Also someone got reamed out at the national parks yesterday because they tweeted an apology for retweeting shots of his sparsely attended inauguration and said it'll never happen again. How long until he starts airbrushing people out of photos?
Corey Lewandowski got turned away from the inaguration, even after presenting ID.
The inner circle seems to be in a race to Trotsky each other.
I have to wonder if someone out there has written a thesis on the intersection of celebrity and the American right. Being a celebrity is like the worst slur you can lay on someone besides liberal. Does it all go back to Jane Fonda? Somehow Trump isn't a celebrity in this schema, even though he's a famous person being vocal about politics.
I have to wonder if someone out there has written a thesis on the intersection of celebrity and the American right. Being a celebrity is like the worst slur you can lay on someone besides liberal. Does it all go back to Jane Fonda? Somehow Trump isn't a celebrity in this schema, even though he's a famous person being vocal about politics.
It goes way farther than Jane Fonda. Remember, McCarthyism heavily targeted celebrities, and gave rise to the Hollywood Blacklist. I mean, it wasn't new then, either, but this was decades before Jane Fonda did anything worth getting conservative panties bunched. There are examples all the way back into the middle ages of authors or playwrights being targeted for using their popularity to act beyond their station.
Protest marches always turn out a significantly lower number than estimated, especially today when it's so much easier to RSVP over the internet. So, yeah, about 650,000 showed up the other day (plus all the other national and even global marches), but they did expect even more. The March for Life expects 650,000, they're likely going to see about 250-350,000, (which is STILL more than turned up for the inauguration).
50% of expected is pretty good - the women's march managed a bit over that, but all the anti-Obama marches in 2009 ran in the 10-30% turnout range (and the "trucker blockade" had about three show up out of several thousand RSVPs).
Eh? My understanding is they expected about 200k to actually show up.
Yeah, what I got from watching the news is that every single city had significantly more turnout than expected.
People had a hard time getting to the very stages they were to speak on because of the crowds and the viability of the marching element of so many of the events had to be accessed because there were so many people.
I have to wonder if someone out there has written a thesis on the intersection of celebrity and the American right. Being a celebrity is like the worst slur you can lay on someone besides liberal. Does it all go back to Jane Fonda? Somehow Trump isn't a celebrity in this schema, even though he's a famous person being vocal about politics.
It doesn't count when they agree with them.
The Republicans will happily parade a celebrity around on stage if they happen to be a Republican that sees eye to eye with the base.
They would have, and did, snub Donald back when he was agreeing with Democrats.
They snubbed him in the beginning of his nomination as well.
But since he's their meal ticket, he's the bestest Republican that's ever lived, and they have no issues with him.
At least until they do, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later, but not going to hold my breath.
I have to wonder if someone out there has written a thesis on the intersection of celebrity and the American right. Being a celebrity is like the worst slur you can lay on someone besides liberal. Does it all go back to Jane Fonda? Somehow Trump isn't a celebrity in this schema, even though he's a famous person being vocal about politics.
Art, like science, is a natural enemy of conservatism. They both require free and open thought that's willing to challenge standing orthodoxy. Both groups have long been targeted by oppressive regimes, though art has increasingly bore this burden as people have come to recognize the immediate importance of science and technology to survival.
The military is pretty reliant on the chain of command functioning all the way down without questioning orders. It's an important rule because it keeps our soldiers alive, but training and expediency don't leave a lot of room for critical thinking.
We fetishize the moral individual breaking the chain of command because an order is Bad and Wrong, but that doesn't really happen. It's easy when we're outside looking in to criticize soldiers for doing evil things, but you have to also remember that the soldiers executing commands operate with limited information. They're told as much as command wants to tell them, and that's it.
(Note that I draw a distinction between following orders in a combat situation and, say, administering "enhanced interrogation techniques" to prisoners of war.)
Ehhhhh don't wholly agree. I've seen people disobey unlawful orders and done it myself. Don't get me wrong, I've followed orders I felt weren't 100% okay in the heat of the moment. But far more often (at least with sailors) I've seen people tell someone "No, we can't do that."
I do agree it's not easy to do.
That's fair. I've never been in the military so this knowledge is based talking to people who have and reading stuff. I'm glad to hear it's more common then I thought.
Kellyann in Meet the Press this morning and is as frustrating to listen to as always. But Chuck Tood showing the slightest evidence of a spine and challenging her directly when she doesn't answer the question.
An exchange that i found very telling of future plans of the Trump WH was after Todd kept asking why Spicer was sent out to repeat a probable falsehood yesterday and Conway responded by saying that he was just presenting "alternate facts" and she also said that if Chuck was going to think of the press secretary that way, the Trump WH might have to reevaluate their openness with the media.
+17
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I have to wonder if someone out there has written a thesis on the intersection of celebrity and the American right. Being a celebrity is like the worst slur you can lay on someone besides liberal. Does it all go back to Jane Fonda? Somehow Trump isn't a celebrity in this schema, even though he's a famous person being vocal about politics.
If it's someone you don't agree with, it's a celebrity who should keep her (because it's usually directed at women) mouth shut because she's out of touch. If it's someone you agree with, he's an outsider with a fresh perspective.
Nevermind that Donald Trump was doing Kim Kardashian before Kim Kardashian was born and was the host of a ridiculous reality show for nearly a decade.
I can't imagine what would cause his base to turn against him when they still support after all the completely vile shit he has already said and done.
As I said in an earlier post, it's going to be if (hoping when) Trump becomes so toxic to their party that they need to knife him in the back so they can smile and wave to the crowd about how patriotic they are about putting the needs of the country above their own party and getting rid of him.
So they can go back and keep trying to do all the things they have been trying to do, just without the giant spotlight being shone on Trump also illuminating their own work.
Kellyann in Meet the Press this morning and is as frustrating to listen to as always. But Chuck Tood showing the slightest evidence of a spine and challenging her directly when she doesn't answer the question.
An exchange that i found very telling of future plans of the Trump WH was after Todd kept asking why Spicer was sent out to repeat a probable falsehood yesterday and Conway responded by saying that he was just presenting "alternate facts" and she also said that if Chuck was going to think of the press secretary that way, the Trump WH might have to reevaluate their openness with the media.
Kellyann in Meet the Press this morning and is as frustrating to listen to as always. But Chuck Tood showing the slightest evidence of a spine and challenging her directly when she doesn't answer the question.
An exchange that i found very telling of future plans of the Trump WH was after Todd kept asking why Spicer was sent out to repeat a probable falsehood yesterday and Conway responded by saying that he was just presenting "alternate facts" and she also said that if Chuck was going to think of the press secretary that way, the Trump WH might have to reevaluate their openness with the media.
Which is the worst possible play for an already unpopular administration, but they refuse to let common sense get in the way of pettiness and vindictiveness. Even if you believe the narrative that this is all deliberate and part of Bannon's plan to further alienate Trump supporters from reality they're still doing it wrong.
It's like they know how terrible of a play this is but they can't bring themselves to back down because they're already in so deep.
McCain Will Vote Yes on Trump's Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson
"Listen, this wasn't an easy call. But I also believe that when there's doubt the president, the incoming president, gets the benefit of the doubt, and that's the way I've treated every president that I've had the obligation to vote for or against as a member of the United States Senate."
What a load of cowardly bull. Exactly what I would expect from McCain.
Kellyann in Meet the Press this morning and is as frustrating to listen to as always. But Chuck Tood showing the slightest evidence of a spine and challenging her directly when she doesn't answer the question.
An exchange that i found very telling of future plans of the Trump WH was after Todd kept asking why Spicer was sent out to repeat a probable falsehood yesterday and Conway responded by saying that he was just presenting "alternate facts" and she also said that if Chuck was going to think of the press secretary that way, the Trump WH might have to reevaluate their openness with the media.
I though Seth Meyers did a really good job of handling Conway in the interview he did last week. Of course, he's a comedian so he's got a more robust toolset available for calling out bullshit.
I wonder what the odds are of a surprising amount of bombing missions suffering targeting issues if the Trump admin tries to order ignoring civilians around target sites?
There's a pretty big difference between hitting a hostile target and finding out later there were civilian casualties, and being told to deliberately and intentionally drop bombs which will definitely kill civilians.
The odds are low. Knowledge of civilian casualties didn't stop the US military in Indochina or Korea or Dresden or Tokyo. They'll "just follow orders."
edit - There would probably be exceptions who would refuse to commit especially indiscriminate acts of slaughter, but if so those will be exceptions, not the rule
Most military service members are blood thirsty war criminals just waiting to commit slaughter upon non combatants?
How flattering.
No, I just think most military service members follow their orders.
I wonder what the odds are of a surprising amount of bombing missions suffering targeting issues if the Trump admin tries to order ignoring civilians around target sites?
There's a pretty big difference between hitting a hostile target and finding out later there were civilian casualties, and being told to deliberately and intentionally drop bombs which will definitely kill civilians.
The odds are low. Knowledge of civilian casualties didn't stop the US military in Indochina or Korea or Dresden or Tokyo. They'll "just follow orders."
edit - There would probably be exceptions who would refuse to commit especially indiscriminate acts of slaughter, but if so those will be exceptions, not the rule
Most military service members are blood thirsty war criminals just waiting to commit slaughter upon non combatants?
How flattering.
It's not a fair impression, but years were spent on building it.
I wonder what the odds are of a surprising amount of bombing missions suffering targeting issues if the Trump admin tries to order ignoring civilians around target sites?
There's a pretty big difference between hitting a hostile target and finding out later there were civilian casualties, and being told to deliberately and intentionally drop bombs which will definitely kill civilians.
The odds are low. Knowledge of civilian casualties didn't stop the US military in Indochina or Korea or Dresden or Tokyo. They'll "just follow orders."
edit - There would probably be exceptions who would refuse to commit especially indiscriminate acts of slaughter, but if so those will be exceptions, not the rule
Most military service members are blood thirsty war criminals just waiting to commit slaughter upon non combatants?
How flattering.
When a military is ordered by its leader to commit war crimes on a foreign population, war crimes usually follow. There's no reason to assume any other outcome.
So when are the "Do you really want to serve under Trump?"s going to start flying again?
Because this is reading like the opening justifications to directly or indirectly support action against the .gov and .mil.
I know you have a military history, and I'm honestly not trying to be an asshole. I don't think soldiers are terrible people who joined up because they want to murder innocents.
My initial post was in response to someone who hypothesized that, if the Trump administration orders the military to disregard civilian casualties in places like Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq, our pilots will purposefully miss and hit the empty desert instead of flattening neighborhoods.
Given history I simply see no reason to think this is the case. This isn't unique to the US military; it just seems to be how militaries usually function. Look at what the Syrian Air Force did to many cities in their own country. Look what the Israelis did in Gaza 2014. Or what Russia did to Grozny, or what the US did in Vietnam or North Korea. I'll leave World War II out because it's an outlier in terms of the totality of the war, but even post-WWII conflicts see various militaries laying waste to towns and cities with little to no regard for the civilian population.
Do you disagree? Do you think a large proportion of the US military would refuse to follow orders if those orders would lead to massive civilian casualties?
David Drake wrote the short story "The Butcher's Bill", where an armored regiment lays waste to a priceless and unique ancient building complex. He wrote it as a fictionalized version of an action he was part of, where a group of tanks laid waste to a village in (I believe) Cambodia in response to an attack.
These sorts of events won't always happen--but they will happen.
Which is why we need to think bloody hard before committing troops to any damn thing.
Given Trump's hard-on for military symbols, I shudder to imagine what he might get our troops into within the next 4 years.
McCain Will Vote Yes on Trump's Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson
"Listen, this wasn't an easy call. But I also believe that when there's doubt the president, the incoming president, gets the benefit of the doubt, and that's the way I've treated every president that I've had the obligation to vote for or against as a member of the United States Senate."
What a load of cowardly bull. Exactly what I would expect from McCain.
Yeah, if the Tillerson pick gets through, then the entire cabinet is in, end of the discussion. Why people expected different from the GOPe, even after the many, many, many examples of them bending the knee to Trump is beyond me.
Man, you know, I had a bit of hope when McCain and Graham stomped their feet about Russia. It made me feel a bit better about being from South Carolina and now living in Arizona.
But, now I'm back to square one. I don't know why I thought they would ever do the right thing for America.
I wonder what the odds are of a surprising amount of bombing missions suffering targeting issues if the Trump admin tries to order ignoring civilians around target sites?
There's a pretty big difference between hitting a hostile target and finding out later there were civilian casualties, and being told to deliberately and intentionally drop bombs which will definitely kill civilians.
The odds are low. Knowledge of civilian casualties didn't stop the US military in Indochina or Korea or Dresden or Tokyo. They'll "just follow orders."
edit - There would probably be exceptions who would refuse to commit especially indiscriminate acts of slaughter, but if so those will be exceptions, not the rule
That's real iffy. The examples you give are all mass bombing raids where they might release several unguided munitions at a time. Modern bombers combine long term surveillance and precision guided munitions.
I wonder what the odds are of a surprising amount of bombing missions suffering targeting issues if the Trump admin tries to order ignoring civilians around target sites?
There's a pretty big difference between hitting a hostile target and finding out later there were civilian casualties, and being told to deliberately and intentionally drop bombs which will definitely kill civilians.
The odds are low. Knowledge of civilian casualties didn't stop the US military in Indochina or Korea or Dresden or Tokyo. They'll "just follow orders."
edit - There would probably be exceptions who would refuse to commit especially indiscriminate acts of slaughter, but if so those will be exceptions, not the rule
Most military service members are blood thirsty war criminals just waiting to commit slaughter upon non combatants?
How flattering.
No, I just think most military service members follow their orders.
It's not like we're going to be asking them to burn villages and drag their occupants to mass graves, either. The bomber crew, the drone pilot, the missile operator, the ones responsible for many civilian casualties in Iraq and vastly more if we abandon our discipline in target confirmation, these are soldiers who most of the time can't be entirely sure if they're bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital full of children with cancer or an ISIS-captured ward full of terrorists getting high in the dispensary until it turns up on the evening news.
As an example, the average bombing run over the past twenty years is via the B1-B, which is equipped for surveillance of targets over a period of several hours and then use precision guided munitions. Less often is the Predator/Reaper drone, which do extremely long term surveillance, sometimes over days, and then use precision guided munitions. There's solid evidence that both groups do care a lot about civilian casualties and with their actions, and in both cases PTSD does result even from the decision to bomb legitimate targets. Acting like they don't care what they bomb is just flatly incorrect.
Even in cases where the aircrew themselves aren't doing the surveillance, there's a squad or platoon of ground pounders doing surveillance. And yes, there are cases where they will refuse to call in an airstrike even under orders. The relative rarity doesn't come from them always following orders, it comes from the rarity of asshole officers and senior NCOs who are going to order their people to call in an air strike on obviously civilian targets.
There's orders that supercede orders, like the Geneva Conventions. Do civilians die in US bombings, yes. But they don't die because someone in the military targeted the bomb on them knowing that they were all civilians after surveillance confirms that they're all civilians.
I'm curious about the about-face on Tillerson despite the ongoing problems with Russia. Is it that they understand that any semblance of infighting hurts the entire Republican brand and therefore they can't afford to not vote lockstep, even if it means burning the whole thing down on top of them in the long run?
Edit: Meant to add a bit on the treatment of protestors and the media. This shit was so *easy* for them to brush off during the Bush administration, which deployed a sort of gentle, patronizing contempt for protestors, treating them like children doing something impressive for their age but who now have to run along and play while the adults get some real work done, or acting like they welcomed media scrutiny but doing their best to provide non-answers to things while still making the media feel important instead of actively power-playing them in every interaction.
There's a framework here for creating a narrative that makes it easy to laugh off protests and deflect media scrutiny, which they're ignoring.
They did, and in fact, the total number that marched across the country yesterday is still less than the amount you lost the popular vote by, you toaster.
Republican leaders aren't even bothering with the pretense of checks and balances at this point.
Actually, why don't we have a Trump nominee for SCOTUS yet? Didn't he have a shortlist back in July? I mean, this is a rhetorical question as I pretty much know the real answer...
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
This might not be the right thread for it, and if so I apologize, but where do we go from here?
I live in a liberal city, in a liberal state. It's Democrats all the way down. Other than encouraging my reps to put a spoke in Trump's wheel, what can I do?
I will have a thing that I am publishing by the time East Coasters wake up that I will make sure to drop in the thread @Orca
I had the same problem.
EDIT: You too @nightmarenny Already have three other people I'm moving out to Tampa with from the Bay.
This might not be the right thread for it, and if so I apologize, but where do we go from here?
I live in a liberal city, in a liberal state. It's Democrats all the way down. Other than encouraging my reps to put a spoke in Trump's wheel, what can I do?
I will have a thing that I am publishing by the time East Coasters wake up that I will make sure to drop in the thread Orca
Asked on "Meet the Press" why Spicer used his first appearance before the press to dispute a minimal issue like the inauguration crowd size, and why he used falsehoods to do so, Conway pushed back.
"You're saying it's a falsehood and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that," she told NBC's Chuck Todd.
She then went on to echo Spicer's claim on Saturday that it wasn't possible to count the count, despite Trump's team's accompanying insistence that it was the "largest audience."
"I don't think you can prove those numbers one way or another. There's no way to quantify crowd numbers," Conway said.
Conway also suggested that Todd's insistence on asking why Spicer delivered a demonstrably false statement could affect the White House's treatment of the media.
"If we're going to keep referring to the press secretary in those types of terms I think we're going to have to rethink our relationship here," she said.
"There is no way to quantify crowd numbers" exists alongside the claim the media got the crowd size wrong.
Posts
Corey Lewandowski got turned away from the inaguration, even after presenting ID.
The inner circle seems to be in a race to Trotsky each other.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
http://www.theonion.com/article/justice-roberts-stops-middle-oath-office-remind-au-55096
It goes way farther than Jane Fonda. Remember, McCarthyism heavily targeted celebrities, and gave rise to the Hollywood Blacklist. I mean, it wasn't new then, either, but this was decades before Jane Fonda did anything worth getting conservative panties bunched. There are examples all the way back into the middle ages of authors or playwrights being targeted for using their popularity to act beyond their station.
Yeah, what I got from watching the news is that every single city had significantly more turnout than expected.
People had a hard time getting to the very stages they were to speak on because of the crowds and the viability of the marching element of so many of the events had to be accessed because there were so many people.
It doesn't count when they agree with them.
The Republicans will happily parade a celebrity around on stage if they happen to be a Republican that sees eye to eye with the base.
They would have, and did, snub Donald back when he was agreeing with Democrats.
They snubbed him in the beginning of his nomination as well.
But since he's their meal ticket, he's the bestest Republican that's ever lived, and they have no issues with him.
At least until they do, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later, but not going to hold my breath.
Art, like science, is a natural enemy of conservatism. They both require free and open thought that's willing to challenge standing orthodoxy. Both groups have long been targeted by oppressive regimes, though art has increasingly bore this burden as people have come to recognize the immediate importance of science and technology to survival.
Well, that was definitely written by a staff member. Surprised he didn't --
Oh, yup, there it is.
That's fair. I've never been in the military so this knowledge is based talking to people who have and reading stuff. I'm glad to hear it's more common then I thought.
Republican leaders aren't even bothering with the pretense of checks and balances at this point.
An exchange that i found very telling of future plans of the Trump WH was after Todd kept asking why Spicer was sent out to repeat a probable falsehood yesterday and Conway responded by saying that he was just presenting "alternate facts" and she also said that if Chuck was going to think of the press secretary that way, the Trump WH might have to reevaluate their openness with the media.
If it's someone you don't agree with, it's a celebrity who should keep her (because it's usually directed at women) mouth shut because she's out of touch. If it's someone you agree with, he's an outsider with a fresh perspective.
Nevermind that Donald Trump was doing Kim Kardashian before Kim Kardashian was born and was the host of a ridiculous reality show for nearly a decade.
As I said in an earlier post, it's going to be if (hoping when) Trump becomes so toxic to their party that they need to knife him in the back so they can smile and wave to the crowd about how patriotic they are about putting the needs of the country above their own party and getting rid of him.
So they can go back and keep trying to do all the things they have been trying to do, just without the giant spotlight being shone on Trump also illuminating their own work.
Alternate facts..
So they admit it: there are other timelines.
Which is the worst possible play for an already unpopular administration, but they refuse to let common sense get in the way of pettiness and vindictiveness. Even if you believe the narrative that this is all deliberate and part of Bannon's plan to further alienate Trump supporters from reality they're still doing it wrong.
It's like they know how terrible of a play this is but they can't bring themselves to back down because they're already in so deep.
Alternate facts = Lies
War = Peace
Edit:
Wouldn't want him hurting any cause I was associated with, that's for sure.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Goodfacts
I though Seth Meyers did a really good job of handling Conway in the interview he did last week. Of course, he's a comedian so he's got a more robust toolset available for calling out bullshit.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
David Drake wrote the short story "The Butcher's Bill", where an armored regiment lays waste to a priceless and unique ancient building complex. He wrote it as a fictionalized version of an action he was part of, where a group of tanks laid waste to a village in (I believe) Cambodia in response to an attack.
These sorts of events won't always happen--but they will happen.
Which is why we need to think bloody hard before committing troops to any damn thing.
Given Trump's hard-on for military symbols, I shudder to imagine what he might get our troops into within the next 4 years.
Yeah, if the Tillerson pick gets through, then the entire cabinet is in, end of the discussion. Why people expected different from the GOPe, even after the many, many, many examples of them bending the knee to Trump is beyond me.
But, now I'm back to square one. I don't know why I thought they would ever do the right thing for America.
Do it Pope, do it. Call him an antichrist. Explain the real definition and take that word away from the GOP.
As an example, the average bombing run over the past twenty years is via the B1-B, which is equipped for surveillance of targets over a period of several hours and then use precision guided munitions. Less often is the Predator/Reaper drone, which do extremely long term surveillance, sometimes over days, and then use precision guided munitions. There's solid evidence that both groups do care a lot about civilian casualties and with their actions, and in both cases PTSD does result even from the decision to bomb legitimate targets. Acting like they don't care what they bomb is just flatly incorrect.
Even in cases where the aircrew themselves aren't doing the surveillance, there's a squad or platoon of ground pounders doing surveillance. And yes, there are cases where they will refuse to call in an airstrike even under orders. The relative rarity doesn't come from them always following orders, it comes from the rarity of asshole officers and senior NCOs who are going to order their people to call in an air strike on obviously civilian targets.
There's orders that supercede orders, like the Geneva Conventions. Do civilians die in US bombings, yes. But they don't die because someone in the military targeted the bomb on them knowing that they were all civilians after surveillance confirms that they're all civilians.
Edit: Meant to add a bit on the treatment of protestors and the media. This shit was so *easy* for them to brush off during the Bush administration, which deployed a sort of gentle, patronizing contempt for protestors, treating them like children doing something impressive for their age but who now have to run along and play while the adults get some real work done, or acting like they welcomed media scrutiny but doing their best to provide non-answers to things while still making the media feel important instead of actively power-playing them in every interaction.
There's a framework here for creating a narrative that makes it easy to laugh off protests and deflect media scrutiny, which they're ignoring.
They did, and in fact, the total number that marched across the country yesterday is still less than the amount you lost the popular vote by, you toaster.
He's brave right up until his words have to become action.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Actually, why don't we have a Trump nominee for SCOTUS yet? Didn't he have a shortlist back in July? I mean, this is a rhetorical question as I pretty much know the real answer...
I will have a thing that I am publishing by the time East Coasters wake up that I will make sure to drop in the thread @Orca
I had the same problem.
EDIT: You too @nightmarenny Already have three other people I'm moving out to Tampa with from the Bay.
Trump wasn't going to let the opportunity presented by vandalism get by unnoticed.
I look forward to it!
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/wh-spokesman-gave-alternative-facts-inauguration-crowd-n710466
"There is no way to quantify crowd numbers" exists alongside the claim the media got the crowd size wrong.
I'll just quote Cloud Atlas: "Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths."