"[O]n Twitter the other day... Donald Trump tweeted: “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!”
I was mildly surprised by the number of people who thought Trump’s tweet was clever. But I was truly stunned by the number of idiots who thought he wasn’t calling Megyn Kelly a bimbo. His whole shtick is that he’s a warrior against political correctness. He wasn’t invoking political correctness as a legitimate thing, he was sarcastically hiding behind it. People not enthralled with Trump recognize this as smarmy cowardice.
Indeed, they would see it plainly if I were to tweet, “I’m not going to call Donald Trump an adulterous cad. That would be politically incorrect. So I’ll just say he’s a moral lightweight!”
The difference of course is that there’s no evidence that Kelly is a bimbo. There’s ample evidence that Trump cheated on his wife and slept with many married women. What’s the evidence? His own, boastful (!) testimony for starters.
My favorite part is that Trump’s “bimbo” tweet came immediately after one in which he condemned Fox’s response to his debate boycott as a “disgrace.” He added, “Who would ever say something so nasty and dumb?”
The almost Caligulan narcissism on display here is now familiar to everyone. The truly creepy part is how many conservatives overlook it or celebrate it. The slightest insult to the Donald arouses outrage and dismay from his digital court sycophants, but when he behaves like a boorish and childish lout, all praise and honor is due!
...And as someone who sincerely believes William F. Buckley was the most well-mannered man I’ve ever met, I’d hate to see conservatives defenestrate good manners in their indulgence of populist hysteria."
http://link.nationalreview.com/view/547f9de03b35d0210c8bb89f3kr10.3i52/dae763d4
66 comments:
Just remember for whom NR has been shilling the past couple of years.
Not really. Refresh my memory. Way back, they fired Buckley's son for endorsing Obama. Rich Lowry saw stars for Palin after the Biden/Palin debate. Generally, they're pro-war chickenhawks.
Trump's original sin: he isn't aligned with beautiful people values. More acts of love! That's what they want.
Meggie is not a bimbo. She is smart and hot and I abs love her.
tits.
deborah said...
Not really. Refresh my memory
Seems to me, they've been awfully in love with the McConnell wing of the party the last year or so.
You're talking ancient history.
Jonah lost one testicle when he fired Ann Coulter. He lost the other when he fired John Derbyshire. More recently, Mark Steyn, being a Canadian, was gentleman enough to leave on his on and not force the now ball-free Jonah to fire him.
#1. Megyn Kelly is a bimbo or acts like one. Pretentious, preening biatch.
#2. Donald is just playing the game that the politically correct liberals have set up where they don't "say" that someone is a racist, but....... Guilt by implication and then they say...I never "said" that. Like Harry Reid. I "heard" that Romney didn't pay his taxes. Well I never "said" he didn't. Just that I heard it.
#3. Who gives anyone the right to define or discern who is a conservative or not. Golberg? I think not. Sorry if we don't fit into your narrow little ideological boxes.
#4. What exactly have the self anointed Conservative poobah talking heads and elected Conservatives actually done for any of us lately? Other than make big promises and sloppy wet kisses with no follow through. All talk. No action. Bunch of weaselly wimps who get elected and then proceed to shaft the voters who elected them.
#5. It is entertaining and amusing to watch a masterful virtuoso play the media like a fiddle.
#6. Screw a bunch of good manners. We aren't having tea and crumpets here. This is a fight for our literal lives and the life of our country.
Goldberg did the actual firing? I would have guessed Lowry.
"The poll found that Trump’s decision to skip the last Republican debate had a negative
impact on his support. Nearly four out of 10 likely GOP caucus participants (39%) said
they were less likely to vote for Trump as a result of the boycott, while 14% said his
absence made it more likely they would vote for him. Fifty-two percent (52%) said it
would have no impact on their vote.
“Since our January 21 poll, Trump’s favorability has decreased by 10 points,” said
ECPS data analyst Matt Couture. “His decision to skip the debate seems to be a factor
in this decrease.”
”. ~ Emerson College Polling Society
Amazingly sly play by the master.
The almost Caligulan narcissism on display here is now familiar to everyone.
No it's not. What I am familiar with seeing Trump display is egotism, which is different from narcissism. And nowhere close to being similar enough to the behavior attributed to Caligula to qualify for an almost.
With that sentence, Goldberg resorts to the same tactic he is foaming on about the Donald using.
A while back I thought a match up between Sanders and Trump was the big question before the nation until I learned more about Trump's past and current positions. Now I realize that Trump and Sanders are as close on ideology as Clinton and Sanders. All three have long favored big government solutions to nearly every problem. If you're fine with that, then you don't want a conservative. Just admit it. It's not some kind of slight of hand or elitism, or even a matter of opinion to say big government solutions are not conservative.
All you have to do is research what Trump says in interviews when he's not just talking about polls, insulting opponents and reporters, FOX, and all the other things he distracts you with. He's not playing the media anywhere near as easily and totally as he is many of his supporters. It's really a lot like Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy play, where she blames the people her supporters hate, and like trained dogs they turn to attack her target, and forget to even evaluate what she's up to. I'm amazed at how well that works and how easy it is with both sides. Angry people are very easy to redirect.
" Sorry if we don't fit into your narrow little ideological boxes."
It's not narrow nor little - never has been, and you used to like it. Did you ever wonder how a cult member can just walk away from their family and the values they held to follow someone who clearly is the opposite of where they are from? This seems like that.
I know you won't like this, and I don't mean to insult anyone, but from the outside the Trump euphoria, it looks knee jerk at best.
A few of the characteristics of cults:
The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The leader has a special mission to save humanity.
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group.
Loved all the big words.
Trump may very well end up the first president repudiated by his own party as well as the loyal opposition of the democrats since Richard Nixon.
I've always thought Johan Goldberg was over-rated. I would never subscribe to his magazine and it probably won't last much longer under the present management.
Lem said...Trump may very well end up the first president repudiated by his own party as well as the loyal opposition of the democrats since Richard Nixon.
Lem, read upon how Sen. Robert Taft (Mr. Republican) was rejected by his own party in 1952.
"read up on" not "read upon"
Ike turned out to be pretty "liberal." Cf. his writings on military spending and the "Military Industrial Complex."
I went to a seminar once where one of the speakers was a PI who kidnapped cult kids and deprogrammed them w/ a shrink. The PI said he would just marvel @ the cognitive dissonance on display. These were kids from wealthy or well to do families[the fees weren't cheap!]. They were almost all intelligent young people and well educated. The team had their successes and failures. The time the subject spent in the cult was one of the primary factors for success or failure. He would be w/ the kid 24/7, sometimes handcuffed to them. He said it helped him understand, on a certain level, how Jim Jones got so many people to commit suicide.
...And as someone who sincerely believes William F. Buckley was the most well-mannered man I’ve ever met, I’d hate to see conservatives defenestrate good manners in their indulgence of populist hysteria.
Jonesah makes the mistake of overlooking Buckley's greatest life's work: “separating the Right from the kooks.”
There's no reason to think the kooks wouldn't eventually make their way back in. Indeed, elements of their ilk were already battering down the doors by the mid-1980s and definitely by the 1990s.
Buckley's achievement was to make American conservatism respectable enough to allow at least one grandiose leader to the presidency (Reagan), while ensuring political dominance for another generation or so.
But now that time has ended. The kooks are back, and fully in charge.
Too bad for Jonah and the others like him. Their party led an anti-elitist revolt. But the only conservatives who actually stand a chance of knowing a damn thing about effective governance are the elites.
Au revoir. A bientôt.
We aren't having tea and crumpets here. This is a fight for our literal lives and the life of our country.
Really? How so?
Goldberg thinks of himself as the funny and witty pub and he is neither.
He is just a doughy pant load.
Could you imagine seeing him naked.
Yikes, I would throw big time.
He is fatty.
And his hair is a major distaster.
Rhythm and Balls said...
We aren't having tea and crumpets here. This is a fight for our literal lives and the life of our country.
Really? How so?
Ritmo, of course, fancying himself one of the new gauleiters in Hillary's New Order forgets people like him always end up on the first train to Dachau-on-the-Brazos.
And they don't even get a window seat.
My two-time Obama voting girlfriend is all in for Trump, and has been since the beginning. Although I am assuming he's going to be a big mistake, I don't mind her choice, because she's just not ideological, and if she was, it wouldn't be conservative or libertarian anyway. I think it makes sense for an Obama voter to go for Trump now, especially with Hillary so obviously corrupt and incompetent.
Maybe populism should be an ideology and maybe even a party. The Populist party. You just nominate the guy that floats your boat that year regardless of his record or policy ideas. Either Sanders or Trump could be their nominee - candidates with ideologies and records that are mostly ignored by their supporters. It's a thing this year. The problem with third parties in the U.S. is they just don't get any votes. The Populist party would have popularity built right in. It's right there in the name.
So then who would you prefer it to be, Bags?
I'm getting kind of sick of listening to the kooks (like the one at 8:00) chime in to jump all over everyone with his talk of gulags and gas chambers. Please indulge me with a diversion from that on behalf of a thinking man's equivalent to that, like yourself.
Either Sanders or Trump could be their nominee - candidates with ideologies and records that are mostly ignored by their supporters.
I don't see how that applies to Sanders. He did not leave the city he governed worse off and as a legislator the respect his honesty engenders and the successful legislation he's been able to partner with ideological opposites on (despite bums like "ed" supposing he must be a Jewish Nazi) are actually pretty uncommon achievements.
Sanders supporters are mostly not socialists or people who even know what socialism is. Like Trump's they just like what he says about a very few issues, and the way he says it. You can tell Sanders people that he's a socialist or that he's not one, you could even tell them he's a terrible example of a Democrat, and that he's not liked by the Democrat establishment, and they wouldn't care. I see the populist dynamics to be very similar in both groups, and to be the overriding force.
"So then who would you prefer it to be, Bags?"
I'm pretty sure it would be the guy you would like least. My guess is that would be President Cruz. He's unfortunately very young and a very unattractive man in a way that is not forgiven by most men or women. That hurts his elect-ability, and if the Democrats were not so weak this time, I'd never want him nominated, but I am in agreement the most with him and Rand Paul, although not on all things. Besides, the Democrats are ugly as shit too, with dumb, worn-out, and destructive ideas. That's my highbrow analysis.
Sanders supporters are mostly not socialists or people who even know what socialism is.
Why should they and/or why should they be? They just know that their problems are as important to them as the issues that that the Fortune 500 companies lobby about. Gone are the days when you can scare people just by using words alone.
You can tell Sanders people that he's a socialist or that he's not one, you could even tell them he's a terrible example of a Democrat, and that he's not liked by the Democrat establishment, and they wouldn't care.
As well they shouldn't.
Guys, this is the North East Corridor NYC way. Duh. Trump grew up in that schmucks paradise. So did Sanders (Brooklyn). They are cut from the same cloth, but I'd vote for Trump if he were the nominee. I just see him for what he is and so far, he's still on my side of the fence.
That hurts his elect-ability, and if the Democrats were not so weak this time, I'd never want him nominated,
What would be your definition/idea of a Democrat who's not too "weak" for you to vote for?
...but I am in agreement the most with him and Rand Paul...
That caught my eyebrow. I'd say I'd look at Cruz with as much trepidation/loathing as the graciousness with which I'd be happy to welcome someone like Paul. But maybe I'm looking at where they come from on foreign policy, where they seem to be polar opposites apart.
" on foreign policy, where they seem to be polar opposites apart."
I know, and I agree with Cruz mostly there. I'm not religious, and I'm mostly libertarian except for foreign policy where I'm more of a chicken hawk neocon son of a bitch for better or worse.
I think Sanders supporters should care about ideology, because I think it's the most important thing. An effective leader with the wrong ideology is worse than a weak one with the right thinking. I mean if your leader is heading the wrong way, it doesn't help that he's getting things done. Ideology tells you what he will do on problems that have not come up yet, or how he will decide things regardless of what he says to get elected. I want honesty in the campaign, but he does have to win, and after that, all you have left is ideology to steer him. Ideology is like the programming you put in the space probe before launch.
The ones constantly attacking Trump are the ones who are "angry" and "full of emotion". Look at Trump's positions. He's a moderate Republican who wants to enforce the immigration laws an perhaps negotiate better trade deals.
voting for someone based on "style" is idiotic.
Looks like its going to be a 3 man race. I hope Trump and Cruz learned from the 2008 Romney-Huckabee debacle.
Rocean, I honestly don't know what your talking about. Trump has supported every policy from single payer, to amnesty, to partial birth abortion, and he still supports most Democrat positions. He just used a few Republican Primary designed sound bites promoting things that won't happen or aren't needed. He will abandon them in the general, and in office, because a Democrat is what he has always been. Trump is style on steroids, almost everybody realizes that, and admits it.
People who don't want Trump generally are not committed to anyone yet. They aren't in love with anyone, and frankly I don't see how you could be. They re freaking politicians, they lie. You can only trust that they will do what they have always done, just like the rest of us.
I don't vote on style. For Christ sake, how could I support Cruz if I did.
Looks like it will be Rubio vs a badly damaged Clinton come November.
rc not style, but lack of class. And what Bago said. Plus, how many illegal aliens do you think he's hired in his work career?
I actually found him amusing, but about a half hour into the last debate, I noticed I had forgotten he'd decided not to participate, and I realized he'd be a drag if he'd been there.
For the record, I don't care for Kelly, she really gets on my nerves. She thinks she's all that. She goes in with too much indignation on some issues. But I don't hate her.
R&B: "What would be your definition/idea of a Democrat who's not too "weak" for you to vote for? "
I say they are weak now because one is on the verge of being indicted, and is trusted by very few people who can read, and the other is frankly a kook that will be dismembered in the general on simple math alone.
I'm a passionate proponent of much much smaller government above all else, so what Democrat is gonna be palatable to me? It's the opposite of all Democrats today, and I'm still a lifelong registered Democrat to my eternal shame, due entirely to laziness.
Trump isn't a candidate, he's a weapon.
And Cruz is isn't a candidate either, for most, he's still a weapon. A very good and perfectly suitable #2 weapon.
But with Cruz expect less damage to Republican party, less collateral damage to Democrat party, far less damage to Washington and less damage to media influence.
Oh! That reminds me. This is a lot better. Forget Trump vs Cruz for the moment, this is better.
The man looks like Santa Claus. For realz. Except no fuzzy red hat. And his beard is more luxurious, more perfect, more perfectly well trimmed, the curvy even waves end abruptly perfectly well formed, and it hangs from his Santa Claus face topped off with the same luxuriant white hair. His head and facial hair together truly are remarkable and it doesn't snap on and off.
And he's Jewish.
And he goes the one politician that he ever heard speak about his religion in a way that is so lovely it makes me want to convert was Jimmy Carter.
Surprising. I don't know what he heard, but whatever it was Jimmy Carter said to him left a lasting impression. My inclination to argue is stifled. I decide to be agreeable.
It reminded me of the opposite.
The politician, a recent candidate who I just heard that turns me off by delivering his catechism as if hammering the nails in himself, the cannon drilled in by rote and never once questioned, the Eagle Scout repetition of vow and with the eager anxious urgency of Party Statists is Marko Rubio.
The name made Santa Claus cringe. I touched a nerve.
Switching to the other repugnant Republican candidate Santa Claus said, "The ONE candidate who if elected I will move to Canada is Trump.
He's lying. They always say that. Only one person I know actually did that, out of all who said they would if Bush were elected a second time, back then, and his application was rejected. Seems being mad at Bush isn't good enough reason for Canada to accept a person on welfare and he had no marketable skills that Canada wanted.
And I mean it. Santa Clause assured. I even talked to my aunt who lives there and she said, fine come on up.
So Santa Claus will go and live with his aunt in Canada if Trump is elected. No interruption at all for Santa's shop going south for a few seasons.
Like the North Pole is U.S. territory or something. Such an impotent protest for such a luxuriant beard. You really gotta see the beard on this guy to believe it.
Trump is a weapon, and a very effective one - a Trojan Horse. He wasn't deployed by Democrats, but they will hitch a ride inside. The Trojan Horse worked only because the Trojans wanted it, and it looked awesome. Once inside, it turned out to be the opposite of what it was billed as. The difference here is that we already know what's inside, but we still think it's awesome.
Trump will not dismantle Obamacare, he will side with Democrats to probably make it worse, unless Cruz and other Repubs in congress force him. He will increase taxes, weakening the economy and moving more capital and jobs overseas. He will not negotiate better trade, because at this point we are the weak party in those negotiations, and because advisors will tell him how stupid and self-destructive that will be. If he doesn't listen the U.s.will dip into recession, and lose it's position relative to China. China is building hundreds of nuclear plants in the next decade, and will eclipse us economically because of our leftist assholes who Trump mostly sides with.
Our trade defict is not due to greedy companies, it's due to us, and our insistence on guaranteed high wages, useless education, stifling stupid regulations, high taxes, and most of all the fact that every single one of us buys Chinese crap entirely by choice when American products are available right next to them. All we have to do is stop supporting our own workers' competition and it won't matter who is President.
I'm a passionate proponent of much much smaller government above all else, so what Democrat is gonna be palatable to me? It's the opposite of all Democrats today, and I'm still a lifelong registered Democrat to my eternal shame, due entirely to laziness.
Um, laziness since 1933, apparently. Or even during TR's runs 30 years previously.
I just don't get it. What person says he's ok with a Democrat who wants "smaller government" given FDR? Well, I guess one who realizes that everything Republicans say they'll do, they don't do. I suppose some Democrats might actually "shrink" gov't because for them it's about effectiveness instead of size. Ok, get out the tape measure and let's see who will do it.
Oh, how disgusting. Cruz wins.
I guess Bags will get his wish of a smaller government that somehow grows big enough to fight every Arab Middle-Easterner who ever owned a gun and a computer or something.
How those two things go together is anyone's guess but then no one ever accused Cruz of excessive honesty.
I guess honesty is really important if your search is for a president who will "shrink government" while massively bloating American military presence abroad as the permanent global empire of record.
Who needs realism and pragmatism when you have an ideology that pretends smaller government is compatible with global 21st century empire?
...a badly damaged Clinton come November.
Clinton's been badly damaged since the day she came out of the mold.
Get ready to have your voting records publicized, everybody.
"Seems being mad at Bush isn't good enough reason for Canada to accept a person on welfare and he had no marketable skills that Canada wanted."
Ha. Maybe the new left-wing Government in Canada will provide him with Refugee status.
"Trump has supported every policy from single payer, to amnesty, to partial birth abortion, and he still supports most Democrat positions"
IOW, he's like Mitt Romney or McCain - except he's against illegal immigration and wants more fair trade deals.
And he's not a crazy warmonger like McCain.
LOL.
when American products are available right next to them
Again, LOL.
Some of us DO make a point of buying products made in America,
I'm love Jonah G.
Ann Coulter is an embarrassed. Sure, sometimes she'll say something i agree with - but she's a strange bird with weird obsessions I don't understand.
-ment.
and you used to like it. February 1, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Bagoh20 said to me regarding the narrow definition that people want to have on "conservatism" and the tendency of the talking heads like Jonathan Goldberg et al to want to put us all into a box.
I sincerely hope that was a generic "you" and not a specific "you" directed at me personally, because YOU have no fucking idea about what I like now, what I used to like or what my beliefs are.
I consider myself not liberal or conservative because my beliefs are all over the place depending on the topic. My beliefs and likes change with the garnering of new information and with the circumstances in which I live. Some things remain the same others have altered dramatically. The 1960's me is not the 2016 me.
If the "you" was not generic and you (personally) are stating that I am a part of a cult of Trump, and are attributing to me thoughts, feelings and positions that you have no knowledge of, then you are doing exactly what Goldberg et al are doing. Defining people into a narrow concept that is YOUR concept of what other people think. Stereotyping is the definition of this thought process.
"We aren't having tea and crumpets here. This is a fight for our literal lives and the life of our country."
Really? How so?
@ Ritmo or Rhythm and Balls
On the literal death side. All in the name of diversity and compassion.
1. Open borders, lax enforcement of laws and non-existent immigration policy bringing in terrorists who will literally kill us. Either in small groups like San Bernardino or in mass with bio or nuclear weapons.
2. Refusal to punish or deport aliens who commit crimes, murder, rape, pedophilia. Providing sanctuary cities and even cash support for those. Releasing them to rape and murder over and over again.
3. Lack of government oversight in not screening immigrants or just ignoring illegal invasion of our country from third world hell holes bringing in diseases like drug resistant TB, polio like viruses, diphtheria, cholera and all sorts of other death and debilitating diseases.
On the death of the nation side.
1. DEBT!! unsustainable debt and the refusal to do anything about it by cutting redundant stupid useless programs, entitlements, graft or corruption. Free money for all the illegal invaders.
2. The gutting of our military making us unsafe, weak and subject to literal real death.
3. An education system that is worse than useless. It is subversive and teaches against America as a country. Propaganda disguised as education. Creating a couple of generations of people who are almost illiterate, unable to do basic math or understand science or know anything about history.
4. An administration and political machinery that thrives on pitting people against each other. Creating racial tensions. Creating regional animosity. Creating favored, special treated groups. Pandering to factions and insulting others. When the government is supposed to represent all of the country.
5. Economic suicide and the creation of a ruling class and a serf like middle/lower class by importing and allowing the invasion of low wage, low skilled, illiterate workers (who also have the diseases and criminal elements). Thus driving down the wages of citizens and further widening the divide between the elites and the serfs.
6. Economic suicide in driving manufacturing and other used to be middle class jobs overseas through over regulation, highest taxes and in all ways making it difficult for any but the biggest and most connected crony capitalists (who bribe the powers that be) to exist or even come into creation. Resulting in a huge trade imbalance and in more DEBT!!!!
7. The widening division between the elites who profit by all the above and the rest of us schlubs who see the hand writing on the wall will lead to the figurative death of the country, possibly break up of the country through civil war, race wars and literal deaths in the resulting disintegration of the United States. I give it 15 years.
Is Trump the guy who can try to fix this through working with Congress?? Who knows. I do feel that he has a better handle on the economic and trade concepts.
What I do know is what we have been doing IS NOT WORKING and it is getting worse every day.
And…..yelling at us, insulting us by telling us that we are not true, real Conservatives is not the answer. It is only making the already pissed off more pissed off.
"Get ready to have your voting records publicized, everybody."
I don't like it either. It's a cheap trick and it encourages people to vote who ought not to vote. Fun Fact: Obama did this same cheap trick back when he was running for office. Crickets at the time. IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD SAID SOMETHING. Precedent could have been established that this sort of behavior is unwelcome and unacceptable. Like fake coin tosses should not decide elections, that sort of thing. It's only an outrage now because Evil FerreTed did it. Admit it: When it helps YOUR GUY it's fine. (FYI: Rubio did it, too. In Iowa. Again, crickets from the media and the mouthpieces and the outrage exploiters.)
DBQ - I'm one of the people who doesn't care for Trump even and despite that the remaining candidates that I would even consider are highly imperfect. Not a secret. Trump fans/backers throw elbows all the damn time. You may recall a few weeks ago that anyone not for Trump was a horrible establishment RINO. It's just happy Americans working through their issues. I assume you hold your views in good faith and I'm trying to talk you out of them.
When I talk about the Trump Fan, I speak generically and not in reference to any particular person (unless I am in a direct conversation/exchange with that person). Clearly I am not a Trump Fan, at least not for voting purposes if I can help it. I think he has done tremendous good as a candidate trampling about in his familiar media milieu and I do not discount that. I don't care Megyn on Fox has hurt feelings; she'll profit from this in the long run. But I also believe he is far too mercurial and self-centered to do much good in office much less get elected to office (unless he ran against Clinton and she was actually under indictment, and even then ...). I also draw from my own experience with the Davis recall/Schwarzenegger replacement which occurred here in Cali. I got very fired up and rah rah about throwing out lifetime political hacks of all stripes and changing the culture of government here in California. We all know how that turned out - or maybe we need a refresher. He did a little good (appointed some decent judges) then overreached and never recovered. Now Arnold spouts global warming talking points and we've re-elected a lying lifetime legacy hackosaurus. Lose lose LOSE. Lesson learned by me: You need someone who is tethered to a governing principle, preferably the U.S. Constitution, not just the urge to make constituents happy. Lastly, there's the matter of the unfortunate and completely unpersuasive argumentation tactics transferred from Obama Fan. I get the urge to turn the tables after all the grotesquely stupid and unfair abuse that has been heaped on us from all sides but in too many instances it did seem very cult-like and trust-in-the-leader regardless of evidence to the contrary. In too many instances it was simply opportunistically insulting and devoid of substance. Obama Fan can get away with being an ignorant jackass because the media is on his side and "be an ignorant jackass" is the party motto and highest aspiration. After all, their cult leader is constantly having to affirm that he learned things about his own administration on the news. Repubs do not have that luxury.
Lack of government oversight in not screening immigrants or just ignoring illegal invasion of our country from third world hell holes bringing in diseases like drug resistant TB, polio like viruses, diphtheria, cholera and all sorts of other death and debilitating diseases.
Far be it from me to argue for a lack of border control. But the problem with what most of what you're arguing is that it requires greater involvement, intervention or regulation - not less. And the ideology of the movement has made that impossible for any government to do for decades now.
As per your concern for disease - antibiotic-resistant illness now kills 750,000 Americans a year, which is many greater than the causes you're concerned about. Wonder why? Check out all these articles.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/28/1st-mtg-carb/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/15/fda-adufa2013/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/14/adufa-2014/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/17/cddep-report-amr/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/21/mcr-gene-colistin/
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/15/colistin-r-3/
Installing a Lobbyist-in-Chief like Cruz, who never saw a campaign donation and a linked corporate interest that he didn't like, will only make this much, much worse. I included the first link especially to show you how hard it is and how far an uphill climb we have to go under a Democratic administration. You'd better believe that if it's that bad and that hard to fix under them, it will be that much harder under a regime installed by the Party of Open Graft.
IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD SAID SOMETHING.
Admit it: When it helps YOUR GUY it's fine.
Um, there's a contradiction between those statements.
What a hall of mirrors.
Sorry, but no. It's not fine when your guy did nor when Cruz, Rubio and who knows who else (unreported, of course) did it.
rcommal, did you make it to your caucus...would love an insider viewpoint.
deborah: I don't live in Iowa now.
We were in Iowa for many years; my son was born there; we lived a significant chunk of our life there, yet, significantly, made sure, on account of promises, spent a whole of time in other places. (My son has never, never, never lacked either quality or quantity of time with my in-laws. Never. I made a promise back in early '96, and never did I break, nor have I broken, that promise.)
From there, we went back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, over and over again, over and over again, over and over again. (It was a continuation of what I, personally, did, starting when I was just a teenager.)
==
Well. On account of that and other things about which too many have no clue. Maybe some time, some day, I'll tell you more about all of that. Or not.
**sneeze**
Too much snark and unearned assumptions in this place, from the start. For a while I let that go, but now I'm particularly unsympathetic toward it.
Because, once again, in real life, we're most likely actually going to be traveling a lot, in order to try to help care for actual people, a possibly dying one and a certainly care-giving one.
In real life.
Thank God we made the decision to move back East. If not for that, it would be harder.
I'd way rather go from Delaware to Florida as opposed to from Iowa to West Virginia, especially since we moved across the street from my in-laws when we moved from Iowa back to Delaware. This makes things so much more manageable, though no less painful or reality based.
Just sayin'. Only notin'.
(Oh, and by the way, I am NOT robot. Far from it. See above.)
Reader, been there done that :) Not complaining at all, but it's interesting to have an elderly mother and two adult children in three different states.
Post a Comment