Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

I don't know about you all, but when I heard about how Donald Trump was encouraging folks at his rallies to beat up protesters of Trump at his rallies, I immediately thought of the Jerry Springer show (which I never watch, of course -- but have seen).

In 1997 and 1998, the show reached its ratings peak, at one point becoming the first talk show in years to beat The Oprah Winfrey Show.[51] It featured almost non-stop fighting between guests—5 to 12 per day during one April 1998 week—and religious figures and even other TV personalities complained.[4] Chicago City Council suggested that if the fistfights and chair-throwing were real, then the guests should be arrested for committing acts of violence in the city, as alderman Ed Burke was concerned over the fact that the off-duty Chicago police officers serving as security guards for the program failed to take legal action against fighting guests.[52] Springer explained that the violence on the program "look[ed] real" to him, also arguing that the fighting on the show "never, ever, ever glamorizes violence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerry_Springer_Show#Controversies_over_authenticity_and_violence

Of course, Trump is a trash tv STAR. He was all wrapped up on WrestleMania and other fake "reality tv" shows. He appeals to folks who think "reality tv" reflects actual freaking... well, reality.

If folks had any intelligence at all they'd say to Trump, "You're fired!"

But no. Trump will be the nominee of the Republican freaking Party!

Trump learned ever so much from Jerry Springer and his live audience guests.

https://youtu.be/pTLGkQeUjTs

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent
 
Last edited:
What's the real difference between Donald Trump, the Jerry Springer Show and WWE WrestleMania?

https://youtu.be/v11nceoFJRg

Think of it! Trump figured out how to get massive support of the general populace by convincing America that there is a wrestling match going on in which chairs will be thrown.

It's simple.

Sadly, for America.

(Is it something in the water?)
 
I wasn't paying attention while the radio was playing, & I'd swear I heard some guy at a rally say something like "the Democrats say they want to keep guns away from the mentally ill, but they support homosexual marriage, so how can anyone let THEM decide who's crazy?" apparently to support the God-given rights of severely unhinged people to carry firearms.

It made my head hurt. Part of me wants to find out where that clip came from, part of me wants to pretend it never happened.

Spork, I really do agree with most of what you say. I mean, I've been all over the spectrum. The first time I voted was 1976, & I happily voted for Gerald Ford, in part because his opponent was backed by a bunch of grinning creeps calling themselves The Moral Majority. :eek: At state & local levels, I voted mostly Democrat with some leftie minor parties tossed in. I supported Reagan's first term because I really wanted to believe in the "social safety net" stuff he kept promising. After THAT set of lies, & the ever-increasing use of outright doublespeak in EVERYTHING said by EVERY representative of the GOP, I gave up completely on the Right.

And I gave up on the Libertarian Party when I realized they were practically parroting The John Birch Society that had been so active in rural Minnesota when I was a kid.

FWIW: one of the founders of the JBS was Fred Koch, whose sons are, well, just a little active in financially supporting the spread of Rightist memes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

So, after hearing that little snippet on the radio, I realized we (as a nation) are hosed.

Mike Malloy once called Bill Clinton "the best Republican president we've ever had," because Bill is only a step or less Leftward of (say) Barry Goldwater:
By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life.
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

A few years before his death he addressed establishment Republicans by saying, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."
The thing is, thanks to the Nixon-era Southern Strategy, & then rapidly accelerating during Reagan, discourse & even thinking have been bulldozed so far Rightward that the current "center" would've been considered Moderate Conservative fifty years ago. And I feel as though Hillary Clinton is a step or two Rightward from Bill.

But there's certainly nobody in the GOP horserace who's going to say ANYTHING nice about homosexuals, much less sociosexual deviants such as ourselves. And their economic program is just a bad Resident Evil ripoff -- call it Reagonomiics III: The Mutation.

As for Bernie supporting bigger government... no. Just no. For instance, Vermont's income tax rates are about average for the Northeast -- CNN Money ranks them 31st (& 39th on sales/excise taxes). As taxes are necessary to support a bloated bureaucracy, I'd have to infer that maybe if Bernie can't do it in li'l ol' Vermont, maybe an entire nation is safe.:D

Okay, so let's consider how he'd treat Big Business. I'll pull up a chart from the "objective" Tax Foundation (a major recipient of Koch Bothers money).
http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015-state-business-tax-climate-index
Therein, Vermont does indeed fall (at #46) into their 10 Worst Business Tax Climates.

...as do California (#48), New York (#49), & Kasich's Ohio (#44). If the TF is saying that business flees these places, then someone really ought to inform (say) Silicon Valley.:rolleyes:

Regulation of businesses -- or rather reregulation -- is easier by the moment. Polluters can be monitored via commercial satellite, & video drones make site inspections a snap.

Taxes? All the hoopla over capital flight & "brain drain" is largely arm-waving nonsense. Let's recall that the Revenue Act of 1935 hit the wealthy for up to 75%. :eek: And then there was 1942, which nailed corporations for 24%, & 31% over $25,000, as well as a surtax (10%-22%). Funny, ain't it, how those who invoke The Good Old Days always seem to forget about these little details?:D

Bernie's about as Communist as FDR. Socialism is not Communism, the former being an economic philosophy, the latter a politocal ideology. Socialism supports state ownership or control or oversight, but cooperative (usually local) control.

On the other side of the aisle, Fascism believes that a society should be ruled by a tiny minority of the self-perpetuating uber-wealthy. "Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society." Of course, if The People are swayed to "elect" the biggest, loudest, meanest bully in the room, then likelihood of armed revolt is reduced, at least for a while. Hey, has anyone else read It Can't Happen Here...?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know I was being...particular?...but I was trying to illustrate a general sense of skepticism that I have. It's like, I really would like to believe in things like socialized healthcare. Tax and wage reforms that help the middle class survive at the expense of the wealthiest? OK. So long as people are getting what they earn and earning what they get, I can't argue. Many of the rich are kinda weaselly and probably don't deserve what they wind up with. I've known of enough municipal scams and sleazy dealings that made millionaires out of con artists. I'd actually prefer a government that uncovered and punished corruption, by taking the assets of those who scammed it and redistribute THAT instead of just taxing everyone the same. Just talking concepts and broad strokes here. Some genius who has great ideas, founds a successful company, and invests wisely, should not be penalized the same as two college kids who scheme to take out huge loans, funnel the money into a web of LLCs and property, default on all obligations, and carefully structure bankruptcies so that their creditors never get paid but they get to keep the BMWs and McMansions they got out of the deal. That happened in Washington, I worked in a building they owned that had the water shut off, just one minor symptom of their shenanigans. Last I heard they were pretty much getting away with it despite quite a lot of outcry.

But how do you get the government to shut down the sleaze and redirect ill gotten gains to the betterment of society, when the biggest offenders are the legislators themselves, more often than not...?

I'm just scared that sometimes politicians come along and enact things that are ~in theory~ supposed to be for the good of the people, but ~in practice~ are a scam. I'm skeptical. I have a strong gut instinct of "if it sounds too good to be true..." Trust issues.

That's the root of my libertarian-ness. If you can't do anything GOOD for me and my family, then at least leave us the hell alone!

But Trump scares the absolute bajeezus outta me. I think he's supposed to, though... I wonder what the endgame is. Civil war? Have the Powers That Be decided that America is just too cumbersome? Is it gonna be tractors, cheap beer and overalls versus hybrids, smoothies and colorful scarves in a no-holds-barred cage match to-the-death until we draw up some new borders and have a handful of sovereign territories come out of all this hooplah? Or will the rest of the world just get tired of our shenanigans and turn us into a parking lot?

I really want to think that my fellow Americans are not dumb enough to elect Trump. But ya know. We live in a world where there is an audience for Honey Boo Boo. So yeah.
 
Results from the Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina presidential primaries are expected to begin rolling in in just moments.

Does anyone here think these results will be decisive in either the Democratic or Republican nomination process?

________________

Where Bernie Sanders needs to win today to truly scare Hillary Clinton
Vox.com
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225216/bernie-sanders-super-tuesday-two

Excerpt:

" .... But it's worth focusing on Illinois, because that's where it looks like Sanders may actually have a real shot. One CBS poll put him up by 2 points this week, and Politico reports that he's been savvily turning the race into something of a referendum on Chicago Mayor (and Clinton ally) Rahm Emanuel.

A loss in Illinois would weaken Clinton's frontrunner status for other reasons as well. The state will likely have the most black voters of the five states voting today, Clinton was raised in the suburbs of Chicago, and downstate Illinois looks much like Clinton's stronghold in the South, according to Berg-Andersson. ...."
 
Last edited:
No idea.

I guess theoretically not; it's not 100% decided til it's 100% done.
 
I've been watching the Illinois Democrat count ticking, ticking ticking.... Hillary has been holding a very slight lead, couple of percentage points. Now about 80% of the count is in, and Bernie trails ever so slightly behind.

I have a funny feeling his race may end if he does not win Illinois. And my dream of something good happening in American politics ... dangles by a thread.

I need SOMETHING good to happen in American politics. Or I'll have to quit voting altogether. And quit paying any attention to American politics ... maybe seek political asylum somewhere more sane than here. On what grounds? Torture. Political torture! It's worse than waterboarding.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-butler-mar-a-lago.html?_r=0

Interesting article, an interview with the Donald's long time butler, who has worked at Mar a Lago in Palm Beach for 60 years, 30 of them for Trump.

The article states that the previous owner, Mary Merriwether Post, made arrangements for planes to be diverted away from the house as they took off and landed at the W Palm airport.

The Donald doesn't have quite that much power, and it bugs him. Now, my sister is a librarian in the Palm Beach library system. The main branch is right across the street from Donald's golf course. My sister tells me, he doesn't own the land. He leases it from the city, for $1 a year, to prevent the city from being sued for the air traffic that disturbs Donald's peace.
 
Browsing around the non-Fox Network channels, one thing I'm really getting tired of is errant Lefties comparing Trump to Hitler.

I mean, how lazy, right?

Besides, there's no resemblance at all, & even their declamatory styles are entirely different.

Nah, I think this is funnier --

Donald-Trump_3574353b.jpg
benito-mussolini-44540.jpg

p0hpzowy.png
 
I immediately thought of the Jerry Springer show
Nah, gotta disagree, even with Springer himself.

After all, it's scholarly man-of-reason Geraldo Rivera who got a chair in the face while harassing Skinheads in 1988.
geraldo-rivera-injury.jpg


And "pro-life" activist Morton Downey Jr was screeching at his guests (& stirring the Rightist audience pretty darned close to lynch fever) years before Springer even had his local feel-good TV show.
morton-downey1.jpg

(Irony: when he was fired from his radio show in 1984 for being such an inflammatory jerk, the station replaced him with a new guy calling himself Rush Limbaugh, obviously not his real name.:D)

Then there's the lowbrow militancy of Howard Stern's fan base, about which enough said.

Far worse: I banned myself from ever listening again to any broadcast by Michael Savage after hearing him go on ad nauseam about how "the mud races" are destroying Everything Great About America. I was waiting for this second-generation Jewish American to propose a Final Solution.

But if you want to go back to the roots of Rightist-hatred-as-entertainment, check out Joe Pyne. I remember watching a few broadcasts when I was a kid, & being fascinated with the irrationalisty & stupidity.
There are many documented cases of Pyne getting into altercations with people on his show. He preferred controversial guests such as Sam Sloan and invited members of the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and followers of murderer Charles Manson. Pyne argued this was educational, since it exposed these violent groups to the public eye. The Joe Pyne Show was not only verbally confrontational: at times the conflict became physical, with chairs being thrown at Pyne by the interviewee.
Ah, our quaint little traditions.:rolleyes:
 
Browsing around the non-Fox Network channels, one thing I'm really getting tired of is errant Lefties comparing Trump to Hitler.

I mean, how lazy, right?

Besides, there's no resemblance at all, & even their declamatory styles are entirely different.

Nah, I think this is funnier ....

I suspect most Americans may think of Mussolini as either a fancy form of squiggly pasta or of some kind of weird, foreign breakfast cereal. That's why they jump on the Hitler comparison. Far more Americans know about Hitler, which may be due mostly to that funny mustache he had... and Hogan's Heroes reruns.
 
Last edited:
I suspect most Americans may think of Mussolini as either a fancy form of squiggly pasta or of some kind of weird, foreign breakfast cereal. That's why they jump on the Hitler comparison. Far more Americans know about Hitler, which may be due mostly to that funny mustache he had... and Hogan's Heroes reruns.

Actually I cannot think of Mussolini without a line from a song going through my head..."I Wanna Be A Squirrel" by DBX...

"Whistle while you work. Hitler is a jerk. Mussolini bit his weenie now it doesn't work."

It's stupid, but it's lodged in my grey matter like a popcorn husk you just can't get out of your teeth...

Hey!! I see lots of talk about politics in here. Where's the religion and the sex? :D
 
Unless things have changed radically, "sex ed" in the schools has gone waaaaaay downhill from the 1970s -- & THAT era was hardly thorough.

The very same Rightists who demand that schools be responsible for teaching basic common sense -- not that I'm ignoring the Leftists who make the schools primarily responsible for proper nutrition -- & similarly that "religion" should be front-&-center (meaning, of course, "all religions that are Xtian & Evangelical") suddenly about-face & insist that "those things" should be taught at home, by the very parents who were unable to enforce even the basic control needed by a 3-year-old.

Jocelyn Elders was fired as Attorney General -- by Bill Clinton, yet -- for daring to agree with a statement that kids should be taught about masturbation (solo & mutual) with the thought that maybe they'd be less likely to engage in sex with much higher risks of STDs, not to mention pregnancy. (She's also said she considers "abstinence" programs to be a form of child abuse. :)) I doubt we've progressed since 1994.
 
The GOP is melting down. I am in awe -- could wind down to be the worst case of suicide I've ever seen.
  • the Party is spending more ad money against Trump than against Clinton.
  • the National Review, long a Rightist intellectual (apparently not an oxymoron) magazine, published an article by Kevin Williamson. While I don't totally disagree with him -- there's plenty of poor whitefolk in blighted areas that sure seem to be a major part of their own problems, as documented in The Wild & Wonderful Whites of West Virginia, & not due to one weird targeted conspiracy after another -- the timing is TERRIBLE for the Reds. Firstly, the whole screed seems to be aimed at Trump's perceived base of support, & more than a bit of the teabaggers. Second, in typical Red fashion, Williamson goes completely overboard, apparently damning ANYONE who's fallen on hard times; here's a bit I managed to dig up online:
    If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy -- which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog -- you will come to an awful realization. ...

    The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. ... The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn't analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
    And the Review stands by it, as with this defensive defense from David French:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ral-responsibilities-defense-kevin-williamson
    If you don't have the stomach, I'll simply point out that French blames this decadence entirely on "the progressive welfare state and the elitist sexual revolutionaries," or, as some call them, Democrats.
  • does anyone know how many of those drug-addled goobers the Reds think there actually are? Reading this tripe, it's easy to guess at millions.
  • whose bright idea was it to endorse Trump, anyway? Why are they surprised that Donald Trump was going to act like... well, Donald Trump?? And then the GOP made him (& apparently the other candidates only as an afterthought) sign some agreement where he promised to NOT split off & form an alternative party. If the thing is at all legally binding, the GOP has prevented itself from running away from The Donald!! And therefore, all they can do BY THEIR OWN RULES is to run some insider who never even ran for the nomination
  • ...which raises the interesting possibility that, after getting billions of dollars from donors to run the whole caucus spectacle, the GOP gets to turn around & tell 'em all, "sorry -- you don't matter. We're just gonna go ahead with whoever WE know is right for the Right." (Refer back to the National Review article.) Names already floated include Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, & Michael Bloomberg.
 
echoes of 1933

Looks like even the teabaggers get it.
Trump Predicts "Riots" If He Doesn't Get GOP Nomination
...if you disenfranchise those people, and you say, well, I’m sorry, you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before.” Trump added, referring to the convention delegate count.

“I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."
No, of course not, Donald. You won't lead it. You're just telling your Brownshirts to go ahead.
 
To quote the much-loved Takei...

"Every Trump sentence has words. Sometimes three words. Or two. And they're great sentences. Terrific sentences. That I can tell you. Believe me. They're great. With the best words. Terrific repeated words. Not very big words. Every Trump sentence has words."

One thing I gotta give the guy, his campaign has made my Facebook feed a little funnier. Even if it's funny blended with horrifying.
 
Back
Top