Blog powered by Typepad

« Right! Pay attention, Britain! | Main | I shall return - honestly! »

Friday, 26 May 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Christopher Buckley captures the essence of the Trump presidency. For most Americans it's more humiliating than funny, though.

President Trump now has a 48.5% approval rating. Allowing for those who don't care, the maths would indicate that a majority of Americans are not humiliated by the Trump Presidency.

I have not met Christopher Buckley, but those who have tell me he bats for the other team, IYKWIM, and think that you do.

>"it's hotter here in 'Zummerzet' than it is in Arkansas."
No argument on that front David, yesterday 72f=22c dipping to 46f=7c last night in this portion of Arkansas.

Buckley reads like an humorous satirical article one could find in "The Onion".

Would also be humorous should Christopher Buckley be related to Wm. F. Buckley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.

The only major poll that gives Trump a 48% approval is Rasmussen, which is a Republican polling outfit:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Even in that one his disapproval is 52%.

Uppers, I had no idea that you were an Arkie! Welcome aboard!

Me neither David! As far as I know, I am the only North Carolinian-Tarheel- here.

David, permit me to direct your attention to this exchange.

Going out on a limb, I would hazard a guess that President Trump has not lost the support of the people who voted for him. Part of his appeal is his brash New York in your face style.
I would also hazard that the Democrats and the MSM, but I repeat myself, are not furthering their cause with their constant whiny stream of negativity. They are in an echo chamber and failing to convince anyone outside the cult.
In the meantime the President is achieving his agenda, albeit at a slower pace due to all the irrational opposition.

At what point does some of this behavior become defineable as treason?

Hmmm ...

Well David it would appear your memory for commentors is nearabouts as good as your memory of past predictions.

Hey Ups.

Incidentally David, yesterday I found myself wearing my flannel underdrawers it was so cold. Today a mere 26° (y'alls guage).

I'm hardly "fridging" my beers.

G'day JK

"fridging" my beers.

Is that Arkansian for "freezing my nuts off"?

Hey JK.

Thought right proper to give Davids memory a gentle nudgin'.

Timbo,

"At what point does some of this behavior become definable as treason?"
I have been wondering about that myself, as I am sure many other patriotic Americans have, too. I am reminded of the deplorable Jimma Carter asserting that he had committed "adultery of the heart". I strongly suspect that many Leftists have committed treason in the mind, just like the deplorable douchebag Madonna.

Nope, Treason is defined in the US Constitution as, "Making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war, tried before the Supreme Court, testimony of two witnesses to one overt act. "

A few years ago, I heard some idiot, talking to a radio call-in program, who claimed that all the US military took an oath of allegiance to Barack H Soetero, or to whomever. German soldiers did take an oath to Adolph, but American soldiers swear allegiance to the Constitution.

The Framers were very sensitive about treason charges, e.g. the memory of queens being beheaded for cuckolding the king. Even the acts of espionage by Manning and possibly Clinton can not bring a treason charge. They are quite loathsome people but the charges must be espionage, not treason.

Well accurately AussieD the "freezing of the nuts off" would be referenced under the flannel underdrawers.

Hardly fridging the beers refers to "our bad custom" of placing our beers in ice (not me personally so much as Barney's Brews yield better tastes only slightly chilled).

I pray AD, my linking on the previous post didn't bang up your eyesight overly? In my defense I'd simply point to at the end of that link was featured the delightful Memsahib - who contrary to how David would have us believe - is actually doggone sparkly wouldn't you agree?

"Sparkly" is the word hillbillys tend toward when a pal's wife requires a description within the bounds of good manners ... which I admit to some degree of poor navigation skills generally.

Thank you, Gentlemen, for finding where I had put my memory down and forgotten it! Mind you, it was over four years ago and four minutes for me is a real tester.

Arkie in the Land Down Under failing to chill the beer before distribution to those about to imbibe is an offence punishable by extreme social ostracism. Sort of like putting water in an aged single malt whisky. It has even been known to result in acts of violence against the culprit.

Michael,

You are probably correct about the definition of the word "treason", as defined in the United States. But in the context of discussions such as this thread, that is mere semantics, IMHO. In an online blog, nearly all remarks are based on commenters' opinions, not on scholarly supported "facts".

In my own remarks here, my use of the word "treason" is meant to be a shorthand for behavior that expresses hateful, total, and unrelenting opposition to everything our sitting president says and does.

I have been an American during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Dubya, Obama, and now Trump. I have voted in every presidential election that I have qualified for (by age), namely all those since LBJ. Of those, I voted for LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Dubya, and Trump; I voted against the others (Ford was unelected).

I have never before seen such unrelenting hatred for our sitting president by any coalition of deplorable losers as we have witnessed against President Trump.

Michael,

Thank you for the clarification. I think the constant negativity has potential to not be in America's national interests.
On a similar note,
The Rosenburgs were executed for giving nuclear secrets to the Soviets, an ally at the time. I only mention this as it seems to make the definition a little wider.

Well yeah AussieD, I'm aware of y'alls "finer discernments" but, as I've caught hell here a time or two ... well mebbe three or so ... I try to head 'em off at the pass so to speak.

But with these here Englishers sometimes discretion an' all ... but yep I am five-by-five on what you're saying.

(Five-by-five to y'all unintiates is to do with Inter-Helo-Speak - sometime [depending on the subject of the post] I'll do my best 5/0 to let y'all in on how a USMC General officer "chose his words" allowing he knew there was Aussies an' a Arkie on a helo who, perhaps unwisely, decided the the paddy appeared drier than it actually was. *Clue - USN heloes accustomed to landing on steel decks generally have rubber tires forward on the skids.)

Longish story. Comes in parts.

Hmmm an' Michael Adams,

I'm reliably informed you attempted that contact # which, if everything goes as "planned/outlined" ought to be clear in about ... oh make it Tuesday "our time" oh-dark-thirtyish which, should see me well suited outside the BOQ.

At the momentary I'm perimeter-commo for a local event.

(Timbo: Trying not to confuse the issue overly - there was a Finding concerning what was then [pre-Defense Act 1948] nomened a "Strategic Asset" and as such was, perhaps unavailable to Wikipedia, defined under the General Order that, "Gentlemen do not read other Gentleman's Private Correspondence." ... ... Give or take ...)

The comments to this entry are closed.