9aa0f10b0f9a99bae477e1621ea2cb81The mind of a truly insecure manchild:

“Instead of calling me and saying, ‘Congratulations, you did a great job, you absolutely destroyed her in the debate like everybody said,’” Trump began…  “So wouldn’t you think that Paul Ryan would call and say, ‘Good going?’ In front of just about the largest for a second-night debate in the history of the country,” Trump said. “So, you know, you’d think that they’d say: ‘Great going, Don. Let’s go. Let’s beat this crook. She’s a crook. Let’s beat her. We gotta stop it.’”  But Ryan doesn’t do that, Trump lamented, floating a conspiracy about a backroom deal.

Poor lil thing.


This article in the WP is really emblematic of the fear and resentment driving a certain class of Trump supporters.  The best part is how the author, as so many writers of similar articles before him, starts off immediately defensive about his self-professed position of quality and privilege, and his right to stand on the stage and spit at anyone who pisses him off.

I’m part of the new silent majority: those who don’t like Donald Trump but might vote for him anyway… Members of this new silent majority, many of us front-wave baby boomers, value hard work and love the United States the way it was…  And please don’t try to stereotype us. We’re not uneducated, uninformed, unemployed or low-income zealots. We’re affluent, well-educated, gainfully employed and successfully retired. Some of us even own our own business, or did before we retired, creating not only our own job but also employment for others. [Emphasis mine.]

Oooooooh!  Look at you, Mr. Special Flower!  I can now see the genesis of your grievance.  Your status is Prime among Americans.  The WORTHY, who is therefore supremely positioned to fling spittle on the UNworthy.

Let’s dig in and find all the fear, sneers, resentment and petite conspiracies that drive him (emphasis in all cases mine):

I hate Donald Trump. But he might get my vote. [Good way to start out.  Hate in the heart.]

He doesn’t want to turn the United States into a politically correct, free-milk-and-cookies, European-style social democracy where every kid (and adult, too) gets a trophy just for showing up. [Ah, yes, the resentment.  The tiresome pablum about unworthy people taking shit from the worthy.]

We long for a bygone era when you didn’t need “safe spaces” on college campuses to shelter students from the atrocity of dissenting opinions, lest their sensibilities be offended. We have the reckless notion that college is the one place where sensibilities are supposed to be challenged and debated. Silly us. [Sheesh, again with the crotchety resentment?  You’ve really stocked up on that bile.  The sneering “silly us” at the end is masterful.  You can just hear it delivered in a derisive whine.]

And on certain social issues, many of us even have some leftward leanings. Shhhh . . . [Well, he seems intent on repetition.  First “silly us”.  Now “shhhh”, delivered in a knowing sneer.]

Our view of the media is old-school, too — just the facts, please. [As compared to today’s libtard-biased lamestream media, of course.]

The only pleasure the new silent majority has taken throughout this primary season has been watching progressives marinate in their own righteous indignation. [Whoa, that doesn’t even require commentary.  Would he substitute that for “burn in hell”, given the chance?]

As the Hillary-Bernie slugfest got ugly, we took particular delight in the sourpuss expression on the faces of the lefties we know when they realized that the Republicans, left for dead, suddenly had new life and a chance to win the presidency.  [Jesus, dude, who peed in your oatmeal this morning?  Jimmy Carter?]

Who’s to blame for the Trump phenomenon? There’s culpability on both sides of the aisle for the absence of bipartisanship that fueled his rise. [Naturally.]

So why then would rational, affluent, informed citizens consider voting for The Donald? [Again, such a Special Flowwwwwer!  Sit down and have a lollipop.]

Short of not voting at all — still an option some of us are considering — he’s the only one who appears to want to preserve the American way of life as we know it.  [Ah, yes, the halcyon days when gays hid away in the hair salon, negroes knew their place (and certainly didn’t try to date my daughter!) and strange sand people weren’t threatening me with weird religious beliefs.  American way of life, preserved!]

For the new silent majority, the alternative to Trump is bleak: a wealthy, entitled progressive.  [W-w-w-wait a minute.  Aren’t we reading an article written by a supposedly wealthy, entitled non-progressive?  Why’s he got an issue with wealth and entitlement?  Takes one to know one?]

The thought of four to eight more years of a progressive agenda polluting the American Dream is even more dangerous to the survival of this country than Trump is. [Just dripping with scorn and bile.]

You’ll find many of us sheepishly sneaking into voting booths across the United States. [Wait, if you’re a silent majority, why would you need to sneak into voting booths?  (a) Aren’t you a “majority“?, and (b) Are you admitting that there’s a nub of empathy and happiness still buried down deep below the anger and resentment, which causes you to have enough shame to “sneak” into the voting booth, rather than hold your head up high?]

Then, fighting a gag reflex, we’ll pull the lever. [Nice imagery.  But seriously, is his Hillary gag reflex really just that much worse than the Trump reflex?]

It’s pretty remarkable that so many reluctant Trumpist articles follow the same pattern.  No hope, no promise of a better future, no uplifting possibilities.  Just anger, bile and resentment.  I always wonder why people with poisoned hearts don’t at some point look at their miserable lives and wonder what’s causing the misery.  For this guy, it certainly isn’t privation and poverty.  Remember, he “affluent”, “well-educated” and gainfully employed”.  Methinks he needs to dig a bit deeper.


Um, can I type a “shocked” emoticon on here?

Noted conservative pundit Glenn Beck thinks Donald Trump has gone too far and has officially decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president, to the shock of many.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” Beck wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.”

Watch the video at the link.  Beck laments the loss of civility in civic discourse.  Not kidding.

Tmp0819here are so many things to say to this but let’s just use Beck’s own words.

“This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture….I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” –on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show, July 28, 2009

More at the link.



trump_and_russian_hacking__steve_greenbergSo, can the media please now stop repeating and quoting from leaked emails as fact and gospel?

Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I am not Sidney Blumenthal by Kurt Eichenwald

I am Sidney Blumenthal. At least, that is what Vladimir Putin—and, somehow, Donald Trump—seem to believe. And that should raise concerns about not only Moscow’s attempts to manipulate this election but also how Trump came to push Russian disinformation to American voters…

The documents that WikiLeaks has unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik [the Russian online news and radio service established by the government-controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya] was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the WikiLeaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal…

[Quotes from an article put out by Sputnik] sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote…

Of course, this might be seen as just an opportunity to laugh at the incompetence of the Russian hackers and government press—once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down. But then things got even more bizarre.

This false story was reported only by the Russian-controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?


The steadfastness of evangelical support for Donald Trump is pretty noteworthy. I don’t think it’ll destroy the religious right on its own–lots of people have predicted its downfall, along with the downfall of Christianity itself, without noting the structural reasons why they stick around (ironically, probably the greatest threat to Christianity comes from the outside chance that the religious right does manage to ease the barriers between church and state, which have created the brutally Darwinian environment that has forced religious folk to adapt and stay in touch over the years). But continued existence is not the same as influence (or, indeed, becoming an outright liability to conservatives). Trump may make clear just how much more important politics is to the RR than character, but comparing their reactions between the David Vitter and Bill Clinton affairs (impeachment on one hand, endorsement for re-election and a higher office on the other) made this clear to people already paying attention.

Lev filed this under: ,  

Let Bad Lip Reading lift your spirits for a few minutes.


So yesterday, Hillary Clinton was asked a question about Wikileaks’ latest attempt to influence the election, er, radical transparency exercise. Yes, that’s it. As I said before, I don’t think her response was particularly strong.  But let’s get real, this is so ridiculous that it almost hurts to write about it. Even in the truncated, context-free block that the quote comes in, it’s very easy to figure out what she’s saying, and it’s not at all nefarious (the distracting caps are from the source, sorry):

But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.

The email claims this means that, “CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY,” but of course it doesn’t. She’s speaking in the context of negotiation. In any sort of negotiation, of course you have both a public and a private position. If I’m trying to buy a car from you and offer you $500 for it, that’s my public position. In my mind, I’ve decided that I’m going to go as high as $750. That’s my private position. As the negotiation goes on, the public position may get closer to the private position. You say $850, I say, $600, you say $800, etc. That means I’m more likely to make a deal. There’s nothing nefarious about this at all–it’s such basic common sense that even the self-proclaimed dealmaking expert on stage should have been able to grasp it. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with policy. Why Clinton didn’t just explain this I’ll never know–I just assume it’s because she’s not really that great of a politician and really doesn’t think well on her feet. Some convoluted nonsense about Lincoln that clarified nothing was a bad answer. But this reflects even more poorly on Raddatz that she couldn’t hit a motherfucking space bar to scroll down and read the full email in the Buzzfeed article. She should be embarrassed for accepting the frame of a Trump-supporting accused rapist out of sheer laziness.

The rest of it? Even more nonsensical. I guess admitting she’s far removed from middle-class life is supposed to be a gaffe, but it’s inarguably a fact and anyone bothered by that should maybe ask themselves just how else it’s going to work when running for president takes two years of 20-hour a day work and doesn’t pay a dime. Just a reminder that the press remains in its anti-empirical both-sides mentality, even now. Still need some Clinton scandals to even it all out.

{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under: , , ,  

Not much to say that hasn’t already been said…I do think that Clinton’s denunciation of Trump’s video was probably the closest to raw, from the heart Hillary Clinton that we’ve ever seen before. Otherwise, it was pretty much the same Clinton as usual, ready with familiar Democratic rhetoric on the issues. She did get carried away and set herself up to get hit with the “deplorables” thing, her response to the leaked speech excerpt response was not terribly compelling (more on that later), and lots of times she passed up opportunities to go in for the kill (no doubt reasoning that there was no need as Trump is already on life support). But compared with what she was up against, an “as expected” performance is more than adequate.

As for Trump, he’s only even trying to speak to the basest of the base at this point. Did score some hits on foreign policy and trade–his stretch on how we don’t even know who the Syrian rebels are was basically indisputable and really made me wish that he wasn’t associating some of these ideas with such a twisted, damaged messenger. He eventually worked up his energy but the first segment of the debate made it seem as though he’d just eaten a large stack of pancakes: low energy, morose, even depressed. It was the energy of a man who is finally realizing it’s over. Trump has for God knows what reason had the media’s softest touch despite being an obvious asshole, but now that the pinata has been cracked open a little with that video, I expect the rest to come pouring out soon. He must know it too.

Lev filed this under: ,