Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

It works like this, at least in this election.

Barring illness, we either get Trump or Clinton. (Some third party stuff is happening, but nothing I've seen stands a realistic chance.)

If you don't prefer Trump, you prefer Clinton by default. Ditto the other way around.

If you don't prefer either and refuse to vote, or if you vote for a third party, you actually prefer both Trump and Clinton because you are intelligent enough to know that one of them is what you are going to get.

The people who truly don't prefer any of it leave the US and go live elsewhere.

I know.

That's exactly what I did for 32 years.

Michael

Im going to point out irregularities and inconsistencies.

For a second there, I thought you were going to read me the riot act. The one where I must desist.

I dont like Trump. Saying that does not signal my voting intentions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4549

  • Peter

    1421

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

That is astonishing. Thanks Jon. Behaviors that can cause a kid, later in life to be screwed up enough to become addicts or to kill themselves, needs a remedy and if the answer is chemical or physical

Posted Images

6 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

For a second there, I thought you were going to read me the riot act. The one where I must desist.

Geoff,

I'm not going to do that.

Not with you. You are one of the good guys.

Notice that the ones who have desisted took leave of their own accord, not because I restricted them. (And most said they will be back after the election.)

I only restrict people who come around preaching qua preaching, trolling, insulting the other posters or insulting OL, or things like that.

The only inconvenience with being against Trump in this election and being vocal about it here on OL is that the person has to put up with me disagreeing. And, I admit, I can get prolific and colorful at times. Stubborn, too... :) 

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

If you don't like Trump's speaking style in public, you are really not going to like Carl Icahn:

[...]

Now let's watch the mainstream media tell us Carl Icahn doesn't know what he's talking about.

That is, until they think about the millions Icahn says he wants to put into Trump's campaign...

They don't understand average productive Americans, but that, at least, they understand...

:)

Michael

 

Icahn talks about the external forces affecting/effecting business about 6:30 in the quoted video, a topic I mentioned earlier in the thread, and toward the end he also talks about the phony stock market numbers and a bubble, which is worth a listen.  We're not recovered from the recession yet, this new-style economy that Obama made up just won't work without production.

A word on the service economy that Icahn is talking about.  A lot of our tangible goods are being made overseas, and that is inefficient.  We are losing the benefit of having tangibles made in the US.  Having a person employed in the US, the money they make then buying goods in the US, them getting loans in the US, etc.---track $1 through the economy and see what it does, and also the money multiplier effect from getting loans; all that is being done overseas, benefiting other economies.  Business schools are preaching the US is service economy and they are preaching globalism.  The problem is the US does have the resources and the population to increase tangible production, but the labor laws, energy regulation, taxing, etc. over the years essentially forced the US into being a service economy.  It's bad news, we're relying on the labor and materials of other countries to produce our tangibles, and providing "services" based around that.  I don't see how that can last, especially when those other countries will have (and do have) other interests than our own.

The point is, we aren't holding the reigns to our own economy, we need to.  The US can do it, be its own service economy and have its own manufacturing---and pull from our natural resources for the material to produce those goods.  Trump is getting at this with his economic plan, achieving more US self-sufficiency than what it is now will result in an economic boom, and sustainability.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Assange hints strongly that Seth Rich was his source for the DNC emails leaked on Wikileaks.

Seth Rich is the recently murdered Democratic Party employee.

If this turns out to be true, we will move into a situation where the old Watergate scandal will seem like a picnic by the beach. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Morning Joe team had a lot to say about Trump's recent 2A words (~22m worth):

I think Trump entirely meant it subjectively, to be disconnected from reality but appealing psychologically to the 2A group as, "I wish I could kill her," or "why I outta," or "man that'd be great if someone would..," etc.  The statement is too obvious to say he was kidding or he meant it politically.  I heard this kind of language first hand about Obama for a long time.  Some of those folks even plotted a fantasy about how they'd do it.  Trump is wrong here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben,

I wasn't going to put up the following video, but Trump retweeted it.

You have to see this crap to believe it.

Here is the video.

Basically, former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino, was flabbergasted at the boneheadedness of the arguments people were telling him on CNN (Don Lemon, David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin) about Trump wanting to assassinate Clinton. They used every short-term intimidation tactic against him in the book and he would not take them seriously. Then Lemon outright said he was lying and should be ashamed of himself. Don Lemon said this to a former Secret Service Agent because he would not read a message--a "dog whistle"--into a vague parenthetical comment Trump made. 

I had to grit my teeth just to listen to the entire video... It showed everything I hate in modern so-called journalism these days.

I can see Lemon was upset for real and that makes me think he believed his own bullshit. But he's very, very intelligent. And ambitious. So I think he was just being dishonest and the interview did not go as he was told by his "higher-ups" it should go. And it was especially irritating because Bongino wasn't a white guy, so he couldn't holler racism.

(I won't give that a 100%, though. Maybe a 75% or more. Sometimes people want so badly for Trump to have said something, they make shit up and actually believe what they made up. There's even a thing going around where people are swearing up and down that Trump is not releasing his tax returns because he funded NAMBLA. See here for a debunking by Snopes. I believe some of these knuckleheads are sincere, too, but in their cases, I see it as a mental disorder--cognitive blindness--based on tribal hatred.)

As to the Morning Joe people, I don't take anything they say seriously anymore. The reason isn't political. It's that these folks have no spine. They sold out their integrity and now are fearful for their employment.

I used to watch them all the time because Trump would call in all the time and they all would have a grand old time talking. Then Trump started winning for real and there came a moment when Mika and Joe started being called to task for being too friendly with Trump. Inhouse (meaning within MSNBC and by journalists friendly to the party line there), Mika and Joe started being blamed for Trump's success. It got serious at one point and articles started appearing all over the place. And the predictable result followed. Both caved like spineless wimps and started bashing Trump. It got to a point where Trump tweeted he couldn't believe what he was seeing on that show and said nobody watched, anyway.

After that tweet, Trump has not appeared with them. I think he now refuses. So they have turned really sour because they lost audience over this, they can't get it back because Trump won't appear there anymore, and they have to kiss the asses of their left-wing bosses. They are both now actively campaigning against Trump--like really campaigning. They want him to lose at all costs and have said so openly several times.

You said Trump was wrong to make the comment he did. I don't.

Read Rush's comments and see if you still believe that: Controversy Over Trump's Second Amendment Remark Demonstrates How the Left Tries to Take Out Our Candidates. (btw - It's OK if you still do. Each of us speaks for ourselves. I just think making a conclusion after looking at a propaganda show like Morning Joe has become is a mistake without looking at opposing points of view.)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you're at it, if you get the time, read this from Rush Limbaugh today, too:

The Trump Outrage Is Phony

From the transcript:

Quote

This is last night on The Kelly File.  All the Fox people are on vacation, so Trish Regan was filling in for Megyn Kelly, and she had on one of Trump's spokespeople, Katrina Pierson, about this uproar over Trump's Second Amendment people comment.  Trish Regan said, "Hey, Katrina, starting with you: Is the left overreacting to this, in your view?"

PIERSON:  Oh, absolutely.  If you go back to the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails, this is on the PowerPoint playbook on the messaging -- slide number 6 -- with the messaging theme number 1: Violence.  They were looking for an opportunity to pick up somewhere to continue this narrative that somehow Donald Trump is violent.

RUSH:  Let me repeat this.  It was revealed in the WikiLeaks document dump of DNC emails that they have a PowerPoint presentation that they give out to all of their people that appear on TV, and all of their consultants who devise strategy and then send out the memo to everybody else: "Here's what to say. Here's how to say it." The PowerPoint presentation on messaging slide number 6, the theme is violence, and whenever there is any opportunity to show that the Republicans or their candidate uses violence or advocates it, this is how you say it. This is what to do.

And this is why everybody talking about this on the left sounds identical because this is in the playbook.  This is a technique.  This is something that is studiously planned for by them.  They expect exactly that, and the media is in on it.  The whole thing is trumped up.  And it's... Folks, it's for this reason that I get so frustrated with everybody falling for it.  It's not genuine.  This outrage is faux.  It's rigged up.  It's phony.  They're pretending to be outraged over this.  They're not really.

 That interested me, so I looked it up.

Slide six is in the image below on a tweet by WikiLeaks, which also includes a download link for the Powerpoint report.

I downloaded it and it is an eye-opener. It is from the Benenson Strategy Group and it basically tells people what works best against Trump when they are interviewed in the media (including polling stats).

If you decide to download it, check out the Appendix, (slides 13-16). You will read messages for interviewees to say, as if the person were speaking his/her own thoughts. If you watch the news on any media, you will hear this stuff almost verbatim the way it is in the report. Very little variation. It's amazing how these folks just parrot this stuff.

The topics are the following:

Offensive comments about women
Connections to extremists
Violence at campaign rallies
Vulgar and divisive rhetoric
US leadership abroad at risk
No experience
Islam
Need a leader respected abroad
Bankruptcies and failed businesses
Hurt ordinary Americans
Trump University

The following are topics and messages that resonate less strongly:

Typical Republican - Against ACA
Not that successful

These are canned texts.

I knew this existed, but it's different when you see it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Basically, former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino, was flabbergasted at the boneheadedness of the arguments people were telling him on CNN (Don Lemon, David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin) about Trump wanting to assassinate Clinton. They used every short-term intimidation tactic against him in the book and he would not take them seriously. Then Lemon outright said he was lying and should be ashamed of himself. Don Lemon said this to a former Secret Service Agent because he would not read a message--a "dog whistle"--into a vague parenthetical comment Trump made. 

I had to grit my teeth just to listen to the entire video... It showed everything I hate in modern so-called journalism these days.

I can see Lemon was upset for real and that makes me think he believed his own bullshit. But he's very, very intelligent. And ambitious. So I think he was just being dishonest and the interview did not go as he was told by his "higher-ups" it should go. And it was especially irritating because Bongino wasn't a white guy, so he couldn't holler racism.

(I won't give that a 100%, though. Maybe a 75% or more. Sometimes people want so badly for Trump to have said something, they make shit up and actually believe what they made up. There's even a thing going around where people are swearing up and down that Trump is not releasing his tax returns because he funded NAMBLA. See here for a debunking by Snopes. I believe some of these knuckleheads are sincere, too, but in their cases, I see it as a mental disorder--cognitive blindness--based on tribal hatred.)

That video was definitely overblown, from both sides.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to the Morning Joe people, I don't take anything they say seriously anymore. The reason isn't political. It's that these folks have no spine. They sold out their integrity and now are fearful for their employment.

I used to watch them all the time because Trump would call in all the time and they all would have a grand old time talking. Then Trump started winning for real and there came a moment when Mika and Joe started being called to task for being too friendly with Trump. Inhouse (meaning within MSNBC and by journalists friendly to the party line there), Mika and Joe started being blamed for Trump's success. It got serious at one point and articles started appearing all over the place. And the predictable result followed. Both caved like spineless wimps and started bashing Trump. It got to a point where Trump tweeted he couldn't believe what he was seeing on that show and said nobody watched, anyway.

After that tweet, Trump has not appeared with them. I think he now refuses. So they have turned really sour because they lost audience over this, they can't get it back because Trump won't appear there anymore, and they have to kiss the asses of their left-wing bosses. They are both now actively campaigning against Trump--like really campaigning. They want him to lose at all costs and have said so openly several times.

Most of the anti-Trump talking heads want to directly react a certain way but don't, the Morning Joe team does.  I'll watch them occasionally to see what the pulse is like.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You said Trump was wrong to make the comment he did. I don't.

Read Rush's comments and see if you still believe that: Controversy Over Trump's Second Amendment Remark Demonstrates How the Left Tries to Take Out Our Candidates. (btw - It's OK if you still do. Each of us speaks for ourselves. I just think making a conclusion after looking at a propaganda show like Morning Joe has become is a mistake without looking at opposing points of view.)

I read a lot of the transcript, I did skim some.  In this situation I don't see what the left has to do with it, or the media.  Immediately when I heard what Trump said I knew what it was, then I was in disbelief, hoping there was some kind of context dropping with the clip.  There wasn't, he said the line that I've heard many, many times by different people wanting to kill Obama.  But I don't think Trump wants to kill anyone, I mentioned earlier that his statement is appealing psychologically to those types in the 2A crowd.  It's not a call to physical action, but psychological appeal to get some of the 2A roughnecks riled up in a contradiction between their emotions and reality, while looking at their guns and what they really wish to do with them.  What he said is commonplace among those people and they "know what it means"---but of course with deceit there's going to be the other side to the faked reality, that sly smile with one corner of their mouth upturned, "no no, I meant it politically."  Yea right.  I support Trump for about 80% of what he does and stands for now, it was about 90% before.  I had my mind made up before watching the Joe team, I posted the video before it and then the Joe video for reference, then added my own thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

But I don't think Trump wants to kill anyone, I mentioned earlier that his statement is appealing psychologically to those types in the 2A crowd.

Korben,

The way NRA types understand this is not to kill anyone. They understand the 2nd amendment in the manner in which it was framed--to be a check on the government when it gets itching to be tyrannical and oppress an unarmed population. If the government starts sending out goon squads with regularity to hurt law-abiding citizens and take their stuff, then the citizens have recourse. 

In other words, barring fringe kooks (which are on all sides), 2nd amendment types almost always think in terms of self-defense.

That's exactly what the lefties are afraid of, too. They can rule and take people's shit, but only up to a certain point. Productive Americans won't stand for it after a line has been crossed. And these lefties literally want dictatorship by technocratic committee so they can engineer the perfect human being from among the masses and we can all live happily ever after in their utopia. If they have to kill a bunch of people along the way, well, it's for the greater good...

Also, the lefties think about assassination first because that is what is foremost on their minds. That's what they dream about. I guarantee Trump does not dream of killing normal citizens. (ISSI is another story. :) ) Killing normal citizens is not on the minds of the people Trump was talking to, either.

So for all those self-righteous people hollering Trump is calling for killing Clinton, the lady doth protest too much, methinks...

:) 

The Morning Joe people are maybe not full utopic lefties, but they believe they can make deals with the leftie power-mongers, just so long as they are allowed to stay insiders. They may not even be crony insiders supreme, but they are most definitely useful idiots for the same.

Here's the essence: nobody among any of these idiots gives a damn about the people Trump gives a damn about. All they care about is their own little power games and agendas.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The way NRA types understand this is not to kill anyone.

[...]

Also, the lefties think about assassination first because that is what is foremost on their minds. That's what they dream about.

It called to mind the opening of this lecture:

"Esthetics Si, politics, No"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The way NRA types understand this is not to kill anyone.

I know a lot of gun owners, they are a diverse group morally, and there are a lot that know the weapon isn't to kill anyone but wouldn't mind having the thought of what Trump said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I know a lot of gun owners, they are a diverse group morally, and there are a lot that know the weapon isn't to kill anyone but wouldn't mind having the thought of what Trump said. 

Okay, completely baffled. Weapons are not for killing, huh? and a lot of gun owners think about killing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Okay, completely baffled. Weapons are not for killing, huh? and a lot of gun owners think about killing?

Here:

32 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I know a lot of gun owners, they are a diverse group morally, and there are a lot that know the weapon isn't to offensively kill anyone but wouldn't mind having the thought of what Trump said. 

Happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I can't tell if this is snark Wolf...  2A is 2nd amendment.. 

Thanks. Lawyers are often a lot denser than the average bear. I can't discern any personal right to bear arms in Amend 2, except as part of a state militia like part-time National Guard volunteers under the command of a state governor -- but that's just me. There's no limit to the type of weapons that National Guard troops can carry, nor state and local police. If they need tanks and robot bombs, to kill people, heavy weapons get deployed if deemed prudent or desirable. In a violent riot like Los Angeles 1994, looters are shot on sight, no Miranda warning.

That still leaves a big hole to discuss, individual gun owners thinking about killing. Surely that's what you said, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

That still leaves a big hole to discuss, individual gun owners thinking about killing. Surely that's what you said, right?

When Trump said this:

Quote

 

TRUMP:  Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish -- the Second Amendment.

CROWD: (booing)

TRUMP: By the way, and if she gets to pick...

CROWD: (booing)

TRUMP: If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

CROWD: (booing)

TRUMP:  Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know.

 

I said this about it,

Quote

I think Trump entirely meant it subjectively, to be disconnected from reality but appealing psychologically to many* in the 2A group as, "I wish I could kill her," or "why I outta," or "man that'd be great if someone would..," etc.  The statement is too obvious to say he was kidding or he meant it politically.  I heard this kind of language first hand about Obama for a long time.  Some of those folks even plotted a fantasy about how they'd do it.  Trump is wrong here.

I added "to many" for clarification

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now