June 15, 2016

The morons at Wonkette are selling a tee shirt depicting HRC holding Trump's severed head

Yeah, yeah. It's a biblical reference- as if that makes it any easier to defend. And of course, the wingnuts have picked up this story and our reacting with predictable hypocritical outrage. T

It's still jaw droppingly stupid to be selling this.

http://wonkette.com/602757/oh-whoops-we-just-forced-you-to-buy-this-shirt-of-hillary-clinton-cutting-off-trumps-head

June 15, 2016

Bwahaha: Republican Senators Lose Hope That Trump Will Change

Not The Onion.

Astute Statesmen that they AREN'T. Morally bankrupt idiots that they ARE.




Donald Trump's response to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history has Republican senators losing hope that their presumptive nominee will tame his blustery rhetoric and moderate his controversial policy positions ahead of the fall election.

"You'd think that he would have pivoted by now," lamented Arizona Senator Jeff Flake.

"A lot of us, we still hope—hope springs eternal—that between now and November he'll change some of his positions. Not just the tone and the tenor, but some of his positions need to change," Flake said. "But I'm not hopeful right now."


South Dakota Senator John Thune, the No. 3 Republican, said Trump's recent statements have been "concerning" and reflect his style throughout the campaign.

"Everything he's said in the last couple of weeks has been concerning," Thune said. "I think the message has been conveyed from our members. And we're, I guess, hoping that he'll take it to heart."

Then he rolled his eyes, admitting that strategy doesn't seem to be working "at the moment."

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/republican-senators-lose-hope-that-donald-trump-will-change

June 15, 2016

Bravo John Cassidy: Obama's Defining Attack on Trump and Trumpism

And Bravo and thanks to President Obama.



This morning, I took a mental-health break from coverage of the attack that took place in Orlando over the weekend. But, at lunchtime, when I turned on NY1 to check the local news, there was President Obama, looking as ticked off and impassioned as we’ve ever seen him. Gone were the lofty detachment and professorial tone that sometimes characterize his oration. In their place were flashing eyes, hand gestures, and a tone that varied from urgency to anger. Speaking for about twenty-five minutes, Obama delivered a ringing defense of his approach to terrorism and a stinging denouncement of Donald Trump and all that he stands for.

Whether Obama intended to deliver such a consequential address, I’m not entirely sure. At times, he appeared to be ad-libbing. But his remarks, which were delivered from a podium in the Treasury Department, where he had met with his national-security staff, turned into perhaps the most important address he has given this year. Indeed, historians may look back on it as one of the defining speeches of his Presidency.

Obama didn’t utter Trump’s name. He didn’t need to. Instead, he began by saluting the Orlando victims and their families. He described the shooter, whom he also didn’t name, as “an angry, disturbed, unstable young man who became radicalized.” By their nature, lone-wolf attacks are hard to stop, Obama pointed out, and he praised the law-enforcement and intelligence efforts that go into preventing them. But, he added, “We are all sobered by the fact that, despite the extraordinary hard work, something like Orlando can occur.”

At this stage, Obama was his usual self: calm and meticulous. Referring to some written notes, he delivered an update on the military campaign against ISIS (ISIL, in the President’s parlance), saying, “This continues to be a difficult fight, but we are making significant progress.” The group, he said, was “under more pressure than ever before,” and had lost more than a hundred and twenty of its military commanders and nearly half of the populated territory that it once held in Iraq. “And it will lose more,” he added.

Turning to the home front, Obama issued another call for “common-sense” gun-control measures, which he rightly insisted were consistent with the Second Amendment. “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents,” he said. “People with possible ties to terrorism, who are not allowed on a plane, should not be allowed to buy a gun.” About now, the first glints of irritation, or anger, appeared in the President’s eyes. “Enough talking about being tough on terrorism,” he snapped. “Actually be tough on terrorism and stop making it as easy as possible for terrorists to buy assault weapons.”

Much more:

read:http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-defining-attack-on-trump-and-trumpism

With that, Obama paused for a few seconds, as if gathering himself for what he was about to do. “And let me make a final point,” he said. “For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle in the fight against ISIL has been to criticize this Administration, and me, for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”

For a moment, Obama looked down. “What exactly would using this label accomplish?” he said, raising his eyes, looking around the room, and gesticulating with his left hand. “What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

Obama’s tone had changed: it was harder and more than a little scornful. “Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism,” he said. “There’s not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President when we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label ‘radical Islam.’ Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we’re going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once.”

<snip>

June 15, 2016

More Pierce: Newt and Rudy Have Bold Plans to Make Trumpism Even Worse

<snip>

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Fox platforms, He, Trump's future vice-president had another good idea. Via Mediamatters:


NEWT GINGRICH: Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We're going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we're going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we're going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.

First of all, as a former assistant professor of history and substitute metal-shop teacher at Bugtussle Regional State College And Live Bait Barge, Gingrich has to know that HUAC was not created as a standing committee of the House until 1945, and that its primary aim was chasing shadows and the rancid butterflies flittering over the garbage dumps that were the minds of its members.

Before that, it was merely a special investigation committee. It ransacked, among other things, the Federal Theater Program, but it declined to investigate the Ku Klux Klan because, as John Rankin of Mississippi put it, the Klan was nothing more than an old American institution. However, by the late 1960s, it had become a joke; Abbie Hoffman once was subpoenaed and showed up dressed as Santa Claus.

But is there any doubt that the Definer of civilization's rules and Leader (perhaps) of the civilizing forces would like to be the guy oiling the thumbscrews and apply a fresh coat of tar to the blacklist? And that's not even to mention that these two guys were as thoroughly rejected as national leaders by most of the country.

Gingrich, Giuliani, and He, Trump all deserve each other. The rest of us don't deserve them. I hope.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45796/isis-investigate-mosques/

June 15, 2016

Pierce: Donald Trump Picked the Wrong News Editor to Fuck With

Holy hell, even I didn't know that He, Trump was dumb enough to cancel the credentials of The Washington Post.

But Tiger Beat On The Potomac was all over it.


"Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post," Trump posted on Facebook. Trump had posted to Facebook nearly 20 minutes earlier "to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is." "I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, 'Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting' as their headline," Trump said. "Sad!"


In case you missed it, here's what the Vulgar Talking Yam was going on about. He went on the electric teevee machine this morning and said,


"Look, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can't believe it," the Post quoted Trump as saying on Fox News Monday morning. "People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on."

More:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45788/trump-washington-post-credentials/

June 15, 2016

Last week I reread Shirer's 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Comparing Trump

to Hitler is not hyperbole. Early Hitler and current Trump share a lot in common regarding personality traits. I'm not suggesting that Trump could achieve the murderous depths of Hitler and his gang of morally bankrupt goons, but that is not the point.

I think everyone here would agree that Trump not only poses a danger but has already done significant damage. Our political system was ripe for him to exploit. He is exploiting it.

I understand and share the reluctance to overuse comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, to Mussolini and fascists, etc. But sometimes, rarely, it is necessary to drag those comparisons out of the dark past.

I don't know that it can or can't happen here. I do know that Trump's rhetoric, temperament and ability to brew hate and bigotry are happening now.

June 14, 2016

extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

I think every major print news outlet from the NYT to WaPo to the LA Times to The New Yorker and the Atlantic and more should have their editorial boards sit down and write a joint editorial explaining their opposition to Trump and why he poses a danger and cannot become President.

June 14, 2016

Tolerance is needed more than love. My birthday gift to Donald.

Wise words from that supremely wise and prescient man (and great writer), E.M. Forster. This is his essay entitled 'Tolerance', from his book entitled "Two Cheers for Democracy".

Surely the only sound foundation for a civilization is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working.

What, though, is the proper spirit? There must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade conferences can function. But what state of mind is sound? Here we may be different. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild another civilization, will reply "Love". People must love one another, they say, nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to desroy us will be checked.

Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things. But love in public affairs does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilizations of the middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the Brotherhood of Man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another or that a person in Portugal should love and unknown person in Peru ---it is absurd, unreal, and dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. "Love is what is needed," we chant, and then sit back and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilization, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance. Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had bad press. It is negative. It means merely putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance, or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will most be needed after the war. This is the state of mind we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.

The world is full of people---appallingly full; it has never been so full before, and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn't know and some of them one doesn't like; doesn't like the color of their skins, say, or the shape of their noses, or the way they blow them or don't blow them, or the way they talk, or their fondness of jazz or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One is the Nazi solution. If you don't like them, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and strut up an down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth. The other way is less thrilling, but is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don't like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don't try to love them. You can't, and you'll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilized future may be built. Certainly I see no other foundation for the postwar world.

For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have lost all faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like "I will purge this nation," "I will clean up this city," terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered when the world was emptier; they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbors.

I don't regard tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote "In My Father's House there are many mansions" in support of such a view. It's just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally give out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends, and stand among strangers in the queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, "Why will people be so slow?" It is wanted in the tube, or "Why will people be so fat?" It's wanted at the telephone, or "Why will people be so deaf?" or conversely, "Why do they mumble?" It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, religions, and nations. It's dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else's place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise

June 14, 2016

ISIS Terror Killing in Paris Streamed live on Facebook

The French police commander was just coming home to his partner and their three-year-old son in the Paris bedroom community of Magnanville. Jovial and well-liked in Les Mureaux’s police station on the outskirts of the French capital, he had been—like all members of the French police these days—under considerable strain. Even with 90,000 cops, soldiers and other security forces deployed in the country, law enforcement has been stretched thin by floods, strikes, the Euro 16 soccer championship, hooligan riots, and the now ever-present threat of jihadist violence.


Then that murderous jihadist rage came after the commander with a vengeance, as a lone attacker stabbed him to death outside his house.


A French special weapons and tactics unit (RAID) killed the assailant, but found inside the house the commander’s slaughtered partner, who worked as a secretary in another police station, and her three-year-old son, who was still alive, physically unhurt.


The child had seen it all. We know that, because the killer live-streamed the slaughter on Facebook.

<snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/isis-terror-killing-in-paris-streamed-on-facebook-live.html

June 14, 2016

Birthday Greetings, Trump, you asswipe. What his astrological natal chart says

Nope, not a believer but posting for the fun of it.


This ain’t the dawning of the Age of Aquarius!

Donald Trump — born 70 years ago today — has an astrological chart that makes harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust anything but abounding, to paraphrase the Fifth Dimension anthem.

Not that I believe any of this star stuff, but being born on June 14, 1946 put Trump’s sun in Gemini and his moon in Sagittarius — exactly on the other side of the chart!

That’s an eclipse, people! And you know what that means!


Hillary, stop Biden your time and give Joe VP nod


Well, neither did I, so I called Lynn Hayes, astrologist to the stars (no, literally!) and she explained it all to me.

<snip>

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-turns-70-astrology-reveals-uranus-problem-article-1.2672667