HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cab67 » Journal
Page: 1

cab67

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jul 24, 2013, 01:10 PM
Number of posts: 491

Journal Archives

Donald Trump is a small, spiteful little man.

Nothing more need be said.

I sent messages to President Pena and Prime Minister Turnbull this morning.

Both have websites from which one can send comments. In both cases, I expressed my embarrassment at the unacceptable way they were treated by the current resident of the White House. I stated that millions of Americans share my outrage at the president's behavior.

Might not be a bad idea to have more such messages sent to these distinguished heads of state.

Just saying.

For PM Turnbull: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

For President Pena: http://en.presidencia.gob.mx/contacto/ (It's a bit tricky - you're required to enter your address, and the drop menu to indicate your state only lists Mexican states, even after listing "Estados Unidos" as your country. I selected Chiapas simply because I've spent more time there than in other Mexican states, and added a comment at the end that I know the upper midwest of the US is not in Chiapas.)

(Also - if you haven't heard, anagrams for "Donald Trump" include "Lord Dampnut" and "Don Turdpalm." To me, he's Lord Dampnut from now on.)

Symbolism on January 20

I apologize if this has already been discussed - if so, I missed it.

Are any of you planning any sort of symbolic gesture to commemorate what's happening on Black Friday?

I, for one, will be wearing a black arm band. It's a traditional symbol of mourning.

I have no intention of watching the thing - even on youtube later.

Some thoughts on Streep v. Trump.

This is something we should keep front-and-center for as long as possible. I really want this to be what people think about on Inauguration Day.

- It almost perfectly encapsulates why Trump is unfit for office. Not only did he openly mock a disabled reporter in front of a crowd, he never owned up to what anyone can plainly see on video clearly happened. And when called out by one of our most distinguished artists, he didn't own up to what he did (which wouldn't excuse it, but would at least show some capacity for introspection). He didn't even have the dignity to keep quiet. Instead, he threw a twitter tantrum. This episode shows how petty and dishonest he is.

(I said "almost perfectly" because it doesn't involve Trump's status as Putin's bitch.)

- Even more, there's a distinct qualitative difference between what Ms Streep said and how Trump responded. Ms Streep pointed out something Trump did. Trump insulted Ms Streep personally. You don't get more childish than that.

- (point added on edit) Conway made things worse by saying actions like Ms Streep's " people's worst instincts." Every psychology textbook in the world is now being edited to include this as a bald example of projection.

That Trump's campaign didn't end within 12 hours of the mocking incident says more about the US than about Trump. Making sure no one forgets, and that it follows Trump to the day he's forced to resign in disgrace, is the least we can do.

Honest question

Folks,

I'm looking for serious advice.

Some of my family members are trying to push back on the new Trump tape release. Bill Clinton must have said worse things! And he sexually assaulted!

To which I've responded that (a) Bill Clinton isn't running for office, (b) he had consensual affairs (which was very wrong), but the sexual assault allegations haven't gone beyond the "allegation" stage, (c) he had the good sense not to say anything crude anywhere near a recording device, and (d) he was actually punished by being impeached.

The counterargument I've had less luck addressing is that Hillary Clinton, either by not ditching Bill Clinton or not trying to stick up for the putative victims, enabled the whole thing.

I've pointed out that Hillary Clinton has a long and robust track record of supporting women and women's rights, but what have the rest of you been saying on this point?

I'm really curious.

Anyone else notice the switch in the last half hour or so of the debate?

For most of the debate, Trump referred to his opponent as "Secretary Clinton."

Toward the end, it was "Hillary."

Ok, so I'm at my caucus site...

Bernie and Hillary supporters are in the same school cafeteria. (I will reveal neither relative crowd sizes nor my choice.)

I will say, though, that the idea of having an old-fashioned food fight between the groups has crossed many minds here.

(In good fun. We're all neighbors.)

Outside solutions to gun violence

It's perfectly clear that neither the federal government, nor any existing state government, is going to do anything about gun violence. Lobbying groups like the NRA won't allow it.

Back in the 1980's, there was a rash of high-profile violent crimes against tourists in Florida. Florida immediately took steps to deal with it, including allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for murder. (This wasn't necessarily a good thing, but if I recall correctly, Florida was one of the first, if not the first, state to allow this). The reason? Several European countries issued travel advisories against going to Florida. Too violent. Florida is infested with special interests, but tourism is more powerful than most others. Tourism was threatened, and the state reacted almost immediately.

State governments might not respond to public outcry against gun violence from within the US, but if other countries took steps to discourage their citizens from visiting the US because of the danger of being shot, they might take notice.

OK - so what if it's Hillary in 2016?

I've followed a number of posts on DU concerning whether Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee in 2016. To my dismay, I see quite a few people - progressives, like me - who claim to see little difference between Clinton and most of the likely Republican candidates. She's corporatist and doesn't have the best interests of the average person in mind.

This may be true. To borrow from Molly Ivins' comment about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton is not my kind of Democrat.

I'm not going to try to predict what will happen in 2016. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she says she isn't. Someone like Bernie Sanders would be awesome. I have no idea who will get the nomination. But let''s assume Hillary Clinton is the nominee. If so, I would hope that all of us calling ourselves progressives would campaign vigorously for her nomination.

To those who think Clinton is no different from a Republican, I have two words: Supreme Court.

By 2020, four of the currently-serving justices will be in their 80's. There's a reasonable chance some or all will have left the court by the end of the next presidential administration. And if that person serves a second term in the White House, she or he will probably deal with additional vacancies.

Bill Clinton, for all of his triangulation and capitulation to Republican policies, gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama, who has also governed more like a Republican than I would like, has given us Sotomayor and Kagan. Compare these with the clowns seated by the Bushes, and you quickly see how much of a difference having a Democrat - even moderate Democrat - in the White House makes.

Why not vote for a third-party candidate, you ask? Why not vote Green, or support an independent run by someone like Sanders? Because that would ensure a Republican victory.

I understand the counterargument - things won't get better unless there's a viable progressive on the ticket. But right now, that's not the world we live in. Our government is currently based on the balance of power of two parties. A parliamentary system, with multiple parties building coalitions, has its benefits - but we don't have one, and we won't for the foreseeable future.

The conservative members of the Supreme Court have done far more damage than any Republican-led house of congress. Declining to vote for a Democrat - even one we would prefer not be on the ticket - will help ensure more Scalias and Alitos on the Supreme Court.

Anyway, that's my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. I want a progressive president, and we should work our asses off to nominate one. But given a choice between a corporatist who will nominate good supreme court justices and one who will not, I'm going with the former.

OK - so what if it's Hillary in 2016?

I've followed a number of posts on DU concerning whether Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee in 2016. To my dismay, I see quite a few people - progressives, like me - who claim to see little difference between Clinton and most of the likely Republican candidates. She's corporatist and doesn't have the best interests of the average person in mind.

This may be true. To borrow from Molly Ivins' comment about Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton is not my kind of Democrat.

I'm not going to try to predict what will happen in 2016. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run, but she says she isn't. Someone like Bernie Sanders would be awesome. I have no idea who will get the nomination. But let''s assume Hillary Clinton is the nominee. If so, I would hope that all of us calling ourselves progressives would campaign vigorously for her nomination.

To those who think Clinton is no different from a Republican, I have two words: Supreme Court.

By 2020, four of the currently-serving justices will be in their 80's. There's a reasonable chance some or all will have left the court by the end of the next presidential administration. And if that person serves a second term in the White House, she or he will probably deal with additional vacancies.

Bill Clinton, for all of his triangulation and capitulation to Republican policies, gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Obama, who has also governed more like a Republican than I would like, has given us Sotomayor and Kagan. Compare these with the clowns seated by the Bushes, and you quickly see how much of a difference having a Democrat - even moderate Democrat - in the White House makes.

Why not vote for a third-party candidate, you ask? Why not vote Green, or support an independent run by someone like Sanders? Because that would ensure a Republican victory.

I understand the counterargument - things won't get better unless there's a viable progressive on the ticket. But right now, that's not the world we live in. Our government is currently based on the balance of power of two parties. A parliamentary system, with multiple parties building coalitions, has its benefits - but we don't have one, and we won't for the foreseeable future.

The conservative members of the Supreme Court have done far more damage than any Republican-led house of congress. Declining to vote for a Democrat - even one we would prefer not be on the ticket - will help ensure more Scalias and Alitos on the Supreme Court.

Anyway, that's my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. I want a progressive president, but having a reasonable Supreme Court that doesn't embarrass the country abroad is at least equally important.
Go to Page: 1