Friday, March 3, 2017
Thursday, March 2, 2017
10 things Drumpf did to seem "Presdiential"
1. Did not brag about the size of his penis. Or hands.
2. Was not escorted to the podium by a showgirl on each arm.
3. Did not once mention how much he'd like to bang his daughter.
4. Did not take time out to tweet insults at Rosie O'Donnell
5. Got through entire speech without lapsing into Russian.
6. No racial slurs.
7. Did not grab a single woman by the crotch the entire time.
8. Was not attacked by any birds or other wild animals.
9. Managed to get through entire speech without calling Senators "losers."
10. Nothing. He did nothing but manage to read a speech off a teleprompter without falling down and the press decides that this is the perfect reason to further normalize him.
CNN gets even more pathetic.
CNN reports Trump successfully manipulated anchors for positive coverage
“Maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.”
On Wednesday, CNN’s Sara Murray reported that President Trump manipulated a team of CNN anchors into providing him with hours of positive coverage ahead of his first speech to Congress on Tuesday night.
No explanation was given for the entire year of positive coverage given to Trump leading up to the election when CNN fluffed him like a gay-for-pay pornstar on his third shoot of the day.
“He had this meeting with the anchors, he talked about a path to legal status,” Murray, a D.C.-based political reporter, said. .
Woah, woah, woah. Hold on a second.
Why the hell are your anchors having meetings with Il Douche? How are you sitting down with the person whose feet you're supposed to hold to the fire and discussing what your coverage of him should look like?
“Basically they fed us things that they thought these anchors would like, that they thought would give them positive press coverage for the next few hours. A senior administration official admitted that it was a misdirection play.”
How many times?
How many times are you going to fall for this bullshit? You know he lies. I mean, you know that every politician lies, but you have to know by now that nobody has ever spewed out the sheer volume of lies or more obvious lies than Cheeto Mussolini. Why would you for one second believe that anything he's telling you might possibly be true?
He lies about crowd size when you can see the crowd with your own eyes. He lies about sex tapes that don't exist when you can find out that they don't exist in two minutes on Google. He lies about receiving letters from the NFL when the NFL denies ever sending such a letter and the letter wouldn't have made any sense anyway. I mean, asking one of the candidates to unilaterally postpone a debate? How would that even work? You'd have to get both campaigns, the host network, the host venue, the Secret Service all onboard at the least. and you'd do all this because the NFL is afraid that people won't tune into a game if they have the option of watching the 2 most disliked candidates in history debating each other? Anyway, the point is, he's the biggest liar in the history of liars and you actually believed him when he said he wanted to come up with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? The group that he railed against all during his campaign? The people that he insists are rapists and murderers? A path to citizenship goes against everything he stands for.
Pictured: What he stands for.
Murray went on to note that “when the president was actually out there speaking to the American public, he didn’t talk about a path to legal status.”
Of course he didn't! No one thought he would! Well, no one with any sense. I mean, you know, no one who doesn't work for CNN.
Host John King responded by observing that “it does make you wonder, so we’re not supposed to believe what the senior-most official at the lunch says… maybe we shouldn’t believe what they say.”
Bra - Vo! Well done. You've finally figured it out. You've finally figured out that when a compulsive liar tells you something, it's probably a lie.You're a regular Sherlock Holmes, you are.
Oh, here's something else that you'll probably figure out on your own in another year or two, but I'll save you a little time: No matter how much you kiss his ass, no matter how shinily you polish his apples, he is never ever going to love you the way you love him. He is always going to call you "fake news" and the "Clinton News Network." He is always going to accuse you of lying about him. It doesn't matter what you say - it doesn't matter if your coverage is positive or negative, completely true or totally made up, he has to hate you. The entire Republican Party has to hate you.
It's like me and the Los Angeles Dodgers. I don't care if their players spend the off-season giving adorable kittens to needy orphans. I don't care if team management donates all proceeds to cancer research. As long as they have that "LA" logo on their caps, I will always hate them. Is it rational? Probably not. I'm sure many fine upstanding gentlemen have played for the Dodgers over the years. But the Los Angeles Dodgers are the personification of evil, so it doesn't matter how kind or generous or loving they are. I will always hate each and every last one of them.
Anyway, you guys are supposed to be journalists, you're not supposed to take anyone's word for anything. You should expect people to lie to you. That's why you corroborate stories with multiple sources, and do this thing called "investigation." And for God's sake, you call a lie a lie!
Monday, February 27, 2017
Why we lose
On Saturday morning the delegation from the Chaos Compound (Me and the Missus) went to the DNC Winter Meeting in downtown Atlanata, hoping to drum up support for Keith Ellison.
And if there were any questions about why Democrats keep losing, I think they were answered that day.
Donna Brazile opened the proceedings announcing the color guard from a local ROTC program. Then silence for a minute. "Um, is the color guard here?" Silence for another minute. "Okay, yeas they're here, please rise for the presentation of the colors." Silence. . . "Um, color guard? Are you. . .?" Eventually they made their way to the front, but Christ, she couldn't even get that to run smoothly.
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was in attendance, and his presence was noted, but he was not invited to speak, which seemed like a pretty big snub considering he is the mayor of the host city. You'd think they'd at least have him do one of those "on behalf of the city of Atlanta, I would like to welcome you, blah blah blah. . ." kind of things. But nope. Nothing.
Then there was a debate over Resolution 33.
DNC members are considering Resolution 33 banning corp $ now pic.twitter.com/LbR4Nz48md— Daniel Marans (@danielmarans) February 25, 2017
This was a proposal to re-instate President Obama's policy of not allowing the DNC to accept corporate money and not letting corporate lobbyists serve as "at-large" members. This was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by the attendees like ourselves who were not voting members. It was, of course, stricken from the by-laws. The opposition was led by some guy from California named Mullholland who stepped up to the mic and said something to the effect of "We're not the little sisters of the poor, we're the Democratic party." This would have been an easy bone to throw to the grass roots, since not striking it down would have merely referred the by-laws in toto to another discussion committee where the proposal could have been killed quietly. But Democratic leadership isn't even smart enough to do that.
Then there was a video tribute to Donna Brazile who acted as if she had no idea this was going to be sprung on her **eyeroll**. The video played for about a minute, stopped, the screen went blank, then it started again from the beginning. As the Missus noted "it's hard to get competent tech people when you piss off all the millennials."
Then Donna Brazile read off a list of people she wanted to thank and said that without them, they never could have accomplished all that they had accomplished and everyone in our pro-Keith-Ellison section started chuckling and looking around saying "she thinks she's accomplished something?"
You just lost a race to the most beatable candidate in history. You lost the House and you lost the Senate. And you're talking about your "accomplishments?" This is why it's going to be so hard to make anything better, the higher-ups in the party refuse to learn a single goddamm lesson from losing. When you lose a race that the opposition party had pretty much gift-wrapped and handed to you on a platter by nominating an unstable buffoon, a cartoonish blowhard, an admitted sex offender, and a man with absolutely zero qualifications to hold public office as your opponent - when you somehow manage to lose that race and you think "ah, time to rest on my laurels!" nothing is ever going to get better.
And if she had talked about her "accomplishments" and the other DNC members had laughed or heckled or booed, I might have some reason for optimism, but no. They applauded politely as if what she was saying made some kind of sense in their world. It was appalling.
Then they chose the DLC-affiliated Tom Perez as the new DNC chair, because apparently they're just fine with the job done by Brazile, Wasserman-Scultz, Kaine, etc. The only encouraging news was that it took a second ballot, and the vote was pretty close, so there are at least a sizable minoroty among the voting members that seem to have some sort of clue as to how to move forward.
Oh, and the vote took forever because the hand-held clickers that they were using to record votes didin't work right and they eventually had to switch to paper ballots. I forgot to mention that at the very beginning, members were to press a button on the clicker to record their presence so that a quorum could be established. That took forever and several members never did get their presence recorded because the most simple technology is apparently beyond the grasp of the party that, as the Missus says, pushes away the young people.
That afternoon, we participated in a "save the ACA" march. We marched past the convention center where the DNC meeting was still going on, and the hotel where the DNC bigwigs were staying, shouting and chanting and whatnot. It would have been an easy thing for someone, say Tom Perez?, or anyone to come out of the convention center and address the assemblage. Just tell us that you hear us, you understand, you intend to fight, just basic boilerplate stuff would have gone a long way. But did anyone come out? Haha, no. Of course they didn't.
And that is why we keep losing.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
The Crazy has spread to Iowa!
Sp you know how college campuses are full of young people and like liberals and progressives and what-not? Well, an Iowa state senator has a solution to that problem!
Senator Mark Chelgren Aims To Purge Democrats From Iowa Universities
February 20th, 2017
Well, to be fair, he only wants to get rid of about half the Democrats.
Because if the corn farmers of your state all voted a certain way, that should affect the political makeup of your institutions of higher learning.
Chelgren wants to impose an ideological litmus test in order to create a “partisan balance,” based on how Iowa has voted in past elections.
Because you know how much conservatives love affirmative action and quotas and social engineering to ensure "fair" outcomes.
The legislation proposes that a “person shall not be hired as a professor or instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of faculty belonging to the other political party.”
By the way, he does know that there are more than two political parties, right? You're trying to keep an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, what about professors who are registered Green Party or Libertarian, or Reform Party (is that still around?)
What about professors who are part of the American Independent Party or the Peace and Freedom Party or the Democratic Socialists? What about those who register as "no party affiliation" or aren't registered to vote at all?
So anybody considering applying for a job at the University of Iowa just has to change their registration to "No Party" and the whole fascist system comes tumbling down?
The Secretary of State’s office would be directed to provide voter registration lists to the colleges so that new job applicants’ party affiliation could be checked before the hiring process gets underway. Graciously, Chelgren allows for people registered as No Party to slip through the process without facing the litmus test.
You know, I could see where you might want to be sure that different viewpoints are represented in, say, the Political Science Department. Or the Philosophy Department, maybe the History Department. But what possible difference could it make whether the professor of Calculus is a Democrat or Republican? Or the Computer Science prof? Or, really any of the S.T.E.M. fields? What is even the point of this proposal?
I would say that there's no chance of this bill passing, but it's 2017 and when it comes to right-wing politics, all bets are off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)