This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2lriley
It's a perceptive article and worth reading though I have to say that Reich is one of those guys I like some of the time and not so much some other times.
3proximity1
Yeah. That's "funny" coming from Reich---a guy who was an arch-enabler of Bill Clinton; not only one of Clinton's key enablers but, for some time, what many people would describe as a "good friend" of Clinton.
Reich should concern himself with his own intellectual merits or demerits. He hasn't that much room for such supremely entitled self-satisfying stuff as this.
How are Reich and his fellow agonistes doing against the orange-haired moron in the White House, hmm? Who's the bigger moron, Bob?
Reich should concern himself with his own intellectual merits or demerits. He hasn't that much room for such supremely entitled self-satisfying stuff as this.
How are Reich and his fellow agonistes doing against the orange-haired moron in the White House, hmm? Who's the bigger moron, Bob?
4RickHarsch
>3 proximity1: Ad hominem Reich-spew
5JGL53
Yes, what I dislike most about Reich is that he is an unrepentant Clinton sycophant.
But attacking the messenger rather than the message is a crap move. I.e., if Hitler said Stalin was a evil man then what? - we should then give Stalin a break because we know Hitler was an evil man? Fuck that bull shit.
So many people who have personal long term dealings with trump and know him best - most of whom are in the conservative end of the spectrum - have said over and over again - like a 100 per cent agreement - that he is utterly ignorant regarding important policy matters, utterly disinterested in doing the right thing or learning anything, low in intelligence, a non-reader, an empty suit only interested in superficial things, too dumb to understand the Constitution, a child - psychologically-speaking, an incompetent fool, a supremely accomplished con artist who ultimately fucks over everyone near him - even his closest associates - and is a narcissistic asshole who really does think he is a "stable genius", is always the smartest guy in the room, and in the end will always do exactly as he wants, regardless of anyone's advice. Compared to trump the late Ayn Rand was a self-deprecating self-doubting epitome of humbleness with a raging inferiority complex.
I shit on donald trump and all that dwell in him. Reich did not tell us anything new. He just compiled in one blog all the truth about trump that is all over the place now.
Anyone NOW who STILL believes there is anything substantial concerning the trump persona is as gross a brainless fool as donald trump himself.
But attacking the messenger rather than the message is a crap move. I.e., if Hitler said Stalin was a evil man then what? - we should then give Stalin a break because we know Hitler was an evil man? Fuck that bull shit.
So many people who have personal long term dealings with trump and know him best - most of whom are in the conservative end of the spectrum - have said over and over again - like a 100 per cent agreement - that he is utterly ignorant regarding important policy matters, utterly disinterested in doing the right thing or learning anything, low in intelligence, a non-reader, an empty suit only interested in superficial things, too dumb to understand the Constitution, a child - psychologically-speaking, an incompetent fool, a supremely accomplished con artist who ultimately fucks over everyone near him - even his closest associates - and is a narcissistic asshole who really does think he is a "stable genius", is always the smartest guy in the room, and in the end will always do exactly as he wants, regardless of anyone's advice. Compared to trump the late Ayn Rand was a self-deprecating self-doubting epitome of humbleness with a raging inferiority complex.
I shit on donald trump and all that dwell in him. Reich did not tell us anything new. He just compiled in one blog all the truth about trump that is all over the place now.
Anyone NOW who STILL believes there is anything substantial concerning the trump persona is as gross a brainless fool as donald trump himself.
7JGL53
> 6
Thanks.
-
So then, an addendum: Just a few minutes ago I serendipitously came across an explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
To quote the opening sentence in the Wikipedia article: In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
d. trump - self-described stable genius - could be the poster boy for this psychological bias.
I recommend the entire article - see especially under the title "Sequel Studies" the study on college students - quite amusing and edifying.
Thanks.
-
So then, an addendum: Just a few minutes ago I serendipitously came across an explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
To quote the opening sentence in the Wikipedia article: In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
d. trump - self-described stable genius - could be the poster boy for this psychological bias.
I recommend the entire article - see especially under the title "Sequel Studies" the study on college students - quite amusing and edifying.
8proximity1
>5 JGL53:
Compared to whom?
All those things were laid out fully in the primaries --both of them. If Democrats really didn't want a Trump presidency, they should have thought better than they did when they cheated their own procedures to ensure that Hillary Clinton took Bernie Sanders'--who's far short of my idea of a great liberal but he's MUCH better than Clinton, ffs--chance for a fair shot at the nomination and shit on it.
Again and again, you miss the essential and quite importatnt fact: Though you regard Trump as a Doofus (LOL! this was the moron John Podesta's term for Trump, a "doofus"!) your bitch lost. Hillary Clinton couldn't beat him with all the cards stacked--and I do mean stacked flagrantly --in her favor under a system which is, yes, quite contrary to straightfoward democratic principles but this was--are you FUCKING LISTENING?!?!?!?!?!?! : this was NEITHER NEW NOR UNKNOWN!
Voters, under the EC system, went out a voted--in many cases on both sides of the issue, holding their noses-- either _against_ Trump or against Clinton and, under the EC system, the votes went against Clinton.
_____________________________
RE : Oprah ---
from the piece-of-shit so-called newspaper, The Guardian (London):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/celebrity-politicians-poli...
__________________________
And, this, from the piece-of-shit so-called news broadcast network, CNN, by David Axelrod, cracks me up:
Right. Apparently, under our political system--which Dems have clearly demonstrated they'll do nothing to seriouosly challenge and reform-- the key term there is "billionaire."
But famoous "doofus" Donald Trump, perhaps a then-billionaire (but many doubted this), perhaps not, but hardly one which qualified for the term "beloved" (by many), somehow, that "doofus" managed it.
David, Bob, DLC Dems: Go fucking figure.
"-... that he is utterly ignorant regarding important policy matters, utterly disinterested in doing the right thing or learning anything, low in intelligence, a non-reader, an empty suit only interested in superficial things, too dumb to understand the Constitution, a child - psychologically-speaking, an incompetent fool, a supremely accomplished con artist who ultimately fucks over everyone near him - even his closest associates - and is a narcissistic asshole who really does think he is a "stable genius", is always the smartest guy in the room, and in the end will always do exactly as he wants, regardless of anyone's advice."
Compared to whom?
All those things were laid out fully in the primaries --both of them. If Democrats really didn't want a Trump presidency, they should have thought better than they did when they cheated their own procedures to ensure that Hillary Clinton took Bernie Sanders'--who's far short of my idea of a great liberal but he's MUCH better than Clinton, ffs--chance for a fair shot at the nomination and shit on it.
Again and again, you miss the essential and quite importatnt fact: Though you regard Trump as a Doofus (LOL! this was the moron John Podesta's term for Trump, a "doofus"!) your bitch lost. Hillary Clinton couldn't beat him with all the cards stacked--and I do mean stacked flagrantly --in her favor under a system which is, yes, quite contrary to straightfoward democratic principles but this was--are you FUCKING LISTENING?!?!?!?!?!?! : this was NEITHER NEW NOR UNKNOWN!
Voters, under the EC system, went out a voted--in many cases on both sides of the issue, holding their noses-- either _against_ Trump or against Clinton and, under the EC system, the votes went against Clinton.
_____________________________
RE : Oprah ---
from the piece-of-shit so-called newspaper, The Guardian (London):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/celebrity-politicians-poli...
__________________________
And, this, from the piece-of-shit so-called news broadcast network, CNN, by David Axelrod, cracks me up:
"But Obama did not jump from that stage in Boston to the Oval Office. His was a long, hard slog from the warm embrace of the speaker's platform to the cold realities of life as a presidential candidate.
As Obama can attest, the campaign trail is replete with relentless pressure and unending indignities. A candidate surrenders control over his or her life and subjugates everything to the voracious needs of the campaign. Every past action and statement dating back to childhood is re-evaluated through a political lens. And perhaps most dauntingly for a candidate like Oprah, rather than choosing your own topics, the topics are foisted on you -- often by opponents or mischievous reporters baiting a trap.
Running for president is an excruciating gauntlet. Talented as Obama was, it took him months to hit his stride as a candidate and even longer to figure out how to power through the pain to savor the joy of leading a worthy cause.
"I don't know how Oprah would do with all of that. Yes, she has navigated her life and career magnificently to date, with shrewd decisions that have made her a beloved billionaire and huge commercial success. But she did it on her terms, something almost impossible to dictate as a candidate for president."
http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/09/opinions/obama-adviser-advice-for-oprah-axelro...
Right. Apparently, under our political system--which Dems have clearly demonstrated they'll do nothing to seriouosly challenge and reform-- the key term there is "billionaire."
But famoous "doofus" Donald Trump, perhaps a then-billionaire (but many doubted this), perhaps not, but hardly one which qualified for the term "beloved" (by many), somehow, that "doofus" managed it.
David, Bob, DLC Dems: Go fucking figure.
9JGL53
> 8 So? In what possible way is your casuistry germane to the analysis of the trump persona? That was the point of my post. How did you miss that?
How trump got there is not what I was analyzing. The problem at hand is that our present POTUS is a shaved ape in a suit with the attention span of a gnat and the knowledge base of a box of hammers.
I suspect that if trump were to survive to run again then any democrat nominee will easily beat him. But more and more people wonder if we can survive three more years of the dumbest individual who has ever held the office of POTUS. I don't think we can.
That is my point. You disagree? Why should anyone care?
How trump got there is not what I was analyzing. The problem at hand is that our present POTUS is a shaved ape in a suit with the attention span of a gnat and the knowledge base of a box of hammers.
I suspect that if trump were to survive to run again then any democrat nominee will easily beat him. But more and more people wonder if we can survive three more years of the dumbest individual who has ever held the office of POTUS. I don't think we can.
That is my point. You disagree? Why should anyone care?
10proximity1
For the record:
>9 JGL53: : "I suspect that if trump were to survive to run again then any democrat nominee will easily beat him."
LOL!
How's your track record?
11RickHarsch
>9 JGL53: I object in the strongest possible terms to your denigration of the ape.
12JGL53
What the fuck does my track record in predicting Presidential races have to do with anything? You are surely the master of diversion from the subject at hand, hands down.
Just for the record, I have indeed been only a fair predictor, but much worst lately on average - predicting both Eisenhower wins, missed on Kennedy, got Johnson right, Nixon right twice, Carter right, Reagan right both times, Bush Sr. right and then Clinton both times, missed on Bush both times, missed on McCain, got Obama right the second term, then missed on H. Clinton.
But each prediction has been sui generis and based on an attempt to be objective about the numbers and not to only express my preference - far from it.
My prediction on trump is based on the fact that he only won with 43 per cent of the vote and his approval ratings have been lower than that and the worse for a sitting President since they began polling approval ratings - and all this in his first year - that and the results in Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama and even in Oklahoma. Plus the great many incumbent republicans in congress retiring, even many committee chairmen - heard about that? Darrel Issa is just the latest.
And now, since trump has called Haiti and all the countries in Africa "shitholes" and said he prefers immigrants from Norway (or Normay, according to a white house press release, har har), I think he is even more doomed to ignominy than ever before.
You still think trump has got it going on? har har X infinity.
Just for the record, I have indeed been only a fair predictor, but much worst lately on average - predicting both Eisenhower wins, missed on Kennedy, got Johnson right, Nixon right twice, Carter right, Reagan right both times, Bush Sr. right and then Clinton both times, missed on Bush both times, missed on McCain, got Obama right the second term, then missed on H. Clinton.
But each prediction has been sui generis and based on an attempt to be objective about the numbers and not to only express my preference - far from it.
My prediction on trump is based on the fact that he only won with 43 per cent of the vote and his approval ratings have been lower than that and the worse for a sitting President since they began polling approval ratings - and all this in his first year - that and the results in Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama and even in Oklahoma. Plus the great many incumbent republicans in congress retiring, even many committee chairmen - heard about that? Darrel Issa is just the latest.
And now, since trump has called Haiti and all the countries in Africa "shitholes" and said he prefers immigrants from Norway (or Normay, according to a white house press release, har har), I think he is even more doomed to ignominy than ever before.
You still think trump has got it going on? har har X infinity.
14JGL53
Here's a couple of links that offers republican/trump apologists some real challenges. How quickly can you ad hoc some bullshit smokescreens? Please - knock yourselves out:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-leaving-congress-retiring-2018/
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8_Mro6bew
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-leaving-congress-retiring-2018/
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8_Mro6bew
15mamzel
Ladies and gentlemen,
Is it really necessary to use the f-bomb in your posts? Does it make your comments more right (or left)?
Just asking.
Is it really necessary to use the f-bomb in your posts? Does it make your comments more right (or left)?
Just asking.
16JGL53
> 15
My last post did not contain any "f-bombs".
However, it did include the use of the obscenity "bullshit".
So, is that an improvement? I am unclear on your precise standards.
Personally I stand against the use of the expression "bête noire" (except of course quoting it as an expression I abhor. har har).
My last post did not contain any "f-bombs".
However, it did include the use of the obscenity "bullshit".
So, is that an improvement? I am unclear on your precise standards.
Personally I stand against the use of the expression "bête noire" (except of course quoting it as an expression I abhor. har har).
17RickHarsch
>15 mamzel: Freedom of speech is important to me, as is the inclusion of vernacular of all sorts. I'm very tolerant of all kinds of speech with the glaring example of cliched speech. So common cursing, like fuck off, fucking idiot, your ass sucks buttermilk, shitbird, horsecock, to stick to a few typical US English terms, don't offend me at all, while a cliche like 'f-bomb' makes me cringe. To me that kind of thought-stifling use of language is bullshit, while the use of 'fuck' can be enlivening, as in #12 'What the fuck does my track record in predicting Presidential races have to do with anything?' At the same time, the use of cursing can be very revealing, as in #8 'And, this, from the piece-of-shit so-called news broadcast network, CNN, by David Axelrod, cracks me up', in which the 'piece-of-shit' sic is thrust in to cover for lack of precision and imagination.
I think the linguistic battlefront is best fought on the cultural lines where commodification (to sum it up briefly) leads to devolution, which leads to stifling of thought. Try not to say 'going forward' the way it is now commonly used. Cringe over the cute spellings of advertisors, like 'kwik'. Try not to follow Carnophile's example of writing like a sportswriter without imagination: 'The. Left. Is. Trying. To. Normalize. Pedophilia.' Experiment. Use lots of words. Be yourself.
I think the linguistic battlefront is best fought on the cultural lines where commodification (to sum it up briefly) leads to devolution, which leads to stifling of thought. Try not to say 'going forward' the way it is now commonly used. Cringe over the cute spellings of advertisors, like 'kwik'. Try not to follow Carnophile's example of writing like a sportswriter without imagination: 'The. Left. Is. Trying. To. Normalize. Pedophilia.' Experiment. Use lots of words. Be yourself.
