Provided courtesy of Hugh Atkins. From his Youtube channel
Provided courtesy of Hugh Atkins. From his Youtube channel
D-O-N A-L-D T-R-U-M-P DONALD TRUMP mike pence DONALD TRUMP mike pence, forever hold our ‘whatever’ high. *snickers* Welcome to the Trumpeteers club kids.
I could leave it at that! Just that could be the take-away, the meme for the day.
But I won’t!
Invocation of the muse
Oh, ‘wherever’ shall I start? ‘With what’ shall I commence with, and wherefore shall I begin. Opinion? Satire, Lampoon? Bombast? I have no problem with all four, as you may have noticed. I like Mr Trump’s style; his unique oratory style, his lack of political correctness-ive. Is it respect? is it imitation? is it some serendipitous, weird parallel reality mojo? Only time will tell! I guess! I don’t use exclamation for emphasis, I use them properly, to note an exclamation, as in, I exclaim. A phrase that doesn’t qualify as a sentence, yet must be said. And much can and must be said about Mr Trump. I exclaim! Well that’s some measure of Ado about not much. So I’ll get on with doing what I do so well. ‘snickers’ Oh, it’s fun being me! Okay, well that was for emphasis, giggles.
So the big news, Mr Trump went down to Mexico yesterday (Aug 31)—
where he meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto. It was reported to me that Pres. Nieto took a siesta while Mr Trump droned on in his stylistic fashion—as he does—during the meeting. After the private meeting the two made some public remarks before the press. As I watched the video feed I noted that it took some time for the two to enter the room and take to the podiums—as one does after taking a short nap—I also observed Pres Nieto blinking his eyes several times, so that lends some credence to the reportage I received concerning the nap-age.
I woke up Wednesday morning to hear of Mr Trumps appointment with the President of Mexico; I thought with glee, now’s the time, getting all rife with it, now’s the time to build the wall, the perfect-es-es time to build that wall; I was disillusioned as I didn’t note any press releases detailing that such an endeavor had begun. *sad face emoji here* I understand the first thing discussed was Mr Trumps pie in the sky proposal for a big fat wonderful wall, and who would pay for it. In an earlier report the former President of Mexico declared that Mr Trump was not liked or welcome in Mexico, and that he would not be F-ing paying for the wall. Mr Trump responded with, “We’ll build the wall ten feet higher.” Shortly after that I learned that the stock in companies that make pole vaulting poles ten feet higher soared above the competition. The ones made in Mexico! Bazinga!
So what I understand from the print media is that the issue of the wall, and presumably who would pay for it, was first on the agenda, with the candidate relating that the wall was discussed, who would pay for it was not discussed. “Who pays for the wall? We didn’t discuss,” [D Trump] Later President Enrique Peña Nieto related that building the wall and who would pay for it, was discussed. He also said flatly that Mexico would not be paying for it. He also related that the issue with Mexicans illegally crossing the border peaked some ten years ago, and that the real issue was the torrent of guns (torrente di pistole) crossing into Mexico. I would propose that cash flowing into Mexico from the illicit drug trade, to the Mexican Drug Cartels providing cash to purchase said armaments, is also an issue.
After the discussing the wall, Pres. Nieto related that the conservation moved on to other topics “in a respectful fashion. There be no raised voices, flailing arms, vaguely threatening innuendo there. Presumably! Topics such as trade and commerce. The candidate has made the Wall (immigration) and trade the centerpiece of his campaign. On the campaign trail the candidate has been railing against the lack of immigration policies resulting in an influx of undocumented migrants. He also has been bemoaning the ‘unfair’ trade practices of countries that the US has trade agreements with; relating that the US is the ‘big loser’ and that if the policies are not ‘renegotiated’ the nation will become a third-world nation, presumably. This is of course rhetoric and political pandering. Of course my opinions also classify as rhetoric, but that’s beside the point. In Pres Nieto’s carefully crafted response, he expressed the fact that Mexico is not the only winner, that the US benefits, relating that “I don’t think that commerce must be considered a zero sum game, so that only one wins and the other one loses,” [Pres Nieto] he also noted that “more than six million US jobs rely on exports to Mexico.” All of which depends on the NAFTA treaty. NAFTA, if you remember, was a product of Daddy Bush’s Administration, proposed, negotiated, signed by the three leaders of the applicable nations during Bush’s administration; yes it was ratified by/during Pres Clinton’s administration, it passed the House and Senate by a GOP majority, and then was signed into law by Pres Clinton.
After the meeting during the press conference both the leader of Mexico and candidate Trump dispensed with some prepared remarks. Pres Nieto spoke rationally about how the relationship between Mexico and the US has been a long one, and mutually benefited both nations. Candidate Trump spoke in rhetoric that amounted to political pandering. That’s my take on it, and you’re welcome to it.
So Mr Trump began his campaign shouting about how all Mexicans being ‘sent’ to us were Gypsy’s Tramps and Thieves, well at least Criminals and Rapists and other unsavory types. All part of a grand scheme on the part of the authorities in the Mexican government presumably. After which he continued to espouse on the nefarious deeds of other ethnic groups, first calling out an entire Religion, then softening his rhetoric to, well, regions that contain a high population of said religion. All in the name of national security. ‘God Damn their eyes’ the candidate said; as reported to a brother, of some cousin, who told three friends, one of which tweeted about it, or so I’m told. Yes! All this shouting of course is to espouse the need to curtail the massive influx of people that are flocking to our shores to bask in the glory of freedom and democracy, which brings us to the immigration stance of the aforementioned candidate. Mr Trump wants to deport all those who have come to this nation yet haven’t been able to wade through the bureaucracy of the immigration laws and become proper citizens. This would require rounding them all up and sending them packing. This is strange as Republican leaders are all about smaller, less restrictive government; and it would seem to this researcher that this endeavor would require beefing up the Immigration and Customs Enforcement apparatus. All the while lowering taxes that primarily benefit those with lots of money, and want more, so as they can invest it and make more money, which they don’t have to pay quite as much Taxes on. It’s a vicious cycle. Yet, perhaps, we can make someone else else pay for all this deporting, perhaps a deportation Tax. I don’t see that happening! I can’t imagine an individual accumulating a pile of cash sitting in an ICE detention facility. Another vicious cycle. One that requires government funding to operate such a facility. Sigh! And with that sigh I’ll begin the next paragraph.
Just recently the candidate has been softening his tone, his stance, his rhetoric on this issue. Proposing that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be so harsh with individuals that have been a credit to society, that are flourishing in this great nation, and are at least willing to pay taxes, on the pay they get from their low pay jobs. Jobs such as waiters, cooks and housekeepers at Mr Trumps Mar-a-Lago Club down on Florida’s ‘other coast.’ Which brings us to the next paragraph quite nicely.
At Wednesday’s (Aug 24th) rally in Tampa, Donald Trump declared he would be the “greatest jobs president that God ever created,” growing opportunity and protecting Americans “from illegal immigration and broken visa programs.” “We have to take care of the people of our country,” Trump said. [Tampa Bay Times 1st and 2nd para] Trump has been “in-sourcing” for more than a decade, some 800 positions at Mar-a-Lago since 2006. He is currently seeking 13 foreign workers for Trump National Golf Club Jupiter, records show. [TBT 4th para] He defends the legal practice, saying he can’t find other workers. That’s simply false, according to a local career center .[TBT 5th para] “When you bring someone in on one of these visas they can’t go work for anybody else,” Rubio said during a March 3 debate in Detroit. “They either work for you or they have to go back home. You basically have them captive, so you don’t have to worry about competing for higher wages with another hotel down the street. And, that’s why you bring workers from abroad.”[TBT 12th para
We see Mr Trump is hard on Immigrants, except when they benefit his ‘bottom line.’
I propose we build a wall around Mr Trump and make him pay for it.
“Voters quickly forget what a man says.”
“It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.”
“It must not appear that you’re trying to affect the network’s news content. That’s what you must do, but you must not appear to be doing that. That would be stupid.”
“Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I wouldn’t want to wake up next to a lady pipefitter.”
“You know, the big Jewish contributors to the Democrats. Could we please investigate some of the c***s***ers? That’s all.”
“I’m not for women in any job. I don’t want any of them around. Thank God we don’t have any in the cabinet.”
“You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates. Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags….You know what happened to the Popes? It’s all right that Popes were laying the nuns, that’s been going on for years, centuries, but, when the Popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in, I don’t know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual.”
“This is a great day for France!”
“I was under medication when I made the decision to…”
“I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue.”
“You don’t know how to lie. If you can’t lie, you’ll never go anywhere.”
“I would have made a good Pope.”
“Well, did you do any fornicating this weekend?”
All quotes Richard Nixon
The document has moved here.">
The document has moved here.
I was amazed to learn this morning that the founding of ISIS laid right smack-dab on the shoulders of Pres Obama, with Mrs Clinton in the corner cheering him on, presumably. I thought perhaps I awoke in a dystopic alternate reality. Then I learned who was making these claims, none other then the esteemed candidate for president, the GOP’s darling, Donald J Trump. *insert the rumble of thunder of here* Well I had my ah ha moment for the day, then looked into the matter further. Didn’t take long, it seldom does with this man; like shooting pike in a barrel; making hay out of his ramblings, blathering(s), and disassociated thought processes. I mean, what does Mr Trump think, what wool is he using; does he think Google was only invented yesterday, does he think we can’t figure out how to use it? (Google) Laughs, hope you enjoyed that link, I hope Mr Trump reads this and clicks that. Back to the discussion already in progress. Mr Trump does know how to use Twitter, to some extent; I learned today he doesn’t use e-mail, perhaps he is daunted by the lack of a 140 character limit. Bazinga! Enough of the fun, I will dispense with my thoughts on the question and present them thus.
So the claims out of Mr Trumps mouth; “In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama,” Trump said at a rally in Florida. “He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS.” , “Trump continued: “I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.” That was on Wednesday; he doubled down on Thursday with speaking with Hugh Hewitt; “Last night you said that the president was the founder of ISIS,” Hewitt said. “I know what you meant, you meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.” Trumps response; “No, I meant that he’s the founder of ISIS.” [Then on CNN he tripled down with]; “The way he removed our troops,” Trump said, apparently referencing the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Iraq by 2011. “I, you — we shouldn’t have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq.”( see ) The last cite seems to be the premise of Mr Trumps delusions.
In order to invalidate Mr Trumps statement we first need to look at the onset of the Iraq war. The Iraq war began Mar 20 2003, please note the date, long before the current administration began. The evasion began, clouded in mystery, with the claims of weapons of mass destruction WMD being held by the S Hussien regime. (later to be determined false) S. Hussien was captured in Dec 2003 during Operation Red Dawn. Leading to, as Wikipedia describes it:
“The invasion led to the collapse of the Ba’athist government; Saddam was captured during Operation Red Dawn in December of that same year and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam’s demise and the mismanagement of the occupation led to widespread sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces. The United States responded with a troop surge in 2007 to attempt to reduce the violence.” [Wikipedia] [Again note the dates]
As the cite relates the instability in the region resulted from the overthrow of the Hussien regime, long before the present administration. As for the draw down:
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was approved by the Iraqi government on 4 December 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009, and that all U.S. forces would be completely out of Iraq by 31 December 2011.[Wikipedia] [Once again the date Dec 2008, that was on Baby Bush’s watch]
“The way he removed our troops,” Trump said, apparently referencing the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Iraq by 2011. “I, you — we shouldn’t have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq.” [cited above] Here we have Trump; one, appearing to not be able to string a coherent thought together; two, bemoaning the fact over the way the troops were removed; and here the confusion begins; because he launches into; …we shouldn’t have…I was… la la la…la. This is at the most a red herring. The draw down was a result of the agreement between the Iraq government and the US govt. Not just some off-handed decision of the Obama administration.
The claim that ISIS was founded by Pres Obama and company is ridiculous. The members of the ISIL share in the same ideology as so many others (social groups) in the region. Sectarian violence that divide so many. Age old beliefs, feuds, drive the anger that fuels the strife. Ideas can not be defeated by bullets, bombs, isolating them (the people that hold them) into ghettos, and/or killing them (The Ideas). The very thought of killing an Idea held by so many is preposterous. For these reasons, Mr Trump ascribing the blame to Pres Obama is ludicrous, not to be taken seriously. These Ideologues don’t tend to gather under one banner, coalesce into one name; their intolerance of those that do not believe as they do is ageless. And, surprise, occurs in all cultures, in all religions. The central “Idea’ of all conflict is, ‘I am right, you are wrong.’ Plenty of that to go around, in case you haven’t noticed. Until ‘we’ confront and invalidate that ‘Idea,’ there will always be strife, there will always be war. Any politician that rambles and blathers on, about ‘Them’ any politician that seeks to divide; is part of the problem, and will not offer any viable solutions.
Aug 9 2016
Wilmington, North Carolina:
At Wilmington today Mr Trump appeared to issue a veiled suggestion inciting ‘The second amendment people’ to insurgency. So the speech at the rally in Wilmington NC was caught on video, and is now appearing on many outlets, with reporters spinning whatever bias they wish to with it. So, the direct quote as seen by this reporter (yours truly), to wit:
“Hillary wants to essentially Abolish the second amendment; by the way, if she gets to pick her judges, *shrugs* nothing you can do folks” Mr Trump continued; “Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know”
First, let’s pick this apart contextually! As he relates, the statement, “Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd amendment,” this has already been fact checked, and it is false. I check the headlines daily; especially the political news, I also check the election section of several media outlets. From what I have noted, there has been no reporting of statements from Mrs Clinton along these lines. Second, in the context of the statement it has Mrs Clinton, in the White-house, picking judges, that presumably trample all over our rights to bear arms. Then immediately following that, the statement; “Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” This appears to be a reference to ‘the right to bear arms,’ following that with “maybe there is, I don’t know” it suggests that Mr Trump is issuing a coded message to the 2nd amendment people to do so, bear arms, and presumably use them. The campaign acted swiftly to give a better spin to Mr Trumps statement, releasing the following statement;
“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
Now this is all well and good, come out with something before Mr Trump had the chance to double down on his rhetoric. But as I related in my contextual analyses, this doesn’t fit with Mr Trumps statement. First the statement refers to a Clinton administration already in progress; second, Mr Trump has shown his ability to turn a slogan into a campaign moment, viz “Don’t say lock her up; vote! He didn’t go there; instead making a veiled suggestion, that there may be need for ‘bearing arms,’ to preserve our god given right to kill something. That’s what firearms most oft do, kill something. Let’s take another look at Mr Trumps character as characterized by some of his other public statements; “I would bring back waterboarding and even more extreme enhanced interrogation methods” “it’s okay to kill the families of the enemy” “it just may be that a nuclear preemptive strike is the way to go”. It’s been said before; ‘you can judge a man by the words that come out of his mouth,’ Based on these remarks, the candidate has established a history of inciting violence. Mr Trump has been a public figure for decades, his character has been on display for decades. Is this the man we want to be the Commander in Chief, the man with the nuclear codes at his fingers night and day? You decide!
Get out the vote
8-9-2016 Jeffrey C McMahan
Over the last week DJTrump has been telling us he has foreseen his doom. Claiming it will be due to the ‘Clinton Machine’ engineering some kind of scheme to commit fraud on a national level. In the national election system no less. I’ve observed the man speaking on a national broadcast network musing about that they’ll be people casting ten ballets, then he doubled down and related that it would be one hundred ballets cast by one person; leaving the polling place, turning around and returning to cast another vote for the ‘Clinton apparatus, no doubt. Perhaps in a following segment he claimed a great big fat wall would have prevented it; I didn’t see it though, so my opinion doesn’t count for much in that regard.
According to this observer many sound bites spew from the man in question; most of them appear to be off-the-cuff nonsense. Most of them can’t be written off as ‘thee liberal media machine’ spinning his antics, his comings and goings, his bombastic rhetoric; with its (the liberal media machines) peculiar bias; as most have been caught on video and make the rounds of the nefarious ‘lame stream media.’ Even the more conservative media outlets disseminate the same content, so that tends to add some validity to the messages.
This prophetic utterance, this claim that the only way he’ll lose is due to some grand conspiracy that will ‘steal’ the show, is nonsense; the candidate will win or lose based on the merits of his broad public appeal. Not looking likely after that sentence. Bazinga! But this claim; implying that the Clinton apparatus can only win by cheating is, not only a win-win proposal for the candidate, it is also the go to argument on playgrounds throughout the nation. It’s a win, as if he loses he cans bray ‘I told you so;’ also typically heard on playgrounds; and if he wins he can go on and on about how he beat the odds against corruption and nefarious activity at the highest level. Thereby validating his curious world-view.
The real issue here, in my opinion is, not only is he running against Mrs Clinton, she also happens to be a women. That in a nutshell is the crux of the matter. That and his small hands. Hold I’ll say no more.
This dynamic, Trump vs woman, seems to be a common denominator in the public persona of the candidate, dating back several decades at least. Just look at the size of his towers. There has to be some compensation, some method of satiating an ego twisted out of proportion in some aggrandizing fashion. The way the man projects his frailties, his weaknesses, upon others, speaks volumes to the careful observer. Admitting failure, admitting defeat, is not in the playbook, it is always the external, those ‘other(s)’ forces, that puts the boot to the throat, that keeps the man down; he builds great big beautiful golf courses, perhaps because he hasn’t been invited to join the exclusive clubs. The clubs that the real movers and shakers belong to. I think this insight, speaks to the man’s insecurities, and also contributes to his megalomania.
This claim that the vote will be rigged, is as I have said is nonsense, it also belies the fact that it is the GOP that typically uses this tactic. Note the oppressive voting laws, that have been struck down time and time again by the higher courts. Note the technique of Gerrymandering which is the process of drawing the lines of districts to include primarily, republican voters see here and isolate districts that contain populations that are unlikely to be able to comply with the said voting laws, the oppressive ones. Besides the last election that was stolen was the 2000 election, the Bush vs Gore, election; the election ‘too close to call’ with the ‘hanging chads’ with Florida being the johnny come lately, the state that hadn’t published it’s election results, until long after I went to bed, at 11:00 pm, on the west coast; and held out for several days, examining every ballet for the aforementioned ‘hanging chads.’ Not only that but Jeb Bush happened to be the governor of Florida at that time. shenanigans I call! But that’s almost ancient history, no need to drag that through the streets. Hanging it out to dry on clotheslines across this great Nation. It’s popular to blame President Bush, it’s popular to blame President Obama, it’s so easy to blame the past for the failures of the present, so I’ll get on with the present. Which brings me back to a discussion of the candidate in question. See how I did that, the twisted and torturous trail I weave/wove.
So who gets the blame, is it the ‘Clinton apparatus’ or does it lay to rest on the shoulders of the GOP? In my opinion it is all on the GOP. The Republican voting base nominated the candidate. That’s not on the Democratic candidate, or the Democratic voting base. The Democrats did not set the platform of the RNC; the Democrat Party did nor coerce the Candidate(s) to utter the sensational public statements that has spewed from the candidate(s) mouth. After the 2012 shellacking the GOP took, the RNC, amid much hand-wringing set out to accomplish a post mortem analyse of the brawl, and come up with policies that would make the GOP winners again; one notable one was to broaden the public appeal of the GOP to include minority groups. Four years later we have what we have. And who is to blame?