Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, merjet said:

Here is a plausible hypothesis about the QQQ 2% price drop Nov. 8 - Dec. 1.

Merlin,

That, too.

And I bet there's another input about immigration (minor, but real)--the costs of doing business in Silicon Valley.

Imagine if the the Silicon Valley elites have to hire legal immigrants to be their maids, gardeners and drivers.

Costs just went skyrocketing.

   

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's a lot of words to show you don't know what you're talking about. (Seriously, in this case you don't.)

You seem nice.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Michael is a fan-boy. Nah na na na Nah na.

William,

LOL...

That's a lot of words to show you don't know what you're talking about. (Seriously, in this case you don't.)

I exposed my ignorance about many matters in re policy, law and administration. I asked pre-Google questions about the particulars of changes foreseen under Trump, further exposing what I didn't know.  I made the point that General Mattis is still hard for Theranos.  

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Silicon Valley was in the tank for Hillary and detested Trump and that Merlin also hates Trump

That may be true (save that Merlin belongs to Hate Club for Men) but that doesn't advance an argument or answer questions.   

You claim ignorance on my part, which is fine and true, but you imply bad faith on my part, which is small. That I ridicule overheated rhetoric isn't to be spiteful but to reflect your own loose terminology back to you. If I used some hideously over-larded chain of abuse in place of naming a name or entity, I'd expect some Merlin Jetton Hate/MSK Love on me, considering the context. He affords me and most people about point five degrees of slop, if you know what I mean. I knew that going in.

And yet today the spankings come fast and hard.  From the Master.

When I get questioned or corrected by Merlin or other respected members, I know I have to examine my work, explain it better if misunderstood.  That kind of attention may be uncomfortable, but I take it and use it. It is a good challenge. It invites thoroughness and full consideration just as your best pointed critiques have done.  Even some whom I consider clods or bigots can ask good questions or probe effectively for evidence.

But Merlin, this final week's spankee, he is among such fanatic haters and bigoted clods, though, right? Wrong. He is sharp-witted, with a stick to poke for error.  Sometimes it stings, but I don't furiously spank him or you for shortcomings in my own gig.  I don't infer morally-dark motives to him nor to you.

When possibly in error, it is best to explore the implications. When  ignorant, best investigate.  When uncertain, best to ask, discuss, debate, gain clarity.

Merlin's other point is good if sad. Some great people are no longer here.  I miss the dead ones, but miss the living more.  They were in a sense Trumped off at times.  Objection, doubt, unease, was too often belittled and  personalized to a maleficent or emotional failing. The Hate Club label-gun was busy.  

That's on who, Michael?

Ultimately, what do bouts of Master to pupil condescension do for you, Michael? This may serve to depopulate the forum over time, but what does it do for you? My ignorance can be dispelled with work and reason and time.  My abilities to navigate complicated concepts are not withered on the vine by mere scorn, and so I wonder in my complicated way, what's in it for you? My relationships are intact.

Anyway, the bizarre overwrought prose was ripe for ribbing. Lots of words but no beef, right?  Vile nerdie Trump-hating technophile Theranos-loving teat-sucking, salivating scum-dogs of Utah. Fun, but no beef.

"We were never/always at war with Theranos, Mr President-elect," said the Secretary of Defence-designate. "I should know, I am on their board. Heh. Cronies. Utah we can hand out like candy to our friends, amirite, Mr NSA adviser-designee?  With tax-cuts and claw-backs for all.  Whee. Suck it, Bezos, you bitch. There are more zillionaires around this table than your mother fucked for your tuition. Bitch. Who's your Daddy now?"

[merjet]

This is getting off-track, but I add a couple points about life in Silicon Valley and nearby.

The price of homes is astonishing, a lot of it due to the price of land. Link.  

I heard that in the cheaper neighborhoods of San Francisco, there are some places where there are nearby two lines of people waiting in the morning for buses. One line is for the public bus, the poorer folk. It may include the maids, gardeners and drivers MSK refers to. The other line is for a private bus to Google, Facebook, etc.; the riders can't afford to live close to work. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

You claim ignorance on my part, which is fine and true, but you imply bad faith on my part, which is small.

William,

Wrong.

Sorry if you felt led to a misinterpretation.

I attribute your wordiness in the post I commented on to the heat of the moment and, maybe, the tone I set with the fanboy and real man rhetoric. As I look over what I wrote, I see the reader could infer an anti-gay undertone to the words I used and that might have set you off, but there was none intended.

I see the Silicon Valley fanboys as disconnected from reality and getting any sense they have of macho bloviating from video games, not from really doing stuff. And, when push comes to shove, they will show themselves to be sissies.

I intended no sexual orientation to be a part of this.

As to the real issues, I prefer if you say I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and have a party if need be. I can't go further than banter in public.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since this is so hard for some people to understand when I say it, maybe it will be clear if the mainstream media says it.

 

From the New York Times:

Silicon Valley Chiefs Notably Absent From Trump’s Cabinet of Business Advisers

Or, as Drudge so subtly mentioned in linking to this article: 

If the part I circled in red is hard to read, it says:

SILICON SULTANS FROZEN OUT OF NEW WHITE HOUSE

Michael

[merjet]

Surprise. Sarah Palin Says Trump's Carrier Deal Could Be 'Crony Capitalism'

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Surprise. Sarah Palin Says Trump's Carrier Deal Could Be 'Crony Capitalism'

It can't be for he's not Pres yet.

--Brant

but he's gonna be: Things to Come

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think he'll get back to the White House alive on January 20th.

The Secret Service better re-think its security protocols. I guarantee the technology for doing bad things mutates faster than a flu virus these days. And the professionalism of the SS is rotting-from-the-head suspect. That said, they may have fixed things up since that nut got into the WH.

--Brant

if they bother investigating me instead of what I wrote we're going to be in a world of hurt

swear in the VP elsewhere

[merjet]

Addenda to here:

Facebook "announced Friday it will spend about $20 million in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, Calif., two cities that surround its campus, to create a fund to build new housing, support job-training programs and provide legal assistance to tenants in danger of eviction.
    Some $18.5 million will go to a fund to build new housing, primarily targeted at low- and moderate-income families, with consultation from community groups."  WSJ

 

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Michael is a fan-boy. Nah na na na Nah na.

William,

LOL...

That's a lot of words to show you don't know what you're talking about. (Seriously, in this case you don't.)

I exposed my ignorance about many matters in re policy, law and administration. I asked pre-Google questions about the particulars of changes foreseen under Trump, further exposing what I didn't know.  I made the point that General Mattis is still hard for Theranos.  

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Silicon Valley was in the tank for Hillary and detested Trump and that Merlin also hates Trump

That may be true (save that Merlin belongs to Hate Club for Men) but that doesn't advance an argument or answer questions.   

You claim ignorance on my part, which is fine and true, but you imply bad faith on my part, which is small.

Spoiler

 

[That I ridicule overheated rhetoric isn't to be spiteful but to reflect your own loose terminology back to you. If I used some hideously over-larded chain of abuse in place of naming a name or entity, I'd expect some Merlin Jetton Hate/MSK Love on me, considering the context. He affords me and most people about point five degrees of slop, if you know what I mean. I knew that going in.

And yet today the spankings come fast and hard.  From the Master.

When I get questioned or corrected by Merlin or other respected members, I know I have to examine my work, explain it better if misunderstood.  That kind of attention may be uncomfortable, but I take it and use it. It is a good challenge. It invites thoroughness and full consideration just as your best pointed critiques have done.  Even some whom I consider clods or bigots can ask good questions or probe effectively for evidence.

But Merlin, this final week's spankee, he is among such fanatic haters and bigoted clods, though, right? Wrong. He is sharp-witted, with a stick to poke for error.  Sometimes it stings, but I don't furiously spank him or you for shortcomings in my own gig.  I don't infer morally-dark motives to him nor to you.

When possibly in error, it is best to explore the implications.When  ignorant, best investigate.  When uncertain, best to ask, discuss, debate, gain clarity.

Merlin's other point is good if sad. Some great people are no longer here.  I miss the dead ones, but miss the living more.  They were in a sense Trumped off at times.  Objection, doubt, unease, was too often belittled and  personalized to a maleficent or emotional failing. The Hate Club label-gun was busy.  

That's on who, Michael?

Ultimately, what do bouts of Master to pupil condescension do for you, Michael? This may serve to depopulate the forum over time, but what does it do for you? My ignorance can be dispelled with work and reason and time.  My abilities to navigate complicated concepts are not withered on the vine by mere scorn, and so I wonder in my complicated way, what's in it for you? My relationships are intact.

Anyway, the bizarre overwrought prose was ripe for ribbing. Lots of words no beef, right?  Vile nerdie Trump-hating technophile Theranos-loving teat-sucking, salivating scum-dogs of Utah. Fun, but no beef.

"We were never/always at war with Theranos, Mr President-elect," said the Secretary of Defence-designate. "I should know, I am on their board. Heh. Cronies. Utah we can hand out like candy to our friends, amirite, Mr NSA adviser-designee?  With tax-cuts and claw-backs for all.  Whee. Suck it, Bezos, you bitch. There are more zillionaires around this table than your mother fucked for your tuition. Bitch. Who's your Daddy now?"

 

 

William,

Wrong.

Truncquoat!

 

[KorbenDallas]

On 11/30/2016 at 9:31 PM, wolfdevoon said:

On 11/30/2016 at 5:19 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Or, perhaps, Trump forgot about the First Amendment? [penalties for US flag burning]

I think that the issue is better appreciated in comparison to burning, say, a gay Rainbow flag, or a Black Lives Matter flag -- which would be deemed hate crimes. Expressing hatred for the United States is no less a crime to those who feel admiration for its tradition of citizen soldiers and common law.

I agree, I consider it a moral crime and reprehensible. 

[Peter]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It can't be for he's not Pres yet.

--Brant

but he's gonna be: Things to Come

Some people have been saying he will be Prez for a year and then hand the reins over to VP Pence, but have you been watching President elect Trump on his “thanks for the memories tour?” His eyes are twinkling. He is ecstatic. He is already preempting Obama. He is going to thoroughly enjoy being President. He will love the job minute by minute for four years.

Peter 

[Peter]

KorbenDallas wrote about desecrating the U.S. flag: I agree, I consider it a moral crime and reprehensible. end quote

That’s a good distinction. If flag burning were to be legislated as a “hate crime” it might not pass the Supreme Court’s standards. However, I am not sure “stand alone” hate crimes with no other violence or instances of libel, should be a crime any way. They may be repulsive and immoral, but not illegal.

Do President Trump’s post-election words and appointments solidify the likelihood of his campaign promises? Are you more or less sure he will make America great again? I am still feeling good. I like his open style, and allowing his staff speak up about what they disagree with.

Peter

Ann Coulter wrote: . . . . Then, well into the Trump presidency, some Muslim will commit a machete attack, shoot up a community center, stage a mass slaughter at a gay nightclub or bomb a marathon. There's no question but that the terrorist attacks won't stop -- unless Trump nominates people who know what needs to be done and aren't intimidated by testy New York Times editorials. There will be more Americans like Kate Steinle, Grant Ronnebeck and Joshua Wilkerson killed by illegal aliens. There will be more children addicted to heroin brought in by Mexican drug cartels. There will be more parents joining the Remembrance Project. But this time, they'll blame Trump . . . . If Trump betrays voters on immigration, he can have as many rallies as he wants, but Americans will say, Been there, done that -- you screwed us. He will never escape the stink of broken campaign promises. end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

They were in a sense Trumped off at times.  Objection, doubt, unease, was too often belittled and  personalized to a maleficent or emotional failing. The Hate Club label-gun was busy.

William,

Did you catch the part they aimed at me first?

In other words, because I liked Trump and stated my reasons, I was belittled in many more manners than you are now accusing me of perpetrating on innocent victims.

Let me give you an off-forum example to illustrate so we don't get into personal stuff with OL members.

I tried to run a conversation about Trump with Biddibob on his Facebook posts, but it all kept boiling down to (1) I'm not using my reason, but only emotions--mostly sense of life ("unbelievable!" at that), (2) I'm not principled, and finally (3) I better not disagree with him about (whatever), otherwise he will delete my post. He never said this last specifically to me, but he said it several times regarding specific issues (always premised on "Trump is scum"--at least on every time I saw) to everybody who posted there.

But I was always polite to him and my usual bantering self. Since the nastiness factor heated up on his side and there was no possibility of reasoning with him, I (like many Trump supporters) simply stopped posting over there. Then he backed up a bit and said maybe there is something Trump had been tapping into (narrative, yada yada yada...). In fact, he;s given several explanations--anything and everything but actually accepting the true nature of a Trump supporter as a legitimate member of the human race that does not need to be fixed.

I don't recall claiming that Biddibob is unprincipled, that he doesn't know how to use his reason but only uses emotions to think with, or that I prohibit him from expressing a view. I don't recall ever doing that. But I received it from his end in spades, and a hell of a lot more if I decide to go back and sift through the posts, which I have no wish to do. Enough, already...

Those who stopped posting on OL over Trump have not been called these things by me, either. But have you seen the things they've called Trump supporters right here on OL, knowing I'm a Trump supporter? My main objection over time is that they have been misidentifying what a Trump supporter is. They seem to want to see bigot and bully at root. But reality is reality. It's just not there (except a little on the fringe like fringe everywhere) and I refuse to agree with them that it is. That urge to affirm bigotry where no bigotry exists is the part I call Trump-hatred.

I understand why they see this, but I cannot betray my own eyes. 

So I've concluded they're pissed that I don't agree with them over Trump--that I won't bash Trump, but instead praise him (giving good reasons, too). That's all it boils down to. Nobody is prohibited from anything here except trolling and spamming. You will not see me prohibit anyone from disagreeing with me re ideas on pain of deletion. But I will speak my mind, especially if I disagree.

If that's not good enough, well, it's not good enough. This is a discussion forum where each person thinks and speaks for himself, not an indoctrination center or a church or a social group ruled by peer pressure. So let each individual pursue his own interests--here or elsewhere--and may all be happy.

But what do I know?

Hell, I'm the kind who follows a Pied Piper right off a cliff, right?

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Do President Trump’s post-election words and appointments solidify the likelihood of his campaign promises? Are you more or less sure he will make America great again? I am still feeling good. I like his open style, and allowing his staff speak up about what they disagree with.

Peter

I'm unsure if he will make America "great", but "good" I am more or less sure about.  Part of it is because I am skeptical if he is a conservative collectivist.  With the Carrier deal, I was surprised to read there was a cost involved...  so how much did those jobs cost us?

Sarah Palin is skeptical, too (underlines are mine):

I am ecstatic for Carrier employees! Their bosses just decided to keep shop onshore. What a relief for hundreds of workers. Merry Christmas Indiana!

We don’t yet know terms of the public/private deal that was cut to make the company stay, but let’s hope every business is equally incentivized to keep Americans working in America.

[...]

When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.

Politicians picking and choosing recipients of corporate welfare is railed against by fiscal conservatives, for it’s a hallmark of corruption. And socialism. The Obama Administration dealt in it in spades. Recall Solyndra, Stimulus boondoggles, and all their other taxpayer-subsidized anchors on our economy. A $20 trillion debt-ridden country can’t afford this sinfully stupid practice, so vigilantly guard against its continuance, or we’re doomed.

Reaganites learned it is POLICY change that changes economic trajectory. Reagan’s successes were built on establishing a fiscal framework that invigorated our entire economy, revitalized growth and investment while decreasing spending, tax rates, over-reaching regulations, unemployment, and favoritism via individual subsidies. We need Reaganites in the new Administration.

However well meaning, burdensome federal government imposition is never the solution. Never. Not in our homes, not in our schools, not in churches, not in businesses.

Gotta’ have faith the Trump team knows all this. And I’ll be the first to acknowledge concerns over a deal cut by leveraging taxpayer interests to make a manufacturer stay put are unfounded – once terms are made public.

But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn’t the answer. Cajole only chosen ones on Main St or Wall St and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska full of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up. The lines strangle competition and really, really, dispiritingly screw with workers’ lives. It’s beyond unacceptable, so let’s anticipate equal incentivizes and positive reform all across the field – to make the economy great again.

-Sarah Palin

This NYT article has more about the deal:

[...]

But since the pact was disclosed on Tuesday, critics have pounced on Carrier’s receipt of $7 million in incentives from the state of Indiana — just the kind of corporate giveaways Mr. Trump knocked as he slammed Carrier on the campaign trail last spring.

Others have pointed out that cutting individual deals with different companies is a costly and ineffective way to stem the powerful forces that impel business to move factories and jobs in a highly competitive global and national economy.

“He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in an op-ed on Thursday for The Washington Post.

[...]

 

[william.scherk]

12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Wrong!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

29 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Sarah Palin is skeptical, too...

Korben,

I think Trump forced the deal a bit too hard because of how perfectly it serves as a publicity stunt.

But Sarah's reaction shows exactly what a Trump supporter looks like.

Being a Pied Piper follower and all...

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

On 12/1/2016 at 5:39 PM, Peter said:

On last nights “Designated Survivor” TV show I think a message was sent about the show’s anti Trump stance. How did they do it? Virtually everyone in crowd scenes, like in a courtroom, were Hispanic or Arabic looking. Weird. One platinum blond lady. One guy with gray hair. A couple black folks. Everyone else looked like they were from Mexico or Syria. In other episodes the lady playing the President’s wife usually has blondish brown hair. But not last night. In last night’s episode her hair was much darker. I am not sure Kiefer Sutherland’s hair was darker but it may have been.

Phooey on them. The show keeps getting dumber and dumberer.

Peter   

I haven't watched the latest episode yet, but I have kept up with the show.  The premise was amazing, such potential for Romantic art and heroism.  This Designated Survivor, a man who didn't play politics or take advantage of others, becomes President and is later shown to deserve the title, by his virtue his intellect.  Yet the show is recently taking an anti-Trump stance, and the main character has changed by deserving the Presidency by virtue of compassion.  I'm seeing rational self-interest vs. altruism play out in the show, the self vs. others, independence vs. progressivism and "the principles that got us here."  I think the show's theme is to demonstrate that conservatism doesn't work, progressivism does.  That to rely on reason and rationality one abandons compassion for humanity, so that altruism is the only way, and if we were to take that journey like our Designated Survivor, we'd end up with altruism because that's the only true way to be human.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Dayaamm!

I need to use the word "Trump" more if I want better word clouds.

That sucker's too small.

 

Michael

[Backlighting]

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I'm unsure if he will make America "great", but "good" I am more or less sure about.  Part of it is because I am skeptical if he is a conservative collectivist.  With the Carrier deal, I was surprised to read there was a cost involved...  so how much did those jobs cost us?

Sarah Palin is skeptical, too (underlines are mine):

I am ecstatic for Carrier employees! Their bosses just decided to keep shop onshore. What a relief for hundreds of workers. Merry Christmas Indiana!

We don’t yet know terms of the public/private deal that was cut to make the company stay, but let’s hope every business is equally incentivized to keep Americans working in America.

[...]

When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.

Politicians picking and choosing recipients of corporate welfare is railed against by fiscal conservatives, for it’s a hallmark of corruption. And socialism. The Obama Administration dealt in it in spades. Recall Solyndra, Stimulus boondoggles, and all their other taxpayer-subsidized anchors on our economy. A $20 trillion debt-ridden country can’t afford this sinfully stupid practice, so vigilantly guard against its continuance, or we’re doomed.

Reaganites learned it is POLICY change that changes economic trajectory. Reagan’s successes were built on establishing a fiscal framework that invigorated our entire economy, revitalized growth and investment while decreasing spending, tax rates, over-reaching regulations, unemployment, and favoritism via individual subsidies. We need Reaganites in the new Administration.

However well meaning, burdensome federal government imposition is never the solution. Never. Not in our homes, not in our schools, not in churches, not in businesses.

Gotta’ have faith the Trump team knows all this. And I’ll be the first to acknowledge concerns over a deal cut by leveraging taxpayer interests to make a manufacturer stay put are unfounded – once terms are made public.

But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn’t the answer. Cajole only chosen ones on Main St or Wall St and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska full of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up. The lines strangle competition and really, really, dispiritingly screw with workers’ lives. It’s beyond unacceptable, so let’s anticipate equal incentivizes and positive reform all across the field – to make the economy great again.

-Sarah Palin

This NYT article has more about the deal:

[...]

But since the pact was disclosed on Tuesday, critics have pounced on Carrier’s receipt of $7 million in incentives from the state of Indiana — just the kind of corporate giveaways Mr. Trump knocked as he slammed Carrier on the campaign trail last spring.

Others have pointed out that cutting individual deals with different companies is a costly and ineffective way to stem the powerful forces that impel business to move factories and jobs in a highly competitive global and national economy.

“He has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote in an op-ed on Thursday for The Washington Post.

[...]

 

I'm reminded what Milton Friedman wrote:

"When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” -Milton Friedman

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

10 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Sarah Palin is skeptical, too...

Korben,

I think Trump forced the deal a bit too hard because of how perfectly it serves as a publicity stunt.

But Sarah's reaction shows exactly what a Trump supporter looks like.

Being a Pied Piper follower and all...

 

But then Sarah did this:

(The video is also up in Trump Humor here.)

As I said over there, this video from Intellectual Froglegs is a heaping helping of schadenfreude at the expense of anti-Trumpers, with cupcakes for dessert.

Michael

[Peter]

KorbenDallas wrote: . . . . I'm seeing rational self-interest vs. altruism play out in the show, the self vs. others, independence vs. progressivism and "the principles that got us here."  I think the show's theme is to demonstrate that conservatism doesn't work, progressivism does.  That to rely on reason and rationality one abandons compassion for humanity, so that altruism is the only way, and if we were to take that journey like our Designated Survivor, we'd end up with altruism because that's the only true way to be human. end quote

You nailed it. Thank you. I might have come to that conclusion in a few more months. I am still holding out for newer TV shows like, “Bull,” “Timeless,” and “Frequency,” to fulfill their promising premises, however, there have been a some shows like “Designated Survivor” and “Pure Genius,” that I am not sure I will continue to watch, because of their altruistic preaching. I don’t watch many more shows than those, though I like a few comedies.

As far as reading goes I have finished, Stuart Woods’ “Sex, Lies, and Serious Money,” with a slow start,  John Grisham’s, “The Whistler,” David Baldacci’s, “No Man’s Land,” with a Jack Reacher type character which is more nuanced than the character, Jack Reacher,) Lee Child’s “Night School” (which has some truly gratuitous Jack Reacher X rated crap that makes it hard to loan the book), and John Sandford’s “Escape Clause” with his Virgil Flowers character. I would recommend all of them. I buy hard cover books from Barnes and Noble and then donate them to the library.

On the sports front “How ‘bout them boys? Dallas could go . . . all . . . the . . . way!"

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look at the mainstream press acting totally clueless when their bullying doesn't work.

The MSM is losing control of memes and public narratives. They literally (and I mean literally literally, not figuratively literally  ) don't know how to deal with this when it smacks them in the face . 

Just see this guy, John Dickerson of CBS. He has no script (and certainly no spontaneity) for dealing with what Reince Priebus just said. He started off asking Reince what he does when Trump lies (implying a stupid lie at that). He expected squirming or hemming and hawing or something, but he didn't expect what he got right between the eyes. So he repeated his "no evidence," "no evidence" as if it were a fact, but you can see the facade cracking as he does it. He seemed perplexed that it ain't working anymore.

This is fun to watch.

It's a guilty pleasure of mine watching bullies, gatekeepers and propagandists lose relevance and simply not know what the hell to do about it.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

Emphasis added:

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The MSM is losing control of memes and public narratives. They literally (and I mean literally literally, not figuratively literally  ) don't know how to deal with this when it smacks them in the face . 

Just see this guy, John Dickerson of CBS. He has no script (and certainly no spontaneity) for dealing with what Reince Priebus just said. He started off asking Reince what he does when Trump lies (implying a stupid lie at that). He expected squirming or hemming and hawing or something, but he didn't expect what he got right between the eyes. So he repeated his "no evidence," "no evidence" as if it were a fact, but you can see the facade cracking as he does it. He seemed perplexed that it ain't working anymore.

This is fun to watch.

It's a guilty pleasure of mine watching bullies, gatekeepers and propagandists lose relevance and simply not know what the hell to do about it.

The transcript is revealing:

Quote

DICKERSON: We begin this morning with the new White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, who joins us from the RNC headquarters in Washington.

Let me ask you about the secretary of state pick. What’s happening with that now?

REINCE PRIEBUS, INCOMING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, there’s going to be an announcement this week, and obviously we know it’s going to be General Mattis. And what a hero, someone that I think all Americans can look to and say, we’re going to be in great hands with this person that I think all Americans look up to, one of the most decorated Marines of our generation, and someone who has a strategic mind, someone that’s going to lead our Defense Department, and someone that’s going to clean up the Defense Department and help president-elect Trump shape his foreign policy.

DICKERSON: But what about the secretary of state job?

PRIEBUS: Well, that’s a different story. Things are moving quickly.

I don’t think anyone can accuse president-elect Trump of not moving fast. We are. Great picks. People are seeing a very smooth transition, but, look, that one is just taking a little bit longer, and I think it’s just fine. Everything doesn’t have to happen all at once. He’s taking his time, making a smart decision, and we will see where that goes.

DICKERSON: And Kellyanne Conway said there would be a grassroots revolt if Donald Trump picked Mitt Romney. Do you agree with that?

PRIEBUS: Look, I think Governor Romney is very talented. And I think what really we should look at is that we have got a president here in Donald Trump that wants to look at the best and brightest of America, regardless of background, regardless of past disputes that we may have had with each other, that that is the past. That’s the rear- view mirror.

We want the look through the front windshield. And that’s what he’s doing by talking to all of these different people. I think that the folks out there across the country, and I think they are, should be encouraged by a president that really wants to build trust and sort of in the team of rivals concept is something that I think is a good thing for America.

But that’s where Donald Trump’s mind is at. That’s where his heart is at. That’s a great thing for this country.

DICKERSON: Team of rivals, the title of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book about the Lincoln administration.

Let me ask you about the Trump style. There’s this view among some I have talked to that he’s most influenced by the person he talked to last. Do you agree with that?

PRIEBUS: No, I really don’t.

I think that he what is, is he’s someone that likes to listen to lots of different opinion, lots of different people, lots of smart people. He will talk to a lot of folks and just say, what do you think about this option? That’s a good thing. But in the end, once he formulates his opinion, once he decides this is where we’re going to go, he pulls the trigger and he moves. And that’s why you see a lot of these Cabinet picks, they happen quickly, but what you don’t see is that there are days and days and days of deliberation and communication and conversations that take place before those decisions are made, all great qualities in leading our country.

DICKERSON: You say he likes to take in a lot of information. He has not taken in as many intelligence briefings as previous president- elects. Why is that?

PRIEBUS: But he is. You know, they have daily briefings now.

DICKERSON: Is he getting them every day?

PRIEBUS: And obviously General Flynn and K.T. McFarland -- it’s about every day. It’s happening quite frequently, John.

And I think those are just going to ramp up as we get closer to January 20. But he is certainly informed. He’s getting briefed. And it feels like every day. I’m not sure if it is every day. But it’s a lot. And that’s who he is. It’s someone who studies and someone that wants to be informed and it’s someone who asks a lot of questions and listens.

DICKERSON: Is he a details guy?

PRIEBUS: He is a details guy.

You know, he is -- I would say it’s he’s a Socratic method guy. It kind of reminds me of being back in law school. He asks a lot of questions, asks questions about questions. And he will keep going until he’s satisfied with the information that he’s getting.

DICKERSON: Let me ask you, as the incoming chief of staff, what do you do when he says something like millions of voters voted illegally in California, when you know that that’s not true?

PRIEBUS: Well, I don’t know if that’s not true, John.

I saw there was an article in “The Wall Street Journal” the other day, and it had a certain percentage of people that are voting that shouldn’t be voting. There are estimates all over the map on that. Here’s the problem. No one really knows.

(CROSSTALK)

DICKERSON: But you think millions of people voted illegally?

PRIEBUS: It’s possible.

DICKERSON: There is no evidence that it happened in millions of votes in California.

I guess the question is, when you’re president, can you just offer a theory that has no evidence behind it, or does he have to tighten up his standard of proof?

PRIEBUS: I think he’s done a great job. I think the president- elect is someone who has pushed the envelope and caused people to think in this country, has not taken conventional thought on every single issue.

And it’s caused people to look at things that maybe they have taken for granted. You look at the flag-burning issue last week. This is an 80 percent issue. And then you watch the news media and they say, well, it’s constitutional. Well, right, it is constitutional, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a subject for debate and discussion for the Supreme Court to revisit down the road.

So I think he -- I think that unconventional thought is something that has caused a revolution in this country, which is why I think President Trump is going to go down in history as a really great president.

"Tighten up his standard of proof"?   What idiot thing does that mean? 

It is now (probably) accepted by a consensus at Objectivist Living that Millions Voted Illegally in California, Virginia and New Hampshire.  And the 'standard of proof'?

Who gives a shit?  Who cares about any standard of truth?   The globe is warming in large part because of increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.  Oh really, and what is the standard of truth?

Who cares? Can't we just believe what we want to believe, and set proof aside for the duration?

Proof -- that is for rationalists and empiricists, and you know what shitheads those blobs are.

-- asking for a friend.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Who gives a shit?  Who cares about any standard of truth?   The globe is warming in large part because of increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.  Oh really, and what is the standard of truth?

Who cares? Can't we just believe what we want to believe, and set proof aside for the duration?

William,

How does it feel?

   

That's the way average Americans have been feeling for some time, now.

That feeling is exactly why they elected Trump. 

You asked before how to get skeptics to believe in manmade global warming. I said at the time, and ever since, get rid of the liars who lied (or maybe they're just morons--but get rid of them anyway).

Get other people to do the work and to explain it.

I know you don't control who does that, but you certainly do control how much you ignore the lies of the liars who lied when you gush about those morally compromised individuals and keep citing them as credible sources and saviours of mankind.

(And, no. I'm not interested in naming names and playing gotcha with data dumps. If you can't understand that discredited people are discredited because they keep playing power games and gaming the public, I'm not going to try to disabuse you of the blindness.) 

That whole surfeit of skunks is being rejected. And you're right. Nobody gives a good God damn about standards of truth coming from those stinkers. You know why? Because those jerks don't give a good God damn about standards of truth when they have an agenda to push and government money to get.

Like it or dislike it, agree or disagree, this is the new political reality. If you are worried about global warming--sincerely worried--and want to get through to average Americans, stop citing and doing data dumps from people and organizations without integrity, starting with the United Nations and those associated with that place. They've had their shot. They blew it. And now they are going to get defunded, but that's another issue.

(Or keep on. Your choice. But don't be surprised when nothing works to get anyone but your own choir interested.)

Michael