Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

The age doesn't matter as much as the stalking behaviour. That  is what makes guys like this creepy. Double creepy is underage stalking. 

“THE GIRLS WERE JUST SO YOUNG”: THE HORRORS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S PRIVATE ISLAND

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/horrors-of-jeffrey-epstein-private-island

He continued to do it, even after his trial.

Quote

Locals say Epstein was flying in underage girls long after his conviction for sex crimes—and authorities did nothing to stop him. “It was like he was flaunting it,” says an employee at the airstrip on St. Thomas. “But it was said that he always tipped really well, so everyone overlooked it.”

Ever since billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on July 6 on charges of sex trafficking, the media have been scrambling to make sense of what happened on Little St. James, his 70-acre private island in the Caribbean. But on nearby St. Thomas, locals say Epstein continued to bring underage girls to the island as recently as this year—a decade after he was forced to register as a convicted sex offender—and that authorities did nothing to stop him....

 

....The employee adds that he and his co-workers would joke around about what they were seeing. “Every time he landed or took off, it was always brought up. We’d always be joking, ‘How many kids are on board this time?’” But the employee also says he felt “pure disgust,” calling it “absolutely insane” that a convicted sex offender was able to move around so openly in the era of MeToo.

“I could see him with my own eyes,” the employee says. “I compared it to seeing a serial killer in broad daylight. I called it the face of evil.”

Epstein apparently made no attempt to hide his travels with young girls. The airstrip in St. Thomas sits in plain sight of a central highway, and a nearby parking lot at the University of the Virgin Islands provides a complete view of the tarmac and almost every aircraft on the ground. When he’s “home” on Little St. James, Epstein’s plane is always parked right in front of the control tower.

“The fact that young girls were getting out of his helicopter and getting into his plane, it was like he was flaunting it,” the employee says. “But it was said that he always tipped really well, so everyone overlooked it.”....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for double posting, but this is too good to keep to myself.  Puerto Rico keeps going -- tomorrow they are closing the big highway that takes people to the Mall of America in their ongoing demonstrations to rid themselves of a criminal governor.  Why yes, tvillain, many a US citizen is trying to fix the wreck of their nation and make it better.

Today, some demonstrators are doing this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The border part roll detention centers incubating illness reminds me of the smallpox infected blankets given to Native Americans.

Central Americans are genetically mostly native Americans, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYT again, this time Frank Bruni almost as if reading this thread.

 

 

Quote

 

According to a May analysis by Catalist, a data-analysis firm, 89 percent of the Democratic vote gain in 2018 was from swing voters. That’s just one set of numbers, one way to slice the pie, but it does raise questions about the progressive insistence that partisan turnout and a surge in new voters, attracted by bold policy positions, is the path to victory in 2020.

There’s something else funky about that insistence — about the theory that a more progressive Democratic nominee would get all the votes that Hillary Clinton did in 2016 plus ones from people who stayed home in disaffection and much of the left-wing spoiler Jill Stein’s share. A more progressive nominee might lose some of the votes that Clinton did get. Who’s to say that the math, in the end, would be all that favorable?

But that hasn’t stopped the leftward lunge of leading contenders for the Democratic nomination, several of whom want “Medicare for all” and many of whom support the decriminalization of illegal border crossings.

That puts them on shaky ground. Polling has shown that when voters are told that Medicare for all would mean an end to private insurance or an increase in taxes, support for it drops below 40 percent.

And according to a Politico/Morning Consult survey published a few days ago, 51 percent of voters support the sweeping raids by ICE that the president trumpets, while just 35 percent oppose them. That suggests that anything that smacks of open borders — which is how President Barack Obama’s secretary for homeland security, Jeh Johnson, described Democratic presidential candidates’ positions in a recent op-ed essay in The Washington Post — puts those candidates at odds with public opinion. Voters see them answering Trump’s extremism with extremism of a different kind.

Which isn’t entirely wrong. Reeling from the ugliness of his actions and words — which are meant to make them reel — Democrats want to repudiate him as forcefully as possible. But that can lead to a reaction that’s neither smart politics nor good policy.

Nancy Pelosi knows this. It’s why she hasn’t been talking up the Green New Deal, single-payer insurance or impeachment, and the suggestion that this makes her some squishy centrist pushover — some musty relic from a timid era — is bunk. She has her eyes on the most meaningful prize, one she pursued successfully in the midterms: Democratic victory. And she can see that in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published a little over a week ago, just 21 percent of registered voters said that there was enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment hearings.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt the accuracy of the reporting on those polls, but they only tell you so much. The electorate is woefully poorly informed, particularly on policy. They don't like Obamacare , but they like the Affordable Care Act. Even the ones who don't like either do like the individual provisions contained therein and don't want them to go away, often assuming that those provisions were already the law.

As for impeachment support, support for Nixon's impeachment was quite low as well — until impeachment hearings began and the electorate began to hear about what Nixon did. What Trump did is approximately 6000 times worse, but a significant number of Republican voters haven't heard about any of it, because Fox and right-wing talk radio are such effective propaganda. Remember when that lady said she was shocked to discover that the Mueller Report wasn't favorable to the President, because she had only heard the opposite from the Republican "news" bubble? 

Televised impeachment hearings would be much more difficult to ignore.  Not enough of the corruption and malfeasance is on television to get to these people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What news programs do you think these people will be watching to learn about impeachment? You think fox news is just gonna present the facts? They'll act like this is the long awaited invasion of France and call out every reserve to scream about the injustice. They've been priming their base for it for 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

So, no “Jail time Trumpy, jail time.”?

 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was gonna say the slogan is easy as fuck - "Lock Him Up!"

Actually now that I think about it one of the women should go ahead and get "Shut Him Up!" trademarked, before he uses it on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

Actually now that I think about it one of the women should go ahead and get "Shut Him Up!" trademarked, before he uses it on them.

I think this one has a much better chance of being viewed favorably without falling into the inevitable "BOTH SIDES!!!111!!!111!" crap if you use "Lock him up" or "Send him home". Because just about everyone who isn't a Republican does want Donny to shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was gonna say the slogan is easy as fuck - "Lock Him Up!"

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

Maybe. I think this election will be defined by Trump. More people will be motivated by another 4 years of Trump or avoiding another 4 years of Trump rather than any progressive ideals that will not stand a chance of getting through Congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

The problem with that is the democratic party would be defining itself exclusively as Trumps foe.  It does not say what they stand for, hence, big chance it'd flop.

Reelections are always about the incumbent.  No point in pretending they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the media this weekend, reading here, it sure sounds as if We Who Know have decided tvillain's second term is in the bag.  Especially with the disaster of choosing the next Dem candidates' debate format and who is with whom.

What I really want is that each candidate get asked, "When you are elected and the armed uprising rises, what is your plan for dealing with it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Make America Great Again" is complete bullshit, but it's a fricken' awesome slogan. It only works when you're the opposition, and it's only a once in a couple of generations thing. At the end of Trump's second term his Republican would-be replacement can use it, neither can any Democrat. "Yes we can" was equally vacuous, and equally effective.

The problem is real policies for making things better are hard to sloganise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Reading the media this weekend, reading here, it sure sounds as if We Who Know have decided tvillain's second term is in the bag.  Especially with the disaster of choosing the next Dem candidates' debate format and who is with whom.

What I really want is that each candidate get asked, "When you are elected and the armed uprising rises, what is your plan for dealing with it?"

The more I hear this stuff the crazier it sounds.  Trump's crazier than a shithouse rat and he has plenty of followers drinking the koolaid.  But this armed uprising shit is total nonsense.  You think talking about medicare for all is bad?  How is it going to sound when candidates assume the oppositions voters will rebel with violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The more I hear this stuff the crazier it sounds.  Trump's crazier than a shithouse rat and he has plenty of followers drinking the koolaid.  But this armed uprising shit is total nonsense.  You think talking about medicare for all is bad?  How is it going to sound when candidates assume the oppositions voters will rebel with violence?

Ya and he and his are totes not racist, rapists, pedophiles, criminals and traitors who suggest at every rally that US citizens who aren't for them be beat up, locked up, deported and, yes, even killed.

Not to mention how often outright murder has been and continues to be committed all the time in this county by these same people you characterize as kool aid drinkers, who all seem to have guns.  A lot of guns. Who want to use those guns more than almost anything else they want, unless it's doing a rape and lynching before they start shooting -- and burning down stuff too.

I sure hope you get proven right and I get proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that surprising, but polls show that Hickenlooper looks very strong as a Senate candidate in Colorado.  Really hope he drops out of the Presidential race and runs there which O'Rourke could also do.

Am I right that in order to do this they'd just need to decide by the time their party has its own election for being Senate nominee?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×