veronica_rich: (mousie owned!)
The numbness of Election Night is just now wearing off, and so I thought I might try to keep some thoughts here when they come to me on the state of the nation. I did this somewhat irregularly back in the mid-Bush years but didnt see it as recording history at the time - not the facts of dry legislation and happenings, but the fact of the overall mood of people and the air ... for lack of a better way to put it.

So the cast of Hamilton makes Pence sit and listen to a 30-second plea to treat everyone equally, and Trump thinks THIS is disrespectful? Not that I'm surprised, I suppose - but I think it speaks to the fundamental optimism in my nature that I had sort of hoped actually going to the White House and hearing from Obama his work in person, would humble him enough to realize he needs to shut the fuck up with petty bullshit and focus on making up the tremendously steep learning curve doing this job will be. I mean, shit, even Dubya seemed to realize the job was serious even if he wasn't good at it.

But this is what happens when you gift the White House to a literal loser, isn't it?

seriously?

Nov. 8th, 2016 11:17 pm
veronica_rich: (cucuy)
ARE YOU GODDAMN KIDDING ME??

YOU DO KNOW HE HAS ACTIVE LAWSUITS AGAINST HIM, INCLUDING A CASE INVOLVING UNDERAGE SEXUAL SHIT?!
veronica_rich: (mousie owned!)
... is shine a light on the inherent hypocrisy and internal ill logic of various Republican policy positions developed over the past few decades.

I think what showed this more than anything were his ridiculous comments on punishing abortion and the women who seek them, in his town hall interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC (props to Matthews, BTW, for continuing to push when Trump clearly wanted the matter to go away). A commentator on "Morning Joe" today correctly pointed out that Trump sounded like "somebody who was pro-choice trying to sound like he's not."

Honestly, if you put me in front of a camera or microphone and told me I had to pretend I wasn't pro-choice, I would have said the exact same things he did, to make an exaggerated point: Namely, that the GOP platform position on reproductive choice IS punishing women. Cruz and Kasich and these other anti-choicers who rode in afterward to denounce Trump and be all like "oh no, of course you shouldn't punish a woman who has an abortion, she's a victim too, blah blah ..."

Please tell me how wanting to make it legal to make an adult human go against their own self-interest and forcing them to undergo a major medical process if they don't want to isn't punishment in itself. Please tell me how forced pregnancy and childbirth and child-rearing isn't an economic issue for just one class of people (namely, poor women), that some politicians clearly must want to punish. Please tell me how having one standard for half the population that is not imposed on the other half isn't already a form of punishment.

In what probably looks like a bit of tactical genius, but is actually only a question that should have been being asked all along anytime "abortion" comes up, Matthews also asked Trump if he would punish the men who get women pregnant who have abortions, or who help them have abortions. Of course, the answer was "no." Again, this is what I would have said if you'd forced me to take the anti-choice stance, to illustrate the dumbness that surrounds the issue of trying to tell the major segment of the population what they can do with their hoo-hoos and associated organs in their free time. More than anything, I just imagine Republican politicians everywhere hearing Trump come off with all that last night and going, "NOOOOOO, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY IT OUT LOUD FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR, CHRIST AMIGHTY, MAN!"

Pfffft. ;-)
veronica_rich: (mousie owned!)
If you have not seen the new "Trump: The Art of the Deal" short TV movie, here's the link to the trailer for it:

http://youtu.be/VJm-E38G3-0

There's a lot of strong language, as a warning, in the full movie. You think it sounds boring or obnoxious - just trust my judgment on this one and watch the trailer. There's a link at the end to watch the whole thing if you like.
veronica_rich: (mousie owned!)
So here's how it's gonna go for the presidency in 2016. Nothing really significant has changed in my predictions because of last week's GOP "debate" (please, like that was a real thing), just a couple of things solidified:

1. Trump will not get the GOP nomination and will break away to run as an Independent, Ross Perot-style. Unless he runs out of money before next November, the Democrat nominee is almost certain to win, since he will split the conservative vote.

2. Trump will get the GOP nomination, barring lack of funds to carry him through the primary or some scandal enough to sink even him. At that point, the election is really a wild card and I honestly can't say if he or the Democrat would win it - if it's Hillary, there's a chance she'll lose. If it's Sanders, he might be able to beat Trump with grassroots numbers (that's assuming those same numbers can get him through the primary first).

3. Trump will bow out of the race at some point for some reason (lack of funds, or enough encroachment from unhappy stakeholders on his business-related income to get his attention and make him drop out), at which point the race becomes unpredictable again, at least for me.

A footnote: When the GOP lost again in 2012 its leadership vowed to reexamine and be "less stupid" (the chairman's words) and recraft its message to reach more voters who weren't middle-aged and old white males. While whatever they did worked for the 2014 Congressional race, that was no real surprise since old people with money are the most likely to turn out for midterms anyway - they have the time and the financial incentive to vote, and there's nothing glamorous about midterms, let's face it. I don't think they've done anything at all toward that 2012 goal, except to scrape around and find a handful of token women and minorities willing to sell out and support the GOP brand in exchange for ... what, money? Attention? A secure job? Media exposure to be hired by Fox News later? Pick one. I believe a few may be disillusioned by the unfulfilled promise of the Democrats to look out for their interests, but I don't think it's a high percentage.

Someone asked me the other day why he never heard anything about the Tea Party anymore. I told him it's really simple: They're no longer a fringe element. They've taken over the GOP. If moderate Eisenhower Republicans want a party, they're going to have to break away and create a third. They are not getting their old wealthy mailing list back.

Also: Watching the three moderators at the Fox News debate-circus aggressively questioning their own kind made me wonder about something. You know how if a studio has a successful movie and wants to make a sequel, the general storyline is to somehow bring down or otherwise try to break the beloved character(s) in order to create conflict and build interest? (Then the third installment is generally a rebuilding of the origins story from the first movie ... but that's not important for this analogy.) It occurred to me Fox has spent about 25 years striving to create the GOP monster we now see; it would make cinematic sense for them to start trying to break it down, but in a way to appeal to its vast underpaid, older, easily-led viewership. Too, not only do they no longer have the likes of Jon Stewart to compete with, they don't yet have ANYBODY like him to compete with - it makes sense to take advantage of this vacuum to try to leap in and fill that hole in some way that won't leave them exposed to his brand of ridicule and investigation. I mean, come on, did anybody else wonder why their big debate was scheduled the same night as his last show? ;-)
veronica_rich: (mousie owned!)
Did anyone else watch that shitshow of a GOP "debate" last night?

What was with the sudden aggression on the part of Fox News pundits to ask unflattering questions of the candidates and try to push for actual answers? No, Roger and Rupert - you've spent a quarter-century helping build the Tea Party monster the GOP is today, and you can't damn well try to reverse course now just because Jon Stewart's off the air and you think you could possibly plug any of that hole by employing similar shade-throwing tactics.

(Heh, it's great the way they totally waited 'til it was too late for Jon to comment on their antics for this event. One might think it was deliberately scheduled that way.)

I won't even get into the individual candidates, except to note that (a) had the 15-year-old members of a debate team acted the way some of those guys did in a competition, they would have been disqualified; and (b) the contest in absence of being able to pick on gay people this time 'round (unlike in 2004) is to tout Who Has Denied or Taken Away Women's Rights and/or Access to Affordable Health Care the fastest or most.

Although, I will observe that while Donald Trump may be an arrogant blowhard asshole, Scott Walker is unfiltered, concentrated evil. When he said he was "aggressively normal," well, he's not wrong - it's often been observed Satan in fact wouldn't be flashy or noticeable, since blending in would allow him to wreak the most Uncreation possible.

Profile

veronica_rich: (Default)
veronica_rich

August 2017

S M T W T F S
   12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 05:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios