I never watch those shows. But when you have a news channel on in the next room, it's hard to avoid. Maybe I should switch to the alternative music channel. Oh wait, they might play some songs by the Trump-hater band Highly Suspect. But damn, I love their music. I can't win for losing! :confused:

I can buy that well enough for those who got upset the morning after, or even hours after. But I'll be damned if I didn't start seeing uproar before the next commercial break ended.

Granted, my gripe about people engaging in paradoxical behavior (like hanging on every word of people they don't care about) is largely rhetorical. The left does a fair bit of it too -- ask any major radio talk host -- but I expect irrational behavior from them. It's more disconcerting to me when ostensibly kindreds do it. {shrug}

Okay, now THAT revelation I may take a shot at you for ;)

The current single is disappointingly droning, which frustrates me because they're capable of better work.

100% agree with this. It almost seems like they doth protest too much. In that, they actually do care what celebrities think. They just get upset when their favorite celebs think differently from them.

Love the debut album. Haven't heard the new song, but I appreciate any and all reviews (there are always too many knuckle-headed 5-star reviews on Amazon that you can't put stock in).

The fact is that Trump did mock a disabled person. No amount of denial from him can change it. It's one of the biggest reasons that I was appalled that people would even consider voting for him.

Policies aside. He is the bully. He talks big, acts big, denies ever doing anything wrong, uses his position and money to get out of responsibilities he signs on for and lashes out at anyone who dare challenge him on his actions or behaviors.

He passes out overhyped plaudits in an effort to subdue people when he knows he screwed up and repeats the same phrases over and over and over again in order to prove that he is sincere. It's akin to a 5 year old pleading to change the subject when he's been caught red handed and he desperately wants to shift the topic to something else and prove that he has learned his lesson.

Trump the bully has been given pass after pass and has learned exactly how to manipulate people. Tell them they're wonderful. Bully those you can. Publicly humiliate when appropriate to prove a point to keep others from copying and sue when all else fails.

It's a great gambit that's made him a lot of money and gotten him to the White House, but it's still just a school yard bully and all the bully behaviors that go along with it. Having been on the pointy end of that stick over and over again growing up, I have no respect for the decision to overlook these serious personality and character flaws and give him another pass.

So every time he's called out, and every time he lashes out like a little baby, good for him. He continues to prove the point that he is what he is. I would be for every tom, dick, and harry with any kind of plank to needle him publicly for all they're worth. Trump deserves to feel that kind of pressure, and that kind of public humiliation.

Even though I voted for him, I agree with some of your post. Here are three things:

* He didn't need to run. He honestly and sincerely wants to help America.

* It's almost universal that people who deal with him in private say that he is incredibly gracious and non-confrontational.

* If I worked for a company with a CEO like Public-Trump, I would not give a hoot about his character (unless he/she acted criminally). Just keep that stock moving upward.


Those things won't change your view, but they did make a difference for me (especially compared to my view of Hillary).

Last year I "scored" 198 different rock albums for my annual year-end Top 25(ish) Albums of the Year list.

Mister Asylum was 185th of those. Song-wise, I found "Bloodfeather" to be reasonably tolerable. Thought "Lydia" was poor, hate the current single "My Name Is Human".

I don't feel like anyone sincerely trying to help America would have spent the last 8 years saying the sitting, active President isn't actually an American.

Also, all the extremely vague points you stated as to why you voted for him could just as easily be applied to Hillary Clinton. They're just fluff that can't be independently verified.

I started a new thread. Maybe you can share your list?

Those aren't vague. They also aren't my reasons. They are just mitigating factors when trying to cope with his public antics.

He didn't need to run, but he will say that his biggest asset is the marketability of his name. Now, if being the President of the US isn't the biggest stage in the world to market your name I don't know what is. The implicit value alone from being in that position will pad his bottom line in more ways than he can count right now. It was always a way to move the needle on himself.

Whether he really wants to help America? I mean, c'mon. Who among us wouldn't? It's a freebie.

It's easy to be a gracious host at a party. Easy to spread your money around to make yourself feel better (we all do it to some extent), and to be non-confrontational when you're at the top of the food chain. He's got minions all over that will do that bidding for him. Your comment isn't generally applicable to a broad range of circumstances. There are plenty of times that he has shown, through his own actions, that he isn't non-confrontational.

And the final point is a great way to feel when you're doing good. All ethics go out the window when it benefits you and you're winning. But when bankruptcy comes, and the boss starts shitting down your back, and the same rules still apply, everyone comes out dirty except him.

I actually had the experience of my CEO bullet point. During his particular scandal (I won't name the company for personal reasons), I found myself on the elevator with him and he was happily chatting up a colleague seemingly without a care in the world. I only say this anecdotally as a (possibly) interesting post.

This is when the ambition bogeyman creeps back in. Trump has talked about wanting to be President since the 1980s. Look at his past quotes and articles.

"But what about the people who hate Stern?"
"Good point. The average Stern hater listens for 2 and a half hours a day."
"But if they hate him, why do they listen?"
"Most common answer: I want to see what he'll say next."

I can't stand the awards shows now either. It's just predictable at this point. Does have a weird cultish vibe to it. The Oscars were terrible and the politicizing of it has started already.

I do think people on the right lose the whole "stick to Hollywood" line when they just elected a reality TV star President.

I can understand that sentiment but I think you'd find it easier to just ignore that stuff in life. I used to care a lot in sports about the players moral compass. It just ruined sports for me. Same would go for movies and TV. You're going to be unhappy having to pre-screen any entertainment with whether you like their politics or not.

I liked Meryl Streep a lot less when she was louding cheering for Roman Polanski, none predator of the weak. I liked her speech, her points were excellent, and her acting was superb, like it always is.

I'm a bit bothered we have a president elect with such thin skin that someone in Hollywood can't talk about him with him without him 1.) commenting on it 2.) throwing an insult back

Yet it is a great distraction from the actual issues.

Trump played this game to the presidency, why should he stop now?

Where was Streep when the Obama administration was using drones to bomb civilians in non war zones and imprisoning whistleblowers?

and your totally equivalent point is?

My stunningly obvious point is that, when she was getting medals from the people in the White House, she had nothing to say about them committing war crimes. I'd take her comments about the douchebag PEOTUS more seriously if she had shown as much public indignity towards the obvious problems with Obama as she's showing about mocking a handicapped reporter. Drone strikes on civilians outside of war zones is much worse than being a putz on Twitter.

We don't expect consistency from our politicians, why would we hold actors to a higher standard?

Switch to French cinema

Because some of them, like Matt Damon, don't pull punches regardless of the party in office. Even if I don't agree with him I can respect him. Streep needs to stick to being a phenomenal actress if she's going to be no better than a TV news talking head.

Yeah, the people who get the most worked up about 'Hollywood liberal elites' talking down to them have certainly watched more television and movies than I ever have.

Log In - New York Times

1. "airstrikes it has conducted outside conventional war zones like Afghanistan have killed 64 to 116 civilian bystanders and about 2,500 members of terrorist groups" You got to ask, if your non war zone bombing killed 2,500 terrorist, is still a non war zone?
2. "Most of the strikes have been carried out by drones in chaotic places like Libya, tribal Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen"
3. Your obsession with Streep suggests you care nothing about the Boko Haram girls. :eek:

Knowingly killing civilians in a non war zone is a war crime. Period. It's wrong when a Republican okays it and it's wrong when a Democrat okays it. If you're okay with murder then you don't get to complain about Tweets and mocking disabled people.

I don't think that means what you think it does. For example, the Bush Doctrine vs. declaration of war.

So, there's a movement out there on Twitter called #grabyourwallet which intends to hurt businesses who somehow work with Trump in one way or another.

Now, look, I can understand that boycotts are a useful way to get the message out that behavior is to be punished (look at FlushRush/StopRush etcetera, which did a good job in driving advertisers away from Rush Limbaugh after the comments he made on Sandra Fluke"

The latest thing is boycotting LL Bean because one member of the family that owns LL Bean donated to a pro-Trump Super PAC.

Not the company. Not even the majority owner (ownership is split amongst the family).

I'm going to be blunt here, if you think that it's ok to boycott LL Bean because one member of their board donated to Trump, but you laughed at "One Million Moms" calling for a boycott of Target and Campbell's Soup for supporting same sex marriage, then you're vastly ignorant or need to check yourself for hypocrisy.

LL Bean isn't alone on the list: Other companies included in #GrabYourWallet's boycott list include Amazon, Bed Bath & Beyond, Hudson Bay, Macy's, TJ Maxx and Walmart." I think it's probably quicker to list who you CAN shop at then who you can't.

Politics, profits and the president at L.L. Bean - The Boston Globe

(fake edit: Why does it not surprise me that the person running the #grabyourwallet campaign is a "Brand & digital strategist".. I don't think that they are doing it solely for the brand marketing (of themselves), but there has to be at least some of that in there)

(fake edit 2: Andddd she's arguing with me on twitter. *laughs*)

Have these boycotts ever worked? Seems people like to talk about boycotts but not actually following through. It's the most slacktivist of all the slacktivism.

I think the most slacktivist idea ever was the one day gas boycotts.

Boycotts only work if they actually hit the business in the wallet. A handful of people on the interwebz not buying LL Bean isn't going to get it done.

It works if it can keep a company associated with scandal/bad PR. Two thatworked I can speak of, one is I said, the Flush Rush/Stop Rush campaign, the other is (ugh) Gamergate's targetting of Intel (a move that was later reversed with feeling as Intel found out that they were being used by a vocal fringe whose energies were much bigger then their numbers.

Pretty funny.

Meryl Streep, speech, Golden Globes, UFC, MMA, Dana White

Uh.. whoosh? The reason she said "mixed martial arts" because she wanted to say "which are not the arts". I thought that was fairly obvious.

It's shocking that a tone deaf celebrity would paint with a broad brush, which is the arts.

Pretty funny post from my friend, Amy Bruni, on her private FB page.

The thing with the NFL and the MMA didn't bug me (i.e., they're not the arts) because I also know that most sports fans would have their heads explode if people started calling ballet a sport.

It's not derogatory to say that football and mixed martial arts aren't "arts" even if they can be executed with artistry. They belong in the very useful non-arts category of sports, in the same way that an incredibly athletic dancer can belong in the very useful non-sports category of the arts.

The fact that I watched a 15 minute segment on Fox where people flipped their shit about her swipe at middle America in this non-central-to-her-thesis comment seemed like everything that's wrong with our society in a nutshell.

Both parties are equally guilty of this stupid projection and seeing things in the worst possible light (stubbornly, and on purpose, I suspect), and I'm getting tired of it.

"What did the president-elect pay Russian hookers to urinate on one another, and when did he pay them?"#UpdatedWatergateQuotes

— Mat (@sunnyright) January 10, 2017

Guess this isn't surprising considering his stance on vaccines in the past.

Vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. says Trump asked him to lead commission on ‘vaccine safety’ - The Washington Post

If CNN is right, and if the Russians really do have compromising material on Trump, what does that mean for the country? How can Trump or the Deep State or Congress handle this?

At this point, do Trump supporters care if he is into water sports?

LOL. "If CNN is right" That has to be the most funny line I have read in awhile. Thanks, man.

Wouldn't it be better to have him be someone blackmailed opposed to someone who is genuinely pro-Russia/Putin?

There is no truth.

Maybe not all that much better, practically speaking.

Russia looking good in the preseason, have to say.

We're definitely in a post-truth world, where about just anyone else, I'd say "Can you share whatever your smoking?" instead of "I dunno.. sounds plausible knowing the target..."

So if it turns out that we don't see tape of Trump getting peed on, then this will all be seen as anti-climatic.

This is a guy who openly lusts after his daughter. Getting peed on by a consenting non-relative adult would be a step up for him.

I wish that the media would actually focus on the story--that the President elect has deep ties to a hostile foreign state and the GOP refuses to even investigate them--instead of whatever weird gross sex thing Trump has going on at the time.

Here's the thing, seriously:

Russia appears to be less hostile to a halfway tolerable United States than the current (D) / liberal left.

I'd put Putin's ass in the WH over anyone misguided enough to associate themselves with the (D) brand in a heartbeat ... and, push come to shove, so would a LOT of Trump voters. He's at least occasionally sane, something we see far less frequently from the internal enemies.

When people say we don't care, honestly, we really don't.

Wow. This is just amazing.

Are you guys wearing tinfoil hats?

#PEEOTUS

The left is so out of touch with reality it is scary.

The face of the democratic party

So what I'm hearing is that R. Kelly still has a shot at being president.

I have stated that I'm not a Trump supporter and that I did not vote for him.

Having said that: Are you really going to talk about media "cover ups" when it comes to Trump after they spent the last 2 years ramming Hillary down Americas throat? Exactly what CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC or NBC anchor supported Trump in this past election? Some of those organizations (CNN, not naming names or anything) have been caught red handed helping Hillary win the nomination.

hell, the media isn't going to cover up any Trump story. The outlets are lined up at the gates waiting for him. I would love to see them catch him in something. (and I for one, hope they do catch him doing something) But to think the media isn't focusing on the Trump flaws? Okily dokily.

"You know, whether it's believable or not isn't he point, it's that it's possible, and we should totally have a discussion about it as if it was" --- Donald Trump (2008)

Coming from guys worshiping Putin and Russia.

Trump thinks vaccines cause autism, Obama was born in Kenya and never attended Columbia, and asbestos is safe. I don't know if these new reports are true or not but I think Trump supporters lost that high ground on conspiracies a long time ago.

Im not sure where you got that I support Russia or Putin. But that statement falls in line with the way democrats think. Make shit up and throw it out there. Truth? Overrated.

I'm not a Democrat.

Yes and Hillary lost the election because of Russians And Trump is racist and sexist and a misogynist, who wants to ban people from immigrating.

We can on all day. But the lies from the democratic side are either in greater number or have more mouthpieces to disseminate them. Either way, it is the wrong tact to take. They will continue to lose.

Im not a Trump supporter

Everything I said about him and conspiracy theories came from his own mouth. You can find tweets like this easily. Are you saying any of those previous statements are untrue?

I don't believe she lost the election because of Russians. I won't even call Trump a racist, sexist, or misogynist because those words have been so overused they have next to no meaning anymore.

Trump does however have the friendliest foreign policy toward Russia we've likely ever seen in our nation's history (or at least back to the old Russian Empire 100 years ago). His aides and appointments have heavy ties to Russia. His statements on Putin is well documented. So are his stance on NATO and Crimea. Those are not lies, they are words out of his own mouth. These aren't conspiracies at all. You can easily research the backgrounds of the individuals he surrounds himself and read through past speeches and tweets of his own praising pro-Russia policies.

You got it buddy.:rolleyes:

Andy Borowitz has been killing it today. #trickledowneconomics

You know, if Streep had gotten up there and talked about "Real Americans" and their love of America by the way they protect the second amendment...and on and on, she would have gotten an entirely different reaction from the right. The fact that she was an citizen with a big platform to speak from would have been seen as a plus instead of a negative.

The tropes would have been how Hollywood could learn a thing or two from her and how more actors and actresses with these views should stand up and talk about it. Instead we're left with arguments that these people shouldn't speak because their platforms are already too big and as single citizens, they shouldn't be allowed to use that to push some kind of agenda.

It's this double sided thinking that undermines the entire argument against her that is being made.

On a different tangent, if any, I mean any Democratic candidate for President had EVER tried to tell a company that they HAD to stay in the US or else, they would have been branded as the most anti-american, anti-capitalist, enemy of the state that has ever existed in American political history. So the idea that somehow the Republicans are going slip this past the public as something they came up with, for the betterment of the country is really beyond me.

Wow. Are you kidding me?
If Streep had gotten up and said what you are saying, she would have been kicked out of Hollywood. And no sheep is going to do that. Oh wait, no entertainers are performing at Trumps inauguration because they will lose work. Liberals promoting free speech.

I could care less what entertainers say. Entertainers make a living pretending to be someone else. Let them look stupid. Most are, and, like you, have blinders on.
By the way, when are all these Hollywood types leaving the country? I havent seen the mass exodus promised. Too bad.

Next tangent:

Or ELSE what? They get more taxes levied? Kind of like what happens if you dont buy insurance, right?

Yeah, the Dixie Chicks weren't hurt at all by their GWB comments, right?

Also, Target boycotts? Bitching about Starbucks and their "holiday" cups? Kellogg's? If speaking out against those with your wallet is fair game, same goes for liberals turning their backs on some performers.

Hell, we're seeing the backlash against Streep from the right right now!

Those last 3 paragraphs are spot on.

"When serious and conscientious outlets publish information for whose veracity they cannot vouch"

I pulled this. Remember Watergate. What if those guys had not done their jobs and actually investigated and got sources before they started printing stuff?

I know it is a different time and the goal is to get "news" out before the other guy. But that led to this whole "fake news" problem, right?

I dont get it, hasn't trump been asking for transparency and for people to release alleged Clinton emails, but releasing this for public review is somehow wrong?

It didn't lead to fake news. Fake news is literally just making up shit and publishing it for your echo chamber to consume. What led to fake news is people not wanting to believe news that doesn't confirm to how they want the world to be.

Maybe there is still a line of right wing nuts waiting to leave the country due to Obama being re-elected in 2012, then the left wing nuts will join them? Hell, maybe all the extremists from both sides can start their own country.

Arent those called California and Texas?

Pretty funny comment considering who you're defending.

Texas says fuck you

Because, you know, Clint Eastwood has never been heard from again since the 2012 election... aside from directing "Jersey Boys", "American Sniper", "Sully", and in rumored to be hired on "The Ballad of Richard Jewel".

But facts were never your strong suit.

The thing I've come to learn about white liberals is that, in general, their number one priority is their own image. "We love everybody!" (well, we love your votes anyway). Come across our borders and run to our Sanctuary Shities. Don't worry about committing crimes, we will protect you, and if that fails, we will work to pardon you. You lovable radicalized muslims, go ahead and commit terrorist acts, we will send you back to the middle east for more training. It will also give us another chance to call Republicans racist.

And then it is dark, and liberals gather to make their plans. Don't worry about the upcoming debate, we have somebody in place to steal the questions. Let's blow up some local Republican election centers. Let's call Scott Baio with a death threat. Let's go undercover at a Trump rally and try to start fights. Let's chase Trump rallyers down the street and beat the shit out of them. If that doesn't work, pull white guys out of their cars. And if you know any white handicapped people, torture them. If a white kills a black, get Spike Lee to twitter out his home address.

It is light now. The liberals put on their day face and walk among us.

Or Jon Voight or Kelsey Grammer or Tom Selleck or Vince Vaughn or Geralrd Mcraney or Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis or...

Bubbawheels?

Who isnt going tohire Eastwood? He is the most succesful actor/director/producer in Hollywood.

While Streep has been successful, she only acts and can be replaced easily.

But facts were never your strong suit.

Have those guys made a political speech at a awards presentation? On national tv?

Im not sure. If so, then Im wrong. if not, you know why.

Or else the US government will interfere with your ability to operate in the market. The US government will purposely work to hurt your bottom line through both the use of tax punishments and public propaganda.

So you're saying then that it wouldn't be considered un-American (ie free market capitalism) for the US government to tell a company how they should or how they will operate?

Because you're full of shit if you think that would have flown at all the last 16 years or longer.

And no, I've got no blinders on brotha. I hit the nail on the head squarely. You may not care what they have to say, then don't pay attention and don't complain, but don't support those who do use their social position to push an agenda you support, otherwise you simply come off looking like a hypocrite.

Didn't Trump just run an entire campaign based on lies and subjective based arguments that might not be true, but they could be, so we leave it up to the public to decide whether or not it is?

Now he's railing against the same tactic?

I've been trying to figure out who he is too.

OMG, I hope I don't sound like someone named Bubba. I guess I could also not be a "he". But no, it's just me. I put my issue list in an earlier post. Let me know if that list matches this Bubba person.

EDIT: page 22

... There is just so much wrong with this post it is insane. The world you live in is quite strange and scary - I much prefer reality.

Still no details. All rambling. Dodge and deflect any question and then spout nonsense for 5 minutes.

Re: Streep I couldn't care less if she gives her speech and haven't searched it out, but the anti-sports part I have heard seems pretty dumb. First the implication that football is for neanderthals who don't also enjoy art and culture, and then for including MMA when it's a very international sport. It isn't a liberal vs conservative narrative so much as condescending artist assuming they're all dumb jocks. (Yes, I realize it's likely that Mixed Martial Arts were included because they have art in the name, but it's a cute turn of phrase the facts don't support.)

Re: Trump it's an oppo research dossier from a retired intel officer full of unverified (and apparently in many cases unverifiable) rumors & innuendo. There's definitely some true stuff in there, but also some false stuff when you throw that much shit at the wall. I make it a general rule not to trust them or buzzfeed, but the golden shower part is definitely something 4chan would do, and unfortunately the attention on that part will both be used to gloss over many other allegations contained & be used to discredit future allegations as Fake News.

Are you serious? The US government will purposely work to hurt your bottom line through both the use of tax punishments and public propaganda. That is exactly what they did with Obamacare. Taxed you if you didnt comply. And forced business to offer health insurance. Even if they couldnt afford it.


"So you're saying then that it wouldn't be considered un-American (ie free market capitalism) for the US government to tell a company how they should or how they will operate?"
Have you been in country the last 8 years? How many small businesses closed due to Obamacare? And were there not businesses being told what type of things they had to cover. And people they had do business with?
So the government was telling companies how to do business.

And I dont listen to any entertainer. Be it a football player or an actor. They are not in tune enough to listen too. So, you go ahead and let Meryl Streep (hahahaha) be your mouth piece.

And the assumption I back Trump is funny also. I didnt vote for him in either the primary or the general.

Im just tired of the liberal BS.

Im tired of the lies and the rambling and the doging and the deflection.

Im tired of the GOP as well.

I hate some of the appointees that Trump has thrown out there. But what can you do? Cry and bitch and moan like the Alt left?

But enough about this thread.

Did you know that the government MAKES companies contribute to unemployment insurance? AND Social Security? AND they have a minimum wage? AND they tax goods and services!

Imagine how much better the bottom line would be without that!

Health insurance is a passthrough cost to the employee. Doesn't affect the bottom line. Same with unemployment insurance, social security, etc that businesses are forced to comply with. Same goes for federal income tax withholding. There is a reason you didn't hear much from smart, successful businesses about this.

As for hurting the bottom lines of businesses, where are the results of that? Markets are the highest they've ever been and we're nearing full employment.

The labor force participation rate is lower than the 50 year average and down significantly from the early 2000s. According to the CBO only half of the drop since Obama took office is due to aging out.

As you mention half of that is baby boomers. We'll likely never reach the peaks we saw in the 80's and 90's when the baby boomers were in their prime years. The decline has also coincided with increase in attending college. If you look at those same numbers for prime working years of 25-54, the numbers have been steadily getting better.

It's an interesting puzzle though. I know a lot of economists disagree on reasons for the remaining drop. Some say it's all about the economy. Some thing it's more complex and might include secondary earners who are only willing to go back to work if the right situation appeared.

Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare hurting actual business bottom lines as tarcone implied. Businesses are thriving even if you conclude that there are many people out of work.