SATURDAY: Shouldn't the public be told about this?

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2025

Also, please send the specialists in: The week's exhaustion having been conquered, we'll start today with a question, then turn to a hopeful thought.

Our question emerges from yesterday morning's report. Our question goes like this:

Shouldn't the American public be told about the president's post?

To what post do we refer? As you know, we refer to this

Trump Deems Democrats ‘The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan’

President Donald Trump deemed Democrats the party of “Satan” on Thursday amid the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.

[...]

On Thursday night, the president went on a mini-posting spree on his Truth Social platform, during which he falsely claimed that he had presided over “record Black employment.”

Perhaps the most notable post, however, was a collage of prominent Democrats, including Schumer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and former President Joe Biden.

“The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan,” text on the image read. “The Democratic Party is Dead! They have no leadership! no message! no hope! their only message for America is to hate Trump!”

The Democrats are the party of Satan! Shouldn't the American public be told that the sitting president keeps posting statements like that?

At this locale, our answer would be a million times yes! But the public isn't being told about the strange things this president does. In large part, that's what an exhausted Lawrence O'Donnell was talking about when he offered this assessment at the start of Thursday night's monologue:

O'DONNELL (10/2/25): Well, the New York Times is lost. 

The New York Times is still the greatest newspaper in America by far, and one of the greatest newspapers in the world. But tonight, the New York Times is lost.

The New York Times has no idea how to cover the madness of Donald Trump. And so the New York Times ignores it, just as the madness of King George the Third had to be ignored by the London Times in 1789.

As he went on the air that night, O'Donnell didn't yet know about that latest astonishing post about "the party of Satan."

He didn't know about that astonishing post.  But he could already say this:

"The New York Times has no idea how to cover the madness of Donald Trump."

The Democrats are the party of Satan? Is it a form of some sort of "madness" when a sitting president sends a message like that to his millions of readers? 

Does it start to approach a form of "madness" when he posts ludicrous "deep fake" videos in which he places sombreros on the heads of those Democrats? When he turns them into mustachioed villains—mustachioed villains who are saying that they themselves are nothing but "pieces of shit?"

Is it newsis it reportable news—when a sitting president behaves in such peculiar ways? We'd say the answer is yes! 

But all across the high-end firmament, your mainstream press corps runs and hides. They disappear, or they sanitize, the strange things the president does.

Last night, the analysts watched in stupefaction as a sanitized exchange took place on the PBS show, Washington Week with The Atlantic. Jeffery Goldberg spoke with a panel of four. As you can see by clicking this link, he started with Ashley Parker:

GOLDBERG (10/3/25): Ashley, let's go right to you. You're a veteran White House correspondent. What is Trump getting out of this shutdown?

PARKER: So first, it's not necessarily something he would have chosen, but he likes a fight. He thinks, publicly, gleefully that it benefits him and Republicans politically. I think that still remains to be seen.

He's also enjoying the trolling aspect. I know that's a weird thing to say about the president of the United States, that it was exciting to put a little sombrero on Hakeem Jeffries' hat [sic], but he has sort of enjoyed that aspect. 

Ashley Parker seemed to know that she was discussing something "weird." But what in the world was she talking about? 

The president "put a little sombrero on Hakeem Jeffries' hat?" Goldberg asked her to explain:

GOLDBERG (continuing directly): Wait. Remindremind our "normie" viewers what you're referring to. Because not everybody saw the Hakeem Jeffries meme.

PARKER: Yes. So there was a—it looked like AI-generated meme of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. They were coming out and talking about a meeting and where shutdown negotiations stood, and they basically dubbed it over to have Chuck Schumer saying things like, "Nobody likes the# Democrats." 

And then they doctored Hakeem Jefferies to have a little squiggly mustache and a sombrero on his head.

That wasn't the clearest explanation of all time. For starters, what percentage of "normie" PBS viewers are even familiar with the new-age term, "meme?" 

We'll guess it's well under 100 percent. 

Goldberg could have shown his viewers the videotape which had been posted on Truth Social. He settled for that fuzzy description.

And then, of course, the instant dodge. Brushing past an extremely strange bit of behavior, the two major journos said this:

GOLDBERG (continuing directly): Lincoln used to do this stuff all the time.

PARKER: Yeah.

OTHER PANELISTS: [Laughter]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! In this way, the timorous masters of the universe cleaned up what the president did. 

Parker said the president had "doctored" Jefferies. In turn, these major journalists doctored what the president had said and done.

Goldberg was trying to clue in the "normies." We'll guess that most of his audience didn't know about the sombrero and the bandito mustache the sitting president had plastered on Jeffries' face and head.

We'll also guess that most of Goldberg's audience didn't know what Schumer was actually shown saying on the doctored videotape the sitting president had weirdly posted on his Truth Social site. Timorously, here's what Goldberg and Parker did:

Goldberg didn't simply show the videotape of what Trump had done. He didn't play that videotape, then wonder if there's something truly odd about a sitting American president doing something like that.

He didn't simply show his viewers what President Trump had done. And when Parker gave her slightly fuzzy account of what the "meme" in question was all about, she didn't report the actual words the president, for whatever reason, had placed in Schumer's mouth.

Instead, she cleaned up what the president had Schumer saying. Then the gang enjoyed a good laugh about the "trolling" the commander had done.

In that way, our leading journalists sanitized the president's unusual behavior. They didn't show their viewers what he had done, and they cleaned up the actual words he had put in Schumer's mouth.

This was also true:

The previous night, the president had posted the video calling Dems "the party of Satan." That behavior wasn't mentioned by Goldberg and the others at all! PBS viewers were spared from knowing what the president had done.

Also unmentioned—the president's crazy video about the magical beds! That had been posted the previous weekend, It went unmentioned too!

The Democrats are the party of Satan! In our view, the fact that a sitting president would promote such a claim counts as remarkable news. But today, in the realm of people like Goldberg and Parker, this astounding conduct is suitable for sanitization and is a trigger for laughter.

In our view, timorous people like Lord Jeffrey Goldberg need to get off their ascots and start reporting this president's conduct. In this instance, it's actually different from what O'Donnell said:

These journalists knew exactly what to do with the [peculiar conduct] by President Trump. They knew what they should disappear his strangest posts, and that they should sanitize another.

Send in the clowns, the songwriter said. In this case, it may be time to send out the clowns, and to send the medical specialists in.

Is something wrong with President Trump? We'd say it's time to start asking.

Could there be some sort of cognitive decline? A "personality disorder?"

They agreed not to ask about President Biden. Last night, there they went again!

Also this: We had a hopeful thought last evening. We began to imagine that the president's behavior could become so strange that it actually could tip the political scales.

We Blues would still have a whole lot of explaining to do. We still wouldn't be forced to see our own role in this mess. But we'd be spared from an instant defeat.

That said, they won't be going without a fight this time. Is it time to put the airbrush away? Is it possibly time to stop laughing?


153 comments:

  1. Trump gains if that video is widely shown. Many viewers will take the straightforward message that Dems are evil. This is a standard Trump technique. He publicizes his chosen message by expressing it in an offensive manner so that others will repeat it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If true, do you support or condemn the use of this technique?

      Delete
    2. You complained, bitterly, DiC, when some Democrats called Trump a fascist, claiming it leads directly to violence. Here you are saying calling Democrats “evil” is good for Trump. Why can’t you ever denounce what he says, and stand on some kind of principle, like “speech like this is wrong whoever says it.”

      Delete
    3. Not as effective as that kid from the Republican family, who shot Charlie Kirk. That kid gets things done.

      Delete
    4. People on the left are talking about it which takes their attention away from other more important issues they need to be addressing.

      Delete
    5. “People on the left” you mean like Somerby, who claims the public isn’t being told about this? And I assume he thinks it’s important, since it shows the unfitness if Trump.

      Delete
    6. Or put another way, media outlets like this Atlantic show is talking about it, when they could be talking about much more serious issues regarding the Trump administration.

      Is it better for Trump that people talk about if he may be crazy or if he is trolling over an idiotic picture or if the media and people are focused on NSPM 7?

      Delete
    7. Do the Digby readers even know what NSPM7 is? Are they not talking about it everyday? If not, it's a major propaganda victory for Trump and would justify any of the offensive trolling or funny pictures or giving people reasons to think he is crazy.

      Delete
    8. It seems important to point out the hypocrisy of the gop, which I notice you didn’t respond to DiC, that Democrats are subjected to vilification if they say stuff like this, but it’s just Trump effectively “trolling”. And the media plays along with that unequal treatment. That is at least part of Somerby’s message.

      Delete
    9. @1248: Indeed. I seem to remember how candidate Clinton was lashed for denouncing half of Trump's supporters as belonging in a "basket of deplorables." (Never mind that her characterization was proven true as Trump benefitted from the support of Proud Boys, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, sovereign citizens, incel activists, and worse.)

      But hey! I guess she was "just trolling," yeah?

      Delete
    10. Proven to true because of the Proud Boys et al? That is an embarrassingly stupid thing to say. These Digby readers are nitwits.

      Delete
    11. Quaker - you may have a point that they're the same from a moral POV. However, humor and cleverness are a lot more effective than boring, timeworn slogans.

      P.S. -- check your math. Some deplorable people no doubt voted for Trump, but half of Trump's supporters are not deplorable.

      Delete
    12. Are you seriously saying that calling Democrats evil satanists is humorous? Do you believe that language like this has consequences? Do you believe every Trump supporter who sees this thinks it’s just a joke? There are conservative christians who genuinely believe this about Democrats. Not funny to them.

      Delete
    13. You have a point, @2:02. I was conflating a single picture of Dem leaders along with the word "Satan" with the shot video showing Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero.

      Delete
    14. All Trump voters, including David, are deplorable.

      Delete
    15. They are all bigots.
      That's been proven, obviously.

      Delete
    16. Quaker in a BasementOctober 4, 2025 at 3:46 PM

      Not my math, David. At the time of Clinton's comment, the vote count was 0 to 0. Any estimates of supporter proportions was necessarily speculative.

      While we're at it, do you remember what Clinton said about the other half? Why did so many conservatives rush to put themselves in the deplorables basket?

      Delete
    17. Quaker in a BasementOctober 4, 2025 at 3:49 PM

      @Nonny Moose 145 - There's a lot of territory covered by "et al." Recall that at the time, David Duke had announced his support for candidate Trump.

      Trump pretended not to know who he was.

      Delete
    18. There's not enough territory to cover half or even 1/100th. Embarrassing.

      Delete
    19. Your claim was it was "proven". Idiotic.

      Delete
    20. We do not have an accurate accounting of the percent of Trump supporters who were deplorables when Clinton made that statement. The percentage has changed in the years since, as Trump has challenged his followers to remain loyal despite his fascist hate mongering. At this point that number is 100%

      Delete
    21. NSPM7 is fascism. Who is digby? He sounds like a good anti fascist.

      Delete
    22. Many viewers will take the straightforward message that Dems are evil.
      Many viewers...you sound like someone else who uses those weasel words.
      That aside, what level moron do you have to be to accede to such a message? On the scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is Trump/MAGA cult level moron.

      Delete
    23. Hey DiChead, it's Sunday night I hope your President's cease fire demands work by tonight and hold; but given the nasty idiot fascist assholes Bibi, Trump, and Hamas are involved I have little to no hope. Less hope even than I have for you. Which is none.

      Delete
  2. Goldberg and Parker are afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trump is King, all right. The King of Projection.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can’t imagine, if calling Trump the fascist a fascist leads to violence, what calling an entire political party evil Satanists will do, or is intended to do, although one can guess.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “the trolling aspect.”

    Trolling is a thing nowadays, has been for a while. It’s where people deliberately say mean or hurtful things to get a rise out of people. DiC and other Trump supporters would say that Trump is trolling here, to get what he wants. In other words, they are saying not that Trump is mentally ill, but that he is a bad person. They are also saying that they are proud hypocrites, because if Democrats said such things, they would be accused of spreading hate and inciting violence.

    By the way, there are such things as “bad people”, despite Somerby’s weird attempts to deny it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People aren’t things.

      Delete
    2. They are to the alien lizard people like Christie Noem.

      Delete
  6. Today's post inspires a modest hope in me. There is, at last, an indication that the larger news organizations realize how powerful social media has become. The reach of Facebook, Insta, X, and Reddit are far greater than any cable news channel. And while news organizations themselves present an anemic presence, a great many Americans get their news--or their impressions of the news--while they scroll through news about family and old friends.

    I'll start to have some real hope when these outlets begin to take a hard look at the algorithms that act as the hidden editors and producers of the news Americans see, and the many, many shadowy content sources that exist to manipulate those algorithms.

    For example, recall the furor over Cracker Barrel's new logo? Millions of Americans decried the loss of beloved "Uncle Herschel" in a flood of posts. Or so we were told. Now academics who study such things reveal that a network of bots likely fueled the whole uproar. What they can't tell us is who unleashed the bot army, how their operation became headline news, and why such a thing was done in the first place.

    When folks like Parker and Goldberg come around to look at the answers to these questions, I'll have more than a little hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They can't tell us if an army of bots was spreading that information either if they include the weasel word "likely".

      Delete
    2. – Cracker Barrel, after reversing course on a recent “brand refresh” which resulted in widespread backlash, has announced that the company is parting ways with a consulting firm suggested to be responsible.

      Delete
    3. Cracker Barrel, the right wing’s most recent rage obsession? And the trolls here claim that liberals are too focused on Trump calling the Democratic Party evil satanists, rather than important things like…cracker barrel’s logo.

      Delete
    4. No dummy, more important things like NSPM7. And that is just for starters.

      Delete
    5. Well, dummy at 2:02, seems like the President calling Democrats evil is connected to his national security pronouncements. He’s trying to justify declaring them terrorists.

      Delete
    6. That only makes sense if you are claiming that trolls are saying liberals are too focused on Trump calling them satanists as it relates to his radical national security pronouncements. Maybe they are, I don't know. But if they are just focused on the name calling itself, it pretty

      Delete
    7. Quaker in a BasementOctober 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM

      @Nonny Moose 1:41 - You can look it up.

      Delete
    8. I did look it up. There was no credible source. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

      Delete
    9. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bot-networks-are-helping-drag-consumer-brands-into-the-culture-wars-63dffa04

      Delete
    10. WSJ is incredible.

      Delete
    11. Thanks hardliner

      Delete
    12. NYT is not blue.

      Delete
    13. Quaker in a BasementOctober 4, 2025 at 9:03 PM

      Source: https://www.peakmetrics.com/insights/ai-bots-cracker-barrel

      On August 19, Cracker Barrel introduced a refreshed logo. Within hours, the rollout ignited an online uproar. Posts on X (formerly Twitter) surged with outrage, memes, and boycott calls, quickly reframing the update as a culture-war issue.

      PeakMetrics’ analysis, shared exclusively with The Wall Street Journal, shows the backlash was not entirely organic. In a sample of 52,000 posts on X from the first 24 hours, 44.5 percent showed signs of bot-like activity, including 49 percent of boycott-specific posts. Looking at the broader conversation between August 19 and September 5, when more than two million posts referenced Cracker Barrel, 24 percent carried signs of automation. The controversy was not just loud; it was inflated by AI-driven networks that dragged Cracker Barrel into a polarized debate at internet speed.

      Delete
    14. Quaker, I was just looking for a credible source to back up your claim that academics who study such things revealed data network of bots likely fueled the whole Cracker Barrel uproar.

      If you can find one, please let me know.

      Delete
    15. (I hope you don't think that press release from a company that sells body detection monitoring does, because that would be really embarrassing.)

      Delete
    16. (bot detection monitoring)

      You pasted a press release from a company that sells bot detection monitoring that doesn't disclose what their methodology they used and of course has an incentive to make the threats look urgent.)

      Just in the interest of precision, your interpretation of the press release and The Wall Street Journal article are pretty far off the mark. Why is that?

      Delete
    17. What did you mean by " fueled the whole uproar"? What is your source for that extraordinary claim? The Wall Street Journal article and the press release from the bot detection company don't say that. They actually contradict it.

      Delete
    18. So please just want just one or two times out of zillions, please try to be precise about what you say instead of running off to make unsupported pronouncements like a 3-year-old. M'kay? Could you do that for me? Thanks.

      Delete
    19. So the trolls are arguing that the torrent of criticism directed at Cracker Barrel was all from real red blooded MAGATS? Is that supposed to not be embarrassing?

      Delete
    20. 10:10 You can take it up with the WSJ, who cites this (PeakMetrics) and an Israeli firm (Cyabara) with detecting bot activity in the Cracker Barrel logo fiasco. It is stated in the article that PeakMetrics is commissioned by the USAF for work in detecting foreign misinformation as well. Do you think that the WSJ is running an advertisement for these companies, is that the point you would like to make here? Do you think the WSJ is not adequately researching their articles? Exactly what is your point here? Why don't you go ahead and offer your detailed account of why you dispute the contents of this article:
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/bot-networks-are-helping-drag-consumer-brands-into-the-culture-wars-63dffa04?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgfYB_MG4Q79UYzTlvJgcAPpcEUNtZqjq63gcAjUKD1CBSUyTUyW7dWIA_aPLA%3D&gaa_ts=68d67372&gaa_sig=7wHYtnPwtDpiM6ldhvVzl8JO8PG0TftCX8oa

      Delete
    21. My point was that no credible source has claimed academics who study such things revealed a network of bots likely fueled the whole Cracker Barrel uproar.

      The Wall Street Journal quotes two firms that sell bot monitoring tools (and therefore benefit from hyping this kind of threat), Peakmetrics and Cyabra, saying they found “signs of bot-like activity”. They didn't say anything about an "army" of bots or these bots "fueling the uproar". They say that bots merely may have magnified it, making it look bigger than it may have been. (“Bots did not originate the dissatisfaction, but they manufactured its scale”)

      I was just respectfully pointing out that the passage from Quaker was imprecise, overstated and potentially misleading, and therefore undermining to his cause and credibility.

      Delete
    22. Touche. Your gotcha sentence was the one containing the word "academic". Point taken, even though an academic does weigh in generally on the bot phenomenon in the context of the WSJ article. More to the point, your churlish quibbling and misunderstanding of the word " fueling" in this context belie a motive other than truth-seeking, especially when comparing another commenter to a three year old. You appear to be easily triggered and your efforts at undermining the credibility of the work described in the WSJ article fall far short of your intended target. Try working on your own definition of the words "just respectfully", insofar as you otherwise like to parse other's comments so critically.

      Delete
    23. Oh. Did you want to change the subject to my psychological shortcomings? That's fine. Before we do though, let's finish this subject. Can you tell me what exactly you mean that bots "fueled the whole uproar"?

      Delete
    24. I accept the challenge. When you add fuel to an argument, a conflagration, a combustion engine or any other process requiring input of energy, you strengthen it. Are you having trouble with that concept? Adding fuel to a fire does what? You can start there, with the most basic of analogies. Geeze. This should not be difficult. Can't waste my time any longer with your nonsense.

      Delete
    25. Quaker misinterpreted the Wall Street Journal article and the press release from the bot companies. It's not that big a deal. He thought they meant bots were responsible for creating the logo backlash, instead of what they said, which was that bots may have amplified a controversy that was organic and real to begin with.

      Delete
    26. "Millions of Americans decried the loss of beloved "Uncle Herschel" in a flood of posts. Or so we were told."

      That implies that what we were told was wrong and that the bot company's press release proves something different. Does it not?

      Because the Wall Street Journal article and the press release both acknowledge that Americans did decried the logo change. We were told that, it was obvious, and it was true. The bots were not responsible for the controversy.

      Delete
    27. Quaker thought that bots created the Cracker Barrel story. He didn't read carefully if he read it at all and misunderstood it. If bots had created the whole story it would be front page news in every newspaper. He read a glorified press release from two companies that benefit from hyping this threat and applied it to his own confirmation bias, as was the intention of both the press release and the article. Ironically, he was manipulated in the same way he accused others of being manipulated. That's pretty interesting.

      Delete
    28. Imagine listening to the press release of a bot company?
      What next, getting political news from a corporate-owned media who live off tax breaks from the Republican Party?
      You're being played, fools.

      Delete
    29. It just is a lesson for us all. We are all manipulated everyday by all of the media we interact with. That has always been true. From William Randolph Hearst onward. It's all manipulation. It may be interesting to follow how bots manipulate people online, but it's not like that is the only place they are manipulated. Quaker shows us perfectly by having been manipulated himself by traditional communication mediums.

      Delete
    30. Those millions of Americans who decried the change in the Cracker Barrel logo, are real.
      The ones who voted for Trump, because they were concerned about grocery prices, are the ones who are fake.
      Obviously.

      Delete
    31. I spoke with quite a few people last year, who were trying to convince me Trump voters were concerned about grocery prices.
      As a nation, we are still struggling with our gullibility problem.

      Delete
    32. Sucker gets manipulated by a story about suckers being manipulated and goes on line to say he's worried about suckers being manipulated. That's the world in 2024 right there.

      Delete
    33. Sucker gets manipulated by a story about suckers being manipulated and goes on line to say he's worried about suckers being manipulated. That's the world in 2024 right there.

      Delete
    34. Also, people aligned with the "Jews will not replace us" crowd, whining about anti-Semitism on college campuses.
      SMDH.

      Delete
    35. The Americans who decried Cracker Barrel's logo change, were eaten by Haitian immigrants.
      True story.

      Delete
    36. Americans decried bot armies fueling of the whole Cracker Barrel controversy. Or so we were told.

      Delete
    37. Quaker in a BasementOctober 5, 2025 at 3:30 PM

      Someone really wants my attention,

      I wonder why.

      Delete
    38. This comment thread is mandatory reading for anyone who does not understand why we have Donald Trump as president.

      Delete
    39. Quaker, did you think that bots were responsible for initiating the Cracker Barrel controversy?

      Delete
    40. Quaker in a BasementOctober 5, 2025 at 8:21 PM

      You want my attention, Nonny Moose? Tell me why or go away.

      Delete
    41. I don’t want your attention.

      Delete
    42. I just wanted you to clarify what you posted up there. Can you explain what you meant? " Or so we were told." What did you mean by that?

      Delete
    43. If you explain it, I will never interact with you again.

      Delete
    44. 8:12: Why not read his comment regarding the WSJ article and accept it in good faith? What is so terribly difficult about that? I say this because more than one comment on this thread would suggest that some trolls here find it to be an impossible task. The answer to that question and a debunking of their multiple comments is easily obtained by reading his first and second comments comment that REFERENCE the WSJ article, an article that DOES NOT state that bots iINITIATED the Cracker Barrel fiasco. He does not dispute the article, he references it. How fucking hard is this? Apparently impossibly difficult to some trolls who post here.

      Delete
    45. Can you clarify what you're trying to say 8:12 I'm a more simple way?

      Delete
    46. If Quaker doesn't believe that the bots initiated the Cracker Barrel controversy then, I'm just wondering what his comment was meant to say. What do you think it it was meant to mean then if was written under the assumption that bots only amplified it?

      Delete
    47. "or so we were told" I'm just wondering if, did it go around the liberal information bubble for aging white men that the Cracker Barrel controversy was initiated by bots? Did he get that from one of the aging white liberal men information sources?

      Delete
    48. "or so we were told" I'm just wondering if, did it go around the liberal information bubble for aging white men that the Cracker Barrel controversy was initiated by bots? Did he get that from one of the aging white liberal men information sources?

      Delete
    49. Just because the irony is so perfect if so. So beautifully perfect.

      Delete
    50. Quaker in a BasementOctober 5, 2025 at 9:30 PM

      So you choose not to explain why you desperately want my attention? As you wish.

      Bye, now.

      Delete
    51. It's just so goddamn 2024, man. You know what I'm saying?

      A sucker gets suckered by an information source for suckers that told him other suckers got suckered from an information source for suckers.

      And the sucker doesn't realize he's been suckered as he goes on about the other suckers who got suckered.

      It's 2024 in a nutshell.

      Don't you love its perfection?

      Delete
    52. Bye Quaker. I won't bother you anymore even though you don't have the courage to answer. That actually is a cherry on top of this perfect irony.

      Delete
    53. We righties don't need bots to behave like idiotic weirdos, we do that organically, man.

      Delete
    54. Russian bots have fucked your trump deranged cult minds.

      Delete
    55. 4:42,
      You'd hope. But noting that Trump got elected because Republican voters were amped-up by his bigotry, gives the snowflake Right a sad.

      Delete
    56. No thanks necessary QiB.

      Delete
  7. The "Suffering from mental illness, or just a Republican" Game is the rage across the country (especially with the youth). It's so popular, even Somerby plays it on the regular.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I get over $25k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. (z11) Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life...This is what I do, check it out by Visiting

    Following Link open here → W­­­­­w­­­­­w­­­­­.P­­­­­a­­­­­y­­­­­c­­­­­a­­­­­s­­­­­h­­­­­1.s­­­­­i­­­­­t­­­­­e

    ReplyDelete
  9. Democrats are broken sick fucks. They're all like this in private.

    “If those guys die before me,” Jones wrote, referencing the Republican colleagues who were publicly honoring the deceased Johnson’s memory, “I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves” to “send them out awash in something.”

    Jones then suggested that, presented with a hypothetical situation in which he had only two bullets and was faced with the choice of murdering then-Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert or two dictators, he’d shoot Gilbert “every time,” prompting pushback from his former colleague:

    Jones: Three people, two bullets

    Gilbert, hitler, and pol pot

    Gilbert gets two bullets to the head

    Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time

    Coyner: Jay

    Please stop

    Jones: Lol

    Ok, ok

    Coyner: It really bothers me when you talk about hurting people or wishing death on them

    It isn’t ok

    No matter who they are

    The private messages offer a disturbing glimpse into how Jones — who is looking to oust incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares this fall — describes his political adversaries in private conversations. The violent rhetoric complicates an already contentious and competitive race roughly a month out from Election Day in Virginia, where early voting began on September 19.

    Asked about the years-old text exchange, Coyner condemned Jones’s rhetoric and said she sent screenshots of the conversation to Gilbert that day. She said she and Jones haven’t spoken since, aside from a brief conversation about policy issues. “On August 8, 2022 I had a text conversation with Jay Jones, what he said was not just disturbing but disqualifying for anyone who wants to seek public office,” she told NR in a statement. “Jay Jones wished violence on the children of a colleague and joked about shooting Todd Gilbert. It’s disgusting and unbecoming of any public official.”

    Jones and his campaign spokesperson did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Gilbert also did not respond to a request for comment. The Miyares campaign declined to comment.

    ‘Breeding Little Fascists’
    Coyner’s alarm at her former colleague’s violent rhetoric toward Gilbert prompted Jones to call her and explain his reasoning over the phone, a source familiar with the exchange told NR.

    According to the source, the Democratic former legislator doubled down on the call, saying the only way public policy changes is when policymakers feel pain themselves, like the pain that parents feel when they watch their children die from gun violence. He asked her to provide counterexamples to disprove his claim.

    Then at one point, the source said, he suggested he wished Gilbert’s wife could watch her own child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider his political views, prompting Coyner to hang up the phone in disgust.

    Afterward, Jones continued his barrage of text messages, saying he was just asking questions. Coyner dismissed his excuse via text and chastised Jones for “hopping [sic] Jennifer Gilbert’s children would die.”

    Rather than deny that he had wished death on the children, Jones responded by saying, “Yes, I’ve told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

    Faced with more pushback from his frazzled former colleague, Jones somehow took the conversation a step further: “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes,” he wrote, referring to Gilbert’s wife and two young children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Faced with more pushback from his frazzled former colleague, Jones somehow took the conversation a step further: “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes,” he wrote, referring to Gilbert’s wife and two young children."

      Tell me this is fake?

      Delete
    2. “They're all like this in private.”

      You sound as unhinged as trump.

      Delete
    3. They are breeding little fascists.

      Delete
    4. What part of “hypothetical situation” do Republicans not understand?

      Fuck Republican feelings. Hey, that would be a great t-shirt slogan!

      Delete
    5. Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over two dozen years ago.

      Delete
    6. Not only not fake but well deserved commentary. Fuck the fascists.

      Delete
    7. Not only not fake but well deserved commentary. Fuck the fascists.

      Delete
    8. Fuck the fake.

      Delete
    9. You’re getting your undies in a bundle over a 3 year old private phone conversation that was so hypothetical the listening party did not call the police. Maybe he should have instigated a lynch mob after Mike Pence in order to get your tacit approval. No problem for you with that speech.

      Delete
  10. I was offended as a Democrat that Trump called my party Satanic, wicked and evil, but then I remembered that I have been calling Jews these same things and have only wished I had an audience of millions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert Morris, former Trump spiritual advisor and megachurch evangelist, has been found guilty of sexually abusing a 12 year old when he was 20. A “great man” according to Trump in 2020.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Republicans are broken sick fucks. They're all like this in private.

      Delete
    2. What white man doesn't condone raping children?

      Delete
    3. Where does the Bible say raping children is wrong?

      Delete
  12. Steve M explains the link between misogyny and mass killings. In this case, a young man killed two girls because one of them made a negative remark about Charlie Kirk (before his death). His focus is the difference in the way the left has responded to this atrocity, compared to the way Republicans repond to violence:

    https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2025/10/if-parties-were-reversed-these-murdered.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't let your kids anywhere near Democrats. Break ties with your Democrat family members. They are evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it you disagree with Our Host.

      Delete
    2. The less I have to deal with fascist pin heads like you the better.

      Delete
    3. Hey weirdo, hiding yourself is doing a favor to society. Keep it up.

      Delete
  14. Do I have this right?

    Democrats’ nominee for AG in VA, the top law enforcement officer in the commonwealth, wished murder upon the young children of a political opponent, in writing?

    And this was discovered subsequent to his conviction for insanely reckless driving, after which he served hundreds of hours of his sentenced “community service” by “volunteering” at his own PAC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "
      Politics
      Virginia AG candidate faces bipartisan backlash over violent, inflammatory text messages
      By Fin Daniel Gómez, Zak Hudak
      Updated on: October 4, 2025 / 3:12 PM EDT / CBS News

      Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for attorney general of Virginia, faced condemnation from Republicans and Democrats on Friday after text messages from 2022 resurfaced in which he said he would "piss on graves" of GOP opponents and mused about hypothetically shooting then-Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates Todd Gilbert.

      In a text message exchange with Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner, Jones used violent and inflammatory language, writing that if he were presented with a hypothetical situation in which he had only two bullets and was faced with the choice of shooting Gilbert, former Nazi leader Adolf Hitler or former Cambodia dictator Pol Pot, he'd shoot Gilbert "every time," prompting pushback from his former colleague."

      Note the words hypothetical. The guy wasn't planning to do anything to anyone. He has now apologized, but his language becomes more extreme in the face of recent political shootings that were not part of the context of his private text remarks.

      This kind of thing was stupid, but trying to portray him as actually violent is ridiculous and political posturing to try to remove him from the race. Worse, the right is trying to blame the Democratic candidate for mayor for something she knew nothing about and did not say.

      The reckless driving (speeding) charge was during covid. The sentence was a work-around to the unavailability of service alternatives.

      These are things voters can and certainly will take into account when casting their votes. The Republican attempt to magnify them is what they do during elections. But demonizing people who were not involved (other candidates such as Spanberger) seems wrong to me.

      Delete
    2. All Republicans are evil. That does not imply all Democrats are good.

      Delete
    3. Got it. Democrats endorse political candidates saying the children of their opponents are little fascists and should be murdered.

      We didn't need so many words to hear you say what everyone already knows about Democrats. Depraved and damaged minds.

      Delete
    4. Picking on a candidate by taking private texts literally is just an election smear attempt, an attack on Jones.

      Young people play a game where they take a name and assign it a category (fuck, marry, kill). It doesn’t mean they want to do any of those things with that person. It isn’t real. Obviously. AGs don’t kill people, even if democrats. It became tasteless when Kirk was killed. Before that it is just words, colorful hyperbole about disliking someone. It makes me cringe when Jones apologizes because he is buying into Republican framing.

      Delete
    5. You've given permission for your opponents to say this should happen to your children. Don't smear them if they do. It's just innocent fun! All the sane and decent people say so.


      "Then at one point, the source said, he suggested he wished Gilbert’s wife could watch her own child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider his political views, prompting Coyner to hang up the phone in disgust.

      Afterward, Jones continued his barrage of text messages, saying he was just asking questions. Coyner dismissed his excuse via text and chastised Jones for “hopping [sic] Jennifer Gilbert’s children would die.”

      Rather than deny that he had wished death on the children, Jones responded by saying, “Yes, I’ve told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

      Faced with more pushback from his frazzled former colleague, Jones somehow took the conversation a step further: “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes,” he wrote, referring to Gilbert’s wife and two young children."

      Delete
    6. People with this sort of rage do not limit it to political contrarians. This baleful jerk wouldn’t hesitate to launch into character assassinations towards any Democrat who challenged him.

      Delete
    7. They’re all like this.

      Delete
    8. 9:45,
      You're doing it all wrong
      FIRST you call the Left "snowflakes", THEN you whine and cry in public about how words hurt your feelings.

      Delete
    9. Republican snowflakes whining that Democrats want their little fascist children to be murdered.

      Delete
    10. They don't have Independents where these Republican snowflakes live?

      Delete
    11. Why are republicans all pussy snowflakes?

      Delete
    12. Democrats gave polling data to the campaign manager who turned it over to the Russian KGB.

      Delete
    13. Not close, still no cigar 8:23

      Delete
  15. "Democrats should murder the children of Republicans. Oh and there is something wrong with Donald Trump."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all children of Republicans deserve to get murdered. The one who rid us of that loathsome cretin, Charlie Kirk, should be allowed to live so we can all shake his hands and thank him.

      Delete
    2. Jay Jones is black. All black men want to murder your white children after years of slavery. It is pure racism not to accept their feelings.

      Delete
    3. 12:36,
      Hear, hear!

      Delete
    4. Some fucking idiot pussy republican is using hear hear. Fuck the idiot is so creative, can't think for themself.

      Delete
  16. Biden raised grocery prices. Democrats are keeping them high by closing the government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morans. Trump Covid did it, Biden solved it, idiot felon tariffed it. Fucking morans.

      Delete
    2. Trump is such a loser, he can't even keep Democrats from closing his precious government.
      It's no wonder he had to file so many bankruptcies.

      Delete
  17. Should Jay Jones withdraw from the race?
    President Donald Trump on Sunday told Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee running to defeat incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares, to immediately drop out of the Virginia race after the former state delegate made “demented jokes” wishing death upon a Republican and his family.

    Texts from 2022 surfaced on Friday, showing Jones fantasizing about then-Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Todd Gilbert getting “two bullets to the head.” Jones also made murderous threats against Gilbert’s wife and children, whom he called “little fascists.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Provide the quote in which Jones made a murderous threat. Or are you just going to post some shit from a right wing web site that makes lying statements about politicians? Go ahead. Post the threatening quote.

      Delete
    2. It was a private rant to one individual and there were no threats to anyone. Contrast that with Trump publicly calling members of an opposing party satanic and evil. Or Charlie Kirk, in a podcast, suggesting that Biden be executed. Have we heard Republicans repudiate that kind of public offensive language? I thought not. But the snowflakes will be performative over this three year old private conversation on right wing media as if the guy had initiated a lynch mob against Mike Pence. Nice try.

      Delete
    3. Hey David, what the fuck is wrong with your fascist resident you fucking fascist freak?

      Delete
    4. Trump is busy bringing peace to the Middle East.

      Delete
    5. Jay Jones is sorry.

      Delete
    6. So you cannot provide the quote supporting the bullshit you posted. What’s new?

      Delete
  18. I'm willing to stop calling the Right pedophiles, as soon as they stop raping children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical Left-winger. Proud of calling the Right "pedophiles" for the rest of time.

      Delete