Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Trump Fumbles Words to National Anthem

quote [ Along with the fans in attendance was President Donald Trump who was present at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. According to a report in TIME, Trump's attendance was seen as an opportunity to protest as groups like the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and Refuse Fascism had planned demonstrations and protests in and outside of the venue.

However, what caught the world's attention was how the president miserably failed at singing the National Anthem. ]

25th, anyone?
[SFW] [politics] [-3 Boring]
[by kylemcbitch@6:10amGMT]


kylemcbitch said[1] @ 6:14am GMT on 9th Jan
norok as I was saying, the discussion for invoking the 25th is only getting more relevant. Are we are finally to the point where we all accept that he's in rapid mental decline?

Otherwise, we should what.. believe he doesn't know the words?
BUGGERLUGS123 said @ 11:20am GMT on 9th Jan
As POTUS i'd say you should make it your job to know the words. Though being able to read would help in that task.
norok said @ 2:35pm GMT on 9th Jan
A 3 second clip makes the case more relevant? I dont understand the lack of faith in just running a better candidate in 2020. Chalk it up to the millennials and their Internet-induced ADD that they have no patience or wisdom to understand the pendulum swings from cycle to cycle.
kylemcbitch said @ 5:43pm GMT on 9th Jan
Come now. That 3 second clip clearly shows a man not singing the words. The words to a song he has made a huge deal about respecting in the media.

Right after forgetting he ran for president.
norok said[1] @ 6:39pm GMT on 9th Jan
Is this the hill you want to die on though?

Net neutrality was a big fat corporate subsidy at the expense of consumers; the US already being far lower in the world's broadband rankings that they should be.

Weed RE-criminalization. That's one of the few things I'll say "wrong side of history" for.

But a 3 second clip of Trump burping in the middle of the National Anthem seems to get about the same attention as actual public policy issues. The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have saturated people's minds with such bullshit that anything tangible gets written off.
mechanical contrivance said @ 6:46pm GMT on 9th Jan
How is net neutrality a corporate subsidy?
norok said @ 6:57pm GMT on 9th Jan
I slipped up and used some Leftist language. It's a tricky cognitive dissonance issue for me.

I realize it means in a few quarters we'll be paying more for special packages to different Internet services/protocols allowing the corporations that own the connective backbones to squeeze more profit out of their lines without necessitating delivery of better services. It will in effect stifle Internet upstarts that have flourished within the old paradigm.

But the Libertarian in me says "Free Market rulez!" and the corporations are now legally allowed to exercise control over the infrastructure assets they invested capital in.

In an effort not to hijack/derail I'll leave it at that for another thread.
mechanical contrivance said @ 7:21pm GMT on 9th Jan
I don't understand your first paragraph and you didn't answer my question.
norok said @ 7:27pm GMT on 9th Jan
It's a buzzword more than a thing, IMO.

In practice rescinding net neutrality removes a barrier to the Internet carriers that was preventing them from pursuing additional profitability at the expense of smaller organizations and consumers.
mechanical contrivance said @ 7:36pm GMT on 9th Jan
But back to my original question, isn't a corporate subsidy when the government gives money to a corporation? How did net neutrality do that?
SkierTrash said[1] @ 7:10am GMT on 10th Jan
By proxy. Why be dense about it?

If I have a monopoly and the max I can charge by law for something is X, then I lobby congress to make it so I can charge X for an inferior product and charge X+20 for the same service I offered previously - then congress has essentially subsidized my business by allowing me to make tons more money for nothing, have they not?
mechanical contrivance said @ 2:11pm GMT on 10th Jan
They have not. A subsidy is when the government give money to a company. In your example, only the customers give money to the company, not the government.
SkierTrash said @ 4:47pm GMT on 10th Jan
Semantics. I hope you're well pleased!

Rates will go up for shittier service and the ISPs won't have to spend any extra money of their own to face fuck the customers they own a monopoly over.

This is a brave new world of corporatism. This is a brand new kind of corporate welfare payment.
kylemcbitch said @ 7:20pm GMT on 10th Jan
Sorry, not trying to butt in however I can't abide this:

"Semantics. I hope you're well pleased!"

Literally any argument, ever, is semantics. This is because semantics are language and logic. If you disagree with someone, over anything, it is either because you don't get what they are saying (or they don't themselves) (thus language.) OR, it's because you don't follow their logic or their logic is bad.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 2:16pm GMT on 10th Jan
Net neutrality was a big fat corporate subsidy?

Huh. So, are you in favour of corporate subsidies, or fucking consumers?
norok said[1] @ 2:22pm GMT on 10th Jan
Net neutrality was good. Rescinding net neutrality is bad.
mechanical contrivance said @ 2:40pm GMT on 10th Jan
Try to be more clear in your writings.
kylemcbitch said @ 3:58pm GMT on 10th Jan
It's pretty clear from his responses to you he was planning to defend the rescinding of NN. I am surprised he reversed course we presented with his own words. I am so used to people doubling down on stupid.
norok said @ 5:02pm GMT on 10th Jan
I could defend it either way was my point. Both defenses would come from a foundation of my principles and the debate would create a self identified cognitive dissonance.

In the end I have to stand by net neutrality as a good thing. Because Fuck Comcast.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:43pm GMT on 10th Jan
I see, that makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Yeah, we can agree there. And yeah, I am also with you on weed.

However, having read 1984, I sort of resist the call to ignore the evidence of my own eyes and ears. Since I posted this video, more video has come out showing even more clearly that Trump mouth words that are either not words at all, or not words of the anthem.

Normally, I'd say "whatever" but it was Trump himself whom made the anthem a major sticking point. And then couldn't either bother to sing them, or couldn't bother to read the lyrics (or, somehow, inexplicably, never learned them at all.)

This coming days after he claimed he was a stable genius while either lying about running for president in 2000 (and after, if I am being uncharitable) or having forgot that he did.

Do either possibility strike you as stable, or genius?

See, I am purposefully making this not about his politics. Because the issue isn't his politics. Certainly I have issue with his politics, and I will absolutely fight them given the chance. But lets have the adults in room discuss this without assuming it's political bias.

There are more examples of seriously questionable cognitive issues. Trump once couldn't locate his car. Which was in front of him at the time, waiting on a red carpet for him: Donald Trump Gets Lost Walking To His Limo

There was the time he forgot which country he just bombed. Trump tells Bartiromo He Struck Syria Over Chocolate Cake

He forgot Paul Ryan's name... twice: Trump Gets Paul Ryan''s Name Wrong While Speaking In Ryan's Hometown

He failed to actually sign an executive order during a ceremony he put together:
Trump Forgets to Sign Executive Order

President Trump was poised to sign a pair of executive orders Friday targeting trade abuses, but it appears that a reporter's question distracted him and he walked out of an executive order signing without actually signing the executive order

There are more, many more. Notice none of these things are me saying "how can he believe these things!" or "that's monstrous." These are all, basically politically neutral events. Which is why I picked them, because the rest could be said to be partisan if you look at it sideways.

And the next part I can forgive if you don't take it seriously, because it's basically gossip. Though very well sourced gossip which has resulted in people being fired.

The recent book that came out, Fire and Fury, I've read it. I recommend that you do as well. Because of that book, I am now sceptical that Trump was working for the Russians. Though I am certainly more worried now, because it appears that he'd really like to. Also, that if you left him in a room with another world leader unsupervised, all it would take is flattery and Trump will cave to their side of an argument. He's also only semi-literate, being described as "post-literate, total television" as if it were a feature and not a bug. And two themes are pretty clear in all interactions with him: everyone that talks to him says he's like a child/a moron, and they worry that he will be subject to the 25th because of dementia.
norok said @ 3:52pm GMT on 10th Jan
I never understood why people believed he was "working for the Russians" in the first place. Actually, I do. They would have gone with "working with the Martians" if it meant there was a chance he could be forcibly removed from duly elected office. Kinda like invoking the 25th.
kylemcbitch said @ 4:07pm GMT on 10th Jan
The reason people questioned if he worked for the Russians is because he acted shady as shit. And the reason for that is very clear: he, and his family, are very aware that any investigation that might touch their financial history would doom the presidency as well as the family fortune.

Luckily for me, and people on my side of politics, his deteriorating mental state had him virtually garentee that there would be an investigation (fire Comey) and that they would look into his money (when he said there was a red line, namely, his money.) Bannon, apparently, basically called him a moron to his face over this.

As far as the 25th, the emperor has no clothes, homeboy. He's not a genius thinking moves ahead. He's a man losing grip.

You can plug your ears, sir. But I do not follow the commands of The Party. I will, in fact, believe the evidence of my own eyes, and ears. Evidence which you have not even attempted to address, given to you in video format, for ease of consumption.

If you have some sort of response to that, that isn't "lol desperate" but actually has a coherent explanation for these events thus documented, I'd be more than happy to hear it. However, if you plan to play politics over it, when I am very much not trying to talk his politics, then I guess this conversation is over.
norok said @ 4:31pm GMT on 10th Jan
I don't think he follows The Party either... the GOP at least. If you recall the entire establishment of both have been against him since the start... and he beat them all. Genius? Maybe not. But he did something that took some form of acumen.

In response; I honestly just don't take it as genuine concern for his health nor the actual ramifications of someone actually showing signs of senility in public office. Those that bought into the Russia conspiracy theory and this are looking for anything to remove or delegitimize Trump... and that goal comes across far clearer than any rational analysis of any evidence provided to support the claims.
kylemcbitch said @ 4:52pm GMT on 10th Jan
It's not his health I am concerned about, and in that you are totally correct. I am concerned about the damage anyone with this mental state can do to us in the long term. Do you recall how friendly Trump got when the Chinese rolled out the carpet for him?

Today, this very day, those same people are trying to devastate our markets.

Yesterday, he almost agreed to a position totally counter to not only his party, but his own statements and had to be interrupted, and the transcript actually removed this part despite it being on video.

I could give less of a shit about Trump, and you'd think I'd be happy Trump is coming around on some issues to close to where I stand... but I am not, I am actually horrified. Because again, it simply took flattery.

That is not okay. I may not like his platform, but I think both of us can agree that a president who runs on something should stick to it, and not readily abandon it to his opposition just because they put on some charm.
norok said @ 5:00pm GMT on 10th Jan
Attacking his mental state also has a latent purpose of delegitimizing the platforms he ran on. As in, his counter-Left narratives, rhetoric, and policy that got him elected are so far removed from the 'approved' Leftist narrative that they must be from a crazy person. 'I mean, like, I can't even.'

That was the charge through the whole campaign and yet he won. If he can be removed because he was a foreign agitator or clinically insane then he can be written off as a fluke of history. Rather than what he now is historically; a President of the United States. The longer he is in office the narrative remains challenged.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 5:14pm GMT on 10th Jan
None of that addresses anything I said, Norok. That explains at best why YOU are resistant to the idea.

Please, humor me. Assume I am not looking to take out Trump so my side wins. To my mind, Pence is far worse politically. He's a dominionist and it seems his sense of social justice is somewhere in the 1950's. Unlike Trump, he could have political support that he could easily exploit within his party (damn near lock step.)

Now, I get where you are coming from. Pence, an establishment Republican would just be another way of trying to discredit his achievements and is just as unacceptable as any democrat.

But here is the thing... to me? That's not true. Pence is an existential horror to me an atheistic secular rationalist. I'd prefer that Trump continue to flounder getting not much done rather than Pence be in place and get work done that I will hate.

And here I am, saying I think Pence is the better option right now, because as much as that asshole bothers me, I am pretty sure he's not going crazy or demented. He would not pose nearly as much a risk to our long term security if he was allowed to be alone with foreign leaders.

There is a point where there are more important things than how I feel about the president's politics. This is that.

Fuck dude, if possible to find, I would say okay to someone literally a carbon copy of Trump stances to replace him, if that is what it took. The issue for me, right now, is the man, and not his politics.
norok said @ 5:54pm GMT on 10th Jan
It's not about being resistant to the idea; it's more of a meta-analysis.

I think the Pence angle just confirms my point about how at-all-costs the idea of removing Trump has become. The consequences are less important than the goal at hand.

Plus, the Left could far easier deal with Pence. Since Reagan the Religious Conservative Republican candidate was identified as a threat to the Left. So over the last two decades they set out to become experts at defeating that flavor of candidate. Trump came in, pushed the easily beaten competition out in the primaries, and became an unknown and uncontrollable existential threat by pulling support from key Blue demographics.

And yes, it has always been about the man. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
kylemcbitch said @ 6:19pm GMT on 10th Jan
Okay, if we are in meta-analysis...

Assuming I am not trying to deflate Trumpism, is there a way it could be preserved without him? It's not at-all-cost for me, it's "preserve the future of the republic." Obviously, that's the cost I am not willing to make. And trust me, no one on the left agrees with me. Most of these people think Trump and Pence will go down together, and that Ryan will magically be also gone from the equation because he was caught doing shady shit with someone wearing a wire.

This is not a position of the Left, this is my position, right now, based on easily observable facts and having read a book which has been widely confirmed to be more or less accurate. I won't enumerate the facts, as I already made a case for them above.

Hypothetically, if there was some way to ensure that Pence was not going to take the mantle... is there anyone you'd trust to carry the Trump torch? I will continue to fight that sort of politics regardless of who carries it, but this isn't about a political theory in a Alinsky book I never read.

I can't say "I do not care who is president," because I am not going to lie. I just want someone that is not showing signs of dementia to be doing the People's business when it comes to things which have serious, long term impacts.

It's one thing to have made a major change in our nation's future projection on purpose, and quite another to do it accidentally or by manipulation.
norok said @ 6:45pm GMT on 10th Jan
Sure, I'm all about an anti-Social Justice, anti-Socialist, movement. But that all goes counter to modern Leftism. Those ideas don't get given airtime. They are ignored, shamed, and downmodded. Trump himself, and unfortunately only him so far, transcended that hurdle.

Hmm, no one comes to mind immediately for the reason above. I think that is going to change over the next few years though. That's the real danger Trump presented. I remember watching the election results at a bar with my Libertarian friends just across from the local "Drinking Liberally" chapter. As Florida was "too close to call", before any confirmation, they looked like a funeral. The sheer closeness that Trumpism was coming to victory was a refutation of everything they believed in and it shook them.

But politics operate in a pendulum. That's what people don't seem to get. Give it some time. There WILL be another Democrat President, probably as soon as 2024. Then that team can do whatever they want, including alienating their opponents, so that someone even WORSE than Trump to them will take over again. It's why pundits like Bill Maher openly lament the shit they gave Romney back during that campaign and how glad they would be to have him instead.
kylemcbitch said @ 6:59pm GMT on 10th Jan
Okay, I don't think you're right about 2024. I am thinking closer to 2019, unless there is another fluke in polling.

It's a damn shame the movement is a cult of personality, because that personality is fundamentally a problem that can't be ignored for much longer. I was hoping that there was some Trumpian figure out there who might be able to get the reigns ala the way Nixon went: get the next person in line to resign so he can be replaced by said figure.

If the math keeps going the way it is, it will be President Pence by 2019. If Trump stepped aside and made sure his successor was one his base could support, they could try to keep their victory. Though, I agree that it would be difficult to recover from the personality of the cult of personality having to resign due to such reasons.

Which is maybe why Trump supporters should start having this conversation amongst themselves as well. Like I said in the first comment... this is only going to get more relevant. And I know that people opposite of me politically have noticed the same thing.

"Amnesty Don" anyone? Also complaints that he's pivoting due to his kids (because again, it's becoming clear he agrees with whoever flatters him best.)

For your own "movement's" sake, if not the country at large, you will need to form into more than just a cult of personality. If it's that monolithic, it's doomed.
norok said @ 7:21pm GMT on 10th Jan
Incumbents win re-election with a high probability. That's my basis and all we can know right now.

Nah, I don't think Trump supporters really have anything to discuss. In our minds; we were granted a reprieve from the way culture and politics were shifting over the last 9 years and we're just happy it was given pause. To me it seems like the Democrats need to do some soul searching. I watched the first Democratic Primary debate and saw the Center-Left eviscerated to jeers as ascendant identity politics and Socialism became the new platform.

I don't think I have my 'own movement.' I just wanted someone to troll the shit out of people that were manipulating the direction of American culture with reprehensible hubris. I got it. Four more years!
kylemcbitch said @ 8:49pm GMT on 10th Jan
Well, I think that's about all I got to say on it. I don't agree with you, but thank you for responding. Again, I want to apologize to you for conflating you with trolls. We might not agree, but you're not a troll.
norok said @ 9:55pm GMT on 10th Jan
Hey thanks, now to win the hearts and minds of the Socialist Erection clique!
4321 said @ 3:53am GMT on 17th Jan

White House physician, Rear Admiral Jackson, just conducted a full range of tests on the President.

In case you missed it…

“No reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought process.”

“Absolutely no concerns” about cognitive abilities.

The President performed “exceedingly well” on cognitive screening.


Pandafaust said @ 9:11am GMT on 9th Jan
In his defence, in Alzheimer's memory and language are effected relatively early on, his other cognitive abilities may be partially preserved still.
cb361 said @ 3:39pm GMT on 9th Jan
He will still be able to abuse women, he just won’t remember who they are.
ComposerNate said[1] @ 7:10pm GMT on 9th Jan [Score:1 Funsightful]
He's been upfront with denying knowing every woman he's abused, and that they were ugly and asking for it anyway.
mechanical contrivance said @ 3:51pm GMT on 9th Jan
Does it matter to him who they are?
ComposerNate said @ 11:09am GMT on 9th Jan
How has knowing the National Anthem words ever helped his brand?
cb361 said @ 3:40pm GMT on 9th Jan
The new national Anthem is “USA! USA!”
Hugh E. said @ 12:27pm GMT on 9th Jan

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings