Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Forty Two]

"All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election". lol. Could that article troll any harder if it tried?

Criticism and objection to Trump and the Repubs is 'an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society?' Really?...

No, criticism and objection is not.
However, the hysteria is not mere criticism and objection. It's hyperbole taken to hyperbolic levels, where moderate onlookers view the anti-Trump folks as bizarre caricatures.

So being anti-Trump is considered 'bizarre' by 'moderate onlookers' eh?

No, being rabidly over-the-top and ridiculously "anti-trump", like howling at the sky angry, or screetching at every policy and every tweet as if the sky is falling is bizarre. The repeated calls for him to be brought down, even assassinated, made by celebrities. The ridiculous "questioning" of his fitness as if the 25th Amendment could be invoked to remove him from office because people think he's behaving oddly. That's bizarre.

Mere criticism of Trump or being "anti-Trump" is not bizarre. Everyone has political preferences, ideologies, etc. It's the massive derangement that is never ending. Every day some insipid critique of his looks, his weight, his steak, his ice cream, his hair, his looks, his skin tone, did he hold his wife's hand, did he not hold her hand, did he smile, did he not smile, endless....

As Former President Jimmy Carter said, "I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I've known about.I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation." He said, last May that "no politician in history" has been treated "worse of more unfairly" by the media.

This is not something "controversial" lol - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

"The president fired all the ambassadors! He's issuing executive orders! He's putting political cronies into trusted positions! He's declaring his inauguration to be a special national day! Well, of course he is. It's what presidents do in their first weeks in office. It's what Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama did, too." And, "...too many in the media are inclined to take every action by the new administration as a declaration of war, presenting almost everything as unprecedented or unconstitutional or some other alarming adjective. For instance, Trump's proclamation of Inauguration Day as a "Day of Patriotic Devotion" was deemed not only "vaguely compulsory" (the Atlantic) but also to have "echoes of North Korea" (the Guardian, in Britain). But eight years ago, Obama declared his own inauguration an equally creepy-sounding "Day of Renewal and Reconciliation." This feeds into a social-media environment that is hyperventilating about Trump's every word — as social media does about everything.

Ordinary citizens might be forgiven for their lack of civic knowledge, but long-serving members of Congress certainly know better. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said he was boycotting the Trump inauguration, and that it would "be the first one that I miss since I've been in the Congress," which roiled the news and stunned only those who didn't recall that Lewis also boycotted Bush's 2001 inauguration. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said this past week that he had never seen an executive order end up on the wrong side of a federal court so fast — as though a challenge to an executive order was itself an unprecedented moment in history."

There are other examples. On MSNBC last month, Rachel Maddow decried the "takeover" of the Voice of America by the Trump administration. The story was terrifying: Trump now has his own propaganda outlet!

I, too, was upset about the dissolution of the VOA board and the shift toward using presidential appointees in place of a bipartisan group of governors. I was upset about that, in fact, last year [2016 - before Trump was President], when that provision was slipped into the National Defense Authorization Act. Maddow's story, really, boiled down to: President will appoint people he is legally required to appoint. But that didn't stop my email inbox and Twitter stream from filling with panic about how "Trump has taken over American propaganda."

Trump didn't "fire" all the politically appointed ambassadors, effective at high noon on Jan. 20. They were all required to resign, as is normal with every change of a chief executive, because by law an ambassador is the personal representative of the president. And yet, panic ensued. The vacancies "could mean some top U.S. embassies are left without an ambassador for months as Trump finds his footing," Politico reported. That was not a legitimate concern. Embassies have kept their lights on; the heads of missions routinely step in, as do acting secretaries and senior civil servants, during gaps in appointments.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

You've just done it again: criticising or objecting to Trump, even trenchantly, is not antithetical to a moderate outlook - it's not an extreme position.

I never said it was. Hysterical overreacting to everything he does, and everything he says and every policy he enacts -- that's not mere criticism and objection.

Any response to this will, I suspect, boil down to "... but they started it."

Not at all - I have objections to things the guy does, and to him personally too. I'm just not Chicken Little, and I'm not overreacting to every comment he makes as if he's about to start a nuclear war. I don't go around suggesting that he's "unfit" because I don't like his policies. I don't call everything he does and says "racist" and the like.

A year ago this week, I marveled at the pot-boiling-over frenzy of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome in the media. Well, today, the media’s kitchen is a shambles. Spaghetti sauce is splattered all over the walls, and the Fourth Estate is pouring more Prego marinara into the pot while keeping the heat turned up to the level marked “thermonuclear.”

Not only is everything (still) hyper-politicized, but the lines between news media, lifestyle media and flat-out activism have faded into irrelevance. On Wednesday, the lead story in Teen Vogue, next to stories about how “I Will Never Use Regular Soap Again After THIS $6 Foam Body Wash” and “Everyone Basically Wore Lingerie to the VS Fashion Show After Party,” was this screaming headline: “The United States Voted ‘No’ on an Anti-Nazi UN Resolution.” It ran over a terrifying picture of crowds carrying banners, some featuring swastikas, with smoke in the background suggesting a terror attack. Only when you click through do you discover that there is no news here whatsoever: The US votes against this meaningless, nonbinding UN gambit every year because the US has this thing called the First Amendment. President Barack Obama’s appointees also opposed the resolution.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/25/now-gloss ... esistance/

Newsweek published a similar scathing review - noting that "Trump doesn't care about Nazis!" because the US was voting no on the UN resolution referred to above -- http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administr ... ion-720489 But, of course, a similar resolution came up under Obama, and the US also voted no, because we don't vote in favor of violations of the individual right of freedom of speech, no matter how much most of us hate Nazis.

The coverage is unhinged. That's not mere criticism and opposition. It's irrational and over-the-top derangement.

[Brian Peacock]

Some of the coverage is hyperbolic, sure. But that comes from both sides of the aisle - and we all know that 'there's good people on both sides' now don't we(?) The majority of coverage and analysis from what's come to be known and the mainstream media (now hyperbolically re-branded by the President himself as the #FAKENEWSMEDIA) is moderate, reflecting as it does the interests and opinions of the vast majority of people - that big lump who sit in the bulge on the political bell curve. Yet just as the right has held everyone on the left accountable when a radical feminists says something uncomfortable the same is now true of criticism of Trump - such that criticising him or the Repubs marks one out as rabidly 'anti-Trump', or as the article cited puts it, a 'hysterical' member of 'elite society'. Apparently we are allowed to criticise Trump, we just have to make sure that we show proper respect and draw from the list of approved terms and phrases or else the right will have no option but to exercise their moral duty to tone police the b'jaysus out of us.

[Seabass]

It's a shame that most of the world had Hitler Derangement Syndrome and Mussolini Derangement Syndrome in the '40s. Afterall, Hitler and Mussolini were only trying to make Germany and Italy great again.

[Animavore]

Why would anyone criticise Trump and his government?

[Forty Two]

Some of the coverage is hyperbolic, sure. But that comes from both sides of the aisle - and we all know that 'there's good people on both sides' now don't we(?)

The stream of unhinged coverage and commentary is ridiculous when it comes to Trump. Every late night comedy show has become a morality lesson and political comedy-outrage. Every celebrity awards show has become a ridiculous partisan pillorying of the President. And, coverage is shrill, over-the-top, and often just wrong, as I noted in my previous post. If you watched the reaction to the State of the Union address, you'd think the guy was declaring the Democrats persona non grata, rather than going through a laundry list of positive news and outlining his policy goals. The Democrats and their allies at CNN and the rest were outraged! Outraged!

The majority of coverage and analysis from what's come to be known and the mainstream media (now hyperbolically re-branded by the President himself as the #FAKENEWSMEDIA) is moderate, reflecting as it does the interests and opinions of the vast majority of people - that big lump who sit in the bulge on the political bell curve.

I don't agree with that, relative to the majority of coverage and analysis OF TRUMP.

Yet just as the right has held everyone on the left accountable when a radical feminists says something uncomfortable the same is now true of criticism of Trump - such that criticising him or the Repubs marks one out as rabidly 'anti-Trump', or as the article cited puts it, a 'hysterical' member of 'elite society'. Apparently we are allowed to criticise Trump, we just have to make sure that we show proper respect and draw from the list of approved terms and phrases or else the right will have no option but to exercise their moral duty to tone police the b'jaysus out of us.

Again, not accurate - because the issue is not with criticism of Trump. The issue is with the neverendering stream of specific examples of over-the-top unhinged reporting that often turns out to be just wrong, together with focusing on trivialities and blowing them up into scandals (e.g. - the first lady hates her husband because she wore a white dress).

Another item - articles were published blaring "Melania Trump Orders Iconic 200 year old Tree Removed From White House Lawn!" Oh - my - god! Another awful insult to the country, by the regime that has no respect for the environment! They even hate trees! Of course, the underlying reason is that the tree was falling down, and had been held up for many years by a system of cables and that official inspection personnel had recommended it be removed for safety reason.... but, but, but! Iconic Tree! Trump! https://www.mediaite.com/online/newswee ... -pathetic/

Important news?

Newsweek pushes a story about Trump eating his steak with ketchup.
CNN pushes a story that Trump wanted two scoops of ice cream.
Mother Jones says you learn everything you need to know about Trump by seeing that he likes well-done steak and "iceberg" lettuce (how droll). I mean, he eats wedges of iceberg lettus with creamy dressing. Can you think of anything more banal?

Jamel Bouie of Slate ridiculed Trump for having the "eating habits of someone who was spending lots of time and money in fine-dining establishments in the early ’80s and late ’70s,” --- uhhhhh....yeah, the guy is 71 years old, so, he did spend a lot of time and money in 80s and 70s dining establishments.... We can judge, says Mother Jones and Jamel Bouie, that the President not only doesn't like change, but he is immature, and has no ability to try new things - or to even try to understand them. LOL.

Trump's eating habits are described as "weird." He eats steak, well done, and likes salad with creamy dressing with it. How "weird."

As proof of weirdness, Mother Jones rewinds us to a 1995 television ad for "stuffed crust pizza" where the joke is that The Donald eats the pizza "crust first." Proof positive, he really does eat pizza crust-first, lol. Has nothing to do with the pizza company selling a "stuffed crust" pizza (which was a novel idea at the time).

Here is the Mother Jones article - https://www.motherjones.com/food/2017/0 ... taco-bowl/ (they even criticize a photo of Trump eating Kentucky Fried Chicken with his own knife and fork - the author believes Trump is trying to endear himself to the commoners, by implying the elites are mocking food like KFC. Meanwhile, the article is mocking food like KFC, and McDonalds, etc., and mocking Trump for eating that kind of food.... but, at the same time, they are saying Trump is falsely endearing himself to the commoners by eating the food which the article claims he really does eat....). It can't be that he really does enjoy himself some fast food (like Bill Clinton reportedly did, too, among others) -- wait it's both -- (a) he's banal and a lumpen plebeian for really liking that food, and (b) he's a big faker for appealing to the commoners by pretending to eat their food.

The media make scandal out of the white house doctor's examination of Trump -- he doesn't weigh that! They say.... who cares, says everyone else. But, the "Girther Movement" was born.

They attacked Sarah Sanders over her pecan pie! You didn't bake that! They say.... to everyone else, it's who gives a fuck....very important news, hashtag piegate.

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media reported on Trump's mental health, and suggested he must be forcibly subjected to medical and mental examinations, and possibly removed from office under the 25th Amendment. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... -amendment - they had congresspeople on saying that the Cabinet should remove him under the 25th Amendment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98MDaL9ffE8 "He's not equipped to do the job" they say. LOL. That argument was repeated over and over again on CNN and MSNBC -- prime time news and pundit shows.

[Brian Peacock]

Some of the coverage is hyperbolic, sure. But that comes from both sides of the aisle - and we all know that 'there's good people on both sides' now don't we(?)

The stream of unhinged coverage and commentary is ridiculous when it comes to Trump. Every late night comedy show has become a morality lesson and political comedy-outrage. Every celebrity awards show has become a ridiculous partisan pillorying of the President. And, coverage is shrill, over-the-top, and often just wrong, as I noted in my previous post. If you watched the reaction to the State of the Union address, you'd think the guy was declaring the Democrats persona non grata, rather than going through a laundry list of positive news and outlining his policy goals. The Democrats and their allies at CNN and the rest were outraged! Outraged!

The majority of coverage and analysis from what's come to be known and the mainstream media (now hyperbolically re-branded by the President himself as the #FAKENEWSMEDIA) is moderate, reflecting as it does the interests and opinions of the vast majority of people - that big lump who sit in the bulge on the political bell curve.

I don't agree with that, relative to the majority of coverage and analysis OF TRUMP.

Yet just as the right has held everyone on the left accountable when a radical feminists says something uncomfortable the same is now true of criticism of Trump - such that criticising him or the Repubs marks one out as rabidly 'anti-Trump', or as the article cited puts it, a 'hysterical' member of 'elite society'. Apparently we are allowed to criticise Trump, we just have to make sure that we show proper respect and draw from the list of approved terms and phrases or else the right will have no option but to exercise their moral duty to tone police the b'jaysus out of us.

Again, not accurate - because the issue is not with criticism of Trump. The issue is with the neverendering stream of specific examples of over-the-top unhinged reporting that often turns out to be just wrong, together with focusing on trivialities and blowing them up into scandals (e.g. - the first lady hates her husband because she wore a white dress).

Again, tone policing - criticism is OK as long as it doesn't meet your threshold for over-the-top unhinged reporting. You seem to think these examples of 'unhinged reporting' are a never-ending and co-ordinated stream when in fact it's Trump's Progress which has provided most of the heat here. For example: Do you think all the CEO's resigned from his business taskforce because they're malign Democrat supporters with an anti-Trump agenda, or because Trump failed to condemn a clearly racist murder by people supposedly professed allegiance to him? That similar incidents seem to flow from a never-ending store of ready-made embarrassment makes it appear like the media are going over-the-top, but perhaps the news outlets and nightly TV shows are overburdened with reaction to Trump because the scandalous, pathological confabulist who acts without aforethought and never takes responsibility keeps putting his foot in his mouth. Even though the frequency of these 'Trumpisms' seems just too high to ignore, it's important to remember that the strength or number of criticisms do not disqualify them, nor does it make those critical of Trump or the Repubs unhinged, rabidly anti-Trump, hypocrites, or hysterical members of 'elite society' etc etc. However, the thing with most ardent Trumpeteers is that no criticism of him can ever be justified - it's all a put up job by Hillary, the DNC, the FBI, the DOJ, FusionGPS, Mueller, Comey, the Federal Courts, #FAKENEWSMEDIA, and anybody else they can think of.

[Forty Two]

Again, tone policing - criticism is OK as long as it doesn't meet your threshold for over-the-top unhinged reporting.

No, I haven't referred to "tone." I've referred to content, and the alarmist reports of major, groundbreaking dangers of the Trump administration that turn out to be common, normal, administration activities. one administration issues an executive order, another terminates it or withdraws it - when it comes to Trump, when he ends an executive order, the media has presented it as a constitutional crisis and threat to the democratic order. When Trump replaces ambassadors, it's a danger to national security. When he brings in his allies for posts in his administration, it's a tragedy of epic proportions. and, then the focus on every aspect of his personal life and appearance - constantly - and declaring that we can know all about his nefariousness by looking at how he likes his steak and the fact that he eats iceberg lettuce. It's not just a few -- this has been 2 years of near constant clubbing over these issues, and there is no end to them if you look for them online.

You seem to think these examples of 'unhinged reporting' are a never-ending and co-ordinated stream when in fact it's Trump's Progress which has provided most of the heat here. For example: Do you think all the CEO's resigned from his business taskforce because they're malign Democrat supporters with an anti-Trump agenda, or because Trump failed to condemn a clearly racist murder by people supposedly professed allegiance to him? That similar incidents seem to flow from a never-ending store of ready-made embarrassment makes it appear like the media are going over-the-top, but perhaps the news outlets and nightly TV shows are overburdened with reaction to Trump because the scandalous, pathological confabulist who acts without aforethought and never takes responsibility keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Except that most of the reports I've cited are nonsense, drawing conclusions on trivial matters, and falsely reporting non-trivial ones.

Even though the frequency of these 'Trumpisms' seems just too high to ignore, it's important to remember that the strength or number of criticisms do not disqualify them,

No, their falsity disqualifies them. Like the examples I gave -- the firing of the ambassodors, etc. I'll not repeat them. The number of falsities is concerning. And, then the list of things like Melania wearing a white dress being an indication that even his own wife opposes him! That kind of stuff. It's moronic, and the press has shown itself to be moronic.

nor does it make those critical of Trump or the Repubs unhinged, rabidly anti-Trump, hypocrites, or hysterical members of 'elite society' etc etc. However, the thing with most ardent Trumpeteers is that no criticism of him can ever be justified - it's all a put up job by Hillary, the DNC, the FBI, the DOJ, FusionGPS, Mueller, Comey, the Federal Courts, #FAKENEWSMEDIA, and anybody else they can think of.

I'm sure there are Trump supporters like that. However, there are Hillary supporters too who will accept no criticism of her and her conduct. Every politician has their base of supporters who won't accept any negative criticism. That's not what I'm talking about here, though - I'm talking about how the media will always report something on the Trumps to make it seem evil. Look at the story about the tree at the white house. Newsweek tried to report it as Melania Trump just frivolously ordering that an "iconic" tree be cut down.... typical Trump... no care for plant life...no care for the wondrous traditions of our great nation.... and then later it's clarified that the tree was dying, falling over, and was presenting a danger and that grounds people were recommending it be taken down. Yes, that gets irritating the hundreth time an article like that is published.

Here's another - https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... first-lady

It was a beautiful dress, no question, but it didn’t exactly fit in with Melania’s usual glamazon-fembot-princess perfect style. You can imagine Donald Trump looking at it and asking his wife why she was wearing a table cloth, because it dared to hang loosely.

So, Melania is a fem-bot, and Trump, not seeing his wife in something "glamazon" could be IMAGINED looking at it and asking why she's wearing a table cloth which hangs loosely...

I imagine the president’s reactions to his wife’s clothes are the inverse of my father’s to mine. I’ll walk in wearing a new dress and he’ll ask if I forgot to put on a skirt with my nice new top. Trump, by contrast, likes clothes that scream “I look like something the girlfriend of a villain in a 1980s movie would wear”, and that means solid coloured, body fitted, showing a lot of leg and quite possibly designed by Isaac Mizrahi. They need to be clothes that are visibly expensive, because that, in Trump’s mind, then insinuates the lady wearing them lives with a big man who makes a lot of money and that’s super important, because a man who has lots of money is guaranteed to be extremely smart and have an enormous penis and that’s a scientific fact.

She thinks Trump is governing Melania's wardrobe - that he imposes requirements on her to have solid coloured, body fitted, leggy clothiing.... if he doesn't see those kinds of dresses on Melania, he's taking her to task for it. So, if she wears a very pretty dress that isn't of the more formal style described, then it must be Melania sticking it to her husband....

I mean, the absurdity of this.

But, as is often the case with Melania, this act of rebellion was quickly followed by an act of conformity so blithe and lacking in self-awareness it can only be described as Trumpian. A mere two days after Missonigate, Melania strode on into heelgate, when she was photographed flying off to Houston, which seemed to have been washed out into the Gulf of Mexico, in the highest heels ever worn on feet that weren’t actually made out of Barbie plastic. Commentators snorted, but there was something almost admirable in her lack of pretence. I mean, come on, did anyone really think that blow dry was going out into the storm, let alone wading through bacteria-infested water, to help the little people who now help to pay for her lifestyle? Please.

Missonigate, followed by Heelgate.... yes, her $1500 summer dress was an "act of rebellion" to her husband. Then, a mere 2 days later, she has the temerity to walk to an airplane wearing...gasp...high heels!!! And she was flying to HOUSTON!! A city just got hit by a massive hurricane, and you wear HEELS! I mean, we know you suck, and really don't care about the people who were injured and, unlike predecessor first ladies you'd never go out personally into the flood waters and rescue people, but you should at least wear flats when you're at the airport. Come on....

And, then the article goes on to criticize that when she got on the plane, she changed from her heels to sneakers. They were too clean. If the First Lady is flying to a disaster zone, she needs to have sneakers that are dirty. Othewise, she's just putting on airs. We already know she and her husband don't really care about people, so every hat, shoe, dress, etc., demonstrates that.

Donald, too, is no stranger to clothing issues -- his suits fit him so badly, reports the media... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 89316.html

His trousers are too baggy, his jackets are boxy, his ties are too wide and often too long, and his lapels are too big.

Google it - there are a bunch of articles in the mainstream press....

[pErvinalia]

God you go on. That Guardian piece isn't news reporting. It's a fucking fashion agony aunt piece..

[Brian Peacock]

Trump can't unweave himself from a media culture he's explored and manipulated for his own ends. He can't have it both ways -though it doesn't stop him trying of course.

[Forty Two]

Why would anyone criticise Trump and his government?

Well, this is just not accurate, and it is yet an anothr hysterical misrepresentation as a result of Trump Derangment Syndrome.

What is going on here are requests by certain states for "waivers" of certain requirements so that they can allocate Medicaid resources. Maine wants to cap Medicaid coverage for able-bodied adults at just three months in any three-year period, though enrollees could apply for an additional month under “exceptional circumstances.” Wisconsin is requesting to limit lifetime coverage for childless able-bodied adults to four years, while Kansas wants to limit lifetime coverage to three years relative to able-bodied adults.

It's fine to criticize that. Maybe that's wrong-headed. Maybe these states aren't enacting good policy when they want these kinds of limits. But, at least criticize the policy, and not some screetching, hysterical, hate-filled caricature.

"Nobody thinks you're good people!!!" LOL. Yeah, fuck him, too and his Tumblr-esque posting.

[Forty Two]

God you go on. That Guardian piece isn't news reporting. It's a fucking fashion agony aunt piece..

And, that's one of an endless stream, in every area and part of the media.

What the SOTU fashion choices meant... https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/31/politics ... index.html Particularly Melania's white dress.

CNN reporters "roll their eyes" at the suggestion Donald Trump does something selfless -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -time.html

He has dementia, dontchaknow... ahttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americ ... 85776.html "people close to him..." lol.

[Tero]

Russia!!!!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-rus ... ntary.html

[Forty Two]

Russia!!!!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/nra-rus ... ntary.html

[Tero]

NRA: National Russia Association

[Forty Two]