Donald is about to go through some things...

[The Thriller]

I will say, as a more or less agnostic/Christian/mormon this kind of **** about the chosen one and cults and Jesus picking Trump as his go-to *****-grabber certainly casts the entire faith in a really bad light. I mean, there isn't a single major christian denomination that has spoken out against this corruption and immorality as a group, not one. I would have hoped the Mormons would have spoken out or something, but they are also silent on the matter as a group. Considering the damage this is doing to the entire christian movement I would hope at least one formal group would take an official stand to defend the core tenets of the religion against this kind of, well let's call it what it is, blasphemy. Certainly disappointing to say the least.

And frankly, even though I fully acknowledge that the mormons have their issues and inconsistencies and downright contradiction, I am really disappointed in how many I know personally that don't just tolerate Trump but also fully support him and espouse his political agenda. Oh they say "well I don't like everything about Trump, but he has done the tough things that needed to be done," but when you ask what they don't like it what needed to be done they hem and haw because putting it into words essentially sounds almost exactly like "he maintains the supremacy of the white man in America, he puts women in their place, and I am a barely-closeted racist". And as soon as they hear it, they recognize it briefly before backpedaling fast enough to win the Tour de France in reverse. Then they just repeat the cultish mantra "but he has done what needed to be done, but I don't like everything he does." This has become the "I have a black friend" claim to show you aren't a racist but for Trumpian white-supremacist sexist and borderline fascist politics. It is ****ing mind-boggling.

At least the ones I respect the most, like my dad, recognize it for what it is and are fully against it. For that I am happy. But when will some big group of christians stand up for the supposed christian tenets and values against what is obviously a full subversion of what they claim to hold most dear. Love thy neighbor as thyself, as long as the stay in their place. ****ing sickening.

But judges and tax cuts…

Why speak out against immorality when you’re getting the policy outcomes you’ve desired for decades?

 

[LogGrad98]

Not only have none of these religious groups spoken out against trumps corruption and immorality but they actually praise him instead which is even worse. I would rather they simply be quiet and look the other way regarding trumps corruption and immorality but instead you have a mormon utah governor comparing trump to moroni from the book of mormon and licking his boots just like any other trump worshipper for hells sake.

Yeah that is worse, agreed. I get that they are happy it maintains the status quo, whatever that means, and reinforces the "American" segregationist values. What I don't get is that even with Trump's blatant discrimination on the race front that something like the Southern Baptist Convention won't decry him. He makes a show of using the ****ing military to force people to move so he can hold a bible upside down for a photo op and everyone in the Christian community goes ******* for him. It is crazy, and frankly terrifying, the sudden and powerful cult of personality he has been able to build in such a short time frame. I would bet money that if you went back to 2014 and asked most of these same Americans what they thought of Trump the attitude would range between indifference to derision, with a few TV fans sprinkled in. Then suddenly he was the 2nd coming of Jesus, somehow. Amazing.


I really think Anthony Bourdain hit the nail on the head with his prescient article he wrote about how the liberals had been treating middle-, white-, and rural-americans with contempt and disdain for so long that they were ripe for an uprising, and Trump gave it to them. Not to blame everything on that, but you better believe it had something strongly to do with this entire development. It feels good to be vindicated and you will do everything you can to keep that feeling and that is how many American's felt with Trump as president as they could point to an "authority" and say, "see, we were right all along, we needed someone to fight for us, stop telling us what to do. Stop cancelling us and dismissing our point of view". And now we are seeing the backlash. And, as usual for things like this, like take dieting, humans tend to overcorrect in the worst way. The problem with dieting is when you deny yourself strictly you are almost certainly going to rebound at some point and go way back over the line the other way, hence why most people who "diet" gain all their weight back and more. I think we are seeing something like this that is driving Christians, for example, to ignore all the blatant bad **** because they feel vindicated. It also explains the severe overcorrection on abortion.

Anthony Bourdain on Sichuan Peppers, Sex, Eating Dogs, and Political Correctness

An exclusive post-election interview with the culinary celebrity host of Parts Unknown.

reason.com

Bisley: You're a liberal. What should liberals be critiquing their own side for?

Bourdain: There's just so much. I hate the term political correctness, the way in which speech that is found to be unpleasant or offensive is often banned from universities. Which is exactly where speech that is potentially hurtful and offensive should be heard.

The way we demonize comedians for use of language or terminology is unspeakable. Because that's exactly what comedians should be doing, offending and upsetting people, and being offensive. Comedy is there, like art, to make people uncomfortable, and challenge their views, and hopefully have a spirited yet civil argument. If you're a comedian whose bread and butter seems to be language, situations, and jokes that I find racist and offensive, I won't buy tickets to your show or watch you on TV. I will not support you. If people ask me what I think, I will say you suck, and that I think you are racist and offensive. But I'm not going to try to put you out of work. I'm not going to start a boycott, or a hashtag, looking to get you driven out of the business.

The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now.

I've spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America. There are a hell of a lot of nice people out there, who are doing what everyone else in this world is trying to do: the best they can to get by, and take care of themselves and the people they love. When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good. Nothing nauseates me more than preaching to the converted. The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn't change anyone's opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us. We should be breaking bread with each other, and finding common ground whenever possible. I fear that is not at all what we've done.

Wow reading that again it is shocking how spot on that all is.


RIP Anthony.

 

[One Brow]

I really think Anthony Bourdain hit the nail on the head with his prescient article he wrote about how the liberals had been treating middle-, white-, and rural-americans with contempt and disdain for so long that they were ripe for an uprising, and Trump gave it to them.

Bourdain sounded to me as pretty clueless. For example, the term political correctness is not a term that universities use to impede speech, it's a slur used by those who like like to be polite. Comedians do have an important function in criticizing social constructs, but (as an example) fat-shaming serves no purpose in that regard. There's a difference between commentary on society and treating people like they are side-show freaks.

As for the vindication of the Trump supporters, what he vindicates is their hatred. For many of them, their way of getting by and taking care includes making sure that they never see two men kissing or a man in glitter and a dress.

 

[Gameface]

Bourdain sounded to me as pretty clueless. For example, the term political correctness is not a term that universities use to impede speech, it's a slur used by those who like like to be polite. Comedians do have an important function in criticizing social constructs, but (as an example) fat-shaming serves no purpose in that regard. There's a difference between commentary on society and treating people like they are side-show freaks.

As for the vindication of the Trump supporters, what he vindicates is their hatred. For many of them, their way of getting by and taking care includes making sure that they never see two men kissing or a man in glitter and a dress.

What the term political correctness means and how it is used depends entirely on what period of time you're talking about. Same thing for "fake news" which began during the Trump campaign and shortly after the election to describe sham "news" websites with pseudo-journalism articles attacking Hillary and the Libruls. Then Trump flipped it. Conservatives did the same thing with "political correctness" and more recently with things like "CRT" and "Woke."

 

[LogGrad98]

Bourdain sounded to me as pretty clueless. For example, the term political correctness is not a term that universities use to impede speech, it's a slur used by those who like like to be polite. Comedians do have an important function in criticizing social constructs, but (as an example) fat-shaming serves no purpose in that regard. There's a difference between commentary on society and treating people like they are side-show freaks.

As for the vindication of the Trump supporters, what he vindicates is their hatred. For many of them, their way of getting by and taking care includes making sure that they never see two men kissing or a man in glitter and a dress.

Comes across as pretty smug and dismissive to be honest. That is kind of what Bourdain was getting at, in the spirit of his comments, imo.

And to me that is the crux of the problem, we have gotten to the point where the only way we engage the "other side" is with smugness and dismissiveness. As he states, that doesn't bring people to the table, find common ground, or win hearts or minds. Just widens the gap.

 

[One Brow]

Comes across as pretty smug and dismissive to be honest. That is kind of what Bourdain was getting at, in the spirit of his comments, imo.

And to me that is the crux of the problem, we have gotten to the point where the only way we engage the "other side" is with smugness and dismissiveness. As he states, that doesn't bring people to the table, find common ground, or win hearts or minds. Just widens the gap.

I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's not their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.

Edit: Added "not"

 

[One Brow]

What the term political correctness means and how it is used depends entirely on what period of time you're talking about. Same thing for "fake news" which began during the Trump campaign and shortly after the election to describe sham "news" websites with pseudo-journalism articles attacking Hillary and the Libruls. Then Trump flipped it. Conservatives did the same thing with "political correctness" and more recently with things like "CRT" and "Woke."

Political Correctness

Political Correctness “Geoffrey Hughes has brought together with great panache the very many manifestations of political correctness, both absurd and vicious, and shown how they express a single collective mind-set. His book establishes beyond doubt that there is such a phenomenon, that it has...

books.google.com

"Politically correct" came into the modern sense in 1970, went unused for 5 years, and was being used ironically in 1975 by people on the left in the US. In the US, it has never been used as an official policy of a university, nor any similar organization.

 

[gandalfe]

I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.

Biko said much the same: "A Black man should be more independent and depend on himself for his freedom and not to take it for granted that someone would lead him to it. The blacks are tired of standing at the touchlines to witness a game that they should be playing. They want to do things for themselves and all by themselves." Or, to put it more succinctly, "Black man, you are on your own."

 

[Gameface]

Political Correctness

Political Correctness “Geoffrey Hughes has brought together with great panache the very many manifestations of political correctness, both absurd and vicious, and shown how they express a single collective mind-set. His book establishes beyond doubt that there is such a phenomenon, that it has...

books.google.com

"Politically correct" came into the modern sense in 1970, went unused for 5 years, and was being used ironically in 1975 by people on the left in the US. In the US, it has never been used as an official policy of a university, nor any similar organization.

I didn't think it was ever used in an official capacity or as policy. It was in the early 80s as far as I recall a sort of short-hand for "**** I could say that would get me canceled" or "the insensitive way we used to refer to something" and was almost always used as a "not" statement, as in "this is not politically correct" or "I can't say because the answer isn't politically correct." I saw it used on occasion in the late 80s maybe early 90s with some degree of reverence, like someone steering away from a subject because they didn't have the correct vocabulary to talk about it in a "politically correct" way or as an acknowledgement that their own unenlightened perspective on something could get them in trouble. By the mid-90s it had been flipped and was being used as a badge of honor by people brave enough to not care about being "politically correct."

I always understood it to essentially mean that when engaged in politics (for government office or in the more general sense of the term) one should be careful not to anger or alienate, through hurtful or careless language, those who might otherwise be sympathetic to their message.

 

[The Thriller]

personally, I think trump has been through more than Jesus.

Spoiler: Language

View: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1639358835302227972?s=46&t=QT7YFlZ_IlHq81PpZAhKgw

But don’t call it a cult. It hurts their feelings

 

[The Thriller]

I’m old enough to remember when it was really really outrageous when a comedian made a bad joke depicting Trump to be decapitated. So I’m guessing that the right must be outraged over this. After all, law and order, Amiright?



This seems… crazy. Death and destruction

 

[fishonjazz]

Trump inciting violence just leading to more potentially dangerous violent situations. Who saw that coming?

Powder, threat sent to Manhattan DA investigating Trump

A powdery substance was found Friday with a threatening letter in a mailroom at the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the latest security scare as the prosecutor weighs a potential historic indictment of former President Donald Trump, authorities said. New York City police and...

www.yahoo.com

A powdery substance was found Friday with a threatening letter in a mailroom at the offices of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

“Alvin, I am going to kill you,” the letter said, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation and did so on condition of anonymity.

The discovery, in the same building where a grand jury is expected to resume work Monday, came amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from Trump, a Republican who is holding the first rally of his 2024 presidential campaign Saturday in Waco, Texas. (anniversary of the famous Waco standoff years ago. Pretty sure that is intentional)

Hours earlier, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that any criminal charge against him could lead to “potential death & destruction.”

Trump also posted a photo of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg, a Democrat. On Thursday, Trump referred to Bragg, Manhattan's first Black district attorney, as an “animal.”

In a memo to staff Friday, Bragg said the office has also been receiving offensive and threatening phone calls and emails

 

[LogGrad98]

I'll acknowledge it was dismissive. I've read so many white, straight, cis men who like to talk about the importance of rational and allowing all discussion, when it's not their rights and their treatment being discussed. Bourdain's comments reminded me of the white liberals King complained about. If we were talking FTF, I don't think you'd see me as smug, more like smiling with anger. As for my second paragraph, I'll let contemporary events in red states speak for me.

I agree we need to engage with people, but it won't happen by accepting insults without push-back, as Bourdain recommends. Engagement requires everyone to acknowledge that they are dealing with people, individuals who are just trying to live their lives, on the left as well as on the right. Acceptance of othering doesn't bring people closer together.

Edit: Added "not"

Wow we read so totally differently into that. You read specifically to find the offensive parts, from my perception. I read to see the part about needing to come together to understand EACH OTHER, not just dismiss anyone that refuses to understand YOU, while we blissfully ignore the impact in our smug self-righteousness. And frankly it has to start somewhere unless you are advocating for civil war, force the opinion you want others to have, and if they won't, they aren't worth your time or effort. That's how that comes across in that context honestly. I fully agree we cannot let blatant insults and racism and sexism and all that just lie, but we have to use the best tool for the job when repudiating it and shouting people down has been proven time and again that it doesn't work. That's actually what he's getting at. That the left makes these smug comments knowing they have the moral high ground and not thinking about what it ACTUALLY takes to get people to at least try to see a different point of view. And in his mind that means that the rise of someone like Trump was inevitable because we've been building far more walls than bridges. And your comment and the way it came across was eerily exemplary of exactly the bricks used to build those walls he was getting at.

If my kid does things I don't like i don't beat them, I don't denigrate them. I don't humiliate them. I try to explain that it's wrong, help them see why, and help them see a better way to approach it next time. I show compassion and empathy and acknowledge their feelings are valid. Fear, anger, even hatred, but that there are better ways to have better feelings about the situation. But that kind of approach is too hard and emotionally-intensive to engage in with strangers but frankly it's the only way to get anyone to look at their behavior differently. Study behavior modification theory, even those aimed at business, like Aubrey Daniels, and they get at exactly that. But once the left had the moral high ground they used it to rain bricks on the right. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, many did, but it's the absolute worst way to win hearts and minds, and it set up the atmosphere we see that lead to Trump and the steep decline we're in now.

Of course I'm not saying it was the only factor, there are many, but to deny it has an impact is either naive or willfull ignorance. Or just letting anger and outrage get the best of us, which is frankly what 90% of the populace are running on right now.

 

[One Brow]

I read to see the part about needing to come together to understand EACH OTHER, not just dismiss anyone that refuses to understand YOU, while we blissfully ignore the impact in our smug self-righteousness.

Do you really think I have trouble understanding a viewpoint that, until 7 or 8 years ago, was the primary viewpoint on all media in the country? After reading books by wachm (white, abled, cisgender, heterosexual males), seeing wachms dominate the box office, the television screen, politics, etc., who has trouble understanding their thought process. Right-wingers often scream their fear and hate at the top of their lungs, they aren't hidden in some deep place only a conversation can bring out.

And frankly it has to start somewhere unless you are advocating for civil war, force the opinion you want others to have, and if they won't, they aren't worth your time or effort.

It has to start with the acknowledgement that everyone is worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is deserving of the same basic civil rights wachms take for granted, and no one has the right to demand that others must ease being who they are to please that one.

That's how that comes across in that context honestly. I fully agree we cannot let blatant insults and racism and sexism and all that just lie, but we have to use the best tool for the job when repudiating it and shouting people down has been proven time and again that it doesn't work. That's actually what he's getting at. That the left makes these smug comments knowing they have the moral high ground and not thinking about what it ACTUALLY takes to get people to at least try to see a different point of view. And in his mind that means that the rise of someone like Trump was inevitable because we've been building far more walls than bridges. And your comment and the way it came across was eerily exemplary of exactly the bricks used to build those walls he was getting at.

If my kid does things I don't like i don't beat them, I don't denigrate them. I don't humiliate them. I try to explain that it's wrong, help them see why, and help them see a better way to approach it next time. I show compassion and empathy and acknowledge their feelings are valid. Fear, anger, even hatred, but that there are better ways to have better feelings about the situation. But that kind of approach is too hard and emotionally-intensive to engage in with strangers but frankly it's the only way to get anyone to look at their behavior differently. Study behavior modification theory, even those aimed at business, like Aubrey Daniels, and they get at exactly that. But once the left had the moral high ground they used it to rain bricks on the right. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, many did, but it's the absolute worst way to win hearts and minds, and it set up the atmosphere we see that lead to Trump and the steep decline we're in now.

Of course I'm not saying it was the only factor, there are many, but to deny it has an impact is either naive or willfull ignorance. Or just letting anger and outrage get the best of us, which is frankly what 90% of the populace are running on right now.

Every person is different. Some will respond to rational dialogue, some to pleas for empathy, some to nothing. I agree with tailoring your response to the individual.

 

[The Thriller]

Man this Soros guy sure is powerful. I wish he’d make it so we have a single payer system or gun bans here.

I’m old enough to remember when people thought DeSantis was more palatable than Trump. They’re both deplorable authoritarians!

 

[Just Ted]

Serious question: Why wasn’t Hillary indicted for paying for the Steele dossier? It seems to me that both trump and hillary have broken the same law when it comes to using fraudulent funds for other than stated purposes and both should be prosecuted. Yes I think trump deserves to be indicted.

 

[One Brow]

Serious question: Why wasn’t Hillary indicted for paying for the Steele dossier? It seems to me that both trump and hillary have broken the same law when it comes to using fraudulent funds for other than stated purposes and both should be prosecuted. Yes I think trump deserves to be indicted.

Paying blackmail is a different category than paying for campaign research. I don't understand why you think they are the same.

 

[fishonjazz]

Serious question: Why wasn’t Hillary indicted for paying for the Steele dossier? It seems to me that both trump and hillary have broken the same law when it comes to using fraudulent funds for other than stated purposes and both should be prosecuted. Yes I think trump deserves to be indicted.

I don't know. Probably they didn't commit the same crime.
If Clinton committed a crme and deserves prosecution then a prosecutor should bring that case in front of a grand jury and try to get them to recommend an indictment.

 

[Gameface]

Lol at the notion that Trump will be arrested.

LOL indeed. LMFAO. ROFLMFAO.

 

[Gameface]

Former President Donald Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud in an indictment from a Manhattan grand jury, according to two sources familiar with the case.

Earlier Thursday, a spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the office has contacted Trump's attorney to "coordinate his surrender" for arraignment on "a Supreme Court indictment, which remains under seal."

"Guidance will be provided when the arraignment date is selected," it added.

Trump will likely appear in court early next week, his defense attorney said.