We live in very stupid times

This might be the stupidest headline, the stupidest premise for an op-ed I have ever seen.

• OPINION 
•  COMMENTARY

Would Shakespeare Impeach Trump?

 

And this is in the pages of the Wall Street Journal which. . . well, the op-ed page was never really respectable, but geez, there was at least a sense of professionalism!


Oh, and check the sub-headline:

• OPINION 
•  COMMENTARY

Would Shakespeare Impeach Trump?

The president is no more corrupt than King Lear.

Oh my God! So, because there's a fictional character equally as corrupt as Il Douche, that means that an Elizabethan playwright would. . . not? vote to impeach? I don't know, what would Christopher Marlowe do?

The Democrats pushing impeachment simply don’t understand Donald Trump. Their latest theory—that Mr. Trump leaned on Ukraine’s newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky to tarnish Joe Biden and ease the path to re-election in 2020—has one glaring flaw: it isn’t in keeping with Mr. Trump’s character.

Okay, first of all - they don't understand Trump? What's to understand? He's a malignant narcissist. Have Congressional Democrats not grasped this? Actually, knowing Congressional Democrats, that's possible.

But really, you think that asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is "not in keeping with his character?"




That's like saying "putting his name on the side of a building in giant tacky fake-gold letters would be totally out of character for Trump." or "Cheating on his gold-digging trophy wife with a porn actress is just not in keeping with Mr Trump's character!"

Anyone who observed this man during his 2015-16 run for the White House learned one thing: He doesn’t think he needs anyone’s help defeating his political opponents. 

Riiiiiiiiight. . . . 

 He doesn’t think he needs anyone’s help defeating his political opponents. He sees himself as Gulliver and his challengers as Lilliputians. 

Um. . .

 Trying to extort a mafia-like “favor” to defeat Mr. Biden would be an admission of weakness, likely the most odious of character traits to Mr. Trump. 

Oh my God. Do you read your own sentences before publishing them? How can an action be both "mafia-like" and an "admission of weakness?" How could one "extort" anything from a position of weakness? The ability to extort implies strength, leverage, the upper hand.  I guarantee that Cheeto Mussolini does not see acting "mafia-like" as any kind of "weakness." He would love to be described as "mafia-like."  He wants to be a mafioso so bad he can taste it. There are two kinds of guys that tRump repects/admires/wants to emulate. Mafia guys and dictators-strongmen. That's why he cozies up to the Kim Jong Uns and Erdogans and Putins of this world. And why he used to pal around with Roy Cohm, Felix Sater and Joey "No Socks" Cinque. Leaning on someone to extort a "favor" is exactly the kind os=f thing he would do. It wouldn't make him feel weak. It would feel like strength and power to him.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that he would reveal such need for assistance on a high-profile phone call being overheard by a dozen officials in both countries. 

Oh, of course. Because he's usually so scrupulous about not saying anything incriminating where he could be overheard!

 In Mr. Trump’s world, real warriors don’t connive, they conquer.

Really? The guy who's always talking about how great he is at negotiating and putting together "deals?" That guy would look down his nose at "conniving?"
Also, "warriors?" He's a failed real estate developer and tv game show host. He's not Audie Murphy.

The obvious explanation for Trump’s request of a “favor” springs from what seems to be the prime motivation behind all of Mr. Trump’s behavior—a profound sense of pride in his accomplishments and deep indignation when anyone calls them into question. 

Now who doesn't understand Trump?
Donald Trump gets infuriated when people don't praise him for his "accomplishments" not because he's proud of them, but because deep inside he knows that nothing he does will ever be good enough. Like most narcissists, he lives in fear of being unmasked and exposed as the fraud that, deep down, he knows he is. He knows his "accomplishments" are bullshit. He knows how many businesses he's run into the ground. He knows how many times he's declared bankruptcy.

He knows that everything he owns is leveraged to the hilt. He knows that models only marry and/or sleep with him because he's rich and famous. He knows how many times his father has had to bail him out. And this eats away at him so badly that he has to cover it up with layers of false bravado and braggadocio.

 He isn't indignant when someone calls his accomplishments into question because he thinks his true greatness is not being recognized. He is angry because when someone questions his record of phony achievements, he knows deep inside that they're right.

This is a man whose father was never proud of him. (Or never let his son know that he was proud.) That's why he feels compelled to put the Trump name on everything in big ugly fake-gold letters. It's his way of saying "are you proud of me now, dad? Am I good enough now? Look, dad. Look what I accomplished. Do you love me now, dad?" This is the pattern of his entire life, not just during his foray into politics.

Also, can we just go back one second to that last statement you made?

The obvious explanation for Trump’s request of a “favor” springs from what seems to be the prime motivation behind all of Mr. Trump’s behavior—a profound sense of pride in his accomplishments and deep indignation when anyone calls them into question. 

You just said that it was "ludicrous" to believe that Trump would have made this request for a "favor." Then, in the next sentence, you're giving an explanation for why he requested said favor. You really need to pick an argument and stick with it.

If Democrats really wanted to understand the president, they would read Shakespeare’s “King Lear.”

Geez. . . what kind of a whackadoo would look at this administration and see Shakespeare? This shit circus veers from Lewis Carroll to William S. Burroughs to John Kennedy O'Toole on a daily basis, and you're seeing the bard?

All the aging monarch wants is to be loved and appreciated by his three daughters. 

Yeah. . . that ain't exactly what Trump wants from his daughters.

Mr. Trump is Lear, and the country is the king’s daughters. What wounded the king more than anything was filial ingratitude. What seems to gall Mr. Trump most is the thought that his achievements—record low unemployment, substantial tax cuts, a booming stock market, deregulation, judges—go unacknowledged by his Goneril-Regan enemies, who instead seek to obstruct him at every turn. 

Okay, see. thoise aren't really accomplishments. Record unemployment? A booming stock market? He inherited an economy on the upswing and has modtly managed not to fuck it up. Although. . .

As U.S. stock market falls, the outlook is now bearish

Published: Oct 3, 2019 10:38 a.m. ET

Oct 2, 2019, 11:14am

October Has Started Dreadfully For The Stock Market And There Is More Downside Ahead

And substantial tax cuts? The House and Senate were both controlled by Republicans. Suggesting massive tax cuts to them is like suggesting Filet Mignon to a rottweiler. It takes zero effort to say "hey guys, pass a huge tax cut that mostly benefits the top 1% and I'll sign it." The only tricky part is remembering to sign the damn thing before leaving the room.

And judges? How is that an accomplishment? The Federalist Society gives you a list of names, you point to the least ethnic-sounding one and go "him!" Then the Senate confirms the pick because that was who they wanted in the first place, no matter how big a drunk or how egregious a sex offender he is, and bing bang boom, you got a judge! Any chimp could do it! Hell, George W. Bush did!

After a series of seemingly never-ending assaults on his dignity, Lear painfully observes out on the rainy heath: “I am a man / More sinn’d against than sinning.” It isn’t difficult to envision Mr. Trump saying the same.

It is, actually. It is difficult to envision Trump stringing a coherent sentence together, let alone indulging in Shakespearean English.

Even adamant supporters of the president aren’t blind to his annoying character flaws—the endless self-aggrandizement, the bravado, the hyperbole, the unpresidential disregard for language. 

Um, it's not so much a "disregard for language" as it is an inability to remember what words are or to know what they mean. His brain is turning into Swiss cheese.

Also, "hyperbole" is a weird way to spell "bald-faced lying."

Mr. Trump’s brashness invites his mistreatment to some extent.

When has he ever been mistreated? The press has two approaches to him, Either fawning sycophancy, or excusing his misconduct with what-aboutism and both-sides arguments. Even CNN, whom he regularly vilifies, has fluffed him nearly as much as FOX has. On the rare occassion when a Shepherd Smith or a Chris Wallace criticizes him, that is not mistreatment. That is how Presidents are supposed to be treated. They are supposed to have everything they say and do analyzed and evaluated. It's the most important job in the world, it should come with a certain level of scrutiny!

And like the king, Mr. Trump has been subjected to a daily barrage of indignities, distortions and outright falsehoods, which render him a folk hero to his followers.

Oh, wow. You're serious?
Indignities? What indignities? I honestly can't even come up with a guess as to what you are referring to here. I mean, would it be like the indignity of having a fatuous buffoon constantly claiming that you were a foreigner not eligible for the presidency? Would that be the sort of thing you're taking about? Or something like having a syphilitic orangutan leading crowds in calls for you to be "locked up?" Is that the sort of "indignities" to which President McCheese has been subjected?

Also, what renders him a folk hero to his followers is the racism.

In the Trump-Lear story, Mr. Trump’s champions resemble the faithful Kent, who called the monarch “every inch a king.” In Mr. Trump they see every inch a president. Impeachment may turn some against Mr. Trump, but it will only rally those who actually understand him.

So. . . the dullards dolts and dunces who "actually understand" him will only be "rallied?"
I assume by "those who actually understand him," you mean the MAGA hat-wearing rage-aholics that support this human cesspool? Like, is this supposed to be a warning that impeachment will somehow backfire by energizing these little hate-beasts? They're going to vote for him anyway. They can't wait to vote for him. They have been waiting their entire lives for the chance to cast their votes for a candidate this monumentally stupid, corrupt and blatantly bigoted. Those assholes are showing up on election day even if Trump gives his next speech wearing a prom dress while performing an abortion on Ivanka. Who cares if impeachment "rallies them?

Also, you never did answer the burning question. Would Shakespeare impeach Trump or not? I can't believe you're just going to leave us hanging.
I guess that's the sort of thing that everyone has to figure out for themselves, right? I mean, I guess when I think about it, I would say that since Shakespeare was a British subject and not a member of the US House of Representatives, that he would probably. . . not? impeach Trump? But who knows? And also, who cares? This is all just so stupid.

It's Your Fault We Have Trump

I've seen a few of these lately. These weird articles from conservative writers that basically amount to "hey, liberals. It's your fault Trump got elected." Which is odd in a couple of ways. First because no it fucking isn't. I mean, I guess we bear some responsibility for not coming out in larger numbers to vote for HRC, but Trump is your fault, conservatives. You own this mess. And secondly, you voted for Trump, you wore the stupid hat, you cosplayed as him in Charlottesville.

 

Some of you did this.

So why are you looking to put the blame on other people? You never hears conservatives saying "stupid libs, it's your fault we got Reagan" Or "Your political correctness is rthe reason Dubya got elected." Have you already fugured out that voting for Trump was a collossal mistake? 

Anyway, someone on the Twitter called my attention to this well-thought-out thesis:

Your Refusal To Date Conservatives Is One Reason We Have Donald Trump

By Jerrod Laber

September 19, 2017

 

 

Wow! Where to begin with this guy?

First of all do you want to date liberal ladies? Why would you want to date someone whose politics you find repulsive? Am I to understand that if left-leaning women were to say "oh hell yes I'd date a right-wing troglodyte," you'd be running to their doorstep with flowers and chocolates?

Also, maybe it's not "conservatives" that women are refusing to date so much as it is guys who look like this:

When you look like someone who is legally obligated to let his neighbors know he's moved in, I gotta think that limits the pool of eligible ladies who are interested in you. Have you ever thought that maybe it's just you? I mean, most conservative fellas seem to have no trouble attracting a mate.

Anyway, back to the article.

Your Refusal To Date Conservatives Is One Reason We Have Donald Trump

OkCupid will let users indicate their support for abortion. This type of assortive mating is one factor that allowed for the rise of a candidate like Donald Trump.

Ohhhhh, assortive mating! Sure. Of course. And here I thought it was "economic insecurity" or "blatant racism" or "hatred for the strong woman" that Trump rode to victory, but clearly it was "assortive mating!" Oh, it's all so clear now!

The popular dating website OkCupid announced Wednesday that it would make the online dating scene a little easier for progressives who can’t risk interacting with someone with whom they disagree (imagine the horror!).

Oh my God! You people literally created Conservapedia so you wouldn't have to interact with any facts that don't jibe with your narrative. You've built an entire infrastructure of FOX News, am talk radio and websites like the one on which you are currently posting so you would never be inconvenienced by a dissenting opinion. And you're complaining about proressives who don't want to spend their evenings making out with someone who reflexively shouts "Benghazi!" every few minutes?

They announced a partnership with Planned Parenthood that allows site users to put a badge on their profile signifying support for the nation’s largest abortion provider, much the way Facebook becomes saturated with similar kinds of profile pictures during the newest disaster.

That seems eminently reasonable. Seems like it benefits everyone involved. Conservatives don't have to waste their time chatting up baby murderers and progressives don't have to have their time wasted by someone they're going to break up with as soon as he mentions that he doesn't believe she should be allowed to make decisions about her own body. It's a win-win. 

Oh, wait. I forgot. For conservatives, everything has to be part of a nefarious plot against them personally. Sorry, please continue.

It’s hard to not see this as a reaction to the rise of President Trump

Well, it is if you're not obsessed with Trump. But, sure it's hard not to see how a multi-million-dollar for-profit company, a division of an even larger corporation, would obviously be a part of a liberal conspiracy against the Turd Reich. Duh!

 

It’s hard to not see this as a reaction to the rise of President Trump, as Planned Parenthood has long been a political football tossed back and forth between left and right, although dating sites have never made such an overt venture into politics. But, in our current bizarre world of politics, this represents a widening chasm between those who are most politically active, causing people to see an opposing viewpoint as an all-out assault on their personhood. The irony is that the type of assortative mating OkCupid is encouraging is one factor that allowed for the rise of a candidate like Trump.

Gee, I wonder how that chasm got so widened? Who could have introduced this type of eliminationist rhetoric into the mainstream?

      

I guess we'll never know!

The Effects of Assortative Mating

Assortative mating is when someone partners and starts a family with someone of a similar background.

Oh. So. . . what almost everyone does? And has done since the dawn of time? And that's what caused Trump to be elected? How did it take this long?

Assortative mating is when someone partners and starts a family with someone of a similar background. It can be based on innate characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, or socioeconomic backgrounds. People have always engaged in assortative mating of some kind or another, but as social scientist Charles Murray explains 

Woah, hold on there. 

Charles Murray? 

The "Bell Curve" Charles Murray? 

You're going to cite Charles Freakin' Murray?

You sure? You sure that's who you want to bring into this? 

All right, let's have it!

. . . as social scientist Charles Murray explains in his book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010,”

Oh my God, you couldn't pick a book with maybe a less racist-sounding title?

. . . as social scientist Charles Murray explains in his book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010,” there was a shift to a particular type of mating in the ‘60s which continues through the present day.

As cognitive ability became the most valued aspect of human capital––and the biggest predictive indicator for professional success––people began marrying others with similar intellect. Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates, and their kids do the same, and so on and so forth, causing severe economic stratification between what Murray calls the “New Upper Class” and “New Lower Class.”

Right. That never happened before the 1960's. Scions of wealthy families never married the daughters of the similarly well-placed until the Nineteen Fucking Sixties. It's not like the royal families of Europe all married each others' cousins or anything. 

This is all developing at a time of increasing polarization in politics. . . 

Polarization is a result of the emotional reactions that politics naturally bring out in people. The most politically active are the most extreme of each group––the most likely to surround themselves with only the likeminded, and the least likely to give an inch to an opposing viewpoint.
These groups also vote heavily in primaries, which pushes candidates further left and right. 

 Yes, which is why the Democratic Primary was won easily by Senator Bernard Sanders oh wait!


 And, as represented by the ascendance of the Tea Party, they demand ideological purity.

And I suppose you have a similar example for the Left? 

We're waiting. . . .

No?

Demagogues Love Tribalism

Assortative mating serves to intensify this polarization. It amplifies an already significant ingroup-outgroup mentality around contentious social issues. Social and cultural issues create severe disagreement because they trigger the emotional part of the brain: the disagreement challenges a core part of group identity. . . 

Trump was able to convince rural and working-class people that he was the answer to their collective malaise. Economic anxiety, which Never-Trumpers are so wont to point out as the reason for his success, is intimately tied to cultural issues, because the anxiety is seen as a product of unfair cultural decline.

Or, to put it more succinctly: Racism.

You didn’t lose your job because your skill set didn’t match a changing economic reality. Instead, it was the result of a rigged system that benefits the elite, liberal urban centers on each coast and their progressively government-dependent constituents, at your expense.

Are we going to bother pointing out what a load of bs that is? That Blue States contribute more to the federal government than they get back, while it is Red States who are suckling at the government teat?

Are we going to mention the way the system is actually rigged in favor of smaller-population rural Red States, in that a state like North Dakota gets the same number of senators as does California despite having fewer people than the city of Los Angeles? And how that system gives these small rural states an outsized influence on the Electoral College? 

In a less polarized environment, that schtick might be seen for the nonsense that it is. But in a world of ignorant voters and social stratification––in which progressives who live in wealthy ZIP codes and small-town conservatives share a mutual disdain for one another––you get stratification that populist blowhards can exploit.

Okay. Good. You acknowledge that this "schtick" is "nonsense." Good. But it's also nonsense to suggest that progressives are the wealthy elites while conservatives are good ol' salt of the Earth regular folk. 

But at least you seem to realize that the Trump voters are people who have been lied to over and over by the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the media hellscape, but somehow you still believe that these people voting for an unqualified senile malignant narcissist is a result of their dating habits? 

Humans naturally form groups, but when rampant partisanship is the foundation upon which the group lies, extreme politicians are those most likely to win their sympathy.

Hmm, interesting. Especially since, prior to the current occupant of the White House, the major party nominees for the presidency in the last few cycles have been Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton. Not an extremist among them. If this stratification has been going on since the 1960's, how is it that, for example, the Republican primary voters have managed to reject Pat Buchannan, George Wallace, Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson and Michele Bachmann without any of them making a real dent in the race? If this is a phenomenon that has been going on for five decades, shouldn't we have had a President LaRouche or a President David Duke by now?

If a progressive doesn’t want to date a conservative and vice versa, that’s perfectly fine. Everyone has deal-breakers. But as a political protest, this form of virtue-signaling is counterproductive in the long run.

Oh my God! Please, ladies. Please someone go out on a date with this creepy little weasel. It's the only way to prevent Trump's re-election! If Jarrod Laber doesn't get to second base with a liberal girl soon, he'll have no choice but to vote for Trump again! One of you gals is going to have to take one for the team.

David Brooks Continues to be the Worst

Oh my Gawd, he gets paid to write this. Paid a lot to write this drivel!

Let’s Not Get Carried Away

David Brooks JUNE 20, 2017

I was the op-ed editor at The Wall Street Journal at the peak of the Whitewater scandal. We ran a series of investigative pieces “raising serious questions” (as we say in the scandal business) about the nefarious things the Clintons were thought to have done back in Arkansas.

Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays.

But that didn't stop me from gleefully printing each and every one, no matter how far-fetched!

Now I confess I couldn’t follow all the actual allegations made in those essays. They were six jungles deep in the weeds. But I do remember the intense atmosphere that the scandal created. A series of bombshell revelations came out in the media, which seemed monumental at the time. A special prosecutor was appointed and indictments were expected. Speculation became the national sport.

And op-ed page editors continued using the passive voice as if they had no culpability in the matter at all!



I mean, you do realize you're confessing to journalistic malpractice, right? Publishing allegations for which you have no evidence and which you do not even understand. "These accusations are incomprehensible, I can't make heads or tails of what is even alleged to have happened. Well, I guess I'd better publish them in a major national newspaper!"

In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown.

Really? You think Whitewater might have been "overblown?" A manufactured pseudo-scandal which never produced any evidence of wrongdoing (other than a BJ), you think that might have been "overblown?" You know, most of us didn't need the help of retrospect to see that. But, you know, most of us don't have cushy jobs with major media outlets. To land that kind of gig, you have to be dead wrong in public over and over again, especially when it comes to the Clintons and whatever phony scandal Richard Mellon Scaife can dream up to feed to Matt Drudge.

In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown. And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington.

Yeah, you can tell that this Russia thing has no substance by the number of people having to recuse themselves and how many administration members are lawyering up.

There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians. Everything seems to be leaking out of this administration, but so far the leaks about actual collusion are meager.

Jeezus, do you hear yourself? When a Democrat was in office, no scandal was too ridiculous to be given credence and trotted out on to the national stage. But when it's a Republican, even an incompetent, deranged Republican like Trump, suddenly all this smoke surely doesn't indicate a fire!

I'm hearing echoes of Iran-Contra. "Sure, the Reagan Administration directly violated the law, but come on. What harm was done? Surely his intentions were good!"
Or the Iraq Invasion: "Well, sure they lied, manipulated intelligence, cherry-picked any bullshit from any unreliable kook that seemed to support their story and ignored all the relevant experts, but obviously, this was a failure of the intelligence community!"

There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians, but so far no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin.

Well, maybe my standards are a bit different, but I would expect ZERO meetings between a candidate and the KGB! Especially when that candidate is not a part of government, not involved with foreign policy and has no earthly god damn clue what the hell he's doing.

Second, there is something disturbingly meta about this whole affair. This is, as Yuval Levin put it, an investigation about itself. Trump skeptics within the administration laid a legal minefield all around the president, and then Trump — being Trump — stomped all over it, blowing himself up six ways from Sunday.

Wait, there are Trump skeptics within the administration? The Trump administration? The administration who gave us this sickening display of obsequious devotion?

Now of course Trump shouldn’t have tweeted about Oval Office tape recordings. Of course he shouldn’t have fired James Comey

But even if you took a paragon of modern presidents — a contemporary Abraham Lincoln — and you directed a democratically unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors at him and gave them power to subpoena his staff and look under any related or unrelated rock in an attempt to bring him down, there’s a pretty good chance you could spur even this modern paragon to want to fight back. You could spur even him to do something that had the whiff of obstruction.

Okay, first of all there was no special prosecutor until AFTER Trump fired James Comey. How are you gonna sit there and pretend that firing Comey is some sort of pushback against a special prosecutor?

And secondly, Bill Clinton is hardly a paragon of presidently virtue, hardly a modern-day Lincoln, but an unsupervised, infinitely financed team of prosecutors with subpoena power and direction to look under every unrelated rock in order to bring him down is EXACTLY what happened to Bill Clinton, and you didn't see him firing the guy investigating him or implying blackmail against Ken Starr. It's one thing to say that Trump can't be expected to live up to the standards of Imaginary Lincoln, but shouldn't he at least be held to the standard of Slick Willie?

And third, firing the director of the FBI when the FBI is investigating you is hardly a "whiff of obstruction." It's pretty much textbook obstruction.

There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal.

Yes, and I'm sure you said the same about "Fast and Furious," the IRS "scandal," birtherism and Benghazi, right? Haha, I'm kidding. Of course you didn't, you disingenuous piece of shit.

In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion. You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable.

My God, it's as if he's completely unaware of Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan and the entire Freedom Fucking Caucus!
And how do you reconcile "recognizing your opponents are legitimate" with  King Birther himself, the Oaf in the Oval Office? What the fuck was birtherism if not an attempt to delegitimize the Presdient?

Donald Trump rose peddling the politics of scandal — oblivious to policy, spreading insane allegations about birth certificates and other things — so maybe it’s just that he gets swallowed by it.

Oh my GAWD! So he is aware of Trump's "politics of scandal," or as it's known in the real world "racist conspiracy-mongering. But somehow there's always an excuse for a Republican - in this case, that he's gotten "swallowed" by the culture of Washington scandal or something.

The people who hype the politics of scandal don’t make American government purer. They deserve some of the blame for an administration and government too distracted to do its job,

 Good! The best possible outcome of all this is an administration too distracted to do its job! Although, to be fair, it is already distracted by petty Twitter feuds, golfing, insulting foreign leaders, and shiny objects.





Also, when you say "the people who hype the politics of scandal," I assume that includes former op-ed editors of the Wall Street Journal?

Things are so bad that I’m going to have to give Trump the last word. On June 15 he tweeted, “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary.

 Oh, yes. Very accurate. Right up there with "I did not have sex with that woman," "I am not a crook," and "there is no doubt that Sadam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

You know, if there's one type of statement that can be relied upon for truthfulness, it's a statement from the accused that he didn't do it. I mean, if he says he's innocent, he must be, right?


               

Credit where credit is not due

So the new Congress met for the first time and the first thing they decided to do was to gut the office of Congressional Ethics, because it might tend to interfere a little bit with their grift 'n' graft approach to governing. When the news broke, thousands of angry citizens flooded the Congressional switchboard demanding that their representatives not make such a blatantly pro-corruption move. And the GOP backed down. So, yea! Democracy in action! The system works! The representatives of the people actually responded to the people they represent. Everyone's a winner and drinks are on the house!

But, little noticed among the hailstorm of angry phone calls and e-mails from the citizenry was a pair of Tweets from Il Douche criticizing (sorta) the move against oversight. Little noticed by everyone, it seems, except the Washington press corps who rushed to credit Putin's pet orangutan with having forced this Congressional change of course.

House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics committee after Trump tweets

CNN - ‎Jan 3, 2017‎

House Republicans back off gutting ethics watchdog after backlash from Trump

Washington Post - ‎Jan 3, 201

House GOP reverses course on gutting ethics office after Trump takes a whack at them

Business Insider - ‎Jan 3, 2017‎

 

 Here's an especially egregious example from the once-respected Washington Post:

Even when Trump shows backbone, his haters refuse to give him any credit

By James Hohmann January 4 at 10:06 A

THE BIG IDEA: It took grit and gumption for Donald Trump to call out House Republicans yesterday.

Grit and gumption. Really. Grit and gumption to "call out" House Republicans? First of all, these were  the Tweets:

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

He's not exactly "calling them out." He's not even asking or suggesting that they reverse course on this. He certainly isn't saying it's a bad idea. He's just saying that maybe some other terrible destructive ideas might be a little more urgent?

And secondly, how much "grit and gumption" would it take for Trump to call out these cowards? 99% of them couldn't even bring themselves to criticize him during the campaign. How many of these craven, spineless weaklings even withheld their endorsements? For Fuck sake, Paul Ryan, the leader of the Hose Repubs tried to have it both ways, saying that "sure, obviously Trump is a horrible racist, but that doesn't mean I don't endorse him! Maybe I do, maybe I don't! Oh, he won? Yes, then I heartily endorse this wonderful man."

Maybe he did not fully comprehend the risks of criticizing the very lawmakers whom he needs most to advance his agenda, but two tweets from the president-elect were pivotal to saving the Office of Congressional Ethics from being declawed and neutered.

Oh my God, where to even begin with this sentence?
"Maybe he did not fully comprehend?" The list of things that President Cartman doesn't fully comprehend would fill a dictionary.

And "the very lawmakers whom he needs most to advance his agenda?" What agenda? He has no agenda! "Making America great again" is not an agenda. What agenda items do you think he has in his day planner that Congressional Republicans would have to be cajoled into supporting? Deporting all the Mexicans? They've all campaigned on that plan for years now. And it's not going to happen. Build a wall? Not going to happen. Muslim registry? Might happen, but the House GOP won't exactly need to have their arms twisted to go along with that program.

 Other than that, what grand plans does he have that he will need Congress for? "bomb the shit out of them" and "start targeting their families" are both foreign policy atrocities that he could enact on his own. He has no agenda because he has no interest in governing. The Republican House and Senate will be sending him legislation copied from David Koch's vision board onto ALEC stationery, and he's going to shrug, say "sure, what the hell," and sign it. (probably after having Omarossa skim through it to be sure there aren't any cracks about his tiny hands hidden in there.)


Oh, and his two Tweets were "pivotal to saving the office?" Says who? You have any evidence of that? Has any member of Congress come out and said "I was totally going to go along with gutting the ethics office until I saw those two Tweets?"

A few Republicans claimed that Trump had nothing to do with the decision to scuttle the change. Liberal writers cited them as evidence. But of course they would say this. Who wants to publicly acknowledge that they just kowtowed to Trump?

via GIPHY

OhmyGOD!
So not only do you not have any evidence that Trump's Tweets had any effect, you actually have some evidence that they did not, but that evidence can be dismissed because. . . um . . . why? Because it contradicts your narrative?And why would a GOP congressman have any problem admitting that he had deferred to the president-elect and putative leader of his party? Seems like that would be kinda standard practice.

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNN in an interview that aired last night, “The only way we're going to work with him is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.”
Think about how Schumer would have responded if Mitch McConnell made that statement about a President-elect Hillary Clinton

Well, we don't really have to imagine, do we? Because Mitch McConnell is on record as saying that his main objective was to so obstruct President Obama that he would be a one-term President. And as having said that the proudest moment of his career was flat-out refusing to even consider anyone that President Obama nominated to the Supreme Court. I don't recall Chuck Schumer throwing a fit over either of these statements, much to his eternal shame.

-- There really is something to the idea of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” He operates so far outside the norms of how business has always been done in Washington, and his manner seems so gauche, that he provokes a visceral, occasionally irrational, reaction in serious, normally sober-minded people.

No, there really isn't. I mean the level of projection here. . . You want to see "derangement syndrome?" Take a look back at the reaction to a black man being elected President.




Obama hadn't even had time to do anything before these asses were dressing up like Paul revere and demanding "their" country back. That's what derangement looks like.

People are opposed to Donald Trump? Good. What's so deranged about that? Because I tell you what, people's opposition to Orange Julius Caesar has nothing to do with his gauchity or his acting "outside the norms." It has to do with the fact that he demonizes Mexicans as criminals and rapists. And that he wants to identify, register, and monitor those Americans of the Muslim faith. And that he brags about getting away with sexual assault. And that he has no idea what is involved in governence. And that he seems intent on using the Presidency to enrich himself and get revenge on his enemies. And that he is completely unsuited in every way to hold any position of responsibility, especially the highest office in the land.

Oh, and also the fact that he was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, the American Nazi Party, and every other white supremacist organization in the country and never refused their endorsements or denounced them or even really tried to distance himself from them. Hell, he made one of them his chief of staff. But sure, opposition to Trump is obviously "visceral" and "irrational." Just like opposition to an illegal war in Iraq was evidence of "Bush derangement syndrome."

Look at all this Hitler Derangement Syndrome!

This election gets even stupider somehow

You know how you can tell that you've said something stupid?
When this hot mess says you're "WISE."



Here's what word-salad Sarah had to say about Trump's performance in the most recent debate:

Sarah Palin added 5 new photos.

It was great to witness UNLV's Presidential debate tonight. Great running in to many friends!


Wow. Gotta stop you already. One sentence in! You ran INTO many friends. You did not run IN to many friends. That wouldn't even make sense. Well, I guess if you ran inside the building in order to meet your friends, then maybe? I don't know. Ir doesn't matter. Proceed, Governor.


Trump ran the table and clearly explained his vision for making America safe and strong again.

Ran the table? Do you even know what that means? It would mean that Hillary never even got a shot. It would mean. . . oh, forget it. The bigger problem here is that Trump has NEVER clearly explained anything in his life. He makes you sound coherent.

What a gamble it would be to vote for status quo failed government... more of the same of what dug us into the mess we're in today.


 Okay, so let's vote out the Teapublicans that have dominated the House and Senate the last several years and are gleefully preventing anything from being improved.


 Thank you to superb law enforcement personnel for keeping everyone safe tonight. Incredible job; incredibly tough task they accomplish - with a smile, no less!

 A smile? Oh, right, everyone there was white! Also, what threat was there to your safety? If you were a Hiullary supporter, you might have to fear some violence from Trumpers, but other than that. . . I mean the debate wasn't being held on a street corner in Southside Chicago or something.

Seems silly media sheep are all chomping down on one issue after this debate, at least according to all the reporters who hollered out this same question to me: "What about Trump not accepting the election results?”


 Right, because a major candidate being unwilling to "accept" the results of an election, a major candidate who commands an army of knuckle-draggers with assault weapons who are just itching for an excuse to 2nd-Amendment someone, that's such a minor issue! Silly sheep!

More power to Trump for explaining how vitally important the legitimacy of every election is to our democracy within our Republic. 

Um, he explained nothing? He said "I'll keep you in suspense?"
Also, if the losing candidate (and Trump is going to lose. Hard.) refuses to accept the results of the voting, that's not really adding to the legitimacy of the electoral process.

 

What reasonable person would preemptively accept any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election? Trump's answer was RIGHT.


See, that's how you know you're wrong. When someone like Palin thinks you're "RIGHT!"
And I don't believe he was asked to accept "any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election." I believe he was asked about this one particular election which is about a month away and isn't hypothetical at all. And no one expects that if a candidate is sane and says "yes, I will accept the results" that he would then be somehow bound to that word if, say, there was actual evidence of fraud, or if , say both candidates are revealed to be hideous space reptiles or whatever.

Every American's sacred vote MUST be respected and legitimized in today's elections - but they must be FAIR elections.


 Yeah, that's the same thing. Everyone's vote being respected and elections being fair, that's the same thing. (Not actually sure what everyone's vote being "legitimized" is.)


Also, if you're really concerned about every American's sacred vote being respected, I'd think you'd be a bit more bothered by these recent headlines:

BREAKING: State Level Republicans BUSTED Hiding Absentee Ballots To Steal Election (DETAILS)

By Georgia Bristow -

October 17, 2016

District Judge Assails Florida GOP’s “Election-Rigging” War on Voting

By Rmuse on Wed, Oct 19th, 2016 at 9:57 am

 hahaha, just kidding! I know you don't really care about that! I know you think that it is better that a thousand legitimate voters be disenfranchised than that one ineligible vote be cast. As long as it's dark-skinned people being turned away at the polls.
I know it's never about protecting the right to vote. It's always about keeping the mythical fraudulent voter from somehow tipping the balance with his one illegal vote.

We're in the midst of proof of voter fraud and questionable - even violent - participatory elements in campaigns.


No. No, there is no voter fraud.  there certainly isn't any "proof" of which we could be "in the midst." How would one be in the midst of proof, by the way?
Also, the only violent elements in the process are Trump supporters.

That's why state legislators are now cracking down on voter fraud via tighter laws ensuring the security of our elections. 

Yeah, no. Honestly, it's not even worth the time to debunk this complete b.s.

 When Trump is pressed on this, it harkens back to all the GOP primary candidates who screamed at Trump to support the Republican nominee - no matter what - and Trump initially responded that he could, depending on fair treatment. That is WISE and INSIGHTFUL!



And as we all know, when Sarah Palin says you're WISE! and INSIGHTFUL! you know you've said something extra stupid.

Also, why wouldn't he just use that same "wise" "insightful" answer at the debate? Why not just say "yes, of course I will accept the results, assuming there isn't compelling evidence of fraud?"

Trump got screwed in that deal when he eventually pledged to support the nominee and then some of his fellow candidates turned tail and refused to reciprocate when Trump won. 

Whaaat?? The man who knows how to make the best deals? The king of the deal-makers? He got screwed on this deal? No! I don't believe it.



Trump learned - why give opponents permission and incentive to act unfairly and cheat? It's shortsighted to commit to accepting the outcome of a race REGARDLESS of unscrupulous cheaters. How totally unfair that would be to the American voter!

Well, the good news is, you're not going to have to worry about it. Hillary and the Dems are not going to need to cheat. Your boy is circling the drain. He's in such a downward spiral, he might pop up in Chyyy-nah before it's over.


Trump gave potential cheaters fair warning that we'll not give them any quarter. We'll hold them accountable. They'd better be on their toes. Cheaters will not win.

Oh, uh. . .yeah! Right! heh heh!

Of course Trump will accept the legitimate outcome of a legitimate election! What the heck is so hard to understand about that?


Um, I guess the part where he refuses to actually just come out and say that? I guess that's kinda what's throwing people off? Especially when he comes out the next day and says

“I would to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”

See? Nothing about "legitimate" outcomes. Nothing about legitimacy at all. Just "If I win." And, Sarah, believe me when I tell you that if he does win, that would be proof positive that the election was "rigged."

Why I'm not laughing at Donald Trump (anymore)

Yes, I know, trump is a buffoon. He's an egomaniacal blowhard who routinely says bizarrely ridiculous things. And he talks like a 10-year-old playground bully. I know, his idea of highlighting the differences between himself and rival candidates is to say "he's a total loser" and "I'm very smart!" And of course, it's hard not to laugh every time this self-parody of a conceited dolt opens his weird fish-lipped mouth and spouts utter nonsense. And it's all the easier to laugh knowing that he has absolutely no chance of winning this election.

But I'm not laughing anymore, and I'll tell you why.

Recently, while flipping through the channels, I saw a couple minutes of an All in the Family episode from the 1970's. And someone asked Archie Bunker whether he had voted for Ford. Archie replies, "no, I wrote in Ronald Reagan." This gets a huge laugh. Huge. Because in the 1970's, Reagan was considered such a loony right-wing know-nothing figure that the idea of voting for him to be President seemed absurd.

 Well, fast-forward a few years, and there's Reagan in the Oval Office.

The limits of what is considered reasonable in American politics, what some call the "Overton Window," a phrase I enjoy because it sounds like a lost Robert Ludlum novel, is constantly, relentlessly, being dragged to the right.


 Remember Pat Buchannan in 1992 shouting "lock and Load!" and "Take back your culture?" Remember how the Republicans were so embarrassed by him that they banned him from the '96 convention? And the best line, as expected, came from Molly Ivins who said that the speech "probably sounded better in the original German." Remember how everyone thought Buchannan was a dangerous lunatic demagogue?

 

Then remember how just a few years ago, the "liberal" MSNBC started inviting Buchannan onto its airwaves as if he was going to provide a reasoned counterpoint to it's left-leaning hosts? Remember Rachel Maddow calling him "Uncle Pat?" Like, sure he's eccentric and says outrageous things, but deep down, he's just a lovable old curmudgeon. Remember that? Remember how racist he had to get to finally be dismissed from their network?

Remember how up until just a few years ago, it wasn't a common sight to see prominent politicians waving around dangerous weaponry like a bunch of goddamm Ted Nugents?

 

 For that matter, speaking of Nugent, remember when it was considered beyond the pale to threaten the life of the President? Remember when that would get you a visit from some pissed-off Secret Service guys, not an invite to the State of the Union Address?

 

Or a jam-session with a Presidential candidate?

So, no. I don't think Trump is funny anymore. Not that he shouldn't be mocked and ridiculed, of course he should. But 4 or 8 years from now, we're going to look back at him and think "that was when the Republican Party was still a little bit sane."
Buchannan was an outlier in 1992. Trump is basically doing Pat's schtick with a little "hey. look how awesome I am" thrown in for good measure and he's leading the Republican field. And the window is moving rightward a hell of a lot faster than it was back then.

Back in the 1990's, Social Security was still considered the "3rd rail of politics," no one would dare touch it. Now the discussion has moved to how much should we cut it, or should we get rid of it altogether?  And if it wasn't for Republicans' absolute petulant, infantile refusal to compromise a single inch, it would have been cut as part of the "Grand Bargain" that the supposedly lefty-liberal Barack Obama had proposed.

Also, in the 1990's, we had an assault weapons ban. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan gave us that, along with the Brady Bill.  Anyone suggesting that maybe we might want to re-instate Ronald Reagan's gun legislation these days is tarred as a "left-wing radical" or something. The idea that basic, sensible gun control would ever be considered an extremist left position would have been laughable a generation ago. As laughable as the idea of a President Trump is today. But I'm not laughing. Not anymore.