Al Hunt
162 followers -
Religion is not looking for the Wizard of Oz, but deciding instead that the curtain is the answer to all of your questions.
Religion is not looking for the Wizard of Oz, but deciding instead that the curtain is the answer to all of your questions.
162 followers
Al Hunt's interests
Al Hunt's posts
Post has shared content
"You can now enjoy your mayonnaise without having to add your own ground beef or diced ham."
Post has shared content
Tweetizen Trump - 2017-07-12: "Boys Will Be Boys"
It's hump day, Donald, but the week just keeps looking busier and busier for me. How go things at the White House?
[Being a look at the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account, a glance at the @POTUS account, rearranged topically.]
===
► My son, Donald, will be interviewed by @seanhannity tonight at 10:00 P.M. He is a great person who loves our country! [1]
He loves it so much, he eagerly took a meeting to gather up information offered from the Russian government that would help you win the election.
Um ... don't you see how problematic that is, Donald? If not illegal?
You retweeted Fox News:
► .@jessebwatters on @DonaldJTrumpJr meeting with Russian attorney: "I believe Don Jr. is the victim here." #TheFive [2]
Yes. That's why he had to keep changing his story every time more information came out. Sort of like you and all your Administration members.
I mean, really, Donald: this has been the pattern, over and over and over again. Denial that anyone (else) talked with Russians when they shouldn't have, then denial of particular stories that come out, then denial that anything untoward was talked about, then
Step 1: "No, nobody (else) met with the Russians. Fake News!"
Step 2: "That person never met with the Russians, despite the stories. Fake News!"
Step 3: "Oh, well, it turns out that person met with the Russians, but it was something completely innocuous. Fake News!"
Step 4: "Someone leaked that information that they talked about something not completely innocuous! Who?! That's the real story! Leakers!"
Except in this case Step 4 was covered by your son himself, Donald -- by publishing the emails that have gotten him (and your son-in-law, and your campaign chair at the time before he quit because of business ties to the Russian-friendly Ukrainians) into such hot water.
If your son is the "victim" here, he's a victim of both his own cupidity and of serving with an Administration that has blown its credibility in such matters.
Then, this morning:
► My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad! [3]
Wait, is the pursuit of your son the "greatest Witch Hunt in political history," Donald? Or are you wrapping it up with the accusations against your campaign having colluded with the Russians, which you previously referred to as the "greatest Witch Hunt in political history."
(And it's a silly accusation because, frankly, anyone who makes such a claim having just come off of an era of over a dozen investigations into the Benghazi tragedy, most of them led by congressional Republicans, complete with many, many hours of testimony by the person who was Secretary of State at the time, all of it ending with a whole lotta nothing, and can do so with a straight face, really must have something to hide.)
But I get it, Donald. He's your son. Sure, he's painted the biggest target on his chest of anyone thus far except maybe Mike Flynn, but he's your son and you want to protect him. That protecting him protects yourself is -- probably -- not your greatest consideration.
But looking at his appearance on Hannity last night [11] does not fill me with confidence, or align with his description of things. A "casual" "acquaintance" calls him up during a busy campaign, suggests he should meet with someone, and he just does it out of "courtesy"? That doesn't quite fit with bringing along Jared, too, or Manafort.
Oh, yeah, maybe he thought there was some "opposition research" to be had. That it was clearly described as coming from the Russian government, as an effort to support you, Donald, didn't cause his "sirens" to go up.
And, finally, “I didn’t know if there was any credibility. I didn’t know if there was anything behind it. [...] Someone sent me an email. I can’t help what someone sends me.”
None of that particularly rings true when you read the emails he, himself, has released.
► Remember, when you hear the words "sources say" from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist. [4]
Except when you cite stories from "sources" and they say something you like, in which case they are completely believable and should be utterly trusted.
You would be more convincing, Donald, if you had any moral high ground to stand on here. Or even if you had a substantial number of actual cases where that turned out to be the case.
► .@WashTimes states "Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump." [7]
As was pointed out [8] in reply to your tweet, Donald, the Washington Times' headline story was "Donald Trump Jr.'s disclosure of emails reignites questions about Russian Dealings" -- so I'm not sure that's the source you want to be flogging right now.
We'll leave aside the WT's long history of being a clearly right-leaning media outlet. The bottom lne of the story [12] has to do with suggesting the Christopher Steele dossier was obtained by information gathered by Steele from senior Russian government sources. The article suggests that this was intentional disinformation from Russia, and since the Democrats have been using it against Trump, that means there is "significant, indirect collusion between Democrats and Russian disinformation".
That last part is from comments of "a former Trump campaign adviser who asked not to be identified" -- which means we should all remember what you just said about "sources," Donald.
The rest of the story is a weird melange of accusations, many of them trying to argue that everything about Russian hacking of the DNC comes from the Steele document, and therefore is plainly false. Except that (a) that's completely untrue (the IC report did not rely upon the Steele dossier), and (b) Steele's reference to information that is "unverified" does not make that information "false," just "not confirmed as true.
Frankly, Donald, the article is more inarticulate and twisted in its logic than something from from your press secretaries. Your retweeting it indicates a remarkably poor judgment as to source material, assuming you even read it before doing so.
► Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton may have gotten away with. Disgraceful! [9]
Oh, Donald.
The cry of "But that other person did bad stuff, too" is never a good sign. For one thing, it pretty much concedes your own guilt.
For another thing, it's a call to "fairness." Now, honestly, for me, that's a legit thing. If there's disparate treatment, if there's hypocrisy, if there are in fact differing standards, that's something worth decrying.
But "fairness" has never been a conservative standard. It makes justice and rectitude relative, rather than looking at each case in the vacuum of cold, hard standards.
If the standards you want to lay on Hillary Clinton would deem you guilty, the conservative ethic would say that you're guilty, not let you off because it wasn't "fair."
Lastly, your "side" own the Senate and the House and the White House. Your "side"'s media organization includes one of the most powerful outlets in the US (which you quote all the time). If you and yours are being treated "unfairly," if Clinton is being allowed to "get away with" undefined stuff -- why isn't your FBI looking into it? Why aren't committees in the Senate and the House probing her instead of you?
It's not convincing, Donald. Not at all.
===
During your morning Fox & Friends session, you retweeted:
► Getting the job done! Sen. Mitch McConnell delays August recess to work on health care bill [5]
Yup. The Senate will have another couple of weeks to work on the "Repeal & Replace" bill. It's not clear that will actually change anything, since it doesn't alter the issues. But it does let you further frame the issue as something that is Congress' responsibility (if it fails).
► ISIS is on the run & will soon be wiped out of Syria & Iraq, illegal border crossings are way down (75%) & MS 13 gangs are being removed. [6]
So this comes sort of out of nowhere, Donald. It's not a follow-up to anything. It's not a response to anything. It just seems to be an unsolicited rah-rah for all the cool things you are doing.
So ... what substantial impact have your policies and commanders had on the slow, grinding defeat of ISIL? I mean, the forces were rallied and moving on the attack in Mosul, etc., before you took office. If you're going to take credit for it, let us know the basis for that. Otherwise it's as meaningful as saying that the White House remains occupied (except on weekends).
You do get to take at least partial credit, it seems, for DHS reporting that apprehensions of folk who have illegally cross the border are way down. Fear tactics seemingly work. Of course, the trend of border crossings have been way down anyway, Donald. But I'm willing to concede that your saber-rattling against border crossings has had, for the moment, a significant effect on them.
Are MS-13 gangs, though, being "removed" faster or more thoroughly than they were before your Administration, Donald? I mean, you're not the first President to deem them a threat. A bit of backup would be nice.
All that having been said, it's still ... kind of weird, Donald, your blurting out your Administration's "achievements" unsolicited.
► The W.H. is functioning perfectly, focused on HealthCare, Tax Cuts/Reform & many other things. I have very little time for watching T.V. [10]
Says the man who tweets about stuff he's seen on "Fox & Friends" on a daily basis.
===
Your Social Media Minion tweeted on your behalf ...
... a retweet from Sean Spicer about Senate Dems "sabotaging" your presidency through cloture votes.
... a retweet from the White House (so many accounts!) about ... well, the same thing.
... an announcement about nominating four more Administration officials (so why so behind on nominating these folk?), two ambassadors, a Fed member, and two more members of yourVoter Suppresion Election Integrity commission.
--
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884931352201756672
[2] https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/884954946038321153
[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885081181980590084
[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885084555421634561
[5] https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/885081536470691840
[6] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885092844511387654
[7] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885109663217352704
[8] https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/885110391830962176
[9] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885128373441355777
[10] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885131482397908992
[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/sean-hannitys-interview-with-donald-trump-jr-tk/533364/?utm_source=atlgp
[12] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/
It's hump day, Donald, but the week just keeps looking busier and busier for me. How go things at the White House?
[Being a look at the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account, a glance at the @POTUS account, rearranged topically.]
===
► My son, Donald, will be interviewed by @seanhannity tonight at 10:00 P.M. He is a great person who loves our country! [1]
He loves it so much, he eagerly took a meeting to gather up information offered from the Russian government that would help you win the election.
Um ... don't you see how problematic that is, Donald? If not illegal?
You retweeted Fox News:
► .@jessebwatters on @DonaldJTrumpJr meeting with Russian attorney: "I believe Don Jr. is the victim here." #TheFive [2]
Yes. That's why he had to keep changing his story every time more information came out. Sort of like you and all your Administration members.
I mean, really, Donald: this has been the pattern, over and over and over again. Denial that anyone (else) talked with Russians when they shouldn't have, then denial of particular stories that come out, then denial that anything untoward was talked about, then
Step 1: "No, nobody (else) met with the Russians. Fake News!"
Step 2: "That person never met with the Russians, despite the stories. Fake News!"
Step 3: "Oh, well, it turns out that person met with the Russians, but it was something completely innocuous. Fake News!"
Step 4: "Someone leaked that information that they talked about something not completely innocuous! Who?! That's the real story! Leakers!"
Except in this case Step 4 was covered by your son himself, Donald -- by publishing the emails that have gotten him (and your son-in-law, and your campaign chair at the time before he quit because of business ties to the Russian-friendly Ukrainians) into such hot water.
If your son is the "victim" here, he's a victim of both his own cupidity and of serving with an Administration that has blown its credibility in such matters.
Then, this morning:
► My son Donald did a good job last night. He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad! [3]
Wait, is the pursuit of your son the "greatest Witch Hunt in political history," Donald? Or are you wrapping it up with the accusations against your campaign having colluded with the Russians, which you previously referred to as the "greatest Witch Hunt in political history."
(And it's a silly accusation because, frankly, anyone who makes such a claim having just come off of an era of over a dozen investigations into the Benghazi tragedy, most of them led by congressional Republicans, complete with many, many hours of testimony by the person who was Secretary of State at the time, all of it ending with a whole lotta nothing, and can do so with a straight face, really must have something to hide.)
But I get it, Donald. He's your son. Sure, he's painted the biggest target on his chest of anyone thus far except maybe Mike Flynn, but he's your son and you want to protect him. That protecting him protects yourself is -- probably -- not your greatest consideration.
But looking at his appearance on Hannity last night [11] does not fill me with confidence, or align with his description of things. A "casual" "acquaintance" calls him up during a busy campaign, suggests he should meet with someone, and he just does it out of "courtesy"? That doesn't quite fit with bringing along Jared, too, or Manafort.
Oh, yeah, maybe he thought there was some "opposition research" to be had. That it was clearly described as coming from the Russian government, as an effort to support you, Donald, didn't cause his "sirens" to go up.
And, finally, “I didn’t know if there was any credibility. I didn’t know if there was anything behind it. [...] Someone sent me an email. I can’t help what someone sends me.”
None of that particularly rings true when you read the emails he, himself, has released.
► Remember, when you hear the words "sources say" from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist. [4]
Except when you cite stories from "sources" and they say something you like, in which case they are completely believable and should be utterly trusted.
You would be more convincing, Donald, if you had any moral high ground to stand on here. Or even if you had a substantial number of actual cases where that turned out to be the case.
► .@WashTimes states "Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump." [7]
As was pointed out [8] in reply to your tweet, Donald, the Washington Times' headline story was "Donald Trump Jr.'s disclosure of emails reignites questions about Russian Dealings" -- so I'm not sure that's the source you want to be flogging right now.
We'll leave aside the WT's long history of being a clearly right-leaning media outlet. The bottom lne of the story [12] has to do with suggesting the Christopher Steele dossier was obtained by information gathered by Steele from senior Russian government sources. The article suggests that this was intentional disinformation from Russia, and since the Democrats have been using it against Trump, that means there is "significant, indirect collusion between Democrats and Russian disinformation".
That last part is from comments of "a former Trump campaign adviser who asked not to be identified" -- which means we should all remember what you just said about "sources," Donald.
The rest of the story is a weird melange of accusations, many of them trying to argue that everything about Russian hacking of the DNC comes from the Steele document, and therefore is plainly false. Except that (a) that's completely untrue (the IC report did not rely upon the Steele dossier), and (b) Steele's reference to information that is "unverified" does not make that information "false," just "not confirmed as true.
Frankly, Donald, the article is more inarticulate and twisted in its logic than something from from your press secretaries. Your retweeting it indicates a remarkably poor judgment as to source material, assuming you even read it before doing so.
► Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton may have gotten away with. Disgraceful! [9]
Oh, Donald.
The cry of "But that other person did bad stuff, too" is never a good sign. For one thing, it pretty much concedes your own guilt.
For another thing, it's a call to "fairness." Now, honestly, for me, that's a legit thing. If there's disparate treatment, if there's hypocrisy, if there are in fact differing standards, that's something worth decrying.
But "fairness" has never been a conservative standard. It makes justice and rectitude relative, rather than looking at each case in the vacuum of cold, hard standards.
If the standards you want to lay on Hillary Clinton would deem you guilty, the conservative ethic would say that you're guilty, not let you off because it wasn't "fair."
Lastly, your "side" own the Senate and the House and the White House. Your "side"'s media organization includes one of the most powerful outlets in the US (which you quote all the time). If you and yours are being treated "unfairly," if Clinton is being allowed to "get away with" undefined stuff -- why isn't your FBI looking into it? Why aren't committees in the Senate and the House probing her instead of you?
It's not convincing, Donald. Not at all.
===
During your morning Fox & Friends session, you retweeted:
► Getting the job done! Sen. Mitch McConnell delays August recess to work on health care bill [5]
Yup. The Senate will have another couple of weeks to work on the "Repeal & Replace" bill. It's not clear that will actually change anything, since it doesn't alter the issues. But it does let you further frame the issue as something that is Congress' responsibility (if it fails).
► ISIS is on the run & will soon be wiped out of Syria & Iraq, illegal border crossings are way down (75%) & MS 13 gangs are being removed. [6]
So this comes sort of out of nowhere, Donald. It's not a follow-up to anything. It's not a response to anything. It just seems to be an unsolicited rah-rah for all the cool things you are doing.
So ... what substantial impact have your policies and commanders had on the slow, grinding defeat of ISIL? I mean, the forces were rallied and moving on the attack in Mosul, etc., before you took office. If you're going to take credit for it, let us know the basis for that. Otherwise it's as meaningful as saying that the White House remains occupied (except on weekends).
You do get to take at least partial credit, it seems, for DHS reporting that apprehensions of folk who have illegally cross the border are way down. Fear tactics seemingly work. Of course, the trend of border crossings have been way down anyway, Donald. But I'm willing to concede that your saber-rattling against border crossings has had, for the moment, a significant effect on them.
Are MS-13 gangs, though, being "removed" faster or more thoroughly than they were before your Administration, Donald? I mean, you're not the first President to deem them a threat. A bit of backup would be nice.
All that having been said, it's still ... kind of weird, Donald, your blurting out your Administration's "achievements" unsolicited.
► The W.H. is functioning perfectly, focused on HealthCare, Tax Cuts/Reform & many other things. I have very little time for watching T.V. [10]
Says the man who tweets about stuff he's seen on "Fox & Friends" on a daily basis.
===
Your Social Media Minion tweeted on your behalf ...
... a retweet from Sean Spicer about Senate Dems "sabotaging" your presidency through cloture votes.
... a retweet from the White House (so many accounts!) about ... well, the same thing.
... an announcement about nominating four more Administration officials (so why so behind on nominating these folk?), two ambassadors, a Fed member, and two more members of your
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884931352201756672
[2] https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/884954946038321153
[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885081181980590084
[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885084555421634561
[5] https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/885081536470691840
[6] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885092844511387654
[7] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885109663217352704
[8] https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/885110391830962176
[9] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885128373441355777
[10] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885131482397908992
[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/sean-hannitys-interview-with-donald-trump-jr-tk/533364/?utm_source=atlgp
[12] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/
Post has shared content
Google Street View takes on the world's biggest model railway.
And its many wonderful scenes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-miniatur-wunderland-street-view-photos-2017-7/
And its many wonderful scenes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-miniatur-wunderland-street-view-photos-2017-7/
Post has shared content
How do cybercrooks double their returns with mobile phones?
Post has shared content
Here is a very perceptive and articulate Australian view on Trump at the G20. It's actually the best summation of our situation that I've heard or read or seen, all in a compact, on-air report about POTUS effectively ceding leadership of the world to China and Russia. The background image - of the president of the United States, friendless, wandering the lunch table looking for any of the leaders willing to have him join them - would be heart-melting, if not so richly earned.
https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/10156942348159988/?pnref=story
https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/10156942348159988/?pnref=story
Post has attachment
Grey Wizard EFF responds. Zillow's Balrog backs down, whimpering.
Post has attachment
Post has attachment
Would they have been equally irked with Christians? Doubt it. Cork it.
I'm no fan of religion of any sort, however, it's a public place. If they followed park requirements, they're not proselytizing, or being overly loud (often a form of proselytizing), then more power to them.
The video shows a perfectly reasonable roped-off private gathering in a public place. Nothing wrong with that. Hope they enjoyed it.
I'm no fan of religion of any sort, however, it's a public place. If they followed park requirements, they're not proselytizing, or being overly loud (often a form of proselytizing), then more power to them.
The video shows a perfectly reasonable roped-off private gathering in a public place. Nothing wrong with that. Hope they enjoyed it.
Post has attachment
I'll give her a pass on this one. It is pretty funny if you haven't seen it before.
Once you get over the giggles and listen a few times you start to notice the neat resonance of the two voices overlapping. A bit like that monk throat singing.
Once you get over the giggles and listen a few times you start to notice the neat resonance of the two voices overlapping. A bit like that monk throat singing.
Post has shared content
Hey, U.S.: You're fucked up.
Look how much of the country is crazy!
Eighty-nine percent of Republicans trust Trump more than CNN. What can you do with people who are so far gone?
Here are the "takeaways" from the poll, the mistakes the two parties are making according to the person in charge of the polls.
"A red flag for Democrats continues to be a perception that Trump is isolating himself from the GOP base with his tweets. Not only do most Republicans approve of his use of Twitter, but asked to describe those tweets, the No. 1 mention among the GOP is 'truthful,' with 'entertaining' in second place."
"[T]he biggest danger for Republicans is that they grow content with firing up the base: Fully three-quarters of pure independents (those that don't lean one way or the other) disapprove of Trump's tweeting, and their top three descriptors for it are 'undignified,' 'mean,' and 'dishonest.'"
Eighty-nine percent of Republicans trust Trump more than CNN. What can you do with people who are so far gone?
Here are the "takeaways" from the poll, the mistakes the two parties are making according to the person in charge of the polls.
"A red flag for Democrats continues to be a perception that Trump is isolating himself from the GOP base with his tweets. Not only do most Republicans approve of his use of Twitter, but asked to describe those tweets, the No. 1 mention among the GOP is 'truthful,' with 'entertaining' in second place."
"[T]he biggest danger for Republicans is that they grow content with firing up the base: Fully three-quarters of pure independents (those that don't lean one way or the other) disapprove of Trump's tweeting, and their top three descriptors for it are 'undignified,' 'mean,' and 'dishonest.'"
Wait while more posts are being loaded