Yes. And your claim that public perception of obesity vs race is a bigger factor than nutrition in neonatal oucomes is 1) nuts and 2) the premise isn't even true.
What's next? Black names cause cancer?
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
What's next? Black names cause cancer?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What's next, prioritize our problems and free vitamins are up today?
??
Prioritizing our problems is a good idea. So are free vitamins.
I have a feeling you were going for a sick burn, but you sort of got lost along the way.
Perpetual Bliss
One of the interesting things about picking up the latest trend in young liberal political commentators is how easy conservatives are making it.
Similarly, one of the curiosities of American politics in recent generations is how stupid we must believe Republicans are while never criticizing or even mentioning this point.
Dinesh D'Souza, for instance, is stupid. At this point, that's the only explanation still standing.
Consider recent political noise in which the swatstika-bearing, "roman" saluting, genocidal authoritarians complain that anybody notices; you know, like the conservative complaint that liberals use words like Nazi or fascist to describe people wearing swatstikas, declaring plenary authority for ethnic cleansing, and so otherwise making it obvious.
And if, for some American observers, the south-Asian-American relationship with the Republican Party in recent years has always seemed something of a headscratcher, the second Trump presidency ought to have made certain things clear: When the white supremacists went after J.D. Vance's wife and kids, he didn't stand up for his family. We're not even a year into the term and we're supposed to pretend people like Harmeet Dhillon, Dinesh D'Souza, or even Kash Patel never knew, had no idea, are shocked to learn.
So, there's the backstory. The setup for the moment starts with former congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) denouncing↱ Trump's unchecked destruction of the White House; Dinesh D'Souza responded↱ on brand, pitching a mix of pride and racism in his compalint about Biden and Democrats tearing down walls; at that point, alt-chan Ribbert assailed D'Souza in a typal racist rant↱, and D'Souza is shocked, shocked I tells ya↱: "In a career spanning 40 years," he laments, "I have never encountered this type of rhetoric." And then he goes on to say, "The Right never used to talk like this," and people who have been around long enough know just how full of shit that is.
But the younger generation sees it differently; they don't necessarily know about the past, so some of them are reading this like it's D'Souza's first dance: Twentysomething podcaster Adam Mockler expressed surpriseȑ, suggesting, "D'Souza realizes in real time that the GOP has been completely consumed by racism."
But then something else clicked, and the thing is, Dinesh D'Souza really is exemplary of something. In addition to the King's College episode, and the campaign finance felony conviction Trump pardoned, there was also the time D'Souza produced a conspiracy theory into a movie, and even the writers of the discredited conspiracy theory rebuked his irresponsibility. And maybe Mockler hasn't caught up on those parts, yet, because it's a lot and it's buried in noise, and it's kind of unbelievable except it really did happen.
Thus, a few minutes after expressing his surprise, Mockler followed up with another obvious point. Conservative cartoonist Antonio Branco depicted a 9/11-style attack, with an airliner labeled, "Mandami" flying toward a Trade Center building labeled "NY City". It's a rough cartoon, as it is, but D'Souza posted it with the comment, "The difference is this time New York might be asking for it."
Thus, as Mockler pointed out, "Dude, you literally tweeted this right after." That is to say, per Dinesh—
—and, let's be honest, it was about six hours later that D'Souza had sufficiently recovered from his shock to justify terrorism as a response to electoral outcomes he doesn't like.
And there's nothing new about that. Mockler was seven when Sarah Palin marked her political opponents with crosshairs; going on eight years old when Sharron Angle suggested Second Amendment remedies for Republicans unhappy with election results; he was all of eight when Jared Lee Loughner made good on all that conservative tough talk.
A diligent student of history will eventually find a lot of that history, but, for the moment, it's worth considering how easy Republican glass jaws make it for liberal critcis to hit them. I'm pretty sure Mockler is aware of the Southern Strategy. That we should pretend D'Souza doesn't know is about on course for a man whose career arc describes a professional idiot.
But it does remind the question: Do we really think these conservatives don't know?
One of the interesting things about picking up the latest trend in young liberal political commentators is how easy conservatives are making it.
Similarly, one of the curiosities of American politics in recent generations is how stupid we must believe Republicans are while never criticizing or even mentioning this point.
Dinesh D'Souza, for instance, is stupid. At this point, that's the only explanation still standing.
Consider recent political noise in which the swatstika-bearing, "roman" saluting, genocidal authoritarians complain that anybody notices; you know, like the conservative complaint that liberals use words like Nazi or fascist to describe people wearing swatstikas, declaring plenary authority for ethnic cleansing, and so otherwise making it obvious.
And if, for some American observers, the south-Asian-American relationship with the Republican Party in recent years has always seemed something of a headscratcher, the second Trump presidency ought to have made certain things clear: When the white supremacists went after J.D. Vance's wife and kids, he didn't stand up for his family. We're not even a year into the term and we're supposed to pretend people like Harmeet Dhillon, Dinesh D'Souza, or even Kash Patel never knew, had no idea, are shocked to learn.
So, there's the backstory. The setup for the moment starts with former congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) denouncing↱ Trump's unchecked destruction of the White House; Dinesh D'Souza responded↱ on brand, pitching a mix of pride and racism in his compalint about Biden and Democrats tearing down walls; at that point, alt-chan Ribbert assailed D'Souza in a typal racist rant↱, and D'Souza is shocked, shocked I tells ya↱: "In a career spanning 40 years," he laments, "I have never encountered this type of rhetoric." And then he goes on to say, "The Right never used to talk like this," and people who have been around long enough know just how full of shit that is.
But the younger generation sees it differently; they don't necessarily know about the past, so some of them are reading this like it's D'Souza's first dance: Twentysomething podcaster Adam Mockler expressed surpriseȑ, suggesting, "D'Souza realizes in real time that the GOP has been completely consumed by racism."
But then something else clicked, and the thing is, Dinesh D'Souza really is exemplary of something. In addition to the King's College episode, and the campaign finance felony conviction Trump pardoned, there was also the time D'Souza produced a conspiracy theory into a movie, and even the writers of the discredited conspiracy theory rebuked his irresponsibility. And maybe Mockler hasn't caught up on those parts, yet, because it's a lot and it's buried in noise, and it's kind of unbelievable except it really did happen.
Thus, a few minutes after expressing his surprise, Mockler followed up with another obvious point. Conservative cartoonist Antonio Branco depicted a 9/11-style attack, with an airliner labeled, "Mandami" flying toward a Trade Center building labeled "NY City". It's a rough cartoon, as it is, but D'Souza posted it with the comment, "The difference is this time New York might be asking for it."
Thus, as Mockler pointed out, "Dude, you literally tweeted this right after." That is to say, per Dinesh—
In a career spanning 40 years, I have never encountered this type of rhetoric. The Right never used to talk like this. So who on our side has legitimized this type of vile degradation? It's a question worth thinking about.
—and, let's be honest, it was about six hours later that D'Souza had sufficiently recovered from his shock to justify terrorism as a response to electoral outcomes he doesn't like.
And there's nothing new about that. Mockler was seven when Sarah Palin marked her political opponents with crosshairs; going on eight years old when Sharron Angle suggested Second Amendment remedies for Republicans unhappy with election results; he was all of eight when Jared Lee Loughner made good on all that conservative tough talk.
A diligent student of history will eventually find a lot of that history, but, for the moment, it's worth considering how easy Republican glass jaws make it for liberal critcis to hit them. I'm pretty sure Mockler is aware of the Southern Strategy. That we should pretend D'Souza doesn't know is about on course for a man whose career arc describes a professional idiot.
But it does remind the question: Do we really think these conservatives don't know?
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
His books and films seem pathological in their dishonesty - I would think they'd seem like jokes to most people not grown in a RW petri dish.
And there's his famous attempt to paint the American Left as Nazis - a textbook case of psychological projection.
The quote I mainly know him by:
"The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."
You would think that howler would have finished him, back in the 90s, but this is America, where attention spans are short and everyone gets a second act no matter how stupid or bigoted or felonious.
And there's his famous attempt to paint the American Left as Nazis - a textbook case of psychological projection.
The quote I mainly know him by:
"The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."
You would think that howler would have finished him, back in the 90s, but this is America, where attention spans are short and everyone gets a second act no matter how stupid or bigoted or felonious.
There are so many images at the moment of demolition at the White House. What was once just metaphorical is now plastered across the media, as Trump's "it won't touch the East Wing" ballroom vanity project didn't so much break ground as rip in to the literal structure of the administration. The East Wing is no more. In it's place the US will be "gifted" a 55,000 ft2 gaudy, ostentatious ballroom that will dwarf the rest of the buildings on the site.
There is naturally some outrage, both at the what, and how. Plans haven't even yet been approved, any historical importance of the East Wing has been rejected to the point where it wasn't even allowed to be considered. The Republicans are pushing back on this "fake outrage" by pointing to Obama's own alterations. As a reminder, his was the repurposing of a tennis court into a basketball court... that can still be used as a tennis court.
Trump's is a $250m+ "gift", supposedly funded by private donors (there's a list: all the usual suspects of tech companies and billionaires who want to stay on his good side). And he says he will donate from his own pocket as well... or at least from the $230m that he's suing his own DoJ for, for the "witch hunt" he thinks he endured, and the politically-motivated indictments etc. With an impartial DoJ they might turn round and say that he has no grounds in that they felt that in each instance they had a good case, and could still bring those cases to trial when he is no longer President... but this DoJ? Good one. So the US tax payer could well be paying out $230m to Trump. But, hevk, that's another story.
Back to the demolition of American democracy... sorry, to the White House (or East Wing thereof). When one looks at images of the building being torn down, it's so hard not to see the metaphor for what Trump is doing to American democracy.
But, hey, let's hope for two things:
1. The ballroom ends up a tasteful space, with restrained decor, and is actually used more than once a year, and for more than just self-enriching purposes by the POTUS.
2. That the images of the destruction of the building do not ultimately represent Trump's impact on US democracy.
There is naturally some outrage, both at the what, and how. Plans haven't even yet been approved, any historical importance of the East Wing has been rejected to the point where it wasn't even allowed to be considered. The Republicans are pushing back on this "fake outrage" by pointing to Obama's own alterations. As a reminder, his was the repurposing of a tennis court into a basketball court... that can still be used as a tennis court.
Trump's is a $250m+ "gift", supposedly funded by private donors (there's a list: all the usual suspects of tech companies and billionaires who want to stay on his good side). And he says he will donate from his own pocket as well... or at least from the $230m that he's suing his own DoJ for, for the "witch hunt" he thinks he endured, and the politically-motivated indictments etc. With an impartial DoJ they might turn round and say that he has no grounds in that they felt that in each instance they had a good case, and could still bring those cases to trial when he is no longer President... but this DoJ? Good one. So the US tax payer could well be paying out $230m to Trump. But, hevk, that's another story.
Back to the demolition of American democracy... sorry, to the White House (or East Wing thereof). When one looks at images of the building being torn down, it's so hard not to see the metaphor for what Trump is doing to American democracy.
But, hey, let's hope for two things:
1. The ballroom ends up a tasteful space, with restrained decor, and is actually used more than once a year, and for more than just self-enriching purposes by the POTUS.
2. That the images of the destruction of the building do not ultimately represent Trump's impact on US democracy.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
The RW has never been skilled at whataboutism.
It's usually something like:
Hey, GOP pol X. robbed the Treasury of six billion dollars for his yacht collection, raped nine interns, sold missile silo schematics to China, and exhumed the corpse of Julie Andrews so he could violate it on the stage at the CPAC conference.
GOP reply: Clinton didn't pay the property tax on his fishing shack, three years running! Who are you to judge? Glass houses!
Har!
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Try flying with one wing! You have to take some from both RW and LW to achieve the necessary balance for society.
We've known for years the wings are asymmetric. Why would we suddenly pretend otherwise?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Or "what about the ballroom!" "That's not fair!".
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's true. "Lets try to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza" But what about the ballroom!
"We have a debt problem. Let's cut some spending" What about the farmers!.
"Let's focus on the economy" Trump's a rapist.
Yes, you have pointed out but a small handful of items that plague America, all primarily due to Trump, of course. The problem is that you Conservatives (fascists/nazis) somehow believe there is an equivalence to what you are doing to America and the world and what Dems have been doing.
"Let's try to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza." Seattle: "But we have a debt problem!"
"OK let's work on the debt problem." Seattle: "Let's focus on the economy instead!"
It is possible to deal with more than one thing at a time. For example, pointing out that Trump, as a convicted felon, should be in jail, does not mean we can't try to reduce his deficit - which is rising faster than any other in history.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Every debt rises faster than at any other time in history. The stock market, in a bull market, is usually at an all time high. It's just math. The debt is more because of FDR and our ineffective Congress than for any other reason. A full budget hasn't been presented and voted on since 1997.
If he managed to calm things down in Gaza or Ukraine will he still be the orange faced felon? Hey, what about the ballroom! We can try to reduce "his deficit" but then "what about the Federal workers!" and the vitamins for the babies!
You sound just like Fox News. You see, not all fascists are nazis, but all nazis are fascists, so there needs to be a distinction between the latest American Conservatives. And of course, it's a very simple matter to substantiate these terms simply from the words and actions of your cowardly leaders.
It's puzzling though, how one would substantiate the terms you provide. Naturally, it's easy to dismiss the "Satanists" label as that is clearly some religious nonsense being flung like feces from a monkey in a zoo hoping it will stick somewhere.
But, the "killers, traitors" labels should be very interesting to hear substantiated considering what state the US was in when Dems controlled the government. The stats don't lie, but Conservatives (fascists, nazis) most certainly do. Feel free to defecate more of your insane claims.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Throwing Wilson and FDR into debt comparisons is dubious, given both started with much smaller debt totals and then had to gear up for world wars. Among modern presidents, who did not have world wars or the Great Depression, Reagan is the standout.
Really, scapegoating the four term president tasked with handling the crash aftermath, the ensuing Depression, massive drought, the Dust Bowl, and WW2, is failing to understand the underlying causes of long-term growth in national debt.
Funny to hear you poo-poo the historically rapid increase in our debt! I am sure that once democrats are back in power, you will be screaming about it daily, rather than minimizing it and trying to exonerate the administration and party in control of Congress.
What an odd question.
He will always be a convicted felon, yes, by definition, no matter what he does. Since he decides what sort of makeup to use, his color is his choice, and he will stop being orange-faced once he decides to stop using orange makeup on his face.
This isn't hard.
Back when Trump first won in 2024, conservatives were ecstatic that they had been vindicated, and everything would now be better.
But since then they have only gotten more angry and bitter. Their rage at the No Kings protests. Their anger at Mandami, and Pelosi, and Obama, and Biden. Their angry and incoherent rants like the line above. It's almost as if their dreams did not come true, and they are only now realizing that they made a huge mistake.