Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, June 2, 2017

Recommended Reading

(Note: two posts today. Please scroll down)

One anti-Trumper's inconsistency on display. See Washington Post’s Fake Conservative Blogger Hated The Paris Deal…Until Trump Agreed With Her: Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin used to hate the Paris climate deal. Then Trump agreed with her. Now she loves it. What changed? in The Federalist. Excerpt below the fold:
...If you want to see what a brain high on bitter anti-Trumpism looks like, look no further than Jennifer Rubin’s latest rants in the Washington Post. Before Trump came along, she hated the Paris deal, for good reason. But as soon as Trump agreed with her, she couldn’t countenance being on the same side of an issue as him. So she magically decided that opposition to the deal made you a knuckle-dragging, science-hating Luddite, all because Trump had the audacity to agree with her....
Read the rest HERE.

65 comments:

  1. Wonderful find that sums up this whole nasty business. Isn't the internet super? The past is just so much harder to get away from isn't it? Betcha Hillary may add the internet to her list of paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bunkerville,
      Betcha Hillary may add the internet to her list of paranoia.

      She really should!

      Delete
  2. She, apparently, has a husband by the name of Jonathon; I'm sure glad that I'm NOT him!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jennifer Rubin is in the same category as David Frum, Joe Scarborough, David Brooks and Ross Douthat: Token conservative dancing boys for the Progressive Infotainment Media Complex propaganda fonts they serve.

    I love how President Trump is driving the unhinged left down a steep grade in a runaway train to Batshiteville.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      The meltdown of various individuals (Too many to name!) and various entities (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) is quite something to observe. Talk about hyperventilating! Sheesh.

      Today's Morning Joe was blathering about how we have President Bannon, not President Trump in the Oval Office. I managed to watch about 40 minutes, then had to bail.

      Delete
  4. It's a bit of a leap from Rubin's (a real yenta) observation that the accord is ephemeral and not sufficiently substantial to calling her criticism of Trump's withdrawal ,hypocrisy.

    Trump didn't withdraw because he felt we should do more than called for in the accord and nothing would prevent him from going beyond the accord.

    He used the accord for a cheap appeal to nationalism and the false idea that withdrawal will create jobs (the pure stinky cheese).

    The real story is how far the right has to stretch to defend this guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duck,
      Disagree on many counts, but I'll choose just one....

      Rubin's reaction to America's withdrawal from the Paris Accords IS hypocrisy -- and, as the essay mentions, blindness caused by anti-Trumpism. As the essay states:

      ...What makes Rubin’s attack on Trump so strange, though, is that Rubin herself was a staunch opponent of President Barack Obama’s 2015 climate change deal…right up until Trump opposed it....

      Read the entire essay!

      Delete
    2. She can hold both positions and be consistent.

      It's quite reasonable to believe that the accord is insubstantial (her objection per the article) and also believe it was a mistake for Trump to withdraw.

      The more effort spent deflecting criticism the less time spent actually analyzing his ideas (or lack, more appropriately).

      Delete
    3. "She can hold both positions and be consistent."

      Isn't this an example of Orwell's "doublethink"?
      Yes, I'm glad that I'm not Jonathon.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. If we are giving China and India a walk, why have they recently cancelled gigs of coal generation?

      The scientists at M.I.T. have debunked Trump's inept reading of the research.

      In short, Zinke is trying to give everyone the shine.

      Delete
    2. I don't know ducky. Looks to me like the USA already has its' house in order... so why all the whining?

      Delete
    3. An honest assessment of the graph above proves just how BAD a deal (when compared to "others") the climate "accord" was.

      Delete
    4. De nada. I'm always looking to expose the vacuity of the arguments of the 'CTRL Left.' ;)

      Delete
    5. Speedy G,
      Good on mighty Poland!

      Interesting comments there, too.

      Delete
  6. Congress never would have signed this bill ...it's why Obama signed it without them. It wasn't a treaty. It cost us the most. We were being held to account, not other countries...not yet.
    Ridiculous.

    But what's REALLY ridiculous is the stupidity of the Left suggesting that NOW TRUMP WANTS DIRTY WATER AND DIRTY AIR....or at least making those ridiculous innuendos.

    What I LIKE is silly leftwing mayors insisting THEY will follow the Paris agreement. GOOD FOR THEM! And they can PAY FOR IT. I'm all for that; the cleaner our planet can be, I'm on it....but the BS of this Paris agreement? No way.
    \If ONLY people actually listened to speeches and didn't just listen to dumb misleading headlines...if ONLY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      You made a point that has, so far, been lost in many discussions last night and today:

      Congress never would have signed this bill ...it's why Obama signed it without them.

      I've noticed some of the mayors making their declarations. Sure, they can implement elements of the Paris Accords.

      But pay for it? I'm not sure. Were they supposed to get federal monies for adhering to the Paris Accords?

      Delete
    2. If they want to do it now, it's up to the states...I like that.
      Sad, SO sad, that the liberal media will NOT remind people of what Trump actually said...so sad. And SO typical.

      Delete
    3. I actually listened to the speech but I wonder if it was the same you heard.
      I'm still trying to understand what he thought was accomplished.

      1. It is a non-binding agreement so he didn't have to withdraw. That just made us an outcast. Pointless.

      2. The money that goes into the fund that is meant for primarily small island nations currently dealing with serious climate change issues was pledged at 4 billion. Obama gave 1 billion.
      Tip money. That won't even cover Ivanka's hair and make-up costs.

      3. He's claims China and India get a pass. How can they get a pass in a non-binding agreement? Truly curious.
      If they are getting a pass, why have they cancelled gigawatts of coal generation capacity and invested in solar?

      4. What is his fascination with coal? Strange. The jobs ain't coming back. Mountain top removal is heavily automated. There is a world wide glut. Natural gas is available and cheaper.
      Massachusetts (state action) just closed our last regional coal plant June 1st. The jobs ain't coming back.

      5. What are the costs of ceding the solar business to China. Why wouldn't we want to invest in a huge growth industry.
      Investment has generated benefits in Mass.
      Storage battery advances.
      A regional wind turbine research center.
      The jobs are there not in coal.

      6. His quote of the M.I.T. research was inaccurate and has been corrected by the researchers.

      That's the speech I heard.
      I'd like to know what you heard because it obviously differs.
      If Trump is going to make us a pariah there should be good reason. What is it?

      Delete
  7. AOW. I hope you find the time to watch the short video I posted today; You will like it, I promise

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      Thanks for the heads up! I'll take a look.

      Delete
    2. Very misleading clip.

      It spends most of its time on the infamous "uranium transfer" giving the false impression that a percentage of our uranium was given to Russia. Completely inaccurate.

      A South African mining company which owned some uranium mining operations in the U.S. merged with a Canadian company which proposed to sell a controlling interest to a Russian company.
      Since a strategic material was involved, that aspect of the business was subject to approval by several agencies. Note that cabinet level approval was not required.
      The approval was given and since it is a strategic material, the uranium stays within the U.S.
      No uranium was given to Russia.
      It was all a matter of public record.
      It was perfectly legal.
      Since Clinton's signature was not required the Clinton Foundation contributions are red herrings.

      In other words - the clip is misleading at best and possibly an intentional lie.

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      That's right....Keep defending the Clintons. **frown**

      Delete
    4. Ducky's correct on this issue. It's an empty and sad rhetorical arrow in the Right's quiver.

      Delete
    5. Now that HRC is not the POTUS, I don't pay much attention to her or the Clinton Foundation. Too much convolution, and I won't waste my time on it.

      It is my general rule of thumb that the Clintons and everything they touch are corrupt to some degree. They are grifters -- political grifters.

      Delete
  8. I can retain the right-libertarian political outlook I've held for decades and not change a thing to remain "NeverTrump." As long as his supporters want to pretend we live in some hypothetical fantasyland where Trump is not a blithering imbecile, we're not going to have a productive discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG, the President made a typo, what a blithering idiot!

      You idiots don't want a "productive discussion". You prefer to live in your hypothetical fantasylands where global capitalism sustains the European and American welfare states. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. A typo is the least of Trump's problems. As long as the Trump-right continues to blather about "fake news", yet ignore the lies from their own 'anointed one'.....they will continue to deserve scorn and mockery.....just as the left does.

      Delete
    3. What lies would those be? The one's where he says climate change is a hoax and then renounces Obama's 'Fake Treaty'? Or the FACT that you'll be seeing a wall on our southern border in a few years?

      Delete
    4. No...all of the other lies. Shouldn't write a check with your mouth, that you ass can't cash....especially with politicians.

      Delete
    5. "We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!" Georges Strasser, founder of the National Socialist German Workers Party, before he was plagiarized by Donald Trump

      Delete
    6. Just drop another billion in the Church of Global Warming's collection plate, beamish.

      Delete
    7. You know your boy, Romney would! :)

      Delete
    8. ...and its all strictly, voluntary...just like the climate accords!

      Delete
    9. Only Nixon could go to China. :)

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind." - RW Emerson

      Delete
    12. ...besides, Trump has broken the Overton window. Soon, he'll have broken it's MSM "manufacturer's" as well. :)

      Delete
    13. Join us, as we all "cuck the duck".

      Delete
    14. Remember when MTV played music videos instead of different variations of the Jackass crew sticking foriegn objects up their rectums? I don't watch MTV anymore because ewwww, and I don't even care if that's no longer their business model. They surrendered their first principles and are no longer what they set out to be.

      I feel the same way about the Republican Party. Future candidates will be weighed against the number of opportunities to hit Donald Trump in the mouth with a tire iron that they squandered.

      Delete
    15. TC,
      Remember when MTV played music videos instead of different variations of the Jackass crew sticking foriegn objects up their rectums?

      Please tell me that the above is satire and not literal. **asking this with only one sip of coffee**

      Delete
    16. I've not watched MTV since Jackass spawned three (perhaps more) spinoffs of that sticking-stuff-up-asses genre.

      Delete
    17. "Politics is downstream from culture." - Andrew Breitbart

      Shoving things up ones own asses for entertainment ---> Donald Trump

      Delete
    18. TC,
      I didn't ever watch MTV -- except for a few times. Once was to see Thriller, and I can't recall the other times, which couldn't have been more than three.

      Delete
    19. TC,
      As I think about it, my age is showing. About 20 years difference between you and me.

      Just to be clear: I wasn't a devotee of Lawrence Welk, either. I'm not that old! ;^)

      Delete
    20. Besides, I'm more auditory than visual.

      Delete
    21. On the ad hoc "cultural conservative" scale, would your place Donald Trump closer to Lawrence Welk conducting a polka, or Johnny Knoxville locking his cohorts inside an overflowing portable toilet and turning said port-a-potty upside down for "laughs?"

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. National security.... lol!

      Then WHY didn't Obama submit it as a formal treaty?

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Mrs. Grundy. The blog administrators here were a little late in taking out the trash (namely, comments posted by Liberalmann).

      But I like the videos to which you linked. An oldie but a goodie!

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective