Something is wrong with President Trump!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2022

In search of a fuller discussion: We had several reactions to today's presentation by the January 6 committee.

We were struck, as we've been in the past, by the limitations of this format, in which all members of the committee share a single point of view. 

We were also struck by how much of today's presentation, though not all, was repetition of material which had been presented before. 

Most of all, we were struck by the depth of disorder exhibited by President Trump during the events in question. There can be no serious discussion of these events until the medical / psychiatric / psychological dimensions of this matter are brought forward and addressed. 

The press corps has long agreed that no such discussion can ever take place. This may be the best that we as a people can manage to do at this time, but the depth of disorder on display here cannot be discussed in a fulsome way unless (carefully chosen) medical specialists are called into play.

The system we refer to as democracy is not a natural impulse of the human species. Presumably, this basic anthropological fact explains a great deal of the favorable public reaction to President Trump's behavior.

(It may also explain certain self-defeating aspects of the negative public reaction.)

Regarding President Trump himself, he seems to be very badly disordered. So do some of the people who surrounded him during these events.

The press has agreed that this state of affairs mustn't be discussed. As a species, we remain extremely childish. Our culture traps us within the intellectual framework of a very young child.

Something is wrong with President Trump! The public interest isn't well served when our "leaders" agree that this deeply consequential, tragic fact must never be discussed.

We're allowed to discuss Candidate Fetterman's stroke. But no, we can't discuss this!


83 comments:


  1. "Something is wrong with President Trump!"

    Is it that he's not in the White House?

    ...by the way, is everything right with your own tribal chief, dear Bob? Oh, never mind, we understand: your tribal taboos prevent you, dear Bob, from paying any attention to his unfortunate condition; unfortunate, oh, in so many, so many ways.

    Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The old "whataboutism" defense, often used by right wingers who can't find a way to justify T****'s illegal, immoral, and unethical acts.

      Delete
    2. Mao, as a gay man in a society that rejects him, has to pretend to admire Trump, it is very sad.

      Delete
    3. To your point, Mao.

      https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/poll-biden-reelection-second-term/

      Delete
    4. No, their tribe's corrupt and decrepit leader is out there saying his son who died of brain cancer died in Iraq. Nothing to see here.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse6:38pm, the media is currently falling all over itself in saying that Biden meant that figuratively as his late son had suffered exposure to chemicals in Iraq that could cause cancer.

      I buy that. That’s highly plausible.

      However, remember that the same media insisted (raged) that Trump literally wanted Covid-19 victims to inject bleach into their veins and eat fish tank cleaner.

      Delete
    6. Cecelia, I saw what Trump said about bleach and he did mean it literally, based on the context. Next you'll be saying that he wanted to figuratively nuke hurricanes. Trump is a deeply ignorant man with no intellectual curiosity. He makes factual errors all the time. You just look foolish when you make excuses for him.

      Delete
    7. Bwahahaha see the right wing chimps licking their lips, excited by any tidbit that let's them fling their poo.

      It's hilarious to observe, until you remember how they are dragging our country down into neo feudalism and fascism.

      I guess they will have the last laugh as they destroy our environment, our country, our lives.

      Now I'm crying, that one tear, like the litter ad from the 70s.

      Delete
    8. “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 8:41pm, Trump meant an agent that would cleanse/disinfect the blood. They had been discussing ultraviolet light as a disinfectant. Trump didn’t mean inject Clorox.

      I expect what I get on a blogboard comment section, but you assume the media should be less disingenuous.

      Delete
    10. “ Trump didn’t mean inject Clorox.”

      How do you know? It sure sounded that way, based on the quote I provided. Trump is an ignoramus.

      Delete
    11. And aside from that, Trump had the foremost scientists and epidemiologists in the world at his beck and call. Couldn’t he have checked with them to see if his question was ass-ignorant before inflicting it on the American public?

      Delete
    12. This is a pretty fair treatment of Trump’s remark on hurricanes. It’s also one of several reports that quoted Trump as saying “bomb”, not nuke.

      https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/trump-nuke-hurricanes-weather-history.html

      Delete
    13. Thanks for the insult, Cecelia. Standard right wing ad hominem. I gave you Trump’s actual words. Bleach companies had to implore people not to ingest bleach. These were people who listened to the fucking President.

      Delete
    14. He said by injection inside. What else does that mean?

      Delete
    15. Had to beg them not to ingest bleach, huh? Were they out of meth syringes?

      Delete
    16. Ha ha ha, another crass unfunny joke that Republicans consider hilarious—meth addiction (which ismuch worse in red states).

      Delete
    17. The only person who ingested bleach was the husband of a Democrat woman who killed him and claimed Trump influenced him to drink bleach.

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

      Delete

    19. Anonymouse11:23pm, I used them as what they are - whacked-out meth heads.

      It took you to turn meth users into a political prop.

      According to this there’s only one red state (TN) on the list. The rest of the states are purple or blue.

      https://www.banyantreatmentcenter.com/2021/07/02/states-with-meth-problems-palmsprings/

      Delete
    20. The media was in no position to tell the truth about Trump and COVID.
      How does the media truthfully point out that Trump tried to gaslight a global pandemic as if it was some simple political reporter, without admitting that political reporters have always been in the bag for Republicans?

      Delete
    21. Cesillyia try to be honest in your comments otherwise you look as you do, foolish.

      That Slate report was not "fair treatment", it pointedly did not report that Trump used the word "nuke" which is what the original source said Tump said. It also made it seem like there was a long history of that idea being considered, which is not accurate - a few nuts through the years have suggested it and were immediately laughed out of the room. So yeah not a fair treatment, a pretty bad treatment.

      Furthermore, you refer to info from a drug treatment company in CA with a vested interest in promoting a need for their services, and as a result they completely misinform on the subject: they use a list generated by the state of Missouri, a state which stopped compiling meth data in 2018 and also had an interest in promoting a narrative, as Missouri is a major producer and user of meth, even so, that website misuses that data which is actually not of meth use, but seizure of meth production equipment, even so, the only 2 blue states on the list, CA and NY, are unsurprising because the data is raw numbers, not rates, so CA and NY being the most populated states are going to have higher raw numbers, but their rates are not high relative to the states. A report done by a different state found different data, with Missouri being 3rd! And all the other top ten states being red!

      So you are just being dishonest, whatever, same as always.

      Delete
  2. Something is wrong with Somerby.

    Somerby writes "The system we refer to as democracy is not a natural impulse of the human species."

    This is patently false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The statements of expert anthropologists living in caves.

      Delete
    2. Who knows what Somerby is basing that on, likely going by the seat of his pants.

      Experts generally agree, democracy is natural to humans, and other animals too.

      Somerby usually has bad takes, this one is just factually wrong.

      Delete
    3. Democracy is decidedly not natural to humans. Tribal warfare, seeking dominance, stealing and hoarding resources, and enslavement are natural to humans. Any "expert" that asserts otherwise is evidence of the failure of higher education.

      Delete
    4. 10:14 this is actually a well studied subject, and you are completely wrong, those characteristics came about only recently, as a result of modern society.

      It is not "any" expert, it is all experts that say you are wrong.

      Democracy is also natural to other critters as well.

      You are wrong, and Somerby is wrong, those wrongheaded notions come from religion and right wing ideology that says man is born evil, and that democracy is for wimps; however, careful study of humans (and other animals) show that democracy is a natural and inherent trait (evolution favors democracy).

      Due to issues that can not be overcome in a comments section, you are basically trapped in your wrongheaded beliefs, faithfully believing a wrongheaded notion of reality; that is sad, but it is important to push back against people like you that spread misinformation and try to manufacture ignorance.

      Delete
    5. Here’s a more cleaned-up version of her Liberal Supremacy theory.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-radical-theory-of-evolution-that-explains-democrats-and-republicans/258307/

      Delete
    6. Right off the bat that is not a "cleaned up" version, even though it does not particularly address democracy as a natural trait, it does basically assume that to be true.

      At the beginning of the article, the author puts their thumb on the scale by defining political ideology in an inaccurate way. In practice, Dems support individual rights more than Repubs, Repubs limit their support of rights to the elite, the powerful, the corporations, whites, males.

      It gets worse from there, giving an extremely lightweight and superficial overview of the research and theories. It does not mention that the now dead Wilson was primarily an ant scientist, not an expert on humans, and it does not mention that Wilson's work on conjecture about human nature was trashed by contemporary experts, rightfully accusing him of racism, eugenics, etc.

      An actual authority if you want to delve in is Herbert Gintis.

      Cecelia you are astonishingly dishonest and operate solely in bad faith.

      Democracy is natural to humans, this is agreed to by all experts,

      Delete
    7. Leftists think they can say "experts" and "studies have shown," and that intelligent people will believe what comes next is supported by reality. We know what studies show these days, which is that mentally ill people hold positions in which they have the power to suppress reality and promote their insane ideas.

      Democracy is not natural to human beings. Every person who is both intelligent and effectively educated knows this.

      Delete
    8. Actually, I couldn’t care less about these theories and the piece you’re dissing links to some of the stuff you’ve brought to this blog.

      The Atlantic piece isn’t arguing against an evolutionary predisposition toward democracy. It postulates that both tribes are necessary for the process- the individualistic tendencies is some humans and the communal ones in others.

      Pretty tame stuff. No lesser or more evolved hierarchies. I knew that would be anathema to you.

      Delete
    9. Yes I noted that the article just assumes democracy is a natural human trait.

      It does not postulate what you say, but yes it is tame and weak writing. Reducing human nature to what they do postulate is laughable and also their notions are just wrong.

      I have no idea what your non sequitur about hierarchies is, but Leftist support diminishing hierarchies, particularly in the workplace, and replacing it with greater democracy.

      You always make discourse impossible because what you write is largely incoherent - one hopes English is your second language; regardless, check out the nonsense of 2:58 (sorry 2:58 but you make a claim for which there is no evidence, so it is not surprising that you offer none) to see what you have wrought.

      Delete
  3. The commission, we should always remember, was all set to go with traditional bipartisan representation when the Republicans killed the deal the Dems had negotiated in good faith. Then they tried to stick a couple of knuckle draggers (who had conflicts and had supported the insurrection) to flame throw and Pelosi said no. By not mentioning this Bob once again puts his hand on the scale for Team Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We were struck, as we've been in the past, by the limitations of this format, in which all members of the committee share a single point of view. "

      The committee is presenting its findings to the public. They have divided that task up among the members in order to give all committee members visibility and to make it clear that these findings are the results of the committee itself, not the opinions of individuals.

      How can Somerby have watched the hearings and not recognized that FACT? Questions like these therefore seem designed to create distrust among viewers, which only favors Donald Trump. This is a good example of Somerby's dishonesty.

      Delete
    2. Bob really isn’t concerned with defending The United States, so the hearings bore him. He is concerned with defending the Confederacy.,

      Delete
  4. Fetterman is being slagged, you dimwit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “We're allowed to discuss Candidate Fetterman's stroke. But no, we can't discuss this!”


    Are you kidding? Dash’s Burns will be lucky to keep her job for doing her job.

    Mental illness and brain injury are not synonymous.

    https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/wireStory/nbc-reporters-comment-fetterman-draws-criticism-91415107

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nbc-reporters-interview-with-fetterman-draws-criticism/2022/10/12/0d43f948-4a75-11ed-8153-96ee97b218d2_story.html

    https://www.thewrap.com/john-fetterman-nbc-nightly-news-interview-stroke-treatment-reaction/amp/

    https://news.yahoo.com/nbc-reporter-called-nonsense-treatment-180244150.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHd4gBvUKJ3P8K1REZRBgSfF58RpEUQGgXewzt-LBnpZdmFAjbqmW5J2dklnyPXdM76VD2SbzNWPLCM4ug9-Z67hQIQKfkp5-11fqExzZtvhlSKhLYtUGUf364fWK8UmNe-g96f3kxnMaOY9LTtEhAd10zv1sSi_PQnUg5_rdwPb

    https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2022/nbc-news-interview-with-john-fetterman-is-still-drawing-plenty-of-reaction/

    ReplyDelete
  6. "We were also struck by how much of today's presentation, though not all, was repetition of material which had been presented before. "

    The earlier sessions raised questions about the extent of Donald Trump's involvement. This presentation used testimony and new info to make it very clear that Donald Trump planned, instigated and did nothing to stop the insurrection. It was designed to make clear Trump's involvement so that the necessity of subpoenaing Trump would be clear to the public.

    Somerby should understand this if he has been watching the sessions. That he considers this nothing more than repetition and does not recognize the very different focus is another example of Somerby attempt to minimize what occurred today, and Somerby's dishonesty on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Regarding President Trump himself, he seems to be very badly disordered. So do some of the people who surrounded him during these events.'

    Somerby doesn't say who he is talking about among those surrounding Trump. We would assume he means Roger Stone, Eastman, Flynn, Bannon and other plotters who helped carry out the insurrection. Many others have been revealed to have acted with integrity and concern for both the people and our constitution. Those are the people who not only testified but also impeded Trump in his efforts to illegally stay in office.

    But given that Somerby will not say which people he considers disordered, I have to assume that Somerby himself is disordered and fails to see what the committee plainly revealed today. The failure to make it clear which group of people he is talking about, is an example of Somerby's fundamental dishonest these days. And that puts Somerby himself squarely in the middle of those deranged people, in my opinion. Anyone with a shred of decency would not use such ambiguous language but would speak plainly about who is to blame (including Trump himself).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The press has agreed that this state of affairs mustn't be discussed. "

    Somerby is the one who never discusses the horrible things that Trump did. The press has been covering the committee hearings and its action today. They have been doing a good job of following the unfolding facts that have emerged and stating plainly what said what and who took the 5th. Too bad Somerby isn't as forthcoming.

    No one here needs the press to tell us how evil Trump is and how much harm he has done to our nation. Somerby has never said word one about that.

    As the committee itself said in its very first statement, it doesn't matter what Trump believed or thought. And it doesn't matter whether Trump was sane or crazy or even "disordered" (whatever that means). It matters what he did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. It should also be noted that speculating on the psychological state of a given Pol was, for years, treated by Somerby as pure hack work. When an obvious nutcase took over the Country, suddenly it was the only way to approach the subject. When the President's mental problems became glaringly obvious, it was suddenly the only thing a journalist was allowed to note, so it could excuse him.

      Delete
    2. Somerby wants you to ignore the truth, which is that Trump and the Republican Party are all just grifters, not suffering from mental illness.

      Delete
    3. Why hasn't Somerby ever mentioned Roger Stone, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort? These are the real people behind this permanent president grift.

      Delete
    4. 9:17: Oh, he has. He has called Stone and Flynn nuts also.

      Delete
  9. "Something is wrong with President Trump!"

    Why is Somerby referring to Mr. Donald J. Trump as "President Trump"? He is at best former president but most liberals avoid naming him and refer to him as the former guy. No member of the blue tribe calls Trump president. It implies a belief that Trump was actually elected and that he won the election, which was stolen from him. Is this Somerby's sop to his conservative readership? Or is this a Freudian slip made by a man who has been working every day to further Trump's interests. Whatever is true for Somerby, none of the rest of us would even accidentally refer to Trump as president. And I think that is a telling mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "We're allowed to discuss Candidate Fetterman's stroke. But no, we can't discuss this!"

    Fetterman has been honest about his health. Trump has never revealed a health statement or talked about the results of his physicals and never told the public anything about his health while running for office, except the obvious lie that he is a perfect human specimen. There is nothing to be said about Trump's mental health because it is part of a medical record that Trump has not revealed. For the press to speculate beyond that would be to spread propaganda (as when the right pretend Hillary had had a stroke) and disinformation. If the press uncritically talked about Trump's obvious lies, it would mislead people. If it talked about anything else, it would be making shit up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has Trump had a stroke? Has he declined since he left office? Has some previously unknown or hidden condition become evident?

      Delete
  11. “We were struck, as we've been in the past, by the limitations of this format, in which all members of the committee share a single point of view.”

    Why wouldn’t they include the pro-insurrection view? It’s a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are searching for truth not opinion. They are mostly presenting facts.

      Delete
    2. I was being sarcastic, if that wasn’t clear. Somerby asking this question is like wondering why FDR didn’t consider the Nazi point of view when considering America’s response.

      Delete
    3. Yes, just piling on.

      Delete
    4. mh, I can’t fathom the Democrats didn’t just haul everyone out of solitary and have them, Trump, and Mark Meadows shot.

      Delete
    5. I can't tell anymore if Cecelia is serious or not.

      Delete
    6. C'mon, Cecelia,
      You know the Right-wing, corporate-owned media (AKA the media) would totally make Democrats look partisan if they did that.
      No doubt, there are plenty of things you can't fathom. You admit to some really basic ones on TDH daily. This, however, wasn't one of them.

      Delete
    7. Piggly Wiggly’s soup and vegetable aisle has less tin than your ear.

      Delete
    8. If only. Then I wouldn't have to listen 24/7 to Right-wing snowflakes cry about how they're victims of "cancel culture" (i.e. they've been criticized).

      Delete
  12. While it might have been entertaining to watch Gym Jordan swinging from the rafters making monkey noises during his question time, it was probably best not to include him on the committee.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, you like Cheney and Kinzinger, so you’re completely against Republicans speaking.

    Any Republican you might tolerate who might be less on board with the foregone conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are apparently the only two Republicans who aren’t pro-insurrection, so…no.

      Delete
    2. Cecelia,
      I wouldn't have included Cheney and Kinzinger either. They're Republicans, so you know at some point, they'll be trying to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Delete
    3. Cecelia, neither you nor Bob can muster a thing of substance in defense of Trump and his rape of the Capital (deflection to Dem shortcomings, mostly imagined) I’m not sure why you two imagine a partisan Republican could.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse12:03pm, if you were that secure in the unassailable truth of what’s being put forward in the committee, you wouldn’t have to argue that any rebuttal or counter evidence would be a matter of progandizing the public.

      Bob thinks that half the country is mental patients who are susceptible to delusions, and still, he correctly can’t bring himself to the point where he thinks a monolithically one-sided investigation-cum-show-trial is the right thing to do.

      Bob’s failing among anonymices is his failure to completely grasp the utter perfection of the Master Tribe,

      Delete
    5. Cecelia,
      Even you have to admit the Democrats purposefully setting the hearing dates to coincide with planned KKK rallies was a stroke of political genius.

      Delete
    6. ...a monolithically one-sided investigation-cum-show-trial

      Are you fucking stupid, Cecelia? You forgot that it was your insane party leader who refused the bipartisan panel that was originally agreed to.

      This work superbly performed by the congressional committee with two Republicans had to be done for establishing the historical record. Too fucking bad your coward leader Donald J Chickenshit insisted that they wouldn't participate.

      You're like the kid who killed both his parents then asks for mercy for being an orphan.

      Delete
  14. Looking pretty bad for Democrats in the midterms. Might even be a thumping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A much deserved one. I don't recognize the Democrat party. They hate the working class, they are racists who hate white people, sexists who hate men, they hate children and want to cut up their bodies before they're born and when they look like they might turn out to be sexually normal. It's a nihilistic cult that doesn't care about anything except stoking hatred and division and the destruction of the good.

      Delete
    2. 10:10,
      That's a bad place for Democrats to be in. Too bigoted to excite their voters, yet not nearly bigoted enough to get one Republican vote.

      Delete
    3. White snowflakes who bitch about reverse racism. The saddest of the sad.

      Delete
    4. If a white kid from a lower middle home earns a 1480 on the SAT because his blue collar father works 60 hour weeks so his mother can supervise him at home and help him with his homework, and admissions selects the black kid whose father is in prison and who earns a 1200, that isn't reverse racism that's racism and systemic hate.

      Delete
    5. "White" is not a race. Race is a function of racial oppression; Whites are not oppressed.

      Your scenario is made up, so who cares.

      Whites have oppressed Blacks for centuries so policies that attempt to balance that oppression are justified, good for society, and moral.

      Delete
    6. Racist policies against innocent people designed as payback or balance for past oppression are hateful and immoral, and one of the central tenets of the Democrat party religion.

      Delete
    7. 2:55,
      Both kids should get n. Also, public education should be free.

      Delete
    8. Whites today benefit from the hundreds of years racial oppression, so their 'innocence" is a moot point. Blacks today suffer the consequences of hundreds of years of racial oppression so things like affirmative action are justified, good for society, and moral. Please, enough with your fragility and grievance culture, as a White person, you will be just fine, or at least certainly always better than a person of color - that is after all the real American Dream.

      Delete
    9. "Whites today benefit from the hundreds of years racial oppression"

      Who are those "Whites" that live for hundreds of years, dear dembot?

      Delete
    10. Jews and Asians reached the top 5% in every field, without affirmative action, within a half century of being enslaved, oppressed, starved, and put into ovens. Racism against whites is hateful and immoral.

      Delete
  15. That’s not what Rachel Maddow says.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Trump could have voluntarily testified any time he wanted to. However, he would have perturbed himself because he is incapable of telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete