US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,150
obgraham,
I'm not in a tizzy, I was just pointing out discrepancies in your take of 60 Minutes' Trump interview and actual facts that you missed.
obgraham, I hate to tell you but there isn't a need for a "get" interview, Trump is very, very proficient at "getting" himself. Today, Trump pointed out that Sears has been badly managed for years. I wonder if Trump knew his Treasury Secretary was on the Sears board from 2005 until 2016 and before that as a director for years at K-Mart before he spoke? Probably not and it wasn't a "get" interview. Speaking about the economy, the tax changes Trump likes to take full credit for have been a boon to the corporations with profits after taxes soaring to the highest levels ever seen. But, that fact doesn’t equate with the lowered tax rates. Revenues coming into the Federal Government from corporations are going down, not up and are not expected to rise anytime soon. So what happens when the economy starts to slide? It doesn't take a Harvard degree or a Wharton economics degree to know what is going to happen. But Trump is coming into his own...
Like I pointed out, if the Left and their Turbine-like acolytes are in a tizzy over Trump's interview, that's proof enough to me that he did a great job.
And tell me this, Turbine -- considering this was a "get" interview for a high profile media person like Stahl, in the lead-in to an election, why was it that there were Zero questions about substance: Economic advancement, low unemployment -- you know, the stuff that affects average Americans, rather than Harvard academics?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 602
Mac, please. You need to broaden your web-reading a bit. I said I read the Bustamante report. No point in requoting what it said.
Plenty of others in the last 48 hours have pointed out that the comparison database is lacking in native American samples. Primarily because the tribes want to maintain their authority over who is and who is not eligible to be a member. They don't want to relinquish that to modern technology. As a result, by and large tribal members have not contributed their DNA in their proportion in society. To make up for this, the databases now include samples from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru. It's yet to be determined how this affects the validity in terms of native American DNA.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your interpretation. However, I didn't make this up, and neither did Trump. The leader of the Cherokee Nation, however, is not happy with the Senator's claim.
Plenty of others in the last 48 hours have pointed out that the comparison database is lacking in native American samples. Primarily because the tribes want to maintain their authority over who is and who is not eligible to be a member. They don't want to relinquish that to modern technology. As a result, by and large tribal members have not contributed their DNA in their proportion in society. To make up for this, the databases now include samples from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru. It's yet to be determined how this affects the validity in terms of native American DNA.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your interpretation. However, I didn't make this up, and neither did Trump. The leader of the Cherokee Nation, however, is not happy with the Senator's claim.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred
Do the Democrats have any kind of realistic chance n the midterms? I see the press, including The Economist, is full of stories that they have a chance to pick upsome seats...but even from this distant vantage point all can see that the Democrats are a hapless group at the moment without a clear message and skilled only in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Too bad this so called party oposite is an effete shell of what an opposition should be. What are they offering other than they are not Trump?
Too bad this so called party oposite is an effete shell of what an opposition should be. What are they offering other than they are not Trump?
that would give Trump a run.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by BAengineer
I certainly agree - its as though they dont want to win. Personally I'd like them to tell Beto O'Rourke to stop messing around in Texas and make him their candidate in 2020.
that would give Trump a run.
that would give Trump a run.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Apples and oranges ....
Two different things are being mixed here: what DNA can show, and membership in one particular Amerindian tribe. Warren has a history of making unsupported claims to being a member of the Cherokee tribe, when this is something that can not be proven or disproven by a DNA test. (Anyone who knows the history of Amerindians must know that tribes had even adopted "whites" as members of their tribes. Anyone who is unaware, have a read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanah_Parker
Quanah Parker was a Comanche whose mother, Cynthia Ann Parker, was also a Comanche and a white woman, perhaps whiter than Elizabeth Warren. Cynthia Ann Parker would have "failed" her DNA test, but she was still a Comanche.
We are being invited by both Trump and Warren to bark up the wrong tree, because DNA can not prove or disprove membership in an Amerindian tribe. Membership does not have to be a matter of race, as shown by historical example. (Even further back, any possible survivors of the Roanoke Colony probably ended their lives as members of local Amerindian tribes.)
Warren had been caught out using her spurious claim of Cherokee affinity to gain advancement in academia. With hindsight I'm sure she regrets having done that, but too late. I think the Democrats need to move on and look at other possible opponents to Donald Trump for 2020.
Joe Biden is another one. He was caught using elements of Neil "Kinnochio" Kinnock's biography as his own for a stump speech during his failed run for the presidency in 1987. You don't think Trump would be all over him for that, when for once Trump would not even need to lie about Biden's being a clumsy liar, one even more clumsy than Trump himself? What Biden did was right up there with the way Melania copied Michelle Obama's speech, except that Melania was not even running for dogcatcher.
Any possible opponent of Trump's has to be seen to be reasonably truthful in order to be an alternative to openly lying Trump. That fact should put both Warren and Biden out of the running. In the same way, what were the Democrats thinking to have Hillary "I landed under sniper fire" Clinton run against Trump?
Finding a reasonably truthful Democratic politician is going to be difficult, but it should be possible.
Quanah Parker was a Comanche whose mother, Cynthia Ann Parker, was also a Comanche and a white woman, perhaps whiter than Elizabeth Warren. Cynthia Ann Parker would have "failed" her DNA test, but she was still a Comanche.
We are being invited by both Trump and Warren to bark up the wrong tree, because DNA can not prove or disprove membership in an Amerindian tribe. Membership does not have to be a matter of race, as shown by historical example. (Even further back, any possible survivors of the Roanoke Colony probably ended their lives as members of local Amerindian tribes.)
Warren had been caught out using her spurious claim of Cherokee affinity to gain advancement in academia. With hindsight I'm sure she regrets having done that, but too late. I think the Democrats need to move on and look at other possible opponents to Donald Trump for 2020.
Joe Biden is another one. He was caught using elements of Neil "Kinnochio" Kinnock's biography as his own for a stump speech during his failed run for the presidency in 1987. You don't think Trump would be all over him for that, when for once Trump would not even need to lie about Biden's being a clumsy liar, one even more clumsy than Trump himself? What Biden did was right up there with the way Melania copied Michelle Obama's speech, except that Melania was not even running for dogcatcher.
Any possible opponent of Trump's has to be seen to be reasonably truthful in order to be an alternative to openly lying Trump. That fact should put both Warren and Biden out of the running. In the same way, what were the Democrats thinking to have Hillary "I landed under sniper fire" Clinton run against Trump?
Finding a reasonably truthful Democratic politician is going to be difficult, but it should be possible.
Last edited by chuks; 17th Oct 2018 at 08:11.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by ethicalconundrum
Lolz... Beto is going to win Dallas, Harris, Travis and El Paso counties. He is going to do well in Tarrant, but ultimately lose there and every other county in the state with a few minor exceptions. TX has had it will illegals. Cruz is no ones choice but next to Beto who is pandering to EVERYONE except the voters is going to go down in flames on election day. He's outspending Cruz by 3:1 and can't get close to breaking any ag or oil TX counties.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by ethicalconundrum
Lolz... Beto is going to win Dallas, Harris, Travis and El Paso counties. He is going to do well in Tarrant, but ultimately lose there and every other county in the state with a few minor exceptions. TX has had it will illegals. Cruz is no ones choice but next to Beto who is pandering to EVERYONE except the voters is going to go down in flames on election day. He's outspending Cruz by 3:1 and can't get close to breaking any ag or oil TX counties.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,437
Originally Posted by obgraham
We'll just carry on here. All will be well after November 6 (!).
He is already taking the position of "If the GOP loses the House in November, it's not my fault."
Response to the President's gambit:
Actually, Mr President, it sure as hell is your fault.
Alienating the swing voters who might back your team is for damned sure your fault. It comes with the badge, for the chance to be called President Donald Trump.
Harry Truman said: The buck stops here. Donnie, me bucko, this one's on you. You had two years to strengthen and shore up the voter base, and you did ... what?
You tried to dismantle the GOP. (Whether it needs, or needed, an overhaul or shaking up is the topic for another discussion).
/response ended
On the other hand, is this another Trump "crazy like a fox" moment?
He made all that noise about "the election is a farce if I lose, it's been rigged" before election night happened and he won.
As to the standard wheeze about "I'm an outsider, I am draining the swamp" and all that.
Don, you've been in the seat for just under two years. You aren't an outsider any more.
You are one of the gators.
PS: David Brooks is an intelligent man and a decent writer who is also a liar
Ninety percent of Devoted Conservatives think immigration is bad, while 99 percent of Progressive Activists think it is good
It is intensely dishonest to attempt to assert that someone against illegal immigration is against all immigration.
That effort, to reframe the position on illegal immigration via a pure strawman and a lie, is one of the most disgusting lies that the Democratic party, and a wide variety of activists and media pundits are trying to pretend is a truth. They are trying to pull the old Goebbels trick of 'if you repeat a lie often enough, people may begin to think that it's the truth."
For the record: the much talked about Wall has always been a stupid idea.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Oct 2018 at 14:41.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by BAengineer
Which is why I said he should forget about messing around in Texas. He is a classic liberal in the LBJ tradition and I suspect he would have great attraction to much of the country if he ran against Trump. And he is a new generation and doesn't have the baggage of the current front runners from the Democratic Party
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,437
Originally Posted by ethicalconundrum
all I can see about him is is hatred of
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I am not sure who he hates besides cops and the Border Patrol. (Then again, his packaged messages, and that of his opponent, paint weirdly different pictures of a privileged Anglo pretending to be the champion of Latinos).
Plastic PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,890
"Why do the [Far Left and Far Right] Wings dominate the conversation? A key reason is that polarization has become a business model. Media executives have realized that they can drive clicks, likes, and views, and make money for themselves and their shareholders, by providing people with the most strident opinions. This means that the most extreme voices―no matter how outlandish―often get the most airtime. In addition, people with the most extreme views are often the most certain of their positions. They are willing to argue with anyone and avoid moderating their opinions or conceding points to the other side. All this can make entertaining television and viral social media content. But it is distorting how we see each other, fracturing our society, and adding to distortions in our political system that give undue weight to the most extreme views."
Mac
Mac
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,509
. Actually, Mr President, it sure as hell is your fault.
Trump could have the persona of Mother Teresa yet history shows losses to include losing the House are to be expected.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 65
Posts: 59
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the 1,000 Honduran march to the USA has grown to 3,000 and includes citizens from El Salvador and Guatemala, some school buses and trucks for non-walkers.
Trump has threatened to cut off all aid if transit countries do not stop it.
Now threatens to close the US-Mexico border although he doesn't get into details (total closure? closed to legitimate travelers? closed to goods? flights? cruise ships? return of US vacationers?)
Amnesty predictably, is saying - Just leave these poor people alone, they're poor.
The soon to be president of Mexico has said he will give work visas to all new arrivals if they want to stay and work in Mexico.
Right. People actually want to work in Mexico when the hanging fruit is so, so close. Ask a typical Mexican about that.
Mexico was never the advertised destination.
"on Tuesday, Honduras' foreign ministry urged its citizens to "not let themselves be used by a movement that is clearly political and seeks to disrupt the governability, stability and peace"..
And that statement gets the "puerile joke of the week" award.
Stay tuned for Act III.
Trump has threatened to cut off all aid if transit countries do not stop it.
Now threatens to close the US-Mexico border although he doesn't get into details (total closure? closed to legitimate travelers? closed to goods? flights? cruise ships? return of US vacationers?)
Amnesty predictably, is saying - Just leave these poor people alone, they're poor.
The soon to be president of Mexico has said he will give work visas to all new arrivals if they want to stay and work in Mexico.
Right. People actually want to work in Mexico when the hanging fruit is so, so close. Ask a typical Mexican about that.
Mexico was never the advertised destination.
"on Tuesday, Honduras' foreign ministry urged its citizens to "not let themselves be used by a movement that is clearly political and seeks to disrupt the governability, stability and peace"..
And that statement gets the "puerile joke of the week" award.
Stay tuned for Act III.
(Tom Toles)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,003
Turbine D - mob rule at its purest (oh, wait, those are Republicans chanting, not Democrats!)
A few other Trumpist calls for mob action:
"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise,"
"He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."
"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" (Certainly a storm-trooper type, anyway.)
That last, of course, refers to a GOP candidate who attacked a journalist trying to ask a question. Which brings us to...
"The media are the enemy of the people."
As Ariel Stulberg said, "Enemy of the People" is what the Soviet government called my great-grandfather after they murdered him."
Even Khruschev conceded that "The formula 'enemy of the people' was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals."
Lenin: "All leaders of the CDP, a party filled with enemies of the people, are...to be arrested immediately, and brought before the Revolutionary Court."
Joseph Goebbels: The Jews "are a sworn enemy of the German People."
Hugo Chavez: Dissenters are "enemies of the homeland."
Thus we see with whom the Trump-enablers ally themselves, no matter how they wiggle and squirm to hide that alliance.
Compare with our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
A few other Trumpist calls for mob action:
"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise,"
"He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."
"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" (Certainly a storm-trooper type, anyway.)
That last, of course, refers to a GOP candidate who attacked a journalist trying to ask a question. Which brings us to...
"The media are the enemy of the people."
As Ariel Stulberg said, "Enemy of the People" is what the Soviet government called my great-grandfather after they murdered him."
Even Khruschev conceded that "The formula 'enemy of the people' was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals."
Lenin: "All leaders of the CDP, a party filled with enemies of the people, are...to be arrested immediately, and brought before the Revolutionary Court."
Joseph Goebbels: The Jews "are a sworn enemy of the German People."
Hugo Chavez: Dissenters are "enemies of the homeland."
Thus we see with whom the Trump-enablers ally themselves, no matter how they wiggle and squirm to hide that alliance.
Compare with our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 602
Jefferson was right. Given the opportunity to eliminate the government that would be a good thing. Glad to see you have joined the Right Wing, Pattern!
Of course Thomas Jefferson would be retching in the outhouse if he had to deal with what passes for "newspapers" today. Back then there indeed were News-Papers, and in addition there were editorials and "Pamphlets" (i.e. Paine) and both the people and the political leaders understood the difference.
Of course Thomas Jefferson would be retching in the outhouse if he had to deal with what passes for "newspapers" today. Back then there indeed were News-Papers, and in addition there were editorials and "Pamphlets" (i.e. Paine) and both the people and the political leaders understood the difference.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Turbine D
see: “Private Attorney General”
best,
con
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,003
@ob, Don't count your conservatives before they hatch. 
I consider Jefferson's quote to be a hypothetical - IF FORCED to decide whether we should have government or newspapers, I would favor the latter. Fortunately, it is not an either/or question. In fact, it is an "and/both" question, for without the protection of our form of government, from the First Amendment to Secret Service agents protecting Katy Tur as she left a Trump rally, no "free press" would exist. Study up on the violence perpetrated against anti-slavery newspapers before the Civil War. It could have been worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy
And without a free press, the US Republic would have fallen long ago.
Jefferson despised the Newspapers of his time - to an almost Nixonian/Trumpian level: "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."
or - "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
or - "A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers… [T]he printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough."
(Sound familiar?)
Nevertheless - he did not advocate violence even against those "polluted vehicles," and enshrined protection for them, with his comrades, in the First Amendment. A far cry from Trump.
I consider Jefferson's quote to be a hypothetical - IF FORCED to decide whether we should have government or newspapers, I would favor the latter. Fortunately, it is not an either/or question. In fact, it is an "and/both" question, for without the protection of our form of government, from the First Amendment to Secret Service agents protecting Katy Tur as she left a Trump rally, no "free press" would exist. Study up on the violence perpetrated against anti-slavery newspapers before the Civil War. It could have been worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy
And without a free press, the US Republic would have fallen long ago.
Jefferson despised the Newspapers of his time - to an almost Nixonian/Trumpian level: "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."
or - "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
or - "A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers… [T]he printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough."
(Sound familiar?)
Nevertheless - he did not advocate violence even against those "polluted vehicles," and enshrined protection for them, with his comrades, in the First Amendment. A far cry from Trump.
