Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« Will I long for more Trump? | Main | The "alt-right"? It's just the old - and negligible - far right. »

October 24, 2016

Comments

You can't cheat an honest man. I've always loved the movie The Flim Flam Man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue0vqeQSG5w

I hope more of this flagrant flip-flopping on Trump's supposed main issues comes out - I'm sure there is more of it out there - I wouldn't be surprised if there is footage of him saying nice things about NAFTA and/or free trade at some point in the past decade.

It's the only thing that might dissuade some of his core base from voting. If they think he's going to lose (fairly or not) AND they think he's just bullshitting them on the immigrant-blame and xenophobia, a small but significant slice of his base MIGHT blow off election day. Overall, Trump is right when he says he could murder someone in broad daylight and those voters would stick with him. The only way to possibly change that is to show that he's full of shit even on the big issues he's campaigned on.

The issue turns on Trump's inner mental workings. (They must exist, after a fashion.) I've always thought that he "believes" whatever he says, in the way that good salesmen and good liars generally often do. Good liars sell themselves before they sell others. For Trump, once perceived self-interest recommends believing X, he believes X. And further, anyone who disagrees with his recently chosen belief is an idiot. Of course, none of this matters a piddle. The Great Orange One will soon be forgotten. (It's true, because I really want it to be.)

He can't remember what he said five minutes ago, let alone believe his own words from a few years ago. His mind seems to have no filtration system in any form.

This can be quite hilarious to watch. Remember in the first debate when Hillary went after him with the Machado thing? Trump interrupted with: Where did you get that? As if he wished to impeach the source. But the source is generally his own mouth.

I landed an eighteen pound salmon awhile back that did a better impression of Donald Trump than Baldwin once it hit the dock. We all have our personal faves but mine, from the last debate, was watching Trump pivot from Obama/ Clinton being feckless advocates of open borders to Clinton voting for his wall and Obama viciously deporting millions of illegal immigrants. Is there a brain dysfunction where your ears can't hear what your mouth is saying?

Hillary, on the other hand, self-confessed to having both 'public' views and 'private' views. Very useful for her but confusing to everyone else!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/8/hillary-clinton-says-she-has-both-public-and-priva/

I'm sorry. I can't resist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IycJIcNok8

That's okay. Donald Trump expressed private views about sexual assault somewhat at odds with his public statements. Perhaps that's not the best attack line David.

You want politicians who are clear and to tthe point:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/harry-reid-nuclear-option-filibuster-supreme-court

I am going to miss Harry Reid.

@ Peter: So which of her views, the 'private' and the 'public', are you going to believe?

@ DA: I just want intelligent politicians who follow, not slavishly but reasonably coherently, what they say is their political belief. (So that lets out Trump and Clinton!)

@ Max: Just control your breathing, exhale when you take the first pressure, pause and the shoot - ooops, sorry, I misunderstood your remark!

A good working definition of "piss feeble"; thank you, Hunter S. Thompson.

Yeah I love Harry Reid. Schumer, not so much. I gave him money in '98 to croak Al D'Mato, but he's turned into a hack and coward. He coulda been a contenda. But I digress.

David you're a fake conservative. Unlike you, I value institutions, like real conservatives.

Well your private views are generally the ones that might get you in trouble so I think we have to go with Trump being pro sexual assault. Don't you think?

It's called "shit for brains". :)

I don't agree. I don't think he "believes" anything, not even in the sense you mean.

There was a very good thesis proposed somewhere, Vox, I think, that I find more "believable." To wit: Most people, to some extent, at least, use words to represent beliefs ("It's raining outside.") You communicate the fact, which you believe, that it is indeed raining outside. There are other levels of our communication, of course, but this is one we rely on to survive. If, for example, we have tested the statement "Don't put your hand on that stove, it's hot" we come to accept that there are certain beliefs communicated in our speech we may rely on. Everyone will tell me if the stove is hot, because it is, and other people can be relied on to warn me correctly.

For Trump, words are not beliefs. They are merely tools for dominance and negotiation. (Or, as we call them, "lies.") When he was trying to get the Trump Taj Mahal in New Jersey, Trump told the Gaming Commission that he wouldn't fund it with junk bonds, because the banks were already calling him offering money. This was a total lie - the banks had realized that giving money to Trump was the same as throwing it down the sewer. And Trump wound up financing it with, ta-da!, junk bonds. And that almost ruined him.

But to Trump, the word "banks" was the appropriate weapon for the job. And he got over with the Gaming Commission and the rest is sorry history. Trump doesn't change his beliefs: He had no reason to think the banks would help him out, and every reason to know they wouldn't. But he knew "banks" was the appropriate instrument to reach for at that moment, and so he did.

For his entire life, Trump has lied and lied and gotten away with it. To him, it's simply a way of persuading, or cajoling, his opposite number into giving him what he wants. On some level I suspect he is surprised it works, which in turn feeds his self-image of a really smart negotiator. It is apparent now that he made this run, knowing what was in the public record about him already, and thought no one would call him on it, or that he could bluster his way out of it when the stories started coming out.

After all, he always did before. We are stuck with him because he never had to grow up, or take responsibility. Lacking not only empathy, but the slightest understanding of how brutally his actions have affected others, he simply sees this as the way you win.

That's why he said "That makes me smart" and "That's called business" in the first debate. This is the way he sees everything. It's no wonder he can't understand the outrage everyone else feels.

What are you, 12? Wow. A politician is involved in politics.

Man, I guess your shit don't stink.

Alas, Max, you're right, it was "piss feeble", an example of early oncoming 'second childishness'!

But, Jeff, what exactly do you mean by "A politician is involved in politics"? Are you implying that pols are to be given 'carte blanche' to lie on a constant basis without criticism? If you, as a voter, are content to accept that proposition then God help American democracy! The pols will be free to lie and lie and lie again - which is a fairly close description of the image of American politics today.

Of course, we inhabit a real world, events change and opinions with them but some sort of consistency is required or elections simply become futile, er, rather like the one you are enjoying today!

Fear not, Corporal Blimp, the push to a Kampuchea-style regime is strong, aided and abbeded by the First Amendment:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gopers-are-now-threatening-lawsuits-against-tv-channels-for-ads-tying-them-to-trump

The way things are going you might need the Second Amemdment - before HillBilly abolishes it!

Aside from the fact that an Amurikan(Southern accent)President cannot abolish an Amendment to the Constitution, you dont' know how to monetize American paranoia, as did this chap here:

http://time.com/money/4536702/pre-hillary-sale-guns-democrat-gun-control-second-amendment-trump/

Any other concerns, old sport? As you like to say, Jest askin.

Sure, just like Obama was coming for their guns. We heard that every year, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 . . . how's that worked out?

By the way, have you ever actually read the Second Amendment? Go back and read the second and third word of that 25 word document.

The comments to this entry are closed.