THURSDAY: Is the sitting president "out of his mind?"

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2025

A reader asked Philip Bump: So now we're left with President Trump being the person who has to make a major, fateful decision.

We don't mean this as an insult, but he isn't the person we would have chosen. For those of us in Blue America, it might not be a bad time to remember some of the ways we managed to get ourselves here.

We kept insisting that nothing was wrong at the southern border. We kept insisting that nothing was wrong with President Biden.

With respect to complaints about the rise in the overall cost of living, we kept insisting, on loan from the early Dylan, that "them old dreams are only in your head." And then too, also this:

Frequently, we adopted stances concerning various social issues—various stances which came to be described as "woke." Even if we judge those stances to be ultimately correct, some of those stances took us well beyond the boundaries of conventional understanding and assessment—and you go to the polls with the electorate you currently have.

(In our view, quite a few of those stances probably weren't ultimately correct. Some of those stances weren't just wrong on the politics, they were also wrong on the merits.)

Also this:

We spent years focusing on the desire to Lock the Other Guy Up. The many hours we spent on the minutia of those legal cases were hours we didn't spend on the topics which may have been moving voters away from our own liberal / progressive / Democratic camp.

We aren't the geniuses we've claimed to be—not morally, not intellectually.  Our endless name-calling also got us here, to the place where President Trump will end up being the person who has to make the decision.

Along the way, we still refuse to improve our journalistic game. We refer you to a recent exchange involving the Washington Post's Philip Bump.

Bump is no one's idea of a slouch; he does plenty of good work. In part for that reason, we were struck by what he said in response to this question from a reader during a Washington Post "Live Chat:" 

Is Trump tactical—or out of his mind? I answered your questions.

[...]

Is Trump truly out of his mind? 
Guest

He demands "unconditional surrender" from Iran and adds that he knows where knows Iran’s supreme leader is but won’t kill him, “at least not for now.” What do you think: Finely tuned negotiating tactic or lunacy?

That was one of a bunch of questions to which Bump responded. The reader seemed to be asking if there could be some kind of a problem with the state of President Trump's mental health. 

The headline seems to have been composed by the Washington Post.

Over the past eight years, medical and psychiatric specialists have sometimes rather clearly suggested that the answer to the headlined question is yes. That said, Bump is a journalist, not a medical specialist—but instead of simply saying so, this is the "answer" he gave:

Philip Bump 
Columnist

President Trump is driven by a number of basic and at times conflicting motivations. One is that he acts on impulse. Another is his desire to look strong. Another, related one is that he is wildly insecure. Another, also related one is that he is eager not to have anyone understand just how out of his depth he is in his current position.

If you consider that Truth Social post in that light, it makes sense. He's demanding "unconditional surrender" from a foreign country that … the U.S. isn't at war with? It is an attainable toughness for Trump, suggesting that the U.S. is leaning on Iran without having to cajole Congress into sending actual troops (or just sending them, as has been the norm in the past few decades).

But it's not like Iran was about to simply surrender to … who, exactly? So the result of this (almost certainly) impulsive declaration is that Trump looks weaker, if only incrementally. OK, they didn't surrender. So now what?

He has no answer for that either. So, for the moment, he appears to be content basking in the reflected glow of Israel's bombing runs.

That's an answer which isn't an answer. It's basically standard yak.

Bump could have summarized some of the analyses which have been offered by some medical specialists, including Trump's own niece. Instead, he went with a standard issue pseudo-answer—with an imitation of life.

Is something wrong with President Trump? (Colloquially, is he "out of his mind?")

At this site, we aren't medical specialists either! That said, we continue to wonder about this assessment by the president's niece:

The fact is, his pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for.

That's a small part of what Mary Trump wrote about her uncle's apparent "psychopathologies" in her best-selling book from 2020. In the book, she accompanies her punishing portrait of the adult version of her uncle with a sympathetic portrait of the way he got to be the way he is, starting with a deeply unfortunate family event when he was two years old.

(Also, starting with an even earlier unfortunate fact—the fact that he was born to a sociopathic father. Or so says Mary Trump.)

For ourselves, we continue to wonder about "Delusional disorder" as described by the leading authority on the unfortunate syndrome. It seems to us that President Trump is gripped by the idea that he's one of the planet's handful of truly great men—that he's a towering figure on a plane with potentates like Putin and Xi, a person whose unmatchable greatness takes him far beyond the stature of the pitiful and stupid people who lead our traditional "allies."

Mary Trump describes the way his (sociopathic) father taught him to see the world through that disordered lens (in effect, as "The Great I-Am"). The fact that she offered these assessments doesn't mean that her assessments are right. But Philip Bump isn't a medical specialist, and when he gets a question like the one he received, he ought to start by stating that fact before he gives something resembling an answer.

(Does the president feel that he is The Great I-Am, a transcendent global figure by dint of his vast abilities? Such a belief would, it seems, be delusion-adjacent—but in this very dangerous moment, he finally stands astride the world, the transcendent figure on whom we must all rely.)

What would a (carefully selected) medical specialist think about the question Bump was asked? If we had the reach of the Washington Post, we'd be inclined to ask!

Our national discourse is quite unimpressive, even among us Blues. By and large, we Blues seem to be unaware of that unfortunate but obvious fact.

Philip Bump does a lot of good work. That said, there's a rule he isn't allowed to break—a rule he failed to acknowledge when he answered that fuzzy, somewhat flippant question in the way he did.

Strong advice for a disabled nation: Dylan was barely 21 when he wrote Talkin' World War III Blues. The song ends with an offer—with a new and transcendent dream—which could hardly be more relevant for our broken nation:

Talkin' World War III Blues

[...]

Well, time passed and now it seems
Everybody's having them dreams.
Everybody sees hisself walkin' around with no one else.
"Half of the people can be part right all of the time;
"Some of the people can be all right part of the time;
"But all of the people can't be all right all of the time."
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours.
I said that.

We'd call that brilliant youthful advice. We'd call it a driving dream. 

There was a bit more room for hope at that time. To hear the recording, click here.

80 comments:


  1. Ah, squealing idiot-Democrats again. Nice, nice.

    "For ourselves, we continue to wonder about "Delusional disorder""

    Yes, it does sound like your diagnosis, Bob. Or, colloquially, a severe case of TDS. You, and your idiot-Democrat comrades, have been suffering from it since November 2016.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mao is dead. Long live Mao.

      Delete
    2. Studies have shown those with TDS have higher IQ's and whiter teeth.

      Delete
  2. Bob is unclear about what "unconditional surrender" would mean. IMO it's pretty clear from Trump's one and only demand that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Unconditional surrender would mean destroying any and all of Iran's nuclear efforts AND having a system in place to prevent those efforts from re-starting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quaker in a BasementJune 19, 2025 at 3:45 PM

      In other words, what was in place before Trump tore it all down in his first term.

      Delete
    2. Go fuck yourself, Dickhead. Prince Orange Chickenshit tore up the agreement we had with Iran. Why the fuck would anybody make a deal with this irrational maniac? Unconditional surrender. That means no fucking conditions. That means prepare to be occupied, you fucking fascist freak.

      Delete
    3. Quaker - It may have in place on paper, but not in the real world. Otherwise Iran wouldn't be close to having nuclear weapons.

      Delete
    4. Lies. There were inspections. We don't know how close they were before this attack, but there is no reason not to restart their program after Trump tore up the agreement negotiated by Obama. Tulsi Gabbard said they have no nuclear program. Most experts believe they do have one but are not that close to having weapons. Trump disagrees with Gabbard, saying "I don't care what she [Gabbard] said..." I doubt Trump has any technical understanding of the status of Iranian efforts.

      Delete
    5. "The JCPOA, often referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, involved Iran agreeing to significant restrictions on its nuclear program. In exchange for sanctions relief, Iran committed to:
      Reducing its enriched uranium stockpile:
      This included eliminating its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium and significantly reducing its low-enriched uranium stockpile.
      Limiting enrichment levels:
      Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% for a specific period and not to build heavy-water facilities.
      Restricting enrichment activities:
      For a decade, Iran would limit uranium enrichment to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges.
      Converting other facilities:
      Other facilities would be converted to avoid proliferation risks.
      To verify Iran's compliance with these commitments, the JCPOA included robust verification mechanisms.
      International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections:
      The IAEA was granted extensive access to Iran's nuclear facilities, including monitoring and surveillance activities.
      Monitoring and surveillance:
      This included the installation of seals, collection of surveillance camera photos, and gathering of measurement data and documents for further analysis.
      Access to facilities and information:
      The agreement provided for access to facilities, equipment, and information necessary for verification purposes.
      These verification measures were a key aspect of the JCPOA, allowing the international community to monitor Iran's compliance with the agreement's provisions. "

      Delete
    6. Russia is an ally of Iran. Gabbard works for Russia. Gabbard follows orders, says Iran is cool man.

      Delete
    7. So is Trump though, an ally of Putin. Why then is Trump siding with Israel instead of Iran?

      Delete
    8. I would love to go to Tehran and hang out. Enjoy their great art scene. Maybe see some of Farah Diba's collection. It would be great to chill in Tehran - an incredible city with incredible people, food and culture. It's supposed to really great.

      Delete
    9. That's what they say, join the Army and see the world.

      Delete
    10. Otherwise Iran wouldn't be close to having nuclear weapons.

      Right, Dickhead, 8 years is certainly not enough time to restart their enrichment program, you fucking moron.

      What did Prince Orange Chickenshit replace the agreement with, Dickhead? It seems to me, President Obama tried and Prince Orange Chickenshit didn't.

      Delete
    11. "Otherwise Iran wouldn't be close to having nuclear weapons."

      Agreed this is one of the stupidest things ever wrtten in these comments. It takes 8 years of history and throws it down the memory hole.

      Delete
  3. It's sad that this comment section is infested with right-wing haters of "idiot-Democrats" on one side and with left-wing haters of Somerby on the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you think that if Somerby were liberal, he would have some right-wing haters of Somerby too?

      Delete
    2. The "idiot-Democrats" anon, formerly known as Mao, is just some kid trying to be...something. Yeah, there's a contingent of "left-wing" commenters who refuse to understand what Bob is writing about. Then there's David and Cecilia, who like to pretend to be thoughtful, while posting MAGA/right-wing nonsense with not a speck of analysis or critical thinking.

      Delete
    3. I don't think it is fair to characterize disagreement with Somerby or criticism of Somerby as "refusal to understand what Somerby is writing about."

      Delete
    4. Anon@5:18: That's fair. There's a contingent of posters who have gotten in their mind that Bob is a "right-winger", and they post it incessantly, sans any meaningful discussion. This is the people to whom I was referring. Certainly, there's room for disagreement.

      Delete
    5. Ilya, why do you think Somerby keeps knocking the left (and Biden/Harris, MSNBC and its left-leaning hosts especially Maddow, and blue voters generally) while claiming to be a liberal?

      Delete
    6. The short answer: because they seem to imitate programming on Fox. Jon Stewart had a similar commentary a few years ago. A recurring theme with Somerby is that the "liberal" media put their thumb on the scale. They tend to emphasize one set of facts while ignoring the events that don't support the preferred narrative. At the same time, Somerby complains that our "mainstream" media have failed to properly discuss Trump's mental disfunction/illness. There, I tend to disagree somewhat.
      In any case, Bob is certainly not a right-winger.

      Delete
    7. He is not a left-winger either. What does that make him?

      Delete
    8. I think that in the olden times there was a word for this creature. Centrist maybe?

      Delete
  4. "The Social Security and Medicare Trustees released their annual reports, today, highlighting the precarious financial states of the programs. The Trustees project that both the Social Security retirement trust fund and the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund are just 8 years from insolvency."

    Add to this the enormous deficit in regular federal spending. And yet, neither party is doing anything to fix the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We got into the disastrous invasion of Iraq based on a bogus claim that Iraq had WMD. Nitwit style, Trump abrogated Obama's treaty with Iran. I can't say that we wouldn't be in a mess similar to what is going on now, if Trump had honored that treaty - but it's a reasonable position to take that we might not be facing the current mess if he hadn't cancelled what had been agreed to during Obama's term. God knows what the outcome of Israel's attack will be. Trump constantly makes the unverifiable claims that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, and Hamas wouldn't have made that terror attack on Israel, if he had been POTUS. Well, he's POTUS now, and this happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AC/MA - the treaty you refer to was a bad one. It did NOT prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As I recall, it allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons over a scheduled period.

      Delete
    2. Like man you know like SS & Medicare like don't zero out in like eight years man, like you get 3/4 of like the benefits man. And like you know raising like the rich people stop paying cap on payroll taxes, like for instance man, will take care of like 90% of the shortfall man. Dude you should check it out man. Like when you people stop fear mongering and like try governing man?

      Delete
    3. Like man like every nuclear expert but the pretend ones on Fox said like the treaty was bitching man, and like working cool beans man. Stop watching like Fox man, you'll be like a better person man.

      Delete
    4. "allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons over a scheduled period" It is this level of absolute group cult Fox induced fantasy that makes it impossible to communicate with you jamocks. I refuse to speak to half my old friends, and only deal with those who listen when I ask to please stop. It is hopeless.

      Delete
    5. bitchen' not bitching

      Delete
    6. "As I recall, it allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons over a scheduled period."

      Do you still not know how to use google? What is wrong with you?

      Delete
    7. Yeah, I'm not going to take your word on that, Davey. IDTYRC at all.

      Delete
    8. As I recall, DiC, you made a statement about Biden vs Trump and the deficit within the last day that you acknowledge was false. Do you recall? Give a reason why anyone should take your recollections seriously. This specific instance is one example of why not to.

      Delete
  6. "We kept insisting that nothing was wrong at the southern border. We kept insisting that nothing was wrong with President Biden."

    Statistically, Biden did a better job than Trump of controlling border crossings and reducing illegal immigration. He also directed Harris to work with donor nations to remove conditions causing people to flee and got Mexico to place 20,000 troops along the border and to encourage immigrants to Mexico to settle away from our border. Obama deported more immigrants than Trump has done. Biden's border efforts were more effective than anything Trump has done or has proposed (for example, Trump was jazzed because he got Mexico to play 10,000 troops along the border, half what were already there under Biden.

    Somerby does not bother to read and find out what Biden did about the border. He just believes the right wing propaganda spewed by Fox and blames Biden for not publicizing his own efforts more because Somerby remains ignorant. Border efforts were part of their campaign in 2024.

    It isn't just Democrats who have been insisting nothing is wrong with Biden (except normal aging and prostate cancer recently diagnosed). I have said this before but members of congress who worked with him found him sharp and on top of issues, without dementia. Foreign officials who met with Biden during the last months of his administration to address the Gaza crisis found him mentally competent and not impaired. Bill Clinton met with him and said he was fine. So did Heather Cox Richardson, a historian and not a politician, with no vested interest in defending Biden. There was a blatant campaign to portray Biden as too old and feeble to be president, emerging from the media and the right wing and abetted by Democratic Party factions who wanted someone else to run. They joined the crusade to torpedo Biden launched by the right (with help from Russia). So did Somerby, who keeps repeating these slanders despite correction here in the comments and other places, should he ever get up off his ass and read them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. People didn't vote for Trump because Democrats defended Biden too much. They voted for Trump because certain Democrats fail to come to Biden's defense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "With respect to complaints about the rise in the overall cost of living, we kept insisting, on loan from the early Dylan, that "them old dreams are only in your head."

    Another misuse of Dylan lyrics. The scenarios described in Bob Dylan's Dream were about post-nuclear war chaos, not higher consumer prices. The therapist was correct to tell Dylan that his fears in the dream were not real. He wasn't telling Dylan price increases weren't real.

    Somerby grabs these lyrics because he is too lazy to write his own sentences. The distortions interfere with communication of whatever meaning Somerby has in mind. But Democrats didn't try to fool voters into thinking costs hadn't gone up. That's ridiculous and unfair to suggest. Democrats focused on the positive indicators of a healing economy, which were valid and accurate and real accomplishments of the Biden administration. Talking about those was not an attempt to gaslight voters but to show improvement after covid and hope of better economic times ahead.

    Somerby's unfair treatment of Biden is no less than what someone would expect of a Republican maligning him, not what any Democrat would say about their party's candidate. Given that Somerby does not support the values and goals of the Democratic Party and doesn't appear to recognize the achievements, he should go ahead and change his registration to Republican. It would be more honest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "We spent years focusing on the desire to Lock the Other Guy Up. "

    Unfortunately, Mueller didn't spend years doing so. He dragged his feet investigating and prosecuting Trump and as a result we are facing possible war with Iran.

    Why did we want to lock Trump up? Because he was a criminal who had broken the law numerous times and deserved to be held accountable in the same manner as any other criminal would be. I doubt Trump would ever have gone to jail if convicted but it might have prevented him becoming president. The virtue of that should be obvious even to Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Bob. We forgot about the rule that criminals running for the highest office in the land should be exempted from such scrutiny.

      Delete
  10. The descriptions of Trump's pathologies published in 2020 (and made sometime before then) are out of date. The problem now is not Trump's personality disorders but his dementia coupled with a lack of adult supervision and no constraints on his impulses (which he manifestly cannot control any more). Our country is truly in danger from Trump's behavior coupled with his unchecked power. Mary Trump was not talking about that.

    The inaccuracy of Somerby's own analysis of Trump suggests that he may not care what is wrong with Trump but uses him only as an analogy to disorder he thinks he sees on the left and in the media. That is as lazy as it gets. Our nation is not being menaced by the media. It is in peril because Trump is unfit to govern. Somerby asks what is wrong with Trump but he never comes right out and suggests he have a clinical evaluation of his mental status. He never calls for Trump to be impeached again or controlled by Congress (if legislators would do their jobs with more courage) or reined in by his billionaire associates (who seem to be too busy profiting off Trump to care what he does to the citizenry). Somerby only appears to care about name-calling the media, as if the media could do anything about this out-of-control president that these other powerful entities have abdicated doing.

    When Somerby repeats this tired old refrain, I find myself wondering what he gets out of doing it. It can't be out of conviction because he doesn't care about anything important. It isn't convincing anyone who isn't already a toady (much as Trump's followers exist to enhance Trump's ego, why are Somerby's fanboys here, beyond being yes men?) I think Somerby does this for the money but I then wonder how much a guy like Somerby's soul is worth on the open market.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The digs against Biden and the left today are no different than what you'd see at a right wing blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only the right cares about Biden these days. The left has more relevant and serious concerns. That should be a major tip-off to Somerby's motives.

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trump is not insane. However, his grasp of various events and public policy is so shallow as to be disregarded entirely. There's little doubt that age-related decline is in play as well.

    I hark back to the 2016 election when an argument broke out about whether Trump had been for or against the invasion of Iraq. A clip of Trump's interview on Howard Stern's show was dragged out to tease out his views. The only thing that was clear from that interview was that Trump, at the time, had no interest in the subject whatsoever. The country was on the precipice of a generation-long war -- Trump didn't give a shit. There was nothing in it for him.

    When Trump is coherent, he is purely transactional. At other times, he is vindictive and lets his pettiness drive his decisions. That's our great commander-in-chief.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Somerby says the left has no right to consider itself more moral and smarter than who? The right? There are actual studies of this stuff and the left generally is better educated and that usually means smarter, because stupider people skip college and don't pay attention in high school. Jonathan Haidt did studies comparing the values of the left and right and concluded that the two groups emphasize different values, so both are moral in the sense of having values, but the ones considered more important are different on the left than on the right. I think that gives the left the legitimate claim that it cares more about certain things than the right does. And vice versa. Then the question arises about whether the values emphasized by the left are objectively more important than those the right cares about (equally fervently).

    This is a better way of looking at this matter than Somerby's assertion that the left is not smart or moral and is being snotty when we think we are smart and moral. What is gained by saying that? Does Somerby expect that the left may wake up suddenly and say, "You're right, we're actually very dumb and we shouldn't care so much about our values." That isn't likely to happen no matter how much abuse Somerby heaps on the left. And I think that's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Via google m, I found this: “Haidt doesn't suggest one side is inherently "smarter," but rather that they have different strengths and weaknesses in their moral reasoning.”

      Delete
    2. Right, sorry but I meant that there are other studies (not Haidt, who focuses on morals and values) that compare education levels across parties. This study by Pew Research shows party affiliation by education level:

      https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-race-ethnicity-and-education/

      Delete
    3. It would be a mistake if liberals were to think of themselves as smarter or more moral than the right. That would be something only an unintelligent liberal would do as well as a moral failing on its own.

      Delete
    4. That study does not evaluate intelligence.

      Delete
    5. Conservatives think that they tend to focus more on results while liberals tend to focus more on good intentions.

      Delete
    6. Democrats actually pass bills to make America better. Repubes have one trick, passing tax cuts for the wealthy. Otherwise Repukes are shockingly bad at doing anything other than hurting folks in lower castes. Pathetic David, just pathetic. Name three big bills during the felons' first term that weren't budget busting tax cuts.

      Delete
    7. @6:59 -- As I explained, we cannot do IQ testing on voters but there is a strong correlation between having a higher IQ and becoming more educated. So level of education is a proxy for smartness. In the real world, people don't differentiate between intelligence (potential for learning) and education (crystallized knowledge learned). These go hand in hand.

      Given that there is a big financial gain to completing more education, those who are smart tend to educate themselves in order to have a better life by earning more money in a higher paying job.

      Delete
    8. @7:40 - you're talking about bills with good intentions. I look at results. A low to medium income family leads a much better life in Texas than in California. Democratic-run cities like Baltimore,. SF, Oakland, and Chicago are falling apart.

      Delete
    9. David, it is not true that liberals focus on good intentions instead of results. Congress requires that funded programs have an evaluation component that measures whether programs meet their stated goals. That kind of evaluation is also required for NIH and NIMH funded research grants. It has been a long time since liberals or anyone else was permitted to spend money without measuring whether their work has been effective, done what it was supposed to do and met its stated objectives.

      I really dislike these facile remarks like your perhaps humorous suggestion that liberals don't care whether their good intentions are achieved or not. Conservatives may think they are more results oriented but there is no evidence that is true. What is the point of a good intention if there isn't actual good being done? So these remarks are just a way of denigrating liberals by saying something false that makes conservatives sound better for having bad intentions.

      Delete
    10. David, don't your generalizations about TX vs CA sound silly in your own ears? These are both very large states with urban and rural areas. Wouldn't it depend on where a family lived and what its work was which area would be better? Wouldn't a low income family be better off in CA where there are more social programs and support for the needy? There is a more varied economy in CA, so might a family who worked in an industry not well represented in TX be better off in CA?

      Delete
    11. If you were an immigrant shrimp boat fisherman you would be better off in South TX than in CA. If you were a grip in movie production, you would be better off in CA. Buying a house may be cheaper in TX but you are more likely to have hail or tornado damage there than in CA. And don't get me started about the electrical grid problems in TX. Statistically, red states are worse off than blue ones. If I were going to be poor, I'd rather live in CA. Retirees on fixed incomes don't go to TX, not sure why.

      Delete
    12. The evidence that conservative policies produce better results comes from comparing how well government works in conservatives jurisdictions vs. liberal jurisdictions. One ranking shows a dramatic difference. The fifteen worse are almost all long time Dem cities. The 15 best are mostly Rep cities.

      “The best-run cities in America use their budgets most effectively to provide high-quality financial security, education, health, safety and transportation to their residents. Many of the top cities also have a very low amount of outstanding government debt per capita, which can prevent financial troubles in the future.”
      https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869

      Delete
    13. The cities at the top of the list are smallish cities without a lot of social problems (poverty, homelessness). The cities at the bottom of the list are large cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco) with housing issues, poverty and diversity. Large cities tend to be Democratic which introduces a couple of confounds into the study. You would need to compare red and blue smallish cities without diversity or poverty or homelessness and see how well they do with their respective budgets. This study just shows that it is easier to run a city when there are fewer social problems to deal with. Duh! I doubt that the mayor of Los Angeles is dealing with the same issues as the mayor of Boise ID. For one thing, they didn't just have a massive wildfire that destroyed the entire west side of their city.

      Delete
    14. It's too bad powerful Democratic libs are not smart enough to beat Trump in a national election.

      Delete
    15. It's too baư that when H. Clinton coined the term "deplorables" she could not predict that the word would not sufficiently describe the depravity of Trump cultists.

      Delete
    16. Giving the nod to Provo, Utah as the best run city in America makes perfect sense. The city's largest employer is BYU, 88% of its residents are Mormons, and the 2020 census population of 115 k could fit into a large college foot ball stadium. According to DiC, it is perfectly sensible to compare this metropolis to LA, NYC, or Chicago in terms of the nebulous "quality of services" rendered to its inhabitants. This is the kind of bullshit DiC routinely offers up to roast liberals. It's come to be expected.

      Delete
    17. "It's too bad powerful Democratic libs are not smart enough to beat Trump in a national election." #1 not true. #2 oh so true. Except I blame lazy bigoted white people, not the party trying to bring the country together, instead of the party tearing it in two.

      Delete
    18. Hillary Clinton is a nice woman. She resisted the urge to go shoot a puppy in the face just to demonstrate her toughness and willingness to bomb Iran if elected president.

      Delete
    19. Democratic libs can only do so much. Ultimately, it is the voters who elect the president.

      As the song said, "Wait a minute, who we have to stop this? We had one but you didn't want that lady in office!"

      According to Somerby, she smiled too much and didn't talk about the border (except she did). So we got a madman instead. How's that working out?

      Delete
    20. Trump is back to claiming that he won in 2020. Isn't that some kind of sanity test?

      Delete
  15. New - Trump job approval poll

    Approve 54% (+10)
    Disapprove 44%

    Insider advantage #A+

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These were all people that live in your butt?

      Delete
    2. Future fanny-burps live in my butt

      Delete
  16. Is Somerby actually discussing the topics he teases? It is very hard to tell.

    Why would a smart person like Somerby deliberately sit through two hours of the dumbest show ever? Has it ever occurred to him that Fox sometimes presents filler designed mostly to allow the network to sell ads in a time slot? It may not matter to Fox or anyone else whether their shows are dumb or smart, since all they need to do is fill the time from one ad to the next. It may be a mistake to take everything that appears on Fox seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This just in:

    Iran is so close to a nuclear weapon that Trump is going to take another 2 weeks to decide whether to bomb their facilities.

    Oh, and this is all Obama's fault (the last 8 years didn't happen).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hector - do you think the US should immediately make an all-out attack on Iran’s nuclear development? If not, what should be our policy?

      Delete
    2. Trump is holding out in the hope that Laura Loomer may change her opinion on the matter.

      Delete
  18. It then occurred to me that, with all matters of human existence, the answer lies within already. We just need someone to "midwife" the truth out of us.

    Well, at just this time, I met such a person, and a large fanny-burp was produced. The truth had been set free.

    Fanny Butts

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes, but so are many Americans who enable him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ask yourself why Democrats feel disconnected from their party leaders on issues. People feel there isn't enough focus on helping families simply make ends meet and reducing corporate influence and too much on issues like transvestites. With the DNC in chaos and practically broke, there's really nothing but dark times ahead for Democrats. But I am still optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The good news is one and a half percent of Americans went to a protest last week.

      Delete
    2. Go eat a can of dicks. I am optimistic about that.

      Delete
    3. Estimates are at least 2% of Americans protested.

      340.1 million x .02 = 6.8 million people. That's a lot of protesters. Way more people than attended Trump's parade.

      Estimates for Trump's attendance range from 30,000 to 50,000 people, including those who left early but not counting the 7000 military members who were forced to participate. In contrast, there were 20,000 protesters in Los Angeles alone (not counting marches in LA suburbs). The empty stands made it more obvious what a fiasco Trump's parade was. Expected turnout was 200-250 thousand people, but fell far short of that.

      Delete