Geoff > Status Update

From this article:

"Congressman Scalise is a friend, and a very good friend," Trump said. "He's a patriot. And he's a fighter. He will recover from this assault -- and Steve, I want you to know that you have the prayers not only of the entire city behind you, but of an entire nation, and frankly the entire world."

The entire world! Well, that's quite amazing. Even though it's a terrible tragedy, it might almost turn out to be a good thing if it's brought people together in this heartwarming way.

I don't normally play the Devils Advocate but I somehow can't bring myself to be concerned with this assassin's actions. Its purely a botched propaganda of the deed.

Manny wrote: "From this article:"Congressman Scalise is a friend, and a very good friend," Trump said. "He's a patriot. And he's a fighter. He will recover from this assault -- and Steve, I want you to know that..."

That's hopeful thinking there, Manny. However, gun violence in America rarely unifies for more than a day or two. If you sense cynicism, it's because one would have thought that the massacring of 20 children in kindergarten would have had a sobering effect on the debate. Alas.

Yes, good point. What evidence do we have that the attack on Congressman Scalise actually happened? The whole thing could have been staged to discredit Bernie Sanders. In fact, what evidence do we have that Scalise even exists? I'd never heard of him until yesterday.

You should have a radio show.

I'm waiting for a sufficiently tempting offer to arrive. Meanwhile, I'm honing my liberal shock jock persona.

Here's a name for your show:

"Truth Fighter"

Are you fighting for truth or against it? No one will ever know.

Perfect! Liberals love that kind of ambiguity! My audience will eat it up.

Manny wrote: "From this article:"Congressman Scalise is a friend, and a very good friend," Trump said. "He's a patriot. And he's a fighter. He will recover from this assault -- and Steve, I want you to know that..."

I swear, every time he speaks I think I'm listening to a clip from Bad Lip Reading.

Turns out, they thought so too--Inauguration Day Bad Lip Reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gneBU...

That is just beautiful.

'Now's your chance. Call it off.' If only.

Scalise did vote to allow the mentally ill to own guns, so I don't think he has any right to complain.

But was Hodgkinson mentally ill? Is it a sign of mental illness to hate Republicans so much that you want to kill them? There's an existentialist play in this.

L'AMI

Tu es fou.

HODGKINSON

A ton avis, vouloir tuer des républicains, c'est d'être fou ?

L'AMI

Bien sûr.

HODGKINSON

Pourquoi ça ?

L'AMI

Parce que... euh...

HODGKINSON

[avec un sourire narquois]

Tu vois, c'est pas si simple.

Jessaka, that's a good point. One killer is a crazy person; a few thousand killers are a terrorist movement; get enough killers together, and it's a just war.

Now I need to translate it into snappy pseudo-Sartre French.

Manny wrote: "One killer is a crazy person; a few thousand killers are a terrorist movement; get enough killers together, and it's a just war.
"

Did you see this inscribed somewhere at the Pentagon?

Manny wrote: "Jessaka, that's a good point. One killer is a crazy person; a few thousand killers are a terrorist movement; get enough killers together, and it's a just war.

Now I need to translate it into snapp..."

Skip the French, and go straight to the German:

"Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes, – aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel."

Madness in the individual is rare. In groups, parties, peoples, and times it is the rule.

Zadignose wrote: ""Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes, – aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel.""

Did Nietzsche say this before or after he got mad?

Matt wrote: "...Did Nietzsche say this before or after he got mad?"

Perhaps he said it in a lucid moment. We cannot be sure there ever was a before madness period.

Perhaps he wanted to be a rare individual.

Miriam wrote: "Scalise did vote to allow the mentally ill to own guns...."

Doesn't voting in someone like Trump qualify a huge chunk of population to that anyway?

Trump was elected because he gave voice to problems that the other candidates refused to acknowledge. This doesn't make his voters a bunch of crazy racist people. People should learn to respect each others. And when the choice is between hilary and trump, it's really hard to choose.

Daniele wrote: "Trump was elected because he gave voice to problems that the other candidates refused to acknowledge. This doesn't make his voters a bunch of crazy racist people. People should learn to respect eac..."

Wow. You are right. It's very hard to choose between a career politician and someone who routinely manipulates the tax code, has declared bankruptcy over seven times, refuses to publicly share tax returns, takes money from people who openly hate black people, believes a 'wall' will keep 'Mexicans' out of the country, can barely string three syllables together, has yet to enact any significant legislation, and who believes a gold-plated toilet is an actual thing worth having.

You're right. It's a hard choice.

I guess a lot comes down to what you think of 'career politicians.'

I think they generally don't get into international incidents on a regular basis, unless by intention (see Putin), or explicitly support racism and grabbing pussies.

Going back a few comments, people can be an a**hole without being mentally ill and vice versa. Blurring the two is completely unfair to the mentally ill.

Carol, you have to look at it in context. Many people saw that the generally fairly sane, generally fairly competent career politicians in Washington weren't giving them what they wanted. So they thought, perhaps we'll do better with someone who's incompetent and insane. Like, what do we have to lose?

Sure, hindsight is always 20/20. But at the time, it seemed like a good argument.

Daniele wrote: "Trump was elected because he gave voice to problems that the other candidates refused to acknowledge. This doesn't make his voters a bunch of crazy racist people..."

Whereas being crazy racists does.

But, as has been said before by others wiser than myself, some voted for Trump because they supported his racism and/or fascism. For others, racist fascism was simply not a deal breaker. And that doesn't speak well for them.

Choosing between Hilary and Trump wasn't a difficult decision at all. To not choose Hilary when faced with that choice is essentially crazy. But Trump and those who sold him did manage to convince people that it was at least a close call, and they got out the message "what do you have to lose." Well, some people could see quite well we had a lot to lose, and it's becoming increasingly apparent day by day.

And, coming back full-circle to the status update that got this all started: Millions of people who considered themselves good, decent, intelligent, well-intended, and bold supported Adolf Hitler enthusiastically. Does that make them crazy or racist? Well... yeah.

(And Hitler loved dogs and was a vegetarian, so I guess he had his good side too. And he also "gave voice to problems that the other candidates refused to acknowledge," you know, like the whole Jewish thing.)

While I think that trump is one of the worst president ever, I don't agree with this way of thinking.


It's not acceptable to dismiss it all with a "they are all dumb and crazy and racist bunch of farmers."


Because this way of thinking is in itselt racist and shortsighted. And this is, in fact, the very reason why the democrats lost. Not only they failed to provide a new and clean candidate, they failed to answer to the fears the americans had: jobs, security, terrorism.


If you don't reflect on your mistakes that's the true defeat.


I was sure that trump would prevail in the election and I'm not glad I was right.

Daniele--

Saying, "they are all dumb and crazy and racist bunch of farmers.
Because this way of thinking is in itselt racist and shortsighted. " can't possible be true. Because--and here's the critical point--it's not a race of people that's being categorized.

I'm going to firmly stand my my original point and characterization: people who voted for Trump have to be comfortable with racism and sexism being explicit from someone who is a 'leader.' Sure, all of us have it to some degree. Trump was one of the candidates who made a stand about being racist. Ergo, they have to be comfortable with it being part of our leadership's explicit profile.

And, given that he gave a bunch of bullshit promises that have yet to be enacted, and in fact has a history of duplicitous and dishonest behavior, makes the people that voted for him stupid in my book, if it was about any of the campaign promises like "building a wall," or "draining the Washington swamp," or "repealing Obamacare," etc. No, they weren't all farmers. Some were even Hispanic or Islamic or women or many other categories that no one expected would have supported him. It's not shortsighted of me to call it this. It's me calling it out. I'm not on the Democratic steering committee, so it's not my mistake.

Sarah Anne has a valid point, however, in that some of the statements about mentally ill and assholery were equivalized, which isn't fair to true mental illness. I think it's more a pessimistic reflection on society and how we characterize issues about violence, which is what happened up thread, when it was noted that the single man that attacked the women in Portland was 'mentally ill,' according to the press, but that larger attacks are 'terrorism.' And what is war but killing on a large and sanctioned scale? It is funny (not funny) how we layer issues related to violence and how it is sanctioned and characterized.

I think that people are entitled to their opinion, and having a different opinion doesn't make them stupid.

Sure, building a wall may seem stupid. But if people want the government to take a hold of illegal immigration, they will vote for a wall, if that is the only option available.

(anyway the wall already exist , it was built in part by the Clinton administration, so it's not a far fetched fantasy)

"that no one expected would have supported him"
that's because you think that the people who voted him are racists. When they are not.

Zadignose wrote: "Matt wrote: "...Did Nietzsche say this before or after he got mad?"

Perhaps he said it in a lucid moment. We cannot be sure there ever was a before madness period.

Perhaps he wanted to be a rare ..."

While it's not certain that there were not chronic earlier effects, and some minority theories about his illness (iirc a few have suggested a congenital degenerative disease, for instance) would explain earlier symptoms, it's pretty clear that there was a before-lunacy phase, in which he wrote cogently and insightfully, albeit idiosyncratically and grandiloquently, and a lunacy phase, in which he was apparently at times superficially lucid (he wrote some letters and had some visitors) but showed no developed abstract thinking and little grasp of reality, time or place. So even if it were true that he had some long-term mental or neurological illness, that's very different from his total breakdown later on.

@Wastrel: fair points.

Dear Trumpon, what do you have to say to the mayor of London after last night's attack?

How come no 3 am tweets? No verbal diarrhea? No mini heart attacks?

Jibran, as someone who was brought in Wales and still considers himself at heart a Welshman, I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from the appalling attack recently carried out by Darren Osborne. Most Welsh people are not like Mr Osborne. They are a peace-loving race who just like playing rugby, singing, drinking and yelling racist abuse. Oops. Cancel that last item.

Manny, it sounds so familiar with roles reversed. Incredible!

It seems every type of extremist wants to take "revenge" on innocent bystanders. The National Front guy who spoke to the media refused to call it a terrorist attack because, according to him, it's a revenge attack. The Islamist extremists who mow down people give exactly the same justification, ie, that they are taking revenge for the death and destruction wrought by Western wars.

Btw I love Wales. We just won two back to back cricket matches in Cardiff! Maybe that set him off, a team of inbred Pakis routing the favourites...

I like your theory, Jibran! If the South Americans had a football war, surely the Brits can manage a cricket-inspired terrorist attack.

Do you think we now need to ban cricket? It would be probably be easier than banning the use of white phosphorus on civilian populations... that legislation seems to have had depressingly little effect.

Damn it. More troops to Afghanistan.

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/o...

"It was US military aid that supported the mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviets in the first place, which led directly to the Taliban’s taking power and sheltering al Qaeda. It was the invasion of Iraq that helped to birth IS, and it was the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya that turned that country into North Africa’s preeminent terrorist haven. Whatever group succeeds IS as the West’s terrorist bogeyman, you can bet it will have come to prominence by seizing opportunities presented to it by the US military. While the US should do all it can via diplomacy and economic assistance to promote stable government in Afghanistan, that requires a President with the capacity for thinking in diplomatic terms, a luxury we do not presently enjoy. In the absence of that luxury, the US should at the very least, finally, withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan."

(Corbyn is considered an extremist because he's ready to acknowledge things that no American politician - including, sadly Bernie Sanders - is willing to admit. Somehow, decades on, a commitment to more death and destruction in the Middle East is considered the more moderate position.)

Just want to iterate this:

This past weekend, the president took to Fox News and Twitter to harangue Obama for not doing enough about the Russian hacking, an act that the current president has denounced as a hoax, repeatedly.

Also, the President of the United States just publicly attacked a woman's appearance, saying she was "low IQ" and "crazy" and "bleeding from a face-lift" - these were public, written statements. This is our country.

Is this the same President of the United States who spent the entire campaign (as well as his entire "adult" life previous to this) publicly attacking women for their appearance and other aspects, including the now-classic "bleeding from her whatever"?

It's hard to be outraged anymore. We knew who he was before the election, and he won anyway.

Jacob wrote: "Is this the same President of the United States who spent the entire campaign (as well as his entire "adult" life previous to this) publicly attacking women for their appearance and other aspects, ..."

I'm still outraged. My outrage won't cease until he is ruined.

You've got to hand it to Putin. That was the best PsyOps attack ever. I really wouldn't have thought it was possible.

I mean, I'm still outraged, but more by the (not-yet-proven) treason and the fact that he and the GOP are gleefully working to pillage the country, than his Offensive Tweet Of The Day. Because let's face it, he's just going to say something worse tomorrow.

Jacob wrote: "I mean, I'm still outraged, but more by the (not-yet-proven) treason and the fact that he and the GOP are gleefully working to pillage the country, than his Offensive Tweet Of The Day. Because let'..."

Yes, I think we can agree it's all outrageous - the whole deal going on there

Good reply by Brzezinski and Scarborough this morning. As they say, Donald Trump is not well.

From what I've heard, everyone did laugh when Chaplin made The Great Dictator...

What's up with his obsession with women's blood. It's super disturbing

Geoff wrote: "What's up with his obsession with women's blood. It's super disturbing"

Compared to being in control of the US military, I'd say it's pretty reassuring. Maybe a few brave virgins should volunteer their snow-white necks in the service of the greater good.

Manny wrote: "Geoff wrote: "What's up with his obsession with women's blood. It's super disturbing"

Compared to being in control of the US military, I'd say it's pretty reassuring. Maybe a few brave virgins sho..."

Yes, in the bigger picture of everything, these tweets are pretty much innocuous, compared to what he is capable of in the real world. Still - psychology is interesting.

More about Trump's feud with 'Morning Joe'. I particularly liked Scarborough's pair of tweets responding to Trump's counter-accusations:

Yet another lie. I have texts from your top aides and phone records. Also, those records show I haven't spoken with you in many months.

Why do you keep lying about things that are so easily disproven? What is wrong with you?

They've got a point. Either Trump is crazy like a fox (who knows, this could all be a cunning ruse to distract us from serious things like healthcare and Russia), or, alternately, he's just plain crazy.