LawTalkers - Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=880)

Re: Easy Comey...,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507550)

He has been pushing the envelope with GOP moderates for more than a year now and they have yet to stand up to him. Like Godot, someday they will show up.

Like Godot, Republican moderates don't really exist.

I'm still trying to figure out who in the administration is Claudius and who is Rosencrantz and Guilderstern. Any of them could be any of them.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507552)

This thread explains a lot: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/862369304947437568

This one also good:
https://twitter.com/heerjeet/status/862691290466590720

Lots of big words.

My own psychoanalytical construct of Trump's gestalt is that he's a fuckin asshole, and probably a bitter senile old coot, too.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 507552)

This thread explains a lot: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/862369304947437568

This one also good:
https://twitter.com/heerjeet/status/862691290466590720

I like the first one. The second, meh.

Cliff's:

1. Trump is 6'3 of nothing but Id.
2. The media mentally masturbates about him to the point of skin burns the same way the clown you took a Chaucer seminar from in college was sure Geoffrey'd filled the work with endless allusions to menstruation in an effort to signal feminist sympathies.

I might add: The media thinks itself up its own ass on 80% of simple things. Why should Trump be in the minority category?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507553)

Lots of big words.

My own psychoanalytical construct of Trump's gestalt is that he's a fuckin asshole, and probably a bitter senile old coot, too.

Buy a lottery ticket. You and I agree entirely here.

Re: Easy Comey...,

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507516)

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

This is the Peter Principle in real time. Neither he nor his people are smart or schooled enough, particularly in quasi-criminal Machiavellian strateg-- err, I mean, politics.

Fuck 'em all. Total shitshow.

I just want to remind everyone of Sebastian's position that the Comey firing and Russian affair are complete snoozers pumped up by a breathless and hysterical media, that the claims of a Constitutional crisis or comparisons to Watergate are foolish partisan nonsense, and that this whole thing is much ado about nothing. Because I thought about this viewpoint when I watched a short interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS this Morning. I already anticipate that Sebastian will ignore the substance of what Schieffer said and instead dismiss this as morning news idiocy. But for the rest of you, I think this is a worthwhile 5 minutes, watching a respected newsman who has lived through and been on the front lines of political crises for the last 50+ years succinctly sum up what I see as the complete disintegration of competence and integrity in the executive branch of our country:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/bob-sc...-amateur-hour/

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507553)

Lots of big words.

My own psychoanalytical construct of Trump's gestalt is that he's a fuckin asshole, and probably a bitter senile old coot, too.

I never want to hear the words "women are too emotional to be _____ " again.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 507575)

I never want to hear the words "women are too emotional to be _____ " again.

2.

To put a gloss on that, becoming a man in my 50s has led me to a realization as I watch some of my friends dealing with divorces, mid-life crises, etc. Which is that adolescent boys are not the most dangerously hormone addled males out there.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Contra to my assertion that racism is about ignorance, Gene Denny pointing out it's about power: https://twitter.com/geedee215/status/862865685713739776

Might be both though.

The Blood of Emmett Till was highly educational in that regard.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 507576)

In many regards (not all, but a lot of them), men are merely "brought to heel." Being compelled to suppress, and to act within certain dictates society has decided will provide "stability" is a far different thing than willingly and happily agreeing to do so (aka, maturing, or "growing").

Men are to a great degree frozen at age 18-25.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507578)

You're not going to like this: this is male privilege.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 507579)

You're not going to like this: this is male privilege.

Yes... Indeed. Being constrained by societal structures to refrain from indulging natural impulses and desires is quite the privilege.

By the way, this would fit under "everybody's privilege," as it does not apply solely to males. (In fact, such a conclusion might qualify as pretty sexist... or at least quite narrow minded.) Women, men, all races, all ethnicities, all sexualities -- we are all to some extent imprisoned by certain artificial social norms. I only spoke for men because that's the sole perspective from which I could offer first hand knowledge. My strong suspicion (I'd almost guarantee this) is women are just as much compelled to suppress themselves, and would rather live quite differently in many regards (or at least from time to time).

We're all closet hedonists constrained by risk/reward and comfort/excitement calculations. I'm not sure I can call it a cruel life in this regard, but I know "privileged" doesn't fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 507547)

This piece has enough truth in it to be truly terrifying.
_________

'Liberals like to say that we’re playing chess while Trump is playing checkers. What’s really happening is that we’re playing chess, Trump just knocked over the chessboard, and Dems are screaming “technically, you just lost” while Trump shoves our king up our asshole.

The people who can appoint a “special prosecutor” are Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, and technically Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It should go without saying that Donald Trump is not going to call for a special prosecutor to prosecute himself. It should also go without saying that Jeff Sessions, who has in NO WAY “recused” himself from the Russia investigation, is not going to sign off on a serious investigation into whether he colluded with the Russians to influence an election.

The freaking Lannisters have more respect for the rule of law than those two.

And if you are pinning your hopes on Rosenstein, know that he served up Comey’s head on a platter like he was probably ordered to do. There’s not going to be a special prosecutor. We are dealing with people who literally DGAF.

Congress could appoint an “independent commission” without approval from the executive branch. Of course, Congress is controlled by Republicans and Republicans have been playing the “there are no rules” game since America had the audacity to put a black man in charge. Mitch McConnell decided that black presidents only get to president for seven years, instead of eight, and won. “Deficit hawk” Paul Ryan passed a health care bill that will explode the deficit, and made people vote on it before they could read it and score it, and won. Everything that has happened in America over the past few years tells Congressional Republicans that they “win” when they simply ignore the “norms” of American governance.

You think they’ll change now? Why? WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? Again, they’re not playing a “game,” the have raw power and they are executing it. Why do you think they’re going to lube it up for you? Democrats are getting force-fed with a feeding tube, and Chuck Schumer is up there crying about his spoon full of sugar.

I know it doesn’t always seem this way, but American-style government exists by consent. The governed consent to be governed, usually by somebody nearly half of them didn’t vote for. The military consents to be governed by a civilian commander-in-chief, who in turn consents to be checked by Congress and the courts which have no military power. Elected and appointed officials consent to be governed by some old pieces of paper.

Trump does not consent. He doesn’t consent to your norms or your rules. There are only two questions Trump asks himself: “What can I do?” and “What can’t I do?” His power is not unlimited — eventually the world will rise up against him, even if Americans are too docile to do anything — but whatever power he has, he’s going to use.'

TM

Regarding this "consent" thing, you'll rarely see so much candor (this is a great article, btw). This applies to most of our institutions. I believe the media typically shies away from such a blunt analysis because to clue the broader public into how much leverage it has over the instruments of enforcement invites a lot more discussion of how it might thwart policies it does not like.

Charlie Rangel brilliantly said a few years ago that he could drive the Republic to the brink by reintroducing the draft. He was right. People at all levels would overwhelmingly refuse it, and in that situation, the enforcement capabilities of the institutions compelling obedience would fail. (They probably wouldn't even try to enforce it, as evidence of certain failure would be so obvious.)

Another author might extend this concept a bit. Isn't the bigger argument, Where does the game go when the winning strategy becomes refusing to play by the consented-to rules? Because, sooner or later, the rest of everybody else is going to adopt McConnell's and Trump's strategies.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 507580)

Yes... Indeed. Being constrained by societal structures to refrain from indulging natural impulses and desires is quite the privilege.

Being able to be frozen in place as a young adult in your heart of hearts is totally a privilege.

Also, you're constrained by the judgment of others, not actual threats of violence.

Also, you're characterizing immature impulses and desires as though they're "natural" or the "real you." Yeah.

Quote:

My strong suspicion (I'd almost guarantee this) is women are just as much compelled to suppress themselves, and would rather live quite differently in many regards (or at least from time to time).

Yes, because men will do violence and rape to them. In addition to those terrible societal pressures you have to deal with.

Quote:

We're all closet hedonists constrained by risk/reward and comfort/excitement calculations.

Your privilege is in the much shorter list of risks and their generally smaller magnitude.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:

Being able to be frozen in place as a young adult in your heart of hearts is totally a privilege.

If in her heart of hearts, a young woman wishes to be an artist, but is instead compelled to work in a boring business, would her lifelong retention of a feeling that she is at heart an artist be a "privilege"?

Strange definition you offer... You are saying the withholding of inner sincere views is a "privilege." I'm an agnostic leaning atheist. I've felt that way my entire life. I am compelled, at great annoyance, to bite my lip around the majority of people for whom such a view is controversial. Is this a privilege?

Quote:

Also, you're characterizing immature impulses and desires as though they're "natural" or the "real you." Yeah.

I am rather hedonist by nature. As I suspect are a lot of people. We'd like to indulge in all sorts of behaviors, but cannot do so (at least in our regular daily lives).

Magic mushrooms are delightful. Truly exceptional experience-enabling substances. Would you consider it "immature" to eat those past a certain age? (And what would that age be?) Skiing a mogul course in one's mid-forties is not wise in terms of joint health. If you do that, and you hurt your knees, should you be tsk-tsk'ed for being immature? Is it immature to listen to speed metal or gangsta rap at 55?

"Immature" is an artificial construct. It's got no objective meaning, and serves solely to allow those who wish to judge a device with which to do so. (If you look into conversion therapy, its replete with the notion homosexuality is just an "immature phase.")

Quote:

Yes, because men will do violence and rape to them.

Quote:

Your privilege is in the much shorter list of risks and their generally smaller magnitude.

Men are only constrained by social opprobrium, and women are constrained by both that and actual violence from men? Hence, male privilege exists, but an equivalent female variant does not?