We Must Always Believe Women, ...

[Barry]

.... unless, of course, they accuse a Democrat. Then the Times, Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. can whistle a different tune.

So why did they think Dr. Ford was so believable and compelling, while not giving a hoot about Biden's accuser? Maybe the same reason they didn't "believe" Bill Clinton's accusers. Principles are one thing. Politics is another.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/neighb ... tara-reade

Neighbor, colleague reportedly back Biden accuser Tara Reade's claims

https://www.foxnews.com/media/washingto ... tara-reade

Washington Post blasted for claiming 'Trump allies' are 'amplifying' Biden accuser Tara Reade

We can add to the extent to which the media is playing down this story their unwillingness to share video clips of Biden repeatedly stumbling over his words and looking like he's not sure where he is.

Those of you who mind Trump getting help from the Russians probably don't lose any sleep over Biden getting an assist from the "objective" mainstream media.

Oh ... and I see on the other thread that Fox News is the problem and not the other news outlets I mentioned. Would you even know Biden was accused if not for Fox News? And again, why is this woman not credible other than the fact that she's accusing a Democratic nominee? More and more corroboration is coming out. What excuse do these networks and newspapers have for not covering the story other than a blatant attempt to protect their chosen candidate?

[jserraglio]

The reason is obvious: one accuser was consistent and credible, even to Donald trump; the other not.

By the way, I did not hear about Biden's accuser from Fox though I watch it a lot with delight. These accusations surfaced some time ago and I saw them then, and just the other day read several print stories on the matter, none of which was from.Fox News.

I reserve FOX for pleasure, the NYT, WAPO and WSJ for life.

[Barry]

The reason is obvious: one accuser was consistent and credible, even to Donald trump; the other not.

Interesting response in light of the fact that the witnesses from the time in the Ford case didn't back her story, while there are now several statements or clips from other people that go in the direction of corroborating Biden's accuser's story.

I assume you feel the same way about Bill Clinton's accusers.

I'll check back later to see if you or anyone else can top that lame and misogynistic response.

[jserraglio]

The reason is obvious: one accuser was consistent and credible, even to Donald trump; the other not.

I assume you feel the same way about Bill Clinton's accusers.

I'll check back later to see if you or anyone else can top that lame and misogynistic response.

Please do so. For my part, I'll refrain from competing with a pot that tries to malign the kettle.

[lennygoran]

Please do so. For my part, I'll refrain from competing with a pot that tries to malign the kettle.
[/quote]

I'll refrain to-it's a beauty of a day here-our gardener has arrived and I have a garden to mow! Regards, Len

[barney]

If it's true, it's disturbing, and would seem to indicate yet another deeply self-entitled politician.
But may I ask how it can possibly matter to you, since you have no problem with a President who boasted about a regular practice of grabbing women by the vagina on the grounds that he was rich and powerful and could. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

[Barry]

If it's true, it's disturbing, and would seem to indicate yet another deeply self-entitled politician.
But may I ask how it can possibly matter to you, since you have no problem with a President who boasted about a regular practice of grabbing women by the vagina on the grounds that he was rich and powerful and could. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

I'll let you in on a little secret, Barney. I and a lot of other people voted for Trump in part (there were multiple reasons, but this is one) as a protest vote against the media. The national political press were largely responsible for Trump's election. First, they gave him wall-to-wall blanket coverage. Practically every one of his rallies was aired live while his Republican opponents were ignored by the same oulets for long stretches of time. They did that because they thought if they could get Trump nominated, it would make a joke out of the GOP and guarantee a Hillary victory.

Then, when they succeeded in that endeavor, they switched tactics as the race got progressively closer to 11/16 and went no-holds-barred after Trump in an effort to ensure his defeat.

You'll have to pardon some of us for thinking the media's manipulation of the political process was so serious that those responsible needed to be taught a lesson.

Unfortunately, the lesson didn't take. The same media outlets are still wearing their bias on their sleeves (ask Bernie's supporters if you don't believe me).

So the answer to your question is, No. My lack of hatred for Trump will in no way prevent me from addressing media bias. Those of us on the Right have long considered it one of the most serious issues facing the country. I know those on the Left tend to disagree with that. I probably would too if 90 percent of media outlets were giving the news from my persperspective. (and don't tell me it's a Trump thing; this has been going on for years ... it's just a little worse during the Trump era; but it's also partially responsible for that era).

I cracked up earlier today when I read that unions representing journalists intend to lobby Republican members of Congress for bail-out money. I would like to see a tape of the inevitable comeback from one of those Republicans: "Sure. You can have the money in exchange for fair and objective coverage."

[Barry]

The two lead editors of the Real Clear Politics web site, which I maintain is the best source of news because it's probably the only place to go to get the news from a variety of perspectives, discuss the media coverage of this issue:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... XPYme8ORwc

One pretty much feels as I do while the other agrees that it's hypocritical, but thinks the media is doing the right thing now after handling the Kavanaugh and some Trump allegations the wrong way. He'd rather see people who jumped on the Ford allegations, which have less corroboration than this allegation against Biden, asked if they would reconsider their past actions in that case rather than having the same mistake made here.

That's lofty in principle, but Republicans always wind up on the wrong side of these things as far as media coverage goes. Expecting us to essentially turn the other cheek is too much to ask.

[barney]

If it's true, it's disturbing, and would seem to indicate yet another deeply self-entitled politician.
But may I ask how it can possibly matter to you, since you have no problem with a President who boasted about a regular practice of grabbing women by the vagina on the grounds that he was rich and powerful and could. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

I'll let you in on a little secret, Barney. I and a lot of other people voted for Trump in part (there were multiple reasons, but this is one) as a protest vote against the media. The national political press were largely responsible for Trump's election. First, they gave him wall-to-wall blanket coverage. Practically every one of his rallies was aired live while his Republican opponents were ignored by the same oulets for long stretches of time. They did that because they thought if they could get Trump nominated, it would make a joke out of the GOP and guarantee a Hillary victory.

Then, when they succeeded in that endeavor, they switched tactics as the race got progressively closer to 11/16 and went no-holds-barred after Trump in an effort to ensure his defeat.

You'll have to pardon some of us for thinking the media's manipulation of the political process was so serious that those responsible needed to be taught a lesson.

Unfortunately, the lesson didn't take. The same media outlets are still wearing their bias on their sleeves (ask Bernie's supporters if you don't believe me).

So the answer to your question is, No. My lack of hatred for Trump will in no way prevent me from addressing media bias. Those of us on the Right have long considered it one of the most serious issues facing the country. I know those on the Left tend to disagree with that. I probably would too if 90 percent of media outlets were giving the news from my persperspective. (and don't tell me it's a Trump thing; this has been going on for years ... it's just a little worse during the Trump era; but it's also partially responsible for that era).

I cracked up earlier today when I read that unions representing journalists intend to lobby Republican members of Congress for bail-out money. I would like to see a tape of the inevitable comeback from one of those Republicans: "Sure. You can have the money in exchange for fair and objective coverage."

Thanks for posting this, Barry. It does help me see a little more clearly.
I hope you'll forgive me, but I find it quite astounding. You unleashed Trump on the world because you were discombobulated by two young black women trash talking on the streets of Philadelphia (earlier thread) and because you were irked by media you perceive to be partisan (though only on one side of the debate)? I find this indescribably petty and sad. As I have said a couple of times now, it seems to me that the Right (many of whom used to be principled and thoughtful, even if I disagreed) now has no motivation except rage and resentment. What a recipe for a society. (And no need to point out that many on the Left have the same motivation in slightly different form; that disturbs me just as much.)

I have no problem with you pointing out perceived media bias. I'm happy to talk about that. Perhaps you could give me a couple of examples from the New York Times, which I hold in high esteem, and we can discuss them. There's no doubt that Trump supporters feel a very strong grievance here, and you are not alone.

But my question (you start by saying, in answer to your question, no) was not about that. My question to you was: if accusations about despicable behaviour by Biden turn out to be true, how can you criticise that - as I for example am able to do - when you support, pardon and explain away vastly nastier and more arrogant behaviour by Trump who boasts of sexually assaulting women because he calculates he can. And with Trump this is not a one-off but a pattern of behaviour. Both Biden and Trump deserve censure.
But you defend Trump and complain about Biden. To me, that is exactly the same as another commentator here complaining bitterly about the Left trying to silence debate by using accusations of racism, but applauding and glorying in it when done by the Right. That sort of hypocrisy is just ugly. And if you see it in me, charge me with it.

[barney]

If it's true, it's disturbing, and would seem to indicate yet another deeply self-entitled politician.
But may I ask how it can possibly matter to you, since you have no problem with a President who boasted about a regular practice of grabbing women by the vagina on the grounds that he was rich and powerful and could. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

I'll let you in on a little secret, Barney. I and a lot of other people voted for Trump in part (there were multiple reasons, but this is one) as a protest vote against the media. The national political press were largely responsible for Trump's election. First, they gave him wall-to-wall blanket coverage. Practically every one of his rallies was aired live while his Republican opponents were ignored by the same oulets for long stretches of time. They did that because they thought if they could get Trump nominated, it would make a joke out of the GOP and guarantee a Hillary victory.

Then, when they succeeded in that endeavor, they switched tactics as the race got progressively closer to 11/16 and went no-holds-barred after Trump in an effort to ensure his defeat.

You'll have to pardon some of us for thinking the media's manipulation of the political process was so serious that those responsible needed to be taught a lesson.

Unfortunately, the lesson didn't take. The same media outlets are still wearing their bias on their sleeves (ask Bernie's supporters if you don't believe me).

So the answer to your question is, No. My lack of hatred for Trump will in no way prevent me from addressing media bias. Those of us on the Right have long considered it one of the most serious issues facing the country. I know those on the Left tend to disagree with that. I probably would too if 90 percent of media outlets were giving the news from my persperspective. (and don't tell me it's a Trump thing; this has been going on for years ... it's just a little worse during the Trump era; but it's also partially responsible for that era).

I cracked up earlier today when I read that unions representing journalists intend to lobby Republican members of Congress for bail-out money. I would like to see a tape of the inevitable comeback from one of those Republicans: "Sure. You can have the money in exchange for fair and objective coverage."

Thanks for posting this, Barry. It does help me see a little more clearly.
I hope you'll forgive me, but I find it quite astounding. You unleashed Trump on the world because you were discombobulated by two young black women trash talking on the streets of Philadelphia (earlier thread) and because you were irked by media you perceive to be partisan (though only on one side of the debate)? I find this indescribably petty and sad. As I have said a couple of times now, it seems to me that the Right (many of whom used to be principled and thoughtful, even if I disagreed, which often I did not) now has no motivation except rage and resentment. What a recipe for a society. (And no need to point out that many on the Left have the same motivation in slightly different form; that disturbs me just as much.)

I have no problem with you pointing out perceived media bias. I'm happy to talk about that. Perhaps you could give me a couple of examples from the New York Times, which I hold in high esteem, and we can discuss them. There's no doubt that Trump supporters feel a very strong grievance here, and you are not alone.

But my question (you say, "in answer to your question, no") was not about that. My question to you was: if accusations about despicable behaviour by Biden turn out to be true, how can you criticise that - as I for example am able to do - when you support, pardon and explain away nastier and more arrogant behaviour by Trump who boasts of sexually assaulting women because he calculates he can. And with Trump this is not a one-off but a pattern of behaviour. Both Biden and Trump deserve censure.
But you defend Trump and complain about Biden. To me, that is exactly the same as another commentator here complaining bitterly about the Left trying to silence debate by using accusations of racism, but applauding and glorying in it when done by the Right. That sort of hypocrisy is just ugly. And if you see it in me, charge me with it.

[lennygoran]

But may I ask how it can possibly matter to you, since you have no problem with a President who boasted about a regular practice of grabbing women by the vagina on the grounds that he was rich and powerful and could. Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

Barney that's when Russia helped him by coopting that tape. Regards, Len

Two years have passed, and Trump is president because the events of October 7th, 2016 marked a revolution. This was the moment that the old gatekeepers were swept aside, their indignation and appeals to “decency” kicked to the curb with them. Instead, the 2016 election would be decided by competing viral events, what we call “LikeWars.” This was the moment that the Internet swallowed politics for good.

Beyond the Access Hollywood tape, two other events transpired online that day. The first was official acknowledgement by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia had targeted the 2016 election by hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton proxies — a story of momentous importance that would be immediately lost in the “locker room talk” news cycle. The second, coming just minutes after the Washington Post published its article with the Access Hollywood video embedded, was the fruits of the the aforementioned hack. This was the initial release of the “Podesta Emails,” laundered through the “transparency” organization Wikileaks. The document dump would be repeated dozens of times, amounting to more than 20,000 pages of stolen communications.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... pe-733037/

[barney]

You're right, Len. One of the most amazing things about this presidency is how he has been able to deflect shocking behaviour or decisions by even worse behaviour or decisions, and then just ride them out because he doesn't care about anything except his ego. And if he's cool with it then, by definition, it's ok.

[Barry]

I mentioned the incident with the two women as an example of how far off the rails American society has gotten (at least on the coasts; it's not quite as bad in fly-over country), not to say that one moment was the driving force behind my attitude.

If I had time and a better memory, I could spend the next couple days laying out such incidents.

Your reaction very much goes to something I said on here some days ago. The divide in the country is so pronounced that having a dialogue about these issues is almost pointless. Why should I sit here and answer your questions when I know you think my responses are nuts. And as I've said, I don't think you're in a position to know what you're talking about here. You aren't a conservative American, so you don't know what it's like to have your views bashed every time you turn on the national news, watch a movie or TV show, or via any number of other forums (I rarely watch new TV shows, but when I do, they almost always have pro-left or anti-right wing cultural messaging .... the HBO show on Nazi Hunters that starred Al Pacino was a good example .... but there are many others). The Left has taken over the country's culture and is doing their best to shut us out of the national conversation (It's easier for an open Communist to be hired in many higher education faculty departments than a mainstream conservative; Conservative speakers are physically shut down on campus while there is no limit to how far to the left one can be and still receive a warm welcome .... an unrepentant anti-American terrorist - Obama's old friend, Bill Ayers - is influential in education policy in this country ....our young people used to be indoctrinated in a way that made them good and responsible citizens; now they get radical, anti-American and anti-Western ideas pounded into their head for 12 or 16 years). I would prefer a better spokesperson to fight back against this. But he was my only option once the nomination was settled. It's my position that it's unlikely that would have happened if the national political media had done their job and covered the race responsibly.

All of these problems pre-dated Trump. You think we should continue to accept the situation because having Trump as president "trumps" the other issues. Obviously, for me and many others, those other issues "trump" all others.

You may think that's all nuts. I'm beyond caring. I don't expect you to respect something you don't understand (although the truth is that many American liberals make no effort whatsoever to understand or show even an ounce of respect for the other side's point of view).

There is something close to a cultural civil war going on in this country. I've declared a side.

Think about how divided we are here? My side sees the Democratic view of the country (or at least what they're willing to go along with to gain and hold power) as so un-American that we'll vote for someone like Donald Trump. The other side thinks Trump is so awful that they'll vote for a guy who may very well be suffering from early-stage dementia.

Each side sees the election in existential terms.

[Belle]

This is extremely well put. Don't be too disturbed; there are many millions of others who share your belief and who've been shut down, deplatformed, reputationally destroyed because they don't talk bien pensant zombie politics.

Dave Rubin of the influential Rubin Report is one of these; a former died-in-the-wool 'liberal' gay man who is now a Trump supporter and appeared yesterday with Tucker Carlson. He, like many of us, is staggered by hypocrisy, hatred, cant, shills, the untrustworthy highly partisan media - all vigorous players and activists when they should be intelligent commentators.

And the fact that the discussion cannot be had is what alarms me more. It's the 'shame on you' mentality that has driven me away from here, only to return and make the occasional political comment as a kind of lone-defender. We've seen 4 years of acrimony since the people had the unmitigated hide not to vote for a woman - an enabler of a serial philanderer - and representative of beltway self-interest. At a time when people in 'fly-over' country were desperate for jobs this not-very-intelligent woman was talking about feminism and glass ceilings. As one of our politicians says here in Australia, "the mob will work you out". Instead of analysing the fault lines the response has been to damn the people of America who did the voting. Well, guys, you've had one civil war; how many more do you want?

You got Trump because he's a bulldozer, a bully and somebody willing to take on media bias and get America back to work. His peccadilloes and idiosyncrasies are not the concerns of people who need work; this is a luxury only their income-guaranteed 'betters' can afford. Lectures, bromides, diktat and bogus refulgences just won't cut it in this ruthless world of ours and - as I've said here before - if you want better leaders be better people. Good leaders emerge from good societies, not hedonistic, narcissistic and values-free societies were religion is ridiculed and anything goes. It's a lesson ALL OF US could learn. My children are all concerned about this, especially the two sons with children; they're tired of gender fluidity, state education propaganda from one side only of the political spectrum, the re-writing of history, grievance politics, identitarianism, vicious no-platforming of those with a different opinion. They want to have jobs, be happy and have friends. They most certainly do not want to hate and feel hatred all around them - and this latter is certainly the case.

The guys with tattooed forearms and not as much education as the 'elite' (that's how this latter refer to themselves, at least!!) are still human beings. They deserve the dignity of work, to bring up their families as THEY see fit and to feel that are part of a national project to re-engender self-esteem - rather than have to fit into a dictatorial fiat from their 'betters' who call them 'deplorables' and 'toxic' males. We have the same mindset in Australia, as we are never far behind the USA culturally. And it's worth noting, Barry, that the left is winning the culture wars but losing most of the elections.

The American people might give the heave-ho to Donald Trump, as is their right. But before that happens, or at least afterwards, there needs to be some soul-searching starting with the question, "what just happened to us and why"?

[barney]

I mentioned the incident with the two women as an example of how far off the rails American society has gotten (at least on the coasts; it's not quite as bad in fly-over country), not to say that one moment was the driving force behind my attitude.

If I had time and a better memory, I could spend the next couple days laying out such incidents.

Barry, I don't doubt it. And I also find disturbing that sort of behaviour and conscious and challenging offence to others. My point is that this is not new. There have always been people like that. I'd much prefer it if people were considerate and polite, but I take comfort from how many actually are.By the way, thank you for engaging with me again, when it seems futile and irritating to you.

Your reaction very much goes to something I said on here some days ago. The divide in the country is so pronounced that having a dialogue about these issues is almost pointless. Why should I sit here and answer your questions when I know you think my responses are nuts. And as I've said, I don't think you're in a position to know what you're talking about here. You aren't a conservative American, so you don't know what it's like to have your views bashed every time you turn on the national news, watch a movie or TV show, or via any number of other forums (I rarely watch new TV shows, but when I do, they almost always have pro-left or anti-right wing cultural messaging .... the HBO show on Nazi Hunters that starred Al Pacino was a good example .... but there are many others). The Left has taken over the country's culture and is doing their best to shut us out of the national conversation (It's easier for an open Communist to be hired in many higher education faculty departments than a mainstream conservative; Conservative speakers are physically shut down on campus while there is no limit to how far to the left one can be and still receive a warm welcome .... an unrepentant anti-American terrorist - Obama's old friend, Bill Ayers - is influential in education policy in this country ....our young people used to be indoctrinated in a way that made them good and responsible citizens; now they get radical, anti-American and anti-Western ideas pounded into their head for 12 or 16 years). I would prefer a better spokesperson to fight back against this. But he was my only option once the nomination was settled. It's my position that it's unlikely that would have happened if the national political media had done their job and covered the race responsibly.

Well, people complain of the same problem in Australia - just look at Belle. And some of it bothers me too. The so-called cancel culture, or grievance culture in which everyone rushes to paint him or herself as a victim is dismaying. I have often railed against identity politics myself. It demeans everyone and reduces them to a single characteristic. I also agree with you that it is dangerous to allow only student-approved speakers or courses on campus, and have written a great deal on this before. University should be a time of opening the mind, not narrowing it. So I am far from hostile to many of your socially conservative concerns. It is a huge concern to me that the Left rushes to shut down debate even more than the Right, though the latter is quite capable of it too.

All of these problems pre-dated Trump. You think we should continue to accept the situation because having Trump as president "trumps" the other issues. Obviously, for me and many others, those other issues "trump" all others.

Trump is not fixing them, Barry. He's not nuanced on any of them, not tackling any of them in a measured way. He's too shallow and vacuous to understand any of them. (Apparently he sit in the White House all morning watching TV and railing against the media, but is incapable of reading or understanding a one-page policy brief. Doesn't that frighten you, Barry? It scares the hell out of me.) I think it's desperately sad that so many on both sides have become culture warriors. "I don't care about the merits of any arguments, I think the other side is awful and I'm going to bash them, so there." I'm having this dialogue because I am trying to understand you. I acknowlege that, given your values and priorities, many of your concerns are reasonable. I just don't understand why you think Trump is on your side. I don't think he's on any side except his own. Perhaps you could give me some examples of Trump policies or actions that have actually been helpful and constructive, to your mind.By this I don't mean economic policies, though you are welcome to cite these, but social policies that improve society in your view.

You may think that's all nuts. I'm beyond caring. I don't expect you to respect something you don't understand (although the truth is that many American liberals make no effort whatsoever to understand or show even an ounce of respect for the other side's point of view).

There is something close to a cultural civil war going on in this country. I've declared a side.

Think about how divided we are here? My side sees the Democratic view of the country (or at least what they're willing to go along with to gain and hold power) as so un-American that we'll vote for someone like Donald Trump. The other side thinks Trump is so awful that they'll vote for a guy who may very well be suffering from early-stage dementia.

Each side sees the election in existential terms.

Well you have to acknowledge that I am trying to understand. Perhaps you can have another go at my challenge, which was this. If you think Biden's alleged sexual assault renders him unfit to be President - and such a position could well be argued - why don't you think that Trump's sexual assaults, which he not only admitted but boasted of, render him unfit to be President? (Not to mention the myriad other ways in which he is utterly unfit to be a school janitor, let alone President.) Can you not see that attacking the speck in your opponent's eye, while ignoring the log in your own, is a form of ugly hypocrisy? Or are you just so fixated on the culture war that you will forgive or ignore any behaviour by your side. As Belle does. That's what it looks like to me. Doesn't truth matter any more?

One final point, which I have made before. Trump may be President of the US as a country, but as leader of the biggest economy (until recently)and most powerful military he affects all of us. He might as well be President of Australia. And for most of our history since World War II, Australia has been happy to be a close ally of the US. But not now, because no one with a shred of sense trusts Trump. He'd betray us in a heartbeat unless he saw a personal benefit in standing by us. As he has betrayed other allies, including calling Russia a friend and NATO the enemy. Do you defend this, or do you not care what happens to the rest of the world if the US is fine? If it's the latter, I'd like to observe that if the rest of the world is not find, eventually the US will not be either.

[Barry]

All of these problems pre-dated Trump. You think we should continue to accept the situation because having Trump as president "trumps" the other issues. Obviously, for me and many others, those other issues "trump" all others.

Trump is not fixing them, Barry.

It's probably not possible to fix them to the extent that I'd like them to be fixed. However, the fact that he's selecting a huge number of federal judges who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to safeguard the freedoms so many young people don't give a hoot about in the coming years is hugely important.

So in some ways, he is helping. And on top of that, even if he weren't, having the other side in power would further entrench and make worse the situation I described. At least Republicans threaten funding cuts to colleges and universities that don't uphold free speech rights on campus (and Trump signed an executive order on that subject). Too many Democrats cheer it on. Obama paid lip service to it every once in a while, but he also made matters worse with his actions while president. In fact, we owe a thank you to the current Education Dept. for encouraging colleges and universities to stop following the Obama Administration's guidelines which put the burden of proof on the accused in cases unwanted sexual advances. A number of schools are paying through the nose in law suites for students who were expelled under the Obama Administration standard. At least the Trump Administration is trying to reverse that mockery of our system of justice.

[Barry]

The American people might give the heave-ho to Donald Trump, as is their right. But before that happens, or at least afterwards, there needs to be some soul-searching starting with the question, "what just happened to us and why"?

Well put. I have no idea what will happen in November (Biden is currently ahead in the polls, but so was Hillary; and Trump is a slight favorite according to those who make betting lines).

But I do know the anger that gave rise to Trump's election won't go away after he does. The people in what we call fly-over country know what the elites on the coasts think of them.

[jserraglio]

FDR in his 1936 acceptance speech ridiculing right-wingers in the GOP who were weeping into their beer steins over the downtrodden working classes and pretending to support the ideas but not the methods of the New Deal.

These days it's champagne glasses instead of beer steins, but the insincere keening of our newly minted right-wingers hearkens back to their forebears and deserves the same kind of scorn.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1oAEx_Ap ... &version=3

[barney]

The guys with tattooed forearms and not as much education as the 'elite' (that's how this latter refer to themselves, at least!!) are still human beings. They deserve the dignity of work, to bring up their families as THEY see fit and to feel that are part of a national project to re-engender self-esteem - rather than have to fit into a dictatorial fiat from their 'betters' who call them 'deplorables' and 'toxic' males. We have the same mindset in Australia, as we are never far behind the USA culturally. And it's worth noting, Barry, that the left is winning the culture wars but losing most of the elections.

Belle, this is simply false. I've never heard any inner-city intelligentsia refer to themselves as "elite". It's the sort of sneering put-down loved by people like Chris Kenny and Andrew Bolt, just lazy right-wing culture-war denigration. It is intended to close off any discussion by ad hominem insults, and to suggest that only the users are "in touch with the common people". I know you are a ferocious culture warrior but if you want to be taken seriously you should be more careful. To people like me it undermines the many fair points you do make. Nor do progressives call themselves latte-sipping chardonnay socialists. Guess who calls them that. Yes, the right wing culture warriors. It's a deeply cynical tactic to take an insult your side has devised, and then claim it's really the other side that thinks it.

And yes, there are plenty of unpleasant culture warriors on the left too. It's just the way some people are.

[barney]

FDR in his 1936 acceptance speech ridiculing right-wingers in the GOP who were weeping into their beer steins over the downtrodden working classes and pretending to support the ideas but not the methods of the New Deal.

These days it's champagne glasses instead of beer steins, but the insincere keening of our newly minted right-wingers hearkens back to their forebears and deserves the same kind of scorn.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1oAEx_Ap ... &version=3

You're nearly as eloquent as FDR! "insincere keening" - love it.

[lennygoran]

I just don't understand why you think Trump is on your side. I don't think he's on any side except his own. ...

Barney let's not forget his remark that there were good people on both sides-for me there are no good Nazi's-Trump's a thug and dangerous-no other presidential candidate or president comes close. Regards, Len

Trump tries to re-write his own history on Charlottesville and ‘both sides’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -truthers/

[barney]

I just don't understand why you think Trump is on your side. I don't think he's on any side except his own. ...

Barney let's not forget his remark that there were good people on both sides-for me there are no good Nazi's-Trump's a thug and dangerous-no other presidential candidate or president comes close. Regards, Len

Trump tries to re-write his own history on Charlottesville and ‘both sides’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -truthers/

Obviously you don't have to convince me, Len. And in fairness, I hardly think Belle or Barry endorse the Nazis. Their Trump support comes from other directions.

[jserraglio]

I never said that!

He seems genuinely not to recall uttering his gaffes.

Clear case of amnestic syndrome, probably with attendant neurological degenerative disorder.

[lennygoran]

Obviously you don't have to convince me, Len. And in fairness, I hardly think Belle or Barry endorse the Nazis. Their Trump support comes from other directions.

Barney sorry but I disagree-that comment alone is enough to disqualify him for the presidency-the Ukraine call got him impeached-now it's hidden away with what might be other material that could sink him-and now there's liberate, liberate, liberate-all this goes well beyond discussions of real substantive issues where legitimate arguments could be made. Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

I never said that!

He seems genuinely not to recall uttering his gaffes.

Clear case of amnestic syndrome, probably with attendant neurological degenerative disorder.

Doesn't he know about google and youtube-also some medical disorder or simply being the LYIN KING! Regards, Len

[barney]

Obviously you don't have to convince me, Len. And in fairness, I hardly think Belle or Barry endorse the Nazis. Their Trump support comes from other directions.

Barney sorry but I disagree-that comment alone is enough to disqualify him for the presidency-the Ukraine call got him impeached-now it's hidden away with what might be other material that could sink him-and now there's liberate, liberate, liberate-all this goes well beyond discussions of real substantive issues where legitimate arguments could be made. Regards, Len

You must have misunderstood me, Len. You know how strongly I agree with you about Trump, and I am not defending him. My intention was to defend Barry and Belle from a possible imputation, which I'm sure you did not intend, that they supported neo-Nazis.

PS: I've just gone back and checked your post. There is no such imputation. I obviously misunderstood you. My apologies.

[lennygoran]

PS: I've just gone back and checked your post. There is no such imputation. I obviously misunderstood you. My apologies.

Barney thanks-no need to apologize-we're just trying to see who's supporting who and why. Today the headlines that concern me involve this from Michigan and how it fits in with trump's liberate, liberate, liberate. Regards, Len

[Barry]

I've done a decent amount of reading about FDR; enough to know he'd drop dead a second time if he knew how off the rails the country were culturally (his own party's take on religious freedom would be enough to throw him into a rage) and also the extent to which entitlements have gotten out of hand since his passing. He in no way envisioned the modern welfare state as it's currently defined (or as it was defined pre-virus crisis).

[jserraglio]

I've done a decent amount of reading about FDR

Then you must know that the antecedents of what you tag as the "modern welfare state" were not the target of his mockery. FDR was excoriating the Republicans who had voted for the New Deal and then tried to pass it off as their own program in 1936, proclaiming with keening insincerity their empathy for the unemployed working classes.

This crowd (some later morphed into America Firsters) well deserved the ridicule FDR heaped on them.

Lip service to ordinary working people by right wingers is hardly extinct in the world at large. Occasionally it is heard in the 'smooth evasions' or outright sermonizing by some on this board, sometimes launched in support even of a President who is the very antithesis of FDR.

So watch again and gnash your teeth as FDR's speech, "GOP in the Hands of Saavy Voters," serves up High-Church Hell to Hypocrites.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1oAEx_Ap ... &version=3

[barney]

Once again you are delightfully biblical in your fury. Last time you evoked the Pharisees whose lament was all for show. Now you turn to Jonah, and later the New Testament judgment on the unrighteous, for whom there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And the Tea Party folk certainly spring to mind as candidates.

I haven't watched that second extract from FDR yet, but I look forward to it. Have to be in the morning, Melbourne time, as my wife is asleep.

[jserraglio]

Sorry, it's the same extract as before repeated. Was there ever a better rhetorician than FDR?

So here's another FDR clip more well known than the other. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qqt7b9veFo8




'Republican fiction writers in Congress and out' may soon feel a bit like Jonathan Edwards' spider hanging over the flames by a single thread held between the finger and thumb of a jobless worker.

[Barry]

Was this before or after FDR refused to support a law making lynching a federal law because it would have damaged him politically in the South, where his party dominated and maintained a system of apartheid?

I know it was before he incarcerated Japanese-Americans and refused to accept the St. Louis, sending all of those Jews back to their death in the process.

He was a great leader and extremely flawed. I doubt you'll hear many nice things about him in Eastern Europe. They have a strong preference for Reagan there.

He was the preeminent presidential communicator of my lifetime. Speeches like this led to one of the biggest electoral landslides in history the following year.

[jserraglio]

So what? FDR was not a crusader like his wife, who was only too aware of these and many other bad decisions by her husband and did something current Republicans seem to have extreme trouble with—she opposed and acted to reverse bad policies by the President, who tolerated her dissent even to the point of allowing her by word and deed to contradict him in public.

And the current occupant of the WH could learn a lot from Ronald Reagan (he called himself an FDR supporter in his misspent youth) who had plenty of flaws himself, dishonoring his office NOT being among them.

Granted, Trump like Reagan and FDR has been a transformational President. FROM what TO what has been the problem.

[Barry]

So what? FDR was not a crusader like his wife, who was only too aware of these and many other bad decisions by her husband and did something current Republicans seem to have extreme trouble with—she acted to reverse bad policies by her President, who tolerated her dissent even to the point of allowing her by word and deed to contradict him in public.

And the current occupant of the WH could learn a lot from Ronald Reagan (an FDR supporter in his misspent youth) who had plenty of flaws himself, dishonoring his office NOT being among them.

I think FDR is deserving of his lofty place in history. I would say he and Reagan were the only two presidents of the mass communication era who literally lifted the spirits of the nation with their optimistic styles of leadership.

But I also think he largely gets a pass for committing several of the most heinous actions of any president.

I also just wanted an excuse to post a Reagan speech.

[jserraglio]

I remain an admirer of your namesake, having voted for him in 1964, also of several things President Reagan did on the foreign front. Since you think that FDR's denial of asylum to European Jews and his incarceration of Japanese nationals as well as Japanese-Americans were despicable acts, no doubt you also feel likewise about Trump's treatment of immigrants—sending terrorized Latin Americans seeking asylum back home to face death and caging scores of others up in prison camps.

[lennygoran]

I haven't watched that second extract from FDR yet, but I look forward to it. Have to be in the morning, Melbourne time, as my wife is asleep.

Brian Sue and I have solved that problem-I have headphones up here for my computer and she had headphones for her tablet downstairs-I also have headphones for the TV that work via wifi so while I'm cooking in the kitchen and listening to either classical music or CNN news I don't disturb her. Regards, Len

[barney]

I haven't watched that second extract from FDR yet, but I look forward to it. Have to be in the morning, Melbourne time, as my wife is asleep.

Brian Sue and I have solved that problem-I have headphones up here for my computer and she had headphones for her tablet downstairs-I also have headphones for the TV that work via wifi so while I'm cooking in the kitchen and listening to either classical music or CNN news I don't disturb her. Regards, Len

As usual, Len, you are way ahead of me. Normally I do my listening in a sound-proofed study. The first owner of the house was a piano teacher, and had it installed.

[lennygoran]

Normally I do my listening in a sound-proofed study.

Barney sounds like you're ahead of me-sound proof-that must be great! Regards, Len

[barney]

Normally I do my listening in a sound-proofed study.

Barney sounds like you're ahead of me-sound proof-that must be great! Regards, Len

It is. My wife is not a fan, for example, of Mahler or Wagner. No matter. Just crank it up!