Break Facebook up into a million pieces and scatter it in the wind. My nonpolitical friend goes, "but how"? He skipped right past the why. We all know the why.
"If these people say you had the power, wouldn't you want to?" Trump asked. "I wouldn't want any one person to have that authority," Pence said. "But wouldn't it almost be cool to have that power?" Trump asked. "No," Pence said."
And that right there is the truly scary thing. It is a power that Trump has probably lusted after all of his life and goes a long way towards explaining his life. and all of these fools would be quite happy to give him that power, if they could--because they think (mistakenly) that it would be used for them.
It won't be. Trump's motto is: What can YOU do for me (that I won't have to pay you back for in some fashion)... because truly powerful people (in Trump's mind) do not have to do things for others, they have things done for them or punish people if they don't. There are no carrots, only sticks.
Occasionally find something that may be disagreed with in this space on Sundays, but absolutely nothing today, save one small nit I think needs picking. And that would be David Jolly's characterization of the relationship of "Donald Trump and Republican leaders" with politically motivated violence as "flirting". With all due props to Mr. jolly, I think the flirting stage of the relationship has passed.
Having already had a turn or two around the dance floor with this never coy and increasingly "available" number on their dance cards, I believe full-on courtship has now ensued, at least in the ranks below those with the most visibility at the very top. And the top has proven it finds no unattractive qualities in this little number either, as evidenced by the language they use on the rare occasion they find themselves cornered and must address the "gossip" swirling about town regarding this, or their absolute failure to often say anything at all to repudiate the rumors and put them to rest once and for all. Guess they don't want to risk any remarks that their paramour may find off-putting, and hence disqualify themselves as acceptable suitors if the heavy petting that's occurring in some quarters at the moment turns into the need for outright consummation of the relationship later.
Other than for perhaps Donald Trump himself, said paramour may not be the one they really want to take home to meet their families. But with some lowlifes it's any port in a storm.
Listen, it is fine to have different opinions, but I read the stuff from Charlie and other Charlie like-minded writers of opinion-powered news, and I cannot shake this vision that their insatiable need to win at the political game puts them in a spin-bubble where most of the actual BFD considerations are ignored and dismissed.
Many of these super bright word people had not been that way... until Trump. It seems Trump broke something in them.
Ironically I see Chis Wallace as having developed that same malady. I expect that many of his colleagues at Fox see the same. But Chris did that to himself. Sorry, if your spouse says mean words to you and it causes you to lose your shit and burn down your own house... that is on you. For example, his terrible disrespectful and one-sided tilt moderating the debates. People with more self-awareness can easily diagnose that self-afflicted malady. They leave the door open for others to see into their house before they burn it down.
The respectable part about this and Chris Wallace rather than most of the talking heads on CNN, is that Chris Wallace at least demonstrated he owned his own principled stand and wasn't just a popularity pimp trying hard to get more followers and likes from one ideological tribe. I respect him for that even as I don't respect his blind biases. As for the list of other non-Fox talking heads leaving their post... they never obtained any identity of real journalism while also failed at being successful political popularity pimps.
I don't think that those like Charley and Chris see nor care about something important that they should see and care about. If you are stuck in the beltway-compliant bubble of political-tinted journalism, you are increasingly on the wrong side of both critical-thinking and journalistic relevancy. To fixate on Jan 6 as a BFD and ignore Russiagate as a BFD.... well let's just say that history will certainly not support your choice of attention. One is a real BFD and the other, ironically, is just made-up political-media theater serving the establishment cabal.
There is a very easy method to test if your political bias is clouding your critical thinking. Just replace the stories in your mind with the political parties reversed. If you can be intellectually honest in doing that (and I submit that many cannot), you can work out your own problems and get back to what we might call real journalism again.
I’m all in for a third party that stabilizes our democracy and supports civilized political debate again. One shouldn’t have to hide their ideological stances because people have lost their collective minds around a perception that they have lost what is “theirs” nor should we continue to bolster up the victimhood mentality plaguing both of our major political parties. Folks we need to grow a pair and get moving. It gets worse before it gets better…
Break Facebook up into a million pieces and scatter it in the wind. My nonpolitical friend goes, "but how"? He skipped right past the why. We all know the why.
"If these people say you had the power, wouldn't you want to?" Trump asked. "I wouldn't want any one person to have that authority," Pence said. "But wouldn't it almost be cool to have that power?" Trump asked. "No," Pence said."
And that right there is the truly scary thing. It is a power that Trump has probably lusted after all of his life and goes a long way towards explaining his life. and all of these fools would be quite happy to give him that power, if they could--because they think (mistakenly) that it would be used for them.
It won't be. Trump's motto is: What can YOU do for me (that I won't have to pay you back for in some fashion)... because truly powerful people (in Trump's mind) do not have to do things for others, they have things done for them or punish people if they don't. There are no carrots, only sticks.
Occasionally find something that may be disagreed with in this space on Sundays, but absolutely nothing today, save one small nit I think needs picking. And that would be David Jolly's characterization of the relationship of "Donald Trump and Republican leaders" with politically motivated violence as "flirting". With all due props to Mr. jolly, I think the flirting stage of the relationship has passed.
Having already had a turn or two around the dance floor with this never coy and increasingly "available" number on their dance cards, I believe full-on courtship has now ensued, at least in the ranks below those with the most visibility at the very top. And the top has proven it finds no unattractive qualities in this little number either, as evidenced by the language they use on the rare occasion they find themselves cornered and must address the "gossip" swirling about town regarding this, or their absolute failure to often say anything at all to repudiate the rumors and put them to rest once and for all. Guess they don't want to risk any remarks that their paramour may find off-putting, and hence disqualify themselves as acceptable suitors if the heavy petting that's occurring in some quarters at the moment turns into the need for outright consummation of the relationship later.
Other than for perhaps Donald Trump himself, said paramour may not be the one they really want to take home to meet their families. But with some lowlifes it's any port in a storm.
Listen, it is fine to have different opinions, but I read the stuff from Charlie and other Charlie like-minded writers of opinion-powered news, and I cannot shake this vision that their insatiable need to win at the political game puts them in a spin-bubble where most of the actual BFD considerations are ignored and dismissed.
Many of these super bright word people had not been that way... until Trump. It seems Trump broke something in them.
Ironically I see Chis Wallace as having developed that same malady. I expect that many of his colleagues at Fox see the same. But Chris did that to himself. Sorry, if your spouse says mean words to you and it causes you to lose your shit and burn down your own house... that is on you. For example, his terrible disrespectful and one-sided tilt moderating the debates. People with more self-awareness can easily diagnose that self-afflicted malady. They leave the door open for others to see into their house before they burn it down.
The respectable part about this and Chris Wallace rather than most of the talking heads on CNN, is that Chris Wallace at least demonstrated he owned his own principled stand and wasn't just a popularity pimp trying hard to get more followers and likes from one ideological tribe. I respect him for that even as I don't respect his blind biases. As for the list of other non-Fox talking heads leaving their post... they never obtained any identity of real journalism while also failed at being successful political popularity pimps.
I don't think that those like Charley and Chris see nor care about something important that they should see and care about. If you are stuck in the beltway-compliant bubble of political-tinted journalism, you are increasingly on the wrong side of both critical-thinking and journalistic relevancy. To fixate on Jan 6 as a BFD and ignore Russiagate as a BFD.... well let's just say that history will certainly not support your choice of attention. One is a real BFD and the other, ironically, is just made-up political-media theater serving the establishment cabal.
There is a very easy method to test if your political bias is clouding your critical thinking. Just replace the stories in your mind with the political parties reversed. If you can be intellectually honest in doing that (and I submit that many cannot), you can work out your own problems and get back to what we might call real journalism again.
I’m all in for a third party that stabilizes our democracy and supports civilized political debate again. One shouldn’t have to hide their ideological stances because people have lost their collective minds around a perception that they have lost what is “theirs” nor should we continue to bolster up the victimhood mentality plaguing both of our major political parties. Folks we need to grow a pair and get moving. It gets worse before it gets better…