IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 3 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New This one isn't exactly 'feeding' the Despicables,
but since most of us rarely Go--> {ugh} There, it's confirmation that 'Despicables' was a *moderate epithet compared to the reality of Broken-Brains ...
in-the-Millions, of our co-dependent Failed State.

* But also a most Unfortunate word for Hillary to award, when she did (whatever other faux-pas-du-jour she also committed.)

I, for one was reacquainted with just How Fucked Is the current dis-US on too many levels to outline.
(I also Stopped the eye/ear-blinding nausea before it could damage any more neurons, about a couple minutes into the spiel.)
Did learn from the grammar-school innuendo of the responding Believers: it is only getting Worse for any futchah at all, 'twixt now and November.
Göbbels hisself could not have come close to the power-to-kill-Reason than this carefully-organized attack by the *scrofulous claque worshiping The Creep at the Top.

* word origin: formerly called KING'S EVIL.

Carrion; we're IN it.
New Nit - "Basket of Deplorables"

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don't get complacent; don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, "Well, he's done this time." We are living in a volatile political environment.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket — the other basket — and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

— Hillary Clinton, [9]

The only thing wrong with her statement was saying "half". She could have said "far too many" or something similar and it wouldn't have given the press the vapors and the GOP another cudgel.

But that's a teeny tiny minor thing.

New You are quite Right; me Wrong in this allusion
(I hadn't read the full context of that Word appearance); agree also that 'half' might well have been such an over-step as to galvanize the Unteachables further
--> into mindless lock-step, for the duration..

So.. thanks for the reminder about 'due diligence' when trying to make Sense of the senselessness of living amidst a plurality of Mouth-breathers
(who also don't Test Anything Said by either their now-God (nor ditto re any rebuttals to his vitriol-in-every sentence.))

{sigh} Confucius had it-all fucking-RIGHT, all along: Language Itself has by today--been rendered well into Uselessness, for Essential/practical purposes.
And one needs no essay to illustrate just Why that daily-Fact leads to impending.. well, Doom ..unless: the Orange-Göbbels--
still a possibility via any next truly-Hideous tweet--mouths hisself into an inextricable-via-bloviation

"I Really Am Pure Shit!" blunder.

Fingers, toes, gonads crossed.
New What she *should* have said
There have always been deplorable people in America - racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And for most of our history, no one wanted to be associated with these people or what they stand for.

Now Donald Trump holds these people up and says it's not fair that they've been marginalized. And they're so relieved that someone is taking their side - saying that they're right to feel attacked - that it doesn't seem to matter he doesn't have a plan to help them.

If your problem is that your company laid off thousands of people to hit a quarterly earnings target, I've got a plan to help. But if your problem is that some immigrant somewhere is getting government help ... well, I won't tell you to blame them. Donald probably will. But after blaming immigrants, then what? How are you going to fix it, Donald?

New That would have been much better.
The problem is, of course, that she was correct in her statement (although "half" was likely an understatement). She was right and she lost the Presidency. I don't think it would have mattered in the end. The insane hatred of Hillary in the Red States was an obstacle too great to overcome. I don't think how large a problem that was (and is) for her can be overstated. I really don't think it would have mattered what she said.

It kind of reminds me of what an uncle of mine once said about arguing with your wife. You can be right or you can be happy. In fairness to her, I don't think she had a chance in hell of winning the necessary one or two fly-over states without regard to what she said or did. But making the statement she made played right into the hands of the irredeemables. For someone who has been in politics as long as she has, she should have known better. Even if, ultimately, it would have made no difference. See also: we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Jesus, for someone who is supposed to be so politically savy, she can be a real dolt sometimes.

It's mourning in America again.
New A case can be made that she lost because of voter suppression.

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent. If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016,” the study said. These “lost voters”—those who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016—”skewed more African American and more Democrat” than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the study’s methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.

According to a comprehensive study by MIT political scientist Charles Stewart, an estimated 16 million people—12 percent of all voters—encountered at least one problem voting in 2016. There were more than 1 million lost votes, Stewart estimates, because people ran into things like ID laws, long lines at the polls, and difficulty registering. Trump won the election by a total of 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, the intent of those who pushed for the ID law was clear. On the night of Wisconsin’s 2016 primary, GOP Rep. Glenn Grothman, a backer of the law when he was in the state Senate, predicted that a Republican would carry the state in November, even though Wisconsin had gone for Barack Obama by 7 points in 2012. “I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up,” he told a local TV news reporter, “and now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.”

That you never (that I recall) mention voter-suppression in your beloved Red States (without my prompting) continues to baffle me.

Hillary didn't lose because she was a lousy candidate. She lost because even with being a very good candidate, the GOP (with overt Russian help) twisted the playing field and kept too many people from voting.

You're continuing to miss the forest for the trees. IMO.

New correlation is not causation
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Fake news! :)

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New not really, fake conclusions, exactly as we do here but on a larger scale
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New "While the law likely had some impact on deterring potential voters, ..."
The GOP has explicitly said that the purpose is to drive down Democratic turnout.

This isn't hard to understand, though the "fact checkers" too often try to minimize it. Both-sidery Uber Alles, after all.

New Hillary was a decent Republican candidate, I’ll give you that.
But she has long been reviled by Red Staters as much as she has been by true Progressives. Red Staters irrationally, Progressives rationally. That’s a toxic combination.

BTW, being familiar with Red State thinking doesn’t make the region “beloved” by any stretch. Quite the contrary. But somebody’s got to be behind enemy lines. ☹️

It's mourning in America again.
New Fair enough.
     Good news! Unimpeachable source (no, not that one) predicts… - (rcareaga) - (23)
         I won't be watching any of that ... care to summarize? -NT - (drook) - (3)
             I confess that I lacked the stamina. - (rcareaga)
             Re: I won't be watching any of that ... care to summarize? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 great! just came back from vaca was not looking forward to going on base liberating a couple of SAWs -NT - (boxley)
         Haven't yet looked in there, but [did later] - (Ashton)
         Good news for me? - (mmoffitt) - (17)
             Hey Rand - (crazy) - (12)
                 This one isn't exactly 'feeding' the Despicables, - (Ashton) - (11)
                     Nit - "Basket of Deplorables" - (Another Scott) - (10)
                         You are quite Right; me Wrong in this allusion - (Ashton)
                         What she *should* have said - (drook) - (8)
                             That would have been much better. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                 A case can be made that she lost because of voter suppression. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                     correlation is not causation - (boxley) - (3)
                                         Fake news! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                             not really, fake conclusions, exactly as we do here but on a larger scale -NT - (boxley)
                                         "While the law likely had some impact on deterring potential voters, ..." - (Another Scott)
                                     Hillary was a decent Republican candidate, I’ll give you that. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         Fair enough. -NT - (Another Scott)
             on joining the cult - (rcareaga) - (3)
                 he was an elron fan? -NT - (boxley)
                 +10 for use of "empyrean." -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     ... - (Ashton)

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
199 ms