● Liberals in California want to impose a single payer health system on the state. To give you a sense of how stupid this is, consider this statement from Modesto Republican Tom Berryhill:
“If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”Even socialist, wealthy Vermont couldn't pull this turkey off. But believe it or not, I'm all in favorite of it. Why? Because I like watching liberals sh*t the bed. Moreover, it would be good for the rest of us to have a nice little beacon of disaster to point to when the idiots in our own states try to do the same thing.
● Beyond that, Maxine Waters and her posse want to impeach Trump. I'm all for that too. It won't go anywhere but it will once again highlight just how obsessed and messed up the Democrats are. That could help a good deal with the midterm elections.
● There was apparently something called the "March for Truth." This was a group of anti-Trump types who held rallies in a handful of cities demanding blah blah blah truth! This was so ineffective that it was even ignored by leftist news cites. Yahoo didn't even mention it until two days later and then in one tiny article down the page. It sounds like the left has lost its energy. It also sounds like after making "truth" and more specifically "trutherism" into such a bad thing, a march for "truth" probably won't provide the best optics. Neither will the signs with the four letter words. Keep marching, idiots.
20 comments:
Dems, paraphrasing one of my favorite early INXS songs, just keep talking.
1. That is insane and it will do incredible damage. Hopefully it will keep other states from following the same path.
2. That is just the way the game is played. The fringe always wants to see the other parties guy in legal if not physical jeopardy. Remember, throughout his campaign Trump had vowed to throw Hillary in jail if he won.
Political leaders love to blow smoke up the ass of their fringe ('I had absolute power I would give you everything you ever wanted and then the world would be perfect and we would hold power everlasting!') but to an extent they always walk that stuff back when actually in power. Of course, the promises are getting crazier and the walks back are getting shorter as time goes on.
3. The marches didn't get much coverage, but their reason or existence (the Trump Putin bromance) did due both to the upcoming Comey testimony and Putin offering up a bunch of unlikely theories (Russian patriot hackers whom the government has no control over, the same CIA who killed Kennedy framing Russia :) ).
Like I've said before, I don't doubt Putin put his thumb on the scale, but Hillary was dumb enough to negligently handle classified info (which is like leaving a pile of money on your lawn then whining when someone takes it) so I blame Hillary far more than Putin.
Along those lines, I see no reason why Trump and Putin would collude. The risks are too high and the payoff is too minimal. I just think they honestly admire each other (Trump and Putin are both revered by the right leaning fringe).
1. The only thing more pernicious than leftist stupidity is their creativity in blaming the right for their dumb ideas. Katrina certainly didn't teach anybody anything. All Dems have to do is get it to chug along a few years and they'll call it a success. Berryhill will probably be the first to get blamed when CaliCare inevitably fails because he didn't believe in it hard enough.
2. I have to laugh each time I see a headline touting a poll that says the majority want to impeach Trump. Conspicuously, glaringly absent is the question, "For What?" Perhaps the Dems will poll that next. Should Trump be impeached for (a) muh Russia, (b) muh Muslim Ban, or (c) cuz he's a dum-dum no good icky stoopid poopy head.
3. The failure of protest marches to affect anything is burning them out. Trump is thoroughly ignoring them the way Democrat presidents ignore protesters. The difference is, there aren't usually cameras on protests against Dems. Plus these marches are getting fringier and unsuitable for prime time. Imagine protest footage where every sign is blurred out!
3a. There's a series of expressions, I don't know what was the first, constructed X recognizes X. (A more sophisticated "takes one to know one.") Trump and Putin have a lot in common. But the idea that this necessitates a bromance is an artifact of contemporary media's obsession with homoeroticism. Trump and Putin trade more backhanded compliments than in-laws at a thanksgiving dinner. The reason Trump's other rivals don't receive such faint praise is because so few are even praiseworthy.
tryanmax, I think polling has become unhinged from reality, so I stopped paying attention to polls a long time ago. At this point, they are nothing but tools to find the opinion the pollster wants.
Anthony, I don't think the California democrats are actually serious. What they've done is argue over this bill and then pass it by a wide margin, but it has zero funding mechanism in it. Basically, it's a consequence free vote for them at this point.
Then they will find some "unexpected" reason why they can't get an actual budget estimate and vote on the thing. Must have been evil Republicans standing in the way.
If I were the GOP head, I would announce -- "We recognize that this is a long-held Democratic idea they want and we're not going to stand in the way of it. They are free to pass single payer health without any interference from our side."
Then watch the Democrats implode.
tryanmax, I agree. I think the failed protests are wearing them out. They get together, act like assh*les, and then wonder why their efforts evaporate before they even get back to their drug dens.
The new idea on Putin is that it wasn't Putin in charge, it was Trump. The Democrats are now party line whining, "But who told the Russians how to manipulate Americans? That kind of sorcery can only come from an American... hint hint TRUMP!"
Tryanmax,
Trump has the same adoration of Putin a lot if the alt right does (he spent years bragging about a meeting between them that never happened and has drawn moral equivalence between Putin and America as a country).
Like I said before, I think it is honest admiration rather than the result of a secret alliance. Guys who made a secret alliance wouldn't be so publicly enthusiastic about each other.
Last and probably least, the term bromance is nonsexual last I heard.
Anthony, we'll just have to disagree on whether Trump "adores" Putin. You're certainly more sure of it than the alt-right is, at the moment. I do, however, agree that the two have rivalrous admiration for one another. I think that's a good thing.
I submit that bromance is a quasi-sexual term stemming from the same cultural influences that read homosexual subtexts into everything from Lincoln's correspondences to the Old Testament. If anything, it's a reactionary term that reaffirms nonsexual male friendships against a culture that would read them as gay.
My take on Trump & Putin is this...
I don't think Trump has it in him to view any other person with love, fondness or respect. He is all about self-love and only cares how other people can improve the way he looks to the public. So the idea that Trump is a fan of Putin, I think is wrong.
I think the reason Trump has flirted with Putin is that Trump modeled himself on the conservative movement of the past ten-ish years. And that movement has fallen in love with Putin for some very bad reasons: (1) he's killin' A-rabs when nobody else will!, (2) he hates them gays, (3) he's givin' Obama problems! (4) (neocons) we could use Russia as a counterweight to Iran and China! and (5) (crony capitalist wing) Russia had resources!!
But now that he's won the office, he realizes that Putin is a turd and he has ended his flirting with him.
Bromance is definitely a quasi-sexual term. I think it is used endearingly when the two targets are people the left finds exciting:
Use: "Matt Damon and George Clooney have such a wonderful bromance."
Translation: I have a man-crush on Matt Damon and George Clooney and seeing them hanging out like best friends makes me jealous and I wish I could be with them.
But it is also used derogatorily by the same people:
Use: Trump and Kushner's bromance for each other...
Translation: I despise Trump and Kushner and I want to imply that their working relationship is improper so I will imply contempt for homosexuality into their relationship, but I know I can't get away with the term "butt buddies" anymore, so I will use bromance instead.
I concur, of course, but even fairly "bright" liberals don't really get it. Katrina Vanden Heuvel on ABS correctly called out libs for being obsessed with Russia stating it distracts from his mean tax policy, citing the old "tax cuts for the wealthy" and deregulating the economy to favor business She goes on to say they need to focus on creating jobs, completing missing the point that those two things are precisely what is necessary to create a vibrant economy and jobs. Just crazy .....
ABC news not ABS
In depth discussion on the meaning of "bromance" is what I love about commentarama.
I'll also add to said discussion by pointing out that the left disparages Trump and Putin with drawings of the two men kissing.
Jed, Liberalism seems to be an ideology created from "I feel like..." type thoughts without any consideration of cause and effect, personality differences, or human nature. It has adopted some specific points, which have become dogma -- business is evil, white men are always the bad guys, everyone should have a right to ___.
It ultimately just doesn't work... but they don't care because it's about feeling better.
tryanmax, I enjoy our conversations very much. There is a lot of thought in those and the topics are usually quite interesting.
It's interesting to me that leftists almost always go for some sort of gay slur when they want to insult people they don't like. Yet, we're told that there's nothing wrong with being gay and it's wrong to use gayness as a slur.
Andrew,
Trump may love only himself, but his ego makes him vulnerable to flattery. Putin has avoided personally insulting Trump and vice versa so clearly Trump still views Putin favorably (Trump has said harsher things about American soldiers who get captured during wars than Vladimir Putin).
I never thought much would come of their mutual admiration because American leaders who seek to reconcile with Putin (nods towards Bush and Obama) are always disappointed. One can't reach an accommodation with Putin because he heads a country in decline which desperately needs to blame someone, and the US is the favorite target of losers around the globe.
While Putin-Trump's mutual admiration doesn't really change the big stuff (Russia still plays the little games it always plays with the American military, it still murders dissidents and threatens neighbors) it does manifest in small, mostly symbolic ways.
For example Trump is jailing (rightly) a functionary who took it upon herself to leak classified info about Russia trying to hack US elections to the media, and simultaneously returning to Russia property that had been confiscated because of the hacking attempt.
Out of curiosity, at what point do you maintain that Trump turned on Putin and what do you think prompted the shift?
Post a Comment