liveonearth: (Default)
 Copied from a friend (on fb).

This is utterly brilliant. I wish I could take credit for writing it, but no.

British wit to help get you through the nightmare:

"Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.
A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

liveonearth: (Default)
 ​ "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself," the Department of Justice declared in 1974. The DOJ spelled it out just four days before Nixon resigned, explaining that the president's pardoning power "does not extend to the president himself." 
 
liveonearth: (Default)
"Mr. Trump, you appear to be laboring under the delusion that you have the necessary qualifications to be president. The manifest failure of almost everything you have attempted during your first six months, coupled with the anarchic chaos that pervades your White House, should give you pause--or would give pause to any person of normal sensitivity...

Get all your news, not from FOX but from all the sources available to a president, many of them not available to the rest of us. Announce your decisions after due consideration and consultation, not impulsively on Twitter. Cultivate common good manners when dealing with people. Do no be misled by the crowds thatcheer your boorish rudeness: they are a minority of the American people.

Listen to experts better qualified than you are. Especially scientists. Be guided by evidence and reason, not gut feeling. By far the best way to assess evidence is the scientific method. Indeed, it is the only way if we interpret "scientific" broadly. In particular--since the matter is so urgent and it may already be too late--listen to scientists when they tell you about the looming catastophe of climate change."

--Richard Dawkins, when asked by John Horgan in interview, "What would you say to Trump if you had his ear"?
liveonearth: (Homer Simpson "D'oh!")

We are pending a bona fide axis II becoming president. Plus ADHD without question. I've taken my deep breaths, become solid, and am looking forward to messing with the Clown every chance I get. I will be ok for sure; I crossed that line I think. But you may not be ok, nor your beautiful child, nor mine. That's what I worry about. I spent 30 years dealing with criminals, but never a billionaire criminal... however, the tone is unmistakable... and it smacks of the most evil I've seen. This guy has more issues than any 100 random people put together. Exhaling now....
--this quote stolen without permission from facebook, this psychologist spends his days assessing delinquient children's mental health for the courts, he will not be named unless he wants to be named as of 2/6/16

**first use of tag: trump

liveonearth: (moon)
Listening to the media reports about Trump and Clinton, I understand the frustration of the majority of voters.  Most of us know that the "establishment" politicians, like Clinton, are part and parcel with the corporatocracy that has made our two party system a joke.  The two parties are simply different faces of the same government which is beholden to big business and rich investors.  While the Democrats make more of an effort to care for the most impoverished, neither side is actually effective at reducing poverty.  The Republicans assert that the poor are not helped by a free ride, and this may be true.  It is true that during the Great Depression here in the US, people got healthier.

Trump, on the other hand, is not part of the "establishment" except in so far as he is rich, and he is stupid enough to become their tool, just as Shrub did.  His daily empty statements, like what I just heard that he "will win" 95% of the black American vote, are lunacy.  There is no way that he is getting 95% of any vote, except perhaps of those white male voters who are angry and desperate enough to commit suicide but would rather have someone else do it for them.  I understand the line of thought that says "crash this train", that is to say, destroying our corporatocracy is the first step toward building something new.  This is more the approach of libertarians who understand that big business will not be dethroned by small measures.  Electing Trump would be a drastic measure that could crash this train, except for the fact that the corporate Republican powers will feed his ego and narcissism and keep him busy and distracted by giving him televised glory while they run things.  In other words, it won't work.  Electing Trump will not derail the corporate train.

The Libertarian and Green candidates are relatively attractive in this election.  Unfortunately the Libertarians appear to be almost as "estalishment" as Clinton, see Gary Johnson's positions here.  Jill Stein of the Green party is a physician and one smart cookie, and she actually makes the most sense to me of any of the candidates.  She knows that our two-party system is broken, and she addresses that question and others with a raft of information instead of party lines or defund-it-all ideology.

I do not know what it would take to persuade a majority of voters to choose third-party candidates, but I pray that I live to see it.  At this moment it appears to me that Clinton will win because so many people are terrified of the specter of a Trump presidency.  His racism, bogus claims and impetuous thin-skinned personality are enough to disqualify him for all but the most blindered of voters.  It is true that if he were elected the Republican party would attempt to control him, but we all know that he would be more likely to push the nuclear button than any other president in living memory.  While it bears discussing why we refrain from using nukes, just as it bears discussing why we can't as a society afford freeloaders, we might want to discuss it very well before we hand any control to a tool such as Trump.

I am sure I've mentioned it before, but it is my belief that in order to build a majority that can beat both established parties, we need to build a bridge between the far right Libertarians and the far left Greens.  When this happens we might actually wrest our democracy back from its service to business.  It would be heralded as a great crisis, just like the Brexit vote, but don't believe everything you hear in the news.  A reduction in our GDP might be good for us.  More unemployment is not an entirely bad thing.  We Americans need to get back to the project of taking good care of ourselves and our dear ones, building community, and being real people face to face with other real people.  This wealthy life of internet and automobiles has created a Great Satan that is making us sad.

** first use of tag: green party
liveonearth: (moon)
He spoke at O'Connor's on June 27 for the FFRF.  Overall what I learned from this retired polysci professor is that the framers of the US constitution intended to create a principle-based document that allows enough structure to prevent chaos, and enough freedom to allow evolution of our society and laws over time.  He never said anything like that, it is purely my restatement of what I walked away with.  Brudley is a good speaker and clearly has taught this subject matter in many different ways over the years.  When faced with a mature atheist audience in liberal Portland, he was able to skim over a lot of topis that he belabors for undergraduates.  One thing I liked about his speaking style (and will borrow): he said that questions for the purpose of clarification or elaboration are welcome during the presentation, all others had to wait until the end.  This prevents diversions from the topic and keeps it all moving along.

He started out saying that the independent judiciary is detailed in Article 1, and that it was clearly a priority for the framers of the constitution.  I also learned that Article 2 is the Executive article, and it is under this article that the constitution says that the president nominates supreme court justices and with the senates advice and consent these nominations can be confirmed.  The president is instructed to choose based on fitness and qualifications, and not on nepotism or cronyism.  The president is selected for this job because he is thought to be more insulated from the "passions and prejudices of the people".

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the senate, or the people, should have any part in nominating judges.  The Federalist Papers have an article by Hamilton that specifically says there shall be "no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate".   Nowhere does it say that no SCOTUS judges may be nominated in the last year.  To his knowledge our current VP Biden was the first to say that a lame duck president should not nominate--which was an easy gotcha for the Republicans.  Brudney said that our system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers, is sometimes unproductive.  You could say that.  Stalemate potential is necessary in a principle-driven constitution that provides us with freedoms, and protects us from rash decisions by any branch of our government.
liveonearth: (moon)
I'm not talking about the ignorant rebels who've been co-opted by corporate Republican interests and convinced to vote against their own best interests.  I'm talking about those Tea Party thinkers who know that our government is run by and for big business (not "the people"), and would like to do something about it.

This is what I've been talking about.  The possibility that the left wing and the right wing could reach around the back of the government bird and strangle the business creature that is riding on its back.

*first use of tag: Bernie
liveonearth: (moon)
For example, a cursory scan of the TV and internet news continues to tell me today that Carson is winning hearts and minds, that he is the most popular Republican candidate for president.  The one who keeps impressing me is Rubio, not because he's spotless, but because he is taking the high road and sounding sharp while he's on it.  My partner finds him frightening, considers him to be the most dangerous of the lot because he has a chance of winning.  I don't know what to think of him and wish the media would focus on Rubio, Paul, etc more and less on tRump and cARSon.  Oh well, I don't care about it enough to really study on it, just impressions here.
liveonearth: (blue skinned alien)
I'm reading an article in New York magazine (April 7-20, 2014) about the color of Obama's presidency, and the first thing mentioned is the Bill Maher show in which Bill Kristol was frankly upset at him for saying that the rise of the Tea Party was due to racism. My liberal friends here in Oregon, and the ones that live in the Rockies and the South for the most part agree with this assessment. They are certain that's the reason that some who call themselves Tea Party are in stark opposition to every single thing that Obama says or does, apparently without consideration of the details. It is reasonable to assume that this oppositional defiance is based in that base instinct that Obama is brown and different and must be wrong and evil. But this assumption is simpleminded too; there is more to the Tea Party than simple racism.

Those who hate Obama for his skin are not political creatures. They do vote, and host radio shows, but in they do not make sense or generate policy. All they do is upset everybody, stop policy and new ideas from being developed. We need to shut them up by ignoring them, instead of trying to beat them in rational argument. There is no point arguing with racism or insanity.

There are Tea Party libertarians who are political, intelligent and curious, and interested in shades of meaning without regard for shades of skin tone. These are the Tea Party core that most liberals haven't met, and won't meet, because their experience has been so bad trying to negotiate with the angry racists. There is a rational case for small government, for making the government operate according to the constitution, for the separation of church and state and for making corporations behave like responsible businesses instead of being "persons" with rights but no responsibilities under the law. These concerns need to be discussed and rationally balanced with our desire to take care of the less fortunate among us, instead of dismissed as rantings.

So I beg of you, Americans, to do your best to listen to and respect the other side, whoever they are. I beg liberals to consider that there might be real concerns about the longterm viability of large government. And I beg Tea Party conservatives to offer reasons, to be specific and soften your words when you despise something that Obama has done. It is my conviction that Obama is sympathetic to the libertarian position, but because he is a politician and elected as a Democrat, he must play the game within the parameters of his position or be removed. It has cost him dearly. It will be interesting to see what our first brown-skinned president does after his 2nd term ends and he is free to act on his real inclinations.

Phew

Nov. 6th, 2012 11:27 pm
liveonearth: (Default)
Four more years of Obama is better than the alternative in my book.
liveonearth: (Default)
Here's the actual text of the EO. It looks kind of totalitarian on its surface, and the conservative blogosphere is screaming stuff like Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America!!! But the Hot Air blog breaks it down relative to the old law, and it appears that the changes are really quite minimal. In the name of National Defense Resources Preparedness an assortment of agencies are authorized to do whatever they need to take over the means of production and supply the military. Which they already were.
liveonearth: (Default)
Vote for the man who promises least;
he'll be the least disappointing.

--Bernard Barush, Biznessman
liveonearth: (endless_knot)
Nobody expects him to win. Not even him. It would be quite a shock, after this many attempts. Ron Paul realizes that he's not really campaigning for himself to be president, but rather for an alternative view of how government works and what it should do. For a movement, and a revolution. For an alternative view of how society works, and what it means to be human. I am thrilled for him because he got the youth vote in Iowa today. The new voters came out for him. Probably because of that Big Dog ad, in combination with Dr Paul's willingness to legalize pot. Strange bedfellows indeed. Societies shift according to the ley lines of the culture.

It's pretty amusing to hear the rest of the candidates talk mainly about defeating Barack Obama. I would and will vote against all of them in favor of Barack Obama. Newt makes me wish desperately for a moral atheist candidate. The others I can't even remember. I wish for Palin. She'd at least make big enough gaffes to make me spit out my food.

Don't worry, I'll turn off the radio, soon. I have to say I really do enjoy hearing the candidates speaking to their own people at these events. I learn a lot more than I do from statements that have been honed for the mainstream news.

QUOTE OF THE DAY
We're all Austrians now.
--Ron Paul

(Austrians = opposite of Keynesians. This quote of course taken radically out of context, he is speaking of some time in the future when Keynesian economics is no longer broadly accepted and applied in America.)
liveonearth: (the call of cthulhu)
And I disagreed with him then. He was spouting off then about how there should not be a religious litmus test for presidents. My response: I will not vote for anyone who takes on "faith" things that are insane to me. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense. I also won't automatically do whatever somebody says I "should", being fundamentally skeptical and rebellious (like a good American). Romney doesn't rate a tag. I sure hope he never gets elected president, and he's the only intelligent one out of the whole pack of media-covered Republican candidates. Wish the media would cover Ron Paul... well I guess they do, just not as much as I would like. He just took in over $3 million buckaroos in small donations in the last 5 days. So I guess I'm not the only fan.
liveonearth: (Donkey)
The next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please, pay attention.
--Molly Ivins
liveonearth: (Default)
My favorite repeat presidential candidate was in the news yesterday. A group of conservatives in Washington DC had a straw poll and decided that they will support Dr Paul if he will run again. We sure could use his pragmatism and economic smarts about now. He is so much saner than most of his supporters. But now it appears that the Conservative Political Action Conference participants may well be seeing clearly past the idiocy that is the remnants of the Republican party.

Paul was preferred by 31% of voters in the Conservative Political Action Conference's presidential preference straw poll yesterday, one of the strongest wins in CPAC history. Sarah Palin, who skipped the group's conference, came in a distant third with 7% of the vote... I don't know if you heard about how Ms Palin tried to hitch her little red wagon onto the Tea Party in Nashville and didn't get pulled along as much as she would have liked....and the Tea Party protests were originally the idea of some Ron Paul supporters. The Tea Party turned into a "party" when everyone who was disenfranchised with Obama for any reason (including racism) joined in...but a crowd like that will never come up with a reasonable platform.

Back to the news: Mitt Romney, after topping CPAC's poll for the past three years, came in second, with 22% of the 2400 votes cast. So the Mormon is losing some ground but he's still up there. He's one to watch.

Profile

liveonearth: (Default)
liveonearth

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819202122 2324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 30th, 2025 05:58 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios