Wherein a draft dodger calls a 4 star general a failure. Really @GOP ? This is who the American people should trust? pic.twitter.com/zrRznb50iV— Krystle J (@Iacoguy) July 29, 2016
Jul 29, 2016
Today's Tweet
Jul 28, 2016
Tempting
The north Carolina GOP decided to pitch a bit of a hissy fit because of what they tho't was a horrible Democrat doing something horrible to "their" America".
That's the story, but it's not really the story.
I think it happens too often for it not to be a Dirty-Tricks thing. You make a charge about some made-up bullshit, which is intended to reinforce the negative image of the Democrat Libtards because of all the other made-up bullshit that's been installed like firmware in "conservative" brains for 35 years - it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know it doesn't matter. It only matters that you get it into the consciousness stream. The rubes are already conditioned to take on whatever negative shit you feed 'em so you put it out there, and if you get slapped down, then you can issue the basic non-corrective corrective or whatever, knowing that the thing has already taken root and has passed into the body of GOP lore about rotten Democrats, and the rubes will never go back and look for any kind of retraction or rebuttal.
And the other point is that you don't see that shit - not anything rising anywhere near that level anyway - coming from the Dems.
Here's a screenshot of that @NCGOP tweet about @timkaine, since they deleted it. #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/LbAywwnnob— Ben Amey (@BenAmeyTV) July 28, 2016
That's the story, but it's not really the story.
I think it happens too often for it not to be a Dirty-Tricks thing. You make a charge about some made-up bullshit, which is intended to reinforce the negative image of the Democrat Libtards because of all the other made-up bullshit that's been installed like firmware in "conservative" brains for 35 years - it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know it doesn't matter. It only matters that you get it into the consciousness stream. The rubes are already conditioned to take on whatever negative shit you feed 'em so you put it out there, and if you get slapped down, then you can issue the basic non-corrective corrective or whatever, knowing that the thing has already taken root and has passed into the body of GOP lore about rotten Democrats, and the rubes will never go back and look for any kind of retraction or rebuttal.
And the other point is that you don't see that shit - not anything rising anywhere near that level anyway - coming from the Dems.
Jul 27, 2016
Today's Quote
Vanity Fair Hive
“Democracy is a little bit messy sometimes,” he told reporters at a breakfast convened by Bloomberg News. “You know, I grew up in a family where I got yelled at a whole lot. It doesn’t make me nervous.”Bernie Sanders is a mensch.
Jul 26, 2016
Today's Tweet
the Internet is a magical place pic.twitter.com/TcF5Zt08AF— Ziwe (@ziwe) July 26, 2016
That Thing That Isn't Really
Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but these are not borne out by the emails themselves. Take the group’s claim that the “DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online.” The highlighted email isn’t some secret communication laying out nefarious plots. It’s a summary of a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday.
But forget the emails for a second. The main problem with the notion that the DNC rigged the results for Clinton is that it requires one to assume the improbable. The DNC had no role or authority in primary contests, which are run by state governments. Clinton dominated the primaries. The DNC, through state parties, had a bit more influence over caucuses … where Sanders dominated Clinton.
None of the thousands of leaked emails and documents show the DNC significantly influencing the results of the nomination. Furthermore, if it is true that last fall Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tried but failed to have DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sacked, the underlying premise of the entire WikiLeaks dump—that Wasserman Schultz machinated to deliver Clinton the nomination—is hard to believe.So, yeah - bad news for the DNC Truthers, except that truthers usually believe the conspiracy no matter what. Not that this one's anywhere near the weirdnesses of JFK or 9/11 - there is some little bit of substance to this - but then again, that's always the case, and it's also always the case that once it's in the bloodstream it prob'ly won't be going away any time soon.
The handful of (known) emails so far, indicate to me something along the lines of: tired staffers who hit the hotel a little late, and about halfway thru their 3rd mini-bar scotch are suddenly seized by the revelation that they possess the most amazing political chops, and they're having such a flood of genius ideas they just have to share them ASAP, so they fire off a few brainstorm emails etc etc etc. You tell them to knock off the shit; you discipline them; you fire them; you force them out - kinda like what happened.
What I'm really not shocked about: Democrats "conspiring" to nominate a Democrat. C'mon, guys.
Jul 25, 2016
Well That Explains A Lot
I've spent some time calling "the GOP base" a lotta names. Sorry not sorry.
One of my favorites has always been "Whiny-Butt Pussies" because seriously, when you listen to what they say - and to what their candidates and media darlings have to say - they're afraid of practically everything.
Immigrants and POC and Trade Deals and not having 37 guns (and believing they'll need lotsa guns to protect themselves from the hippies? wtf?) etc etc etc.
Anyway, you name it, they're scared of it.
So it shouldn't have come as any kinda shock to me when they picked Donald Trump as their POTUS nominee, but I was pretty shocked. I guess maybe I figured I was just indulging in a little name-calling, thinking I'd be cute and clever, but that deep down they weren't really that bad and I was just having some fun tweaking them.
Oops.
So I was right all along(?) Cuz Trump is pretty obviously the epitome of the Whiny-Butt Pussy (at least he plays it that way) - why would they not pick him?
Like Alice, I give myself plenty of good advice - and it seems I'm always kinda lost anyway.
One of my favorites has always been "Whiny-Butt Pussies" because seriously, when you listen to what they say - and to what their candidates and media darlings have to say - they're afraid of practically everything.
Immigrants and POC and Trade Deals and not having 37 guns (and believing they'll need lotsa guns to protect themselves from the hippies? wtf?) etc etc etc.
Anyway, you name it, they're scared of it.
So it shouldn't have come as any kinda shock to me when they picked Donald Trump as their POTUS nominee, but I was pretty shocked. I guess maybe I figured I was just indulging in a little name-calling, thinking I'd be cute and clever, but that deep down they weren't really that bad and I was just having some fun tweaking them.
Oops.
So I was right all along(?) Cuz Trump is pretty obviously the epitome of the Whiny-Butt Pussy (at least he plays it that way) - why would they not pick him?
Donald and Vlad
From Charlie Pierce:
In brief: In his business dealings, He, Trump seems increasingly dependent on money from Russia and from the former Soviet republics within its increasingly active sphere of influence. This is because most of the big banks on this side of the pond won't go near him without HazMat suits. (Gee, could it be that his sudden emergence as a Warren-esque crusader against the "rigged system" of the banksters is less of a principled opposition and simply pure animal vengeance? Unpossible!) As Marshall points out, this isn't exactly a deep corporate secret, as The Washington Post explained:
Trump has conveyed a different view, informed in part through his business ambitions. Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."So maybe now we have a slightly better idea of what's in those tax returns Trump doesn't want us to see?
Today's Chart
Which is actually another tweet, but anyway - be reassured, but don't be happy and don't get cocky. GOTV and put as many Blues in office as possible.
CLINTON still leads in our polls-plus model, which adjusts for Trump's convention bounce. https://t.co/zo8rbYw56E pic.twitter.com/J0G2D5PHxK— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 25, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)