Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 112 Next »

swifty

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 06:45 PM
Number of posts: 7,607

Journal Archives

Trump knows he's illegitimate.

He really is a kind of artist, as he has claimed in the past. He's art deco, con art, performance art...

The hair and face paint, the tacky clothes would make Andy Warhol proud. The gold veneer on everything? A masterpiece of irony. The Elmer Gantry, Lonesome Rhodes redux of Trump's demagoguery? His conjuring of Howard Beale? Homages, true, but worthy, brilliant contributions to hucksterism and cynicism in their own right. What Trump lacks in originality he makes up in scale. Never have so many been made such fools of.

Trump knows for sure that he doesn't belong in the presidency. He knows he got it through illegitimate means. That's how he got everything he has. Trump is legitimate only as a con artist, a very, very good one. His legitimacy there is real.

On edit: Maybe not art deco. I was looking for a kind of art that prides itself on being gaudy, deliberately pompous or self-mocking. Still can't think of one.

Is it more upright to stand behind a bad person you once supported or change?

Will Ivanka's brush with email trouble shut Trump up about Hillary?

People who were thinking about suing Ivanka for evading government email servers are now thinking they might wait and see. Judicial Watch might give them a precedent to make their case cheaper.

Are you proud of voting for Trump?

George H.W. Bush put the Republican Party in its current moral/intellectual tailspin.

Don't get me wrong. GHWB was ten times the man Trump is, but GHWB made critical mistakes.

First, we shouldn't forget that GHWB was the one who green-lighted the Republican Party's Willie Horton ad. That meant that the Republican Party would become dependent on a certain percentage influx of not-so-great people. If GHWB hadn't let down his moral guard on that ad, cretins like Newt Gingrich, perverts like Denny Hastert, and changelings from the insect world (Tom DeLay) might have gotten no foothold. That foothold later came back to haunt GHWB, and probably helped cost him the presidency.

GHWB did good things, but they were outweighed by bad things. He kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and sent him back to Baghdad. He raised taxes and crossed the aisle when necessary. He preserved the dignity of the Presidency much better than Clinton and much, much better than Trump.

But GHWB also gave us Quayle. That may have been done in order to get the nation used to having an idiot near power. GHWB, in other words, may have picked Quayle to prepare the world for Dubya. (And it would also give Dubya or John Ellis Bush less competition in downstream elections.)

The rest is history. GHWB's Willie Horton ad added snakes to the Republican Party snake pit begun by Richard Nixon. The snakes bit GHWB when he raised taxes, costing him the Presidency. Dubya then entered the presidency in 2000 on a 5-4 vote. That brought us the Iraq War pooch-screwing that created our current world migrant panic crisis (via the creation of ISIS and the empowerment of Iran). It was also a tipping point in the Republican Party's moral hygiene regimen that later produced symptoms like Trump and his fellow, ahem, whiteheads.

Putin and Mohammed bin Salaam's G20 yearbook entries?

You Trumpies did this to Trump. Just remember that.

Those of us who didn't vote for him were doing it for his own good. I know. I know. You thought it was because we thought he was a tool. But no. We just knew he wasn't up to it and would melt down. We felt sorry for him.

Then you guys voted for him. With real votes. Not TV ones. And he ended up in the real Presidency.

So way to go. You did this. The guy never even wanted to be President. He just wanted to lose, maybe start a disgruntlement-based yahoo media empire, cash in on some Putin good will, etc. But you guys had to vote for him.

Now it looks more and more like he's totally screwed. And it's your fault.

Could current metro area folks buy out rural areas thanks to Republicanism?

Why wouldn't the following happen?

1. Republicans keep selling rural folks beanstalk beans and Martian repellant. (And rural folks keep buying same. "Thank God for that nice man and his great deals!")

2. Rural incomes and land values continue to lag metro areas, the gap growing ever wider.

3. Eventually, there's a huge population/wealth gradient between metro and rural areas, similar to that between the U.S. and Mexico. Rural people, impoverished by the results of Republicanism, finally have to give up and move to metro areas. Economic migration.

4. Rich metro area people, on the other hand, can then easily afford to buy rural real estate at Republicanism-depressed prices. They sell their inflated metro area real estate and buy ten times the house/land in the rural areas.

5. The rural people who move to the metro areas and remain followers of Republicanism have no political effect. There are too few of them to turn blue cities red. And, anyway, why be a follower of Republicanism if you live in the metro area?

6. The metro people who move to the rural areas, on the other hand, have a tremendous political effect. They quickly swamp rural politics, turning it blue. Then, they vote for "rural renewal," an initiative that could only occur under Democratic politics.

7. Freed from the effects of Republicanism and awash in money from the new metro people, rural areas begin to prosper again. Under Democratic rural renewal, land values and incomes soar.

8. Metro areas, where the rural economic migrants fled, begin to see a drop-off in advantage. In a process similar to suburbanization, more and more people want to move to rural areas from the metro areas.

9. The ones who can afford it move rural. That's the ones who have lived in the metro areas the longest and are therefore wealthier. They leave behind the "new" metro people (the former rural economic migrants) and move to rural areas.

10. The swaparoo is complete. Metro people have all the money plus the beautiful rural territory and land. Followers of Republicanism are stuck in a future decaying and price-declining metro social desert.

I left out a bunch of steps and other factors that contribute to this argument. You're welcome.

Rural voters are bound to dump Trump in 2020 if trends continue.

Economically, rural voters weren't doing as well as metro voters in recovering from the 2008 Republican Recession during the 2016 election. That would explain some of their frustration and sense of feeling "forgotten." Then they voted in desperation for Mr. Lip Service. But rural voters are still lagging metro voters big time economically under Trump and his Republicans. If you are in a city or close to a city, you're doing a lot better than rural voters. They are still getting their clocks cleaned, unfortunately (and predictably).

Four years is a long time for rural voters to settle for lip service and resentment pandering. Trump is gonna get dumped. Dems are far, far better for rural voters and have learned to pay more attention to them. (In that sense, voting in Dubya II worked.)

What if instead of removing confederate statues...

...they simply moved them a little bit and put statues of slaves or Klan victims next to them? For example, if there were a Robert E. Lee statue in some park, then, right next to it, there could be a statue of a hooded Klansman saluting him, a noose dangling from his hand. Or there could be a fat, rich plantation owner statue taking a bite out of a turkey leg, grease dripping down his chin, lying on a cushioned platform kept aloft on the backs of toiling slaves.

That way there would be a more complete picture of "heritage." Who could argue against a more complete picture? I'm not sure there would be as much of an argument for removing confederate heritage statues if all of the heritage were on display instead of just some of it. Heck, there might be a lot more people visiting the parks.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 112 Next »