How, exactly, do we “not let them get away with it” when 1/4 - 1/3 of Americans happily accept the nonsense without thought, and another 1/5+ think MAYBE it’s true, maybe not, but they’re too intellectually incurious and lazy to find out.

Thinking people don’t need to be told any of this, it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who puts forth the tiniest effort to look into any of their claims and the intentional bastardization of accepted terminology to create scapegoats they can target.

The question is how do we get people to start thinking again? I fear as long as “smart” phones and social media are legal, we won’t.

I don’t think you do, because you didn’t invest slowly at regular intervals over time (unless you lied), you said you invested everything in one stock….lucky for you early when it was reasonably priced ($25?), and suggested to anyone that would listen that they sell everything and go all in all at once even when Tesla was over $400 a share. That’s the exact opposite of dollar cost averaging. Derp. It’s like I know you better than you know yourself…because I paid attention and remember what you said last week/month/year.

You improvident lackwit. When will you stop making predictions? I don’t think you’ve been correct 2% of the time.

Dow’s up 869 points this month, stocks sound pretty good to me. What new bank failed? I see no new failure. I wonder if you understand why the last two failed….hint, it starts with “der” and ends with “egulation”, and was a pure Trump Republican plan passed in 2018 because they had forgotten 2008 already, or wanted to repeat it.

Too busting? Do you mean too busty? I don’t understand the attempted insult… I don’t even understand the concept of “too busty”…but you should know it’s impossible for you to successfully insult me because I would have to value your opinion first.
If I were to put on a drag show for kids, you better believe it would be snap, crackle, and popping…but it’s really not my scene. I prefer my drag queens to be English and of the Python variety, but that’s just a matter of taste.
Don’t you find it odd that drag shows are suddenly such a problem for the far right?
They’re not new.
Many MANY far right politicians that are now suddenly outraged at drag shows enjoyed going to them, organized them, or performed in them themselves at one time. The right could even support them publicly in the 70’s and 80’s. Can you explain why are you ALL suddenly such insecure snowflakes now that, like alcoholics with booze, you can’t stand to be reminded drag shows and homosexuals exist and went all in on some misguided unpopular unconstitutional temperance movement? Why it’s suddenly such an impossible-to-ignore temptation for you? Somehow Trump? Maybe it’s just that your ilk needs a target to scapegoat for your failures and they’re the latest relatively powerless target….yeah…just maybe.

Kind of odd how, the day after the election, Righty media suddenly stopped their “crime coverage”, don’t you think?

I mean the nonstop crime coverage where for over a year they lied and claimed some huge increase in crime under Biden, ignoring that most of the rise in murder rates happened before 2020, with murder increasing 30% 2019-2020 (and 4.3% under Biden, still bad) but all other violent crime is actually falling slightly.

Almost like they thought their audience was ignorant and gullible rubes they could gaslight, then use the outrage to scapegoat their enemies.

Please don’t spread the rebranding, intentional bastardization of a 40 year old well known legal analysis class to create a scapegoat, a faux boogeyman for the right to be outraged over.
CRT is not what the Right has falsely branded it, and it’s blatantly obvious they needed to create a racist scapegoat because their old buzzwords like Political Correctness weren’t being taken seriously or sparking outrage anymore.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

It’s just more bullshit, don’t step in it

Nah.... only things Republicans will take a good look at are progressive scapegoats, i.e. renewable, non-polluting energy!

To be fair, it IS a hard ask for the average Texans to be prepared for these type of event. but for the energy companies? That's a wholly different logic. At the very least, it's absolutely stupid (and arrogant) is isolate themselves from the neighboring power grid that Texans can't even buy power (or in very limited amount?) from neighboring states for emergencies.

Actually, the real problem in Texas is their always race to the bottom-line dollars, regulation be damn -- yeehaw! -- mentality. No other countries, or even most States in the USA, would be so dumb.

Lol. Finally watched this drivel, it's a secure tarmac, and yet busloads of people were there to wave at.

🤦‍♂️

You got one thing right, @bobknight33, no one cares that you don't comprehend security at airports, or that we're in an escalating pandemic thanks to Trump's failure to lead, be honest, or even take responsibility for anything, preferring to blame any scapegoats that aren't him....some leader you got there.

I liked how they described Trump while showing pictures of his political scapegoats.

Well, things are not as rosy as folks like Steven Pinker would like us to believe. As much as I dislike resorting to Hollywood for philosophical insights, True Detective was absolutely on point in this quote:

„Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.“

Now, they were talking about a preacher. But I'd argue this applies to scapegoats as well. And if your arguments undermine the scapegoat, it starts losing its efficiency as a focal point of people's discontent.

Most of us have so much day-to-day shit to deal with that outsourcing the macro-shit to a boogeyman, any boogeyman, helps us get through the day without wanting to bash our head against the wall. Or bash someone else's head in, for that matter.

This doesn't excuse this level of self-delusion, but maybe it explains it to some degree. I'd say keep doing what I know you've been doing for many years: present your case in a respectful manner.

And yet, gun laws DEMONSTRABLY work in other countries. There are plenty of other countries with high gun ownership rates (Canada, for instance), but nowhere outside the 3rd world has anything like the gun-related death rate of the US.

Meanwhile, you are caught up in some ridiculous fantasy where you save America from imaginary Hitler.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6l4l6m/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

edit: fine don't embed the video, then!

The most ironic part of this, imo, is that this guy's beliefs are the same ones who drove lynchings in times past. The ONLY reason he and others like him are being so damn careful to do things by the book and emphasize how "peaceful" they are (when not running over counter-protesters with cars) is because they are vastly, vastly outnumbered and have zero social power to manipulate the courts like they did in decades past.

They are "peaceful" from pure cowardice, and when they taste the first glimmer of power, they will apologetically reign violence upon their scapegoats.

Russia involvement in the USA election and Russians and Trump working together to win the election are two different things.

Russia was involvement with the election. Putin despised Clinton.

The Clinton election was to be a landslide in the eyes of the Democratic party and its biased media. They held this believe up until 9pm ish election night when everything started to fall apart.
They were dead wrong, shocked to the core and befuddled. Weeping and gnashing of teeth began and a Scapegoat was needed.

A quick blame of why Hillary did not win had be be made.


Russian in bed with Trump was a convenient story invented to hide the truth that Hillary ran a bad election campaign.

The firing of Comey was a shock. But the left also wanted him gone. Careful what you wish for.

This is just a continuation of the Anti Trump story line that was the media have pushed from day 1.

Russia did not favor Trump they just hated Clinton more.

USA meddles in other countries elections also.Obama meddled in the Israeli elections. It happens.

Is there a signed treaty? No. But the US SoS (James A. Baker III) and the German Foreign Minister (Hans-Dietrich Genscher) are on the record in 1990

Genscher is on video tape stating very clearly: "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur im Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverlaiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."

In English: we are in agreement that there is no intention of expanding the NATO security zone eastwards. This applies not only to the GDR, which we do not intend to incorporate, but in general."

Or how about Baker's words, Feb. 9, 1990, St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East."

And the minutes show Gorbachev as having said:
"Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

To which Baker replied:
"I agree."

Again, no treaties, nothing. But some people, myself included, make the argument that unequivocal statements of a nation's highest-ranking diplomat are to be taken seriously, unless overruled by explicit, written agreements.

And from what we've heard from Gorbachev over the years, he took them for their words.

Admittedly, having been replaced by Yelzin who received massive "help" from the US might have made Gorbachev a little grumpy.

What remains at the end is this: NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviets and wasn't dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. The highest-ranking diplomats of the primary players at that time (US, FRG) are on the record with promises that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards after the German reunification. Now NATO is closer to Russia's border than ever and the Ukraine had a democratically elected government (they were thugs, but elected) overthrown by forces that had massive support from the US. As a result, fascist militias wearing SS insignia are roaming free in Novorossiya, with government support.

If I were Russia, I'd be pissed.

But I'm in Germany, so now I have a strongman in charge of Russia, a thug who has journalists and opposition in general killed, on the one side, and the Americans who installed a Nazi-sympathising regime in Ukraine on the other.

What's not to like about it.

So when the US establishment then goes on a full-blown bender to position Russia as a scapegoat for now having to live with President Trump, they are playing with fire just to distract from their fucked-up domestic policies.

And we're not even touching on the hypocrisy of the US being outraged when some foreign nation meddles in their internal affairs. Of course Russia tries to influence US politics in their favor. Guess what, so does the UK, France, Germany, NZ, China, Japan, even bloody Luxembourg for all I know. Just like the US exerts influence on German politics (ie German Marshall Fund, Atlantikbrücke, etc), and on politics of every other nation of significance.

Trump's lies were much more exciting and beneficial to the people who were voting for him. Clinton had all these lies about "responsibility" and "middle-class" and "love" and "immigrants". GROSS. Trump lied about jobs and scapegoats and CHINA and death and we need to win!!!! We'll be great again and kick out all those [insert your racist or misogynist words here]! Imaginary jobs that don't exist will be ours if you vote for Trump!

His lies were just much more persuasive. Liberals need to start lying more about things the majority of people care about.

Hmm. I agree that Trump is an incompetent egotistical blowhard, who drums up support by drastically overstating America's problems. America doesn't *need* drastic change.

...BUT, American government, particularly at the national level in Washington really is a complete trainwreck that *does* need drastic change. Both of our disgusting parties hold plenty of blame for that.

I think that the short-term damage that a Trump presidency would cause would be mitigated pretty well by the separation of powers, one of the few elements of our government that does function pretty well. And I feel like it is possible that a long-term benefit could be that Republican voters would get a hard-to-ignore lesson that the "ideals" that are spouted by their party leadership don't work. George W Bush was the best thing to happen for the Democrat party in a long time; Trump could finish the party off and let something better replace it.

Hillary is definitely more competent. In the short term, the country would definitely be better off with her at the helm than Trump. But, I don't see any long-term benefits to electing her.

Republicans would have a prime and familiar scapegoat. The legislative branch ground to a standstill with Obama in office, I think it will/would be worse with Hillary. That might actually be a good thing; it could limit the damage that they can do -- and the consequences of a shitty legislative branch are worse than a shitty president, I think.

And the Democrat party, which had a golden fucking opportunity to lead by example and actually do some exciting GOOD things with government to win voters over, instead did every dirty and questionable thing they could to guarantee that Hillary "I am the establishment" Clinton got their nomination.


Neither side deserves to win, and in fact both sides deserve to lose. I'll be voting 3rd party; not that it will accomplish anything.

Democrats, you could have had my vote if you had selected literally anybody other than Hillary. Hell, I'd probably even have voted for Hillary over Trump if she had beat Bernie fair and square without resorting to all the shady stuff (she probably would have won even without that shit).

Republicans, almost the same goes for you -- I'd pretty happily have voted for anybody other than Trump running against Hillary. Well, maybe not creepy-as-fuck Ted Cruz or some other batshit crazy option like Sarah Palin; but pretty much any of the others.

Too late now though.

I can't wait for Jack White to sue him.

Most ridiculous, jingoistic, fear mongering Trump commercial ever.
America is strong, proud, and great today....and Trump wants to change all that.

To answer a few of the questions in the description.....
What agenda? Good question, it changes by the hour and depends on the audience, but clearly his agenda is to get more money and power over others...his lifelong goals.

Successful business dealings....only according to himself, and with absolutely zero proof he's not actually deep in debt. How many bankruptcies does it take to be labeled a poor businessman?
Egotistical narcissists like him always need more power, it's how he measures his value as a human....and yours. If you're powerless, you're also worthless to him.
He's never once proven himself, he bends over backwards to hide his actions, business dealings, and actual net worth. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out his net worth is a negative number.

Regressive policies are never a good thing, and it's all he's suggesting (but clearly he'll have no problem ignoring every thing he's said if he wins...he won't need you pleebs for another 4 years, and he'll just dupe you again then, it's apparently easy, just offer a scapegoat for their failures, add lies and anger, and stir well. It's working so far.)
If he wins, buy gold. The market will tank, and might not come back.