Showing posts with label Drumpf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drumpf. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Going to Subject Myself to Fire and Fury

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House



Sure, I'll read this mess, eventually but I'm not looking forward to it. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt Wolff's account of what people close to Trump are saying. But, I've heard Wolff give interviews where he basically talks about Bannon like some kind of strategic genius who is steps ahead and blah, blah, blah.

Bannon is a racist scumbag. The thing about racist scumbags is they are universally, without exception, not smart. They may be cunning frauds, but never smart. That Wolff is so impressed by Bannon's intellectualism is a huge red flag. I've also seen excerpts of the text that read like they were written by cliche-spouting hack.

Given our current (alleged) billionaire celebrity presidential experience, I'm struck by how quickly Dems and centrists are pledging their fealty to another celebrity billionaire under the auspices of #Oprah2020.  Look, I get that she makes a good speech, and if we're picking celebrity billionaires to hitch our wagons to, I'd take her over Trump every day. The point is though, celebrity billionaires are not going to save us or the Republic. We need to fix things so there are no billionaires, not hand them the keys to the car. Let's not put ourselves in the position of having to choose between celebrity billionaires by insisting on an actual leftist, or at least left-leaning, to represent the interests of working people and the poor. No billionaire will fit that bill. Not Oprah, not Zuckerberg, not any other billionaire you've got on deck.


via GIPHY


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Today in a nutshell ...

Sometimes the twitter feed lines up in just the right order for maximum despair.

Today:

Mr. Johnson's comment cuts two ways. The scandal is what the GOP is doing with their control of Congress, as well as how the press is (not) covering what the GOP is doing.

There's a helpful Senator pointing out the GOP is looking to murder the poor, but it's hard to focus your attention on something being under-reported. Also, no amount of protesting, calling my Congressmen's offices, or griping about it here or on twitter dot com will make a lick of difference.

Our 45th President continues to demonstrate he's a corrupt, authoritarian man-baby who probably, in trying to obfuscate his grift, is unaware of, indifferent to, or (more likely) completely in support of the murderous agenda of the GOP.

American Exceptionalism, y'all.


Thursday, May 18, 2017

Our 45th President Is As Cowardly As He Is Ignorant



Blogged with IFTTT

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Waiting on GOP Leadership, Not Holding My Breath



Blogged with IFTTT

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Shorter DJT: "Stein's recount is a scam. Also, illegals stole millions of votes from me."



Blogged with IFTTT

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Dark Is Rising

North Carolina Election results | abc11.com

Thoughts on last night's results after this sinks in ...


That's how my fellow North Carolinians voted for the direction of our country. Lies, authoritarianism, misogyny, bigotry, climate denial, and kleptocracy for the foreseeable future.

As disgusted as I am with the state and national number for Trump, it's the vicious and widespread left in-fighting that seems to be the primary source of my nausea since last night. But let's each of us start by looking inward and reckoning with our own accountability before we look outward. I'm serious on this, until I've seen folks hold themselves accountable, I'm not listening to any more of the shit they have to say about whose fault (other than their own) it is that we're in this mess.

Here on the ol' blog I railed against Trump, and on twitter, but on facebook I mostly avoided partisan discussion. I read, but didn't reply to the frequent posting of my Hillary-hating friends because I didn't want to poison the well. I think I should have done more. By trying to stay civil, not say anything when I couldn't say anything nice, not taking the time to give simple fact-based, evidence-supported arguments against the regurgitations from RW Bullshit Machine, I failed to hold my friends and family accountable for part in normalizing Trump's extremist positions. Practically speaking, this may be the only way I could have any real influence on anyone's vote.

Could I have done volunteer work, or contributed to a rival campaign? I didn't help someone who couldn't otherwise get to their polling station. I have a small car, and couldn't have taken very many. Might I have contributed to a groundswell of volunteerism by example? Perhaps my actions would have a more impact than the handful I votes I may have been able to facilitate, but honestly, I don't feel particularly bad about not doing more in that regard. Financially, I can barely get by month to month, I don't feel bad at all about not putting money into the broken campaign finance system.

Should I have voted for Clinton instead of Jill Stein, as many bitter HRC supporters have argued? Fuck that. I voted my conscience. I voted for the candidate I felt would do the most to combat climate change and support the progressive causes I believe in. If more people voted for the candidate that best represented their interests, we wouldn't be in this mess. You want to blame third party voters for your candidates lack of appeal? Knock yourself out for all the good it does. Stein voters did not sway this election nationally, here in NC, or anywhere else that I know of. Certainly not Florida. (Will come to back to the Gary Johnson vote shortly.)

After reviewing my own failings, I feel like I'm ready to identify the entities and institutions most responsible for the consequences of Trump's victory: Trump himself, Trump voters, the Republican Party, the mainstream media, the DNC, Wikileaks, James Comey, the Electoral College, and those who smeared Bernie and his supporters during the Democratic primary process.

Trump himself is often vilified, but I don't generally see it in the context of blame assignment for expected impacts of his policies. I get that he's more the object of that discussion, rather than the subject, but it's worth noting that the person most responsible for the harm Trump has already done to political culture -- not to mention the people he's assaulted and screwed over -- is Trump himself. He should accountable, whether it's in court for his crimes, or in terms of votes when it comes to his policy outcomes.

Trump voters, of course, are the reason he won the election. And by "Trump voters," I mean "white people." Chicken shit, entitled, bigoted, misogynist (and yes, I include white women who voted for Trump in all these categories, deal with it), morally retarded, ignorant-as-fuck white people. I hear all the pleas for understanding, and understand where they're coming from. It's a good place, no doubt. What I can't get over is the fact that Trump voters had another choice in Bernie Sanders, someone who understood their economic fears, the impact of neoliberal capitalism on their lives, and they rejected him for the guy who assaults women, hates American values, and happily stokes their fear of "the Other."  Over half (Trump and Johnson voters) of the people who voted for President in 2016 voted for a complete asshole, and there's no escaping that makes them assholes. (And, right now, I'm not much of a fan of the other half of the country right now either.)

For all the recriminations against third party and non-voters from the "left", it seems like a lot of folks are incapable of understanding what votes are, how they work, and how they are earned by candidates. Now, I'm not saying I don't understand how a vote that *could* have been one for candidate, when cast for another, hurts the first candidate's chances of winning. I don't dispute how numbers add up; I dispute the premise that votes "belong" to one candidate or another, and that a voter has somehow sinned when they cast their vote for the candidate they feel best represents them without regard to how that may affect the final tally. If your position is: only the candidates the corporate media say are legitimate are actually legitimate; well, have different understandings how representative democracy is supposed to work. Don't tell me I'm some ideological fantasist. I live in the real world. I work and pay taxes. I accept the reality of the human role in climate change. I live in a small town, but have gay friends and family, and I worry for the civil rights of my fellow Americans and for the safety of my daughter in world where rape culture is white-washed as boys-will-be-boys good times. I understand the consequences of a Trump administration. What I understand, that I think you don't, is that the Democratic party won't change if they know they can count on your vote. The Democratic party does not fight for social justice, equality, or for poor and working people to anywhere near the degree it ought to. If we want political representation that does those things, then we need to advocate, agitate, and vote for it, or WE WILL NEVER GET IT. A political party that fights for the future of a all humanity is worth fighting for.

The Republican party was a largely passive, when it wasn't encouraging, host for a white nationalist parasite. Sure, there were a few who made tepid, and not always backed up, criticisms of Trump, but the GOP set the stage for Trump, or someone like him, to rise to power.

The DNC betrayed us all by sabotaging Bernie's campaign. Wikileaks conveniently failed find anything worth sharing about Trump, no doubt pleasing Putin in the process. The mainstream media just played along to tease more profits out of a horse race. Hillary supporters started using FLOTUS's "We go high," line, but they sure as fuck didn't in securing Hillary the nomination. The EC burned us in 2000 and has done so again. It is a perversion of democracy to make one vote count more than another. The idea that it protects anyone is outdated, if it ever did what it's supposed to in the first place. Oh, in the dispirited winding down I nearly forgot about Comey's FBI playing the EMAIL! game. Law enforcement in this country is a fucking disaster.

Look, I know I lost steam, but all the think pieces are out there. All the takes, so hot. I just came out to say, "Fuck me? No, fuck you. You fucks. We all got what we deserved."

Related: "Fuck Everything and Blame Everyone."

Edit: And one more thing. When you're attacking "third-party voters" as if Johnson voters and Stein voters could have tipped the scales towards Hillary, you're conveniently forgetting who the fuck Johnson voters are, and that Libertarians are just as closely tied to white nationalism and all that shit, as "mainstream" Republicans. They were never going to vote for Hillary, so stop pretending there is some equivalency between supporters of the Libertarian and Green candidates. Stein's vote was so small, it couldn't have saved our sorry asses anyways. Johnson voters, if anything, should be thanked for not voting for Trump like they (mostly) otherwise would have.


Sunday, November 6, 2016

The Real Trump Demographic May Not Be What We Think It Is

Trump claims, nonetheless, to be the “voice” of the marginalized, and media portraits of working class people who support him have bolstered that claim. The conservative intellectual Francis Fukuyama gave a pure distillation of the common wisdom in an interview with The Ezra Klein Show recently: “The Trump candidacy represents the forgotten white working class that has been underrepresented in American democracy over the past generation,” he said. “So they’re getting a voice.”  
That's wrong on two levels. It isn’t primarily the white working class that has propelled Trump’s rise. And his supporters are far from forgotten or ignored.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Bigots: "How dare they call us 'deplorable'?!"


Image via IndyWeek
I’m standing outside the state Capitol, attempting to ascertain what’s on the minds of Franklin Graham’s disciples as we approach Election Day, when an old man wearing a cowboy hat lets me know who’s in charge.
He calls me a “fucking sodomite” and tells me he hopes I “burn in the fires of hell.”
But wait. I’m married, I tell him. To a woman. I have kids.
“Well, then, you’re a sodomite lover,” he snarls.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Bernie Smash



Blogged with IFTTT

I'm not #ImWithHer, but I applaud Bernie for trying to fix the machine from within. I don't think it's going to work, but in terms of taking steps toward that goal, he did about as well as he could have last night.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

He Doesn't Want To Be President, He Wants To Be Able To Say He Won The Presidency

How Donald Trump Picked His Running Mate - NYTimes.com:

Image via Jezebel
... [A]ccording to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. 
 
Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply. 
In a way, it's almost a relief. But then, even had it been Kasich, it would have been a terrifying prospect in and of itself. That it's Pence makes the prospect even worse.

It's like I've been saying all along. Trump doesn't want the job, isn't committed to anything except being an entitled asshole. (And being racist.) That he's the nominee simply highlights the fact the rest of the Republicans are entitled assholes genuinely committed to a radical ideology that will unmake the country. They were all just as bad, and in at least Cruz's case - worse, and the Republican base (at least the segment that isn't genocidal-for-Jesus) could smell it on them.

So, last night Christie played attack dog for Trump by indicting Clinton in the convention's kangaroo court. ("Guilty!" the mob shouted, "Lock her up!" they chanted.) Now that he's not going to be VP, it seems clear he's angling for a top cabinet position. My guess is State, based on how he focused on Clinton's foreign policy disasters. (And yes, she has been and will be a disaster.)

With Christie, I don't know. Does he really mean half of what he says, does he have any kind of principles beyond screw-the-enemy? If Trump can't win, and recent polling data still indicates he won't, is it even worth the bother of speculating about?


Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Here Comes The Argument (For The Lesser of Two Evils)



Here's a snippet from the linked post, it's worth reading the whole thing, but the root of my disagreement with LaBossiere is in this bit:
In the upcoming election, I intend to follow my principle. While I voted for Sanders in the primary and prefer him over Hillary, I think that a Trump presidency would be vastly worse for the country as a whole than another Clinton presidency. Hillary, as I see her, is essentially a 1990s moderate Republican with a modern liberal paint job. As such, she can be counted on as a competent business as usual politician who will march along with the majority of the population in regards to social policy (such as same sex marriage and gun regulation). Trump has no experience in office and I have no real idea what he would do as president. As such, I am taking the classic approach of choosing the lesser evil and the devil I know. If I was voting for the greater evil, Cthulhu would have my vote. 
It might be objected that my approach is flawed. After all, if a person votes based on a rational assessment of the impact of an election on everyone, then she could end up voting against her own self-interest. What a person should do, it could be argued, is consider the matter selfishly—to vote based on what is in her interest regardless of the general good. 
This approach does have considerable appeal and is based on an established moral philosophy, known as ethical egoism. This is the view that a person should always take the action that maximizes her self-interest. Roughly put, for the ethical egoist, she is the only one with moral value.
Does it leap out at you, too? For me, it's the reduction of voting for the candidate who best represents your values, whom you believe would make the best President, to an ethical egoist position. Altruism vs. ethical egoism here is a frame, not an entirely worthless one, but a frame that is hung over the argument to facilitate clubbing together would be Green or Libertarian voters with Ayn Rand and her philosophy for morons. (Sure, it actually applies to the latter group, but it denigrates the motives, aspirations, and beliefs of Greens and other progressives.)

If we consider the morality of voting for a third party candidate from deontological or utilitarian (consequentialist) perspectives, it's suspiciously convenient (though, of course, not impossible) with this framing that a vote for the Clinton can be cast as a virtuous action either way; not to mention suspiciously convenient that a principled vote for a candidate who is not merely a lesser-of-three-evils option, but a "good" option, then doesn't seem to have a philosophical leg to stand on.

So, let's remove the frame. My counterargument is that a vote for a third party candidate who best represents not only my own views, but who best represents the views of a majority of Americans -- views which I think most ethicists agree are generally "better" than dehumanizing, wealth-concentrating, warmongering, environment degrading, etc. -- is, at least from the deontological perspective, a more virtuous vote, than the one for the neoliberal candidate (or the fascist buffoon).

That we shouldn't consider voting for the best candidate a ideal normative action requires we bring in some consequentialist notions based on cynical assumptions: "a third party vote is wasted", "the mass media doesn't recognize a candidate as viable, therefore she is not viable", "if you don't vote for the lesser of the two evils, you increasing the risk that the greater of two evils will win and make things worse than they otherwise would have been", "it's selfish to vote for the candidate who best represents your values", and so on. Now, some of those are harder to dismiss than others, and I'm sure many will find no fault at all with the one that says if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, you're effectively supporting the evil, which -- by logical necessity, I think -- would make that voter actively evil.

What subscription to that belief fails to recognize is how much it leans on a host of other assumptions, which I don't think even those people who take that position would agree with. The major networks and big newspapers don't get to decide what candidates are viable based on how it benefits their bottom line to align with the oligarchical agents in our society. That's a power determination that the internet and social media have long since undercut. It is easier today than it ever has been to find the strong arguments and dismiss the blatantly self-serving propaganda of the super-wealthy elites. A refusal to consider a third party candidate as viable, unless it's a Ross Perot-like approved option of the rich, is nothing more than a mix of intellectual laziness and moral cowardice. "Oh, the rich say this person can't win, so they are going to ignore her? I guess I might as well accept their judgment over my own," says the sucker born every minute.

Put another way, I don't think "you shouldn't vote in your best interest, and in the best interest of the country, because most people won't" makes sense. Rather, that notion reinforces the "most people won't" when any position we take ought to be voting in the best interest of the country. (Or, if you're feeling selfish, voting based on self-interest alone.)

Until people make their voices count, they won't count. I don't owe anybody my vote, and I am thinking of the greater good when I vote for the candidate who shares more of my values than any of the others. It's not my fault she "can't win," it's yours, LaBossiere and your ilk.

Now, I could be wrong. Maybe Stein would be an ineffective, or bad, President. But I'm not convinced of that by arguments based on cynical acceptance of the plutocratic definition of viable candidates. Convince me Stein is wrong on foreign policy. Convince me she's wrong on energy policy, on civil rights issues, on women's health issues, on wealth inequality issues ... go ahead. I'm waiting.

If we get Trump/Pence in 2016, then we deserve the fucking disaster that's coming.

If we get Clinton/Kaine, then the mitigated disaster that's coming is what we deserve. Enjoy your endless war, continuing concentration of wealth, private prisons, surveillance state, corporate welfare, and new trade treaties. I'll continue to speak against them, to vote against them, and remind you what you voted for when you do, too.

Anticipated questions/objections:

Did Nader cost Gore the 2000 election?
No. Gore cost Gore the 2000 election. Also, the Supreme Court. Also, Clinton, whose Administration was more moderate Republican than progressive. Had Clinton/Gore been more progressive than NAFTA and DADT, we never get into the mess Bush left us. Had they been more progressive, Gore would have been able to steal Nader's thunder; he could have co-opted the message with credibility and won those voters over. He didn't try, and wouldn't have been credible if he had.

Don't I care Trump could win if I don't vote Hillary?
Of course I do. A Hillary Presidency would be better than a Trump, no doubt. But a Stein would be better than either. I'm voting the way I think people should vote, hoping they eventually will learn because I want change, a bold new direction, an end to Citizens United, and much more. I don't believe Hillary wants those things.




Friday, July 15, 2016

Turning Up Like a Bad Pence

cryptonaut-in-exile: Mike Pence, C-Street twat, blowing hard on the dog-whistle today.


For all the nods of assent the choice of Mike Pence for running mate by Donald Trump is receiving, it's worth recalling what the C-Street Republicans stand for, in addition to evangelical sex scandals. It's been a number of years since I've bothered paying attention to Pence (the leading link is from November, 2010,) not looking forward to listening to more of what he has to say.






Monday, March 14, 2016

Rainy DST Mondays Are Like



Pro Tip: if you only use DST, you don't have to remember if it's Daylight Savings or Daylight Saving Time. (The latter, BTW.)

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Before You Accuse Me ...

Sick to death of whinging, entitled Democrats insisting a vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is tantamount to supporting the GOP and their band of radical, theocratic, bigoted, plutocratic, authoritarian nutters, I started drafting this post to argue against that kind of strategic voting against my best interests. Then a string of tweets caught my eye and I decided to save time and just storify that, so you'll find that below.

Look, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the NC primary -- voted early, the primary is this coming Tuesday -- and there is no chance I will vote for a Republican in the general. However, I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I've had it with Wall Street-funded neo-liberal hawks being in charge; won't vote for another.

I get where the sentiment comes from. I voted for Obama, twice in the general (with great hope the first time) and I voted for Gore, Kerry, and Bill Clinton before that -- although I supported Jerry Brown in 1992. (In 1988, I wasn't old enough to vote to in the general, fell a few months shy, but I was for Dukakis once he sealed the nomination. Had been pulling for Jesse Jackson.) After Obama's first term, I was considering switching to Green and voting for Jill Stein, but ultimately played the game, thinking better Obama than Romney. Had tried to work out a vote swap arrangement where I'd pledge to vote Stein if a Republican leaning Romney would pledge to vote for the Libertarian candidate, but nobody took me up on the offer. Obama's second term was certainly less a disaster than a Romney one would have been, and I shudder to think how quickly Romney and the Senate would have shoved a Scalia clone down our throats, but I still regret not voting against drones, secrecy, and no end in site for the wars in the Middle East, not to mention our disgusting relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's been eating me up inside that, by voting for Obama, I undercut all my blogging about Saudi Arabia persecutes secular bloggers, and about Israel's apartheid state. I'm against them, but I voted for an administration that has done nothing I can see to try to change either. So, I've been part of the problem.

What I won't listen to are claims that my vote is, effectively, for Drumpf, or whoever the GOP end up nominating. Just as the premise that Nader supporters cost Gore the Presidency, and delivered us into the hands of Bush/Cheney was rubbish, the argument is still naff. Nader supporters aren't to blame for Bush. That's the fault of (among others)  Gore and Gore supporters not being persuasive enough on the progressive issues that Nader championed, which people actually cared about. After the next election, I'll be able to argue my positions with a clear conscience because I won't have voted for another neoliberal.



Thursday, March 3, 2016

And August Newspapers Said He Was Just Appealing To His Base ...



Blogged with IFTTT

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

GOP Establishment Strategy Docs



Blogged with IFTTT

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...