BS: Trump again

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:48 AM

What's STFU?

Take your pick, aken:
STFU        Shut the Freak Up (polite form)
STFU        Star Trek Federation University
STFU        Scrawny Two-Faced Underling
STFU        Sir, That's Freakin Ugly (polite form)
STFU        Samurai Training Finished Unsuccessfully
STFU        Show Them Fury Unleashed
STFU        Save the Flying Unicorns
STFU        Southern Tenant Farmers' Union
STFU        Short-Term Follow-Up (pharmaceutical study)
STFU        Say, Thanks for Understanding

Copyright 1988-2014 AcronymFinder.com, All rights reserved.

I rather like the last one. I'd suggest you might try taking that as the intended meaning next time someone says it to you...

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 07:57 AM

Victory for Trump would indeed risk destroying the Republican party, and replacing it with something even worse. Either way they lose. Trump wins and everybody loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:00 AM

It took me less than a minute to find this thread:
http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=55999

Completely refutes your revisionist "memory" Akenaton.

Want more?

If I did not have real world activities today, I would so enjoy burying you in a pile of similar links.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:02 AM

Yes Mr McGrath, but recent events have shown that Both Parties are corrupt

Thank you for your translation.....the last one suits you admirably.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:15 AM

TIA, I don't normally have much in common with Akenaton but on the link you provided there is not one post from him unless he used a different name then.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:20 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. We could actually start functioning much better as a nation again.Donald gets to go on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and continue to draw attention to himself, which is, I'm convinced, all he's really after and whine about how he was cheated.

Not quite sure how it will play out yet but this Trump candidacy could be a boon for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 08:55 AM

Still waiting on 13 Aug 16 - 05:23 PM, Ake. Nothing to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:09 AM

The assumption being that whatever happens the Republicans retain control of the House, gillymor. As they did in 2012, while getting significantly fewer votes than the Democrats. You really need to find some way to sort that kind of thing out.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:16 AM

Raggytash,
No post from Akenaton, but the sentiments universally expressed refute his revisionist and/or flawed recollection.
After so many of us protested so long and loud, and were proven correct, I will not let such BS go unchallenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: TIA
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:18 AM

To be clear, this is the BS quote:

"but to most people here at the time Saddam was the real villain and had to be removed"

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:30 AM

No question about that, McG. Citizens United has enabled wealthy conservative Republicans to go into blue states like North Carolina, and red states as well, and buy up the state legislatures and thereby control the makeup of voting districts (i.e. gerrymandering) and enact voter suppression legislation directed at minority voters, much of which has been recently declared unconstitutional by appellate courts.

CU will very likely be overturned by the Supreme Court if a President Clinton, who strongly advocates its repeal, is able to fill seats on the bench. If a President Trump (shudder) appoints the kind of conservative justices he claims he will, CU will stand. Getting that big, dark money out of elections is the first step to reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: mkebenn
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 09:41 AM

I'm just a young girl who knows little of war but: Seems to me that Trump has done just about all he can do to lose this election, and the real adversary here is complacency. If we don't vote, Trump could win, and God help us. If we do vote, he will do as much damage to the GOP as JBJ did to the Dems in '64 in the south. Seems like they owe us one. VOTE. Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 10:12 AM

There was no irony in my statement. This is what I said (and it would be great if folks could address it, because it is important):

I've always rejected the "Nader nag" - the meme that says if you vote your conscience you're helping to elect the enemy - but this time it's different.

It's different because during the next president's first term, three Supreme Court justices are likely to retire or die. A president is only in office for eight years at most, but SC justices are appointed (by the president) for life. This, and only this, is the reason why progressives MUST help elect HC.

As for that adjective: Clinton is a career politician who has long since sold out her youthful idealism. She is a hawk and a Wall Street shill. It is odious to me to see her courting Bernie Sanders supporters by flip-flopping on long-held stances on things like the TPP and education costs. There is no doubt in my mind that, once elected, she will flop right back. Yes, she is qualified, intelligent and hard-working, but that's not enough to earn my respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 10:14 AM

Quite right, Mike, it's way to early to do victory laps.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:18 AM

courting Bernie Sanders supporters by flip-flopping on long-held stances

Uh- that's what's called "moving the platform to the left" Mike. One of the things Bernie entered the race to do.

the "Nader nag" - the meme that says if you vote your conscience you're helping to elect the enemy {emphasis mine]

Which is exactly what happened, Mike.

NB: realpolitik noun

A system of politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:26 AM

It isn't idealism that's youthful, as demonstrated by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Corbyn, Pete Seeger, Bernie Sanders and a lot more. It's naivete, maybe. People get more pragmatic. That can work different ways.

Sometimes getting older can mean getting more impatient rather than settling down and accepting that defeat is inevitable.

Give Hillary a strong mandate, and an effective Sandersite contingent breathing down her neck, and who knows how the flip-flops might turn out? Franklin Roosevelt had never been all that "progressive" till he found himself in a situation where radical action became realistic politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:30 AM

Sorry Greg, Didn't realise that you wanted a response.
I only read the first link and that was so full of bullshit that I couldn't be arsed reading the other I did look up the author of the first and he was attached in some way to the Obama propaganda squad, obviously a hack looking for a job in the Clinton administration.
Clintons record in office is all that is required , no "hatred" or "misogyny" involved.

Iraq, Libya and Syria were not just small mishaps...they were the biggest Foreign Policy disasters ever and Mrs Clinton has been heavily involved in ALL of them, even Mr Bush's war as her support helped sway American Democrats including many on this forum.

Mr trump's words on nuclear weapons were in fact a means of opening the argument as to whether these weapons will ever be used.....we vshould ALL be working towards the banning of these weapons in every country.......interesting article
From "Politico"

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Willie-O
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 11:40 AM

Donuel, not sure why the question arose, but your assertion that 10% of US presidents have either been assassinated or "narrowly escaped" assassination--I dont know how one statistically defines the latter--is exceedingly conservative. Almost 10% of US presidents have been assassinated, period--4 of 43 men who have held the office.

Wikipedia, fwiw, identifies "over 20" known assassination attempts or serious plots. This includes five against Obama, four against Clinton, the shooting of Reagan of course, and the hapless Ford's being shot at twice in a single month. Every president since Hoover is listed as the object of at least one assassination plot except for LBJ--personal (un)popularity doesnt seem to be a factor, oddly enough.

Then of course the shooting of presidential candidates Robert Kennedy and George Wallace--I apologize for lumping them together--are part of contemporary electoral history as well.

It is beyond reprehensible for anyone with influence to kinda, sorta, kid around that maybe someone oughtta shoot their political opponent, let alone suggest it without qualifiers then deny meaning what they said.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 12:37 PM

**Sorry Greg, Didn't realise that you wanted a response.

I would think, Ake, that someone reading my post in question, consisting of a series of specific interrogatories, might surmise that I wanted responses - which, if you re-read the post in question, you will see (or perhaps not) that you have still not supplied them.

**that was so full of bullshit that I couldn't be arsed reading the other

Apparently bullshit[sic] that you can't identify and or refute.

**attached in some way to the Obama propaganda squad

Attached in WHAT way?

**obviously a hack looking for a job in the Clinton administration

Obvious on the basis of what evidence? or just on the basis of your personal anti-Clinton monomania?.

**even Mr Bush's war as her support helped sway American Democrats including many on this forum.

vide TIA: 14 Aug 16 - 08:00 AM , 14 Aug 16 - 09:16 AM, and especially 14 Aug 16 - 12:11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:31 PM

I must believe that Trump (Trump/Pence=Tuppence)will not win- he won't IF we vote- but that doesn't mean the trouble is over. I hesitate to repeat the equation but someone said "Trump just turned on the light, the cockroaches were already there". My question is: What will the Trump supporters do when Trump loses? Do they go quietly back into the woodwork?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 01:52 PM

"Trump just turned on the light, the cockroaches were already there."

Absolutely BRILLIANT!!

What will the Trump supporters do when Trump loses? Do they go quietly back into the woodwork?

Absolutely NOT!

As I've said before, the problem isn't Trump, its his army of half-wit supporters. Joe Offer seems to think that a Clinton victory will reform the Repugnicant Party, destroy the Tea Party loonies, & make everything okey-dokey once again. This is a delusion, and a dangerous one.

You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:30 PM

I imagine there'll be some kind of outbreak of gun-nut terrorism. What's new? This is America, with well over 30,000 gun deaths a year.

I doubt if it'll amount to a Know Nothing version of Isis, but who can tell?

Best way to limit is to make sure Trump isn't just beaten but buried in the landslide. A narrow victory 2000 style would be asking for trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: mkebenn
Date: 14 Aug 16 - 02:42 PM

Wonderful, Ebbie. Yes the roaches were here, but perhaps we can hide them again, like spots on a favorite tie. Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

"Crooked Hillary"???

Yeah, right.....

Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump's Campaign Chief

By ANDREW E. KRAMER, MIKE McINTIRE and BARRY MEIERAUG. 14, 2016


Records show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Paul Manafort, the campaign manager for Donald J. Trump, from a pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012.

Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: mkebenn
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 10:06 AM

Are you shocked? Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 10:32 AM

Shocked? I'm not even surprised. 'Course it'll ruin Ake's day.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 11:19 AM

I imagine Trump's spin doctors will say this is a fake cooked up by the Russians to undermine Trump's campaign.

Must be a rough job being a Trump spin-doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 03:43 PM

Up above, TIA challenged Ake with a link to a 2003 thread titled BS: US & British war plans blocked. People wondered about the relevance of the link, since no posts from Akenaton appeared in the thread. Ake has stated many times that Mudcatters supported the invasion of Iraq and are now whistling a different tune.

The 2003 thread proves that a large number of Mudcatters opposed the invasion of Iraq at the time it was happening - not as an afterthought like Mr. Trump. At the time and still today, I couldn't understand why so many Democratic members of Congress supported Bush's dirty little war.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:51 PM

Well Joe, how many active members did we have in those days?
There are a large number of posts in that thread, but only a handful of committed posters, some totally opposed, some who have doubts, and some who are in favour....the majority are sitting on the fence.
I certainly don't think that you can make a valid claim that "most of the membership" were opposed......"most of the membership" couldn't be bothered to join the discussion.

I remember being involved in later threads where many justified the war by claiming that Saddam was a "bad man"

The consequences of the war and the attack on Libya, which we see today(the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism), were recognised by only a very few. In Fact very few here will even now condemn the Obama Clinton govt for its disgraceful and idiotic actions in Libya.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 04:57 PM

Give it up, Ake - your memory, such as it is, is faulty - and its hardly the only thing of yours that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:09 PM

Ake, there was serious opposition to the invasion of Iraq on the part of most folkies I know. Say what you want, but them's the facts. I'm sure a poll here in 2003 would show overwhelmingly strong opposition to the Bush invasion of Iraq. And at the time, we had many more active Mudcatters than we have now.

The Libya thing was different. It was tied to the "Arab Spring," and many of us had the hope that multiple Arab nations would end years of tyranny - and Libya was viewed as the worst of those tyrannies. Turns out our hopes were misguided.

I don't know what Europeans thought at the time of the Arab Spring, but we here in the U.S. believed that U.S. military intervention was minimal and was intended to support freedom-seeking rebels who would otherwise be murdered by Ghaddafi.

Now we're stuck in a worse conundrum in Syria, where at lest three sides are fighting. Many voices are calling for the U.S. to intervene and stop the slaughter, but which side should we join? So, we're hesitant in Syria and are condemned for it; and we intervened in Libya and are condemned for that, too.

There are no easy answers, except for those who see in hindsight.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 05:28 PM

Doubling down on an easily refuted falsehood. Kind of reminds me of someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Aug 16 - 06:42 PM

Akenaton, you commit every logical fallacy you can muster in your parody of debate. Someone offers you evidence of members' opposition and you dismiss it as insufficient and thrash around in your unsupported memories to make your case. You only want to keep bashing Hillary, undeterred by facts. I see you trying to make it sound like you're actually interested in the thread, when each time you simply want to get in one more dig.

This thread is about Trump. And people get tired of continually pointing that out to you.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Aug 16 - 08:23 AM

The Guardian: a history of Trumpism

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: 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: 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 - 09:47 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:32 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/