Try Not to Sing Along
2 months ago
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Cathy McMorris Rodgers And Donald Trump
Cathy McMorris Rodgers' support for Donald Trump from hank greer on Vimeo.
I wonder how much she would support him if he was more of an asshole than he already is. But then, how much worse can he be?\ Here's a guy who not only thinks it's okay to sexually assault a woman because he's a celebrity, but then brags about it. A positive disruption indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Thank you, Hank. Big fan, the biggest fan. I look good don't I? People ask how I look so good, even on the media. Even though the media hates me. I still look good. The women still love Donald J. Trump. When you're a star, they love you. Women like Cathy McWhatever Whatever. Because I give them respect, the most respect, ever.
The calls keep coming, you know what? The women keep calling. They want to thank me for putting women's issues front and center in this campaign. I tell you, lots of calls. Because that's what I do. I grab their issues. Low, front, and center. I tell you it's fantastic. They let me do it.
Women like Ivanka, my lovely daughter. Her lovely issues. I need a Tic Tac, I can't help it.
I accept their congratulations, you know? I really do. Because this election is about so much more. So much more. They know that. It's about protecting American women from the Mexican rapists coming across our border. The media criticizes me for that. They do. Look, I'm sure some of those rapists are perfectly fine people. Just boys on the bus, in the locker room.
But here's what I'm saying: I will build a big beautiful wall because it's a feminist issue. For the women.
Don't worry, Hank. I'll never drop out of this race. I will not dissapoint the many women who support me. Many, many women. The most women ever, maybe more. At least a dozen. A handful, two handfuls. Two generous handfuls of women. I need a Tic Tac.
That's why I've appointed myself to lead the Women for Trump organization. Don't believe the lying media! It's not because Melania resigned. It's not because Ivanka ghosted on me. It's not because no other woman would take the position. It's because only Donald J. Trump can best handle women's issues. I will make America great again for women! There will be so many women, the most. So many, many hot women, and no piggies. I can tell you that, it's been a real problem for us.
The media doesn't get it. Crooked Hillary doesn't get it. Only Donald J. Trump can protect hot women from Mexican rapists and the Central Park Five. That's what this election is about. Women's issues.
Tic Tac?
Well Hank, the choice could hardly be more clear. Donald entertains his Deplorables, horrid men from David Duke to Chris Christie, by bragging about his sexual assaults on women.
Meanwhile, I warmly embrace kind, gentle Adorables.
The Adorables include wonderful, generous men like Lloyd Blankfein, the benevolent CEO of the charity Goldman Sachs. While many Americans whine about losing their homes, jobs, and savings in 2008, I applaud Adorable Lloyd's--and Adorable Wall Street's--Adorable decision to grab Americans by their wallets. We need more Adorable behavior like Adorable Lloyd's, and I promise many years of prospering Adorables.
And not just in America. I dream of an Adorable hemispheric regulatory scheme run by Adorable bankers. My Adorables include my Adorable husband Bill Clinton, whose role in Adorable bank deregulation and Adorable anti-labor trade agreements remains unjustly ignored.
And my sincere hope is that, as our Adorable First Gentleman, Bill will serve as a shining example to the boys and young men of America on how to treat a woman right. Not to mention teach them how to handle a cigar Adorably in the workplace.
My Adorables team of couse includes good men like Anthony Weiner, who has generously offered to provide Adorable childcare so overworked moms can get out and vote.
The choice is clear, Hank: Adorables or Deplorables? A Deplorable misogynist who would gladly assault half the population, or an Adorable Woman who would equitably impoverish 99% of the American people?
I think you're Adorable, Hank.
Or at least a cunning linguist.
On the eve of the debate, not a single op-ed or columnist at the New York Times, Washington Post etc etc etc has condemned Clinton for her disturbed, corrupt, anti-democratic, ahistorical, and profoundly bigoted "private" Wall Street speeches.
Not one that I could find. Lots on Trump's lewdness. Nothing on Clinton's boastful threats to screw over average Americans at the behest of Wall Street.
Only small print, below-the-virtual-fold news accounts, at best.
Why the cynicism anon?
Don't you remember the time Abraham Lincoln pocketed millions in speech fees in order to get the 13th Amendment ratified?
Anyway, it's important that the media focus on the important issues. Like Trump walking and standing.
You damn well never saw old Abe walking or standing.
You got me there, Greedom. Nothing says "leadership" like sitting on your ass. Best thing Hillary has ever "done."
I guess there's a reason Lincoln sits in his Memorial.
But why do I get the feeling that if Hillary had been walking and standing, the Nonverbal Specialists would have declared her "assertive" and "Presidential" rather than "alpha-dog," "aggressive," and "lurking."
Almost makes one believe Trump about the media.
On the bright side, we can all be happy to learn that Spokane is big city enough to support a Center for Non-Verbal Studies.
Surprisingly, it's non-profit? What? Too much competition from cut-rate Non-Verbalists in China?
Everytime Spokane invents a new industry the coastal elites destroy it. First mining, then logging, now Non-Verbal analysis.
Interpret this middle finger, Washington Post.
Don't forgot Trump's "a snorting bull" and "alpha-MALE." All this quack psychology is invariably sexist, in very predictable p.c. ways. A total flip from the women dismissed as "hysterical" or "castrating" say in the 1960s, but just as stupidly stereotyped. Just as in the 60s, the analysis continues to say more about the prejudices of the analysts than the analyzed.
Mostly Trump looked like a tall, lumbering, overweight, scowling doofus, though with delicate little hand gestures. Kind of like the fat, aging Steven Segal's constrained kung fu arm gestures.
The more interesting question is why does the elite media mob pursue such bizarre tangents when there are so many legitimate Trump psychological issues to dissect? Perhaps this is an effort to create a physically recognizable archetype that can be applied to the culture at large. Tall shambling men will be ordered to smile, and sit so they are never taller than elite women like Clinton. And never point, cuz a pointed finger is a symbolic dick, and dicks are bad, bad, bad.
Democrats overwrought rhetorical trajectory may yet snatch defeat from the "menacing" "alpha-dog" jaws of victory.
Don't get cocky, Hillary.
This:
Don't you remember the time Abraham Lincoln pocketed millions in speech fees in order to get the 13th Amendment ratified?"
The biggest news of the debate has gone unreported: Hillary Clinton admitted that the Wall Street speech fees were bribes in exchange for her official actions as Senator and Secretary of Speech.
Lincoln of course did NOT take private money in exchange for his work on the 13th Amendment. If he had, those payments would have been bribes.
There is simply no other way to interpret Clinton's statement except as a quid pro quo: "speech fees" for "open trade and open borders" and bank-friendly "balanced regulation."
And no, it matters not at all whether she took the money before/after her tenure as Senator or Secretary of State, except perhaps in whether we choose to say "kickback" or "bribe."
Clinton has walked up to this admission before, declaring she deserved the millions in speech fees because she had worked so hard. Worked so hard doing what? Speaking for an hour? She implied strongly that the payments though were for her "public service"--in other words, for work that she was paid to do by the American people.
Ethics 101: Public servants can NOT take direct private payments for performing their official duties.
But no matter. Clinton has now admitted she took bribes. She has stupidly thrown a lifeline to Trump, if he isn't too dumb to grab it in his "menacing" little hands. Trump was wrong that Clinton was using Honest Abe to cover up a lie. She was citing Lincoln to distract from the truth.
The Justice Department SHOULD investigate her for this admission.
Troubleth, Lincoln did not TAKE bribes, but it is entirely likely that he GAVE bribes.
Didn't Clinton refer to the Spielberg movie? The bribes to congressmen were explicit in the movie, as I recall.
Yes, Clinton seems to be placing herself in the role of the members of Congress, with Lloyd Blankfein in the role of Lincoln.
But, isn't it also possible that Clinton is confessing to GIVING bribes, or a plan to give bribes the way Lincoln did, using the Wall Street cash as the source.
I don't know about congressmen, but there are plenty of writers etc who have gotten gratuities from the Clintons or their Foundation, and then written fawning tributes to the Clintons. Certainly EX-politicians have been rewarded.
Expanding trade is of course hardly a cause as worthy as the abolition of slavery! Just the opposite, actually, for America's working class. WTO/NAFTA/MNF/TPP etc are attempts to re-introduce post-Reconstruction peonage if not forced servitude.
Really, really weird that she brought up Lincoln's actions around the 13th Amendment. Why would she feel compelled to say she would imitate Lincoln and tie that imitation to her Wall Street payoffs?
Where did Lincoln get the money to bribe the Congressman? Government printed greenbacks?
Is so, maybe what Lincoln did wasn't technically illegal, if he justified it under some congressional procurement. Maybe not illegal for a congressman to take it, either?
Legality would explain why Clinton wants to draw a parallel. But if (the) Clinton(s) were acting as conduits for Goldman's cash payoffs, that would just have to be potentially illegal enough to put the question before a grand jury. This isn't the 19th century, as bad as the Clintons' casual corruption may seem.
Clinton's claim of moral equivalance of the TPP and XIII is frankly revolting.
Pussygate intensified quickly into a Category 5 media narrative, showing few signs of weakening even after coming ashore in St Louis.
The unprecedented mega-narrative sucked in and consolidated the power of all other narratives into the roiling Pussygate vortex, reeking havoc on news gathering and analysis across the nation. Citizens seeking to evacuate have had literally no where to go.
There are now scattered signs of increased disorganization at the periphery of Pussygate, including Melania's sheer blouse adorned with a "pussy bow," and a sheepish admission by VerifiedGoodGuy®Tim Kaine that he has occassionally "grabbed pussy" if his wife "lets me do it."
Americans who sheltered in place will emerge into an eerily altered political landscape after Pussygate subsides. "Isn't it funny the things you miss," said one Pussygate victim, "all I can think about is the carried interest tax loophole. Good Lord. We just had no idea that a narrative could come along and just wipe out everything."
I just rewatched the second debate with two other professional videographers.
The reporting in the the NYTimes and WaPo and broadcast sources regarding Trump's behavior on stage is BOGUS. Four Pinochios, WaPo.
Trump stayed in neutral position near his stool and lectern. If anything, Clinton invaded Trump's space.
The footage and pics showing Trump "lurking" and "stalking" etc etc are due to foreshortening of perspective, and Clinton's own on-stage manuevering.
We call bullshit on the media.
None of us will vote for Trump. One of us will actually vote for Clinton. No matter--msm has become as fraudulent as Trump himself.
Just btw.
There hasn't been a pro-labor columnist at the Times since they showed Herbert the door. Just anti-labor bigots there, now.
🤷 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Slow Mo, the following appear likely true:
1. The media provided Clinton with debate questions before her debate with Sanders.
2. The media mocked Trump for claiming his mic wasn't working in debate one, but his mic/monitor actually was not working correctly in the room, causing him to strain while speaking and to appear odd on TV.
3. Clinton's inhalations and breath sounds are suppressed, in the standard fashion. Trump's sound amplified. Compare his debate "snorting" to his campaign speeches using his own equipment. The snorts are absent. Lots of media narrative on the debate snorting.
Do Clinton's behavior at the second debate, and the immediate media narrative of "menacing," suggest collusion? Clinton's campaign likely coached her how to line up for those shots, given the camera location, camera height, and the location of Trump's podium. Trump literally would have had to walk away from Clinton, up to the moderators, to avoid appearing in frame behind her. That may be a fair play by Clinton. But the media should at least deconstruct the two-dimensional images. Instead, the media has provided Clinton with good intentions (empathy with citizens) for her behavior and impugned Trump just for standing in the background. How far did the media go to help Clinton in the debates?
Trump may be right that it was "three against one."
Hillary's investment in pantsuit innovation finally paid off with that white collar number. She could probably spend the rest of the election picking out matching pumps and measuring the Oval Office for curtains. Or just getting drunk in public. This one is in the bag. Bill's mouth and past secrets are bigger dangers to her than snatch-snatching Trump, but nothing she can do about them anyway.
Trump's only hope is a Hail Mary:
1. Stage the biggest Come-to-Jesus event in US political history and repent his potty mouth and wandering tongue and hands.. I mean Jesus literally. The bigger the sinner, the bigger the redemption story, and Americans love a redemption story.
Melania has to play along--remember how Bill leaked how scared he was that Hillary wouldn't forgive him post-Monica? That photo with Chelsea between them, holding their hands, and then the "candid" photo dancing in swimsuits after the Jesse Jackson intervention?
It's a tight time frame, but Melania and Donald have maybe a week to go from estrangement to Jesse to tasteful matching thongs and a Redemption Beach tango.
They don't have kids, true, but Rudy Giulianni would make a cute Chelsea.
2. Trump must then get off his knees and challenge Blankfein, Dimon, and Strumpf to a literal fist fight in the name of all that's holy. Stop picking on the wrong billionaires. Wall Street Smackdown! Bring back Crooked Hillary--this time it's a crusade.
Cherubic altar boy Paul Ryan has a second shot at redemption: he needs to stand up to Trump and announce his own symbolic write-in candidacy for President. He'll lose the Speakership, but it's not worth crap anyway. He may lose his own seat, but probably not, and who cares? The long game is a 2020 presidential nomination, as a Republican or in a revived Whig party. The long game is his _only_ option now. He's gotta show some derring-do and principle. You gotta serve somebody, Paul. It may be the devil, or it may be the lord, but you know you gotta serve somebody. So, get off your ass and be Paul, not a Saul.
Thank god almighty it's over.
Now, if only we had someone to vote for!
Clinton gives a talk to a large group of bankers, in exchange for an enormous amount of cash.
We can assume that these bankers do not all have security clearances, and that the room is not secure. They may not even all be US citizens. These are people who seek information to make profits.
Clinton reveals to the bankers plans for potential covert US operations in Syria, operations that may risk US lives, embroil the US in a wider conflict (perhaps even with Russia) and which likely constitute an illegal evasion of the war powers given to Congress. At the very least, she chummily discusses intervention with Wall Street bankers, but not the American people.
How can we possibly vote for such a person? Clinton's behavior shows that she values neither covert operations nor constitutional constraints. She values money. If she valued covert operations for strategic reasons, or to protect US lives, she would keep her damned mouth shut, regardless of cash incentives. If she valued democracy, she would discuss matters of war with the American people and their representatives, not the 1%!
Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post laud Clinton's behavior in these Wall Street talks? Have the elites learned nothing?
Isn't anyone in the media going to call out Clinton, our next president, for this madness?
The Cinton revealed in the leaks is a careless, duplicitous, elitist and venal character, yes. The opinion-meisters are definitely trying to distract from her appalling behavior.
But the media cannot downplay the significance of the speeches over the long term. We can't "unknow" Clinton's collusion with Wall Street after Trump is dispatched and existential issues of war and economic reform confront Clinton and her Wall Street-selected cabinet.
The media are giving Clinton a free pass, much like the free pass it gave to the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion. The virtual reality they are creating is similarly unsustainable.
Already some of the tropes are bending against their narrative. It's fair to compare Trump to Hitler, but Clinton's "private"-public positioning is much less reminiscent of Lincoln's open drive for the 13th Amendment than it is to Hitler's political obfuscation strategy after his failed Putsch. Clinton has no "team of rivals," even if, like Hitler in the 1930's, she currently appropriates the language of the economic fairness.
Like Hitler, Clinton has created sycophantic concentric rings of centralized information and power while externalizing responsibility and scapegoating others for her actions. Much like 1930s Germany, the media are enabling her delusional, ego-centric world view.
But, the illusion can't be sustained, thanks to these leaks. It would be ironic if Putin has saved us from becoming even more like Russia.
The Democrats say the Russian government hacked Podesta, but provide no evidence. Could be. Could be Russia is just the best party to blame.
Most hacks are just whatever target clicks the link. Podesta opened the porn, maybe, but it could have been Trump, and the story might be different. Does Russia really care, if it is them? Surely Russia knows Clinton is nearly the loose canon as Trump.
This story reminds me of Bill Clinton visiting AG Lynch on the plane. Everyone believes either the meeting was stupid but innocent OR that Bill tried to pressure Lynch into backing off on Hillary. The simpler explanation is Clinton and Lynch wanted exactly the outcome that happened: Clinton ally Lynch would have an excuse to "recuse" herself and everyone already knew Comey would drop the charges (and take the heat).
There is a similar simpler explanation here. Putin may well prefer Clinton as more mentally stable than Trump. Why assume Putin wants Trump's finger on the button, when the missiles point at Russia? Dictators don't really trust fawning courtiers like Donald. If Putin had goods on Trump, he would have played them. Instead, he waits to release damaging information on Hillary AFTER she is firmly in the lead. Ergo, Putin seeks to damage Clinton, but not prevent her election.
Of course, the silence from USGOV means they don't really know. Might just be lulz hackers. We're talking one simple hack, sounds like.
The real bottom line is the corruption of the Clintons. If there had been nothing to be revealed, it wouldn't have been revealed.
Hillary is more like a low-rent Ferdinand Marcos, more interested in expanding the kleptocracy than a true idealogue like Hitler.
Blustery Trump is more Mussolini, more about macho posturing than racial purity.
So, relax, America. Hitler isn't running this time.
Lots of well-written punditry this morning castigating gasbag Trump, and all of it is misleading.
Clinton on-stage, and Brazille etc off-stage, all underline the veracity of the leaks by focusing on Putin. Americans care far less about provenance than content.
Similarly, the idea that Clinton's speeches given to Wall Street crowds, and covering issues of war and banker regulation, are "private" is laughable to Americans who are under constant surveillance by the state and corporations. Surveillance thanks to Clinton herself! NOW the elites care about privacy? Good god! Fair turn around to read what the elites really think about us.
The New York Times thinks Clinton won the puppet smear, but Trump did. People fear Clinton is a Wall Street puppet, more than they fear that Trump is a Russian puppet. Americans fear nuclear war with Russia more than they mourn children dying in Aleppo. No wonder even Stein is creeping back up in the polls as she makes these points.
The Democratic strategy of running out the clock seems iffy to me, as people digest the Goldman speeches for themselves, despite CNN's bogus warning that reading the leaks is illegal. The effort by the media to not cover the leak content makes collusion charges with the Clinton campaign seem more credible. I agree this stance isn't sustainable, but I also think the posture could also help Trump win in the short term.
Gore didn't accept the results in 2000 until the (partisan) SCOTUS had ruled. Trump won't accept a loss either, perhaps, but people put this fear in greater context than the elites. For goodness sakes, was it only a month ago that the media was advocating the NSA monitor US elections to avoid election rigging from abroad? Hey what could possibly go wrong with that scenario!
The real turmoil will occur if Trump wins the popular, comes close/ties in the electoral, and Utah sends McMullin electoral delegates. Or, really, if Clinton is in a Gore situation as well. Democrats won't cede this time.
And if SCOTUS is involved, it could be 4-4, though 5-3 is more likely.
Popcorn, please, seasoned with meth. This could actually be a cliff-hanger.
There should be a media award for the story that best uses personal identity to excuse corruption.
Maybe we could call it The Imelda. The trophy could be a golden shoe. A golden Big Bird! WaPo wins!
Wikileaks has forced the major media to cover the bribes President Clinton has taken, funneled through the Clinton Foundation and skeevy front corporations.
But, the spin! Turns out Bill is just too dumb to realize that the bribes he's taken are, well, bribes! Luckily his woman-of-the-people daughter is on the job, battling both sexism AND Bill's mansplaining crooked aides.
Now, about that Manhattan penthouse, Chelsea. Let me guess, you earned it through a cake sale?
There's no cliff-hanger, Back, and Michael Moore is possibly on crack to call a Trump victory.
But, there is ample evidence that there will be no honeymoon for Hillary, either. Even in the off-chance that Democrats take the House, and forestall further investigations--even if the Clintons drone or jail Assange--the media is now in an existential competition with Assange-like individuals and organizations for legitimacy.
WaPo chief Bezos, who recently went to SCOTUS for the power to physically detain his temp-agency Amazon warehouse workers without pay at the end of their shifts (slavery wins 9-0!), can only buy so much loyalty to his narrative.
The elite kleptocracy, Democratic and Republican alike, continues to march workers toward peonage and slavery, but 2016 is starting to look like Europe in 1789 or 1848 for 'Merican sans-culottes.
Can the elite media and the Clintons hide their corruption behind claims of sexism and racism forever?
A jury acquits the Malheur Gang. The evidence for conviction was overwhelming, and the result shocked the elites, including the judge. This is what jury nullification looks like.
But then, moments later, federal marshals assault and falsely arrest one of the defense attorneys arguing a legal point. This is what Fascism looks like.
The national media highlight the acquittal and ignore the assault.
The verdict, beating and media coverage capture the tenure of our election. Media elites (like "Spokane" Tim Egan) believe the racism and misogyny case against Trump is overwhelming and disqualifying, but blithely ignore their own class bigotry and the profound corruption of their legally untouchable candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton votes for the Patriot Act and calls for wider illegal surveillance of Americans, then demands "privacy" for her public service emails and bribed Wall Street speeches--speeches on public matters she refuses to discuss honestly with Americans. No one in the media calls her out on her hypocrisy, and the media even ignores wikileaks content at the request of her campaign.
Given the candidate options, I've decided to write in Anthony Weiner. He's the president we deserve.
And then move to Mexico. They still have some actual journalists there.
Does this sombrero make my appropriation look fat?
Over at the New York Times today, Charles Blow justifies Clinton's use of a private server to hide her official emails because she is "a woman weary of people’s prying."
Americans have no reasonable expectation, then, of access to the government work product we pay for through our taxes, no matter FOIA and other post-Watergate reforms. Because "a woman" deserves her privacy.
Meanwhile, privacy advocate Hillary Clinton is bragging about her new ad featuring...wait for it...former NSA chief Michael Hayden.
Hayden is of course, one of the people most responsible for the illegal expansion of domestic spying in the United States(not to mention responsible for the US torture program under George W. Bush). Hayden's violations of the Fourth Amendment were revealed by Edward Snowden, and Hayden has threatened Snowden's life in turn.
Of course, nothing in Clinton's political career suggests any meaningful dissent to Hayden's authoritarianism, quite the opposite.
So, when the Times, Democrats, and Clintons defend Hillary's "right" as "a woman" to privacy, what do they really mean?
They mean elites have a right to privacy and you do not (whether you be male or female). They mean that the government should be the privatized domain of secret communications, a safe space for the wealthy, and we in the working classes should just shut up and vote the way our betters tell us to vote.
A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Michael Hayden, for surveillance and torture, for an end to the constitutional rule of law, and not a vote for privacy and a government of limited powers.
Unfortunately, so is a vote for Trump.
Hayden is a good catch, Hard Times, but I may have one better:
Self-identified Clinton-cheerleaders HuffPo (they of the Trump disclaimer after every article) is approvingly quoting Alberto Gonzalez on how Comey didn't follow appropriate process.
Alberto. Gonzalez. W's legal yes man to torture and surveillance.
I still think Clinton will win. But Democrats and their media are giving us a strong signal just they have no intention of following the law once she does.
I think the decision to use Hayden as an authority figure is part of the larger Democratic narrative to embrace the legacy of the Bush era, at least for electoral purposes. In the case of FLOTUS, a literal embrace of the torturer and war criminal George W. Bush.
Sickening, definitely, and a sign that Democrats are writing off Progressives to attract Fascist votes as the election nears.
Next up: Daisy girl runs through a field of blossoms hand in hand with Dick Cheney.
The Clinton Daisy ad is bad strategy.
Meaningless to younger voters, who are unlikely to know the original and are more likely to be spooked by the Halloween-level creepiness of Hayden. In boomer terms, Hayden is a crackpot modern-day Dr Strangelove--but that isn't how he is potrayed in the ad.
For Boomers who remember the original Daisy ad, it's just a reminder of Johnson's dishonesty and his hawkishness. Daisy girl, and napalm girl, and the Vietnam War--and Iraq, and Libya, and...what exactly does Clinton mean to tell us?
On All Saints, the boomer doom.
The normalization of torture, surveillance, militarized robocops, death drones, mass imprisonment, endless war at home and abroad.
The normalization of authoritarianism, Fascism, of corruption, of false-choice elections, of secret courts and secret law, of wealth-based justice.
The normalization of class bigotry, of cheating and scapegoating workers, of hatreds and divisions useful to the elites.
The normalization of unaffordable education, healthcare, and housing.
The normalization of fake news and distractions.
The normalization of environmental destruction, of the burning earth.
Comes a time. Comes a time when the boomer normal will end. Must end, or be ended.
Revolution 2020.
Post a Comment