How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?

[Winstonm]

 

You don't have to be a neo-nazi to think that Black Lives Matter is in the same moral footing (but opposite sides) as the KKK, but it helps.

 

True: you can just be stupid. I don't see a third option. <_<

[kenberg]

I want to return, at least sort of, to the title question "How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?". Presumably Kaitlyn knows how she could vote for such a vulgar and disgusting man, so she is not really pondering the question and asking us for help in figuring this out, she is making a statement. If there is any doubt on this score, the rest of her post makes it clear that she is making a statement. So we can, accurately I think, rephrase this as "Ok, he is vulgar and disgusting, big deal, so what?"

 

I think we are seeing "so what". Maybe Kaitlyn will stand by her man but in real life Tammy Wynette got a divorce, and in further real life more and more people are finding it impossible to work productively with our president. Who in his/her right mind would now want to tie his/her future to Donald Trump's? Maybe a CEO resigns from a board for high-minded reasons, maybe he does it as a calculated move for his own best interests, either way he resigns. Every time Trump opens his mouth an army of explainers is needed to explain he was joking, or explain what he really meant, or explain that of course we stand by what he said, whatever it was and whatever it meant, or some such. Anyone can mis-phrase a position on occasion and we should all be open to "I didn't mean that the way it sounded". But it has become a daily event, and the way that he doesn't mean it is that he hasn't really thought anything through enough so that his words actually mean anything at all.

 

 

Our president is in serious trouble of his own making. When a man's explanation for everything is "fake news", he is in trouble. And so are we.

[RedSpawn]

I saw the article's author interviewed, and he made it clear that the reason none of this had come to light previously is that no one would have invested in the cost of the 8 months of research by 3 people that was necessary to dig into international finance about just "some real estate developer"; however, now that that developer is president, it is a whole different story.

So, it appears that somewhere between November 2016 and August 2017, the political calculus behind the need for the investigation changed. That is, the price of "investigating the truth" moved from cost prohibitive to profitable (or worthy of investigation); thus, The New Yorker spent the money to shed some light on an otherwise dark and hidden matter.

 

This reinforces how much of a long shot folks thought Trump was since companies like The New Yorker didn't want to waste precious time, human resources, and working capital conducting an investigation on a Presidential candidate who might not secure the Republican nomination.

[Winstonm]

I want to return, at least sort of, to the title question "How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?". Presumably Kaitlyn knows how she could vote for such a vulgar and disgusting man, so she is not really pondering the question and asking us for help in figuring this out, she is making a statement. If there is any doubt on this score, the rest of her post makes it clear that she is making a statement. So we can, accurately I think, rephrase this as "Ok, he is vulgar and disgusting, big deal, so what?"

 

I think we are seeing "so what". Maybe Kaitlyn will stand by her man but in real life Tammy Wynette got a divorce, and in further real life more and more people are finding it impossible to work productively with our president. Who in his/her right mind would now want to tie his/her future to Donald Trump's? Maybe a CEO resigns from a board for high-minded reasons, maybe he does it as a calculated move for his own best interests, either way he resigns. Every time Trump opens his mouth an army of explainers is needed to explain he was joking, or explain what he really meant, or explain that of course we stand by what he said, whatever it was and whatever it meant, or some such. Anyone can mis-phrase a position on occasion and we should all be open to "I didn't mean that the way it sounded". But it has become a daily event, and the way that he doesn't mean it is that he hasn't really thought anything through enough so that his words actually mean anything at all.

 

 

Our president is in serious trouble of his own making. When a man's explanation for everything is "fake news", he is in trouble. And so are we.

 

It is also extremely troubling that he appears to accept urban legends as facts and to urge policy based on those beliefs - just today in response to the Barcelona attack he tweeted along an urban legend about General Pershing having Muslims executed and how that solved the violence problem for years.

 

At this point, anyone who continues to support this disaster of a human being can only be assumed to be as deranged and as out of touch with reality as he is.

[Vampyr]

It is also extremely troubling that he appears to accept urban legends as facts and to urge policy based on those beliefs - just today in response to the Barcelona attack he tweeted along an urban legend about General Pershing having Muslims executed and how that solved the violence problem for years.

 

At this point, anyone who continues to support this disaster of a human being can only be assumed to be as deranged and as out of touch with reality as he is.

 

Well, there is David Duke.

 

The fact that an American President would be thanked by such a man for his remarks is a real tragedy. If I recall correctly, Trump initially accepted Duke's endorsement during his campain.

 

If Trump had let things be after his through-gritted-teeth remarks on Monday, people would have been disappointed but finally moved on. Instead Trump decided to let a racist rant become the defining moment of his Presidency. Well, until he starts WWIII.

[jjbrr]

Let's be honest, WWIII is a pretty gross exaggeration. A skirmish with NK is certainly terrifying in context, but is there any reason to believe it would escalate beyond that to a global scale (even if every human on the planet would suffer the effects)?

[jjbrr]

It's sort of interesting that ethics in video game journalism might be the origin of the paradigm shift we're experiencing.

[RedSpawn]

Let's be honest, WWIII is a pretty gross exaggeration. A skirmish with NK is certainly terrifying in context, but is there any reason to believe it would escalate beyond that to a global scale (even if every human on the planet would suffer the effects)?

Sorry but your viewpoint neither increases newspaper circulation nor internet traffic to your website.

 

WWIII with NK is intellectually dishonest but it is provocative and good for ratings.

 

"And now a word from our sponsors. . ."

[barmar]

So, it appears that somewhere between November 2016 and August 2017, the political calculus behind the need for the investigation changed. That is, the price of "investigating the truth" moved from cost prohibitive to profitable (or worthy of investigation); thus, The New Yorker spent the money to shed some light on an otherwise dark and hidden matter.

 

This reinforces how much of a long shot folks thought Trump was since companies like The New Yorker didn't want to waste precious time, human resources, and working capital conducting an investigation on a Presidential candidate who might not secure the Republican nomination.

I don't read The New Yorker, but I'll bet there were plenty of stories about him during the campaign, probably mostly focused on all his improbable primary wins, whether he was a viable candidate, etc. They just didn't do a big investigative piece like this.

[Winstonm]

With today's pardon of Joe Arpaio, Trump has shown his total disdain for the U.S. judicial system and his willingness to place his own personal interests above the justice system.

[jjbrr]

Not to mention his cowardice to make the pardon on the wake of a crisis situation, which, I understand, he will command from the luxury of the golf course. This is a huge middle finger to America unless you're one of the 34% who still supports him.

[cherdano]

What a sheriff.

 

[nige1]

The OP is ignorant, most probably uneducated, delusional and lacking in compassion, but not all such people are white supremacists, and I should like to give the OP the benefit of a doubt on the matter.

Damning with faint praise,

I'm disappointed in this view from a former victim of such speculation. :(

 

IMO, we should condemn what we perceive to be wrongs and injustices but if we hope to prevent more of the same, we should try to stick to the truth; and avoid fomenting violent confrontation, which seems to polarise an already dangerous situation

[jjbrr]

What a sheriff.

 

 

This narrative writes itself for Fox & Friends: "Why didn't Obama stop these illegals before this became necessary?"

[RedSpawn]

This narrative writes itself for Fox & Friends: "Why didn't Obama stop these illegals before this became necessary?"

Ummm, because on both Blue & Red sides of the aisles -- illegal immigration is good for Big Business as it suppresses wage rates in various industries and thereby boosts profits of small and big businesses. Illegal immigrants who must buy goods and services are also a temporary boost to the economy (with the exclusion of any benefits they receive and even still ---> benefits such as food stamps are issued and are still spent and captured in the local economy through purchases. Finally, illegal immigrants will eventually become part of the voting populace when and if they are legalized, so politicians are very wary of destroying or pissing off a potential voting base.

 

So it's in a politician's best interest to let the immigration problem fester and marinate, since American prosperity has always been built on the backs of some underclass segment of the population.

[jjbrr]

Ummm, because on both Blue & Red sides of the aisles -- illegal immigration is good for Big Business as it suppresses wage rates in various industries and thereby boosts profits of small and big businesses. Illegal immigrants who must buy goods and services are also a temporary boost to the economy (with the exclusion of any benefits they receive and even still ---> benefits such as food stamps are issued and are still spent and captured in the local economy through purchases. Finally, illegal immigrants will eventually become part of the voting populace when and if they are legalized, so politicians are very wary of destroying or pissing off a potential voting base.

 

So it's in a politician's best interest to let the immigration problem fester and marinate, since American prosperity has always been built on the backs of some underclass segment of the population.

 

i dont think you understood my post. but thank you for the explanation. i happen not to agree that it is an "immigration problem".

 

my mother is doing well. she lives in north houston by herself, but she's made the necessary precautions to hopefully get through this without any problems. she hopes the power stays on.

 

the company she works for is a subsidiary of a huge land-moving and disaster recovery corporation in Knoxville, TN. She is arranging hotel rooms for their management team to come to the area in preparation for what will undoubtedly be an enormous undertaking. For perspective, they had FEMA contracts for Katrina and arranged the clean up of the 9/11 tragedy.

 

it's nice to know that Mom does more to protect our fellow americans than trump ever has.

[RedSpawn]

Trump is becoming more inconsequential by the day. He has turned over the military commander-in-chief duties to the Pentagon, domestic policy to Congress, and foreign policy to Putin. Thank god he's still in charge of tweets!

I agree that Trump has foolishly delegated foreign policy to the military. He is not questioning the intelligence the military industrial complex supplies him with a long view of US American History and our imperialism tendencies. Also, he is not even looking at or taming the sacred cow in the 2018 federal budget. UGH!

 

==> Best 2:30 video showing the True Power of the Office of the Presidency. Eisenhower is a true Republican. Tell it like it IS!

http://kalamu.com/neogriot/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/military-industrial-complex-01.jpg Great diagnosis--Freud!

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_O7VKZDny6vM/TTyTP5fAjrI/AAAAAAAADVo/H73ZLCjJ1Qk/s1600/Military+Industrial+Complex+cartoon.jpeg

[Winstonm]

Let's see, now that we have proof that Donald Trump was actively trying to build a Trump Tower Moscow during his campaign for president while at the same time denying any involvement whatsoever with Russia, and now that we have seen that his agenda is simply a personal vendetta against the Obama legacy, and while he has shown himself over and over by his words, deeds, and choices of cabinet members to be a white nationalist, which is simply newspeak for racist, the only people left who can be proud of their vote for Trump must share his values.

 

That is deplorable.

[barmar]

Graham Norton, the British chat show host, was on Colbert last night, and they got to talking about Trump. Norton brought up Trump's approval perccentage being in the 30's, and his question was "Who are those 30% who still think Trump is doing a good job?" (kind of like the old joke about the gum commercials -- who are the 1 out of 5 dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum?).

[Al_U_Card]

Graham Norton, the British chat show host, was on Colbert last night, and they got to talking about Trump. Norton brought up Trump's approval perccentage being in the 30's, and his question was "Who are those 30% who still think Trump is doing a good job?" (kind of like the old joke about the gum commercials -- who are the 1 out of 5 dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum?).

Could it be the same 1 in 5 that know that aspartame/sucralose are toxic while sugar is just a natural hazard?

Trump does still represent a "finger" to the establishment but, clearly that sentiment is being eroded by his continued poor performance. (It is, however, poor unless it ends up working....which is a whole other debate.)

[Winstonm]

Chauncy DeVega understands what motivates Trump supporters:

 

In total, Trump is following a predictable pattern as to how racism often manifests in post-civil rights era America.

 

First, a prominent white person does something racist. Second, they deny that there was ever any racist "intent" to their words or deeds. Third, they claim that to accuse them of being racist is either unfair or just a surrender to "political correctness" -- this rhetorical move is especially true of white conservatives. Finally, they claim to be the "real victims" of "liberals," overly sensitive "minorities" or the "liberal media."

 

Public opinion polls and other research consistently and clearly show that Trump's voters believe that white Americans are "victims" of "reverse racism" in America and constitute a type of racial underclass who are being preyed upon by black and brown people. Trump's political shtick is prefaced on white victimology. This is a near-perfect union of a public and its leader.

 

As such, it is no coincidence that Donald Trump attacked the NFL and the NBA and then chose to praise the "patriotism" of NASCAR. The majority of players in the first two sports leagues are black. By comparison, NASCAR is a bastion of Southern whiteness where the Confederate flag, which could be more accurately described as the American swastika, is proudly displayed. In all, Donald Trump's attacks on the patriotism of black athletes is a cheap ploy to satisfy his most ardent supporters and to distract the public from the Russia scandal and many other failures of leadership and character.

[RedSpawn]

Chauncy DeVega understands what motivates Trump supporters:

At an Alabama rally Friday night President Trump lashed out at familiar targets, including Hilary Clinton and the media but also singled out a new opponent: NFL players who have held protests during the national anthem.

 

Trump told the Republican rally that such actions “disrespect our heritage.”

....

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired. He's fired,'" Trump said.

 

When the President of the United States can call a dissenting black athlete a son of a bitch in a public rally:

 

Exactly what is he calling the dissident? A malcontent and a jerk perhaps?

 

Ummm, so what is he calling the mother of the dissident? A b!tch, perhaps?

 

And what is a b!tch per definition? A vulgar term that is generally thrown at a female jerk, and has been extended and sometimes unfairly used to describe strong willed, assertive, and mouthy woman who characteristically challenge or emasculate men.

 

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

 

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

 

Tough question.

 

The NFL pays this black athlete millions of dollars to play a professional sport; this act of generosity makes him a well-paid black citizen by any financial measure. These athletes have celebrity status and upper crust prestige in the black community.

 

A black athlete should respect the fact that he works for the NFL which is an American franchise owned by a majority of rich white men and that he is handsomely compensated to do his job with a "team player" attitude and an unquestioned measure of loyalty. Therefore, there is a tacit expectation that he dutifully performs his job tasks without much back talk or controversy to show gratitude.

 

When you see a well paid black athlete take a stand against the United States government and use a televised NFL game as a platform to showcase his perceptions of injustice, said athlete has moved from a beloved sports figure to "an uppity Negro" in a post-Jim-Crow Era. An "uppity Negro" is defined as a black person who uses his status to blatantly challenge racist societal norms through civil disobedience. Uppity Negroes (ab)use their status to take a stand and highlight problems to effect political change.

 

And the appropriate way to handle an uppity Negro is to make vulgar comments about him and his family in a political rally and suggest that the owners of the NFL fire him. That way, he will know his proper place on the socioeconomic ladder if he ever thinks about challenging the dictates of the establishment again. The best way to handle an uppity Negro is to make him an unemployed Negro.

 

The logic of our snake oil salesman is impenetrable and worrisome to say the least.

[Al_U_Card]

A goodly portion is dedicated to explaining Trump's "success".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac8OOeaIgFo

[Winstonm]

When the President of the United States can call a dissenting black athlete a son of a bitch in a public rally:

 

Exactly what is he calling the dissident? A malcontent and a jerk perhaps?

 

Ummm, so what is he calling the mother of the dissident? A b!tch, perhaps?

 

And what is a b!tch per definition? A vulgar term that is generally thrown at a female jerk, and has been extended and sometimes unfairly used to describe strong willed, assertive, and mouthy woman who characteristically challenge or emasculate men.

 

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

 

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

 

Tough question.

 

The NFL pays this black athlete millions of dollars to play a professional sport; this act of generosity makes him a well-paid black citizen by any financial measure. These athletes have celebrity status and upper crust prestige in the black community.

 

A black athlete should respect the fact that he works for the NFL which is an American franchise owned by a majority of rich white men and that he is handsomely compensated to do his job with a "team player" attitude and an unquestioned measure of loyalty. Therefore, there is a tacit expectation that he dutifully performs his job tasks without much back talk or controversy to show gratitude.

 

When you see a well paid black athlete take a stand against the United States government and use a televised NFL game as a platform to showcase his perceptions of injustice, said athlete has moved from a beloved sports figure to "an uppity Negro" in a post-Jim-Crow Era. An "uppity Negro" is defined as a black person who uses his status to blatantly challenge racist societal norms through civil disobedience. Uppity Negroes (ab)use their status to take a stand and highlight problems to effect political change.

 

And the appropriate way to handle an uppity Negro is to make vulgar comments about him and his family in a political rally and suggest that the owners of the NFL fire him. That way, he will know his proper place on the socioeconomic ladder if he ever thinks about challenging the dictates of the establishment again. The best way to handle an uppity Negro is to make him an unemployed Negro.

 

The logic of our snake oil salesman is impenetrable and worrisome to say the least.

 

Does it make sense for a President of the United States to disrespect and disparage a black athlete AND his mother because he strongly condemns and vehemently disagrees with the athlete's unpatriotic behavior in a NFL game? Is it possible to hate an athlete's politics without personalizing the anger and showing contempt for both the athlete and his family?

 

Tough question.

 

It's not a tough question when you compare Trump's responses to white athletes and his behavior concerning white men.

[barmar]

So, is calling him a "son of a bitch" throwing shade to the strong willed, assertive, mouthy mother who birthed the disagreeable, misbehaving athlete? Hmmmm. Perhaps, especially with the assumption that the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

SOB is an idiom. It should not be interpreted literally. No one who calls someone else an SOB is thinking at all about the target's mother. He's just disparaging the target themselves.

 

Of course, one could interpret any disparagement of someone's character as a reflection of their parents, since they raised the person. But it's not the same as saying directly to the parent "How could you allow your child to act this way?"

 

It's bad enough that Trump insulted the athletes who are protesting. We don't have to impute additional motives that are almost certainly not there. Trump isn't that nuanced.