Donald Trump Damage Control

A few days ago, Donald Trump pissed a lot of people off when he went on Chris Matthews' show and backed an abortion ban and said that women who received abortions would be "punished." He later made a "clarification" that only the doctor's who perform abortions would be punished, but this did not stop the avalanche of criticism he received from people on both sides of the abortion debate. The President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund accused him of being "out of touch" with the pro-life movement, members of pro-choice NARAL said his position was "far from where the American people are," and Ken Blackwell of the pro-life Family Research Council said that this comment revealed his "lack of any in-depth involvement with the pro-life movement."

John Kasich slammed Trump, and said that he'd probably find a way to claim that he was "misquoted." Given Trump's history of getting butthurt when subjected to criticism, this was an astute prediction. And lo and behold, this is exactly what he did!

"That was a hypothetical question. It was not a wrong answer." Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity during his Monday night show in Wisconsin. "There were other people that wrote me letters by the hundreds saying that it was a great answer to that question the way it was raised."

Are these "hundreds" of people also hypothetical? And did he only "hypothetically" insult Chris Matthews in his next statement?

"I did this show because it's not a high-rated show. He's always been--I mean, he's never treated me badly. And I didn't think it was a big thing to do the show, and as a hypothetical question you give a hypothetical answer, and I didn't see the big, big, huge deal."

Trump also complained that John Kasich gave a bad answer to a question on abortion and it got no coverage. Because of course he did. This is pretty much a prototypical Donald Trump reaction to criticism. It goes in four points. Dodge the criticism, claim that numerous people are on his side, insult the person who asked him the original question, and complain that the other candidates aren't getting as much scrutiny as he is.

The Dodging: Trump claimed that it was just a hypothetical question, meaning that his answer is also hypothetical, and therefore it can't be a wrong answer

The Claims of Support: Trump claimed that "hundreds" of people sent him letters that told him he gave a "great answer," ignoring the fact that his answer was different from his first answer in which he unmistakably said that the woman would receive "some form of punishment." Broad, blanket statements claiming that "hundreds of people liked my answer," can't be fact-checked and proven wrong, therefore Trump is right

The Insult: A classic staple of Mr. Trump--one that makes him so successful in politics--is his use of the ad hominem fallacy, in which he attacks the person making the argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. Hence, his snipe at the "not high" ratings of Chris Matthews' show. Since the ratings are low, his answer shouldn't be a "big deal," and is therefore not wrong

The Complaints: Trump complained that the media is biased against him because John Kasich also gave a bad answer on abortion and there was no coverage. This is despite the fact that Trump previously stated that his answer was hypothetical, and is therefore not bad. This is also despite the fact that there was coverage of this.

This makes me wonder how Trump would respond to criticism as President. Would British criticism of his actions be invalid because America is a more popular place to live than Britain? Would he not be responsible for any tension he inflames if he threatens to bomb a country because bombing of said country is just a "hypothetical" scenario? Would it be okay for him to ignore the Bill of Rights because he gets a lot of letters from people saying they agree with him?

Donald Trump's Union-Busting attempt in Las Vegas fails

A group of 500 workers at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas voted to unionize in December and have been demanding a sit-down and contract negotiation with the management. The National Labor Relations Board has certified this union over the objections of Trump's Company. The management has announced their intentions to appeal the ruling, and workers have reported being intimidated by members of a "union avoidance" consulting firm hired by the management. The firm told them that if they voted to unionize they'd lose their jobs, and that the company would blacklist their names so that they'd never find work in Las Vegas again.

The National Labor Relations Act prohibits companies from using coercion and intimidation tactics in order to prevent employees from unionizing. The reason these workers were unionizing was because of their low wages--"lower than most in Las Vegas" according to the housekeeper who organized the union. Trump likes to talk about the problems faced by many (white) Americans working for lower-wages (and how it's Mexico's fault that wages are falling), but his own businesses routinely engage in practices that lower wages and the standard of living for workers.

Donald Trump Outlines Plan To Have Mexico Pay For The Wall

You know how Donald Trump wants to build a wall around Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants? And he wants to make Mexico pay for it? Well, he's finally revealed his plan to make them do just that!

Trump: The wall is a fraction of the kind of money that--in many different ways--that Mexico takes from us. The wall is a fraction--you know you're talking about a $10 billion wall...and...a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion, and probably going to get worse--if they run it, if I run it, there won't be a trade deficit.

But of course.

Kevin Liptak (CNN Reporter): Today, the Trump Campaign is outlining its plan--what it's saying is that it is essentially going to threaten Mexico that if it does not pay the $10 billion dollars for the wall, the US Government will halt remittances--money transfers--stopping citizens from wiring money to their relatives in Mexico...the Trump Campaign estimates that will total somewhere in the neighborhood of $24 billion. 

And how is Trump going to make sure that money doesn't get sent? He didn't explain that, but he did propose that the US Government crack down on visas from business travelers and tourists coming from Mexico.  If you're wondering how either proposal is in any way legal, Trump is using an interpretation of the Patriot Act--yes that Patriot Act. He has a memo on his website detailing how this plan would work. Most of it is posturing--especially the part where he talks about cancelling visas. He only speaks about it as a leverage point--no details about he can do this legally are given. He also seems to think that losing $24 billion in yearly remittances will somehow be financially devastating to a country with a GDP of $1.3 trillion...and that doesn't count the profits from the underground economy ruled by the drug cartels.

Oh, but I'm sure the Mexican government is shaking in fear from Trump's threats.

The Eastern Oregon Militia Occupation: A Detailed History (Part 2)

After the 1994 charges against the Hammonds were dropped in 1997, it seemed like this small, local controversy would fade into annals of state history as an obscure oddity in the background. However, this would not be the Hammonds' last run-in with the law. In 1999, the Hammonds were given a warning by the Bureau of Land Management that they while they could lease public lands for grazing, they were not permitted to burn anything without authorization.

In September of 2001, they set fire on their property that spread to public lands. They claimed that this was to burn off invasive species, but a teenage relative testified that the intent was not so innocuous. Said teenage had to take shelter in a creek because the flames spread so high and so rapidly. The fire ultimately burned away 139 acres of public land and "took the acreage out of production for two growing seasons." If you're wondering why something like this didn't make national headlines, need I remind you of a certain particular major world event that took place in September of 2001?

In August of 2006, a lightning storm caused several fires near to where the Hammonds grew their winter stock. Steven Hammond responded by setting back burns near the boundary of his land. The problem was that a burn ban was in effect and a waiver was required in order to set a fire legally. Steven Hammond did not seek this waiver.

In 2010, the BLM filed charges against the Hammonds for arson and in 2012 they were put on trial.

Donald Trump DROPS MEGA-EPIC BOMBSHELL TRUTH on 9/11!

Okay, so maybe he didn't say he knows the truth about 9/11 specifically, but that clickbait title got your attention, didn't it?

Trump was in South Carolina, and he was pitching the idea that he would reveal publicly guarded secrets about who really did 9/11 if he was elected President. In South Carolina, Trump said that we went after Iraq even though they didn't knock down the Trade Centers.

"It wasn't the Iraqis that knocked down the Trade Center, we went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran's taking over, okay."

Wait, that's not a secret. We've known this for ten years now. Al Qaeda was not affiliated with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. And the Iraq War destabilized the region and resulted in a long quagmire that ultimately only served to empower the various Jihadist groups, this is all news from 2006, not 2016. So why is Trump bringing it up now?

"Because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it's the Saudis, okay. But you will find out."

 Okay, a lot of the hijackers were Saudis, this is true. But the Saudi Royal Family would be taking a huge financial risk by directly attacking what was at the time one of their biggest oil trading partners. They've certainly backed a few smaller terrorist groups, but openly aligning themselves with the most notorious of these terrorist organizations would be financially disastrous for them. Having the rest of the civilized world turn against you isn't good for your country's economy.

The Eastern Oregon Militia Occupation: A Detailed History (Part 1)

2016 is off to an eventful start. Near Burns, Oregon (which happens to be the state that I live in), Ammon Bundy of the Bundy Militia has been "occupying" the federally owned Malheur National Wildlife Reserve since the beginning of January. This whole shitstorm started with the arrest of Steven Hammond for starting a fire on public property without a license. That incident happened on August 26, 2006, and was called the Lower Ridge Creek fire. According to this 2012 news article on the incident, Hammond and his father got in trouble as far back as 1999 for illegally starting fires to improve grazing conditions. They also set a fire in 2001 to scare away deer hunters. Because just having a talk with them would have been too difficult, I guess.

On August 26, 2006, Steven Hammond and his father set an illegal fire that threatened to overrun an BLM (Bureau of Land Management) brush engine and its crew. A firefighter named Lance Okeson confronted Hammond at the scene of the fire, according to US Attorney Frank Papagni Jr. The Hammonds were charged with nine counts involving conspiracy and setting illegal fires on federal lands. There's also a count of alleged witness tampering involving a confrontation between Steven Hammond and rangeland conservation manager Joe Glascock.

Looking into the history of Mr. Hammond, I discovered that he and his father actually got in trouble with the law even earlier than I originally thought. A news article from 1994 details a conflict between Dwight Hammond, Steven's father, and Steven himself against the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That particular controversy started when federal officials tried to build a fence around the Malheur Wildlife Refuge to keep the Hammond family's cattle from trespassing on the land. The Hammonds attempted to block them from building the fence and were arrested and charged with interfering in federal operations. 500 ranchers showed up to protest the arrest of the Hammonds and the Oregon Lands Coalition declared their arrest, "A Hostage Situtation." Bob Smith, a Republican politician representing Oregon's 2nd Congressional District at the time, wrote a letter to then US Interior Labor Secretary Bruce Babbitt, declaring his support of the Hammonds and that their arrests had "made his constituents lose faith in their government." This was the middle of an election season, so it was probably just political grandstanding, but it did have an effect. The charges against the Hammonds were reduced from a felonies with a maximum of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine to misdemeanors with a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. A hearing on the charges had been scheduled in September of that year, but it ended up getting postponed indefinitely.

That 1994 controversy stemmed from Dwight Hammond repeatedly violating the terms of a special permit that allowed him to move his cattle through the refuge at specific times, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This led to his right to graze cattle on the haven south of Berns being revoked by refuge manager Forrest Cameron in June of that year. Hammond also allegedly sent Cameron death threats. He also allegedly sent previous refuge managers death threats in 1986 and 1988. I can see him wanting to protect his cattle and his livelihood, but his behavior makes it hard for me to sympathize with him.

This 1994 controversy didn't gain much news traction outside of Oregon, probably because the National Media was obsessed with the OJ Simpson murder case at the time. In 1995, voters who supported the Hammonds attempted to recall two members of the Harney County Court for not intervening on the Hammonds' behalf, but the attempt failed. The controversy seemingly was over in 1997, when the charges against the Hammonds were dropped entirely.

My 5 predictions for 2016 social media "challenges"

The rise of the internet and social media, with platforms such as YouTube and Vine, has resulted in the phenomena of extremely stupid people trying to become famous via viral trends. Perhaps the dumbest of these trends are the myriad of "challenges" all over Vine, Instagram, FaceBook, and YouTube. These "challenges" are some of the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard of. We have the Cinnamon challenge, in which people will put a whole spoonful of cinnamon in their mouths and won't drink anything for about 60 seconds. We have the Banana sprite challenge, in which people quickly scarf down two bananas and then a whole can of Sprite. The challenge is that they can't vomit. We have the fire challenge, in which people literally light themselves on fire and record themselves on video. There was the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge, in which inconceivably stupid teenagers...just read this. The most recent of these challenges was the condom challenge, in which you fill a condom up with water, and then drop it on your head, potentially resulting it getting stuck on your head. You just...you just can't make this shit up.

I can only imagine what new "challenges" will take the world of social media by storm in 2016. I've come up with five predictions:

Number 1: The Bleach Challenge

In this challenge, the participant must down an entire cup of bleach without vomiting. No water dilution is allowed, it must be a pure cup of bleach. This may sound crazy, but this is the internet, where some people actually believe that autism can be cured by bleach enemas. And no, I didn't make that up. 

Number 2: The Electricity Challenge

The participants must grab onto a high voltage wire and hold on for as long as they can. If you let go, you lose. If you win, you're probably dead. But at least you became a viral sensation!

Number 3: The Cliff Challenge

You must jump off a cliff. The higher the cliff, the greater the challenge. Make sure you have a camera both at the top and the bottom of the cliff so we can confirm that you did this legitimately. We don't a repeat of the moon landing debacle!

Number 4: The Blood Challenge

This one is good because it's a scientific experiment! Give yourself a wound and lose a large amount of blood. The trick is, you must collect this blood in some containers. After you stop bleeding, you must drink the blood that you lost. Now the blood is back inside your body! If you wanted to know if drinking blood will replenish any lost blood, the only way to know for sure is by doing this challenge!

Number 5: The Paint Challenge

Hey kids, remember in Goldfinger when that woman was spray-painted gold? Why not do something similar, except use actual paint and a brush? Paint your whole body many different colors! Even the little ones can join in! Parents, you no longer have to lose your minds when your little ones are painting themselves rather than the walls!

There are many, many other ideas for social media challenges, but few of them require actual talent or effort because those things are too hard for most social media wannabe superstars.