BookTalk.org

DWill wrote:A variant of the Trump reelection banner, seen in my area, reads, "TRUMP 2020. NO MORE BULLSHIT."
And I wonder just what that is supposed to mean.

It might mean that, in your area, Trump will disallow cowpatties to be made by bulls.

Or, it might mean that Trump was slinging bullshit for these last four years, and he will stop doing that once he's re-elected in 2020.

DWill wrote:A variant of the Trump reelection banner, seen in my area, reads, "TRUMP 2020. NO MORE BULLSHIT."
And I wonder just what that is supposed to mean.

Because Trump is playing this as though he was the challenger instead of the incumbent. Trump loves to go on the attack and hates to have to defend--mainly because he accomplishes nothing beyond enriching himself like the parasite he is. So Trump is going on the attack even though he is hurting himself. No more bullshit?? Who has been president for the last four years? Why has that president been allowing bullshit to proliferate? If he couldn't prevent bullshit then, how is he going to prevent it now??

How is he to defend his utter lack of policy? How is he to explain breaking virtually every promise he made in the 2016 campaign while his centerpiece promise--to build a wall--has gone completely unfulfilled? Everything he said was bullshit but no more. From now on, no more bullshit. He's right, though, he won't be president for much longer.

In his supporters' minds, it's hard to fathom what the slogan means. Why, after 3 1/2 years, would they still be claiming that reelecting get him would do away with the bullshit that presumably hasn't been done away with? Well, there's no understanding the reasoning, because it's not there, just as it wasn't with "Drain the Swamp."

All the bullshit that refers to is the perceived slights by the left. The fake investigations, harmful protests, fake Covid, etc. All that fake stuff that is actually real. We're in an age of information overload, where our neighbors can live in a different ideological universe based on the media they consume. Narrowstream media is corrupting people, yet they trust it more than mainstream media due to Trump's sloganeering. They turn off CNN and watch Youtube, where the algorithms spoon feed people what they want to see. Same with Facebook.

Republicans, or should I say Trumpublicans, are growing worried, and frantic is next. Joe Biden isn't playing according to their preferred script. He's staying calm, releasing policy outlines, and when he speaks or is interviewed, lo and behold, he shows what a reasonable adult sounds like. Much to the chagrin of his opponents, he isn't leaving a trail of gaffes behind him. Trump, by contrast, yesterday gives an hour interview to the tough Fox journalist, Chris Wallace, and provides the Democrats with a plethora of campaign ad material, a priceless gift for them. When do Trumpublicans decide not to sacrifice their careers to Trump? Do his polling numbers have to get into the 30s for that to start to happen? Principle isn't enough, except for a precious few, but survival might be.

Storm troopers? Not exactly, but Dear Leader's use of border patrol agents and homeland security personnel to implement unaccountable repression of demonstrations in Portland is an intentional provocation without support from the local population, so it looks suspiciously like a fascist crackdown on dissent. Many observers think he is seeing how much he can get away with, to push the limits as much as he can. I think it might not be that conscious, but just adolescent impulse to be provocative for "our side".

It's possible that it will play well in the suburbs, but I rather doubt it. The agents he is using are reportedly avid Trump supporters, eager to smash up people who don't agree with them. The reputational damage that follows is likely to be, once again, the worst possible move from the point of view of people who have not already made up their mind about him. Are there a lot of people out there who want to see a crackdown but are not part of the 40 percent who back Trump? I don't see it.

Okay, in the "credit where it is due," department, Trump actually turned around on mask-wearing, in the face of accumulating evidence. Does that give cover to the governors of Florida, Texas and Arizona to actually do something about Covid? Maybe, but Republican politics are in very sad shape if they need cover.

I blame Fox News, but then, I blame Fox News for nearly everything on the right.

Anyone else reading Mary Trump's book? I ordered it on kindle.

DB Roy wrote:Anyone else reading Mary Trump's book? I ordered it on kindle.

What do you think so far? To answer your question, I haven't read any of it.

And in related news, there are a growing number of lawsuits addressing Betsy DeVos' reinterpretation of the CARES Act aid to schools. The funds are clearly addressed to meeting the financial needs created by dealing with poor kids in the Covid emergency: my school had to round up dozens of wifi connections, and the district where my son teaches had to give up on grades because so many of the students (>40 %) had no internet service. Providing meals is another can of worms.

DeVos decided that the CARES funds should be allocated by number of pupils, to private as well as public schools (though there was an out, if a state is helping only Title I schools) rather than on the number of "free and reduced-price meals" qualifiers. The effect is a dramatic shift of funds toward private schools. It's a clear case for a lawsuit, since the administration rule is flying directly in the face of Congressional intent with the appropriations.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... to-schools