Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world. Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for Dream Act “dreamers.” Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide”-themed novel, featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty myth” and mocked the “national religion” of “diversity.” He recommended and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources. All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry. Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious, often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings. Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him. Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread. But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released. This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why, in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the whistleblower report a coincidence as well? But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man. The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue. Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush. Gerson is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just to point out there are evangelicals who can think. ** (No responses to me needed...I won't read them.) |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world. Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for Dream Act “dreamers.” Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide”-themed novel, featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty myth” and mocked the “national religion” of “diversity.” He recommended and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources. All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry. Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious, often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings. Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him. Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread. But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released. This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why, in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the whistleblower report a coincidence as well? But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man. The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue. Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.* Gerson is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just to point out there are evangelicals who can think. *** (No responses to me needed...I won't read them.) I hate seeing wasted electrons. The environment, you know. |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:19:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: (Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump and the administrations unofficial liaison to the alt-right world. Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for Dream Act dreamers. Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Millers inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller encouraged attention at Breitbart to a white genocide-themed novel, featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration restrictions. He complained about the ridiculous statue of liberty myth and mocked the national religion of diversity. He recommended and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources. All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Millers views tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his bosss bigotry. Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious, often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings. Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him. Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread. But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordans telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was legit in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the real deal, the aid was released. This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why, in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to examine Trumps conspiracy theory about Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the whistleblower report a coincidence as well? But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trumps conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordans success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man. The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue. Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.* Gerson is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just to point out there are evangelicals who can think. *** (No responses to me needed...I won't read them.) I hate seeing wasted electrons. The environment, you know. === 'Airree still thinks that quoting an 8 day old editorial written by someone else is journalism. |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:59:27 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: (Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) My thought is this is simply political theater timed to meddle in the 2020 election. We used to shoot a president ever 20 years or so, now we just try to assassinate them in a political witch hunt. (Nixon in the 70s, Clinton in the 90s and now Trump in the tens). These were all cases of suddenly deciding things presidents used to do with impunity was now a crime. |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On 11/22/2019 7:59 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world. Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for Dream Act “dreamers.” Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide”-themed novel, featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty myth” and mocked the “national religion” of “diversity.” He recommended and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources. All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry. Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious, often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings. Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him. Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread. But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released. This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why, in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the whistleblower report a coincidence as well? But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man. The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue. Michael Gerson is an evangelical Christian, lifelong Republican and onetime chief speechwriter to former President George W. Bush.* Gerson is an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Policy Fellow with the ONE Campaign, a visiting fellow with the Center for Public Justice, and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ** Just a brief foray into Tim's world of political brainlessness, just to point out there are evangelicals who can think. *** (No responses to me needed...I won't read them.) There you go Fat Harry. Drop a bag of steaming horse**** on our doorstep, ring the bell, and run away. So childish and cowardly of you Fat Harry. -- R.I.P. Fat Harry |
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
Keyser Soze
(Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) ———- In other words, “Swiped “ |
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: Keyser Soze (Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) - In other words, Swiped === It would be tempting to call it plagiarism (again) but at least he gave credit to the source in a roundabout way designed to get his digs in with a cheap shot. |
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:39:01 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: - show quoted text - === It would be tempting to call it plagiarism (again) but at least he gave credit to the source in a roundabout way designed to get his digs in with a cheap shot. ,,,,, Iverbtime it’s proven his cheap shots always backfire on him. But he can’t figure that out...Lol |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts?
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:37:22 -0500, Justan Ohlphart
wrote: On 11/22/2019 11:12 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:59:27 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: (Excerpted from an op-ed column in the WashPost, in an attempt to fill the void, er, chasm, here.) My thought is this is simply political theater timed to meddle in the 2020 election. We used to shoot a president ever 20 years or so, now we just try to assassinate them in a political witch hunt. (Nixon in the 70s, Clinton in the 90s and now Trump in the tens). These were all cases of suddenly deciding things presidents used to do with impunity was now a crime. what a disappointment. The implication was that you had an original thought to share. Instead you plagiarized and even treated us to a demonstration of your lack of writing prowess I snipped Harry's cut and paste. the rest was all mine. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Thoughts about MLK... | General | |||
A few thoughts for those... | General | |||
AIS thoughts | Cruising | |||
Second thoughts | ASA | |||
Any thoughts | Touring |