BS: Trump again

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 01:16 PM

I think it was actually "The Emperor Has No Balls"
And the tweet from the NYC Parks Department: "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small."

Maybe it's just me, but the face on the statues look too masculine and not pouty enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 01:02 PM

An interesting anti-Trump demonstration: The Emperor's New Clothes (Washington Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:48 PM

And Another Crook Bites The Dust:

New York Times, 19 Aug 2016

Paul Manafort, installed to run Donald J. Trump's operation after the firing of his original campaign manager, handed in his resignation on Friday, signifying the latest tumult to engulf the candidate, whose standing in the polls has steadily dropped since the Republican Party's convention in July.


Note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:42 PM

I like being the spoiler and have been proved right many times but Donald is in it to win it.

Mannifort is gone. Brietbart.com under Bannon satisfies the populist conspiracy instincts in Trump and Kelly Ann can brook any stream of consciousness for all potential Trump supporters who expect and respect a modicum of maturity.

Trump may be asked by Maureen Dowd of the NYT "Will the approbation of the American people rectify your record by November?"

Trump responded "I have never been on Probation in my life and my record can never be wrecked! "

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:33 PM

the disagreement seems to have been dealt with

In a pig's ear, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:31 PM

Just for the record this is what all the fuss was about:

Ake- "Mr McGrath, most of the liberals here supported the removal of Saddam in the cause of "freedom and democracy"

A ridiculous assertion with absolutely no substantiation, just more trollery. That's the last I'll write of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 12:13 PM

Oh come on Jeri, Tia's not that bad.....OK he/she has been a deserter but the disagreement seems to have been dealt with and I don't bear grudges......and stop "trolling" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 11:39 AM

Trump is going to exit this race before the election, I suspect there is money on that in Las Vegas. And he'll keep his fund-raising war chest as a payoff for all of his work - for his personal use or organization.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 09:50 AM

"Crooked Hillary" ?? Yeah right, Trump.

Trump adviser orchestrated covert campaign : Manafort worked for Ukraine ruling party.
Jeff Horwitz and Chad Day, Associated Press
Thursday, August 18, 2016

A firm run by Donald Trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show.

Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Trump-adviser-orchestrated-covert-campaign-9172118.php

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 09:48 AM

The "tiny minority of the membership" that gets involved in these thread is the group of people that can stomach (or take part in) the co-dependent any-excuse-for-a-disagreement, frequently off-topic hate-fest that happens once certain individuals start humping the thread.

So what's up with Trump today, or are we still just talking about other posters here, and who thought GWB and the US military should invade Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 08:05 AM

Well it seems we are in agreement Tia....so what's all the fuss about?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 04:28 AM

"...reckoned Saddam had to be removed regardless of the consequences....."

Please do find anyone who voiced this.

I recall (and linked to) many people who opposed the invasion precisely *because* of the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 16 - 02:30 AM

As I remarked to Joe, there was only a tiny minority of the membership actually involved in the threads, it tended to be the same small group with an interest in politics.....most could not be bothered, and even amongst the small group there were many who hated war as we all do, but reckoned Saddam had to be removed regardless of the consequences......which we, all knew.

Tia you really do amaze me, leaving the forum for three years then diving straight back in to attack people.
Or perhaps you were one of the "trolling" guests who have been recently deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 05:42 PM

Yes, of course you can write Iraq in the filter, and set it for "All". And up comes about 250 threads. I've no intentiin of checking through them. (I counted them, but it was tricky keeping count. It might have been a few more than 250.)

As I said, I'm sure enough of my memory here, but for all I know there may be some threads where Clinton type "liberals" might have been in evidence, defending the war, along with aken attacking it. Or perhaps it's his memory letting him down, which I think is more likely.

There were definitely left-of-centre people promoting the war out in the big world, if not too much on the Cat. For example in Parliament and Congress, and in the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 10:11 AM

Poppycock, McGrath, anyone who wants to examine the discussions can type Iraq into the filter above, select All and scroll down the page and read for themselves. The only people defending the invasion were 3 or 4 and easily identified conservative members. Ake has altered the facts to suit his narrative. He's indulging in more and more trollery and is often called out for it by the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 09:56 AM

Not necessarily. Aken's memory on this is different from mine, and that of a lot of other people. I think mine is more accurate, but who knows? There were a great number of posts about this at the time, and I can't imagine any sensible person bothering to check them all. I suppose if you were engaged in some kind of research about that kind of stuff doing that might be part of it.

Though I remain pretty sure my memory on this is more accurate, I am also aware that there may be people around who are honestly but inaccurately sure they opposed the war. Rather the same way pollsters find far fewer people admit to having voted for unpopular governments than actually did.

And there are also those who lie about it, like Donald Trump, but that's another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 18 Aug 16 - 09:36 AM

Akenaton continues to assert;

..."Mr McGrath, most of the liberals here supported the removal of Saddam in the cause of "freedom and democracy"."...

Originally, we could not fairly judge whether this was innocent lapse of memory or dishonesty. With the record presented, and not refuted, we can now be sure that it is willful dishonesty.

Please consider this in responding to any further contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 02:52 PM

Suggestion for Trump Campaign Song

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 01:17 PM

Michael Moore spills beans

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:37 PM

Motivation. A fanatic will be motivated by a cause which is also supported by others who are not fanatics, for example nationalism or politics. What makes them fanatics is that they are more extreme in their action. The motives of a "nutter" are much more personal - and of course their actions might not even be extreme, just out of the ordinary.

It's perfectly possible to be both at the same time. There have been several episodes recently where those involved, while having sort of rational motivation, have had significent mental problems.

It's not a clear distinction with some "causes" that most people would see as pretty crazy, such as racism and some kinds of religious fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Charmion
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:13 PM

A fine point, McGrath: I understand that not all nutters are fanatics, but in what way is a fanatic not a nutter?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

Not always. Killings associated with the Troubles were not generally put down to "nutters". Nor was Tim McVeigh seen as a nutter rather than a fanatic. It depends very much on the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: mkebenn
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 12:07 PM

Good point,Greg F. If you stir up enough hate, someone will die, most likely an innocent. Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:17 AM

Which doesn't in itself necessarily imply "Christian terrorism".

Agree 100% Kevin.

However, it IS a curious thing that when a person who happens to be of the Muslim faith murders someone, its "Islamic Terrorism!!" but when a person of the Christian faith does likewise its always "some nutter".

No?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 08:10 AM

but they do not suspect a hate crime.

Hey, Professor:

"First-Degree Murder Charge Added in Killing of Queens Imam and Aide

By RICK ROJAS, NOAH REMNICK and EMILY PALMER, NY TIMES AUG. 16, 2016

Although investigators said they had not determined the motive for the attack, Peter McCormack, an assistant district attorney, described it as "a most horrendous and despicable act." Officials said prosecuting the case as a hate crime remained possible."

Ooops.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:54 AM

As noted by a National Public Radio commentator this morning, Trump is now throwing "red meat" to his voter base by removing his top adviser and adding two new ones.

Trump shakes up campaign, demotes top adviser. Of particular note is Steven Bannon, with the Breitbart organization, eponymously named after the nasty political operative whose company (via James O'Keefe) set up sting operations to bring down ACORN. His job is to be strident, ignore what the president's job actually is, and whip up the lowest-common-denominator of the GOP base with whatever fabrications will work. Because that is what Breitbart does.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 07:25 AM

"There is no indication that it was a hate crime, police said."

But I'll be very surprised if it doesn't turn out to be. Which doesn't in itself necessarily imply "Christian terrorism".   

I always feel there's something weird about the term "hate crime" in relation to murders, which seems to imply that hate isn't a feature of most murders. If anything a murder of a stranger, where there's nothing personal about it is less about hate than a murder of someone close to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 05:06 AM

Trump loses and America wins. We come away with what will likely be a solid left of center SCOTUS for at least a generation or more, a very possible Democratic majority in the Senate, the GOP grip on the House severely weakened and a second major party that will have to shun the influence of it's extreme elements if it wants to survive as a major party.

It would make sense for the GOP to organize Trump's assassination (preferably by a patsy from one of the groups he's demonized) and get Pence elected on the sympathy vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Aug 16 - 03:39 AM

"No motive in the killings has been determined, Boyce said." but they do not suspect a hate crime.

Perhaps they will be proved wrong, but you were jumping to conclusions in suggesting "Christian terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM

Ah, Professor, you should have read the REST of the CNN article, which Clearly states:

"No motive in the killings has been determined, Boyce said."

Ooops.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:12 PM

That doesn't mean she's wrong, does it?

By the same token, Don't mean Dowd's right, either, particularly since she's prejudiced against HC and has been since day one. Read that footnoted info and get back to me.

And I don't "despise" Ake- he's simply wrong a good portion of the time and especially with the BS he continually spouts about Trump & Clinton.

Now Trump I DO despise - he's the most dispicable candidate for president of the last 125 years, and I remember George Wallace. Trumps followers remind me of Tailgunner Joe's acolytes.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:01 PM

Greg,
Christian Terrorism?

Probably not Greg.
CNN 2 hours ago,
"There is no indication that it was a hate crime, police said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/15/us/new-york-imam-shooting/

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:59 PM

Yeah, well, Maureen's had Hillary's number for longer than most. That doesn't mean she's wrong, does it? Similarly, just because you despise Ake for being a homophobe or whatever else, that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:32 PM

Oh, and Michael:

In 2014, an analysis of 21 years of Maureeen Dowd's Columns about Hillary Clinton entitled 'The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton', found that of the 195 columns by Dowd since November 1993 containing significant mentions of Clinton, 72 percent (141 columns) were negative towards Clinton. [43] Numerous other commentators have criticized Dowd for having an obsession with Bill and especially Hillary Clinton.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

-----
43.http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/18/the-numbers-behind-maureen-dowds-21-year-long-c/199752
44.http://wonkette.com/597979/maureen-dowd-is-high-again
45.http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/when-maureen-dowd-lost-hillary-clinton
46.http://www.nationalmemo.com/maureen-dowds-decades-long-campaign-against-hillary-clinton-gets-even-nastier/
47.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/4/22/1203943/-Maureen-Dowd-From-respected-columnist-to-Mean-Girl
48.http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/maureen_dowd_vs_hillary_clinton_mras_and_the_honey_badger_brigade_the_dazzling_glare_of_sexism_and_the_alluring_gender_blind%E2%80%9D_lie/
49.http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/10/new-york-times-maureen-dowd-writes-yet-another-anti-clinton-column/211474
50.https://bluenationreview.com/maureen-dowd-calls-hillary-crazy/
51.http://www.anitafinlay.com/is-maureen-dowd-necessary-defanging-a-hillary-basher-via-a-chapter-from-dirty-words-on-clean-skin/

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:21 PM

There may only be a few inches difference between parties, but those inches can mean the difference between life and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:20 PM

clear proof that there isn't much of a difference between the two parties

Please, please, not THAT old lie again! You and Ake should team up in a vaudeville act; you both have that same bug up your a**.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 07:35 PM

Two interesting articles on HC:

Published in the current Rolling Stone, whose publisher endorsed Hillary over Bernie some time ago, thereby removing any lingering vestiges of the magazine's progressive past, Sean Wilentz's puff piece of a love-fest made me wonder if he's angling for a blowjob (or any kind of job) from Hillary.

Today's New York Times column by Maureen Dowd is by contrast a more clear-eyed reminder of who the Clintons really are - Washington insiders and Wall Street darlings who offer clear proof that there isn't much of a difference between the two parties where ordinary working Americans are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 10:30 AM

Ironic that Guiliani should forget 9/11 when he invoked it ad nauseum while trying to launch a national political career that never went anywhere.
Story here.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:47 AM

Breaking News - Another Moron For Trump!

NEW YORK (Associated Press) — 14 August 2016

Rudolph Giuliani [ mayor of New York City on 11 Sept. 2001], promoting Donald Trump's national security plan, said Monday that in the "eight years before (President Barack) Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States."

"Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office," Giuliani said ahead of Trump's speech on national security.


(he sounds rather like Ake.....)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: mkebenn
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:44 AM

I believe after Trump gets his butt handed to him in November he will found TTV (Trump T.V.) to propagate his mean spirited bull shit as a way to keep his name front and center in the "crooked media". I foresee a cross between Limbaugh, Hannity and Jerry Springer. Think of the guest he could have!!! It's a logical followup to the "Apprentice". Maybe this is wishful thinking, what ever, I most certainly won't be viewing. I'll get the highlights on "Morning Joe", along with Cobert, Fallon, Marh, etc. Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 09:43 AM

Mr McGrath, most of the liberals here supported the removal of Saddam in the cause of "freedom and democracy

Yet another lie, Ake. Please review the various posts by Tia, which completely disprove your nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:42 AM

President Bush's biggest negative where most of the Mudcat membership were concerned was that he was a Republican, a fiscal conservative.

I rest my case. That remark illustrates Ake's difficulty understanding American politics - he ignores the facts. That summary is made of whole cloth - go look at Amos' long running thread about Bush if you want to see all of the various permutations of that guy's puppet presidency, with the nasty Dick Cheney moving his mouth and talking.

But we were speaking of Trump. Whose brain and mouth are connected without a filter, and he pays no attention to any of his advisers. But let's just let him talk - he's his own worst enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:23 AM

The Guardian: a history of Trumpism

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 07:22 AM

I'd question whether that is actually true, aken. It just doesn't match with my memory, nor with the cursory look at a couple old threads I've made.

I'm pretty sure that the main arguments I had at that time with people who favoured the invasion (and there were a good few) were with people who would not see themselves, or be seen by others, as "liberal". In real life too - about the only "liberal" I can remember talking to who favoured the war was our then Labour MP.

I'm sure there were plenty of people indicating they didn't like Saddam, but that's not the same thing. And of course, in both the UK and the US the supposedly "liberal" opposition was mostly in favour of the war. (Not the Liberal Party itself, which makes for confusing terminology.)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 02:30 AM

Mr McGrath, most of the liberals here supported the removal of Saddam in the cause of "freedom and democracy".....how was that to be accomplished without the policy of military intervention?
The two issues are indivisible.

President Bush's biggest negative where most of the Mudcat membership were concerned was that he was a Republican, a fiscal conservative.

As we learned in the UK a "liberal" govt are just as likely to go to war in what they see as their own interests as a conservative one.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 09:42 PM

I provided a link to a thread in which most Catters, if not all, opposed the invasion of Iraq.   Akenaton, it is now incumbent upon you to provide a link to a thread wherein any Catters justify the invasion of Iraq by saying that "Saddam was a bad man".   I would especially like to see a link to a thread where someone says that Hillary convinced them that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.
Provide the link, or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 09:24 PM

Christian Terrorism?

Two days after an imam and his assistant were gunned down after afternoon prayers in Queens, city officials sought to reassure members of the Muslim community in New York on Monday, saying that a "strong person of interest" was in police custody.

"I don't feel safe anymore," Mr. Hossain said. "All of this hatred being propagated, especially by Donald Trump, it puts us at risk. People sometimes pass me on the street and call me Bin Laden. I just try to keep my head down and keep walking."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/nyregion/fatal-shootings-queens-mosque.html

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 07:04 PM

What I don't quite get about Trump: in what way is he stupider or less marketable than Reagan was? From this far away, there doesn't seem to be a flea fart's difference between them

Reagan was suffering from dementia all thru his presidency - his "cold, dead brain" & all that, so he has a bit of an excuse. Not so his handlers.

Trump? He's just an ignorant imbecile buffoon.

That's the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 07:02 PM

Life's too short to analyse the posts in those Iraq threads. (They are still there if anyone has the time and endurance), but a glance through a couple seem to confirm my memory that there were pretty few voices supporting the war. And to confirm my memory that those that were tended to be from people who would be very unlikely to call themselves liberals or be so described by others.

No doubt there were exceptions, be aken's generalisation on this point just doesn't hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:53 PM

There has been essentially no change in the destructiveness of US foreign policy towards most people in the Middle East for my whole lifetime. It isn't relevant to Trump - the American machine will carry on grinding up whole nations and civilizations by proxy and direct warfare no matter who its figurehead is.

What I don't quite get about Trump: in what way is he stupider or less marketable than Reagan was? From this far away, there doesn't seem to be a flea fart's difference between them, but Reagan got away with it and it looks like Trump won't.