not good.
Getting rid of the Clintons was good, whatever else happens.
I with you, Tom; but yer barking
up a tree full of closet neocons.
Karma's a bitch, hippies.
Not sure how we'll get by without Victoria Nuland at State and the even-tempered Neera Tanden as chief of staff.
the options were between awful and god awful. to pretend otherwise is puerile. ill take the devil i know in this instance over an amoral, incurious charlatan and his ghoulish bland of zombies.
Clinton and her people treated voters with contempt and deserved to lose.
The amoral charlatan may well be a disaster but I thoroughly enjoyed his
--calling McCain a coward
--saying Bush didn't keep us safe
--saying the Iraq war was a mistake
--promising to jail Hillary and calling her a crook throughout the campaign
--saying the US can't afford bases all over the world
--taking a moderate tone vis a vis Russia
--making fun of Jeb
--welcoming Bernie supporters after the Clintons f*ed them over
--opposing trade deals
This was all highly refreshing compared to the Clintons' cautious triangulating mixed with reverse race baiting and insane Russia-goading.
Again, a more deserved loss is hard to imagine. And they didn't see it coming!
hey look, i get it. trump is a uniter not a divider. anyone that can heal the decade long rift between you and frank must be taken seriously as a statesmen and humanitarian. i look forward to your podcast.
Exactly. Rather than admit Hillary's negatives and note a few things Trump did right, her supporters got personal and negative, which is what you are doing here (equating me with a rude anonymous commenter) and what Bill did earlier in the year ("tell it to the Marines, Tom.") This was the Clinton camp MO and a big reason for her defeat. "Let them eat our contempt" is not an election-winner.
Bernie. the Greens, and angry Trump voters all got the same treatment from Clinton supporters.
I love you Dave.
But you already knew that.
And Tom, anyone who can claim to have "enjoyed Trump" is either a Texan
or a posthumanist or just totally fucking retarded. Did you take one too many theory pellets from the Levamisole Free Zizek Dispenser on Concourse 2B.
But I love you, too Tom.
I think I want to take back the closet neocon thing. Can I take it back? Did we have this convo once before?
And face it y'all; I'll be the first to get dragged off to the death camp to loud applause from all ideological precincts.
im all about admitting hillarys negatives, tom. i just dont think they outweigh his. opposing the trade deals, dialing back the russia aggression are things i can get behind. but i have zero confidence in his ability or desire to govern. get back to me when he appoints one person that will be a positive force for change.
With names like Christie, Giuliani, Dimon and Palin in the running, I'm sure it will be a horrorshow. But I feel the same way about Nuland/Kagan, Summers, Rubin, Podesta, and the rest of the Clinton ghoul camp. Better to have an enemy than a person who pretends to be my friend and tells me to keep quiet all the time for the sake of "unity."
Tom, tell it to the Mexicans. Easy to sit on your high horse when you haven't got much skin in the game so to speak. Frank, I appreciate your considering taking back the neocon tag.
Again, this is why Clinton lost -- abusing her critics. You don't defend her; you come after me for high horsiness or whatever. This is like calling people concerned about health and jobs a "basket of deplorables." Even after the election and Hillary's loss, you are still doing it.
Exactly, high horsiness. You are a privileged middle aged white guy with a lot less to lose. Tell the black family how it's no worse with Trump in office once he has appointed Giuliani the head of HUD or attorney general or whatever.
This is ad hominem argument, Steve. You don't convince people by calling them hypocrites and unqualified to speak. Also, you're implicitly saying I want Giuliani back in power. These kinds of debate tactics turned off voters.
And I agree that Trump is possibly preferable to Hillary in some major areas, but I can't understand you arguing with anyone for being more bummed out that he won. On a platform of nativism and bigotry.
You imply I want nativism and bigotry because I'm opposed to corruption and warmongering. That's not very fair! This is my point about the tone of Hillary supporters, generally. A Green vote means you get called a pale male pig (implicitly if not overtly) etc. And then Greens are supposed to be gentle as Hillary supporters cry and moan about the lost election.
Sorry Tom, but Steve calling you privileged middle aged white IS NOT an hominem argument. What, you watched one you tube video about ad hominem arguments? Calling you a smug middle age white prick is ad hominem, you smug prick. Steve is calling out the obvious advantage of your bias. That is not ad hominem. And besides: yer not funny. And to claim you know" why Clinton lost". That's some world class irony deficit disorder.
Me, you can call me anything you like: I love to fight and I just want attention until my gabapentin kicks in.
The important thing here is that Steve and Dave both called me by my name.
I am he.
I am sombody.
I am the Donald Trump of DMT.
Tom, I have no problem with you voting green, I have a problem with your smug attitude about it. You come across as so sure of yourself. Blogging has never brought out the best in you.
That's two more personal digs. I feel kind of like y'all wanted to rip into a Trump voter and I was available as a surrogate. I do feel very confident that Clinton was dirty and not worth all this energy and invective on your part. Sorry if that comes across as "smug."
Don't take it too personally. I like you in person.
Steve am I the same person on line and in person??
It was very personal. First Bill was griping about Bernie Bros on his Facebook feed and now you're calling me out as a "middle aged" bro (and bad writer). This is the Clinton playbook. Pay no attention to that Foundation over there -- look, a privileged dude. The tactic worked all the way to a lost election.
Always play the victim Tom.
Being a middle aged white guy and bad writer myself I think it's fair to hit you in those areas.
Your first comment basically says to hell with the well founded fears of millions of mexicans, muslims, momen, lgbt folks, jews, disabled people...It's good that Hillary is gone no matter what else happens.
Yes, Mike, the same. Very personalbe.
And I don't imply that you "want nativism and bigotry." I'm saying your argument isn't taking those factors into account.
Let's add "always plays the victim" to the list of digs! Keep 'em coming, guys!
Steve, you altered my statement from "Getting rid of the Clintons was good, whatever else happens" to "to hell with the well founded fears of millions of mexicans, muslims, momen, lgbt folks, jews, disabled people...It's good that Hillary is gone no matter what else happens." My comment is still up at the top of the page, for comparison.
As for the fears of the above-mentioned people, many stayed home or voted third party.
Since you won't listen to me, here's Carl Beijer:
"As it turns out, one reason we heard little about black and Latino confidence in Clinton is that she lost 5% of the former and 6% of the latter from 2012. Even during the primaries it was clear to me that Clinton was already having trouble turning out black voters, and that this reflected a whole range of serious, underlying problems:
[blockquote]
Black Americans...report little faith in the government in general: a majority (58%) say that "the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves" (21% report not sure); a majority (52%) say that "most of the time" special interests are "able to get what they want by contributing money to political campaigns" (22% report not sure); and a majority (57%) report that politicians "lie to get elected" (6% report not sure). Moreover, Pew reports that only 41% of black Americans believe "that voting gives people some say in how government runs things and that ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington"
[/blockquote]"
I told a friend about this conversation and he recommended this clip;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hP6nOB1dc
As long as we're getting personal, might as well go full psycho.
To those well-founded fears, let's add the well-funded hopes of Monsanto. A filmmaker I know went to a conference where Clinton was present and spoke briefly at the beginning. She started her remarks by saying everyone should give a big thank-you to Monsanto. He couldn't believe how brazen it was.
Tom is right and right on now that Bill is tweaked.
This shit is so awesome; dig in Tom.
Scalps and dogtags for President Custer.
American Psycho nails it.
Infinite Jest nails it.
Can I take back the take back in Bill's case.
Cull these Tories, Tom.
Whitey done tossed a molatov.
Bernie Sanders: Where The Democrats Go From Here (NY Times)
Jonathan Pie: President Trump How and Why... (You Tube)
FUCK THIS GAY EARTH AND
MAKE AMERICA RAPE AGAIN
Water is life but gasoline tastes better.
Bernie Bros.
Seriously, Bill.
On Facebook.
You suck truly.
You started this shit show a decade ago and it turns out
YOU ARE a state of the art
ASS MAGGOT.
On a real note: My kid went to a Bernie rally in Billings. Bernie had just come from Pine Ridge. Pine Ridge. Hotchkiss Guns for Hillary Pine Ridge. Following the coal trains to Pt Washington, as it were.
He told me: Dad, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, Trump will win.
And the DNC is doing everything they can to make sure Bernie fails.
Jim is right: The internet broke long ago.
sticks and stones baby
Bill slipped the Bernie Bro smear-term into this reasonable-sounding comment from February. He asked rhetorically if Bernie supporters would support Clinton, in a kind of leading way that assumes the answers. It is an argument for "strategic voting." That didn't work out so well.
>>Most of the political noise in my FB news feed is pro Bernie as i would expect since most of my friends and the people I follow are pro Bernie. Last week some of the media characterized some of the more negative personal smear rhetoric as Bernie-bro activity. I'm familiar with HRC negativity and it can often get pretty nasty. It's offered as self evident. She is any easy mark and in comparison Bernie is Mr. Clean by most standards. I still think HRC will receive the nomination and I wonder if the Bernie followers will be able to change gears and make the compromise most HRC followers have already made. Q: Will the Bernie followers "refuse to vote the lesser of two evils" Will they "insist on voting our conscience for what we believe." Because even if they "lose and lose badly we retain our integrity." Or will they vote strategic?
Tom, I interpreted the part of your comment "whatever else happens" to be dismissive of any harm that may come from Trump's presidency. I guess I misread it.
And I'm sorry for attacking you personally.
Thanks, I appreciate it. As I see it we had two big problems, Clinton and Trump. One is now out of the way (hopefully forever, please God) and we can concentrate on on the other! "We," meaning the people who prefer not to have Monsanto et al running the earth. "Concentrate" also includes noting when the Enemy gets it right, such as with Trump's statements on trade and defense. As for smugness and blogging, first drafts can come off as smug because I'm PO'd. I try to go back and rewrite (noting edits). Online convos are hard.
|
not good.
- dave 11-08-2016 9:44 pm
Getting rid of the Clintons was good, whatever else happens.
- tom moody 11-09-2016 9:40 am
I with you, Tom; but yer barking
up a tree full of closet neocons.
Karma's a bitch, hippies.
- anonymous (guest) 11-10-2016 12:29 am
Not sure how we'll get by without Victoria Nuland at State and the even-tempered Neera Tanden as chief of staff.
- tom moody 11-10-2016 10:22 pm
the options were between awful and god awful. to pretend otherwise is puerile. ill take the devil i know in this instance over an amoral, incurious charlatan and his ghoulish bland of zombies.
- dave 11-10-2016 11:35 pm
Clinton and her people treated voters with contempt and deserved to lose.
The amoral charlatan may well be a disaster but I thoroughly enjoyed his
--calling McCain a coward
--saying Bush didn't keep us safe
--saying the Iraq war was a mistake
--promising to jail Hillary and calling her a crook throughout the campaign
--saying the US can't afford bases all over the world
--taking a moderate tone vis a vis Russia
--making fun of Jeb
--welcoming Bernie supporters after the Clintons f*ed them over
--opposing trade deals
This was all highly refreshing compared to the Clintons' cautious triangulating mixed with reverse race baiting and insane Russia-goading.
Again, a more deserved loss is hard to imagine. And they didn't see it coming!
- tom moody 11-11-2016 12:00 am
hey look, i get it. trump is a uniter not a divider. anyone that can heal the decade long rift between you and frank must be taken seriously as a statesmen and humanitarian. i look forward to your podcast.
- dave 11-11-2016 12:30 am
Exactly. Rather than admit Hillary's negatives and note a few things Trump did right, her supporters got personal and negative, which is what you are doing here (equating me with a rude anonymous commenter) and what Bill did earlier in the year ("tell it to the Marines, Tom.") This was the Clinton camp MO and a big reason for her defeat. "Let them eat our contempt" is not an election-winner.
Bernie. the Greens, and angry Trump voters all got the same treatment from Clinton supporters.
- tom moody 11-11-2016 7:03 am
I love you Dave.
But you already knew that.
And Tom, anyone who can claim to have "enjoyed Trump" is either a Texan
or a posthumanist or just totally fucking retarded. Did you take one too many theory pellets from the Levamisole Free Zizek Dispenser on Concourse 2B.
But I love you, too Tom.
I think I want to take back the closet neocon thing. Can I take it back? Did we have this convo once before?
And face it y'all; I'll be the first to get dragged off to the death camp to loud applause from all ideological precincts.
- Anonymous (guest) 11-11-2016 12:16 pm
im all about admitting hillarys negatives, tom. i just dont think they outweigh his. opposing the trade deals, dialing back the russia aggression are things i can get behind. but i have zero confidence in his ability or desire to govern. get back to me when he appoints one person that will be a positive force for change.
- dave 11-11-2016 12:52 pm
With names like Christie, Giuliani, Dimon and Palin in the running, I'm sure it will be a horrorshow. But I feel the same way about Nuland/Kagan, Summers, Rubin, Podesta, and the rest of the Clinton ghoul camp. Better to have an enemy than a person who pretends to be my friend and tells me to keep quiet all the time for the sake of "unity."
- tom moody 11-11-2016 1:04 pm
Tom, tell it to the Mexicans. Easy to sit on your high horse when you haven't got much skin in the game so to speak. Frank, I appreciate your considering taking back the neocon tag.
- steve 11-11-2016 3:21 pm
Again, this is why Clinton lost -- abusing her critics. You don't defend her; you come after me for high horsiness or whatever. This is like calling people concerned about health and jobs a "basket of deplorables." Even after the election and Hillary's loss, you are still doing it.
- tom moody 11-11-2016 5:50 pm
Exactly, high horsiness. You are a privileged middle aged white guy with a lot less to lose. Tell the black family how it's no worse with Trump in office once he has appointed Giuliani the head of HUD or attorney general or whatever.
- steve 11-11-2016 6:46 pm
This is ad hominem argument, Steve. You don't convince people by calling them hypocrites and unqualified to speak. Also, you're implicitly saying I want Giuliani back in power. These kinds of debate tactics turned off voters.
- tom moody 11-11-2016 6:59 pm
And I agree that Trump is possibly preferable to Hillary in some major areas, but I can't understand you arguing with anyone for being more bummed out that he won. On a platform of nativism and bigotry.
- steve 11-11-2016 7:00 pm
You imply I want nativism and bigotry because I'm opposed to corruption and warmongering. That's not very fair! This is my point about the tone of Hillary supporters, generally. A Green vote means you get called a pale male pig (implicitly if not overtly) etc. And then Greens are supposed to be gentle as Hillary supporters cry and moan about the lost election.
- tom moody 11-11-2016 7:11 pm
Sorry Tom, but Steve calling you privileged middle aged white IS NOT an hominem argument. What, you watched one you tube video about ad hominem arguments? Calling you a smug middle age white prick is ad hominem, you smug prick. Steve is calling out the obvious advantage of your bias. That is not ad hominem. And besides: yer not funny. And to claim you know" why Clinton lost". That's some world class irony deficit disorder.
Me, you can call me anything you like: I love to fight and I just want attention until my gabapentin kicks in.
The important thing here is that Steve and Dave both called me by my name.
I am he.
I am sombody.
I am the Donald Trump of DMT.
- anonymous (guest) 11-11-2016 7:56 pm
Tom, I have no problem with you voting green, I have a problem with your smug attitude about it. You come across as so sure of yourself. Blogging has never brought out the best in you.
- steve 11-11-2016 11:09 pm
That's two more personal digs. I feel kind of like y'all wanted to rip into a Trump voter and I was available as a surrogate. I do feel very confident that Clinton was dirty and not worth all this energy and invective on your part. Sorry if that comes across as "smug."
- tom moody 11-11-2016 11:23 pm
Don't take it too personally. I like you in person.
- steve 11-11-2016 11:44 pm
Steve am I the same person on line and in person??
- Skinny 11-12-2016 12:31 am
It was very personal. First Bill was griping about Bernie Bros on his Facebook feed and now you're calling me out as a "middle aged" bro (and bad writer). This is the Clinton playbook. Pay no attention to that Foundation over there -- look, a privileged dude. The tactic worked all the way to a lost election.
- tom moody 11-12-2016 6:17 am
Always play the victim Tom.
- bill 11-12-2016 7:10 am
Being a middle aged white guy and bad writer myself I think it's fair to hit you in those areas. Your first comment basically says to hell with the well founded fears of millions of mexicans, muslims, momen, lgbt folks, jews, disabled people...It's good that Hillary is gone no matter what else happens.
- steve 11-12-2016 8:18 am
Yes, Mike, the same. Very personalbe.
- steve 11-12-2016 8:21 am
And I don't imply that you "want nativism and bigotry." I'm saying your argument isn't taking those factors into account.
- steve 11-12-2016 8:25 am
Let's add "always plays the victim" to the list of digs! Keep 'em coming, guys!
Steve, you altered my statement from "Getting rid of the Clintons was good, whatever else happens" to "to hell with the well founded fears of millions of mexicans, muslims, momen, lgbt folks, jews, disabled people...It's good that Hillary is gone no matter what else happens." My comment is still up at the top of the page, for comparison.
As for the fears of the above-mentioned people, many stayed home or voted third party.
Since you won't listen to me, here's Carl Beijer:
"As it turns out, one reason we heard little about black and Latino confidence in Clinton is that she lost 5% of the former and 6% of the latter from 2012. Even during the primaries it was clear to me that Clinton was already having trouble turning out black voters, and that this reflected a whole range of serious, underlying problems:
[blockquote]
Black Americans...report little faith in the government in general: a majority (58%) say that "the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves" (21% report not sure); a majority (52%) say that "most of the time" special interests are "able to get what they want by contributing money to political campaigns" (22% report not sure); and a majority (57%) report that politicians "lie to get elected" (6% report not sure). Moreover, Pew reports that only 41% of black Americans believe "that voting gives people some say in how government runs things and that ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington"
[/blockquote]"
- tom moody 11-12-2016 10:02 am
I told a friend about this conversation and he recommended this clip;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hP6nOB1dc
As long as we're getting personal, might as well go full psycho.
- tom moody 11-12-2016 10:36 am
To those well-founded fears, let's add the well-funded hopes of Monsanto. A filmmaker I know went to a conference where Clinton was present and spoke briefly at the beginning. She started her remarks by saying everyone should give a big thank-you to Monsanto. He couldn't believe how brazen it was.
- tom moody 11-12-2016 11:10 am
Tom is right and right on now that Bill is tweaked.
This shit is so awesome; dig in Tom.
Scalps and dogtags for President Custer.
American Psycho nails it.
Infinite Jest nails it.
Can I take back the take back in Bill's case.
Cull these Tories, Tom.
Whitey done tossed a molatov.
Bernie Sanders: Where The Democrats Go From Here (NY Times)
Jonathan Pie: President Trump How and Why... (You Tube)
FUCK THIS GAY EARTH AND
MAKE AMERICA RAPE AGAIN
Water is life but gasoline tastes better.
- Notes of Toluene (guest) 11-12-2016 11:42 am
Bernie Bros.
Seriously, Bill.
On Facebook.
You suck truly.
You started this shit show a decade ago and it turns out
YOU ARE a state of the art
ASS MAGGOT.
On a real note: My kid went to a Bernie rally in Billings. Bernie had just come from Pine Ridge. Pine Ridge. Hotchkiss Guns for Hillary Pine Ridge. Following the coal trains to Pt Washington, as it were.
He told me: Dad, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, Trump will win.
And the DNC is doing everything they can to make sure Bernie fails.
Jim is right: The internet broke long ago.
- Frank (guest) 11-12-2016 1:01 pm
sticks and stones baby
- bill 11-12-2016 2:31 pm
Bill slipped the Bernie Bro smear-term into this reasonable-sounding comment from February. He asked rhetorically if Bernie supporters would support Clinton, in a kind of leading way that assumes the answers. It is an argument for "strategic voting." That didn't work out so well.
>>Most of the political noise in my FB news feed is pro Bernie as i would expect since most of my friends and the people I follow are pro Bernie. Last week some of the media characterized some of the more negative personal smear rhetoric as Bernie-bro activity. I'm familiar with HRC negativity and it can often get pretty nasty. It's offered as self evident. She is any easy mark and in comparison Bernie is Mr. Clean by most standards. I still think HRC will receive the nomination and I wonder if the Bernie followers will be able to change gears and make the compromise most HRC followers have already made. Q: Will the Bernie followers "refuse to vote the lesser of two evils" Will they "insist on voting our conscience for what we believe." Because even if they "lose and lose badly we retain our integrity." Or will they vote strategic?
- tom moody 11-12-2016 2:35 pm
Tom, I interpreted the part of your comment "whatever else happens" to be dismissive of any harm that may come from Trump's presidency. I guess I misread it. And I'm sorry for attacking you personally.
- steve 11-13-2016 12:17 am
Thanks, I appreciate it. As I see it we had two big problems, Clinton and Trump. One is now out of the way (hopefully forever, please God) and we can concentrate on on the other! "We," meaning the people who prefer not to have Monsanto et al running the earth. "Concentrate" also includes noting when the Enemy gets it right, such as with Trump's statements on trade and defense. As for smugness and blogging, first drafts can come off as smug because I'm PO'd. I try to go back and rewrite (noting edits). Online convos are hard.
- tom moody 11-13-2016 5:55 am