Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.

SOCK IT TO ME BABY!!!

Monday, January 16, 2017

And this is why the next election will be a landslide- and why I'm ignoring you

So the other day I was reading a friend's FB post about Ben Carson when a woman claimed Carson was in over his head.  My friend pointed out that having no experience in an area is not the same as being incompetent, especially when you want to change the paradigm, the dynamics of what's always been done.  The woman replied that her opinion wasn't just based on that, but in listening to Carson's public appearances since running for President.  Her opinion based on what she saw was that he seemed "incoherent" and wondered how he could have possibly been a brain surgeon.

Should my friend, then, give more weight to her position?  Who knows?  We are doused in such a crapfest of opinions, how do we tell what is justified anymore?  That same friend had another woman on another post basically parrot the "thought process" of eminent expert Rosie O'Donnell, who wants MARTIAL LAW declared to prevent Trump's inauguration "until all criminal charges are cleared."  This woman too mentioned criminal charges, and my friend asked the sole pertinent question of her:  WHAT criminal charges?  Did he use substandard security in handling government secrets and then lie to congress about it?  Did he use his "legal skills" to prevent the incarceration or trial of a "loved one" accused of rape?  Just what criminal act had Donald Trump committed?

So the woman, as many I have seen who step into a bigger FB argument than their knowledge and intellect (not to mention agenda) can handle have done, posted a long-winded copy-and-paste bashing of Trump- which at NO POINT had anything amounting to a criminal charge in it.  When my friend pointed this out, she admitted, yes, it was a copy and paste, yes, it had no ACTUAL charges, but it CERTAINLY should make you see that he SHOULD be charged with something.  And if he hadn't been, it was just because the right law hadn't been found, applied, or manufactured.

Point being, there are just a lot of people out there who, instead of seeking meaningful dialogue to make a better country, are out there running their mouths to cause trouble.  Not because Trump has or will do something objectionable, but just because they don't want him to be President.  Take for example, another failed Democrat Presidential candidate- Martin O'Malley.  Remember him- the guy that got like 1% or so in a couple of primaries before he noticed no one was listening to him?  Well, what better way to get stupid people to listen than this garbage he tweeted Saturday:

Now is not the time for reconciliation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't reconcile with the Nazis. MLK didn't reconcile with the KKK. Now we fight


I have recently been reading a book, Endgame, 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II
by David Stafford.  Included are several pages about the liberation of Nazi death camps.  And I am telling you now, I am at the point of wishing severe bodily harm to anyone else who compares ANYONE in the USA of being like these inhuman bastards.  I didn't like it when it was used unintelligently against Obama, and I don't like it now.  You want to know what the Nazis were like, read something about them.  If you can compare anyone in this nation to that, you have an overactive, malignant imagination and really need to do some serious self examination before you inflict mankind with your opinion any further.

In just a few moments of reading various news sites, I have come up with more examples of stupidity.  Another recent battle with a FB "opinionist" had me being told how much other countries laughed at us when GW Bush was President, and they are laughing now.  Maybe if you only read the HIGHLY leftist BBC accounts, or perhaps the leftist "news" sites that she claimed she didn't use but then sited them over and over in her attack on me.  But, let's look at how some other countries are ACTUALLY seeing things.  From an article on Russia's love for the Obama administration:

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of foreign affairs committee in the upper house of parliament, described the White House's decision to expel Russian diplomats as an "agony of not even lame ducks, but political corpses."

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went further.

"If 'Russian hackers' hacked anything in America, there were two things: Obama's brain, and, of course, the report about 'Russian hackers,'" she wrote on Facebook.

Zakharova charged that "Obama and his illiterate foreign policy team have dealt a crushing blow to America's prestige and leadership" and described his administration as "a bunch of geopolitical losers, enraged and shortsighted."

Obama's administration still has a few days left to "destroy the world," Zakharova wrote.


Not convinced?  Here's another from al-Jazeera:

There has been much talk about US President-elect Donald Trump’s hardline stance on immigration.

But Trump will be inheriting a well-oiled deportation infrastructure from the Obama administration, which has deported 2.5 million people - more than every single US president of the 20th century combined.


OUCH.  CNN and Politico don't report much on THAT, do they?

Or how about an article I found on Motherboard, in which scientists are rushing to archive data that they are terrified that Trump will erase?  Because he is an "anti-science" President... really?

“When government takes an active hand in framing science—an incoming chief executive who called climate change a ‘Chinese hoax’ and suggested that maybe vaccines do cause autism, a new EPA head who is a climate change denier, a key advisor who thinks that a president of the United States shouldn't be held accountable for what he actually says—it’s troubling,” Chris Labash, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, told me.


How VERY unlike the report on the BBC (of all places) a good while ago that talked about how the climate change crew had threatened scientists that disagreed with their conclusions, and fudged numbers to make "global warming" seem more realistic?  And having just looked at an article from the Salt Lake Tribune on the subject of autism and Trump, how do you make the leap from wanting to make sure of his facts to banning vaccines?  You see, Trump is not guilty- he's "guilty by association", and third hand association at that.  Kind of like how Jeff Sessions is a KKK supporter.


Or here, another article about that "dirty dossier" that John McCain ("the Annamese Candidate"?) supplied the FBI with on Trump from al-Jazeera that compares the "oh, that's okay" attitude for an MI6 agent who ran a personal attack on Trump to the "how dare they" Russian hacking of the ineptly run-and-secured DNC.  If I were you I would look at the whole thing, but here are some highlights for the time challenged:

Imagine a hypothetical situation: A former FSB officer provides a "dirty dossier" about US presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. He has left the Russian intelligence services and now operates his own private intelligence firm, with the implicit approval of the FSB.

Once the dirty dossier is published, its accuracy and sourcing is widely questioned - and even whether the media should have reported on the allegations at all. That FSB officer is then outed in the US press... Once his name is made public, a range of anonymous Russian security sources brief the Russian press that the officer is a "highly regarded professional," and former colleagues rally around him, saying much the same. His reputation is bolstered in order to make the allegations made against Clinton seem more credible. How would the US press respond?

This is in fact exactly what has just happened during Trump's final approach to the White House, except it wasn't the FSB - it was the British Secret Intelligence Service, colloquially known as MI6, and it wasn't a former FSB officer turned private investigator, it was Chris Steele, a former MI6 agent...

At the time the dossier was going round, I understand from talking to those who know Steele well, that he was privately very concerned about civil unrest on the streets, and was also deeply worried, as many serving intelligence officers were, about Trump's stance on NATO, and his sympathies for Vladimir Putin.


These are not unusual views among serving Western defence officials, and they are very legitimate criticisms of the pending disaster that is the Trump administration. Steele was also a man who had run MI6 operations in Russia, had been working with the assassinated Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko shortly before his death, and who greatly feared that Trump would take the United States into an alliance with the Kremlin....

I am no fan of either Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin - in fact, I despise both, but we can at least recognise that in the case of Trump, the mechanics of the US election were fairly carried out, and Trump did win. To thwart such a victory would do far more damage to US democracy than even Trump may manage (hopefully).


I wish he hadn't won, of course, and it is obvious that many within the US and British intelligence community wish he had not either, but democracy is more important than the private political views of intelligence officers. Whether it is the FSB or MI6, the principle of serving or former spies not getting involved with foreign countries elections is sacrosanct. You cannot, on the one hand, denounce Putin for doing it, and then be doing it yourselves.


Alastair Sloan (the author) is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK.


And this is what I am sick to death of- the left going about screaming about obstruction and the end of the world, and doing the same things and worse that they accuse the right of.  Let me wrap this rant up with an interesting piece from Philly.com on the 1917 Zimmerman Telegram (you know, the one whose skillful use led the US into WWI?) and the lessons it teaches on fake news:


"The greatest strategic threat the U.S. faces is the general ignorance of the past and how the past is with us every day," said David Kohnen, interim executive director at the U.S. Naval War College Museum.

Retired Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, current director of the Naval History and Heritage Command, said he sees parallels with Russia's recent actions, but stressed that England wasn't trying to diminish U.S. influence in the world by discrediting its values and democracy.

Cox focused on how many people refused to accept the telegram's authenticity because it didn't fit with their preconceived notion of reality, which he said is a reminder of the importance of driving misinformation and rumor out of political debate.


"If you have an environment where the truth becomes optional, like we're kind of facing today, once you're in that environment it becomes difficult to break out of it," he said. "People refuse to believe the truth because they can't tell the difference."


And so, those of you from the left that want to emulate Rosie O'Donnell running around like a fat, ugly Chicken Little, those of you that think that I am going to be humbled by your paste job from partisan hacks like Buzzfeed, and any losers out there that want to compare your enemies with the KKK or Nazis, let me tell you right now the only three responses your efforts will get from me:

1- I am only going to respond to you if I feel I can glean entertainment value from it.  Otherwise, I'll do my best to scroll right on by.

2- Your own efforts are going to suffer because I'll be ignoring those of you who are willing to try and make legitimate points with the rest.  Because that is the consequences of hate fueled stupidity.

3- You are only going to make me more resistant to working with your side, because these inane antics only destroy your credibility.  People keep telling you, the way you're acting is why Trump got elected in the first place.  At the rate you are going, it will be a landslide next time.  But you are too busy throwing your hissy fit to care.  So why should I?

16 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. As I know you know, Facebook is a simmering stew of hyperbolic partisan hysteria (both sides). At least my experience on Blogger hasn't been so venomous (there are people on Blogger who do not share our political views, but they aren't hateful. I'm sure they're out there, though, unfortunately). I'm going to do my best to restrict my interaction on Facebook to just silly things. Twitter less so, but I will still be kinda "whack" there. I still like to laugh!

      Delete
    2. And you know I agree with you. Somedays, I REALLY agree.

      Delete
  2. Damn, laying the smack down here. Yeah, I think the thing that keeps me out of any of these political arguments is that 99% of them are fueled by nonsense that isn't rooted in any sort of fact. I don't care whether you're left, or right, or in between - if you believe something so passionately that you want others to see the so-called truth, then site logical facts to support your argument, don't just tell us that we need to listen to you because that's what 'you feel'. Feelings are NOT facts.

    Also, let us please note that these people who want Donald Trump criminally charged with... you know, whatever... are most likely the same people who swear that Hillary Clinton didn't do anything wrong and you all should just, like, leave her e-mails and her foundation alone, you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't like that Trump is the president elect.
    I don't like his choice of cabinet members, or most of his appointments.
    I think he's found every loop hole to protect his own interests over the country's.

    Know what? Trump could care less that I feel that way. That's fact. And I'll get over it, because there's nothing I can do about it.

    But I do believe you're right, because in the end, nothing will be done over the divide in this country, and some one will be reelected in again, if not Trump, then another republican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll just point out two things under the heading "IMHO". Your third line applies to everyone who took a shot at public office this go-round, I'm afraid. Second, I don't know at this point it CAN be another Republican. Depends on how they support Trump. If they decide to fight him for the sake of fighting- like so many are doing right now- they might just convince MORE people that both parties are has beens.

      I think it's a shame, though, all the Dems disrespecting the office to spite Trump. Republicans didn't like Obama any better, and a LOT of them made the point of not standing/applauding when the "pregnant pauses" told them to. But, they SHOWED UP. If the Dems are making any point at all in this, it's that they have the luxury of being the bigger a-holes this time around. And next time the POTUS is a Dem, they are going to be so "shocked" and "disgusted" by Republicans taking their cue and doing the same thing. The cycle continues. And that bunch of privileged idiots will keep playing one-up and the country will REALLY be a laughing stock. I think it's time to just settle the hell down and be adults.

      Delete
    2. I agree... it did apply to nearly all the candidates. Actually, the only one I did like didn't even come close to the National stage (And you'd likely be shocked to find he was a Republican. I didn't agree with him on A LOT of things, but I felt he was the balance the country needed). And to your second point, I also agree... but if we are leading by example, there's a reason why a large grouping of monkeys is called a "Congress".

      Delete
  4. Chris:
    I really liked your open - both barrels blazing.
    I've always found that opinions are like alimentary canals; everybody HAS one, and that's fine by me.
    But opinion and truth don't always travel the same road.
    (Truth will, although often ignored, speak for itself).
    ---I haven't found anyone in our political realm that would ever come marginally close to the atrocities the Nazis committed, thank God.
    (and never hope to)
    ---I often find less-biased articles & stories from across the pond. Seems they CAN see the forest for the trees, unlike so many here that cannot (or will not). We seem to be hip-deep in propagandist, "feel-good" pablum (and the sheeple suck it up).
    ---It would seem that Adm. Cox "gets it".
    ---And your closing argument was SPOT ON...Bravo!
    You did it all without using all the cuss words I typically employ...heh. WTG!
    I did like your "imho" comment, too.
    Well said.

    Stay safe (and PCBS-free) up there, brother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will hit on just one spot- the "less-biased across the pond" part. You mind giving me your sources? God knows BBC is deep in the democrat pocket, and spare no imagination to bash Trump. I've found al-Jazeera and the Moscow Times FAR more balanced than the BBC. Just wondering who you look into.

      Delete
    2. Don't go w/ BBC (except for DW). I look at The Daily Mail (kinda sensational like the Enquirer at times) and The Telegraph. They're the least left that I've found.
      The Times is also good.

      Delete
    3. The Mail can be a bit... busy to scroll through. Telegraph is good though, I should rely on them more.

      Delete
  5. I don't know what to say, I found this interesting, I know nothing about any of this and like reading things I know nothing about to learn more about stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stick with me, kiddo, we'll learn a lot together...

      Delete