TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[General Patton]

The neocon is Hillary. Who here is lobbying for her? Except SLAD, perhaps, which means you should say "person" and not "people".

But let's look at the bigger picture here.

We're voting on whether we have a fascist whatever you want to call him, or Project for a New American Century 2.0. Now with 20% more first strike capability.


Is that our situation here?

Is this real life?

[seemslikeadream]

again I have never lobbied for a neo con ...give me a fuckin break ...let's keep it a bit real here ok?

Do you want me to list 50 threads that I have started about neo cons?...I could fill this whole page with fuckin neo con shiit I posted

oh Nordic I am not lobbying for Hilly ...I'm just not for the psychopath


you all take a look at all the shit I've posted here in the past 10 years about fucking neo cons...god solace was on my fuckin back for 7 fuckin years cause I wouldn't shut up about the neo cons

[Nordic]

oh Nordic I am not lobbying for Hilly ...I'm just not for the psychopath


you all take a look at all the shit I've posted here in the past 10 years about fucking neo cons...god solace was on my fuckin back for 7 fuckin years cause I wouldn't shut up about the neo cons

Ok sorry if I misrepresented you.

In that case I have no idea who general Patton is talking about.

[Nordic]

The neocon is Hillary. Who here is lobbying for her? Except SLAD, perhaps, which means you should say "person" and not "people".

But let's look at the bigger picture here.

We're voting on whether we have a fascist whatever you want to call him, or Project for a New American Century 2.0. Now with 20% more first strike capability.


Is that our situation here?

Is this real life?

If you're looking at the 2 "main" parties, yes, that's exactly it. Two Republican parties, one neocon, the other old school racist and isolationist.

[General Patton]

I assumed, may of been wrong. I'm not reading 200+ pages of threads to find out.

But still, the bigger picture stands. In all it's glory.

Neocons versus Russian fascist dye-blondes

And Bernie Sanders told his people to vote for someone who has Bob Kagan helping out with foreign policy. And numerous actors and pundits who spent something like 16 years demonizing neocons are now telling you to vote for... the neocon?

That's the situation?

[seemslikeadream]

yep that's the two choices...one of them is going to win...one of them could be a convicted felon before he takes the oath of office ..the other will be under threat of impeachment from the day she takes the oath....what the fuck?

[seemslikeadream]

I assumed, may of been wrong. I'm not reading 200+ pages of threads to find out.

But still, the bigger picture stands. In all it's glory.

Neocons versus Russian fascist dye-blondes

And Bernie Sanders told his people to vote for someone who has Bob Kagan helping out with foreign policy. And numerous actors and pundits who spent something like 16 years demonizing neocons are now telling you to vote for... the neocon?

That's the situation?

all the so called Bernie Bros I was hanging out with have now decided Trump should win this election....they were with him till he said vote for Hilly

now they fucking hate him...fair weather friends or never real friends to begin with...I call them the "real" socialists just using Bernie

[Nordic]

I assumed, may of been wrong. I'm not reading 200+ pages of threads to find out.

But still, the bigger picture stands. In all it's glory.

Neocons versus Russian fascist dye-blondes

And Bernie Sanders told his people to vote for someone who has Bob Kagan helping out with foreign policy. And numerous actors and pundits who spent something like 16 years demonizing neocons are now telling you to vote for... the neocon?

That's the situation?

There's nothing Russian about Trump.

Unless you believe silly conspiracy theories hatched by the Hillary campaign and spread by the Deep State's propaganda machine.

[SonicG]

I assumed, may of been wrong. I'm not reading 200+ pages of threads to find out.

But still, the bigger picture stands. In all it's glory.

Neocons versus Russian fascist dye-blondes

And Bernie Sanders told his people to vote for someone who has Bob Kagan helping out with foreign policy. And numerous actors and pundits who spent something like 16 years demonizing neocons are now telling you to vote for... the neocon?

That's the situation?

There's nothing Russian about Trump.

Unless you believe silly conspiracy theories hatched by the Hillary campaign and spread by the Deep State's propaganda machine.

I am not 100% up to date, but there are rumblings that his tax returns might reveal some nefarious connection with his Bolshevik overlords ... but who knows...At the least, he has to be hiding something, probably merely financianly embarassing, but reveal away, I say, on both sides of course because it seems likely to all go cluster funk by the end of the year...

[seemslikeadream]

It's Trump/Russia by way of Paul Manafort/Ukraine

Trump is being played by Putin

and trump needs money ...only the Russians will loan it to him anymore

Will Evan McMullin challenge Trump?

the republicans want trump to loose biggly

[seemslikeadream]

9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons


On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough passed on an intriguing piece of gossip: Donald Trump, speaking with a “foreign policy expert,” repeatedly asked “why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”
Scarborough’s claim was thinly sourced. He didn’t reveal the identity of the expert advising Trump or even where he learned the information. Information attributed to anonymous sources is inherently suspect.
But one need not rely on anonymous sources to glean Trump’s views on nuclear weapons. He has broached the subject repeatedly on the campaign trail. Several of his public comments are similar to Scarborough’s account while others are terrifying in their own way.
Trump said he might use nuclear weapons and questioned why we would make them if we wouldn’t use them

MATTHEWS: Well, why would you — why wouldn’t you just say, “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don’t talk about use of nuclear weapons”?
TRUMP: The question was asked — we were talking about NATO — which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dis —
MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn`t have talked about.
TRUMP: I don’t think I — well, someday, maybe.
MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?
TRUMP: Of course. If somebody —
MATTHEWS: Where would we drop — where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?
TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.
Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn`t fight back with a nuke?
…
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.
TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?
[MSNBC, March 30, 2016]
Trump said he was open to nuking Europe because it’s a “big place”

TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to take cards off the table. I would never do that. The last person to press that button would be me. Hey, I’m the one that didn’t want to go into Iraq from the beginning. The last person that wants to play the nuclear card believe me is me. But you can never take cards off the table either from a moral stand — from any standpoint and certainly from a negotiating standpoint.
BOLLING: Donald, I understand they are not taking the cards off the table for ISIS or Islamic terror. But when Chris expanded to Europe, what about that?
TRUMP: Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it.
[Fox News, 3/31/16]
Trump said that “you want to be unpredictable” with nuclear weapons

DICKERSON: They talk about the presidency and who has the finger on the button. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. When should it?
TRUMP: Well, it is an absolute last stance. And, you know, I use the word unpredictable. You want to be unpredictable.
And somebody recently said — I made a great business deal. And the person on the other side was interviewed by a newspaper. And how did Trump do this? And they said, he`s so unpredictable. And I didn`t know if he meant it positively or negative. It turned out he meant it positively.
[CBS, 1/3/16]
Trump reiterated that it was important to be “unpredictable” with nuclear weapons

TRUMP: But I have to say this, there are…
HALPERIN: You’d probably be the last to use nuclear weapons…
TRUMP: Nuclear…
HALPERIN: — against ISIS?
TRUMP: — nuclear.
HALPERIN: But you’re — so you would — you would rule in the possibility of using, right, nuclear weapons against ISIS?
TRUMP: Well, I’m never going to rule anything out.
HALPERIN: Right.
TRUMP: And I wouldn’t want to say — even if I felt it wasn’t going — — I wouldn’t want to tell you that…
HALPERIN: Right.
TRUMP: — because, at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use it, OK?
HALPERIN: Right.
TRUMP: It’s the worst thing when we do these interviews, we — with everybody, not me…
HALPERIN: Yes.
TRUMP: — and you ask a question like that and everybody comes clean and they’re so honest.
You know, we need unpredictability. The enemy, we have enemies. ISIS is a enemy. And it’s an enemy not wearing uniforms, so we don’t even know who the enemy is. You know, in the old days we’d have Japan or we’d have Germany or we’d have — they would have soldiers.
HALPERIN: Right.
TRUMP: They would be dressed, we’d be dressed, we’d know who we were fighting.
HALPERIN: Right.
TRUMP: You’d have — it was called a war.
We don’t know who these people are. The fact is, we need unpredictability. And when you ask a question like that, it’s a very — it’s a very sad thing to have to answer it, because the enemy is watching and I have a very good chance of winning and I frankly don’t want the enemy to know how I’m thinking.
[Bloomberg, 3/23/16]
Trump said he wasn’t that worried about more countries getting nukes since “it’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them”

WALLACE: You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?
TRUMP: In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes.
WALLACE: Understood.
TRUMP: It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.
[Fox News, 4/3/16]
Trump had no idea what the “nuclear triad” was

HEWITT: Mr. Trump…
… Dr. Carson just referenced the single most important job of the president, the command, the control and the care of our nuclear forces. And he mentioned the triad. The B-52s are older than I am. The missiles are old. The submarines are aging out. It’s an executive order. It’s a commander-in-chief decision.
What’s your priority among our nuclear triad?
TRUMP: Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important. And one of the things that I’m frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you’re going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important.
But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out — if we didn’t have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can’t just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn’t care. It was hand-to-hand combat.
The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he’s saying. The biggest problem we have is nuclear — nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon.

That’s in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.
HEWITT: Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Senator Rubio after that and ask him.
TRUMP: I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.
[CNN, 12/15/15]
Trump started talking about nuclear weapons in Pakistan and made no sense at all


Trump said he’d be OK with a nuclear arms race in Asia

BLITZER: But — but you’re ready to let Japan and South Korea become nuclear powers?
TRUMP: I am prepared to — if they’re not going to take care of us properly, we cannot afford to be the military and the police for the world. We are, right now, the police for the entire world. We are policing the entire world.
You know, when people look at our military and they say, “Oh, wow, that’s fantastic,” they have many, many times — you know, we spend many times what any other country spends on the military. But it’s not really for us. We’re defending other countries.
So all I’m saying is this: they have to pay.
And you know what? I’m prepared to walk, and if they have to defend themselves against North Korea, where you have a maniac over there, in my opinion, if they don’t — if they don’t take care of us properly, if they don’t respect us enough to take care of us properly, then you know what’s going to have to happen, Wolf?
It’s very simple. They’re going to have to defend themselves.
[CNN, 5/4/16]
The time he said it didn’t matter if Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear weapons because “it’s going to happen anyway”

COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.
COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.
Here’s the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.
COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it’s fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?
TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely. But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.
Now, wouldn’t you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And they do have them. They absolutely have them. They can’t — they have no carrier system yet but they will very soon.
Wouldn’t you rather have Japan, perhaps, they’re over there, they’re very close, they’re very fearful of North Korea, and we’re supposed to protect.
[CNN, 3/29/16]

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .gqqfkn7bc

[seemslikeadream]

Vet Raises Money To Help Donald Trump Earn His Own Purple Heart

“Chip in to fly him to the conflict zone of his choosing,” says Cameron Kerr, who got his medal after losing a leg.
08/05/2016 05:23 pm ET

Jennifer Bendery
White House and Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post


A fully paid trip into a war zone? What a deal!

WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump was thrilled last week when a veteran at a Virginia rally gave him his Purple Heart. “I’ve always wanted to get a Purple Heart,” he said, dangling the medal typically awarded to soldiers wounded or killed while serving in battle. “This was much easier.”

That response didn’t sit right with Cameron Kerr, a Purple Heart recipient based in Virginia. As an Army veteran who lost his leg on the battleground in Afghanistan, Kerr was stunned to see Trump treating the prestigious award like a flashy new toy. He figured if Trump has really always wanted a Purple Heart, he should have to earn it “the old-fashioned way”: by going into a war zone.

So he’s raising money to help give Trump that chance.

“As with seemingly everything else in his life, Mr. Trump got [a Purple Heart] handed to him instead of earning it,” Kerr states on a GoFundMe page he launched Tuesday with the headline “Help Trump Get A Purple Heart.”

“I fully endorse his desire to earn one and would happily oblige his interest in doing so, by being one of the first to chip in to fly him to the conflict zone of his choosing,” Kerr wrote. “After all, you’re never too old to follow your dreams.”

As with seemingly everything else in his life, Mr. Trump got [a Purple Heart] handed to him instead of earning it.
Cameron Kerr, Purple Heart recipient
By Friday afternoon, Kerr had raised $6,750. He told The Huffington Post he never expected to raise any money, other than maybe $100 from sympathetic family and friends. Then again, he said he saw a lot of people around him ― including vets he knows who support Trump ― whose “minds were blown” by the way the real estate mogul diminished the Purple Heart.

“It was the actual callousness of him saying, ‘I’ve always wanted one. This is much easier,’” Kerr said. “There was kind of this revulsion of him making light of something people literally have to bleed or die for. Not understanding that gravity.”

Beyond his anger at what was happening, Kerr said his “dark sense of humor” compelled him to create the fundraising site. “To me, it was partially, ‘How do we ridicule this insensitive, callous statement?’”

A Trump spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump never served in the military ― he deferred the draft five times during the Vietnam War. He’s also facing universal criticism for his attacks on the family of a Muslim American soldier who died in Iraq while protecting his troops. For all his outrageous comments, it’s Trump’s insults directed at a Gold Star family that appear to have crossed a line.

Military vets in Congress have since urged GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Trump, and a group of vets crashed Sen. John McCain’s office this week, urging the Arizona Republican to do the same.

Kerr, who now works as a security analyst, knows Trump isn’t likely to take him up on a fully paid trip into a war zone. So, as he spells out on his fundraising page, he plans to direct any money he raises to a cause that Trump deeply opposes: aiding Syrian refugees. Not only did Kerr study Arabic and Middle Eastern history in college, he has worked directly with refugees from the region and knows the hell they have to endure to escape the violence of their home countries.

“They are much better people than Donald Trump,” said Kerr. “They’re so focused on how they can contribute, they’re so motivated. It’s especially poignant to help them because it’s a group that he has slandered as terrorists, when in fact, every time, if his people reached out and met a refugee, they would realize this person is awesome.”

What if Trump becomes president? Kerr joked that he’ll probably end up on a no-fly list because of his open opposition to “everything this guy stands for.”

He added, “I’m okay with that.”

Editor’s 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.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... a6801239b8?





Trump tells a lie once every 5 minutes





The unbearable stench of Trump’s B.S.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in Daytona Beach, Fla. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer August 4
A few days ago, I was asked on CNN to make sense of one more case in which Donald Trump had said something demonstrably false and then explained it away with a caustic tweet and an indignant interview. I replied that there was a pattern here and a term for a person who did this kind of thing: a “bullshit artist.” I got cheers and boos for the comment from partisans on both sides, but I was not using that label casually. Trump is many things, some of them dark and dangerous, but at his core, he is a B.S. artist.

Harry Frankfurt, an eminent moral philosopher and former professor at Princeton, wrote a brilliant essay in 1986 called “On Bullshit.” (Frankfurt himself wrote about Trump in this vein, as have Jeet Heer and Eldar Sarajlic.) In the essay, Frankfurt distinguishes crucially between lies and B.S.: “Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point. . . . In order to invent a lie at all, [the teller of a lie] must think he knows what is true.”

But someone engaging in B.S., Frankfurt says, “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.” Frankfurt writes that the B.S.-er’s “focus is panoramic rather than particular” and that he has “more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the ‘bullshit artist.’ ”

This has been Trump’s mode all his life. He boasts — and boasts and boasts — about his business, his buildings, his books, his wives. Much of it is a concoction of hyperbole and falsehoods. And when he’s found out, he’s like that guy we have all met at a bar who makes wild claims but when confronted with the truth, quickly responds, “I knew that!”

Take, for instance, the most extraordinary example, his non-relationship with Vladimir Putin. In May 2014, addressing the National Press Club, Trump said, “I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.” In November 2015, at a Fox Business debate, he said of Putin, “I got to know him very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes.’ ”

Donald Trump's most outrageous Four-Pinocchio claims Play Video3:42

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has made quite a few false statements during his rise to the top of the Republican field. The Post's Fact Checker took a look at Trump's five biggest whoppers. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Did Trump really believe that you could say something like that on live TV and no one would check? Did he think that no one would notice that the “60 Minutes” show consisted of two separate prerecorded interviews, with Putin in Moscow and Trump in New York? (By that logic, I have gotten to know Franklin Roosevelt very well because I have run some clips of him on my television show.)

In fact, Trump was bullshitting. He sees himself as important, a global celebrity, the kind of man who should or could have met Putin. Why does it matter that they did not actually meet?

Or look at the issue that fueled his political rise, birtherism. Trump said in 2011 that he had sent investigators to Hawaii and that “they cannot believe what they’re finding.” For weeks, he continued to imply that there were huge findings to be released. He hinted to George Stephanopoulos, “We’re going to see what happens.” That was five years ago, in April 2011. Nothing happened.

In fact, it appears highly unlikely that Trump ever sent any investigators to Hawaii. In 2011, Salon asked Trump attorney Michael Cohen for details about the investigators. Cohen said that it was all very secret, naturally. Trump has said the same about his plan to defeat the Islamic State, which he can’t reveal. He has boasted that he has a strategy to win solidly Democratic states this fall, but he won’t reveal which ones. (Even by Trump’s standards, this one is a head-scratcher. Won’t we notice when he campaigns in these places? Or will it be so secret that even the voters won’t know?) Of course, these are not secret strategies. It’s just B.S.

Harry Frankfurt concludes that liars and truth-tellers are both acutely aware of facts and truths. They are just choosing to play on opposite sides of the same game to serve their own ends. The B.S. artist, however, has lost all connection with reality. He pays no attention to the truth. “By virtue of this,” Frankfurt writes, “bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.”

We see the consequences. As the crazy talk continues, standard rules of fact, truth and reality have disappeared in this campaign. Donald Trump has piled such vast quantities of his trademark product into the political arena that the stench is now overwhelming and unbearable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ions_pop_b

[seemslikeadream]

Playing the Game: Trump Ain't Fit to Carry Nixon's Jockstrap
By Jasper Gerretsen, a Dutch grad student in history (and I love the name "Jasper")

(Continuing with the millennial dudes writing about the election. I didn't intend this to be all dudes. I would have preferred it not to be all dudes. But dudes you got. I'm in Ireland. Feck off.)

One of my favorite American presidents of all time is Richard Nixon. This might be hard to accept for someone of my political inclinations or hair length. It's certainly not because I agree with any of his policies or recognize anything likable in his character. Rather, Richard Nixon fascinates me because he was one of the best players of the political game of the twentieth century. You can take the American presidential election as a board game, in which two players compete over a finite number of resources until finally, after a long and arduous battle of attrition, the final tally is made and the player with the largest number of resources wins. It's not always a clean game, sometimes the final decision has to come down to the judges, but when the smoke is cleared both players shake hands, congratulate each other on a game well played, and move on.

If the American elections are a board game then it's hard to argue that there's a greater player than Richard Nixon. Sure, he got his ass beat by the young upstart Kennedy in 1960 but he spent the next eight years preparing to play again. He scouted the board that would be played on. He moved foreign and domestic policy pieces into positions that would favor him well before anyone even knew he'd be having another go at it. He studied the rules meticulously and made a note of every loophole that could be exploited to his advantage. He analyzed how previous winners played the game but also how other players lost. He even got a coach to put together a game plan that was entirely designed to use the 1968 edition of the game board to his advantage by accumulating as many Scared White Man pieces as he could. After his victory he spent the next four years stacking the deck and rearranging the game pieces to assure that he would win even harder in 1972.

Fast-forward to 2016 where two new players have lined up. The board looks sort-of-kind-of similar to the one the players in 1968 played the game on. There's the US being embroiled in foreign wars that it had no business starting, the bills for which have completely crippled the economy. There's black people being righteously pissed off at decades of systemic abuse and old white men in the media and politics nervously clutching their pearls at the sheer audacity of it all. And in the middle of this retro game board the red player seems to have taken a few pages out of the playbook of the old master. He plays the Law and Order card repeatedly. He positions himself as the only guy who can end the military quagmire.

To any but the most casual observer however, it should be obvious that the 2016 red player can't hold a candle to the grand master from 1968. Nixon knew every inch of the board and every letter of the rulebook. The current red player hasn't bothered with all that. He bumbled his way into getting to play at the main table by making moves that were so stupid that no sane player would contemplate them and being so unpredictable that nobody, neither the his opponents nor the analysts that cover the game's progression, could make any sense of it. And it worked, up to a point. It has all been so outlandish and weird that it has somehow kept him going. Those analysts rooting for the red team struggle to sell it all as brilliance but the longer the game goes on, the less it's working. The blue player is a veteran and while she has struggled to get out of the starting block she has come out swinging, beating the red player at his own game and succeeding more and more at exposing himself as the bumbling fool he actually is. And the red player got more and more frustrated until finally, on August first, he made his stupidest move yet.

After a series of particularly successful moves from the blue player and a series of blunders from himself, the red player has stood up, dropped his trousers and announced that he was ready and willing to take a steaming dump right on the game board if he doesn't win in the end. And that's a problem. Because not only has it already been established that the red player is stupid enough to do it but everybody knows that if it happens, it will take forever to clean up the mess he's made and even if everything has been cleaned up it will take decades for the lingering stink of shit around the game to dissipate. It's a sad commentary on the state of the game that it just might work. It taps into the same banal strategies that the red player has utilized so far. It even draws on sentiments that have been fermenting among observers of the game for the past twenty years, the silent sullen belief that the only way to win the game is to cheat.

What has changed this time around is that one of the players is validating that belief. Of course he's not going to cheat, he'd never dream of it, but if his opponent wins in November it must be because his opponent cheated. And if he convinces enough people of that fact they will burn everything around them down.

This also shows why Trump is nothing like Nixon. It goes well beyond one of them being competent and the other being Trump. Because at the end of the day Nixon might have played ruthlessly and taken every opportunity to bend the rules but he never even suggested that he didn't respect the game itself. He had the good taste to keep any desires to beat up those who exposed his idiocy to himself. When he lost the first time around he accepted it and went back to the drawing board. Even now I can only imagine him looking up from whatever kind of hell there is for a Quaker who made bombing brown people his policy and shaking his head in disbelief at the thought that anyone could compare him to Trump. Something has to be done about him, and soon. He has already climbed up on the table and dropped his pants. He's squatting. He's even crowning. And if he's allowed to continue there's no telling how far his shit will spray or how long it will take to clean everything up again.

Even the tiniest brown nuggets will fuck up the game for generations to come.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/08/ ... carry.html




A Parable from Ireland


Those ruins belonged to a wealthy man, not well-liked, in the 14th-century here in County Cork, Ireland. And the story goes, for there always is a possibly apocryphal story going, that the man had been called to court to answer a suit against him. Before getting into his carriage to head to the city, the man directed his servants, "If I am not back in five days, burn the house to the ground." See, he was thinking that if he lost at court, he'd rather turn his property to ashes than give it over to the court.

Of course, he won the case. Of course, he went out to celebrate for days, as one did in the 1300s. Of course, he lost track of time. Of course, he rode back home in a hurry to see his stately manor in flames. Of course, no one who is told this story ever hears about what happened to the servants.

What burned were the floors, the timbers, and his possessions. The stone would not burn. The frame remains, a hollowed-out shell, an unyielding reminder of how arrogance and ignorance can gut us.



When we were wandering here, we hoped the real story was that the servants ransacked place and gleefully set it aflame.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/08/ ... eland.html

[Elihu]

...

But let's look at the bigger picture here.

We're voting on whether we have a fascist whatever you want to call him, or Project for a New American Century 2.0. Now with 20% more first strike capability.


Is that our situation here?

Is this real life?

that's all it is. i thought of starting a thread called "stand back and watch them froth who care about the ideology of a monstrosity" and yet there is something there to argue about: more statism or less statism and statism means war on all levels and more of it. trump might be capable of making a few small initial mistkes here and there. hillery never

[seemslikeadream]

launching a nuclear weapon is no small mistake