Women wearing T-shirts inviting a married presidential candidate to group them and talk ditty to them?
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Women wearing T-shirts inviting a married presidential candidate to group them and talk ditty to them?
Monday, October 17, 2016
Someone posted a comment saying Donald Trump slam-dunked the second debate.
I did not watch any debates. Over time they have become less like debates and more like campaign messages. The person was commenting on a Facebook post from Business Insider: "Media rigging the election!': Trump slams Saturday Night Live for mocking his debate performance."
The slam-dunk commentator was replying to a comment that read: "the guy hsa lost his marbles. hes growing paranoid and stupider by the day. what a child. no control of his ego. no control of anything and cant stop trying to control everything."
His comment had little to do with her comment.
I watched the clip attached to the post. In part, Trump said: “If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse: mine are words, his was action. This is what he has done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women, so you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight.”
A debate would be questions like, "How do you feel about marital fidelity?" Donald accusing Bill, who is not running to become president, is an example of kettle calling frying pan black.
Trump's infidelities were not words. Ivanka verbally attacked Marla Maples. Even as he was being unfaithful to his marriage vows with Ivanka, he also had his secretary track down Sandra Korn, took her out for a pizza dinner and bedded her the same night.
Reminds me of that Country & Western song: Your Husband Is Cheating On Us.
Did the candidates debate infidelity? JFK was considered to be a good president by many. I assume tales of his infidelities are true. Not that cheating makes for a better president. Trump brought it up, not me.
The debate might have been: Is it bet to have a First Man that cheated on his wife, or a First Lady that posed naked ~ full frontal naked ~ as a model?
Never in the history of politics in this nation has there been a First Lady whose nude model photos are available for all to see. Yes, paparazzi caught Jackie full frontal nude on a beach in France; but Melania earned money showing it all.
Truly, one of the reasons I did not support Hillary is she comes with the baggage of Bill. But why ever would women support a man who is just like him?
Hillary should not be president because her husband cheated on her multiple times? But Trump should be president even though he cheated on both wives, in addition to to attempting to cheat on wife #3, while she was pregnant, by buying the woman furniture?
Go figure, as my son and his friends used to say.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Aargh! Have not used that one in a long time.
Decided to fix the sidebar links on my blogs tonight. Aagrh! Tried using Google Blogger Help to find out how to do so. Used to be extremely easy to re-arrange, remove or add links. No more. Only help I found, thus far, was that Google is aware of the problem (function not working) and sometimes it fixes itself and sometimes it works.
I suppose I can choose a new template and start over. Vaguely recall last time I did that it screwed up all the posts; something with text and background colors not transferring properly to new design.
Oh, well, no one reads my blogs, which I have neglected for quite a while, so no big deal.
Yahoo did away with Yahoo Voices, so all the articles published by Associated Content got removed. Those are the links I need to remove.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Is Donald Trump just plain crazy? begins is a Washington Post opinion piece written by Eugene Robinson.
"I thought he was being crazy like a fox. Now I am increasingly convinced that he’s just plain crazy"That thought and another article headline: There is something very wrong with Donald Trump, echoed what I was thinking just yesterday: the man is insane. Literally.
It seems the only people more crazy than Trump are those who still think he is a suitable presidential candidate. Saying that makes me sad, because a couple of friends support the man. I thought they were intelligent enough to discern that the man is fruit loops. Or as my son-in-law would say it: bat shit crazy.
Robinson's commentary pointed out something I did not know. Robinson quotes Trump saying "I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is." He also pointed out Trump saying in November that he "got to know (Putin) very well because we were both on 60 Minutes." Trump also reportedly said in 2014: "I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, directly and indirectly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success."
Robinson goes on to point out some recent lies, then suggests:
It is theoretically possible, I suppose, that Trump is telling the truth and everyone else is lying — although in the case of the Putin relationship, it’s Trump’s word against Trump’s.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Could not view the video posted in this article Someone finally explained how ISIS was created via You Tube.
The 11-year-old Iraqi boy, in my previous video post, says much the same thing.
Donald Trump said something about needing to investigate or figure out why they hate us.
I did not need to investigate or even figure it out. This child eloquently expresses why..
Monday, May 30, 2016
Missed posting this comment on article about Trump's energy independence plan.
6:22 AM EDT
By "clean energy" do you mean industrial wind turbines that are blighting more total acres than mining or fracking these days? In recent decades a lot of people who claim to be environmentalists have decided that scenery is expendable. I'm not sure why they turned on nature, but I consider it a moral crime as big as climate denial.
The first time I saw a wind turbine farm, I found that scenery awesome. At that time, 1994 when I drove from east coast to west, I had no idea what wind turbines were. More recently in a drive to visit a nephew in the Palm Desert area of California, I was again mesmerized by the symmetrical wind turbine towers. I had an urge to park the car and just stare at those blights on the scenery.
One person's blight is another's break up on the monotonous scenery.
Reading about how those farms supply energy for entire towns, wind turbines sounded like a good alternate source of energy. Further reading, however, explained how those turbines were less cost effective then good old oil or coal for production of energy.
Ah, there are those attitudes coming in to play again. Jim916 must support Trump, thus his energy independence plan. Was it environmentalists who decided that wind turbines in the Palm Desert area were a good idea? Or perhaps those people in charge decided it was a good idea in an effort to provide those who elected them a cheaper way to run their computers, cool their homes, run the pool pumps and such.
Would be nice if citizens who wrote comments would simply state their opinions without the blaming attitude.
" people who claim to be environmentalists have decided that scenery is expendable. I'm not sure why they turned on nature"
Taking oil from the earth by any means necessary is only one example of how ordinary people turn their backs on nature; we like our modern conveniences, like paved roads for one. Scenery has always been expandable if it stands in the way of progress. At least in my lifetime, it has. I believe the song line goes: they paved paradise to put up a parking lot.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Attitudes are contagious.
A comment from the article re: Trump's energy independence speech:
2:04 AM EDT
Hello Washington Pest! Quoting 1990 Playboy interviews to point out inconsistencies in Trump's position are we? Do I detect a slight whiff of panic?
My first impulse is to reply something like this:
And that is how wars are started; tit for tat.
I do not know that Jill Colvin and Matthew Daly, authors of the article are employed by The Washington Post; it is an AP article. I could do the research to find out if they work for the Post, the same as those writers did to report news, but not important for me to know if they do.
Any number of newspapers could run the exact same news article; Vanderbilt JAM shows her prejudice with her first words (Washington Pest.) Its a good line: Do I detect a slight whiff of panic? which further shows her disdain for the media outlet.
I would have no way of knowing what Trump said in a 1990 Playboy interview without the writers quoting Trump's words in this article. Panic? Why would the Post panic? They are just reporting the news: a day in the life of Donald Trump's inconsistencies.
Perhaps it was the Post article's attitude that caused JAM's caustic comment. Without saying the words, the article tells readers that Trump's speech to the Petroleum Conference were just words to persuade attendees that he is on their side. Without the inclusion of the Playboy quote, I would still have found Trump's energy independence plan to be lacking as to a real solution to our energy dependence.
I do not know anything about "the Paris climate agreement" or payments of U.S. tax money to a United Nations fund to mitigate effects of climate change worldwide." Even without knowledge of those two things, I would tend to trust both as being good for citizens worldwide, thus automatically disagree with Trump's proposed plan to end the programs.
It seems that all JAM got out of the article is the inclusion of the Playboy quote. Her attitude makes it clear that doing so is wrong; perhaps she has a whiff of panic that others might form an unfavorable opinion about Trump due to the reporting of the inconsistency. Some will agree with his approach; others will not ~ the inconstancy is hardly relevant to Trump's position on energy independence.
Because attitudes are contagious, people like JAM can start more comment wars rather then readers having an adult conversation of the pros and cons of Trump's energy dependence plan. I guess that kind of discourse is best left to Congress, not those of us who elect our governmental officials.