House Republicans voted to overturn the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Now it’s off to the Senate. Because the House vote was considered political suicide, triumphant Democrats began taunting Republicans on the floor of the Congress, on national TV. You’d hardly know lives were at stake.
Doomcare
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
47 Comments. Leave new
Gosh, Trump and his people are unraveling so fast that it’s hard to believe – Now, it’s “cut-off Obamacare payments” before they have even successfully gotten it repealed? Doesn’t the bill have to make it through the Senate and more before this can happen? The Emperor has no clothes….
The real Trumpeters all think the US government must never pay for healthcare for those who can’t afford it, or provide any government services at all, the main thing is to cut taxes and eliminate all stupid, job-killing regulations like the recently removed regulation that mines can’t dump their poisonous wastes into drinking water sources..
US taxes are painful, because if you’re e.g., a grocer, you have to document the 98% of your revenues that are costs, or else you have to pay taxes based on 100% of your revenues, not the 2% that was left after expenses. So everyone must itemise all legitimate deductions, which is a royal pain.
But Republicans say taxes are painful because we have more than one tax rate, and all the Republican voters believe them, and — for reasons that escape me — think if there’s just one rate of 10% for those earning $5,000 a year and those earning $5 billion a year, it will be MUCH easier to do their taxes.
@ michaelwme –
You gave me pause to think and to ask: What if all the loopholes and hoops to jump through were eliminated and the tax rate were enforced at 10% on every dollar of gross income for every citizen across the board, whether it be $5.00 per year or $5 billion? That would be a simplified system and put a lot of accountants and IRS agents out of work, wouldn’t it?.
It’s an ill omen when the doctor’s office has a catalog of select caskets for patients to browse through. 🙁
Out of the fire and back into the frying pan in 2018.
The Democrats don’t have to do anything to gain seats in 2018.
And so they won’t.
I hated the policies of Bill Clinton and I hated even more the continuous investigations (fishing expeditions) by the Republicans, of Bill Clinton. I hated the media’s reporting of the impeachment of Clinton, (covering it as if it were a serious issue of national security) because there was nothing there but libidinous hate by Republicans.
Now the Democrats are on a fishing expedition to find facts that will justify their contention that the Russians stole the election. They could better use their resources on issues that actually have a basis in fact, such as the disenfranchisement of plebeians. But they won’t.
There is no proof of God’s existence.
This does not mean that the masses who believe that God exists are not a force to be reckoned with.
There is no proof that Russia made Trump president.
This does not mean that the masses who believe that Russia made Trump president are not a force to be reckoned with.
“The PR expert does not think of public opinion as some shining object waiting to be discovered, like Rousseau’s “general will,” but as something to be created.” — Walter Truet Anderson
McCarthy and the Clintons have both stirred libidinous hate to empower their popular movements, knowing full well of hate’s power to rule the masses. Two parties are in competition to channel plebeian mass hate to their preferred ends—one at foreigners in general and one at a particular foreign nuclear power.
Mass man is Murder.
«There is no proof that Russia made Trump president. This does not mean that the masses who believe that Russia made Trump president are not a force to be reckoned with.» In this connexion, Glenn, Robert Parry has published an analysis over at the Consortiumnews website, which will repay reading….
Henri
:: sigh :: A better man than me would ignore this thread.
@Glenn:
“There is no proof that Russia made Trump president.”
I do agree with that statement – but what, exactly, would “proof” entail? First, we’d have to enumerate all the biased posts and fake news on the internet and other sources which favored Komrade Trumpski. Then, we’d have to filter out all of those that were not originated by Russian shills or their proxies. We would have to visit every single Trump voter and ask him whether any of those influenced his decision, and also ask him about every other factor in the election, weigh each against another and come up with some of percentage. We can’t forget all the people who stayed home, either – we’d need to subject all the anti-Hillary propaganda to the same treatment. Tally them up and then we would have proven our hypothesis true or false.
So, yeah, there is no “proof” that the Rooskies decided the election, but there is one hell of a lot of evidence that they tried.
@Henri –
From the article you referenced: “about a Russian photographer who was allowed into the Oval Office to photograph President Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.”
I find it difficult to call the article an ‘analysis’ when the author is using half-truths. Here is the statement without the omissions.
“about a Russian photographer who was a journalist for Tass – a fact which was not disclosed – who was allowed into the Oval Office to allegedly photograph President Trump’s private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Said meeting occurred the day after Comey was fired, an event which Sergey joked about.. ”
A meeting from which -= AMERICAN =- journalists were barred.
In the White House.
The American one.
Nothing to see here, move along …
When it comes to those dastardly Russians, CrazyH, I fully realise that there’s not a chance that we can agree, but allow me to post a few modest remarks on this matter. As you point out, «proving» that Russia/the Russians did not make Mr Trump US president (and for which, as Glenn points out, no evidence has been presented, with which fact you seem to strongly disagree) would be a difficult task ; although, I suggest, the investigation you propose above – « First, we’d have to enumerate all the biased posts and fake news on the internet and other sources which favored Komrade Trumpski. Then, we’d have to filter out all of those that were not originated by Russian shills or their proxies. We would have to visit every single Trump voter and ask him whether any of those influenced his decision, and also ask him about every other factor in the election, weigh each against another and come up with some of percentage. We can’t forget all the people who stayed home, either – we’d need to subject all the anti-Hillary propaganda to the same treatment. Tally them up and then we would have proven our hypothesis true or false.» – would be quite irrelevant. After all, there are no rules which state that foreigners – even, indeed, Russians ! – cannot comment upon US elections or that such comments represent «interference» in them or render them suspect or invalid. I myself dared to comment on Mr Sanders’ attempt to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for US president -and had he managed to do so I’d no doubt have posted to this and other fora favouring his candidacy over that of Mr Trump. In the event that Mr Sanders had indeed won both the nomination and the presidency, would we have seen claims to the effect that the Swedes (or «Swedish shills, as the case may be)» had made him US president ? Somehow I doubt it….
If on the other hand, hackers working for the Russian government had been found out interfering with voting machines in such a manner that votes intended for Ms Clinton had been registered for Mr Trump, now that would, indeed, have constituted Russian interference in the US elections and it could be properly said that these actions had (contributed to) «mak[ing] Trump president». As far as I know, no evidence for this kind of machination has ever been presented (if you know of any, please correct me), nor am I aware of any evidence for other measures taken by Russian state actors which could constitute such «interference». Of course, there are those who claim that Mr Putin himself, directly «interfered» in the US election, by calling Mr Trump «bright», but as Politifact pointed out, a more accurate translation of the Russian word «яркий», would be «colourful». My suggestion would be that had Mr Putin wished to «interfere» in the US election in Mr Trumps favour, he would instead have taken a leaf from Fidel Castro’s notebook and endorsed Trump’s opponent…. 😉
In my opinion, making a fuss about the fact that Mr Lavrov’s personal photographer was allowed to photograph the participants in a meeting among Mr Trump, Mr Lavrov, and Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, is simply absurd, and merely serves to show how desperate those who control US media (and not only US media) are to portray Mr Trump as a Russian puppet….
Henri
@henri – there are a few things we agree about.
There is no law whatsoever against a Russian citizen posting their opinions on the US election, even if their goal is to convince US voters to vote in a manner of their liking. In fact, I invite them to do so.
However, it is an entirely different matter when the government hires a cadre of shills to pretend to be something they are not, and fake-news artists with the specific goal of changing our election results.
We also agree that the whitewashed version of events as presented by Mr. Parry doesn’t sound so bad, especially when taken in a vacuum. But – as I already noted – the issue is *not* that a Russian was let in, but that Americans were kept *out.* Nor is it occurring in a vacuum.
Any one piece of the puzzle set before us can absolutely be explained away as coincidence or circumstantial. It’s the picture they form as a whole where it gets interesting.
«@henri – there are a few things we agree about. » Alas, CrazyH, on this particular issue, they seem indeed to be fewer and farer between than the above would indicate. Let me take a couple of examples from your post :
«However, it is an entirely different matter when the government hires a cadre of shills to pretend to be something they are not, and fake-news artists with the specific goal of changing our election results.» While hiring people who pretend to be something other than they are, while posting to newspapers and other media, is an old trick used since its inception by the CIA (not to say that that organisation, hardly known for its creativity, was the first to employ it) – Philip Agee’s Inside the Company will repay a re-read – I agree that it’s not the most sporting of tactics. US «interference» of that sort, not least in Russian elections, is well documented. However, you present no evidence whatsoever, that the government in question – by which I presume your refer to the Russian government – has done so, rather than the comments by Russians or people suspected to be Russians published in US media being authored by amateurs. If you have any such which cannot be easily dismissed as claims by people whose impartiality is suspect, please let me/us know. My point, however, was and remains that such actions hardly have the capacity to influence the outcome of US elections, unlike, to take one of the examples, I mentioned above, hacking voting machines could do. As noted, no evidence has ever been presented for claims of that type….
«We also agree that the whitewashed version of events as presented by Mr. Parry …» Here we most definitely do not agree – I find Mr Parry’s description of events to be accurate and the claims that they are a «whitewash» to be false….
I suspect we agree that Mr Trump is a buffoon and a fraud, and it is entirely possible that he represents a danger to the people of the United States. I submit, however, that the danger he represents has nothing whatever to do with the – to my mind patently absurd – notion that he is a creature of the Kremlin, but rather with his own home-grown policies, and that attempts to paint him as a Kremlin marionette serve – and are designed by those lying behind them to serve as a smokescreen behind which the real dangers Mr Trump represents can be hidden. McCarthyism, whether in the original version signed Tail Gunner Joe or the current 2.0 version, pushed by the WaPo, NYT, DNC, James Robert Clapper, John Sidney McCain, etc, etc, ad nauseam is not a tool which can be employed, to use the terminology of the US Constitution, to promote the general Welfare of the people of that country ; it always subserves other ends…
Henri
Henri – when your reply is that much longer than the original post, you take the chance that it will not be read. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not aware of the larger picture.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16R077
Here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/russian-hacking-trump/510689/
… and here:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-hell-going-on/
re: ” I submit, however, that the danger he represents has nothing whatever to do with the – to my mind patently absurd – notion that he is a creature of the Kremlin, ”
Once again, I must invite you to argue things I have said, rather than making stuff up and attributing it to me. While I do use “Komrade Trumpski” it is purely tongue in cheek.
My working hypothesis is that there is some sort of collusion, much like Reagan and the Ayatollah. And no, I do not have absolute “proof” that Reagan committed treason but once again, all the evidence certainly points that direction.
«Henri – when your reply is that much longer than the original post, you take the chance that it will not be read.» I must confess, CrazyH, that I find it a bit odd that you take me to task for replying with a lengthier message than your own, at the same time that you suggest I read a Wikipedia article much longer than my reply. But that, no doubt, is due to my lack of understanding of the larger picture (from, say, 13 April 1945 and onwards)…. 😉
Henri
Why, yes Henri – those articles can be lengthy, but they contain quite a bit of information of which you claim to be unaware.
For instance, independent cyber-security firms have verified Russian hacking and armies of Russian trolls.
So, please, if you want to discuss this further, acquaint yourself with the facts on the ground.
” I find Mr Parry’s description of events to be accurate and the claims that they are a «whitewash» to be false….”
Seriously? In your mind, these two statements are the same:
“A Russian reporter was allowed into meeting”
“A Russian reporter was allowed into a private meeting with the country’s traditional enemies and from which American reporters were barred”
Alrighty then, if they are equivalent, then why did not Mr. Parry use the second version?
«So, please, if you want to discuss this further, acquaint yourself with the facts on the ground.» Alas, CrazyH, benighted as I am, I shall continue to discuss these matters, despite not being anywhere near as «acquaint[ed] with the facts on the ground» as you no doubt feel yourself to be. As my father used to say in the analogue era, «paper never refused ink» and propaganda outlets, whether with connexions to the US government or otherwise, will continue to publish anything that they believe serves their interests. My take away from this discussion hitherto is that you, not surprisingly, seem unable to stand for your use of «Komrade Trumpski», and that you likewise fail to address the issue of what would constitute meaningful Russian «interference» in the US elections (just as you studiously (?) avoid the issue of US interference in elections elsewhere, not least in Russia). But as I wrote above, «I fully realise that there’s not a chance that we can agree», so nothing that has thereafter ensued has come as a surprise….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
I didn’t know that you were “benighted”!
Should we henceforth address you as “Sir Henri Day”?
😀
And my father used to say, “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”
There is nothing stopping you from continuing to comment in this direction, but if you ignore facts then those comments are somewhat less than informative. For my part, I shall continue to point out the flaws in your reasoning. (which you stall continue to evade answering.)
Sure, the FBI and the CIA and NSA and foreign intelligence agencies and independent cyber-security firms *might* all be in on some giant conspiracy to discredit Trump. But as that’s a far larger and more elaborate scam than the one I propose. Occam’s razor would suggest the simpler explanation.
“you likewise fail to address the issue of what would constitute meaningful Russian «interference» in the US elections”
I assert that I have, but to recap: Armies of trolls, fake news, and hacking the DNC. (no, I do not have -=PROOF=- of the DNC) Other, more traditional forms of propaganda; pressure on allies to back Trump. And these are only the things we can see. What happened behind closed doors which Americans were not allowed to witness?
You steadfastly refuse to address the larger picture. That includes all of Trump’s and his minions ties to Russia, and their lies about it. Trump’s surprise firing of Comey. Reports of Russian interference in France’s recent election. These bits of information do not exist in their own little bubbles; they are interrelated. We have motive, means, and opportunity.
As always, cui bono? Trump got the presidency, Putin got a sympathetic US president while foiling Hillary.
Who would benefit from the aforementioned global conspiracy? Certainly not the police organizations who are enjoying fewer restrictions under a fascist president. Not the independent cyber-security firms; forging information would ruin their reputations. While you seem to imply this is the reason behind the news, you have given no credible reason why they would participate.
I am, indeed, aware of my country’s meddling in other country’s affairs. I have, in fact, commented on such. There’s nothing studious or mysterious about it, the topic rarely comes up.
“seem unable to stand for your use of «Komrade Trumpski»”
It’s called a ‘joke’ henri – deal with it.
«I didn’t know that you were “benighted”!
Should we henceforth address you as “Sir Henri Day”?» For want of a «k», mein verehrter Lehrer, a «Sir» was lost…. 😉
Henri
«And my father used to say, “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”» I fully concur with the excellent dictum your father taught you, CrazyH ; pity, however, that he seems to have failed to teach you to distinguish between facts and putative facts. Anyone who, like yourself, seems to rely on «facts» disseminated by such organs as the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, etc, etc has failed to exercise due diligence. I have earlier pointed out some examples of the lies peddled as facts by these agencies ; even you should be able to recall James Robert Clapper’s infamous direct lie to the US Senate Intelligence Committee on 12 March 2013 and to draw the conclusion that «facts» of such provenance are to be handled with care. More, in the event more is needed, on this matter can be found in Robert Scheer’s recent interview with former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern….
Since you claim to be interested in the «big picture», you might find this analysis of the consequences of making the (in)security agencies the fourth – and premier – branch of your government instructive. Alas, from what you write, I draw the conclusion that you already have your «facts» clear, and will refuse to acknowledge others which might bring those putative «facts» into question. I’m reminded of the old saw about being able to tell a Harvard man, but not being able to tell him much ; where did you do your tertiary studies ?… 😉
Henri
↑ 😀
Henri – have you seen Ted’s latest article? Even he’s starting to connect the dots. At least *try* to keep up.
If you wish to dispute facts, why don’t you start with the Wikipedia article? You should inform them that they’ve got it all wrong despite the references. Rewrite it to your heart’s content – but remember, you’re going to need some of those facts you keep claiming to have (without actually presenting them)
As someone who has been ‘trained in logic’ I’m sure you’re familiar with the informal fallacy of ‘moving the goalposts.’ You will accept nothing less than solid gold, certified and notified perfect proof. However you will accept the alternative hypothesis with no proof whatsoever.
to wit:
“Sure, the FBI and the CIA and NSA and foreign intelligence agencies and independent cyber-security firms *might* all be in on some giant conspiracy to discredit Trump. But as that’s a far larger and more elaborate scam than the one I propose. Occam’s razor would suggest the simpler explanation.”
“Who would benefit from the aforementioned global conspiracy? Certainly not the police organizations who are enjoying fewer restrictions under a fascist president. Not the independent cyber-security firms; forging information would ruin their reputations. While you seem to imply this is the reason behind the news, you have given no credible reason why they would participate. ”
Rather than simply parroting that which you have already said (Ad nauseam) – why don’t you try addressing the points I raised above? Or propose a some hypothesis other than “everybody is lying”?
Sorry to continue to cause your stomach to be upset, CrazyH, but I fear I shall have once again to remind you of a few points at issue between us, most importantly the fact that, as is obvious to anyone who has followed your posts on Ted’s forum, your claim has all along been that the Russians had «interfered» in the US presidential election of 2016, in order to get Mr Trump elected. My point was two-fold : 1) that no credible evidence for such «interference» (unlike the evidence for US interference in foreign elections, not least those in Russia) has been presented and 2) the only way for Mr Putin to influence US voters to vote for Mr Trump would be to take a note from Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz’s notebook and endorse Mr Trump’s opponent, as Fidel had said he offered to do in the US presidential elections of 1964. Ockham’s razor would, I suggest, lead to the conclusion that the most parsimonious explanation of Ms Clinton’s loss in the election lies with her own failures and the actions of the DNC….
Let us turn now to the Ted’s analysis (I was busy with other things today and had not yet seen it – thanks for pointing it out to me !), the salient part of which, to my mind, is the following :
«The problem for Trump is, the prosecutor is going to find out … (b) all those meetings between Trump’s staff and Russian officials were corrupt quid pro quo transactions promising the elimination of sanctions over Ukraine in exchange for rubberstamping Trump-related business transactions in Russia. (Democrats should stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative because there doesn’t seem to be any thee [anything ?] there.)»
As I read it, Ted’s analysis of the validity of the claims of Russian interference in the US elections coincides with my own, so I shan’t wast any more words on that matter. The suspicions about quid pro quo deals in which US sanctions (and, of course, those of us European vassals) would be eliminated, or at least reduced in exchange for positive Russian decisions on business matters in which Mr Trump and others (Mr Tillerson springs to mind) might have an interest, on the other hand, strike me as eminently reasonable – to my mind, the same factors were likely in play when Ivanka Marie Trump, aka as Ms Kushner, found that the trademark disputes she faced in China were suddenly resolved in her favour. Investigating these matters is not merely legitimate, but rather something that should be done, just as the manner in which Joseph Robinette Biden’s son, Robert Hunter Biden, was appointed to the board of Ukrainian gas giant Burisma Holdings on 18 April 2014, should be investigated (after all, somebody in the US must have benefitted from the more than 5 000 million USD that Victoria Jane Nuland bragged the US had poured into the Ukraine as of December 2013 (i e, two months prior to the Kiev Putsch of 22 February 2014). other than Ms Nuland personally and Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians like her favourite «Yats»)….
«why don’t you try addressing the points I raised above? Or propose a some hypothesis other than “everybody is lying”?» One of the problems that renders discussion with you, CrazyH, difficult is your all too frequent attempts to put your words in another’s – in this case mine – mouth. Where did you get the absurd notion that I ever offered «everybody is lying» as a defence of my point of view ? What I did do, however, was to question the veracity of the chiefs of certain of your country’s (un)intelligence and (in)security agencies – «Anyone who, like yourself, seems to rely on «facts» disseminated by such organs as the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, etc, etc has failed to exercise due diligence», pointing to the notorious example of James Robert Clapper lying to a Senate committee as a case in point….
Let me recapitulate in order to make things crystal clear – I should find an investigation into whether negotiations between Russian officials and US officials (or prospective officials) to exchange the elimination or reduction of US sanctions on Russia for positive Russian regulatory actions on business matters important to persons in the Trump administration were carried out to be entirely reasonable. At the same time, the US investment of large sums of taxpayer money in the Ukraine and possible benefits therefrom accruing to persons close to people in the Obama administration should also be the subject of an investigation. After all, now that Chelsea Elizabeth Manning has been released from prison, there should be room for a few more prisoners even in a country which incarcerates as many people as does the United States. But an investigation into Russian «interference» in the US presidential elections of 2016 would be, to my mind, no more than a witch hunt and a red herring, designed to detract from the real reasons for Ms Clinton’s failure to win the US presidency, despite all the money invested in her cause and to hobble Trump in his battles with the neo-con deep state….
By all means, impeach Mr Trump (and get Mr Pence, but that’s another matter) – but do it for the right reasons (of which there are a plethora), not on – pardon the pun ! – trumped-up charges !… 😉
Henri
There’s no way I’m going to read an entire novel, henri. If you can’t make your “points” in a few words, then I’m going to skim it.
“, as is obvious to anyone who has followed your posts on Ted’s forum, your claim has all along been that the Russians had «interfered» in the US presidential election of 2016,”
It’s obvious to anyone with a fourth grade reading comprehension level that I said that there is evidence that they tried -= AND =- that it is ONE part of a pattern consisting of many parts, parts that you have yet to even acknowledge. Instead, you keep coming back to that one, single, statement.
Oh, wait! Ted said something about a shady business deals? And now all of a sudden you’re a believer? Well, hallelujah! It’s about time you woke up and smelled the coffee. Deny it all you like, but you just agreed with me, I guess that makes you as incapalbe of rational thought as am I.
This part, though, is hillarious:
” «why don’t you try addressing the points I raised above? Or propose a some hypothesis other than “everybody is lying”?» One of the problems that renders discussion with you, CrazyH, difficult is your all too frequent attempts to put your words in another’s – in this case mine – mouth. Where did you get the absurd notion that I ever offered «everybody is lying» as a defence of my point of view ? ”
From *your* posts … duh? ” Anyone who, like yourself, seems to rely on «facts» disseminated by such organs as the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, etc, etc has failed to exercise due diligence” Sound familiar? But of course you evaded answering the question even as you mocked it. Why didn’t you propose some hypothesis of your own? If you don’t think they’re lying, then what? (Fifty words or less – be sure to account for the private agencies as well.)
“designed to detract from the real reasons for Ms Clinton’s failure to win the US presidency”
BINGO! You’re still so fixated on an election that happened nearly half a year ago that you are incapable of processing any other information. Tell ya’ what: have this tatooed across your forhead, “IT’S NOT ABOUT CLINTON!” m’kay?
And lemme know when you get that Wikipeida page fixed.
«There’s no way I’m going to read an entire novel, henri.» Far be it from me to comment upon your reading habits or your attention span, CrazyH. If you prefer to comment – in a quite lengthy response on your part – upon the length of my post, which I submit is a reflection of the importance of the issues being discussed, rather than the issues I raise in it, that is your choice. But it does render your post of less interest to me, and I presume to others as well…
As I have said before, I doubt that we can achieve a meeting of minds on this issue, but naively, I did entertain some hopes that it would prove possible to discuss such matters as Russophobia (like jokes about «Trumpski» by those who don’t realise that -ski is a suffix perhaps more typical of, say, Polish than Russian, although it certainly exists in the latter), McCarthyism, witch hunts, red herrings, etc. That didn’t, however, prove to be the case, and I shall just have to accept the fact….
So it goes….
Henri
That’s certainly shorter, henri – but you did use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. I’m still waiting for your hypothesis, or your refutation of the Wikipedia page, answers to my several questions, or, frankly anything other than “IS NOT! IS NOT! IS NOT!”
“Russophobia” is a red herring in this case, as the facts either stand on their own, or they do not. It’s also an ad hominem attack, which – along with ambiguation and evasion – are your primary tools for ‘discussion.’
I tried “Trumpnov” but it didn’t have the same ring to it as “Trumpski” I’ve also used ‘Hair Furor mit dem kleinen Schwanzstucker” – so I guess that makes me a Germanophobe? I’ve also called him an asshole – perhaps I’m a coprophobe? I noted he was rich – so maybe I have plutophobia?
«That’s certainly shorter, henri – but you did use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.» Let me correct that for you, CrazyH → «That’s certainly shorter, henri – but you did use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing that CrazyH possesses the intellectual wherewithal. to understand.» But we knew that even before I typed the first letter, did we not ?…
Henri
I’m still waiting for your hypothesis, or your refutation of the Wikipedia page, answers to my several questions, or, frankly anything other than “IS NOT! IS NOT! IS NOT!”
«I’m still waiting for your hypothesis, …» And I’m waiting for you to demonstrate that you’re capable of reading and understanding my comments, which you choose to ignore and then have the chutzpah to claim that you’ve received no answers. Unlike yourself, I take no pleasure in repeating the casting of pearls…. 😉
Henri
This humble student begs the Master’s forgiveness for he failed to catch the pearls of wisdom as they dribbled from His Holiness’ lips.
This one is woefully unable to process multiple screens of information all at once. Perhaps if The Master would be so gracious as to address the following Koan in a sufficiently concise manner that even a semi-literate Russophobe such as this foolish one could comprehend?
Multiple American & foreign intelligence agencies, private firms, and investigative news agencies have weighed in with their opinion that the Russians tried to influence the American and French elections.
Master says they did not.
This foolish student humbly awaits Thy illumination.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Alas, CrazyH, you are – in this case, as in so many others – far more interested in attempting to win an argument with me, than you are in ascertaining the truth of the matter. You claim that my replies are too long for you to read carefully (obviously not so much a statement about the replies, but rather about your attention span and reading comprehension) and then, seemingly unaware of the irony, ask me to refute a lengthy article in the English-language edition of Wikipedia. Quelle farce !…
I have made the points I feel need to be made about employing Russophobia as a tool to dethrone Mr Trump (which in itself would be a worthy objective, but requires consideration of who or what is likely in that case to replace him – things can get worse) ; you have shown yourself unable to understand them or, indeed, to even read them. Not being a fan of such relationships, I’m hardly interested in being your Master, but even should I espouse them, I’d not be such a fool as to accept so ill-prepared a disciple as yourself….
One has to have certain standards…. 😉
Henri
While this one is unworthy to judge whether The Master has previously explained the above Koan, it is intellectually inadequate to accomplish the task of finding such holy illumination.
Perhaps if The Master would be so gracious as to address it in a sufficiently concise manner that even a semi-literate Russophobe such as this foolish one could comprehend?
The Master has already written so very many words of sublime wisdom on this subject – surely fifty to one hundred more would be no great burden.
«While this one is unworthy to judge whether The Master has previously explained the above Koan, it is intellectually inadequate to accomplish the task of finding such holy illumination.» As ever when pressed, CrazyH, you resort to intellectual dishonesty and «jokes» which not even a mother could love. But at least you are contributing to making unser verehrter Lehrer happy…. 😉
Henri
@ mhenriday
“But at least you are contributing to making unser verehrter Lehrer happy….”
Non, au contraire, mon frère.
Personally, I am very disappointed that in this game of one-upmanship the two of you are playing, I am much disappointed that not much in the way of understanding has been contributed and indeed none of it has been useful with regard to an analysis of Ted’s cartoon.
«“But at least you are contributing to making unser verehrter Lehrer happy….”
Non, au contraire, mon frère.»
My tongue was well ensconced in my cheek when I made that remark, mein verehrter Lehrer, and I share your conclusion and your disappointment that «not much in the way of understanding has been contributed and indeed none of it has been useful with regard to an analysis of Ted’s cartoon». I had hoped to contribute something worthwhile and regret my failure….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
“I had hoped to contribute something worthwhile and regret my failure….”
*
Not to worry, Friend. Your contributions are always worthwhile [to me, at least — for even when bickering, you manage to increase my vocabulary]!
😀
«Your contributions are always worthwhile [to me, at least — for even when bickering, you manage to increase my vocabulary]!» Thank you for those kind words, mein verehrter Lehrer, but my ambitions were to contribute something substantive to the discussion as well. I intend to keep your strictures above in mind when posting to Ted’s forum – and hopefully, to other fora as well. I feel sure, however, that I can count upon you to forgive my lapses, which, knowing myself, I fear will inevitably occur…. 😉
Henri
> I had hoped to contribute something worthwhile …
This worthless one had hoped The Master would as well. Yet despite being asked approximately 411 times, He steadfastly refuses to do so. This lowly one will meditate on the possible reasons why.
«This lowly one will meditate on the possible reasons why.» Perhaps, «CrazyH», the reason your attempts at meditation (to the degree they exist) are such signal failures is that you are constitutionally unable to examine your own actions. Projection and blaming others is not the path to success – but alas, it does seem the only one you are capable of taking….
Henri
The blowback *is* coming, the interesting question is what direction it will take. The dems are fracturing into those who want to turn left, and those who make mouth noises about turning left. The GOP has been fracturing for years, and the tea (“kool-aid”) party gas been recognized as both a power to contend with and a cancer to be cured.
Both parties’ leadership are in a tizzy, trying to figure out how to make their constituents happy while still lining their own pockets. Some of them at least, might realize that if they *don’t* keep their constituents happy they won’t get a chance to line their pockets.
Will we have four parties by 2020? We can only hope.
As things continue to unravel and some people begin to realize that the Internet, social media and instant messaging are making it more and more impossible to “hide the truth”, many other people are embracing an alternative reality and discarding facts in order to prop up their positions, whether political or social. What are the chances that suddenly, people heavily invested in their own, comfortable bubble, will start acting kind, empathetic and considerate to each other? No chance. As you can even see here on this forum, people still work towards their own agendas and preferences, trolling and backbiting each other over past grievances, trying to be ‘more right or more correct’ than the other person. Could it possibly be true – as expressed in the Firesign Theatre’s album, Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers, that “people are no damned good”?
Georgie Tirebiter said it best, “I’m always right, and I never lie”
While this group is contentious – our agendas are more-or-less in alignment. It’s just no fun to discuss why we agree. 😉
This is what I’ve been thinking about: how many people have to die to make a difference?
Believe me, lots more – an incredible amount more, and it’s happening as we type – unless they are very powerful and influential – then, it takes a little less….. Send Trumps boys to Afghanistan to make them heroes, too! 🙂
“how many people have to die to make a difference?”
It depends, are we talking about rich people or unimportant people?