BREAKING: Sullivan offers food for thought!

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2018

But who was Amal Husain?
Will our democracy survive? If so, what happens next?

You're asking thoughtful questions! Today, we'll postpone the conclusion of our current series to offer a few reactions.

For our text, we'll draw on Andrew Sullivan's essay about this week's elections. We'll reject one derogatory turn of phrase, while recommending perusal of the rest of what Sullivan says.

We'll react to four parts of his rumination, though there's more food for thought in his piece.

Who are the 45 percent?

Early on, Sullivan offers a remark on the continued existence of Donald Trump's many supporters. We wouldn't frame the situation exactly this way ourselves, but we think Sullivan's formulation raises a basic question:
SULLIVAN (11/9/18): I wrote last week that the midterms would finally tell us what this country now is. And with a remarkable turnout—a 50-year high for a non-presidential election, no less—we did indeed learn something solid and eye-opening. We learned that the American public as a whole has reacted to the first two years of an unfit, delusional, mendacious, malevolent, incompetent authoritarian as president … with relative equanimity. The net backlash is milder than it was against Clinton or Obama (and both of them went on to win reelection).
Sullivan paints an extremely unflattering portrait of Trump, then notes an important fact. Something like 45 percent of the country approves of his performance in office.

Why do so many people feel that way about Trump? Answering that question is a fundamental challenge to progressives and liberals.

For ourselves, we'd recommend that we try to do so in an intelligent way. The history of the human race suggests that even we, within our flawless tribe, won't always be so inclined.

Who is Donald J. Trump?

As he continues, Sullivan extends his description of Donald J. Trump. His description reintroduce a very basic question:
SULLIVAN: So where does this point us? To nowhere good, I’m afraid. The trouble with a normal election cycle in 2018 is that we do not have a normal president in 2018. We have a deranged, fabulist bully. For a presidency like Trump’s to generate less opposition after two years than Clinton’s or Obama’s is a rather chilling sign of how far down the rabbit hole we have already gone. To greet what is an emergency for liberal democracy as a business-as-usual political cycle, is de facto a big win for the whole idea of strongman rule. And on the key issues of a free press and the rule of law, the strongman is winning.

Confidence in the mainstream media—not great to start with—has tumbled even further in the last couple of years, as the very concept of a common set of facts has been corroded. Trump aids and abets this the way all authoritarians do—because he simply cannot handle a different picture of the world than his deranged psyche has managed to twist into existence. But the result is a weakening of our common discourse, which means that politics becomes much more about emotion than reason, about tribal reality than any lingering notion of objectivity. In that atmosphere, bullies and liars will tend to win. And the press itself will respond in defensive ways that actually make it more vulnerable to the charge of subjectivity and bias.
Sullivan describes Donald J. Trump in psychiatric terms. He says the president is "a deranged bully" with "a deranged psyche."

We've said, since early 2016, that Trump's peculiar behavior seems to suggest that he may be in the grip of some version of "mental illness." Is this man mentally ill in some way? In our view, this remains an extremely basic question, one the floundering, ersatz "press corps" has explicitly chosen not to discuss.

Let's be fair! This would be a very difficult conversation to conduct. Almost surely, our press corps, as it exists, wouldn't be up to this task.

But instead of addressing this basic question, our cable pundits keep adopting an extremely dull-witted approach. Day after day, week after week, they pronounce themselves to be shocked, shocked over the latest peculiar or ridiculous thing Trump has said or done.

Day after day, month after month, they mount a version of Groundhog Day with respect to whatever it is that Donald J. Trump said ten minutes ago. They're always amazed that he's done it again. As Nestor the seasoned charioteer said to the headstrong Diomedes:
Few can match your power in battle, Diomedes,
and in council you excel all men your age.
But you don't press on and reach a useful end.
Day after day after day after day, our pundits act out their childish morality play. They exhibit their standard shocked reaction in the face of Trump's most recent statement or action.

They fail to press on toward a useful end, in which they might examine the reasons why so many people 1) don't see Trump's behaviors in the way they do and 2) don't believe a single word these useful idiots say.

Who is the upper-end mainstream press corps?

In the passage posted above, Sullivan makes a gloomy prediction about the future conduct of that mainstream press. Later, he discusses the phenomenon of "Jim Acosta-ism:
SULLIVAN: Trump aids and abets this the way all authoritarians do—because he simply cannot handle a different picture of the world than his deranged psyche has managed to twist into existence. But the result is a weakening of our common discourse, which means that politics becomes much more about emotion than reason, about tribal reality than any lingering notion of objectivity. In that atmosphere, bullies and liars will tend to win. And the press itself will respond in defensive ways that actually make it more vulnerable to the charge of subjectivity and bias.

[...]

The Kavanaugh hearings were a disaster in terms of encouraging that perception of bias. The coverage was ludicrously tilted against Kavanaugh, and along urban, left-feminist lines. Reporters like Jim Acosta don’t help either. I’m a First Amendment fanatic, but Acosta’s self-regard appears to be fathomless. He and Trump almost need each other to sustain a mutual narcissism. I’ve also been a little shocked, to tell the truth, by the way CNN has moved in just a couple of years into MSNBC territory. The surrender of mainstream newsrooms and magazines to the social-justice cult has also hurt their credibility with readers who are looking for insight rather than ideology. All of this makes it easy for partisans to ignore or dismiss all the excellent journalism being done by mainstream outlets. Trump’s entire business career was brutally exposed by the New York Times, for example, a month before the election and it mattered not a jot.
For our money, Sullivan's reference to "the social-justice cult" isn't likely to lead toward a useful end. We think his reactions to Acosta and CNN land right smack dab on the money.

Acosta isn't especially bright; truth to tell, he just isn't bright at all. Unfortunately, he's an incurable loudmouth to boot, a trait he sometimes put on display in dull-witted histrionics at the expense of President Obama.

Now, under Donald J. Trump, he's fashioning himself as one of history's most useful useful idiots.

We agree about CNN as well. The channel has massively taken the bait. Don Lemon has fallen into a well. Cooper has gone all sardonic all the time. When The Others tune in, they can see this, even if we tribals can't.

What happened to Robert S. Mueller?

As his gloomy assessment continues, Sullivan cites the latest data about the way the Russia probe is viewed:
SULLIVAN: It also seems evident that Trump has little to fear from Mueller. One small nugget from the exit polls that hasn’t been adequately noted: Americans believe that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by a 54–41 percent margin, and they disapprove of Mueller’s handling of the inquiry by 46–41 percent. Since Mueller was appointed by a Republican-led DOJ, is himself a lifelong Republican, and, by almost everyone’s account, has behaved impeccably, this is grim news. At this point, I don’t think it matters what Mueller finds. I can’t imagine any revelation that could seriously damage Trump.
A minor correction. Those data don't show how "Americans" view the Mueller probe. They show how people who voted in this year's elections view the Mueller probe.

Having said that, ponder this:

MSNBC has built its world around the Mueller probe. It cares about little else.

The channel's leading figure, Rachel Maddow, feeds us porridge about the probe in much the way a mother robin stuffs worms in her baby's mouths. She takes us deep into the weeds of the probe. Night after night, week after week, she takes us nowhere else.

In truth, The Corporate Cable Industrial Liberal Complex is built around devotion to that probe. And uh-oh! Even among the voters who produced Tuesday's approximation of a blue wave, even among those Dem-tilting voters, Mueller and his investigation get low grades on the order of Donald J. Trump himself. Go figure!

Maddow goes deep in the weeds to acquire her worms about the Mueller probe. She supplements them with a podcast about Spiro T. Agnew, peddled to us with all the usual humblebrags and artifacts of false modesty.

This is all designed to create us as a tribe. She doesn't tell you who the late Amal Husain, age 7, is and was.

A photograph of Amal Husain appeared on the New York Times front page on Sunday, October 28. On balance, we probably wouldn't have published the photograph, and we won't link to it today. If we might quote Yevtushenko:
To each [her] world is private.

[...]

And in that world one tragic minute.
These are private.
That said, Amal Husain died in Yemen at the age of 7. The corporate executives who run MSNBC don't ask you to hear about that.

The sacred child Amal Husain died of starvation, at age 7, as part of a war in which the United States is involved. Back in August, quite a few other Yemeni children died in a series of gruesome incidents in that ugly war.

To his credit, Chris Hayes devoted two minutes to one of those events (actually 2:03). You can watch the videotape here, but what follows is the only mention of those events, or of Yemen itself, on MSNBC's prime time programs that entire month:
HAYES (8/9/18): If I were to stand here on this broadcast and tell you that a foreign power had bombed a school bus full of American children, there would be no bigger story. We would be in a state of panic, horror, and mourning, and certainly a media war.

In fact, the thought experiment doesn't even work, because if that had happened, you wouldn't need me to tell you about it at 8:45. You'd know minutes after it happened.

Well, today a foreign power did bomb a school bus full of children, only it was Yemeni children, and the Saudi-led coalition that did that bombing is backed by us, by the United States.

The images you're about to see are extremely disturbing, and it's because a school bus bombed in a crowded market was left utterly destroyed, resulting in the deaths of at least 50 people, and most of them are children. And injuries, scores more according to the authorities in the Houthi-governed Sana region; those are the rebels who are fighting that war in Yemen. The Red Cross says its medical team has received the bodies of 29 kids, all under 15 years old, and is treating dozens more injured children and adults.

This attack is part of a U.S.-backed Saudi-led war in Yemen.
And it began during the Obama administration. It has intensified under the Trump administration. It has prompted what NGOs call the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world, and I quote here, "with indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians, denial of access to humanitarian aid, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war."

Now, the horror of this specific attack prompted a howl of outrage from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. He wrote:

"U.S. bombs, U.S. targeting, U.S. midair support and we just bombed a school bus. The Saudi/UAE/U.S. bombing campaign is getting more reckless, killing more civilians, and strengthening terrorists inside Yemen. We need to end this now."

He is right. Our government, our public dollars are paying to kill Yemeni children, and it's our government and our representatives that can stop it.
"It's our government and our representatives that can stop it?" According to junior high civics texts, our "journalists" have a role to play here too. But let's repeat our basic point:

That was the only mention of Yemen on MSNBC in the whole month of August. Nor did the New York Times' front-page report get mentioned in the days after Sunday, October 28.

Maddow feeds us worms about Spiro T. Agnew. She is devoted to the task of convincing us that we are part of The Very Good Tribe, and that we are at war with the very bad people in The Very Bad Tribe.

Our war-like species is wired to think that way. The wiring is especially strong in certain types of true believing tribal players.

According to the Nexis archive, the word "Yemen" (or its derivatives) has been mentioned on Maddow's program exactly one time this year. That one mention was a glancing aside by Andrea Mitchell.

At present, our liberal tribe is deeply invested in constructing a world of good and evil. As 6-year-olds playing war games do, we tell ourselves that we're the good, smart, decent people fighting against The Others.

Even in the current case, it just isn't as simple as that. But this is where our species' wars have always begun.

We're told about Russia and Spiro T. Agnew. We aren't told about the late Amal Husain, age 7, dead of starvation.

On the corporate level, our vaunted tribe's values are painfully slight. Some of The Others suspect this, and those Others are right.

96 comments:

  1. "Why do so many people feel that way about Trump? Answering that question is a fundamental challenge to progressives and liberals."

    Why waste so many letters, Bob? The answer is perfectly simple: Donald The Glorious is infinitely superior to the alternative.

    The only possible alternative being, of course, your zombie globalist death-cult.

    And that's all there is to it, dear Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This repeated reference to Democrats as bots (dembots) or zombies is akin to the NPC meme in circulation (non-player character, a game character not controlled by a player). These emerged originally from the alt-right, although the political zombie idea can be traced back to Descartes. But their main characteristic is that they dehumanize opponents by referring to them as subhuman, lacking in human characteristics. That enables people to propose all kinds of mistreatment, including violence and eliminationist proposals, since their lack of humanity suggests they do not deserve better treatment and can be abused at will of the superior caste.

      Mao's use of those terms here is far from innocent. It puts him in some stinky company, even if he just picked it up elsewhere and thought it was cute. Dehumanizing those you disagree with is a step toward authoritarian abuses of political opponents and the otherization is a step toward scapegoating of categories, such as Jews or women or elites etc.

      We have been tolerating Mao as a harmless troll, but there is some harm in what he churns out. Far more than Somerby complains about among liberals. For all of our faults, we don't call Republicans bots or zombies. We call them lost souls. That is better than what Somerby calls us liberals.

      Delete
    2. I've been tolerating you, long-winded dembot, but I see you're craving attention too now?

      Delete
    3. We call Republicans bigots and racists and scared shitless of brown people. We do not call them lost souls dumb twat.

      Delete
    4. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in Democrat's vocabulary.

      Delete
    5. @4:00 is craving your attention Mao. You two are birds of a feather. Play nice.

      Delete
    6. "...“optimism,” etc., play little role in Democrat's vocabulary."

      Optimism? You've gotta be kidding, anon. The D 'party' is a political arm of the zombie death-cult. Hate-mongering is the only M.O. they know.

      Delete
    7. Mao.
      Get some new material. Your shit is tired. Repeating Rush Limbaugh's schtick from 30 years ago just draws attention to how lazy you truly are.
      Open the borders. At least the immigrants aren't afraid of work.

      Delete
    8. Thanks for reading, dear dittohead. Our award-winning program appreciates all kinds of audiences, even you.

      Delete
    9. MY NAME IS VICKY AND I AM FROM SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA,I WANT TO SHARE A
      TESTIMONY OF A SPELL CASTER WHO REUNITE MY MARRIAGE WENT HIS POWERFUL SPELL
      CASTER.AND I ALSO WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITIES TO WARN THOSE OUT THERE
      READING FAKE TESTIMONY ON SOCIAL NETWORK.BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED BY SO
      MANY FAKE SPELL CASTER. BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR
      EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVER BACK, TESTIMONIES OF MOST
      SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL
      SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM OF BEFORE, I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
      BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY HUSBAND BACK AFTER HE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2
      YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON HARRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 5 DIFFERENT SPELL
      CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME
      YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER
      AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL I SAW A POST ABOUT DR
      ALEXZANDER SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HIM MY LAST TRAIL.HE ASK ME FOUR
      THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND SAID MY EX WILL COME
      BACK IN 48HOURS, I HAVE SPEND ON SPELL CASTING AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME
      AFTER 2 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET
      ME GIVE HIM A TRY SO I CALLED HIM AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY
      EX MOTHER NAME. BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS HE
      TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I
      REALLY LOVE MY HUSBAND AND WANT HIM BACK SO MUCH, THAT DAY I SAW MY HUSBAND
      WAS ONLINE ON FACEBOOK AND HE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE HE
      NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 11 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY
      AGAIN HE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND HE SAID CAN WE SEE
      TOMORROW I SAID YES AND HE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT WITH
      HIM AGAIN BUT HE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS
      WONDERING WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 9.AM THE NEXT MORNING HE GAVE ME A
      MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN HE
      CALLED AND I PICK HE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO HE END
      THE CALL. IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK HE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE
      BACK AGAIN I CALL DR ALEXZANDER THE NEXT DAY THANKING HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS
      DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HIM AND THANK HIM AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE
      WITHOUT MY HUSBAND PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF
      DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT..alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com.

      Delete
  2. Sullivan is quoted as saying:

    "The net backlash is milder than it was against Clinton or Obama (and both of them went on to win reelection)."

    This is factually incorrect. Nate Silver has been popping up all over the internet to dispute this error.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somerby says: "Something like 45 percent of the country approves of his performance in office."

    Just because someone voted for Trump does not mean they approve of him or his performance in office. For many Republicans, it means they cannot conceive of crossing party lines, no matter how bad Trump is. Among those interviewed, many said they have always voted Republican and they only voted for him because of the R next to his name. Some consider Democrats, any Democrat, worse. That is far from approval of Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump's approval poll numbers are about 40%, they have been about 40% his whole term, with little variation which mostly likely is noise. This is histroically low, no other president has been as unpopluar. Sullivan and other Republicans use low-rated polls with bad methodology but numbers that support their viewpoint.

      Delete
  4. Why is Somerby so enamored of a conservative columnist like Andrew Sullivan? Sullivan says a bunch of garbage about Acosta when many elsewhere are suggesting that Trump deliberately staged the tiff with Acosta in order to look strong beating up on the press again. Acosta is not the narcissist in that room. (Sullivan is pretty narcissistic himself.)

    But why does Somerby think the best information about the aftermath of this election comes from the right?

    Then Somerby beats up on the press for not covering Yemen more during an election week. I call bullshit. In CA, we had another shooting and 12 people were killed, then a wildfire caused all the people in the surrounding neighborhood to have to evacuate their homes. Trump is using that circumstance to blame CA for mismanaging its forests (as if Thousand Oaks were a forest) and is threatening to withhold funds for disaster relief. We know he is punishing CA for its independence and resistance to his policies. But how much empathy does that show toward the 9 people who have died in the fires and the families of the 12 who were killed at a country music club?

    And Somerby has said nothing about that either. Does he think Yemeni children are more important than the college kids killed last week in CA? Do they not count because they were in CA instead of Yemen?

    This is a shitty game to play with the deaths of victims and Somerby should know that and be above playing it. But he isn't. He thinks those deaths are another stick to beat up the mainstream media with, because they didn't interrupt election coverage to tell us about those Yemeni kids, over and over, since obviously they did tell us at least once (and I heard it on news shows several times).

    Why doesn't Somerby berate that mainstream media for not pointing out how Trump uses politics to decide who is a legitimate victim of disaster and who is not.

    Somerby is a major asshole. I was busy last week and I didn't miss his garbage one bit. With every post he shows us his true colors and they are Red -- not for socialism but for conservatism, for Trump. And no amount of musing about Trump's derangement can make up for the water he carries for that very bad man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shouldn't Somerby connect the dots about Yemen? It isn't being mentioned because Trump's administration has given Saudi Arabia carte blanche to do what it wants to Yemen. Our corporate overlords don't want to rock that boat by fanning public outrage and embarrassing the Saudi friends and benefactors of our president and other Republicans. It isn't only the Russians who have been "friendly" to presidents and funded elections and other causes for them. The Russians just do it more crudely.

    Why does Somerby dance around the edges here? And why is he blaming the media? They are working people who are doing what they are told in order to keep their jobs.

    And if they did tell the American people about Yemen, how much uproar would that actually generate? I'm betting not much, given that most Americans cannot point out Yemen on a world map.

    But why shouldn't Americans care about a very important American election? I don't get why Somerby is blaming the media for covering something that it should be covering. And I disagree strongly that they should have diverted attention away from voting right before the election.

    If Somerby cared about this issue, wouldn't he have at some point mentioned the lack of geography training in our public schools? Shouldn't he have asked why the NAEP doesn't test on geography? Or shown some interest in Yemen besides its current plight.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Acosta isn't especially bright; truth to tell, he just isn't bright at all."

    Somerby, you know who else isn't very bright? Maxine Waters, and April Ryan. These are very low IQ individuals.
    Know what else they have in common? Think about it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who else is calling Acosta stupid these days? Trump. That's what he does. Apparently, it is what Somerby does too.

      Delete
  7. The charge has been made, by both Somerby and Sullivan, against Acosta for being some sort of a showboat or narcissist. But I have yet to see either Somerby or Sullivan justify that charge based on the press conference on Wednesday. What specifically did Acosta do to warrant either the charges from Somerby or the treatment by Trump? Was there a problem with his questions? Somerby is fond of assuming the truth of what he is saying, and he apparently expects his readers to read his mind and supply his reasons for him. It’s pretty dangerous to criticize a reporter for some nebulous charge of “narcissism” (when that in and of itself is no crime) when that is being used by Trump to ban that reporter. I would have to come down forcefully on the side of Acosta here, his purported “narcissism” be damned. Freedom of the press is more important.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sullivan: At this point, I don’t think it matters what Mueller finds. I can’t imagine any revelation that could seriously damage Trump.

    Nonsense. If Mueller finds collusion with Russia, which is what his investigation was a about, Trump will be impeached or forced to resign. The reason Mueller hasn't hurt Trump is that he hasn't found any such evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope Putin is counseling Trump to resign right now, during their joint meeting in France. That is obviously the only reason Trump went to Europe, since he has no interest in commemorating the end of WWI.

      You have no idea what Mueller has or has not found. He hasn't revealed his findings yet. If there were nothing to find, why is Trump working so hard to stop Mueller's investigation? If Trump is innocent why are so many of his staff being indicted and why have so many pled guilty and gone to jail already?

      Why do you say silly things like this? You are clearly a troll.

      Delete
    2. Nice try David. The only thing that will make Republicans turn on Trump is if he offers blacks reparations for slavery.

      Delete
    3. @5:15 - Trump has done nothing at all to stop Mueller's investigation. What are you talking about?

      Delete
    4. David, this isn't exactly true.

      Delete
  9. Sullivan: by almost everyone’s account, [Mueller] has behaved impeccably

    IMHO (and, I think, in the opinion of most conservatives) Mueller's conduct was peccable (if that's the opposite of impeccable) in a few ways

    1. He chose a staff just about entirely made up of Democratic opponents of Donald Trump. They are widely perceived as being out to get Trump.

    2. One of his staff members, Peter Strzok, was rabidly anti-Trump. Strzok was finally removed from the staff when written evidence of his bias was made public.

    3. Mueller's charge was to investigate Russian interference. But, he has not looked at possible Russian interference involving Democrats. There is some evidence that Russians colluded with the Hillary campaign in creating the (almost certainly false) Steele dossier, but Mueller has never looked into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) is untrue. Only conservatives think this.
      2) One guy doesn't prove (1). He wasn't removed from the staff, just the investigation. His email was private and to a trusted friend, not part of his work.
      3) You have no idea what his charge was, since it was redacted in the letter released to the public. It was not limited to the Russian interference. We know that because of the decisions by the judge in the Manafort trial. There is no evidence Hillary colluded with Russians (or vice versa). Hillary didn't create the Steele dossier -- that was done by a private firm paid by the DNC. There was no wrongdoing involved in collecting info about Trump. It is what news organizations do and is not forbidden to candidates.

      This is more conservative propaganda from a troll.

      Delete
    2. David, you treasonous bastard, since when do we the political leanings of persons involved in an investigation? Did you care that every fucking investigation into the Clintons was lead by a life long republican?

      Brett "Tits and Clits" Kavanaugh literally hated the Clintons and is a serious hardcore GOP partisan, yet not only did no one complain that he worked for Ken Starr (he found a blowjob!!!), he has now been promoted to a lifelong appointment to the highest court in our land. Ain't that some shit, fuckface?

      Thankfully, with the blue wave wiping out GOP collaboration control of the House, we can dispense with the bullshit investigation of the investigation of the investigation.

      You must be very fucking happy that President Chickenshit, who will never answer Mueller's questions, has now installed a man after his own heart, a fucking fraud.

      Delete
    3. mm - the Ken Starr investigation was intended to be an investigation of Bill Clinton's behavior. Your use of this as an analogy shows that you believe that the purpose of the Mueller investigation is to investigate Donald Trump's behavior. I think you're right in practice, but the problem I pointed out. Mueller was supposed to be investigating Russian interference with the election. You evidently agree with me that Mueller is actually trying to get Trump.

      Delete
    4. David, why don’t you do yourself a favor and read the goals of the Mueller investigation, outlined in Rosenstein’s letter appointing Mueller. I’ll save you the trouble. Here are the targets:
      “Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
      (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
      (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
      (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”

      Note that the investigation is not just of Russian interference, but rather links between Russia and Trump. Perhaps you didn’t know that watching Fox.

      Delete
    5. Ken Starr was appointed IC to investigate "Clinton's behavior"?? Is that your contention?

      I think you've gone senile. Get the fuck out of here.

      And as usual you completely deflect and avoid the point. since when do we check the political leanings of the investigators? Since when, David, you fucking phony clown?

      Delete
    6. mm - I agree with you about checking the political leanings of investigators. It was wrong of Mueller to do so.

      Delete
    7. Mueller didn't check them. An internal investigation by the DOJ's Inspector General found the texts between Strzok and Page (which were personal) and provided them to Mueller, upon which he moved Strzok to another position, less politically sensitive.

      Delete
    8. 3:44
      I'm afraid you misunderstood Comrade DinC.
      You don't yet fully understand the full malicious poisonous dishonest character that is DinC.


      See. Comrade DinC has set this up as his Number 1 reason to smear the Republican Robert Mueller and reject outright the results of his final report. That's where this creep, DinC begins.

      1. He chose a staff just about entirely made up of Democratic opponents of Donald Trump. They are widely perceived as being out to get Trump.



      DinC, how lame. It took you 2 days to think of such a smutty disingenuous comeback? Yeah, I think you are senile.

      Do you have any evidence, Comrade DinC, that Mueller chose his team based on their political affiliation? Every fucking evidence at all, you low life smear merchant?

      It's too fucking bad you have chosen to stand behind a repugnant fraud, a narcissistic lunatic, that most civilized Americans recoil from. On the other hand, former John Birchers like yourself find him attractive.

      We don't have to apologize, and the investigators don't have to apologize for their feelings about this depraved lying sack of shit degenerate ignorant asshole in the WH. But the results of the investigation will stand on the facts as will be made public when the time comes.

      Deplorables like you David can go ahead and hide behind your ready made excuse that the facts are invalid because Mueller's team is not strictly 100 % hardcore in the conservative movement.

      It was wrong of Mueller to do so.

      You think that was clever, you disingenuous asshole? It is you who are using the political leanings of the investigators, and as you well know, that is what I was pointing to.

      Delete
  10. Sullivan is part of the media, and has been for a long time. He supported Reagan and Bush 2. He was fond of trashing Bill and Hillary Clinton, until his tepid endorsement of her in 2016. Is he arguably one of those journalists who caused all those deaths all over the world that Somerby speaks of, back when he (Sullivan) was a vigorous supporter of the war in Iraq, until he later reversed himself on that, after it was too late to matter? He was a gay conservative supporting an anti-gay Republican Party, until the homophobia became more than he could accept. Thus, as a (one time) conservative and Republican Party supporter, perhaps he has some insight into the Republican mindset that led on an unbroken path to the election of Trump. But of course, he now perches himself above the fray in order to criticize the “media” as if he was never a prominent and culpable member of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever else you might think of Sullivan, he was involved in a scandal when he came out as gay because he was accused of having unprotected sex despite being HIV positive. He has that in common with Trump (according to Stormy). As Bill Maher says, "Who has unprotected sex with a porn star?" So, being a conservative is the least of his poor choices, in my opinion. He used to be very anti-Irish, having grown up in London during the bombings. Maybe he and Somerby have that in common, along with being fellow-conservatives in liberal clothing.

      Delete
  11. Sullivan says this:
    “It took only two years for Trump to turn the entire GOP into a nationalist cult. “

    And this:
    “Trump really does have a cultlike grip on a whole new population of voters, as well as the reliable Republican voters of the past.”

    He describes Trump voters as a “cult”, and yet he paradoxically seems to think that Democrats can make some sort of headway against this “cult” by dropping the “social justice” war or some such thing. As if any rational appeal can work against a cult, which is by definition an irrational adherence to the cult leader. The way you deal with a cult member is to de-program them.

    And yet, Sullivan says the Democrats ran the right kind of candidates and stressed the right issues this election. So now what?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "But who was Amal Husain?"

    Who was Cody Coffman?
    Who was Justin Meek?
    Who was Sean Adler?
    Who was Blake Dingman?
    Who was Noel Sparks?
    Who was Daniel Manrique?
    Who was Jake Dunham?
    Who was Telemachus Orfanos?
    Who was Kristina Morisette?
    Who was Mark Meza?
    Who was Alaina Housley?
    Who was Ron Helus?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does Somerby care that 106 children are still separated from their parents by ICE? Or does he only care about children in Yemen? I'm waiting for him to mention the suffering of those children who were stolen from their parents by our government. Democrats care about that stuff. It isn't Democrats who are supporting the Saudis. It isn't Rachel Maddow either. Does Somerby think that by making common cause with Republicans such as Andrew Sullivan, we can stop Trump from holding hands with Saudi princes? He is the last person to be accusing someone else of dementia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While MSNBC was reporting on this non-stop when it first came out, including Hayes and O’Donnell broadcasting from the Texas border, night after night, there was deafening silence from Somerby. Then later, he had the gall to accuse THEM of ignoring the story. Never has Somerby’s disingenuousness been more in display.

      Delete
  14. Somerby is a real piece of work here. Instead of reading assholes like Andrew Sullivan, why doesn't Somerby read real patriotic republicans like Steven Schmidt or Max Boot? These are persons who understand what is happening.

    I left the Republican Party. Now I want Democrats to take over.

    ...

    Personally, I’ve thrown up my hands in despair at the debased state of the GOP. I don’t want to be identified with the party of the child-snatchers. But I respect principled conservatives who are willing to stay and fight to reclaim a once-great party that freed the slaves and helped to win the Cold War. What I can’t respect are head-in-the-sand conservatives who continue to support the GOP by pretending that nothing has changed.

    They act, these political ostriches, as if this were still the party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain rather than of Stephen K. Bannon and Stephen Miller — and therefore they cling to the illusion that supporting Republican candidates will advance their avowed views. Wrong. The current GOP still has a few resemblances to the party of old — it still cuts taxes and supports conservative judges. But a vote for the GOP in November is also a vote for egregious obstruction of justice, rampant conflicts of interest, the demonization of minorities, the debasement of political discourse, the alienation of America’s allies, the end of free trade and the appeasement of dictators.

    That is why I join Will and other principled conservatives, both current and former Republicans, in rooting for a Democratic takeover of both houses in November. Like postwar Germany and Japan, the Republican Party must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-left-the-republican-party-now-i-want-democrats-to-take-over/2018/07/03/54a4007a-7e38-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.37eb64ea94c0

    Ex-Republican Operative Steve Schmidt: ‘The Party of Trump Must Be Obliterated. Annihilated. Destroyed’

    The reason President Chickenshit, the lying fucking coward, who is barely human let alone presidential is still polling at 40% is because the entire Republican Congress is enabling him and have abjectly debased themselves, allowing this insanity and horror to continue unchecked.

    They will pay eventually at the polls, but really, the way forward is to ignore assholes like Sullivan and listen to patriotic men of integrity like Max Boot and

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have any evidence that he doesn't read those guys. Do you remember what he wrote about Matthew Dowd?

      Delete
    2. According to an archive search, he mentioned Matthew Dowd several times. Which one are you referring to?

      At any rate, Somerby attacks liberal journalists incessantly, then goes out of his way to recommend and praise the one “conservative” columnist (or whatever the hell Sullivan is) who shares his (Somerby’s) views. Sullivan has been remarkably bad over the years. His positions have been all over the map, most notably his unbridled support for the Iraq war, which he later reversed. Why doesn’t Somerby therefore mention Sullivan as being one of those journos who caused death all over the world, or is that ok cause Sullivan was never a “liberal?”

      Also, we have no idea if he knows about the current stances of Boot, or Schmidt, or David Frum, because he never discusses them. Why not, do you think?

      Delete
    3. Let me ask you this - do you think liberals answer the question 'why do 45% of Americans approve of Trump?' in an intelligent way?

      Delete
    4. Well, according to Sullivan, Trump voters are a “cult.” Oops, that’s not what Somerby wanted to highlight about Sullivan’s piece, was it? I think “liberals” understand Trump’s appeal pretty well, especially liberals who run and study polls and campaigns. Somerby consistently ignores real research that analyzes this in order to push his notion that liberals are clueless race-baiters.

      Since you answered my question with a question, I’ll return the favor: do you think *conservatives* understand why Trump has 45% approval?

      Delete
    5. You didn't answer my question.

      Delete
    6. I will answer yours: "do you think *conservatives* understand why Trump has 45% approval?"

      Yes.

      Delete
    7. You didn’t answer my initial question, about Bob Somerby. You shifted the discussion to liberals. My response to mm was to wonder about Somerby’s motivations.

      Delete
    8. This question?

      why doesn’t Somerby therefore mention Sullivan as being one of those journos who caused death all over the world, or is that ok cause Sullivan was never a “liberal?”

      Delete
    9. Anyway - I would like to let you further wonder about Somerby’s motivations on your own. I don't think I can help you sort that out.

      I just wanted to make the point that Somerby was using Sullivan's piece to suggest a message: liberals don't and can't answer the question 'why do 45% of Americans approve of Trump?' in an intelligent way.

      That "at present, our liberal tribe is deeply invested in constructing a world of good and evil." and that "this is where our species' wars have always begun."

      Which I think are interesting points to consider. Attacking the messenger and not the message should send you a sign that you may not like the message, and therefore, the message itself should be dealt with before attacking the messenger - something you never do. I would like to see you deal with the message directly - which you never do. You attack messengers and motives which is a notoriously weak argument technique.

      Anyway, have a good Sunday

      Delete
    10. @12:23
      Do you accept Somerby’s notions about “our tribe?” I do not. I disagree with him on substance, and therefore I wonder about his reasons for making the kinds of statements he makes. I don’t believe that Somerby has any special insight into the media or politics. He has never been involved in either.

      I also do not take him at face value when he claims membership in “our tribe.” I have no reason to believe that unquestioningly. In fact, his posts over the past many years lead me to suspect it isn’t true. That makes him shall we say an untrustworthy writer, in my opinion.

      Delete
    11. Trump went to Europe without declaring California a disaster area (because of the fires). That means that the people affected will be unable to receive certain types of aid and the state will be unable to ask for and receive help controlled by the federal government (which manages the parks and forests that make up 42% of our territory).

      How am I supposed to feel about the Trump supporters who think this is A-OK? How am I supposed to feel about a president who won't even send thoughts and prayers for the family of shooting victims, many of whom are now evacuated because of the fire in Thousand Oaks?

      It is tempting to frame all this in terms of good and evil when real people are being hurt by Trump and his policies and his incredibly stupid appointees. Trump hurts people. His supporters are generally gleeful about whatever he does, and treat participation in politics as a football tailgate party, not a serious endeavor. How should I feel about such people when real folks who I know are being HURT by Trump?

      This isn't any kind of academic exercise in labeling. This is real life, lived by real people. For me, there are the tribe of people being hurt by Trump and the tribe of people benefitting from his malfeasance.

      Somerby's preaching becomes obscene in that context.

      Delete
    12. Yes, we all know how you feel. The question is why you don't argue directly with his substance. I would like to see you say, "I disagree with him on substance, and therefore I directly address the reasoning of his substance."

      Again - running immediately to wondering about his motivations rather than directly addressing the substance is intellectually weak and a sign that you can't address his substance. That's all. Do what you gotta do though man.

      Do I accept Somerby’s notions about “our tribe?” Mostly, yes. I think we are very far off course and are poorly represented by media liberals. I think it's a good point about the famine in Yemen for example.

      I think our tribe needs to think vertically - from the bottom up to the top, instead of horizontally, from the left to the right and in doing so, we can appeal to a broader coalition. But doing so would be very difficult - as it is easy to play the horizontal game - from a story telling perspective for example. It's easy to think in terms of good and bad as Somerby describes. It's the nature of storytelling, cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, Ivan and GI Joe. It's in our blood. Maddow is just playing to the same instincts Hollywood does. A vertical approach would not work on cable news for example. Plus, our leadership is too entrenched in the top part of the vertical approach to ever allow that to be a part of the platform. The horizontal approach keeps the status quo and people's eyes off the ball - and that's why we see healthcare prices skyrocket and endless war etc. under Obama, Bush and Trump.

      "I also do not take him at face value when he claims membership in “our tribe.” I find that to be idiotic. It only matters if you effectively address the substance on which you disagree with him.

      Delete
    13. "Somerby's preaching becomes obscene in that context."

      Not to me. I know it does to you though. Good luck sorting through it all.

      Delete
    14. 1:05 PM

      You're acting like a woman. Grow a spine. Try to be a man.

      Delete
    15. @12:23
      Look, “tribalization” is part of politics, in the sense that you believe your side has better solutions than the other side. If you want to criticize liberals for their “identity politics”, fine. There are many besides Somerby who do that. Some are even liberals. (I think Somerby’s critiques of the media are more on point, by the way). I personally don’t believe in denigrating the other side. But i didn’t see that happening in the last election. Did Claire McCaskill lose because she accused Republican voters in Missouri of being racist or misogynist? She didn’t do that. Why did she lose? Her being a “Democrat?” What did that mean to Republican voters in Missouri, and why did it mean that? If you truly want to analyze what conservative voters believe, as Somerby demands, then you need to look further than Somerby does. He stops short with “identity politics” (which is I presume his complaint about liberals viewing the other side as “evil”?). But a great deal of dis/misinformation gets fed to conservative voters about this notion of “identity politics”, much of which does not correspond to reality. My complaint therefore is that Somerby’s critique of liberals is too superficial, as is his diagnosis of their election losses.

      Delete
    16. "That "at present, our liberal tribe is deeply invested in constructing a world of good and evil." and that "this is where our species' wars have always begun.""

      It's good, then, that the non-zombie segment generally doesn't view lib-zombies as 'evil'. We see them as merely zombified. Severely mentally impaired, as a liberal would say.

      Delete
    17. I don't see Somerby's posts as "critique of liberals" but as only critiques of those who represent liberals in corporate media.

      I see these posts as a demand those who represent liberals in corporate media "intelligently" analyze what conservative voters believe. To "press on and reach a useful end" instead of acting out a "childish morality play." I don't understand why liberals in media like the ones who are criticized here don't cover, every day, the dis/misinformation that gets fed to conservative voters. They rarely even talk of it and don't even seem to be aware of it. But that's all.

      Delete
    18. He excoriates all liberals, not just those on TV. He says "We liberals..." and then says terrible things, such as how stupid, lazy, and so on, WE are.

      The liberals on TV don't spend time examining the disinformation fed to conservatives because they know that conservatives don't watch their shows. Instead, they cover the actual news, which serves the dual purpose of informing people with correct info, not disinformation.

      Everyone is aware of the crap that circulates on the right. Today they are saying that these are controlled burns and that the people who died were crisis actors, and that the fires are a good thing because they clear brush (remember how W loved to clear that brush). And they are saying Boy Howdy, look how Trump put that uppity state of California in its place, whatta guy, whatta guy. And why exactly should liberals follow that crap? There isn't a single goddamn thing anyone can say to one of those people that will make any difference at all.

      One of my favorite friends voted for Trump. When I try to get her to tell me why, she gets stubborn and sets his mouth and says "I have always been a Republican. That's how I vote." Who is tribal? If I ask her about any of Trump's bad behavior she just shrugs. There is no defense and she makes none. But she doesn't change her mind about him either. That's why you cannot talk to those people. And it isn't because liberals love identity politics. It is because of who THEY are. And I'll bet most of them don't know why Trump appeals to them. But their eyes light up and they wave their arms around and they just love their guy.

      Delete
    19. Arguing with trolls is a bigger waste of time than arguing with Trump supporters. Amanda Marcotte, in her book Troll Nation, argues that they are the same.

      Delete
    20. Well, Somerby's covering a lot of disinformation lib-zombies are swallowing every day. From all those goebbelsian establishment media outlets.

      And so, once you acknowledge and correct that shit - the shit laying thick all over your own domain, then, dembot, perhaps I might be more inclined to consider what you perceive as "the dis/misinformation that gets fed to conservative voters"...

      Delete
    21. "The liberals on TV don't spend time examining the disinformation fed to conservatives because ... everyone is aware of the crap that circulates on the right."

      Everyone is aware of the ridiculous things Trump does - and they cover that ad naseum. I think they, Maddow et al, should cover it because it gets to the heart of the question - 'why do 45% go for Trump?'

      I agree that we are stupid, lazy, and so on. I think he is right about that. We lost to Donald Trump man! We suck! Has it occurred to you that he is right that we are stupid, lazy, and so on?

      Anyway - you're too sensitive and womanish for me to address further. We will never win with dickless fucks like you. You are part of the problem. You're not strong enough. You exhibit so, so much weakness. It's why we lose. "It is because of who THEY are." Wah wah wah.

      Have a good one.

      Delete
    22. @2:21
      Wah wah...those stupid lazy liberals (of which you are one, yeah right) just took back the House. Did you think that was fake news, or have they not informed you about it on Infowars?

      Delete
  15. Is it not ironic that Sullivan criticizes the Democrats for “social justice wars” (identity politics, I suppose), including, in his words, “left-feminism”, and yet it was the Republicans’ homophobia, among other reasons, that led Sullivan to reject the GOP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like most people trying to make a buck in the media, Sullivan works both sides of the street. Or consistency, in any event, has never been his strong suit.

      Delete
  16. David in Cal says it’s Trump’s deeds, not his words, that matter. Well, here’s a deed from the fuckface:

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-backlash-skip-ww1-memorial-fallen-us-soldiers-france

    Also, check out Trudeau’s words AND DEEDS at Dieppe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a point, @7:32. I wish Trump had gone to this cemetery.

      However, this is a mere symbolic deed. I was thinking of Presidential actions that affect the American people. E.g., Barack Obama's policies led to a sharp increase in the number of black Americans murdered each year. Between 2014 and 2016, that figure rose by 1,800. To me, eighteen hundred dead black Americans is more important than whether the President visited a particular cemetery in France.

      Delete
    2. "I wish Trump had gone to this cemetery."

      Whoa, man. You always sound like a super-liberal to me (albeit politically non-partisan), but this one is straight out of the dembot script. What the fuck do you care if he did or didn't go to that cemetery?

      Delete
    3. For all those football players kneeling at games, Trump was just trying to show them what real disrespect of our flag and our troops looks like. Mission Accomplished, fuckface!

      Delete
    4. @11:06 AM -- do you care about all those murdered black Americans?

      Delete
    5. Name one murdered black person who you especially care about David.

      @11:06 was talking about the black people killed by cops, which is what the kneeling football players are protesting. Many of those protesters are black -- odd that they seem more concerned about being shot by cops than being murdered. Wonder why that is.

      Trump showed today that he (1) doesn't care about murdered black people, (2) doesn't care about black people killed by cops, (3) doesn't care about those who gave their lives in WWI and by extension, doesn't care about the families of those dead veterans or the living veterans of today's wars who commemorate past wars and take them very seriously, (4) doesn't care about being a patriot, as opposed to playing one on TV, (5) doesn't care about upsetting the broader American public, (6) doesn't care about cementing relationships with leaders of other nations who care very much about WWI and about current alliances to prevent future wars, (7) doesn't care about anything except good/bad hair days, fast food and watching TV in case they say his name.

      And you, David, by this comment demonstrate that you don't give a damn about WWI war dead either. You only care about scoring points while trolling. You don't have an ounce of outrage about how Trump treated our flag and troops -- you just want to play games using dead African Americans as your tokens. That stinks, but what do you expect from today's Republicans? Not much.

      Delete
  17. How many times did FOX mention Yemen? Or don't they count?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am glad the yellowbellied chickenshit flimflam man, fraud, degenerate lying sack of shit didn't go, where his foul presence would desecrate the sacred memorial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really should go back on your meds.

      Delete
    2. Are you 12 @2:13?

      This is how liberals feel about Trump. That may be shocking to a young conservative, but that's how it is.

      Delete
    3. @3:48
      mm was making a factual assessment. Nothing subjective about it.

      Delete
    4. From 2:13...

      I stand corrected. Apparently all liberals need to go back on their meds.

      Delete
    5. @10:49
      Sure thing. It’ll help us focus on the upcoming investigations, since, you know, we took the House.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, dembot, and I, too, am looking forward to resurrection of the HUAC.

      Because, as The Great One said, history repeats itself twice: first as tragedy, and then as farce. And I looove farces...

      Delete
  19. Ocasio-Cortez goes after Fox:

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-respond-fox-news-mock-dc-rent-struggle

    Will Our Favorite Blogger take her hint?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I’m not sure if Bob knows this, but plenty of NYT subscribers have been cancelling their subscriptions because they’ve had it with endless journalistic safaris into Trump country over the past two years. We do know why Trump voters still support the President because The Times will rush to a diner in Western Pennsylvania to interview them every time Trump fires up his phone to tweet.
    The Washington Post has published a number of in depth articles about the lives and views of White working class citizens in Appalachia, who were and are left behind the uneven economic growth of the last 6 years.
    If you’re a heavy watcher of cable news, like we know Bob is, you won’t see those stories. Why, you may ask? Well because that sort of reporting is expensive, and the cable nets aren’t designed to invest in that type of journalism. Bottom line, and it’s all about the bottom line, panel shows are cheap.
    Bob, we know Trump voters, and yes, they have complex reasons for supporting the Big Dummy. Just stop saying that the papers don’t report that story.
    They do.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Give this a moment, if you can spare it. Clearly a soundboard recording, and the vid gets in sync pretty quickly.

    Galactic

    https://youtu.be/bu3Aj79RePw?t=16

    Didn’t know a trombone could do that. What a weird instrument.

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
  22. Too much foolishness here to confront in a serious way,
    but a few things perhaps worth pointing out:
    Sullivan states that the coverage of Kavanaugh was bad,
    I agree, but for very different reasons. Kavanaugh's ugly
    background as a Clinton era rat fucker for Ken Starr was
    ignored by the Democrats in the admittedly limited time
    given them, and mostly ignored by the press (as well until
    some stuff at the last minute). As the old Bob might have
    pointed out, Sullivan was a pretty formidable Clinton era
    ratfucker himself, so he probably felt protective of his old
    comrade. In any event Kavanaugh probably helped solidify
    both the Trump supporters AND his enemies. . Look,
    out Washington, as Sullivan rather sheepishly concedes
    (if you read the whole thing) the Women are coming.

    Beyond that, Sullivan's piece seems to come down to:
    there are still a lot of douche bags, people like our own
    Mao, out there. Along with bright lights like Chris Matthews
    or Ann Coulter's pal Bill Maher, he seems to demand the
    Democrats do something about it.
    Which takes us to Mueller, who can issue a report and
    charge people with crimes, along with influencing people.
    Well, if lawless aspects of the administration can be proved,
    he can take action and maybe the sleazy firewall Trump
    has built can protect him, or maybe it can't. I would not
    trust anyone who knows definitively. But President Slob
    Gangster does look more desperate every day, AND,
    his legal problems extend beyond Mueller. I guess
    the hit post Bob once promised, shamefully, is not to
    come and I would say that is almost certainly a good
    thing he stays away from Muller himself. But I will continue to remind him of his shameless
    promise.

    There is a strange irony in Bob berating the press for not
    being able to take on the issue of Trump's mental health.
    He once heaped derision on such psychological assessments.
    But these days have left Bob a very confused person.
    He may hate Acosta, like Sullivan does, but I don't see
    any examples here of his shocking misconduct. The
    White House now releases doctored footage of his behavior
    (can we talk? This was an attempt to rattle the reporter
    into doing something untoward, it failed, but they went with
    it anyway) then denying they had done so (Sanders) and
    offering a ridiculous defense of this attempted manipulation
    (Conway).

    So here we are, St. Bob would have us do penance for
    our creation of the twisted pig Mao. How would we ever
    find enough ways to reply "fuck you?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is hard to take you seriously when your opening paragraph uses the word "ratf***er".

      Delete
    2. @10:44
      Shut up, fuckface. Greg is a long time reader/commenter, and he is right about this. No one made you, a fellow anonymous, word police.

      Delete
    3. Greg, this would have a chance at being a good comment had it been coherent or even made any sense at all.

      Delete
    4. Anon 10:44, sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, I generally dislike vulgarity too. But Ratfucking is a historically specific kind of sleazbo political work, and it is where the deeply sleazy Kavanaugh made his bones. Deal with it. Anon at 12:08, thanks for giving me a fighting chance! I generally find dumb conservatives will feign incomprehension weather or not they get you, it's a lot easier than arguing the sort of demented garbage it would take to defend Bob or Trump here.

      Delete
    5. Incompressible no matter the weather, ;)

      Delete
    6. "this would have a chance at being a good comment had it been coherent or even made any sense at all"

      Nah, you're too kind, anon.

      Once you discern the pattern, you know that there's no chance of a dembot comment making any sense at all, ever.

      All their ejecta is based on is their reptilian brains' hate-mongering. And that's all there is to it...

      Delete
    7. Judged on that mess, I'm afraid writing and the cognitive organization required to engineer it is not his strong suit no matter what the political stripe.

      Delete
    8. But in fact it's very much about the "political stripe", the zombie cult.

      It's all based on hatred for demographic groups and individuals.

      In this case, for example, we're observing the subject identifying the work done by a lawyer working at the office of independent counsel as "ratfucking".

      What do we conclude from this? Simply, the subject has no brains at all, merely repeating hateful gibberish drummed into his head by his cult's leaders. Sad.

      Delete
    9. "It's all based on hatred for demographic groups and individuals. "

      For anyone who still thought Conservatives just don't understand Black Lives Matter, Mao here dispels that theory.

      Delete
  23. Nice to get a rise out of our star nitwit! Work with your inbred
    relations, Mao, and after four or five weeks they might be able
    to come up with a handle for themselves. As to what you
    cannot comprehend... that's kind of the point, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "There is a strange irony in Bob berating the press for not being able to take on the issue of Trump's mental health. He once heaped derision on such psychological assessments.”

    I seem to remember that as well, but only in regard to the MSM being careful in how they use the word crazy, or mentally ill. Just as he advised against the word “lie.” Though that particular nitpick seems to have been abandoned, without explanation.

    All I could find (and I admit, it wasn’t an extensive search), Bob was actually leaning toward the assessment of “crazy.”

    http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/search?q=is+donald+trump+crazy%3F

    You’re right about Mao, of course, but once again, he’s been given license just by mention of his name. Apparently, even the smartest amongst us cannot resist the hook. Ah well.

    President Slob Gangster. Heh-heh! I’m keeping that one. Thanks Greg.


    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
  25. MY NAME IS VICKY AND I AM FROM SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA,I WANT TO SHARE A
    TESTIMONY OF A SPELL CASTER WHO REUNITE MY MARRIAGE WENT HIS POWERFUL SPELL
    CASTER.AND I ALSO WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITIES TO WARN THOSE OUT THERE
    READING FAKE TESTIMONY ON SOCIAL NETWORK.BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED BY SO
    MANY FAKE SPELL CASTER. BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR
    EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVER BACK, TESTIMONIES OF MOST
    SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL
    SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM OF BEFORE, I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
    BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY HUSBAND BACK AFTER HE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2
    YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON HARRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 5 DIFFERENT SPELL
    CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME
    YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER
    AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL I SAW A POST ABOUT DR
    ALEXZANDER SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HIM MY LAST TRAIL.HE ASK ME FOUR
    THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND SAID MY EX WILL COME
    BACK IN 48HOURS, I HAVE SPEND ON SPELL CASTING AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME
    AFTER 2 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET
    ME GIVE HIM A TRY SO I CALLED HIM AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY
    EX MOTHER NAME. BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS HE
    TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I
    REALLY LOVE MY HUSBAND AND WANT HIM BACK SO MUCH, THAT DAY I SAW MY HUSBAND
    WAS ONLINE ON FACEBOOK AND HE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE HE
    NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 11 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY
    AGAIN HE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND HE SAID CAN WE SEE
    TOMORROW I SAID YES AND HE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT WITH
    HIM AGAIN BUT HE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS
    WONDERING WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 9.AM THE NEXT MORNING HE GAVE ME A
    MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN HE
    CALLED AND I PICK HE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO HE END
    THE CALL. IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK HE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE
    BACK AGAIN I CALL DR ALEXZANDER THE NEXT DAY THANKING HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS
    DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HIM AND THANK HIM AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE
    WITHOUT MY HUSBAND PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF
    DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT..alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com.

    ReplyDelete
  26. you are welcome https://fortnitebattel.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Some of "the others" are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  28. GREETINGS everyone out there.. my name is (Robert Lora) I am from CANADA i will never forget the help Dr Ogudugu render to me in my marital life. I have been married for 8 years now and my husband and i love each other very dearly. After 6 years of our marriage my husband suddenly change he was having an affair with a lady outside our marriage, my husband just came home one day he pick up his things and left me and the kids to his mistress outside at this time i was confuse not knowing what to do again because i have lost my husband and my marriage too. i was searching for help in the internet, i saw many people sharing testimony on how Dr Ogudugu help them out with their marital problems so i contacted the email of Dr Ogudugu i told him my problem and i was told to be calm that i have come to the right place were i can get back my husband within the next 48hours, to my greatest surprise my husband came to my office begging me on his knees that i should find a place in my heart to forgive him, that he will never cheat on me again, i quickly ask him up that i have forgiven him. Friends your case is not too hard why don't you give Dr Ogudugu a chance, because i know they will help you to fix your relationship with your Ex Partner. Dr Ogudugu his the best spell caster around to solve any problem for you.
    {1} HIV/AIDS
    {2CANCER
    {3}HERPES
    {4}DIABETES
    (5}HERPERTITIS B

    Email: GREATOGUDUGU@GMAIL.COM
    Call/WhatsApp:+27663492930

    ReplyDelete