grumpyduck
grumpyduck's JournalStill nothing on Fox about the denial
I just find it interesting that they wouldn't pick up on this right away. They may be waiting to confirm the numbers, which is what they should do, but I wonder if they just don't want to go there "in case."
So far, Fox doesn't have anything on Trump's denial
Just poked over at Fox out of curiosity. So far nothing on his denial. Other outlets do.
Is Trump possessed?
Okay, now that I have your attention... 
I've been a fan of horror movies for a long time, although I'm very picky about them: they have to have a reasonably "sound" storyline, believable characters, and decent dialogue. And no slashers or zombies, thank you very much. Although most horror movies nowadays suck, or are just copies of another one -- "Five friends decide to go to a cabin in the woods for the weekend and do stupid things" -- I'm always looking for a good one.
One of the things I've often wondered about is why, in possession movies, the possessed is always nutzo. Screaming, bleeding, spitting, levitating, and so on. Nothing new for me: back when I was a kid and vampire movies were different, I always wondered why "all" vampires seemed to be Catholic, or at least Christian. In any case, in typical possession movies, it just doesn't seem to me that there would be anything in it for the demon, as in why would they bother. They're supposed to be evil, but they're just raising a ruckus over one individual. And all those movies are basically the same story anyway.
I don't have a clue whether possession is "real," and I'm not going there. But, if it were real, and if the possessor were really evil, wouldn't it make more sense for it to take over someone quietly and have the possessee do evil things in the world?
So, if such things were real -- and I'm not going there -- would it make sense to think that maybe Trump is possessed?
(I wasn't sure where to post this, so if GD is not the proper place, I'll be happy to post it elsewhere)
Athletes taking the knee during the anthem
This has been covered before, but nowhere near enough. Not even close.
Kaepernick took the knee during that game back in '16 to protest police brutality against blacks. It had nothing to do with disrespecting the flag. I agree that it was a bad choice of method to protest police brutality, but it was not about the flag.
But suddenly it was spun out of context and tweeted and retweeted and the media picked up on it and his original message got lost. Soon there was no listening to anybody who wanted to set the record straight. It was too convenient to yell "traitor" and bury the cause for the protest.
And large portions of the American public fell for it and and still believe it.
Style of Republican and Democratic language in the media?
Okay, this is not about throwing spitballs or name-calling. I'm asking a real question which I hope those of you who are on social media (which I'm not) can answer.
From reading tweets here and elsewhere, and seeing Republican comments and responses to various issues in various places, I'm under the impression that the language used by Republicans is different from that of Democrats. And maybe I'm wrong. Republican commentary seems to be very short and to the point: short sentences, catchphrases, slogans. Democratic commentary seems to be longer and often rambling. Okay, maybe "rambling" is not the correct word.
What made me think of this is advertising, where the focus has changed so much over the years. Back in the late 1800s it focused on the product itself, then changed to the features of the product, then to the benefits of the product, and, more recently, screw the product and just focus on the lifestyle to be attained by using the product. "Lock her up" is easy to say and remember, and guaranteed to get people riled up. Democrats don't seem to have anything like that.
Again, this is not about throwing spitballs. I'm just fascinated by the idea that the two parties may be using different language to communicate with their followers.
Bob Woodard's book and the NYT Op Ed: a coincidence?
There are lots of posts already about the Op Ed, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned...
The timing, with regards to the Bob Woodward book, seems funny, like the writer is expecting a load of backlash and wants to defuse some of it before they all have to defend themselves.
It would have probably been too obvious to get it published in the WaPo, so so "they" went to the NYT.
Congressional Republicans are traitors.
'nuff said.
Okay, fine... MANY of them are.
Invitation from Conservative Underground
Okay, before you report me and insist this be deleted, please read on.
As I said in another post, I lurk over at CU now and then, mostly to see how low they will go to bash DUers. A few times I've actually seen an argument in defense of a specific position, but mostly their comments seem to be personal (what idiots we are) instead of directed at the issue involved. Please read on.
Now they have issued an invitation for us to come over and discuss stuff. As the fellow who issued the invitation put it, "to have some fun." The responses to his invitation have been... okay, I'll say it... pretty insulting to us: personal put-downs instead of comments on how we disagree or how an exchange of ideas might be useful. Which got me to thinking.
Granted DU and CU are both chat rooms, i.e., places to vent and commisserate with like-minded folks from the privacy of a username. I don't have a clue what would constitute a "serious political discussion forum," but neither one of them seem to be one. What IS noticeable is that nowadays people (and I see it here too) seem to be indulging in a lot of personal put-downs and spitball-throwing instead of addressing the issues involved. "If you don't agree with me, you're a fucking asshole" and such. Maybe it's just easier to call someone a moron instead of responding to what he/she said.
There's a huge difference between saying that somebody's specific comment was galaxy-class beyond-fucking-shitbrained-stupid, and calling that individual, personally, a fucking asshole. One addreses the comment and the other addresses the person.
Over the past few years, and especially over the past year and a half, a lot of people seem to have lost the ability to tell the difference.
Reminds me of name-calling back in grammar school. I thought I had left that behind.
Interesting observation re: McCain and Trump
Okay, here it goes... cards on the table: I occasionally lurk over at Conservative Underground. No apologies from me. Governments and industry do it too, but they call it spying. I just don't get paid for it, I don't carry a gun, and I haven't worn my trench coat in years.
Anyway, I found that some members over there don't like McCain because he opposed Trump. Which brought up something which I thought was interesting.
McCain was a Republican, a long-time Republican. Now that he's gone, it seems Republicans don't like him (or worse) because he opposed Trump. Meanwhile, from I see see here, Democrats do like him (or more) because he opposed Trump.
So now the guy has fans in both parties for the same exact reason.
How many times has that happened before?
Are we all becoming more gullible by the day?
I started to say "Are Americans... " but a lot of people living here are not Americans. In any case, why do we tend to jump at anything DJT says and turn it into a talking point? The MSM does it, but that's just to fill up space and get advertising revenue... but we (most of us, anyway) don't get paid that way.
There have been lots of news clips about him tweeting, within a few minutes, about something Fox said... and then it turns into a talking point. And we pick up on it.
Really?
At one time, it was believed the worst insult you could lob at Americans was to ask if they believed everything they read in the papers. Nowadays we may not believe it, but we talk about it, on and on, anyway. Geez, what a waste of breath and fingertips.
Do we all just need to get a life?
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Dec 16, 2017, 01:51 PMNumber of posts: 6,232
