who is currently robbing a bank, but would like to minimize his exposure to criminal charges from this whole bank robbery thing now that it seems to be going south. We invite you to submit a question about this essay or our vetting process here.
“Machine Gun” Bill McGuire, the leader of the gang of hardened criminals currently robbing the First National Bank, is facing a test to his leadership unlike any faced by a modern American bank robber.
It’s not just that the building is surrounded by police officers. Or that he’s running out of hostages to bargain with. Or even that the sentries he posted in the loading dock don’t seem to be responding over their walkie-talkies anymore.
The dilemma—which he does not fully grasp—is that many of the senior henchmen inside his own gang are working diligently from within the bank to paint ourselves as heroes in the press while continuing to stuff our duffel bags with as much money as we can grab.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:48 pm
Oh, no one is going to do anything but if things start moving forward somehow or they actually start losing elections, it won't matter to them - because the plan all along was to lock up the Supreme Court. That's what they'll campaign on to try and stay in power but if it doesn't work they'll at least know that anything the Democrats try to do (health care, gun control, etc...) will stand a chance of being struck down. They're getting ready to embrace losing the battle because they've won the war (in their minds).
Spilled milk that's long since evaporated but two years later I still don't understand how this was not the central talking point of 2016. Trump knew it was and campaigned on it, I never could understand why the Dem response wasn't to meet that head on and bring absolutely everything back to this point, even as the R led Congress spit on their duties "to let the voters decide". This more than any other hardened my stance on never voting against R control forever more. OO never lost site of this, but, in general, meh. In campaigning, meh. I don't get it.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.
But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.
It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.
No worries. I'm not losing sight of anything. My POV that the author is painting with too broad a brush in trying to lay Trump at the feet of "40 years of conservative thought" doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion that (1) Trump has to go; or(2) a secret "resistance" within the White House is not the mechanism to make that happen.
I just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump. It's not like we haven't gone over what led to Trump on these boards before (gross tribalism, balkanization and growing disparities between urban/rural communities, a depressing decline in civility, etc.), and a lot of that can certainly be attributed to Republicans and conservatives (especially the Gingriches of the world and Teabaggers like Palin and Bachmann and their financial backers), but to put it all on "conservatives" seems off base and misleading.
One can drill down more specifically if one so chooses, but as I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a nasty schism developed in the civil rights era that has yet to come close to healing. I blame conservatives for weaponizing that schism, while still acknowledging that the left has held fast to their desire for progress of a sort that is uncomfortable for some. So if you want to conclude that progressive thought is also a root cause of the split, that's fine. The difference to my mind is that one side is arguing for racial, gender, and sexual equality and one side is fighting like hell to prevent it, and using that fight to rally it's least thoughtful, most reactionary base. One side it in the right, and the other I hold in much greater contempt.
There's also the fact that there's a litany of conservative strategists on record and going back decades stating that exploiting this split was a conscious, deliberate political ploy...
I'm a moderate, truly... But there's very little "both sides" to be argued about today's situation.
Last edited by geezer on Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
WaPo Opinion: The unnamed op-ed writer can’t be pleased
by Jennifer Rubin
No one, it seems, views this author positively. Trump cultists of course see this person as a “traitor.” Trump’s harshest critics denounce this person who serves this president and can’t even sign his name to an op-ed. In their eyes, he is a cowering enabler. The Washington establishment, where this person will likely want to continue operating, has become, if anything, even more severe in its judgment: You cannot be honorable if you are silent in what appears to be an incapacitated, antidemocratic presidency. You’re an enabler.
In short, somewhere in a West Wing or department office, a nervous adviser is trying to blend into the walls, keep his head down. He likely didn’t get what he wanted — balm for his inflamed conscience. And worse, the chief “saviors” are gone or soon to go from Cabinet jobs, leaving fewer guardrails and putting the country further at risk. No, the anonymous author didn’t get what he wanted; indeed, he may have made his own and the country’s predicament worse.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.
But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.
It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.
No worries. I'm not losing sight of anything. My POV that the author is painting with too broad a brush in trying to lay Trump at the feet of "40 years of conservative thought" doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion that (1) Trump has to go; or(2) a secret "resistance" within the White House is not the mechanism to make that happen.
I just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump. It's not like we haven't gone over what led to Trump on these boards before (gross tribalism, balkanization and growing disparities between urban/rural communities, a depressing decline in civility, etc.), and a lot of that can certainly be attributed to Republicans and conservatives (especially the Gingriches of the world and Teabaggers like Palin and Bachmann and their financial backers), but to put it all on "conservatives" seems off base and misleading.
One can drill down more specifically if one so chooses, but as I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a nasty schism developed in the civil rights era that has yet to come close to healing. I blame conservatives for weaponizing that schism, while still acknowledging that the left has held fast to their desire for progress of a sort that is uncomfortable for some. So if you want to conclude that progressive thought is also a root cause of the split, that's fine. The difference to my mind is that if one side is arguing for racial, gender, and sexual equality and one side is fighting like hell to prevent it, and using that fight to rally it's least thoughtful, most reactionary base. One side it in the right, and the other I hold in much greater contempt.
There's also the fact that there's a litany of conservative strategists on record and going back decades stating that exploiting this split was a conscious, deliberate political ploy...
I'm a moderate, truly... But there's very little "both sides" to be argued about today's situation.
No, I agree with that. My point - perhaps poorly made - is not to make an argument that "both sides" are to blame. I'm just disagreeing with the characterization of "conservatism" that's being put out there. There are a lot of conservatives who do not support Trump and who believe in concepts like individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, etc. I may not agree with these people on many policy issues, but they are not a monolithic group of knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual, neanderthal hate mongers. In fact, as many have stated before, we badly need these people to get their shit together and fix the Republican party (or start a new one) in order for our system of government to work.
So, all I'm saying is, "conservatism" isn't to blame for Trump, which was where I took the author of that piece to be going in the end.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pmI just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump.
Wasn't the original quote, that conservative POLITICS led us to Trump? Conservative Thought != Conservative Politics.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pmI just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump.
Wasn't the original quote, that conservative POLITICS led us to Trump? Conservative Thought != Conservative Politics.
Big "C" vs little "c."
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. People were mad that Obama wouldn't say "Islamic terrorism" but we now have numerous press accounts of what amounts to a soft coup that's happening in the current administration, and it's terrific.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:46 pm
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. People were mad that Obama wouldn't say "Islamic terrorism" but we now have numerous press accounts of what amounts to a soft coup that's happening in the current administration, and it's terrific.
Really, we truly are fuct.
I mean, if that doesn't clearly, and I mean OBJECTIVELY, show how all most of the criticism directed at Obama (both personally and professionally) was just for political gain with little to no actual substance behind it, I don't know what would.
edit: Deleted diatribe where I name people who have shown that it has never been about conservatism for them despite their protestations, and just us vs. them always. Whatever the topic.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I remember when I got mad at Clinton for saying whether he wore boxers or briefs because I felt it was beneath the dignity of the office. Oh, the good old days.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:41 pm
I remember when I got mad at Clinton for saying whether he wore boxers or briefs because I felt it was beneath the dignity of the office. Oh, the good old days.
Ok, I lol'd. Can you imagine? Of course you can, you're doing it. But holy crap, have things really fallen this far? I would have said no, but then Drumpf became president and people (40%?!) are HAPPY with his performance thus far.
Kurth wrote:That's true, and I think that was the original quote, but I guess in the context of the piece, I didn't see the author making that distinction.
Roger.
But with that distinction, do you agree or disagree that the weaponization of ignorance and fear is something that can be laid directly at the feet of the GOP (forgetting “conservative”)?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Kurth wrote:That's true, and I think that was the original quote, but I guess in the context of the piece, I didn't see the author making that distinction.
Roger.
But with that distinction, do you agree or disagree that the weaponization of ignorance and fear is something that can be laid directly at the feet of the GOP (forgetting “conservative”)?
The modern "Conservative Movement" was born (Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan) as opposition to Civil Rights.
Its intellectual articulators (Rand/Buckley/Buchanan) were never farther from opposition to Civil Rights than they had to be.
Its modern propagandists (Limbaugh/Fox/Breitbart/Jones/Q-Anon) have embraced white supremacy with barely a nod of apology.
There are no small-c conservatives of consequence. None at all. In the American context, conservatism is as close to political racism as it can get while claiming contextual deniability.
The BBC has provided a break-down of possible suspects vis-a-vis the op-ed author. If I was more energetic, I'd set up a spreadsheet with their picks and track who gets purged.
It's the biggest guessing game in Washington - a real-life version of Cluedo. Who is the culprit who took aim at Donald Trump, in the White House, with a New York Times opinion page?
Cui bono, as they say in Latin detective school. Who stands to gain? Who has a motive? Does the essay itself contain any clues?
Chances are the mystery author will turn out to be someone most people have never heard of, someone yearning for a fleeting moment of fame. But the finger-pointing is already underway - and big names are rushing to release "official" denials.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
So I’m clear, you think that I’m talking about fucking attack ads?!
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:49 pm
It's not very complicated. This is the core of Trump's worldview.
(1) Donald Trump is the greatest bestest person on the planet, and is accordingly the best at everything.
(2) Anyone who acknowledges this self-evident Truth is by definition smart and good, and anyone who disagrees is by definition stupid or lying;
(3) Chairman Kim has acknowledged this truth
(4) Therefore Chairman Kim is smart and good.
QED.
I'm not surprised that Drumpf thinks it's awesome. I'm confused why he advertised it to the twitterverse like it completely redeems him in the public eye after all this bad press he's been getting. Surely he's not so delusional that he thinks the American people think character references from Kim are worth the bytes they're composed of? He's, literally, an Enemy of America. Putin isn't even this clearly a "bad guy" when it comes to America and the American people.
It's a character reference from a Bond villain, for god's sake.
His base loves it.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?
Yeah that's how I saw that (and vaguely remember as well). Definitely a GOP attack against Dukakis. I *think* Kurth is just pointing out an early example of 'weaponizing fear' that y'all were talking about.
Or it could have been about unicorns. Either/or.
So do we know what 'could happen to' whomever wrote the NYT op-ed? Obviously trump would fire them yesterday but does this trigger yet another (OMG....) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president? Feels like there are some crimes being committed there but I'm way out of my depth here so I could be 100% wrong, and maybe their only 'crime' is disloyalty to the cheeto king and that only warrants a firing and a super scary 'The Donald' look with crossed arms and everything!
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
So I’m clear, you think that I’m talking about fucking attack ads?!
Not solely, but the Willie Horton ad was one of the first things that sprang to my mind when thinking about the GOP’s history of weaponizing fear and ignorance. Also, it wasn’t just “an attack ad.” It was an attack ad purposefully designed to work off racial animus.
If that’s not the kind of weaponization of fear and ignorance you were talking about, please clue me in. Not sure what you appear to be so pissed off about. I thought I was agreeing with you, no?
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?
Yeah. WTF? Willie Horton and the “Weekend Passes” ad was launched by the Bush campaign (well, not directly; it was an “independent” group) targeting Mike Dukakis as weak on crime. The ad is infamous and is widely seen as having contributed substantially to Dukakis’s defeat.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
GungHo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:25 amSo do we know what 'could happen to' whomever wrote the NYT op-ed? Obviously trump would fire them yesterday but does this trigger yet another (OMG....) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president? Feels like there are some crimes being committed there but I'm way out of my depth here so I could be 100% wrong, and maybe their only 'crime' is disloyalty to the cheeto king and that only warrants a firing and a super scary 'The Donald' look with crossed arms and everything!
Honestly, I don't know for certain - but my gut tells me that with no classified info being leaked, there's no law broken. At worst, a public execution on Twitter by the Cheeto-in-Chief, a book deal, and a vacation/press tour. I don't think insubordination is illegal unless you're in the military, and these guys aren't.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!
I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.
The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?
Yeah. WTF? Willie Horton and the “Weekend Passes” ad was launched by the Bush campaign (well, not directly; it was an “independent” group) targeting Mike Dukakis as weak on crime. The ad is infamous and is widely seen as having contributed substantially to Dukakis’s defeat.
Fun fact. These were the brain child of Richard Ailes...who went on to found Fox News. He was a key architect to building the machine that has lead to our nation's decline.
GungHo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:25 am
So do we know what 'could happen to' whomever wrote the NYT op-ed? Obviously trump would fire them yesterday but does this trigger yet another (OMG....) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president?
Nah, the administration doesn't need to launch a new full-blown investigation into who is or isn't loyal. They can just roll it into the investigation into who talked to Woodward.
Of course, one problem that Trump faces is that he needs to figure out who he can trust to look into who he can trust.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president? Feels like there are some crimes being committed there but I'm way out of my depth here so I could be 100% wrong, and maybe their only 'crime' is disloyalty to the cheeto king and that only warrants a firing and a super scary 'The Donald' look with crossed arms and everything!