[Winstonm]

From jennifer Rubin at WaPo, a description of the alternate fictional universe in which the right lives:

Quote

Sixty-three percent of Republicans strongly or somewhat agree that whites are under attack.


Despite the absence of any evidence that whites as a group are disadvantaged in schooling, employment, income, public accommodations, political power or any other area, a very large number of evangelicals, and even more Republicans in general, are convinced it is true. That may also account for high levels of opposition to immigrants among these groups. At the same time, these groups are the least likely to express inclusive attitudes toward the LGBT community. Other polling by PRRI also shows that these two groups are much less likely to believe minorities suffer from discrimination.

Perhaps this explains the phenomenon as much as anything:

Quote

In sum, evangelicals and Republicans more generally are increasingly out of step with other Americans on issues affecting the LGBT community. Once commanding an overwhelming majority of opinion, these Americans may well feel as though the culture has “declined” or they have “lost something.” It comes as a blow to people used to dictating the norms on these issues to find out they are the odd men and women out.

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2017-September-14, 20:48, said:

And somehow she keeps popping up, everywhere, all the time. How is that possible?

Everywhere, all the time? This is the first we've heard from her since the inauguration. Now she's on a book tour, it's normal to see and hear her on lots of talk shows.

And when people are on book tours, it's normal to hear the same answers on every show. You don't go on multiple shows to talk about different things, you do it to reach different audiences with the same message. Unfortunately, people who listen to multiple shows will notice the repetition. The exception is if there's a long interview, like an hour, instead of the usual 5-10 minute segment; they'll run out of their usual talking points and then the interviewer will go deeper with their own take on the subject.

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2017-September-15, 11:29, said:

Everywhere, all the time? This is the first we've heard from her since the inauguration. Now she's on a book tour, it's normal to see and hear her on lots of talk shows.

And when people are on book tours, it's normal to hear the same answers on every show. You don't go on multiple shows to talk about different things, you do it to reach different audiences with the same message. Unfortunately, people who listen to multiple shows will notice the repetition. The exception is if there's a long interview, like an hour, instead of the usual 5-10 minute segment; they'll run out of their usual talking points and then the interviewer will go deeper with their own take on the subject.

This is the first we've heard from her since the inauguration? Who is we? I'll take some of whatever you've been smoking for the past year.

Like, is this article also fake news to you? It's from June.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Here Are 5 Undeniable Signs That You Are Arguing With A Sociopath Donald Trump
so·ci·o·path
ˈsōsēōˌpaTH/
noun

a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Most of us know or have known some legitimate sociopaths. They move through life without conscience or remorse, leaving a great deal of destruction in their wake.

Driven by an insatiable need for attention and power, sociopaths often exhibit very predictable patterns when manipulating others — and arguing with one? Forget about it. It’s a losing battle that’ll likely leave you frustrated, drained, and without resolution.

So how do you know when you’re arguing with a sociopath? Here are 5 signs that you shouldn’t ignore.

Pathological lying
They lie. By the time you’ve finished dissecting one lie, they’ve already told 10 more. It’s almost like they’re doing it on purpose (they are). Evidence is meaningless. Rather than focusing on their dishonesty, they constantly pin the blame on you. For everything.

Drama fatigue
Their behavior is so strange and outrageous that you actually become desensitized to things that would otherwise deeply upset you. Essentially, your baseline of “normal” starts to shift to accommodate their increasingly abnormal behavior. That’s when they start causing the real damage.

Gaslighting
They say or do things, and then blatantly deny that those things ever took place. Alternatively, they reinvent history and blame you for “misinterpreting” them. This behavior clouds your sense of reality making you doubt yourself, thus becoming more vulnerable to their manipulation.

Polarizing
Sociopaths love to turn people against each other, especially if it results in a fight over them. By turning you against people you might otherwise get along with, you start thinking in extremes. Once your thinking slips from gray to black and white, sociopaths are able to paint “enemies”—good guys and bad guys. This keeps their victims divided and distracted.

Provoking
Sociopaths intentionally provoke reactions in you and then blame you for reacting. Causing you to become “hysterical” or to act “crazy,” allows them to write you off as an unstable lunatic. They’ll often play the victim after provoking you, shifting people’s focus to you, and away from their behavior.

If you found this article helpful, please share with friends and family by clicking the button below!

Source: www.mindbodygreen.com

FTP

[kenberg]

Hillary Clinton had what was described as a one-on-one conversation with Judy Woodruff tonight (Friday). Becky thought something was off and we talked about it a bit. Our conclusion: It was in no way a conversation. HC was briefly highlighting points from her book. JW was sort of an attachment, with no actual role. She looked uncomfortable.

Was HC interesting? Sort of. She addressed "What Happened?". She was (I am reciting her explanation here) unprepared for the campaign against Trump. She was prepared to discuss issues but regrettably this was not a suitable approach. So the first part of What Happened is that the American public failed her. And of course there was Comey. And the Russians. And the bad media. And sexism. If anything at all has occurred to her about any actual errors she might have made or shortcomings that she might have, other than being too good for us, that is being saved for Part II.

She of course had a lot to say about the Trump administration. A good deal more than what I think is usual for the losing candidate to say about the administration of the winner.

There is no reason she should listen to me, but Greta Garbo is remembered for many things, one of them being "I want to be left alone".. Yes, I know it was a line from a movie.Still.

[y66]

What are people smoking? I read the text of the conversation between Judy Woodruff and Hillary Clinton. It was semi-interesting. I don't understand my Maryland colleague's comment about the non conversation or his observation about Judy Woodruff looking uncomfortable. Judy frequently looks uncomfortable when she lets her serious side take over versus her detached or playful side (her playful side is the one we see when she talks to Shields and Brooks whose commentary on the interview I enjoyed albeit sans Judy unfortunately).

I would have liked to see a lot more candor about why she thinks she lost and taking more responsibility for her devastating failure -- and ours -- and I will speculate that this is important for her catharsis and for a lot of other people for understanding what really happened and what's really going on today. This obviously includes way underestimating Trump (smugness), not understanding Trump's appeal to voters she might have won over if she and her campaign manager had played their cards differently (aloofness and poor judgement) and, as Brooks observed, never fully understanding how her establishment/institutional baggage played among those same voters who, despite her husband's advice, she did not spend nearly enough time stroking (Trump did not have this problem).

Her concession that if Trump succeeds in protecting Dreamers, he deserves tremendous credit was a gazillion times more gracious than anything we've heard from him or from many posters here and was a good reminder of what politics is supposed to be all about.

[kenberg]

Well. I said she was sort of interesting, you said semi-interesting, we can probably work out compromise wording. I admit that it can be iffy to read too much into body language. I thought Judy Woodruff looked like she would rather not be doing this. HC wrote a book, HC is an important historical figure, so, I hear her saying, I suppose we have to give her a spot to promote her book. Later they gave Ken Burns a spot to promote his film about the Vietnam war. That spot was more interesting. I'm not sure I can sit through ten hours [oops, 18 hours, my bad] about the war, but I'll give it a shot.The ten minutes or so on HC was about my limit. The Frost interviews with Nixon came to mind. I was driving in to work, the radio was replaying an excerpt. My immediate reaction was "I don't have to listen to you anymore" and I turned it off.

And being more gracious than Donald Trump? It would take some thought to come up with an appropriate analogy to that one, but talk about damning with faint praise.

Brooks and Shields spoke right afterward and both of them spoke well of the book. They have read it, I haven't.

Her assessments were of the "Round up the usual suspects" sort. I forgot to mention the DNC. And probably others, she had quite a long list of who was to blame. There are questions that are both interesting and important about what happened. I did not think the interview broke any new ground whatsoever.

You probably saw the Alexandra Petri column on the first line of the book.
https://www.washingt...m=.0b914b779d4b
I am working on what to make of it. Perhaps part of my problem is that I did not know who Kelly Clarkson is.

Perhaps the interview could be seen as a clue to what happened. Something that was billed as a one-on-one conversation with JW and HC struck me as a pre-packaged pitch for her book. I think that a large part of the Clinton campaign struck many people in a similar way. You listened, but something was off. This is not to say that voting for Trump was the proper way to deal with that.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2017-September-16, 08:07, said:

This is not to say that voting for Trump was the proper way to deal with that.

What was the realistic alternative?

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-September-16, 09:12, said:

What was the realistic alternative?

Voting for Hillary was the realistic alternative, at least for me. I have voted in every presidential election and in most or maybe all off year elections, since I turned 21 (then the legal voting age) in 1960. Rarely are the choices great, but there is always a choice. I would have voted for just about anyone over Donald Trump and I have not changed my mind.

My lack of enthusiasm for the PBS interview does not mean that I think HC would have been an awful president. We will of course never know how good or bad she would have been. "Inspiring" is not a word that comes to mind, not my mind anyway, but I think she would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent, she would have had a good crew, and with a bit of luck, as needed by all, it could have gone decently.

I might well return to this. Right now I need some lunch.

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2017-September-15, 12:20, said:

This is the first we've heard from her since the inauguration? Who is we? I'll take some of whatever you've been smoking for the past year.

Like, is this article also fake news to you? It's from June.

I guess that tour of hers flew by me. Since it was June, are you sure they weren't talking about commencement addresses? I know she spoke at Wellesley (her alma mater), did she give others? There was certainly lots of replays of her Wellesley talk, maybe that just made it seem like she was all over the place.

But this week I've seen or heard her on TV and radio at least once a day, and it's clearly because she's promoting the book. Salman Rushdie has also been on a lot, since he also has a new book, but it's not hard to understand why HC would be considered more "important".

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2017-September-14, 08:38, said:

Is this like a white supremacist's black friend? "He's one of the good ones."

Yes, except this one really exists.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2017-September-16, 10:03, said:

Voting for Hillary was the realistic alternative, at least for me. I have voted in every presidential election and in most or maybe all off year elections, since I turned 21 (then the legal voting age) in 1960. Rarely are the choices great, but there is always a choice. I would have voted for just about anyone over Donald Trump and I have not changed my mind.

My lack of enthusiasm for the PBS interview does not mean that I think HC would have been an awful president. We will of course never know how good or bad she would have been. "Inspiring" is not a word that comes to mind, not my mind anyway, but I think she would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent, she would have had a good crew, and with a bit of luck, as needed by all, it could have gone decently.

I might well return to this. Right now I need some lunch.

For me Hillary was not a realistic alternative.

[jjbrr]

She was the realistic alternative to a pussy-grabbing sociopath, but she was still the losing alternative.

[Winstonm]

IMO, people who did not and still do not accept Hillary Clinton as a viable and better alternative to the sociopath in the office now are people who live their lives guided by the fantasy bubble invented and maintained by the cultural jackals of the right-wing media conglomerate whose sole reason for existence is to maintain power by regurgitation of lies, disinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, and fake news from social media.

[jjbrr]

winston, the preferred nomenclature is "special snowflakes" of which trump himself is the specialest and fragilest.

[Al_U_Card]

ldrews, on 2017-September-17, 07:36, said:

For me Hillary was not a realistic alternative.

Clearly, Trump has altered his planned courses of action, based on more informaton and other considerations. Based on her puppet-like stances, not something that Hil would likely have had to contemplate...
Either way, take the Trump-basher posts, substitute left for right etc. and they are describing exactly why Trump made it into office.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-September-17, 15:47, said:

Clearly, Trump has altered his planned courses of action, based on more informaton and other considerations. Based on her puppet-like stances, not something that Hil would likely have had to contemplate...
Either way, take the Trump-basher posts, substitute left for right etc. and they are describing exactly why Trump made it into office.

"altered his planned courses of action" I like the phrasing, Saul, on the road to Damascus, altered his planned courses of action. After the war of 1812, Napoleon altered his planned courses of action.

Just me having a little fun.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-September-17, 20:13, said:

"altered his planned courses of action" I like the phrasing, Saul, on the road to Damascus, altered his planned courses of action. After the war of 1812, Napoleon altered his planned courses of action.

Just me having a little fun.

Hopefully we do not soon have the direct comparison with MacArthur "altering his planned courses of action" in Vietnam after the Chinese joined in.

[PassedOut]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-18, 00:12, said:

Hopefully we do not soon have the direct comparison with MacArthur "altering his planned courses of action" in Vietnam after the Chinese joined in.

Korea.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2017-September-18, 05:10, said:

Korea.

Yes, Korea! As I mentioned before, this is where I came in!.
As for Zel's mis-statement, it's like the other day when after Rho had shown out of a suit I led toward the AJx, with the Q still ou, t and went up with the A. We can probably all agree that I did not mean to do that.,