Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

16061636566103

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It seems to provide support for an accusation of collusion with the Russians by the Trump election team. I wonder what else Mueller has up his sleeve.

    That's the question. Remember that this one facet of the Mueller investigation only became public because of a screw-up on the part of Manafort's legal team.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Donald Trump seems to be on track for an unmatched achievement. The longest continuous shut-down of the U.S. federal government started on December 16, 1995 and ran through January 6, 1996. That's 22 total days. The Trump shut-down started on December 22, 2018. If it runs through January 13, 2019 he'll beat the old record. And we all know how Trump likes to brag about how everything he does is bigger and better than anything anyone else has done.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    No, they aren't. SCOTUS -- Despite Roberts' temporary hold -- has refused to intervene in the Big Secret case: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/supreme-court-subpoena-mueller.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    The following sentence caught my eye in that report:
    Even if that law applied to cases concerning grand jury subpoenas, the panel ruled, the law makes an exception for foreign governments’ commercial activities.

    By coincidence, I recently learned about a particular type of company which is a sort of hybrid government agency and for-profit undertaking; international legal precedent prevents the seizure of the non-commercial assets of such companies, but allows seizure of the commercial ones. The entity is known as a Unitary Enteprise and there are no prizes for guessing which country's former system these are specific to*.

    ==
    *Although I suppose other states might conceivably have similar arrangements.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 10
    One of my friends on Facebook said she was drinking Gin during the speech. I replied I was drinking Tequila (Oh the irony!)

    I am currently reading Ben MacIntyre's book The Spy and The Traitor. In it he talks about how the KGB was grooming a Labour MP who was most likely to become the head of the Party and replace Thatcher--Michael Foot, if you remember him. Anyway, the techniques the book in grooming Foot are the same ones that have been discovered in the Trump campaign. Foot, by the way, eventually disavowed, the Russians, though it sseems they maintained a confidential source file on him.

    A point I made in another discussion, was that of all the Shutdowns that have happened in the past it has been the Republicans that caused them. No one disputed that observation.

    NPR this afternoon reported Trump walked out of negotiations dealing with THE WALL. So much for the deal master,
  • Isn't sharing polling data with the Russians an example commentators gave of a smoking gun when the poop first slid onto the scoop back in 2017?

    Concerning Ms Tlaib's use of motherfucker, she may well not be a practicing Muslim. Many women in Melbourne wear the headscarf in solidarity with their sisters, and as a sign of cultural identity. Its a political act for them, and it may be for Ms Tlaib too. She has form for politics I suppose :)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Isn't sharing polling data with the Russians an example commentators gave of a smoking gun when the poop first slid onto the scoop back in 2017?

    Concerning Ms Tlaib's use of motherfucker, she may well not be a practicing Muslim. Many women in Melbourne wear the headscarf in solidarity with their sisters, and as a sign of cultural identity. Its a political act for them, and it may be for Ms Tlaib too. She has form for politics I suppose :)

    So it is okay for the Orange One to use derogatory names for females, but it not okay for female congressmen to use descriptive names regarding the OO?

    Double Standard anyone?
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    And he walked out of a shutdown meeting with the Democrats because they wouldn't agree to his wall... Classy man.
  • sorry Gramps. I didn't mean to imply that she shouldn't have called him a motherfucker.
  • The news reports said she's a Muslim. Practicing? I don't know.
  • Of interest:

    --"The shutdown is about to get worse for federal workers" (Yahoo).
    A long article with details on many, many ways the shutdown is hurting people and causing trouble. IMHO, the pic at the beginning is very good.

    --"Trump threatens to cut FEMA funding for California wildfires" (Yahoo).
    FEMA is shut down, too, BTW.
  • Muslims don't say "motherfucker"?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Muslims don't say "motherfucker"?

    It depends on the company they're in...

  • edited January 10
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am currently reading Ben MacIntyre's book The Spy and The Traitor. In it he talks about how the KGB was grooming a Labour MP who was most likely to become the head of the Party and replace Thatcher--Michael Foot, if you remember him. Anyway, the techniques the book in grooming Foot are the same ones that have been discovered in the Trump campaign. Foot, by the way, eventually disavowed, the Russians, though it sseems they maintained a confidential source file on him.
    This is a bit of a tangent, but UK satirical magazine and journalistic fact-checker par-excellence 'Private Eye' has picked up on this trope a couple of times. It isn't true - Foot called out soviet oppression consistently from the end of the war onward, and was even the subject of criticism from within the (mainstream - I think) UK left for his public scepticism about our nearest workers' utopia. Here's a nice obit in the Independent. And if you're in Manchester, the People's History Museum displays the donkey jacket over which Foot was vilified, when he wore it to the cenotaph :smile: .
  • edited January 10
    And here's a link to the Private Eye article itself.

    In these days of Fake News, folks, I heartily recommend you subscribe to this venerable organ. Not least, writing to the letters page in disgust to publicly cancel your subscription is itself a fine old English tradition.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    In regard to the wall: perhaps one idea is to agree to let Trump have enough money to build 50 miles of wall each year until either it is done or the attempt is abandoned.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    HarryCH wrote: »
    In regard to the wall: perhaps one idea is to agree to let Trump have enough money to build 50 miles of wall each year until either it is done or the attempt is abandoned.

    One under-discussed matter is that the U.S.-Mexico border already has physical barriers along a lot of it. The big gap is the Rio Grande flood plain, a.k.a. the border between Texas and Mexico. The main reason there's no physical barrier there is because it's a flood plain. Walls put up on flood plains tend to become either debris or dams during flooding, making floods (and did I mention that this is a flood plain?) much more dangerous.

    And that's without getting into the whole reasoning behind why capitulating to hostage takers will just encourage further hostage taking.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    You know what Watergate had that the various Trump scandals haven't had so far? Televised Congressional hearings. The Republican-controlled Congress, to the best of its ability, always interviewed various Trump-related persons of interest (Flynn, Don Jr, Manafort, etc.) behind closed doors on those occasions when it couldn't avoid interviewing them entirely.

    That seems to have changed under the Democratic House.
    Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer who implicated him in a scheme to pay hush money to two women claiming to have had affairs with him, has agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next month and give “a full and credible account” of his work for Mr. Trump.

    Mr. Cohen’s decision to appear before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Feb. 7 sets the stage for a blockbuster public hearing that threatens to further damage the president’s image and could clarify the depth of his legal woes. Mr. Cohen, a consigliere to Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer and presidential candidate as well as informally as president, was privy to the machinations of Mr. Trump’s inner circle and key moments under scrutiny by both the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and federal prosecutors in New York.

    He could soon share them on national television under oath.

    “In furtherance of my commitment to cooperate and provide the American people with answers, I have accepted the invitation by Chairman Elijah Cummings to appear publicly on February 7,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement. “I look forward to having the privilege of being afforded a platform with which to give a full and credible account of the events which have transpired.”

    For those interested in Chairman Cummings' brief statement it can be found on the House Oversight Committee website.

    Given that Mr. Cohen was self-admittedly Trump's official bribe-payer it should be an interesting hearing.
  • And here's a link to the Private Eye article itself.

    In these days of Fake News, folks, I heartily recommend you subscribe to this venerable organ. Not least, writing to the letters page in disgust to publicly cancel your subscription is itself a fine old English tradition.

    Ian Hislop is a national treasure.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    In regard to the wall: perhaps one idea is to agree to let Trump have enough money to build 50 miles of wall each year until either it is done or the attempt is abandoned.

    One under-discussed matter is that the U.S.-Mexico border already has physical barriers along a lot of it. The big gap is the Rio Grande flood plain, a.k.a. the border between Texas and Mexico. The main reason there's no physical barrier there is because it's a flood plain. Walls put up on flood plains tend to become either debris or dams during flooding, making floods (and did I mention that this is a flood plain?) much more dangerous.

    And that's without getting into the whole reasoning behind why capitulating to hostage takers will just encourage further hostage taking.

    If it was a swamp we could start doing Monty Python memes :tongue:
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    You know what Watergate had that the various Trump scandals haven't had so far? Televised Congressional hearings. The Republican-controlled Congress, to the best of its ability, always interviewed various Trump-related persons of interest (Flynn, Don Jr, Manafort, etc.) behind closed doors on those occasions when it couldn't avoid interviewing them entirely.

    That seems to have changed under the Democratic House.
    Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer who implicated him in a scheme to pay hush money to two women claiming to have had affairs with him, has agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next month and give “a full and credible account” of his work for Mr. Trump.

    Mr. Cohen’s decision to appear before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Feb. 7 sets the stage for a blockbuster public hearing that threatens to further damage the president’s image and could clarify the depth of his legal woes. Mr. Cohen, a consigliere to Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer and presidential candidate as well as informally as president, was privy to the machinations of Mr. Trump’s inner circle and key moments under scrutiny by both the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and federal prosecutors in New York.

    ...

    Is the use of the word "consigliere" seems a bit... hilarious. I mean, you and I can use a mafia term, Trump was connected to the American Mafia in the 80's and 90's and those connexions don't go away, it is highly likely that Trump is presently connected to the Russian Mafia directly and through his financial arrangements with Deutsche Bank. But the NYT is a newspaper of record. It needs to report the facts and comment on them in a responsible manner and without the appearance of bias. The use of a term so closely connected with organised crime in such a highly-charged political environment is bound to draw criticism. I mean, if the guy was Trump's consigliere and he turned, he would have slit is wrists in a warm bath like Frank "Five-Angels" Pentangeli. They should have called Cohen Trump's bag-man.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    sorry Gramps. I didn't mean to imply that she shouldn't have called him a motherfucker.

    Not saying you did, but conservatives are certainly crying foul.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And here's a link to the Private Eye article itself.

    In these days of Fake News, folks, I heartily recommend you subscribe to this venerable organ. Not least, writing to the letters page in disgust to publicly cancel your subscription is itself a fine old English tradition.

    Sorry, don't have time to keep abreast of Private Eye. All I can say is McIntyre cites eight sources in his discussion of Mr. Foot.

    My point, though remains, the same techniques the KGB used in grooming politicians throughout the history of the Soviet Union are the same techniques Putin's machine has used to groom Trump and his people.


  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Sorry, don't have time to keep abreast of Private Eye. All I can say is McIntyre cites eight sources in his discussion of Mr. Foot.

    Most of whom were also quoted by the original story over which Foot successfully sued The Times - in fact the Times story on the back of the book was more circumspect and merely claimed that Foot had received money (a claim denied by the other parties involved, and based largely around Gordievsky's word.
    My point, though remains, the same techniques the KGB used in grooming politicians throughout the history of the Soviet Union are the same techniques Putin's machine has used to groom Trump and his people.

    So to the superpowers we attribute to the rather decrepit Russian state, we have to add a perfect grasp of psycho-history.
  • In response to several responses:
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I admit I was a little surprised that a Muslim woman would call him that term. Not condemning her. Just surprised.

    This may take a little explaining:

    --I've rarely heard that term used in real life. (Yes, really!) Mostly encountered it in movies, on TV, and online--and not very often.

    --That's a major "avoid at all costs" term to me. It's a grave insult. It's extremely crude. *Most importantly*, it treats sexual abuse/assault as something to just throw around, and makes it seem like it's not an actual, current problem.

    --I'd be surprised if any person of any faith, or someone trying to mind their behavior, used that term. Not condemning them; and, as I said, I'm not condemning the Muslim woman in question.

    --ISTM religions tend to have some sort of "right speech" guidelines. (Buddhist term.) In this case, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scriptures all have them.

    --My experience of Muslim women is limited; but I've never seen any sign that they would just toss words like that around.

    --Use of that term is unwise, IMHO, in a situation where there's a serious problem to be negotiated/solved. It escalates the situation, like a lesser version of pulling out a gun. Even worse to use it if you're in a group of which the gov't and many everyday people are deeply afraid and suspicious.

    Took a lot to explain 21 simple words!

    FWIW, YMMV, etc.
  • I reckon you're spot on GK and I took what you said in the way you explained it above.

    The only point on which I would differ is whether a person of faith as distinct from someone trying to mind their behavior would use the term. I think I'm a person of faith, but I swear all the time. The angrier I get the more I swear, and it is also a little 'tell' for me in terms of mental illness. If I start dropping the f-bomb in posts, I'm probably slightly elevated. This is a topic for another thread. I have more to say about personality, class, and nationality, and what constitutes swearing. Mind you, Mofo is swearing and mighty powerful swearing anywhere I know, although there is a case for saying that its use is so ubiquitous that its power has been diminished.

    It was spoken by a politician. Its use is likely to have been deliberate and well-considered. I wonder if it was used to demonstrate to Ms. Tlaib's base that she was indeed serious about impeaching Trump. I reckon there's a fair chance she said it for the shock value, for the value of it coming out of the mouth of a woman wearing a headscarf. That gets her on TV and social media, and the attention of all those people who identify with those who use the word mofo.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Simon Toad--

    Yes, Christians absolutely do swear and use other bad language. (*I* sometimes do. Though, going by my own lights and sensitivities, I try to keep it to euphemisms--e.g., "freakin'". But that's me.)

    I do think m-f is a very bad term, for the reasons I outlined upthread a bit. And, respectfully, I don't think it's lost the taint of its basic meaning. Given that sexual abuse and assault still happen all the time (#MeToo), that term shouldn't be tossed around. Being abused/assaulted does damage, leaves wounds, can twist a person, and even drive them to suicide. And I imagine that doing the abuse/assault isn't too healthy for the doer, either.

    So IMHO m-f shouldn't be relegated to being a non-specific (though extreme) insult.

    BTW: I did a little checking. Ms. Tlaib does not wear a hijab scarf, but the other Muslim woman (Ms. Omar?) joining Congress does. Ms. Tlaib also happens to be Palestinian. Not sure if she was born here or there.

    Her comment was made at a reception hosted by Move On. One article said that, though there were journalists there, it's unknown whether it was meant to be private. CNN has a video of the moment. I only used the closed captioning, rather than listening. But she said that it was part of a conversation she had with her son, when she won her seat in Congress!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Today (11 January 2019) is supposed to be payday for most federal workers. It also marks the first paycheck missed because of the Trump shut-down for workers at the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing & Urban Development, Transportation, and Homeland Security, as well as a significant number of employees at the Departments of the Interior and Health and Human Services. I'm sure I've missed a few, but those are the executive branch departments that are currently shuttered, along with the Executive Office of the President.

    Who could have guessed that a man notorious for not paying his contractors would let government workers go without pay?
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Can someone tell me why congresspersons and senators are still getting paid? Doesn't the government budget include their salaries?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Can someone tell me why congresspersons and senators are still getting paid? Doesn't the government budget include their salaries?

    Okay, first a bit of pedantry, then an explanation. In American political parlance a "budget" is an aspirational document specifying how a group (Senate Democrats, House Republicans, the President, etc.) wants government money to be spent. When the spending of money is actually authorized that's referred to as an "appropriation". Now that I've dispensed with the quibbling semantic pedantry, on to the explanation.

    The current Trump shut-down of the federal government is only a partial shutdown. The federal government is a large and complicated institution and Congress will typically appropriate money in several different bills. Congress has already appropriated money to fund the running of the Departments of Defense, Labor, Education, Energy, and Veteran's Affairs, plus most of the Department of Health & Human Services and part of the Department of the Interior. So the folks working for those Departments are still getting paid. These appropriations bills included the funds to run the Legislative Branch as well, which is why Congress is still getting paid, as are Congressional staffers.

    The tricky bit is that the bills appropriating money for the rest of the federal government (the Departments I specified previously plus the federal judiciary) have actually passed both Houses of Congress. Normally that would send them to the president* for his signature (or veto) but they were passed by the 115th Senate in December and the 116th House in January. Bills from one Congress don't carry over to the next, they have to be re-introduced. Given that the House passed the appropriations bills that the Senate had passed by voice acclamation (a procedure for bills with no significant opposition) very recently in mostly unaltered form you'd think having the 116th Senate pass the same bills the 115th Senate (most of whom are in the 116th Senate) had approved would be an easy move, but in the intervening couple of weeks the Senate Republicans apparently changed their minds. Mitch McConnell has stated that he won't bring any appropriations to the floor if they're just going to be vetoed by the president*.

    I'm cross-posting this with the 116th Congress thread since it seems appropriate for that forum as well.
  • Interesting perspectives:

    "Howard Stern says Trump's border wall won't solve immigration problems: It's just something 'morons can get behind'" (Yahoo).

    Stern is a radio shock-jock, and long-time friend of T. Among other things, he says that T "isn't into this wall".
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Stern is a radio shock-jock, and long-time friend of T.

    I'm not convinced Donald Trump is capable of what most humans refer to as "friendship". At best I'd say Stern is a long-time acquaintance of Trump's.

    To be honest I've always thought that the main utility of The Wall™ wasn't its supposed effect on actual immigration, it was as an excuse to launch into racist and xenophobic diatribes. Actually building The Wall™ would defeat its purpose.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I think you've nailed it, Crœsos - surely even someone as wilfully brainless as Trump wouldn't believe that a wall is going to keep out unwanted drugs or criminals?

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Golden Key since you say you really hear the term MFer, I would say that is probably a reflection of your social circle and, probably your generation.

    I used to hear a lot of this in team locker rooms when I played sports.

    I certainly heard it in the military. It was a favorite expression of drill instructors.

    When I was raising kids I discouraged it, but as they became older it did slip out from them every so often.

    I still work at a university and I often hear it where students congregate.

    Generation Z, which is in the college student body, think nothing of saying it/

    The congresswoman is a millennial and on the young side of that. So it is not surprising she would use it.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The congresswoman is a millennial and on the young side of that. So it is not surprising she would use it.

    ?? The young side of millennial? The Congresswoman (Rashida Tlaib) who used the term is 42.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    As far as I can see it, calling people rude names isn't a thousandth rude as imprisoning children in concentration camps to be raped, neglected, and eventually sold to people who are not their parents. I fail to see that Congresswoman Tlaib said anything particularly striking considering. In fact, I have trouble understanding how any caring person can be troubled by her words in comparison to what is being allowed to go on.
  • I reckon people are still permitted to be offended by swearing. I think GK has a point. People are offended by the use of cunt, to the extent where Sam Bee felt it necessary to issue an apology to her audience for using it to describe Mike Pompeo, if memory serves. Bee wanted to rehabilitate the word as legitimate for swearing, but was reminded by people close to her that it is often a word use to batter and humiliate women in domestic violence situations. Like Bee, I vacillate on whether the use of the word is legitimate as an insult, but I think the argument out of domestic violence is the end of the argument for me.

    I think the argument equally applies to the word motherfucker.

    As for the comparison with imprisoning children, I just don't give that any weight whatsoever. One can obviously be troubled by the use of these words for reasons other than empty piety and also be troubled by the imprisonment of children in the USA, the starvation of children in a proxy war in Yemen, the ongoing human rights emergency in Gaza, the conditions of refugees in northern France, the psychological wounds still borne by the people of Rwanda, the plight of the Kurdish people in Syria, the ongoing situation of poverty and poor health among some Aboriginal communities in my country... I could go on.

    I noticed that Ms Tlaib doesn't wear a head scarf too, GK. I think I raised it and just must have assumed she did. My mistake. Also, I do not think any less of Ms Tlaib for having used the word. I was a little surprised, but only that someone in her position would say it. Subject to knowing more about her foreign policy position, I hope she has a successful career in politics.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    As for the comparison with imprisoning children, I just don't give that any weight whatsoever. One can obviously be troubled by the use of these words for reasons other than empty piety and also be troubled by the imprisonment of children in the USA, the starvation of children in a proxy war in Yemen, the ongoing human rights emergency in Gaza, the conditions of refugees in northern France, the psychological wounds still borne by the people of Rwanda, the plight of the Kurdish people in Syria, the ongoing situation of poverty and poor health among some Aboriginal communities in my country... I could go on.

    This sounds like the same vapid bothsiderism that infected the U.S. political press during the 2016 election. Sure, on the one hand Trump is credibly accused of sexual assault and being a Russian asset, but Hillary Clinton didn't adhere to e-mail server best management practices while at the State Department! Both are "troubling". And worth equal time and consideration.
  • Though Democrats would do well to remember that "we don't look so bad compared to Donald Trump" is not an especially effective campaign slogan.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Regarding the theme of Russian involvement, past or present, the WaPo (possibly behind a paywall) has got this surprising and I find shocking fact:
    President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
    and
    As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years.
    Someone's got something to hide there. The plot thickens!

    This is unprecedented!

  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    And here's a summary from 'The Hill' on the same, which should be accessible.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those who want a review, we actually discussed the Helsinki translator question in real time on this very thread. Starting here would be a good place to begin, for those who want to review what we were saying about this six months ago. (Feels a lot longer.)

    My own rule of thumb is that with the Trump administration* you'r always best off if you simply assume the worst. That method seems to have been pretty accurate so far.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    As for the comparison with imprisoning children, I just don't give that any weight whatsoever. One can obviously be troubled by the use of these words for reasons other than empty piety and also be troubled by the imprisonment of children in the USA, the starvation of children in a proxy war in Yemen, the ongoing human rights emergency in Gaza, the conditions of refugees in northern France, the psychological wounds still borne by the people of Rwanda, the plight of the Kurdish people in Syria, the ongoing situation of poverty and poor health among some Aboriginal communities in my country... I could go on.

    This sounds like the same vapid bothsiderism that infected the U.S. political press during the 2016 election. Sure, on the one hand Trump is credibly accused of sexual assault and being a Russian asset, but Hillary Clinton didn't adhere to e-mail server best management practices while at the State Department! Both are "troubling". And worth equal time and consideration.

    That's not a fair interpretation of what I said. I said that there was enough space to think about and be troubled by Ms Tlaib's use of motherfucker and all of the things that I listed. I specifically said that I was no more than a little surprised that she used the word. That is not vapid bothsiderism and that is not comparing an allegation of sexual assault with misuse of an email server.

    I'm disappointed that your post again engages in selective quotation to bolster an offensive argument that just is not borne out.
  • @chrisstiles I missed your Foundation reference on the first pass. Like many I suppose I read the series as a kid, and then tried to read them again a few years ago. I had to put them down. It was spoiling my precious memories of my mind being blown.
  • Ok. I'm not sure why some Shipmates are making this a matter of "if you're upset by this small thing, then you can't possibly care about that big thing--and that means your priorities are all screwed up".

    --I wasn't particularly *upset* that Ms. Tlaib said what she did. In my first post, I said "I confess I was a little surprised". I wasn't worked up about it, even in private. I was simply surprised. People were already discussing the reported incident, and I just added one small observation. I did *not* storm in shouting "OMG, do you know what she DID, and isn't she DISGUSTING".

    --There were responses indicating I was out of line, so I explained as best I could. Trying to unpack a momentary reaction took a much longer post, more time, and more energy.

    --If Gwai's post was indirectly directed at me, as it seems, then I'm puzzled. I can generally carry more than one idea in my head at once, and be angry about more than one thing. I wasn't really angry about Ms. Tlaib's comment.

    Of *course*, I'm angry about locking immigrant kids up. And I've consistently posted against and warned about T since before he was "elected". (And some posters expressed that T couldn't possibly be as bad as I was saying.)

    But I can't live in a state of perpetual outrage and fear. If I posted, in depth and emotionally, about every thing in the world that I find wrong, there wouldn't be much room for anyone else to post! ;) So I compartmentalize a lot.

    --The same Shipmates are tarring Simon Toad with the same brush, with no good reason that I can see.

    --I wonder if perhaps the Shipmates are especially stressed and angry about the imprisoned kids and the border situation right now, and my comments pushed a button.

    Maybe we can move along to something else?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I was a little surprised that Rep. Tlaib said "We're gonna impeach the motherfucker" on mike at a public event, but given that Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy to fuck himself on the Senate floor and Joe Wilson called out "You lie!" during one of Obama's State of the Union addresses, not to mention Trump's own regularly foul-mouthed speech, I don't care. I think the public pretense of politicians needing to care about niceties went out the window with all the blatantly racist crap thrown at President Obama and his family when he was in office. There is a time for politeness -- and this is not that time.

    For the record, I don't for a moment believe anyone here is as offended by the word "motherfucker" as they are by the U.S. caging children at the border and letting people die in Puerto Rico.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    If my post had been directed at any particular you, I would have tagged you. I'm just saying that I literally can't think of any word bad enough for people who imprison children etc. I don't see how we can yell at someone who calls out evil. When you find a supervillan, you don't need to fucking mince your fucking language and curtsey like a fucking gentlelady. And don't tell me that it's not a gender thing considering how many thing male politicians and judges have said and done, some of which Ruth listed well.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The congresswoman is a millennial and on the young side of that. So it is not surprising she would use it.

    ?? The young side of millennial? The Congresswoman (Rashida Tlaib) who used the term is 42.

    I met Gen X.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I met Gen X.

    Really? What’s Ms. X like in person?
  • Gwai wrote: »
    If my post had been directed at any particular you, I would have tagged you. I'm just saying that I literally can't think of any word bad enough for people who imprison children etc. I don't see how we can yell at someone who calls out evil. When you find a supervillan, you don't need to fucking mince your fucking language and curtsey like a fucking gentlelady. And don't tell me that it's not a gender thing considering how many thing male politicians and judges have said and done, some of which Ruth listed well.

    How about cunt? It has the added spice of being forbidden.
  • Actually, scratch that. The thing about swearing is that it is all about the person swearing. The target is only impacted if they want to be. If you want to attack someone with words, identify their values and judge them as wanting ... shit. Maybe that just works on me.
Sign In or Register to comment.