The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts

Monday, June 3, 2019

As Trump's World Turns: The Former DEM Voter Cast A 2016 Trump Vote

Image result for The trump supporter Image result for The trump supporter Image result for The trump supporter

Image result for The vulgar trump supporter Image result for The vulgar trump supporter Image result for The vulgar trump supporter

What follows speaks volumes about America. The following CNN segment (focus group-like setting) captures a few notable dynamics regarding Trumpism.

As you view the short segment, you will find the ugly reality of a family who was reported to have historically voted Democrat Party but opted to support Trump in 2016. Two moments in the segment drew my attention: a pathetic statement of Trump supporters who are but steps away from a Bernie Sanders supporter. The other sad reality is the older voter who literally broke into a state of tearful emotion associated with his restating his self-contempt for voting for Trump.

In the first case, the younger voter who proudly indicated he would again vote for Trump in 2020. A person who earlier in the short s3egment indicated of all the Democrat Party prospective candidates he felt Sanders was his preference. I have to ask, what is it about a younger Trumpian who can find a similar affinity for Sanders? Actually, I don't have to ask the questions as I have often stated; there isn't much (figurative) light between some Trump supporters and the hordes of far-left supporters of Sanders. 

The more poignant segment point was the heartfelt hurt the aforementioned older voter.  What about Trump in 2015/2016 that would sway a long-term Democrat Party voter to support Trump?  Mind you before election day, Trump settled a fraud-related lawsuit with victims of the fraudulent Trump University to the tune of $25 million Us dollars.  also before the election, Trump was published as a sexual abuser, although uncharged, via his commenting about his method of first date handling of women. If you have been asleep for three years he stated in a most disgusting manner his methodology included grabbing women by their genitals. He did so with responsive giggles from a member of the Bush family. Trump topped his comments with a reference to his assertion that he could do anything with the women, especially in the light of his perception of fame.  

It should be noted the older voter also apparently didn't have any insight into the Trump tendency to tell lies.  Moreover, how is it possible to have any Democrat Party voter reach to vote for Trump when the candidate's record spans decades and is littered with over-racism, misogyny and obviously biased against people of color.  

All said it was truly unbelievable to see the older voter fall to tears when stating Trump has not only improved their lives, Trump has worsened their lives.  


Democrat who voted for Trump: He sold us broken promises

CNN's Van Jones revisits a family of Ohio voters who supported Donald Trump in 2016 to see if they still support the President heading into the 2020 election.

There was a tendency to leave the short segment without additional comment. An earlier morning review of my social media pages yielded more validation of the utter disrespect and ugliness handed to the nation (and the world) only a daily basis.

Herewith is an example of why many Americans have grown weary of Trump's unique form of disgusting Apparently Trump surprised visited an official gathering after the recent Virginia Beach shooting. Well, why is that a bad thing? He showed up in golf attire, stay 16 minutes and spoke not one word.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing and night

Why even bother to show up at the commemoration?  Why not just head over to his property and tee-off.


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Women Voted...How Did We Get Trump?

Image result for the woman voter see how she grows
In April of 2106, Brookings Edu published a piece with the Headline: 

Women could make a big difference in a Clinton-Trump match-up

Yes, they certainly did make a difference. Look at us now!

Watch the first few seconds of the following MSNBC Hardball and you can scratch viewing a major white House presstitute, Kelly Anne Conway, off your bucket list. What you are about to see and hear will forever satisfy your quest for viewing the unreal and may surpass any desire you have harbored to see Big Foot or a Yeti. Those are illusive potential (possible) forms of life; the presstitute who follows is a physical embodiment and manifestation of an administration which is overflowing with corruption unsurpassed in US History. it is presstitutes as such who facilitate the diminution of a once great nation.

The segment is over six minutes long while addressing a topic which should lead widely publicized on all non-conservative media.  It delves into the current perception of Trump by a survey respondent group of women.  Sadly in 2016,  43 percent of white women, voters followed their husbands into voting booths delivered the nation into the greedy grasp of a modern day PT Barnum.

The survey points to an easing of support among women for Trump.  It makes for nice talk if one is a liberal, but the reality is what it is. Women in the millions voted for Trump despite clear evidence he has a history of demeaning women.


Saturday, August 22, 2015

Trump Plays The "Southern Strategy" Replete With Lynard Skynyrd "Southern Man" And A Social Dinosaur

Oh the hype!

Reports are CNN and MSNBC cut away from the 'southern oozest' after approximately 20 minutes.  

How could the nation actually believe a 50,000 seat stadium would approach full for the carnival barker. Did he suck you into the tent?

Embedded image permalink

Nobody does it was well as Rachel Maddow and her team. Trump, Jeff Session (the original bigot) and the football stadium. 

Now let's operate for a moment on Donald Trump's choice of entry song for his visit to Mobile.  He and his team chose a song with the best of titles "Sweet Home Alabama"  Does it matter the song has a roots in racial discrimination and was an anthem against Neil Young's "Southern man?" Of course, the Trump team may have simply stretched its conservative appeal beyond "Mexicans" to a past in which Jim Crow wasn't completely put to rest.  


"Southern Man" Lyrics 


"Southern Man"

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast
Southern man

I saw cotton
and I saw black
Tall white mansions

and little shacks.

Southern man

when will you
pay them back?
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast
Southern man

Lily Belle,
your hair is golden brown
I've seen your black man
comin' round
Swear by God
I'm gonna cut him down!
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Album version (My Fav)

Now let's visit with 


"Sweet Home Alabama"
  1. Big wheels keep on turning
    Carry me home to see my kin
    Singing songs about the south-land
    I miss 'ole' 'bamy once again and I think it's a sin
    Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
    Well I heard ole Neil put her down
    Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
    A southern man don't need him around anyhow
    Sweet home Alabama
    Where the skies are so blue
    Sweet home Alabama
    Lord, I'm coming home to you
    In Birmingham they love the Gov'nor, boo-hoo-hoo
    Now we all did what we could do
    Now Watergate does not bother me
    Does your conscience bother you, tell the truth
    Sweet home Alabama
    Where the skies are so blue
    Sweet home Alabama
    Lord, I'm coming home to you, here I come
    Now Muscle Shoals has got the Swampers
    And they've been known to pick a song or two (yes they do)
    Lord… Full lyrics on Google Play
Confederate Flag Version

Seems the Skynyrds did not appreciate Neil Young's lamenting the institutions of Jim Crow and reflection to a more horrid history of the US South (slavery).

Was Trump's choice of entry anthem a clear reach to a GOP past of "Southern Strategy" politics. The questions is rhetorical; you know the answer.  

Allow on more digression. Trumps choice of stage partner. Did I refer to this man as a bigot?  I stand in correction, documented racist.

Complex Dot Com 2014 reflecting on a time when Session was still integral to Alabama state politics. 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Image via Politico
This was the term Jeff Sessions used to address one of his judicial assistants who was well over eighteen and happened to be African-American. Prior to his time in the Senate, Sessions was working his way up the judicial branch of government. His rise came to a quick halt when he was denied a post during the Reagan administration for a variety of racist remarks he had voiced over the years as well as some actions he had taken that appeared to have been racially motivated. During his confirmation hearings, Thomas Figures, a former assistant to Sessions, alleged that Sessions referred to him as "boy" when they worked together. Session backed up his vitriolic statements with action. As African-American organizers were working tirelessly to raise black voter turn out in in Alabama, Sessions allegedly went about bringing bogus charges against organizers in hopes of hindering their efforts.

No Chris Matthews, you will not find any African-American faces in Trumps latest carnival act.   Of Course, Ben Carson may have flown-in for some deep Trump groveling.

CNN is reporting 30,000 southern revelers turnout to support a candidate who is wearing race above all else...and the GOP is responding. Let'see tomorrow if CNN figures are based on turnstile numbers or is the network running with Trump Hype.  

Monday, April 6, 2015

Dick Morris Predicts Hillary 2016 Loss? Fox Gets Ahead Of The Democratic Primaries

After the 2012 elections and Mitt Romney's pitiful concession speech, Roger Ailes, Fox News chief propagandist network president, ordered his Fox News managers to remove Dick Morris and Karl Rove from their shows (for a time). Why...because both predict overwhelming wins for Mitt romney and both conservative money hounds had their heads in their wallets instead of the reality of a very flawed GOP presidential candidate.
Dick Morris was spectacular in his false punditry. O'Reilly (of course) and Morris positing doom for President Obama with a Romney win "in a landslide." 

Fox News's 2012 contract with Dick Morris was like most for service contracts; compensation non-public. No matter the level of compensation, Fox News wasted a compensation package with Morris's punditry. Most networks would have recoiled with "professional egg on the face"; not Fox News.   

Advance to 2015. You know the story. Fox News hand Morris over to "former Judge" Pirro to predict doom should Hillary Clinton seek the Democrat Party nomination.

MORRIS: She’s hoping that it goes away. She’s delighted that Elizabeth Warren’s not going to challenge her at this point, although if O’Malley does well in the polls, I wouldn’t bet on Warren staying out, and she’s hoping that this thing just goes away through time.
But I think she’s missing the point that as she accumulates negatives and as people trust her less and less, and the deadlines loom for other people to get into the race, you’re gonna have a vacuum here with an irresistible force pushing the Democratic party to having an alternative to Hillary. Because if she goes down over this scandal, which I think she will, it’ll cause enormous losses in 2016. Not just the presidency but mammoth losses in Congress and I think the Democrats have to be very worried about that taking place.
The visual....

Read more NewsHounds 

Fox News management knows Morris's punditry is nothing more than carnival narking for Pirro's viewers. He offers moments of feel good viewing with no basis in fact and no regard for his lack of past credibility.

Dick Morris in 2008!


Thursday, March 26, 2015

Rand "I believe in misinformation" Paul Clones Senate Leader Tom Cotton: Increase Defense Spending!

Libertarian and political Chameleon Rand Paul joins others vying for the GOP nomination via politicking on increasing defense spending.  INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING!!!!!

Before we show a Huffington Post piece with Rand Paul pulling an obvious Netanyahu, let's do a quick and familiar review of graphics related to US Defense Spending. As you peruse the follow graphics, ask yourself as set of questions.  

First, do we really need increased defense spending? 

Next, whatever happened to fiscally conservative Republicans? Is GOP mantra showing like a dirty skirt undergarment? Is their mantra mere false prophecy to appeal to millions across the nation who seem to long for war?

A tertiary question. We are re-committed to a war in Afghanistan that has run a full 13 years and has span well beyond its bottom line charter "Get bin Laden."  When will Americans grow weary of entities that directly benefit for war?

One last digression before Rand "I believe in misinformation" Paul. How about a quick look at the running cost of George Bush and Dick Cheney's personal crusade? If you follow this link you will also see the extent to which defense contractors plant the seeds of war as if a farmer sowing a corn field.

Where is the sanity among Republicans clamoring for increased defense spending? I ask for your patience and full consideration of the following graphics. 

Whenever I hear or read a Republican speak of increasing defense spending, I reflect on two sets of data that we should recall and hold at the forefront of our cognitive processes.

military spending

Now, lets see how our tax dollars are spent.

2013 Defense Spending

Obama's 2016 proposed budget and the GOP  proposed  Budget

Now for Paul. 

Rand Paul Channels His Inner Tom Cotton, Calls For Defense Spending Hike

Posted: Updated


WASHINGTON -- The Most Interesting Man in American politics is quickly becoming anything but.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is expected to announce his campaign for president next month, on Wednesday quietly introduced an amendment that would drastically boost defense spending over the next two years. The measure, first spotted by Time, would allocate an additional $190 billion to the Pentagon -- amounting to an approximately 16 percent increase to its budget. To offset the increase in spending, Paul calls for substantial cuts to U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.

"It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending -- some way more than Senator Paul's amendment -- without paying for it," Doug Stafford, Paul's senior adviser, explained in a statement. "This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. No one should be seeking increased funding for anything by increasing our debt."

The proposal marks a notable reversal for Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator with Tea Party cred who swept into office with promises to slash defense spending. In his first five-year budget, introduced in 2011, Paul called for a draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense that would have reduced its budget to $548 billion by fiscal year 2016. "Military funding has often far outpaced not only our most likely enemies, but has often outpaced the entire world’s military spending combined," he wrote at the time. By comparison, his new stance would boost spending to approximately $697 billion in the same year.

The amendment gives Paul a line of defense against potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination -- Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Ted Cruz of Texas -- all defense hawks who have accused the Kentucky Republican of advocating for a less muscular foreign policy. But in so doing, Paul dropped any pretense of being a new brand of Republican, one dedicated to reforming the bloated defense establishment, as he presented himself early on. It puts him more in line with some of the more hawkish members of his party, like freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who suggested spending upwards of $900 billion on defense annually.
Read more 
How pathetic are the GOP fiscal conservatives? Each GOP wanna be president is aware of the spending data.The end-of-day question is, why lobby for fiscal expenditures that so hurt the US economy when increased defense spending beyond current ratios will not make the United States more safe? If you need assistance in answering the question you are probably a strong candidate for a GOP vote in 2016.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Scott Walker Borrowed Rand Paul's Chameleon Costume

And, to think I just posted a piece about the zaniness of Sarah Palin. The Palin piece includes honorable mention of Scott Walker with comment about education and the lack there of. While conceding education is not the ticket to the prospect of a great US president, it is most assuredly generally accepted as an indicator on intellect. Yes, intellect is critical in presidential aspirants. It is unfortunate, but the attainment of college level education, in most cases is an indicator of perseverance, applied cognitive process, goal attainment and a validation of the prospect of acquired higher learning. We live in troubled and dangerous times. The nation is far removed for care-taker presidents who in many cases escaped terms in office without major conflict or serious economic demands.

Many on the Right and some quasi-progressive writers and bloggers are finding cause celeb to write about the business of unwritten education requirements for the US Presidency. Within weeks of their supportive (or caution laden) screeds, Walk offers the perfect opportunity to assess his cognitive skills. Where better to see the full zoo of GOP presidential hopefuls, than the annual CPAC (show)?

Scott Walker in full cognitive bloom.

The Daily Kos's The Giles Goat Boy

UPDATED 2/27/2015 with more memes and a sobering video at the end.
Earlier today, when asked about ISIS, presidential hopeful and current Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that his response to the peaceful labor protests in Madison in 2011 prepared him to stamp out international terrorism. Apparently that means that in case of a terrorist attack he would sneak in and out of the White House via a not-so-secret rat tunnel and consult on the phone with bloggers pretending to be billionaire David Koch.
Asked about ISIS, Walker responded, “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”
That is a terrible response. First, taking on a bunch of protesters is not comparably difficult to taking on a Caliphate with sympathizers and terrorists around the globe, and saying so suggests Walker doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the challenge from ISIS and its allied groups.
Naturally, the "terrorists" in Wisconsin have unleashed a counterattack - in the form of a super-satirical barrage of photo memes.
One citizen suggested spreading this image in case ISIS comes looking for revenge:
Here are some more. Feel free to post any additional memes in the comments.
That is one terrifying smile:
The Red Scare!!!
Be sure to check her Birkenstocks for incendiary devices...
It only took 6 burly cops to arrest this man for holding a sign. What courage. What bravery! And they arrested him right next to the copy of the Wisconsin Constitution that states in Article 1 that the right of the citizens to petition the government "shall never be abridged." Oh well.
You know they start those terrorists really young...
Look out behind you, Granny!
Leaving so soon?
One more. I feel so much safer now...
attribution: None Specified
ENCORE! You asked for more, so here you go. Here is an obvious pinko terrorist...
You can spot the home-grown terrorists right away...
As my friend Ed says, the war on Christmas terrorism. Are those ISIS-cicles on the tree?
Finally, let us not forget the Capitol Police version of "If I Had a Hammer", which starts and ends with "If I Had a Hammer, I'd Hammer on the Black Guy..."



End The Daily Kos Piece.....

This is also worth a peep.


In many ways, Walker seems to approach life from the Rand Paul school of, "I'm not so sure....", evading questions or the even more sinister Paul philosophy regarding mis-information. Walker traipsing around tickling the base with evasive non-committal utterances, will not win party's nomination in 2016. Will the strategy grow old or is it actual strategy? Walker, like Paul "the younger" may actually live life as noncommittal and slippery as a Carp fish out of water. Even the Koch's will work to avoid flubbing close to a billion dollars on a candidate who has no prospect of defeating Hillary Clinton. Scott Walker via his adopting a Rand Paul like Chameleon campaign style is showing he is not the man to run-up against Clinton.

Walker was recently asked about President Obama's faith or life as a Christian. First, the question (in an of itself) was posed as either from a platform of religious bigotry or it was posed to trap the squirmy Walker as he works to appease the GOP's religious base. Before we explore Walker's response to a question of Obama's faith, let's deal with another matter.

When did being a Christian become a prerequisite to the US presidency? Sarah Palin's CPAC appearance ended with a declaration that no GOP candidate was fit to run the country due to their respective lack of military experience. Should we add Christianity to the mix?  And, after establishing religion as a basis for a litmus test, how about the certain to follow American kerfuffle: the GOP' Baptist Bible Belt congregations against Catholicism. And, if we take that ridiculous thought a few steps farther. How bout the nation's Jewish population? 

The question posed to Walker yielded telling results. While bundled in a sack of patriotism and religious Walker is report to have gone here: 
" “I’ve never asked him, so I don’t know,” he said. And about Obama’s Christianity: “I’ve never asked him that.”
Do you think Walker felt the answers was cool, or clever? The Washington Post summed it up in a piece published on February with a partial moniker: 'spinless."

According to Michael Gerson of the Post, President has gone on record in 2008 regarding his Christian Faith. Follow this link to the Post piece and scroll down.

Even conservative America has denizens who follow the news such that Obama's declaration  of  his faith are a matter of public record. They know the correct answer to these opportunities   to broadcast GOP "spiel", but they refuse to offer any degree of sanity to their base.  True answer o dot excite the GOP base, especially in states like Iowa (a critical GOP primary state) . Let's be honest with ourselves, the GOP base is not about fair and balanced consideration when it comes to President Obama. Nor are they open-minded such they place religion in proper perspective int eh grand scheme of things. 

Fervent religion can provide a path to irrational thought and indiscriminate acts in the name of faith. Scott Walker's reticence in showing a modicum of spin and failure to acknowledge President Obama's past comments about religion is an indication of what you get with candidates like Walker.

Friday, November 8, 2013

60 Minutes Fires Continue.....

....and "fires" is what happens when the nation and its media moves to the Right.  

When media moves Right it is without exception in pursuit of revenue yielding ratings that have prove lucrative. Two classic examples are Premiere Network's and Limbaugh's daily racist, sexist homophobic and anti-progressive "derangement" and Fox New's early morning and evening anti-Obama insanity. Both work to return sponsor dollars to Premiere and Fox while feeding lies and misinformation to their ravenous viewers and listeners.

During 2013, we have observed other tepid toe-in-the-water exhibits of misinformation broadcasts from ABC and NBC, along with the astronomically 'cheap' and unprofessional 60 Minutes Benghazi episode. 

Media Matters has followed the 60 Minutes debacle since its first broadcast. David Brock, Media Matters, sat for a discussion of 60 minutes and the mindset that leads to such journalistic miscarriages.

Earlier today Media Matter's Eric Bohlert blogged about, "How CBS Could Have Avoided The 60 Minutes Benghazi Fiasco."  

Bohlert's piece is 'point-on' regarding an avoidable fiasco precipitated by violating the former standards of network and 60 Minutes executives. 

About the time David Brock was speaking with Al Sharpton on MSNBC's Politics Nation, Media Matters's Joe Strupp published a piece that completes the cycle on 60 Minutes (management, producers and host Lara Logan) foray into the unfathomable.  The network 'played' to ratings and pandered to Benghazi derangement that continues to serve as "the anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, issue of the decade.  The Right is, as you and I know, politicking towards 2016. The media follows Graham, McCain, Issa, Ayotte and others like subservient ducklings nipping-up ratings tidbits of like ducklings nipping morsels from pavement.
Mary Mapes
Former 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes, who was fired for her role in a controversial 2004 story about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, accused CBS News of pandering to a right-wing audience with her former program's recent Benghazi report, for which the network has been criticized and forced to retract.
"My concern is that the story was done very pointedly to appeal to a more conservative audience's beliefs about what happened at Benghazi," Mapes said by telephone from her Texas home. "They appear to have done that story to appeal specifically to a politically conservative audience that is obsessed with Benghazi and believes that Benghazi was much more than a tragedy."

The problem with 60 Minutes is in the capable hands of the media monitoring organization: Media Matters. It doesn't take an imagination to know that the Benghazi broadcast was to be a ratings boom. A boom at the expense of truth and credibility for the once storied news magazine. But, those issues pale in comparison to the real danger: Media callousness in seeking ratings and false communication to the viewing public.

As evidence in the Politics Nation piece above, Republican "Banghazi firebrands" and Fox News are continuing to use the story as fodder for low information people who obviously relish Obama Derangement. As stated by Al Sharpton, Fox News has not addressed the two week fizzle of the Dylan Davies story beyond their references to its original broadcast on 60 Minutes. What we ask, what is that other than a form of Fox News propaganda?