Small things reveal someone's character. From that small thing we can project how the person will behave in large matters. While George W. Bush (Bush 2) was campaigning, a woman sentenced to die in Florida, begged him for mercy -- for a pardon. A message was sent through the lawyer. On a public stage, Bush mocked and parodied her, enacting her squeaking at him. I knew then what a bad president he'd be. He was openly enjoying power as a means of inflicting pain.
His behavior was reported, I saw a clip of Bush 2 meanly parodying the woman; no one in the media I read made any comment. It was passed over and I've not seen anything about it since.
Today's political nuances may seem even slighter and nothing in comparison to all Trump has said and what he does at his rallies and in his business career. But it is indicative,
Trump's response to the mean (in every way when it comes to his social outlook) Ryan trying to extract a promise that Trump will treat him and others with respect is to treat Ryan as an absurd suppliant. What does Ryan's giving Trump this opening by saying he will stand aside actually show about him?
This morning McCain said he would support this man who sneered at him as a man who became a prisoner of war, was tortured, called him a coward as I recall. So there are no limits whom McCain will support either if the person seems on his way to power.
Trump is now seeking to get his hands on the billions the Republicans control towards a general election. He does win the Republican vote and he does better when the primary is an open one, allowing all people to vote (independents and democrats).
Can Hillary Clinton beat him? were the primaries open to all in all states (and primaries are funded by the taxpayers) and were there no superdelegates, she'd be out. I've no idea if Trump would trounce Sanders or Sanders beat him, but keeping her there and knowing how little broad appeal she has -- including how so many men apparently are loathe to vote for her and many women find her offputting -- is a risk. No one in the democratic party establishment wants a return of FDR type New Deal programs and laws. The last 70 years has been a shredding of all of these, with a continual underfunding of Social Security. Is it that they prefer Trump?
Nota bene. Gentle reader, remember the devastation of these nuclear bombs. Trump could incense some dense power-mad fanatical bully. Then what?
From the Washington Examiner
Miss Drake
His behavior was reported, I saw a clip of Bush 2 meanly parodying the woman; no one in the media I read made any comment. It was passed over and I've not seen anything about it since.
Today's political nuances may seem even slighter and nothing in comparison to all Trump has said and what he does at his rallies and in his business career. But it is indicative,
Trump's response to the mean (in every way when it comes to his social outlook) Ryan trying to extract a promise that Trump will treat him and others with respect is to treat Ryan as an absurd suppliant. What does Ryan's giving Trump this opening by saying he will stand aside actually show about him?
This morning McCain said he would support this man who sneered at him as a man who became a prisoner of war, was tortured, called him a coward as I recall. So there are no limits whom McCain will support either if the person seems on his way to power.
Trump is now seeking to get his hands on the billions the Republicans control towards a general election. He does win the Republican vote and he does better when the primary is an open one, allowing all people to vote (independents and democrats).
Can Hillary Clinton beat him? were the primaries open to all in all states (and primaries are funded by the taxpayers) and were there no superdelegates, she'd be out. I've no idea if Trump would trounce Sanders or Sanders beat him, but keeping her there and knowing how little broad appeal she has -- including how so many men apparently are loathe to vote for her and many women find her offputting -- is a risk. No one in the democratic party establishment wants a return of FDR type New Deal programs and laws. The last 70 years has been a shredding of all of these, with a continual underfunding of Social Security. Is it that they prefer Trump?
Nota bene. Gentle reader, remember the devastation of these nuclear bombs. Trump could incense some dense power-mad fanatical bully. Then what?
From the Washington Examiner
Miss Drake
Profile
misssylviadrake- misssylviadrake
- Website
Comments
- 13 Aug 2023, 11:59Her newsletter last night, 8/12/2023
Two mornings ago in Kansas, a GOP Congressman was able to set up a raid on reporters in Marion, Kansas by 4 policemen and 3 sheriff's deputies which is an… - 3 Jul 2023, 12:01Court's radical increase in who has standing in court: it used to be you had to be directly hurt to go to court: no more. Those whom the court wants to use to forward its agenda are said to be…
- 3 Jul 2023, 11:49I have never before read such a succinct account of the opening of the American revoluionary war. I am struck by modern parallels and the gall of the colonialist power. The Americans refuse to pay…
- 1 Jul 2023, 13:46The court is completely out of touch with the American people and what they consider right. That they overturned Roe vs Wade makes that clear. I will not be surprised when they make same-sex marriage…
- 28 Apr 2023, 12:24A short column, an interview and more videos:
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/27/harry_belafonte_has_died_but_the
struggle carries on.
Comments
Me: I think the email accusations and the accusations of dishonesty are excuses to smear her and they work because not only is the misogyny from men; it comes from women who resent her strength, success, power, money. For some women still it's okay for a man to exhibit these things, but not a woman: why? envy, jealousy, and it's conceived as a threat. If a woman can do these things, men will say all women should do them and if she is lucky enough to have a good money-making man as a protective enough husband (let's say it), she fears loss and demands.
There is nothing criminal or she would long ago have been indicted. Who cares who she wrote private emails to? as for the money she has made, she didn't pretend to give speeches like Trump pretends to run a university.
Whatever horrible inciting words he uses, and unscrupulous and edging criminal behavior he does, it's fine because a man is allowed. She must not shout, he can shout needling her for shouting.
It truly sickens me to see all these republicans submitting to this. When Hitler came to power, there were many people who fell in (how else did he win?) thinking it was to their individual advantage and nothing bad would happen to them individually. I hope Trump's vicious tongue to foreigners and about foreigners continues in the hope there might be a country whose leaders turn away.
It's very hard to join live-journal. I did it years ago and forget how I did it.
It really bothers me centrally that so many Americans find Trump acceptable. My father used to say McGovern lost and was unacceptable because he was a nice and good man. People could see it and they didn't recognize themselves in that. He was a standing reproach so they responding by despising him.
Bob"
Me: Are you accepting Trump? do you not see him as a monster? that's the question that bothers me. To me this is a question about central aspects of American life.
I agree on the particular question that it's not just misogyny, and that she produces canned answers, and that but for the super-delegates she'd have lost and we'd have a Trump versus Sanders election, but if Trump wins I do not expect anything good to happen to the middle class or poorer people.
I predict everything everywhere will get far worse -- including access to the Internet. We risk nuclear attack from some crazy running some military apparatus and fascistic state.
I'd rather go on as we are -- with her incremental improvements, Obama II it would be.
Edited at 2016-05-12 03:50 pm (UTC)