On 9/1/23 7:43 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:03:48 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hillary had her problems in that she was unlikable. There were a series
>> of factors that lost her the election... any of which you remove, and
>> she wins in a cake walk.
>>
>> The final nail in the coffin was the FBI. Take Comey's grandstanding
>> out of the equation 11 days before the election, and she wins.
>>
>> Take the Russian hack out of the equation, and she wins.
>> Take the media's obsession with her emails out of the equation, and she
>> wins.
>> Take her stupid decision to not campaign in the Blue Wall states, and
>> she wins... so not everything that cost her the election was out of her
>> control.
>>
>> And I've got to say, you were DEAD wrong about her calling Trump
>> supporters "deplorables". The were, and are - and history has proven
>> her right about that one.
>>
> On your last point you may or may not be right BUT and this is a very
> big BUT thinking that is OK. Actually SAYING that in public on camera
> in September 2016 was getting down on your knees and praying for
> attack ads to be run with that sound bite in the 10 days before
> Election Day.
>
> No experienced pol would fail to understand that but she did it
> anyhow.

If Trump has taught us anything, it's that a large segment of the
population was able to overlook everything Trump ever said and still
support him.

Hillary told people what they didn't want to hear. I'm not disputing
the political decision wasn't great - she was 'dead on balls accurate'
(it's an industry term) when she called them deplorable.

They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
>> republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>
> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
> going a long way to do just that.
>
> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
> for America and the rest of the world.
>
> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>

I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
want him to be.
They want the court packed.
They want the filibuster gone.
They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
They want gun safety legislation.
They want climate change legislation.

Jesus Almighty, Biden is a fossil to the progressive left. He just
spoke about Mitch McConnell as if he were an old buddy of his. Biden
NEEDS them and he knows it.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 7:22 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:49:52 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't disagree with your assessment of FDR's performance, especially
>> at Yalta. But knowing how it all turns out later on is a lot easier
>> than knowing what to do at the time.
>>
>> Most Americans rightly view FDR as the post WWII president who delivered
>> for the little guy. And he did, despite being one of the ruling elites.
>>
> While I generally agree on your second point, I definitely disagree
> in the strongest possible terms on your first.
>
> As a war leader FDR was no Churchill who played a weak hand very very
> well. It would not be unfair to say that IN WAR FDR played a very
> strong hand very weakly particularly in matters dealing with the
> postwar settlement. I am NOT saying the United States should have gone
> to war with the Soviets 9 May 1945 but I _am_ specifically saying that
> actions taken at the presidential level both weakened Chiang Kai-Shek
> and strengthened America's enemies both in China and Korea to a degree
> that facilitated Communist takeovers in both countries and unlike the
> lamentable situation in Poland and the Baltic states WERE preventable.
>
> And that that was very much against the interests of the United States
> and her allies.
>
> Even if FDR had had the benefit of George Kennan's "Long Telegram"
> (sent in Feb 1946 and many decisions in the Truman and Eisenhower eras
> flow directly from it) I am skeptical that FDR would have acted on it
> as I really do think he had blinders on with respect to Stalin.
>
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm
>
> About a month ago I finished Derek Leebaert's "Unlikely Heroes"
> (subtitle: Franklin Roosevelt, His Four Lieutenants and the world they
> made")
>
> https://nvdpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S32C961531
>
> which covers FDR's term of office (e.g. in both peace and war) and
> while he is nowhere as kind to FDR as you and I have been he's
> probably stronger than I have been on his wartime diplomatic record.
>
> Here's an excerpt from the review: ""Drawing on new materials,
> Unlikely Heroes constructs an entirely fresh understanding of FDR and
> his presidency by spotlighting the powerful, equally wounded figures
> whom he raised up to confront the Depression, then to beat the Axis.
> Only four people served at the top echelon of President Franklin
> Roosevelt's Administration from the frightening early months of spring
> 1933 until he died in April 1945, on the cusp of wartime victory.
> ...."
>
> I'm NOT one of those who believes Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy but
> Harry Dexter White (#2 in the US Treasury Department for most of the
> war) DOES seem to have passed secrets to Moscow and was protected by
> FDR.
>
> You can read The Long Diagram in a single reading but Unlikely Heroes
> is definitely worth your time. Leebaert builds the case against White
> very well. But no question a LOT of stuff that should not have gone to
> the Soviet Union DID go to the Soviets via the Alaska Lend-Lease route
> that very much hurt US post war interests and nearly all of that was
> on FDR's watch. It also quickly helped Soviet postwar industrial
> production. Which definitely would have prevented some of the things
> Stalin did in the postwar era.
>
> I would also recommend the first two volumes of Stephen Kotkin's bio
> of Stalin (birth to 1927 when he took power in the Soviet Union, 1927
> - 22 June 1941 and the German invasion). He was supposed to have
> finished it 3 years ago but COVID had other plans and prevented him
> from accessing the Soviet archives which Kotkin had access to and has
> used as primary sources. His publisher now says volume 3 will be in
> late spring 2024. (Be aware that each book is 800+ pages so not light
> reading and from Kotkin's comments on various Youtube videos one would
> not expect volume 3 to be any shorter)
>
> So sorry - I just can't share your view of FDR.
>

I know I'm sitting here sipping a cup of coffee with my feet up... and
if not for FDR, I'd be somewhere I'd rather not be doing something I'd
rather not be doing.

So I'm cutting him some slack... it's not often a rich white member of
the elites does something good for people on this end of the spectrum.

I remember that my father's generation practically worshipped the man.
I remember seeing pictures of him up in people's houses, like a shrine,

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
>>> republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>
>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>> going a long way to do just that.
>>
>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>
>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>
>
> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
> want him to be.
> They want the court packed.
> They want the filibuster gone.
> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
> They want gun safety legislation.
> They want climate change legislation.

All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't you
watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>. . .
>>I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>>want him to be.
>>They want the court packed.
>>They want the filibuster gone.
>>They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
>>blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>>They want gun safety legislation.
>>They want climate change legislation.

>All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't you
>watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVKvqTItto

The Politico version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqBLTz4HIug

And of course, the accidentally funny SNL version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

The PBS version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66f4-NKEYz4

On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 19:59:25 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>
>Well that's the problem. While her husband was great at managing
>people, she lacked that talent. From what I've heard she may be a
>smart woman and would have done well in the actual decision making of
>being the President but at managing the people she needed to vote for
>her, eh.. she quite frankly sucked at that. As said before she may
>have been the only likely candidate that would have lost to Trump
>because she did so many things wrong that led to her loss. Things that
>she should have known were a bad move, or at the very least the people
>around her should have known and advised her so.

I agree with all of that - if it's purely brain cells lots of people
are qualified even me. (And I've got a 30 year old MENSA card to prove
it though I only stayed for one year since during that year I got my
first modem and learned the fun you could have with it - including
Usenet in the 1990s - without leaving the house as opposed to driving
1/2 hour each way for their live meetings and game nights) I'm also
from a political family and have been appointed by our city council 5
times to advisory committees and spoken to our Council 100+ times at
public input. I was running for school board in 2008 but chickened out
at the filing deadline - my planned running mate was in fact elected.

So yeah my political instincts are not non-existent and I say again
that the "deplorables" comment was an unforced error that wasn't
spoken at a time she was under pressure from Trump. I definitely
remember the next day's paper when I showed the story to my wife
telling her Hillary would have to "work extra hard to make up the half
million votes she just kissed off to Trump"

It was very definitely Hillary's "Mr Turner you had a choice moment"
(That's a Canadian reference I expect Rhino to remember from the 1984
election where Brian Mulroney essentially won the TV debate in a
single sentence when outgoing prime minister spoke of honoring
commitments to his predecessor. The only US counterpart I can think of
is when Gerald Ford ensured he would be a one term president by
pardoning Richard Nixon)

I've even seen newspaper attack ads where one part publishes a one
line blooper quote from the other side in 128 point type with only a
line below saying "Canadians deserve better than this . Tell them so
at the ballot box on <insert date here> along with the mandatory small
print line about 'this ad authorized by ____, agent for the ___ party"

But no question having watched one of the top campaigners in US
history at extremely close range Hilary should have known how her
political foes would use the deplorables comment against her in their
advertising ESPECIALLY in the last days of the campaign.

And thanks to that America got President Trump.

(PS To this day I'm not sure whether in 1988 Gary Hart's sailboat
"Monkey Business" was his or a supporters but surely any candidate
knew that being photographed by newspaper cameramen on a boat with
that name was a REALLY REALLY bad idea during a campaign particularly
if he had something to hide! PARTICULARLY if you tell reporters that
you have nothing to hide....fortunately for America his opponent was
clearly going to be George Bush the elder)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:38:26 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, I hope you get to make peace with that. I'll only say that covid
>isn't a one-shot thing. It can lead to a multitude of contributing
>factors in that it's not a clean thing.
>
>Covid may not have led directly to someone's death, but it may have
>aggravated other medical conditions they already had. That's why it's
>so important for people to listen to the experts, and not the part-time
>epidemiologists you meet on social media.
>
>And even so, we each have to make a determination as to the cost/benefit
>assessment of the pros and cons of vaccination. I trusted the science
>because I know the vaccine was the safer bet in my circumstances. Your
>mileage may vary...

Yup - it's been nearly 18 months and as ou say one has to make peace
with that though I'm not yet done trying to get the coroner's report.
While the coroner didn't have her for long I hope it's more detail
than I expect since I'm not at all convinced COVID was her proximate
cause of death since my GP told me that while he didn't examine her
what I described to him was a classic cardiac arrest and that with
respect to COVID, the most that could be said was that it weakened her
resistances to cardiac issues which we knew both her parents had had
issues - one surving one not.

I'm pretty sure I mentioined in my original posting that both myself
all our 3 children were fully vaccinated well before her passing. But
as next of kin I do have the right to the report even if it's only one
page. (At that time I had had 2 shots + a booster and had another
since then though unless there's a new outbreak am probably not going
to have a 5th)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>
I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
thing your campaign wants.

In politics this is called "an unforced error"

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:00:00 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>I know I'm sitting here sipping a cup of coffee with my feet up... and
>if not for FDR, I'd be somewhere I'd rather not be doing something I'd
>rather not be doing.
>
>So I'm cutting him some slack... it's not often a rich white member of
>the elites does something good for people on this end of the spectrum.
>
>I remember that my father's generation practically worshipped the man.
>I remember seeing pictures of him up in people's houses, like a shrine,

My father was born in 1933. His father had been a high school teacher
who had to give it up due to poor health. They were living pretty hand
to mouth through the 1940s but had somewhat recovered by Dad's college
days though having seen his high school records (which had been kept
by Dad's sister who inherited the family house and cleaned it out
before sale - it was basically a 2 acre farm with a farmhouse on it. .
Her daughter gave the file to me at her mother's wake last month. My
aunt had actually died 6 months previously but they delayed the wake 6
months since her younger daughter who lives in France was able to be
there whereas the rest of them live in Washington state) one has to
wonder how he got admittance since his high school grades were not
great.

They weren't a political family - unlike my mother's - but my
grandfather was constantly giving me science books especially on
electronics during my visits there. (They were about 90 minutes away
from our place with the Canada-US border between and until his parents
died we went down there 1st Sunday of each month after church)

I spent 2 hrs finding the place due to road construction detours - I
hadn't been to the grange 1/2 mile from their home in 20 years and
their county is emphatically NOT great on road signage...

On 9/1/23 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
>>>> republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
>>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>>
>>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
>>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>>> going a long way to do just that.
>>>
>>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
>>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>>
>>
>> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>> want him to be.
>> They want the court packed.
>> They want the filibuster gone.
>> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
>> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>> They want gun safety legislation.
>> They want climate change legislation.
>
> All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't you
> watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?

Democratic Presidents get Congress to enact legislation. Right wing
asshole Presidents sit on their asses and collect paychecks.

On 9/1/23 11:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
>>>> republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
>>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>>
>>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
>>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>>> going a long way to do just that.
>>>
>>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
>>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>>
>>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>>
>>
>> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>> want him to be.
>> They want the court packed.
>> They want the filibuster gone.
>> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
>> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>> They want gun safety legislation.
>> They want climate change legislation.
>
> All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't you
> watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?
>

So? He insinuated Biden was pandering to the far left. I showed what
the far left wants - and Biden isn't having most of it. He won't call
for his party to kill the filibuster. He won't call on his party to
pack the court.

It doesn't matter who's function it is. It's the fact that Biden
clearly ISN'T on board with many of them - which is what was being said.

Can you read?

> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO seem to be pandering to that wing of his party.

Without Biden pushing for those things, Congress won't move. That's
what the leader of the party does... he leads the way.

Mighty stupid challenge that was.
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/2/23 5:22 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/1/23 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to
>>>>> kill the
>>>>> republic.  And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's
>>>>> voters.
>>>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>>>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>>>
>>>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>>>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>>>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
>>>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>>>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>>>> going a long way to do just that.
>>>>
>>>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>>>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>>>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>>>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>>>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
>>>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>>>
>>>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>>>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>>>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>>>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>>> want him to be.
>>> They want the court packed.
>>> They want the filibuster gone.
>>> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
>>> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>>> They want gun safety legislation.
>>> They want climate change legislation.
>>
>> All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't you
>> watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?
>
>
> Democratic Presidents get Congress to enact legislation.  Right wing
> asshole Presidents sit on their asses and collect paychecks.

Thanks. You summarized it better than I did. I went into detail, which
probably made Thanny's eyes glaze over when he saw so, so many words.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/2/23 3:59 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>> them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>> not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>> by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>>
> I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
> the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
> a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
> again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
> about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
> side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
> thing your campaign wants.
>
> In politics this is called "an unforced error"
>

Man, wait until you hear what this Trump guy got away with.
(Yes, that was sarcasm.)

And even with 91 charges, he's still the front runner by a country
kilometer.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/2/23 6:00 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 9/2/23 5:22 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 9/1/23 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to
>>>>>> kill the
>>>>>> republic.  And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or
>>>>>> it's voters.
>>>>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>>>>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>>>>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>>>>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
>>>>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>>>>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>>>>> going a long way to do just that.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>>>>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>>>>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>>>>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>>>>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
>>>>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>>>>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>>>>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>>>>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>>>> want him to be.
>>>> They want the court packed.
>>>> They want the filibuster gone.
>>>> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the most
>>>> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>>>> They want gun safety legislation.
>>>> They want climate change legislation.
>>>
>>> All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or didn't
>>> you
>>> watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?
>>
>>
>> Democratic Presidents get Congress to enact legislation.  Right wing
>> asshole Presidents sit on their asses and collect paychecks.
>
> Thanks.  You summarized it better than I did.  I went into detail, which
> probably made Thanny's eyes glaze over when he saw so, so many words.

In fairness though, there is one type of legislation right wing assholes
are johnny on the spot with: tax cuts for the wealthy.

On 9/2/23 8:47 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/2/23 6:00 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 9/2/23 5:22 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 9/1/23 10:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/23 7:53 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to
>>>>>>> kill the
>>>>>>> republic.  And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or
>>>>>>> it's voters.
>>>>>>> Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
>>>>>> seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
>>>>>> question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east
>>>>>> coast
>>>>>> seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
>>>>>> and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
>>>>>> going a long way to do just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
>>>>>> Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
>>>>>> splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
>>>>>> Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
>>>>>> polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> for America and the rest of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
>>>>>> Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
>>>>>> totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
>>>>>> allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I completely disagree. Biden isn't nearly what extreme progressives
>>>>> want him to be.
>>>>> They want the court packed.
>>>>> They want the filibuster gone.
>>>>> They want Ethics Reform for the Supreme Court (because they're the
>>>>> most
>>>>> blatantly corrupt court in my lifetime.)
>>>>> They want gun safety legislation.
>>>>> They want climate change legislation.
>>>>
>>>> All of which is a function of Congress, not the presidency. Or
>>>> didn't you
>>>> watch Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid?
>>>
>>>
>>> Democratic Presidents get Congress to enact legislation.  Right wing
>>> asshole Presidents sit on their asses and collect paychecks.
>>
>> Thanks.  You summarized it better than I did.  I went into detail,
>> which probably made Thanny's eyes glaze over when he saw so, so many
>> words.
>
>
> In fairness though, there is one type of legislation right wing assholes
> are johnny on the spot with: tax cuts for the wealthy.

Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.

And, did I mention women?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).

>I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>thing your campaign wants.

>In politics this is called "an unforced error"

The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
are living in a volatile political environment.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
(Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
not America.

But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
with as well.

-- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016

She'd used the phrase the day before as well.

During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
no longer exists."

Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>
>>I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>>the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>>a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>>again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>>about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>>side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>>thing your campaign wants.
>
>>In politics this is called "an unforced error"
>
>The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.
>
> I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
> get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
> inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
> are living in a volatile political environment.
>
> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
> Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
> (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
> unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
> them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
> have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
> their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
> those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
> not America.
>
> But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
> look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
> see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
> Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
> has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
> about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
> their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
> really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
> everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
> their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
> jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
> dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
> with as well.
>
> -- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016

Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
able to do that.

I look at it as what was described in a job video I was just watching.
It was about why some people get promoted and others don't . Some are
focused on doing things and so get stuck in that level. Others are
good at unifying people and so end up stuck as managers. The last
group are those that are good at presenting a message that motivates
people and acting as a leader and so can end up in the upper levels of
a company.

Hillary strikes me as a great doer. Someone that is focused on the
details and has great knowledge that enables her to get things done.
So she could do okay as a manager, but isn't the sort that would ever
do well as a corporate leader, or as a President, because she's unable
to present that great motivating message. Her husband, Obama, Reagan
were all able to get people motivated and pull the people behind them
when running as President. She was never able to do that and really
got more votes as the Democratic candidate and she wasn't Trump than
people actually voting for Hillary because they wanted her as
President above everyone else that ran.

>She'd used the phrase the day before as well.
>
> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
> no longer exists."
>
>Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.

Yeah, the phrase isn't quite as bad when seen in context but her
handling of the response to her saying it was awful. It's no worse
than people bringing up the issue of racists supporting Trump. Though
most people doing so do it as part of a question about Trump and
racism. Thereby avoiding the negative response that Hillary got.

On 9/2/2023 7:03 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 9/2/23 3:59 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They were.  They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>> them the next time you log on here.  Even if they deserve a break for
>>> not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>> by 2021.  And they still supported him.  That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>>>
>> I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>> the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>> a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>> again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>> about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>> side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>> thing your campaign wants.
>>
>> In politics this is called "an unforced error"
>>
>
> Man, wait until you hear what this Trump guy got away with.
> (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
>
> And even with 91 charges, he's still the front runner by a country
> kilometer.

"Even with"? Hell, he's *admired* for them...

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>>>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>>>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>>>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).

>>>I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>>>the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>>>a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>>>again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>>>about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>>>side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>>>thing your campaign wants.

>>>In politics this is called "an unforced error"

>>The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.

>> I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
>> get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
>> inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
>> are living in a volatile political environment.

>> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
>> Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
>> (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
>> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
>> unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
>> them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
>> have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
>> their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
>> those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
>> not America.

>> But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
>> look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
>> see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
>> Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
>> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
>> has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
>> about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
>> their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
>> really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
>> everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
>> their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
>> jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
>> dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
>> with as well.

>> -- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016

>Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
>saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
>was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
>term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
>it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
>to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
>changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
>able to do that.

You've said this when we've discussed this in the past. I don't agree
with you. I agree with H.G.

You don't provide ammunition to the enemy which is what she did. When
running for office, make the argument why one should support. Never
argue why one should continue to support the opponent or more firmly
commit to supporting the opponent.

She wasn't going to win votes from people like that. Her job was to try
to win votes from people who were unenthusiastic about supporting her,
or despised her but weren't going to vote for Trump. There's no time to
do anything else. Ignore the voters entirely who are firmly in the
enemy's camp. Engaging them wasts time she didn't have and is
counterproductive, which contributed to her downfall.

>I look at it as what was described in a job video I was just watching.
>It was about why some people get promoted and others don't . Some are
>focused on doing things and so get stuck in that level. Others are
>good at unifying people and so end up stuck as managers. The last
>group are those that are good at presenting a message that motivates
>people and acting as a leader and so can end up in the upper levels of
>a company.

Ok. That's reasonable.

>Hillary strikes me as a great doer. Someone that is focused on the
>details and has great knowledge that enables her to get things done.
>So she could do okay as a manager, but isn't the sort that would ever
>do well as a corporate leader, or as a President, because she's unable
>to present that great motivating message. Her husband, Obama, Reagan
>were all able to get people motivated and pull the people behind them
>when running as President. She was never able to do that and really
>got more votes as the Democratic candidate and she wasn't Trump than
>people actually voting for Hillary because they wanted her as
>President above everyone else that ran.

I largely agree with that.

>>She'd used the phrase the day before as well.

>> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
>> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
>> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
>> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
>> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
>> no longer exists."

>>Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>>being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.

>Yeah, the phrase isn't quite as bad when seen in context but her
>handling of the response to her saying it was awful. It's no worse
>than people bringing up the issue of racists supporting Trump. Though
>most people doing so do it as part of a question about Trump and
>racism. Thereby avoiding the negative response that Hillary got.

Actually, the shorter version of the remark from the day before is the way
I typically think of the quote. It's just as bad, except for not accusing
half of Trump's supporters of being in that basket. Trump simply turned
it around and let all his supporters know she was insulting each and
every one of them.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 15:11:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>>>>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>>>>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>>>>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>
>>>>I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>>>>the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>>>>a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>>>>again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>>>>about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>>>>side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>>>>thing your campaign wants.
>
>>>>In politics this is called "an unforced error"
>
>>>The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.
>
>>> I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
>>> get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
>>> inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
>>> are living in a volatile political environment.
>
>>> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
>>> Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
>>> (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
>>> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
>>> unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
>>> them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
>>> have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
>>> their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
>>> those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
>>> not America.
>
>>> But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
>>> look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
>>> see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
>>> Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
>>> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
>>> has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
>>> about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
>>> their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
>>> really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
>>> everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
>>> their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
>>> jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
>>> dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
>>> with as well.
>
>>> -- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016
>
>>Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
>>saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
>>was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
>>term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
>>it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
>>to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
>>changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
>>able to do that.
>
>You've said this when we've discussed this in the past. I don't agree
>with you. I agree with H.G.
>
>You don't provide ammunition to the enemy which is what she did. When
>running for office, make the argument why one should support. Never
>argue why one should continue to support the opponent or more firmly
>commit to supporting the opponent.

I agree that she wasn't doing the smart thing and should never have
said it. I never said otherwise. I just don't think it was something
that would derail her campaign if she had been better at handling like
her husband. She just didn't have those personal skills that could win
people over to her side so she needed to avoid any possible mistakes.

>She wasn't going to win votes from people like that. Her job was to try
>to win votes from people who were unenthusiastic about supporting her,
>or despised her but weren't going to vote for Trump. There's no time to
>do anything else. Ignore the voters entirely who are firmly in the
>enemy's camp. Engaging them wasts time she didn't have and is
>counterproductive, which contributed to her downfall.

I don't disagree with that.

>>I look at it as what was described in a job video I was just watching.
>>It was about why some people get promoted and others don't . Some are
>>focused on doing things and so get stuck in that level. Others are
>>good at unifying people and so end up stuck as managers. The last
>>group are those that are good at presenting a message that motivates
>>people and acting as a leader and so can end up in the upper levels of
>>a company.
>
>Ok. That's reasonable.
>
>>Hillary strikes me as a great doer. Someone that is focused on the
>>details and has great knowledge that enables her to get things done.
>>So she could do okay as a manager, but isn't the sort that would ever
>>do well as a corporate leader, or as a President, because she's unable
>>to present that great motivating message. Her husband, Obama, Reagan
>>were all able to get people motivated and pull the people behind them
>>when running as President. She was never able to do that and really
>>got more votes as the Democratic candidate and she wasn't Trump than
>>people actually voting for Hillary because they wanted her as
>>President above everyone else that ran.
>
>I largely agree with that.
>
>>>She'd used the phrase the day before as well.
>
>>> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
>>> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
>>> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
>>> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
>>> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
>>> no longer exists."
>
>>>Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>>>being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.
>
>>Yeah, the phrase isn't quite as bad when seen in context but her
>>handling of the response to her saying it was awful. It's no worse
>>than people bringing up the issue of racists supporting Trump. Though
>>most people doing so do it as part of a question about Trump and
>>racism. Thereby avoiding the negative response that Hillary got.
>
>Actually, the shorter version of the remark from the day before is the way
>I typically think of the quote. It's just as bad, except for not accusing
>half of Trump's supporters of being in that basket. Trump simply turned
>it around and let all his supporters know she was insulting each and
>every one of them.

Which was my point in that Trump was great at handling these sorts of
attacks. He could take a comment and use it/twist it so that it
becomes an attack on his opponent. Hillary never had those skills and
thus was ill-prepared to handle someone like Trump. She walked into
the trap by giving him free ammunition when she had no ability to
defend herself.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sat, 2 Sep 2023 15:11:09 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>>>>>them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>>>>>not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>>>>>by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).

>>>>>I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>>>>>the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>>>>>a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>>>>>again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>>>>>about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>>>>>side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>>>>>thing your campaign wants.

>>>>>In politics this is called "an unforced error"

>>>>The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.

>>>> I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
>>>> get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
>>>> inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
>>>> are living in a volatile political environment.

>>>> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
>>>> Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
>>>> (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
>>>> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
>>>> unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
>>>> them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
>>>> have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
>>>> their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
>>>> those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
>>>> not America.

>>>> But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
>>>> look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
>>>> see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
>>>> Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
>>>> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
>>>> has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
>>>> about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
>>>> their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
>>>> really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
>>>> everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
>>>> their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
>>>> jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
>>>> dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
>>>> with as well.

>>>> -- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016

>>>Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
>>>saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
>>>was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
>>>term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
>>>it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
>>>to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
>>>changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
>>>able to do that.

>>You've said this when we've discussed this in the past. I don't agree
>>with you. I agree with H.G.

>>You don't provide ammunition to the enemy which is what she did. When
>>running for office, make the argument why one should support. Never
>>argue why one should continue to support the opponent or more firmly
>>commit to supporting the opponent.

>I agree that she wasn't doing the smart thing and should never have
>said it. I never said otherwise. I just don't think it was something
>that would derail her campaign if she had been better at handling like
>her husband. She just didn't have those personal skills that could win
>people over to her side so she needed to avoid any possible mistakes.

It's not the comment in and of itself. It's the fact that she REPEATEDLY
said things like that which were not advancing her campaign, in lieu of
saying things that were helpful to her campaign.

She was easily distraced, I guess. No, it's not that. It's just easier
to criticize the enemy than it is to make the case for one's self.

>>. . .

>Which was my point in that Trump was great at handling these sorts of
>attacks. He could take a comment and use it/twist it so that it
>becomes an attack on his opponent. Hillary never had those skills and
>thus was ill-prepared to handle someone like Trump. She walked into
>the trap by giving him free ammunition when she had no ability to
>defend herself.

Absolutely right. She needed to play her own game and not Trump's game.

On 9/2/23 11:35 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 15:11:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:46:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> They were. They are right now, and no doubt, you'll be hearing from
>>>>>> them the next time you log on here. Even if they deserve a break for
>>>>>> not knowing what Trump was in 2016 - they sure as shit knew what he was
>>>>>> by 2021. And they still supported him. That's 'Truly Deplorable' (tm).
>>
>>>>> I'm not disputing there are people thoroughly deserving that title in
>>>>> the US and every other country. What I'm insisting is that that is not
>>>>> a phrase that any candidate for high public office should ever use -
>>>>> again any candidate seeking office should not use inflammatory terms
>>>>> about the opposition's voters since all that does is ensure the other
>>>>> side's supporters WILL get out to vote in droves which is the last
>>>>> thing your campaign wants.
>>
>>>>> In politics this is called "an unforced error"
>>
>>>> The Wikipedia article has a longer quote of the speech.
>>
>>>> I know there are only 60 days left to make our case - and don't
>>>> get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive,
>>>> inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We
>>>> are living in a volatile political environment.
>>
>>>> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of
>>>> Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.
>>>> (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist,
>>>> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it. And
>>>> unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted
>>>> them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only
>>>> have 11,000 people - now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets
>>>> their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of
>>>> those folks - they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are
>>>> not America.
>>
>>>> But the "other" basket - the other basket - and I know because I
>>>> look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I
>>>> see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and
>>>> Texas and - as well as, you know, New York and California - but
>>>> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government
>>>> has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares
>>>> about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and
>>>> their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't
>>>> really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy
>>>> everything he says, but - he seems to hold out some hope that
>>>> their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their
>>>> jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a
>>>> dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
>>>> with as well.
>>
>>>> -- at an LGBT campaign fundraiser 9/9/2016
>>
>>> Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
>>> saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
>>> was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
>>> term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
>>> it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
>>> to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
>>> changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
>>> able to do that.
>>
>> You've said this when we've discussed this in the past. I don't agree
>> with you. I agree with H.G.
>>
>> You don't provide ammunition to the enemy which is what she did. When
>> running for office, make the argument why one should support. Never
>> argue why one should continue to support the opponent or more firmly
>> commit to supporting the opponent.
>
> I agree that she wasn't doing the smart thing and should never have
> said it. I never said otherwise. I just don't think it was something
> that would derail her campaign if she had been better at handling like
> her husband. She just didn't have those personal skills that could win
> people over to her side so she needed to avoid any possible mistakes.
>
>> She wasn't going to win votes from people like that. Her job was to try
>> to win votes from people who were unenthusiastic about supporting her,
>> or despised her but weren't going to vote for Trump. There's no time to
>> do anything else. Ignore the voters entirely who are firmly in the
>> enemy's camp. Engaging them wasts time she didn't have and is
>> counterproductive, which contributed to her downfall.
>
> I don't disagree with that.
>
>>> I look at it as what was described in a job video I was just watching.
>>> It was about why some people get promoted and others don't . Some are
>>> focused on doing things and so get stuck in that level. Others are
>>> good at unifying people and so end up stuck as managers. The last
>>> group are those that are good at presenting a message that motivates
>>> people and acting as a leader and so can end up in the upper levels of
>>> a company.
>>
>> Ok. That's reasonable.
>>
>>> Hillary strikes me as a great doer. Someone that is focused on the
>>> details and has great knowledge that enables her to get things done.
>>> So she could do okay as a manager, but isn't the sort that would ever
>>> do well as a corporate leader, or as a President, because she's unable
>>> to present that great motivating message. Her husband, Obama, Reagan
>>> were all able to get people motivated and pull the people behind them
>>> when running as President. She was never able to do that and really
>>> got more votes as the Democratic candidate and she wasn't Trump than
>>> people actually voting for Hillary because they wanted her as
>>> President above everyone else that ran.
>>
>> I largely agree with that.
>>
>>>> She'd used the phrase the day before as well.
>>
>>>> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
>>>> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
>>>> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
>>>> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
>>>> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
>>>> no longer exists."
>>
>>>> Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>>>> being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.
>>
>>> Yeah, the phrase isn't quite as bad when seen in context but her
>>> handling of the response to her saying it was awful. It's no worse
>>> than people bringing up the issue of racists supporting Trump. Though
>>> most people doing so do it as part of a question about Trump and
>>> racism. Thereby avoiding the negative response that Hillary got.
>>
>> Actually, the shorter version of the remark from the day before is the way
>> I typically think of the quote. It's just as bad, except for not accusing
>> half of Trump's supporters of being in that basket. Trump simply turned
>> it around and let all his supporters know she was insulting each and
>> every one of them.
>
>
> Which was my point in that Trump was great at handling these sorts of
> attacks. He could take a comment and use it/twist it so that it
> becomes an attack on his opponent. Hillary never had those skills and
> thus was ill-prepared to handle someone like Trump. She walked into
> the trap by giving him free ammunition when she had no ability to
> defend herself.
>

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 07:03:54 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>And even with 91 charges, he's still the front runner by a country
>kilometer.

Which says several things about the present day United States of
America I don't particularly like much.

Face it - we now have a second Cold War with China playing the role
Russia/the USSR did in the first one.

They're able to do this as past US presidents (particularly Obama)
gave them economic access to America that their economic (notably
their record of theft of intellectual property - mostly against US
companies but also America's allies. Ask any Canadian about Nortel and
Huawei and you might get hit by flying spittle with the tale of how
Chinese industrial espionage brought down one of Canada's flagship
companies for the benefit of Huawei which is why I'm appalled it took
HUGE US pressure to get Justin Trudeau to bar Huawei from Canada's 5G
network) and human rights records didn't warrant.

Fact is there is a cost to losing a cold war - Britain lost one at
Suez and the pound lost its role as one of the world's leading
currencies and about 20% of the pound\s value. The Soviet Union lost
one in the late 80s and early 90s and lost large chunks of territory
plus their Warsaw Pact "alliance" (which was mostly a case of Moscow
telling their "partners" how high to jump)

Bottom line is that America is NOW in an economic / military battle
with China which if misplayed could very easily cost America her role
as #1 world power - and there is a price to losing that status.

This more than anything else is why I think the Biden / Trump rivalry
(which I think is absurd) is badly hurting America in a time America
really DOES need to be greater than any time since 1992. If China
becomes the world hegemon ALL of the West will pay the price not just
the United States of America.

If ever there was a time America NEEDED to be great (as in the 1945
sense of the word) it's NOW and that's NOT a matter of party
allegiance.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
>trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.
>
>And, did I mention women?
>
Just curious - what "rights" do you feel librarians have lost?
Librarians generallly are expected to meet the expectations of their
library boards often appointed by their municipalities or academic
boards. This is not at all the case with most of the other groups you
name.

Migrants have the right to have a fair hearing - but once that's over,
if said hearing doesn't go their way they have the right to a fast
removal and harsh action to be taken against them if they make a
subsequent attempt at re-entry. They certainly do not have the full
rights of citizenship and we demean citizenship by saying they do.

As for voting irregularities I am under the view that most of these
are from former Jim Crow states and I have alrways wondered why US
federal elections are administered by the states. To me that's
positively perverse and leads to different standards depending where
one lives. And I'm prett sure I >DO< understand how US elections are
administered. As a Canadian I have voted in several dozen elections
and have NEVER taken more than 30 minutes to vote even during the
pandemic. What percentage of Americans can't say that but wish they
could? It simply isn't rocket science.

I could go on to the other groups on your list but that's enough for
now. Please don't get the idea I'm saying Canada is perfect - I'm
>NOT< and we have our own set of national problems which are different
from the American list - but SOME things we do do better (whilee there
are many items where we don't)

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>She'd used the phrase the day before as well.
>
> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
> no longer exists."
>
>Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.

Thereby demonstrating she had definitely "doubled down" on her
original statement which while it was her right to say it was still (I
argue) monumentally poor judgement since it both inflamed Trump attack
ads and got a LOT of Trump supporters to the polls who otherwise would
have stayed home.

Which was what I said originally which was these statements got a lot
of people out to vote that Hillary would have preferred stayed home.

Amongst a lot of political types (at least the ones in my circle) all
of which was said the day after she said it - NOT inflaming the
opposition isn't even Campaigning 101 and most campaigners know it
without needing to be taught.