The narratives about Trump thread.



Maybe, just maybe, their idea of what their interests are is different than your idea of what their interests are. Give them a little credit for making informed, intelligent decisions about matters that affect their lives.


They are also deep Evangelical, so let’s just say their ability to make compromised decisions is… compromised.


Looks like they have much in common with ultra-liberals.


Dunno, they are the Latino version of Deep South hillbillies, living one step above trailer park. When you have to send them money, you know something is fishy. What they earn, goes to the pastor. Chain of single teenage mothers, check. Anti abortion and anti birth control and anti vax and anti science, check.

Their lives are very different from teh otehr family memebers who live up North, they would fit your US Liberal definition more. SUNY scholars, doctors, dentists, flight attendants. These ones have already left the US to retire in greener pastures, though.

In the middle we have the auntie who has already retired from her job as airplane mechanic. She is also deeply religious, living now in Louisiana, taking care of a bunch of grandchildren.


I mean that both ultra-liberals and deep evangelicals do not ever compromise. That’s what they have in common.


You can’t save losers from themselves, and winners don’t need your advice.

The situations where people can actually benefit from guidance are far fewer than most imagine. That’s one of many reasons it’s a mistake to accept responsibility for others.

They might know something you don’t. They might not. Either way, best to leave it alone.

But dammit, are you sure you want to be sending them money? Is this some sort of family obligation thing?


Losers do not listen to anyone’s advice. “Winners” may not need it, but most kindly respect other people’s opinions. You may discover something there.

Winners and losers are too absolutes, and you know what I think about extremes. Variety is the spice of life.

Oh I cured myself of the money bit since I moved to Taiwan. You know how difficult it is to send money from here, among assorted excuses. Family cenetered cultures and all that jazz.


I used to seek advice, but I wised up. Now I seek information.

Even people who are doing well can’t always give good advice. They don’t necessarily know why they succeed. Attribution error is rampant.

Doing as the successful do works better than doing what they say. But even that’s far from foolproof. It may not even be actionable. (How to be a millionaire, step 1: get a million dollars.)

I only care about other peoples’ opinions for one reason: insight into the people. Not the subject matter. The opiner. Oh, and they might occasionally let drop some data points on the subject matter while going on and on about their silly opinions.

Data is good. Just give me data points, and I’ll find my own way.

(Hey, yyy… this is an opening to call me out on another seeming self-contradiction. Can you spot it?)


The only thing missing is someone hitting the guy with a baseball bat and calling him a Nazi, then it would be 100% accurate.


Baseball bats are for people who can’t handle guns.

Oh, and baseball players.



I’m sorry TG, but I have searched everywhere and can not seem to find any evidence to support this. Oh wait …satire…now I see.:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:




It’s scandalous saying Trump and Stormy had an “affair.” It’s called a business relationship.


All relationships are transactional. Some are less hypocritical about it that others.


Some pay in blood, sweat and tears…others just pay cash; if you pay both, you’re doing something wrong.


What matters is whether you come out ahead in the deal. That’s what separates the pimps from the whores.


Well knock on wood, but Trump agrees to meet with Rocket Man. Very next day (today) US jobs clocked 313k, way over expectation. Unemployment rate is at an 18-year low. Stock market shows signs of robust health.

And all this is happening while the Fed has stopped all quantitative easing and in fact has begun selling bonds (raising interest rates). It’s also taking place despite considerable confusion about new tariffs. Whew.

This is very good news, unless you are a Democrat. They do not seem to be taking this well. If their pain is your nourishment, then heads up: there’s a feast today.


Well this is rather interesting, and coming from a socialist site.

The World Socialist Web Site has reviewed Federal Election Commission reports filed by all the Democratic candidates in these 102 competitive districts, focusing on those candidates who reported by the latest filing date, December 31, 2017, that they had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns, giving them a financial war chest sufficient to run in a competitive primary contest. In addition, there a few cases where a candidate had less than the $100,000 cutoff, but was unchallenged for the nomination, or where last-minute retirement or resignation has led to late entry of high-profile candidates without an FEC report on file. These have also been included.

The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.

One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (35), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (19) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations.