Trump Triumphs

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Detroit Blues said:

I didn't realize initially that the 2nd picture wasn't Ted Cruz. Hilarious though. Clearly Deadspin has no sense of humor. 

Guy called Grayson Allen who plays for Duke, perfect lookalike as well.

[leicsmac]

http://the-daily.buzz/a/badlands-national-parks-twitter-account-defied-gag-orders-to-inform-public?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_4da68020e31311e6a03c354c456e1db2

 

Not all heroes wear capes.

[leicsmac]

And to add to the above, an eloquent summation. The final paragraph, incidentally, would likely be only the beginning.

 

"Climate change is the only place a person needs to look to see that there is pretty much no hope for the Republican Party. It offers us the most representative microcosm of our completely broken democratic process. It is a problem to which there is a logical solution, supported by an almost unanimous consensus of the most intelligent experts in the world, experts who are relying on predictable, empirical science. Yet somehow, even when faced with the mountain of data that clearly lays out the problem and requisite course of action, people think they are entitled to their "beliefs." For this reason alone, we will all suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

Though we love to think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, at a certain point this becomes insanity. At a certain point, in regard to things like climate change, it becomes suicide to be tolerant of opposing beliefs for the simple fact that this is a thing that imperils the entire planet. It's like we're in a car heading off of a cliff, but instead of debating how we solve the problem of dying in a fiery crash –asking each other meaningful questions like do we slam on the brakes, will there be time to stop, should we just jump out and tuck and roll– we are arguing whether or not we are even in a moving vehicle.... It's infuriating.

The real tragedy in all of this is that the same folks who are arguing against mountains of scientific data also want their opinion heard on issues like gun control, income inequality, voting rights, or sending our troops to war. It begs the question that if they could be so obtuse, so devastatingly wrong, about something so blatantly obvious and scientifically verifiable, why should we listen to them when it comes to other matters of public policy? If these people would put profits before the environment, or an ecosystem so increasingly fragile, one without which the very existence of life on earth is threatened, how can they be trusted to make any other important decisions?

Many years from now, when the sea levels have risen, and the predictions of climate scientists have all come true, the sick irony will be that these people who ignored the warnings will not admit to their wrongness, nor will they apologize for their complete, abject stupidity. They will instead pat themselves on the back for ensuring everyone had guns with which to fight off the refugees from countries who couldn't survive the disastrous effects of climate inaction; the thousands of people from third world regions now submerged beneath 10 feet of water, or swept away in the most recent super-typhoon, who have arrived on our doorstep searching for food, shelter or fresh drinking water."

[Guest MattP]

Nice read in the Spectator from Douglas Murray regarding the protest, I think he's spot on now when it comes to us not having enough fascists to satisfy demand, it's certainly the case that it's undeniably poetic about the fact that in order to sustain the grandiloquent phoniness of our own time people are unwittingly reaching back to the most grandiloquent phoniness of earlier times.

 

At the risk of coming across all Holden Caulfield, this is a seriously phony age. Everywhere you look there are people objecting to things they think other people have said or would like them to have said. This past Sunday provided a fine example when in Washington and various other Western capitals some people decided that a fine response to the Trump administration is to pretend that it is ‘anti-women’ in some way.

Various politicians, Guardian journalists and others without lives walked around for a day tilting furiously at this imaginary enemy. Some took their daughters with them, as though it is a good idea to inebriate the next generation with the same cocktail of phantoms and lies. I have said many times that when it comes to fascism in the modern West there is a serious supply and demand problem: there aren’t enough fascists to meet the demand. Now relations between the sexes appear to be reaching a similar imbroglio. The women marching on Sunday behaved as though the new American President is going to legalise rape, or perhaps make rape compulsory. Their main – perhaps only – justification for this stance is one unarguably ugly tape recording of a private conversation which took place more than a decade ago. March against an ugly off-record boast from over a decade ago by all means, if you absolutely have nothing better to do. But why make out that the new President is going to ‘legitimise assault’ or ‘make rape ok’? Other than, that is, in order to get out all those ‘Get off my Bush’ placards from a decade ago that had such a very profound impact on the last Republican Presidency.

It caused me some amusement, I must say, to see that one co-chair of the American march at the weekend was Linda Sarsour – a young woman who I had the misfortune of meeting a couple of years ago. The fact she was involved and spoke speaks louder than her co-convenors could possibly know. For it is obvious from even a moment spent listening to Sarsour that for this self-styled ‘Palestinian-American activist’ the ‘American’ part is purest camouflage. Sarsour is a Palestinian activist who evidently loathes America. At any and every opportunity she attacks the country and defends its enemies. So she consistently presents investigations into Muslims on terror charges as an example of ‘Islamophobia’ among other inherent prejudices on the part of law enforcement. She would appear to be one of those people who wants to dismantle law and order as the type most of us enjoy in order to usher in a form of law of quite another kind. When people talk about Trump taking back women’s rights several decades it’s worth that the people doing the complaining are happy to be led by people like Sarsour.

 

Meanwhile at a protest in Germany some feminists decided to do the full ‘Allah Akbar’ business in a sort of open mic, freestyling way, presumably as some sort of display of intersectionality. Personally if I were a Muslim seeking to take offence nothing would be more likely to make me come across all choppy-choppy than a bunch of women waving vagina signs doing poor cover versions of the call to prayer.

Which brings me to WH Auden and Madonna. Like a radical feminist and the Muslim call to prayer, the two are not natural bedfellows. But lies and phoniness have a tendency to reach a confluence on occasion. When I watched Madonna’s speech I felt just such a happy confluence occur. All the public attention on her speech has centred on her claim that she had thought ‘an awful lot about blowing up the White House’. But what made my ears **** up was later in her speech when Madonna said ‘we cannot fall into despair’ and you just knew that a line from a poetry anthology was coming on. Sure enough Madonna went on to say, ‘As the poet WH Auden once wrote, on the eve of World War II, “We must love one another or die”.’ The crowd didn’t go as wild for the line as they did for her earlier repetitions of ‘F— you’. But once Madonna started declaring ‘I choose love’ the crowd got going. The Auden line allowed Madonna to ask the crowd if they were with her and then to join in shouts of ‘We choose love’.

I don’t know what WH Auden would have thought of Madonna. Like a lot of us he would probably have enjoyed some of the early stuff and thought she’d gone off rather from around the time of ‘Sticky Sweet’ on. But at least we now know what Madonna thinks about WH Auden, which is not very much. Because what anybody who cares about Auden would know is that the line Madonna quoted is the line of his that he hated most. It comes from, ‘September 1st, 1939’ – a poem he said he left England in order not to write again. For the rest of his lifetime he banned its inclusion in all collections of his work. Most of us think this is a little harsh, because portions of it – especially the final stanza – are deeply memorable and moving. But on the overall point the poet was right. The poem unarguably suffers from a sort of insincerity and indeed phoniness. Its portentousness has always appealed to a type of person who cites it in order to flatter themselves that they live in an era precisely akin to that in which Auden found himself in that dive on 52nd Street. But the build-up does not excuse the climax that Madonna ignorantly pillaged.

By Auden’s own admission, no line he ever wrote was more dishonest as well as almost meaningless as the one Madonna relayed. But as I say, these things have an almost happy tendency to cohere. Grandiloquent exaggerations were common enough in the 1930s. They are even more common – as well as infinitely less justifiable – today. But there is something undeniably poetic about the fact that in order to sustain the grandiloquent phoniness of our own time people are unwittingly reaching back to the most grandiloquent phoniness of earlier times.

 

 

[leicsmac]

If this writer believes the threat to be entirely illusory, then why hasn't there been action on this scale against such illusory threats before now?

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this writer believes the threat to be entirely illusory, then why hasn't there been action on this scale against such illusory threats before now?

I don't see how the more people who protest prove how real the threat is?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how the more people who protest prove how real the threat is?

Not exactly the point I was making.

 

I'm saying that if mass protests were based consistently in illusory threats then there would be a lot more of them, regardless of who was in power at the time.

 

Of course, this one could be an outlier, but in history when you've had organisation on this scale there's usually been some fire behind the smoke.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not exactly the point I was making.

 

I'm saying that if mass protests were based consistently in illusory threats then there would be a lot more of them, regardless of who was in power at the time.

 

Of course, this one could be an outlier, but in history when you've had organisation on this scale there's usually been some fire behind the smoke.

Not really, conservatives usually have jobs.

[Merging Cultures]

Not really, conservatives usually have jobs.

The matches were on a Saturday, I know a lot of people work on Saturdays but I'm willing to bet a lot more don't...

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not really, conservatives usually have jobs.

Ah, Schrodingers Economy.

 

Where the conservatives all have jobs they can't abandon to protest or to be there for an inauguration, but the immigrants have taken all the jobs, the factories are closed and the rust belt jobs are dying on their arse.

 

Got it.

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this writer believes the threat to be entirely illusory, then why hasn't there been action on this scale against such illusory threats before now?

There has, we've seen protests as big as this before. 

 

Did you watch the video I put up? Half of them genuinely seemed to think their vaginas are being stolen and rape was about to be legalised. If you spread enough bullshit around its not hard to get a few idiots on the streets.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Merging Cultures said:

The matches were on a Saturday, I know a lot of people work on Saturdays but I'm willing to bet a lot more don't...

 

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, Schrodingers Economy.

 

Where the conservatives all have jobs they can't abandon to protest or to be there for an inauguration, but the immigrants have taken all the jobs, the factories are closed and the rust belt jobs are dying on their arse.

 

Got it.

It was meant tongue in cheek.

 

I don't think the rust belt workers would describe themselves as conservatives.

 

It's a certain type of person that goes on protest marches as I said last week about an anti Trump protest in Derby, what's the point? What did they think they were achieving? Who were they trying to convince? It's posturing and attention seeking.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

 

It was meant tongue in cheek.

 

I don't think the rust belt workers would describe themselves as conservatives.

 

It's a certain type of person that goes on protest marches as I said last week about an anti Trump protest in Derby, what's the point? What did they think they were achieving? Who were they trying to convince? It's posturing and attention seeking.

What shocks me about the protestors is that they think this is doing them some good. It's serious echo chamber politics and a lot of them are so far in it now they can't see out let alone get out.

 

Whether they like it or not they'll need to win the votes of working class white males in Pennslyvania, Wisconsin and Ohio to win back the Whitehouse, that means getting jobs back to places like the rust belt rather than marching through the streets dressed as a vagina.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

There has, we've seen protests as big as this before. 

 

Did you watch the video I put up? Half of them genuinely seemed to think their vaginas are being stolen and rape was about to be legalised. If you spread enough bullshit around its not hard to get a few idiots on the streets.

And as I said above, most of those tended to have some truth behind them.

 

There were definitely some idiots about (as with any action of considerable size) and Mr Murray is free to dismiss the entire action as frivolous, but quite a few people believe that there are some genuine issues regarding this new administration that need a big, big light shining on them - ensuring the maintenance of womens rights being only one.

 

Just now, Webbo said:

 

It was meant tongue in cheek.

 

I don't think the rust belt workers would describe themselves as conservatives.

 

It's a certain type of person that goes on protest marches as I said last week about an anti Trump protest in Derby, what's the point? What did they think they were achieving? Who were they trying to convince? It's posturing and attention seeking.

I have my own doubts about the efficacy of mass protesting too (some of the time anyway) as the ballot box tends to be the place where you can best act for change, but if there's even a small chance of their voices being listened to then they have the right to take it.

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

What shocks me about the protestors is that they think this is doing them some good. It's serious echo chamber politics and a lot of them are so far in it now they can't see out let alone get out.

 

Whether they like it or not they'll need to win the votes of working class white males in Pennslyvania, Wisconsin and Ohio to win back the Whitehouse, that means getting jobs back to places like the rust belt rather than marching through the streets dressed as a vagina.

And that means a solid economic argument next time round. On that at least we agree.

 

That being said, getting out the black vote (or lack thereof) was also a key factor last time round.

[fuchsntf]

So.. Donny is going to build a wall.On the USA Mexico border...

 

If the Americans are as rescourcefull as they make out to be, and the rest of the world are clever enough.

They should organise a campaign to collect, all the plastic from the oceans, shores and tips..

Re-process it and harden it up, which is possible...Then we can create a need for undestructive waste.

Creates a financial platform.New businesses, obviously jobs world wide for 2-5 yrs at least.

which would then re-invest itself , because plastics can be re-converted into building materials

Improve the  catastrophies, caused by manmade materials...Wheres the green parties, and green peace,

when you need them.

 

A plastic solid wall to keep those bloody USA tourists, and landgrabbers out of Mexico!!!! .

Barbie and Ken, looking at you when crossing the border.Plus a free bag to do your duty free shopping.

I am too clever for this world...I must be an Alien. Common sense runs through my veins...

Scientists of this world should get together...

[fuchsntf]

So.. Donny is going to build a wall.On the USA Mexico border...

 

If the Americans are as rescourcefull as they make out to be, and the rest of the world are clever enough.

They should organise a campaign to collect, all the plastic from the oceans, shores and tips..

Re-process it and harden it up, which is possible...Then we can create a need for undestructive waste.

Creates a financial platform.New businesses, obviously jobs world wide for 2-5 yrs at least.

which would then re-invest itself , because plastics can be re-converted into building materials

Improve the  catastrophies, caused by manmade materials...Wheres the green parties, and green peace,

when you need them.

 

A plastic solid wall to keep those bloody USA tourists, and landgrabbers out of Mexico!!!! .

Barbie and Ken, looking at you when crossing the border.Plus a free bag to do your duty free shopping.

I am too clever for this world...I must be an Alien. Common sense runs through my vains...

Scientists of this world should get together...

 

Ps...Dragons Den here I come...

[Guest MattP]

The wall will be interesting, many said it was impossible, we'll soon find out.

 

Part of the reason so many political elites might be scared of a Trump presidency is he might actually be able to do things they claimed they couldn't, not only could they look hopelessly incompetent but it could lead to us asking far more from them.

[Carl the Llama]

52 minutes ago, MattP said:

The wall will be interesting, many said it was impossible, we'll soon find out.

 

Part of the reason so many political elites might be scared of a Trump presidency is he might actually be able to do things they claimed they couldn't, not only could they look hopelessly incompetent but it could lead to us asking far more from them.

Considering it's been confirmed he won't be building it along the entire border I guess we already have.

 

 

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/669?q={"search"%3A["Lieu"]}&r=1 

 

Let's hope this passes.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Considering it's been confirmed he won't be building it along the entire border I guess we already have.

 

 

 

 

Gotta love the Dutch.

[Barky]

Can't wait to see this wall. 50ft high, impenetrable and paid for by the Mexicans. My guess: 0/3, and the US will end up with a bill of about $30bn for a brutalist eye sore that doesn't achieve anything. 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Considering it's been confirmed he won't be building it along the entire border I guess we already have.

 

 

 

 

That's fantastic

[China Black]

Only in America, can a population be so dumb enough to elect a **** like Donald Trump!

[leicsmac]

Gag order on Dept of Agriculture lifted Public pressure can do something.

 

Now just needs the EPA to follow suit...

[Merging Cultures]

It was meant tongue in cheek.
 
I don't think the rust belt workers would describe themselves as conservatives.
 
It's a certain type of person that goes on protest marches as I said last week about an anti Trump protest in Derby, what's the point? What did they think they were achieving? Who were they trying to convince? It's posturing and attention seeking.

There was a Women's march here too. All the c white expats turned out, waved some banners, went home. Absolutely pointless. They were so self righteous about it too. We didn't go.