I'm getting rather tired of the tRump appellation. <snip>
We have asked that people don’t deliberately mis-name persons they dislike or do not respect (which in this case includes mid-capitalising their names). It is not conducive to serious discussion.
Thank you
BroJames, Purgatory Host
And, yet, it's a consistent feature. If the Hosts are serious, they will wield their stick. If it's a policy, enforce it. And, NP, as a fellow traveller, I expect better of you. Yes, we know that Trump is loathsome. We do ourselves no honour by indulging in locker room 'humour'. If we on the left are better, we have to rise to our claim.
Ah yes, I posted as the man speaks. This isn't about being on the left or anywhere politically. It's also not about honour. I'm frankly annoyed that people present when he speaks don't violate convention and contradict him, call him out. But the mythology and respect to the office of a temporary king prevent it. The emperor has no clothes.
Nor can I. I will politely refer to him as "the current occupant of the White House" as I do not accept him as the legitimately elected President. The White House is sede vacante so far as I am concerned.
Impolitely, I refer to him as the "fartletter-in-chief" since of his actions stemming from the many titles he holds, that seems to be what he does best.
Steve Herman, the White House bureau chief for Voice of America, told The Washington Post that Pence's staff banned him from traveling on Air Force Two after Herman's reporting contradicted Pence's narrative about the mask policy.
Regards the Laughing in Disbelief reference I posted. I had seen it in several social media posts, but I could not find the direct quote other than what was cited on Laughing in Disbelief. After checking with Snopes, I now see it has been labeled as fake, though it does reflect snippets of quotes 45 has uttered or tweeted.
Regards Pence self-isolating: it had been reported that he was self-isolating on Sunday, but this morning, lo and behold, we see he is not self-isolating.
However, there is no doubt that 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 (The White House) has now become a hot spot for the virus.
Pence knows all that stuff. I have him down as a potentially very smart politician with the moral compass of a TV evangelist. He knows that the way to riches is to ape Trump in everything he does, and he along with Lindsay Graham probably has his eyes on the prize - absolute loyalty from the Christian Nationalists once Trump finishes his stint. He'll never get it, because Trump will have to be actually dead before he gives them up. He will be tweeting at them for the rest of his life. But hell, it's gotta be worth a shot. Its a hell of a voting bloc.
(CNN) In an interview on Monday with the New York Post, President [Craven, Onion-eyed Dewberry] was asked about his contentious relationship with the media -- particularly CBS News' Paula Reid. Here's how he responded:
"It wasn't Donna Reed, I can tell you that. ... Paula Reid, she's sitting there and I say, 'How angry. I mean, What's the purpose?' They're not even tough questions, but you see the attitude of these people, it's like incredible."
For large swaths of Americans -- aka anyone who wasn't watching movies and TV between 1940 and 1965 -- the reference simply flew over their collective head. Reed, who most famously played Mary Bailey in the 1946 Christmas classic "It's a Wonderful Life," and then went on to star in her own black-and-white TV sitcom through the mid-1960s, died in 1986. Which was 34 years ago.
The article goes on to detail how much he's stuck in the past. I've thought for some time that T is trying to recreate the world of his youth (e.g., strong-man leaders, nationalism, racism--which still exist today of course). This is more of the same.
Yeah, but what strongman leaders did America have? Dwight Eisenhower? Harry Truman? Where are the strongmen of his youth? Is he a Maoist?
Funny thing is, the one POTUS of Trump's lifetime who actually did cultivate a strongman image was Ronald Reagan, and Trump has gone on the record as saying he dislikes Reagan.
Really? I could never see him as a strongman, but Reagan's way of speaking makes him sound slow and dull-witted to me. I suspect it is his slow drawl that many American men cultivate, not realising or caring that it sounds that way. I think it was a factor in the rest of the world's astonishment at his election, another being that we just didn't know enough about each other before the internet. I remember his as being painted as just a dumb actor, ignoring his extensive political experience.
Trump identifies with the strong-man leaders of other countries (e.g., Putin, Duterte, Kim Jong Un), wants to be one of them and accepted by them, and/but he wants to be first among equals--except he wouldn't really accept them as equals.
Not sure we've had any other presidents that would fit in that group.
Others have courted and flattered people that bad - I'm particularly thinking of The Philippines' Marcos and many other petty dictators leading brutal regimes come to mind. The Saudi Arabians fit into that category. I reckon the Texans treated them as personal friends. But none have had the lack of grace or the uncaring ignorance to do so repeatedly, with such warmth or with so little reason. I square bracket the Texans and the Saudis, as I reckon there was allot more going on there than met the eye.
If you're interested in such things, the Supreme Court is now hearing arguments about whether Congress can subpœna Trump's financial records from third parties. Because of social distancing the case is being argued remotely, which gives us a rare chance to hear such a case livestreamed (audio only).
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
That quote has been attributed to Goebbels, but cannot be verified. But this one can.
The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
It's odd to think that the first might have some power in a Western democracy, but it's where you end up if sufficient people believe the claim "Fake News". So far as the second is concerned, leadership looks less ridiculous of course if any real Fake News outlet consistently reinforces the assertion that mainstream news is Fake News.
Hope you all saw de Niro on Newsnight last night, absolutely slaughtering Trump. Bit of a shock to see him on late night BBC. It must be available online.
Hope you all saw de Niro on Newsnight last night, absolutely slaughtering Trump. Bit of a shock to see him on late night BBC. It must be available online.
Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.
Now that November is less than six months away, I am beginning to see a number of memes on Facebook pushing for term limits of all Congresspersons and Senators, but I posted the following concerning presidential term limits.
If there is anything that proves presidential term limits was a mistake, it is this current administration. The previous president had dealt with three epidemics during his terms: the Swine Flu, Ebola, and Zika. He even developed a detailed playbook on how to deal with any future pandemics. I cannot help but wonder if he were allowed to run for a third term--and won, how much of a difference there would have been in controlling the current pandemic.
Instead, we are saddled with the most incompetent administration in the history of the United States which threw out the playbook and is flying blind.
----
There is an interesting situation where the DOJ under Barr has moved to drop all charges against Micheal Flynn, but the district judge who is handling the case has not agreed to the new motion.
I cannot remember any other time with a federal or state judge not agreeing to a motion to drop a case when the motion comes from the prosecuting side.
There is an interesting situation where the DOJ under Barr has moved to drop all charges against Micheal Flynn, but the district judge who is handling the case has not agreed to the new motion.
I cannot remember any other time with a federal or state judge not agreeing to a motion to drop a case when the motion comes from the prosecuting side.
The Flynn case is a bit different than a typical prosecution in that Flynn has already plead guilty so the prosecution's work is theoretically done. All that's left is the sentencing.
In other words, Flynn isn't charged with anything right now. He's been convicted.
Presumably the Flynn affairis what Trump is referring to as 'Obamagate'?
The hypothesis I've seen is that Trump doesn't even know what he's referring to - he's just hoping that by repeating it he can either get someone to dig around and find something or that just the word itself will associate Obama with scandal in people's minds without anything even attached to it. Fuck knows why he's targeting Obama but presumably Biden's happy about it.
The hypothesis I've seen is that Trump doesn't even know what he's referring to - he's just hoping that by repeating it he can either get someone to dig around and find something or that just the word itself will associate Obama with scandal in people's minds without anything even attached to it. Fuck knows why he's targeting Obama but presumably Biden's happy about it.
Hey, it worked before. Remember how the biggest issue of the 2016 election was e-mail server best management practices? Trump is trying to make "But Obama!" the new "But her e-mails!"
Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.
I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?
The hypothesis I've seen is that Trump doesn't even know what he's referring to - he's just hoping that by repeating it he can either get someone to dig around and find something or that just the word itself will associate Obama with scandal in people's minds without anything even attached to it. Fuck knows why he's targeting Obama but presumably Biden's happy about it.
Hey, it worked before. Remember how the biggest issue of the 2016 election was e-mail server best management practices? Trump is trying to make "But Obama!" the new "But her e-mails!"
At least in that instance Trump was running against Hilary. He's not running against Obama and I don't really understand the point.
Trump is the King of the Birthers. He's always been running against Obama.
Right on. He wants to wipe out every trace of Obama from the record. Cleanse the Presidency of the "aberration". All fellow travellers must go. Anyone he appointed must go. It's his idea of a deep clean.
There remains a very deep racial divide within the United States, and 45 is the epitome of it. He ran on racism, and he won on it.
Last week, Obama had a discussion on how bad the current administration has handled the crisis. Mitch McConnell fires back that Obama should keep his mouth shut. This is racism at its worse. No uppity black man should speak out against the master rac(ist). When Mitch was a young man, such a situation would have resulted in a lynching.
People aren't always happy when a former president speaks up about anything important. McConnell may well mean it exactly as you said. But it might also be a matter of "we've got enough trouble without you speaking up; you had your turn, you can't run again, and you're distracting voters from their proper true allegiance to T; and I'm so scared about Republicans losing the White House, AND about this bozo *keeping* it for another 4 years that I can't think at all".
Except that no voters owe any allegiance to T (though granted, McConnell may THINK so), and surely he wouldn't consider T a bozo? Given he's been propping him up for so long at the expense of everything, including personal honor and integrity.
Well, thinking through possible reasons for his comments, it occurred to me that he *might* hate T for just those reasons. He may feel/be in a hellish situation where he's wayyyyy down an acid-lined rabbit hole which was *supposed* to lead to a golden crown, a pot of gold, and delicious golden carrots. There's something further down the hole, but it growls and stinks--and not of carrots.
So he can continue down, and meet The Thing; climb back up, burning from acid all the while; stay exactly where he is, and carry himself as if Everything's All Right, Except For Obama and the Democrats; or, if desperate enough, paw diagonally up through the soil, and perhaps crawl out more safely.
T certainly thinks voters--his base, at least--owe him allegiance. And McConnell may well believe (or say he does) that (all right-thinking) voters owe their allegiance to the Republican Party, possibly to T--and maybe to *himself*. If McC has any discontent with T, it must be galling for him to "preserve, protect, and defend"* T and all his works.**
*Part of various government oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".
**Paraphrase of "the devil and all his works". Not saying T = devil (though I sometimes wonder if he's the Anti-Christ, or maybe the Beast); but if McC hates T, he may well think it--whether meant literally or not.
Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.
I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?
It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.
There are no end of substantive criticisms that can be made of his presidency, and be made by people who are qualified to make them - politicians, government officials, economists, and so on. But what grabs the headlines is when a film star complains.
De Niro is undoubtedly an accomplished actor, producer, and director, but essentially he meets the famous definition "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. His comments stand out not on the grounds of any particular expertise in the field but on the grounds of his general notoriety.
And when a culture takes notice of comments on the grounds of general notoriety rather than actual expertise, I think the stage is set to elect populists.
The thing is, the idea of "owing allegiance" to a person rather than to the country itself is a freaky innovation to the vast majority of us. I'm not saying some kook here and there in the past might not have thought or demanded it--we've had crazy leaders before--but in my own admittedly limited knowledge, Trump's demand for personal allegiance, loyalty, hell, even worship it seems, is a major break with the past.
To be sure, McConnell could delude himself into thinking it is not. He has already sacrificed the historic freedom and dignity of the Senate to the overbearing fuckwittery of a different branch of the government--a thing that ordinary self-interest should have prevented, if not integrity. It will be interesting some day when the dust has settled (please God) to see what the fuck caused such a supine attitude on the part of McConnell and many others. I keep thinking they're smoking something.
Not in this country, not as a part of our citizen-ly ethos. We are loyal to a country, pledge allegiance to a nation (and to a flag as a symbol of that nation)--not to a person. It's actually something we tend to pride ourselves on as Americans, and comes bundled up with all that stuff about 1776 and not having a king and so on and so forth. Trump is on thin ice demanding "loyalty", and "allegiance" is right out.
Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).
You can see this feature in other aspects of our political system. We have very few positions that are "for life"--most of our politicians have to seek re-election more or less constantly, and presidents in particular have term limits. It makes no sense to demand loyalty or God forbid, "allegiance" to a person who may be gone in four years and will certainly be gone in eight. By attempting to break this norm, Trump has gone right against the grain of mainstream American politics. I'm not saying that nobody's ever tried that before, and I'm not even saying he won't succeed (though I think he won't). But I'm trying to explain just how unnatural that sort of thing is to us.
OK, I see what you mean. I would use allegiance and loyalty as synonyms. People talk about being loyal in politics. Party loyalty is highly valued, because our executive branch comes out of our legislative branch. Failure to tow the party line is regarded as a very grave sin, and can get you expelled.
Now, as for Obama speaking out. There is a deep-felt norm that former presidents ought not to undermine their successors, nor publicly comment on their idiocies, nor behave in any way that is likely to make the current president's office more difficult for him to carry out. As a former president, your job is to write books, found a library, make speeches, be on call for words of wisdom (and occasionally more substantial efforts as an elder statesman, though always under the direction of the current POTUS), and keep a decorous distance from the political fray. Obama's problem (besides the massive historical one of being the first mixed-race/black/whatever you want to call it POTUS) is that he was an exceptionally competent and well-loved (though not by all) POTUS, and therefore a hard act to follow even by a competent man. And we all know what Trump is. By merely existing Obama is a rebuke to Trump. And I give Obama massive credit for holding his tongue this long and this well. It cannot be easy to watch your successor behave in such a consistently stupid, malicious, and detrimental fashion. It must be even harder when any number of people are urging you to intervene in some fashion, and you know damned well that a) it'll do more harm than good, and b) given your unique historical position, the norms for former presidents are even MORE binding on you than on everybody else, and c) upholding and strengthening the norms is probably the most important thing you can do, given that norm-breaking is this POTUS's modus operandi and at the root of all his shit.
Now Mitch McConnell--well, and we see what he is, too. He ought not to have spoken as he did. I don't disagree with those who say "racism," but what I see is "T has fucked up, I'm fucked up along with him, there is no way to defuckify what we've gotten ourselves into, and now Obama (from the distant Olympian heights of nonfuckedupness) has laid a finger on my extremely sore spot and I'm going to erupt."
Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).
Thanks LC, you've given me the thinnest excuse to link to my favourite one of these. I don't know anything about American football, but I just substitute Man City (before the Arabs), or (my own team) West Ham - many UK readers will have their favourite shit team
GK - I liked your rabbit-hole analogy. But the comic link suggests another, nobler, stronger reason for sticking with Trump through thick and, err, thick
Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.
I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?
It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.
There are no end of substantive criticisms that can be made of his presidency, and be made by people who are qualified to make them - politicians, government officials, economists, and so on. But what grabs the headlines is when a film star complains.
De Niro is undoubtedly an accomplished actor, producer, and director, but essentially he meets the famous definition "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. His comments stand out not on the grounds of any particular expertise in the field but on the grounds of his general notoriety.
And when a culture takes notice of comments on the grounds of general notoriety rather than actual expertise, I think the stage is set to elect populists.
Yeah, but it's me who enjoyed watching De Niro attack Trump, not a culture. I didn't enjoy it because he's a film star, but because he's articulate, impassioned and eccentric. Presumably, you would predict that I'm "exactly" the person to be seduced by populists. Turning it into a generalization makes it meaningless.
Comments
One might be tempted to reverse the words, and sing 'Die, and let [others] live', but that would be unChristian™...
Reporter says he was punished for revealing Pences's office knew about Mayo Clinic's mask policy before his visit,
Is there no end to the sheer numptiness of these so-called 'leaders'?
Why are they not in a secure mental institution? They are obviously completely out of touch with real life, and need urgent therapy.
Ah yes, I posted as the man speaks. This isn't about being on the left or anywhere politically. It's also not about honour. I'm frankly annoyed that people present when he speaks don't violate convention and contradict him, call him out. But the mythology and respect to the office of a temporary king prevent it. The emperor has no clothes.
Nor can I. I will politely refer to him as "the current occupant of the White House" as I do not accept him as the legitimately elected President. The White House is sede vacante so far as I am concerned.
Impolitely, I refer to him as the "fartletter-in-chief" since of his actions stemming from the many titles he holds, that seems to be what he does best.
Punished?
He should thank his lucky stars!
But, here is another opinion piece published in the Washington Post on 45's continual gaslighting.
Regards Pence self-isolating: it had been reported that he was self-isolating on Sunday, but this morning, lo and behold, we see he is not self-isolating.
However, there is no doubt that 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 (The White House) has now become a hot spot for the virus.
OMG!!!
And even more so if they're Asian (or Black or Hispanic...).
The article goes on to detail how much he's stuck in the past. I've thought for some time that T is trying to recreate the world of his youth (e.g., strong-man leaders, nationalism, racism--which still exist today of course). This is more of the same.
Funny thing is, the one POTUS of Trump's lifetime who actually did cultivate a strongman image was Ronald Reagan, and Trump has gone on the record as saying he dislikes Reagan.
Not sure we've had any other presidents that would fit in that group.
As someone else commented, Trump is trying to crowdsource a fake scandal.
Is there no end to this man's lunacy?
That quote has been attributed to Goebbels, but cannot be verified. But this one can.
It's odd to think that the first might have some power in a Western democracy, but it's where you end up if sufficient people believe the claim "Fake News". So far as the second is concerned, leadership looks less ridiculous of course if any real Fake News outlet consistently reinforces the assertion that mainstream news is Fake News.
Here it is - https://tinyurl.com/yazebb5r
Insane is the right word...
If there is anything that proves presidential term limits was a mistake, it is this current administration. The previous president had dealt with three epidemics during his terms: the Swine Flu, Ebola, and Zika. He even developed a detailed playbook on how to deal with any future pandemics. I cannot help but wonder if he were allowed to run for a third term--and won, how much of a difference there would have been in controlling the current pandemic.
Instead, we are saddled with the most incompetent administration in the history of the United States which threw out the playbook and is flying blind.
----
There is an interesting situation where the DOJ under Barr has moved to drop all charges against Micheal Flynn, but the district judge who is handling the case has not agreed to the new motion.
I cannot remember any other time with a federal or state judge not agreeing to a motion to drop a case when the motion comes from the prosecuting side.
The Flynn case is a bit different than a typical prosecution in that Flynn has already plead guilty so the prosecution's work is theoretically done. All that's left is the sentencing.
In other words, Flynn isn't charged with anything right now. He's been convicted.
The hypothesis I've seen is that Trump doesn't even know what he's referring to - he's just hoping that by repeating it he can either get someone to dig around and find something or that just the word itself will associate Obama with scandal in people's minds without anything even attached to it. Fuck knows why he's targeting Obama but presumably Biden's happy about it.
Hey, it worked before. Remember how the biggest issue of the 2016 election was e-mail server best management practices? Trump is trying to make "But Obama!" the new "But her e-mails!"
I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?
At least in that instance Trump was running against Hilary. He's not running against Obama and I don't really understand the point.
Trump is the King of the Birthers. He's always been running against Obama.
Right on. He wants to wipe out every trace of Obama from the record. Cleanse the Presidency of the "aberration". All fellow travellers must go. Anyone he appointed must go. It's his idea of a deep clean.
(His successor will need a very powerful bleach.)
Last week, Obama had a discussion on how bad the current administration has handled the crisis. Mitch McConnell fires back that Obama should keep his mouth shut. This is racism at its worse. No uppity black man should speak out against the master rac(ist). When Mitch was a young man, such a situation would have resulted in a lynching.
Yes, but.
People aren't always happy when a former president speaks up about anything important. McConnell may well mean it exactly as you said. But it might also be a matter of "we've got enough trouble without you speaking up; you had your turn, you can't run again, and you're distracting voters from their proper true allegiance to T; and I'm so scared about Republicans losing the White House, AND about this bozo *keeping* it for another 4 years that I can't think at all".
Well, thinking through possible reasons for his comments, it occurred to me that he *might* hate T for just those reasons. He may feel/be in a hellish situation where he's wayyyyy down an acid-lined rabbit hole which was *supposed* to lead to a golden crown, a pot of gold, and delicious golden carrots. There's something further down the hole, but it growls and stinks--and not of carrots.
So he can continue down, and meet The Thing; climb back up, burning from acid all the while; stay exactly where he is, and carry himself as if Everything's All Right, Except For Obama and the Democrats; or, if desperate enough, paw diagonally up through the soil, and perhaps crawl out more safely.
T certainly thinks voters--his base, at least--owe him allegiance. And McConnell may well believe (or say he does) that (all right-thinking) voters owe their allegiance to the Republican Party, possibly to T--and maybe to *himself*. If McC has any discontent with T, it must be galling for him to "preserve, protect, and defend"* T and all his works.**
*Part of various government oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".
**Paraphrase of "the devil and all his works". Not saying T = devil (though I sometimes wonder if he's the Anti-Christ, or maybe the Beast); but if McC hates T, he may well think it--whether meant literally or not.
FWIW.
It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.
There are no end of substantive criticisms that can be made of his presidency, and be made by people who are qualified to make them - politicians, government officials, economists, and so on. But what grabs the headlines is when a film star complains.
De Niro is undoubtedly an accomplished actor, producer, and director, but essentially he meets the famous definition "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. His comments stand out not on the grounds of any particular expertise in the field but on the grounds of his general notoriety.
And when a culture takes notice of comments on the grounds of general notoriety rather than actual expertise, I think the stage is set to elect populists.
To be sure, McConnell could delude himself into thinking it is not. He has already sacrificed the historic freedom and dignity of the Senate to the overbearing fuckwittery of a different branch of the government--a thing that ordinary self-interest should have prevented, if not integrity. It will be interesting some day when the dust has settled (please God) to see what the fuck caused such a supine attitude on the part of McConnell and many others. I keep thinking they're smoking something.
Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).
You can see this feature in other aspects of our political system. We have very few positions that are "for life"--most of our politicians have to seek re-election more or less constantly, and presidents in particular have term limits. It makes no sense to demand loyalty or God forbid, "allegiance" to a person who may be gone in four years and will certainly be gone in eight. By attempting to break this norm, Trump has gone right against the grain of mainstream American politics. I'm not saying that nobody's ever tried that before, and I'm not even saying he won't succeed (though I think he won't). But I'm trying to explain just how unnatural that sort of thing is to us.
Now Mitch McConnell--well, and we see what he is, too. He ought not to have spoken as he did. I don't disagree with those who say "racism," but what I see is "T has fucked up, I'm fucked up along with him, there is no way to defuckify what we've gotten ourselves into, and now Obama (from the distant Olympian heights of nonfuckedupness) has laid a finger on my extremely sore spot and I'm going to erupt."
Thanks LC, you've given me the thinnest excuse to link to my favourite one of these. I don't know anything about American football, but I just substitute Man City (before the Arabs), or (my own team) West Ham - many UK readers will have their favourite shit team
GK - I liked your rabbit-hole analogy. But the comic link suggests another, nobler, stronger reason for sticking with Trump through thick and, err, thick
Yeah, but it's me who enjoyed watching De Niro attack Trump, not a culture. I didn't enjoy it because he's a film star, but because he's articulate, impassioned and eccentric. Presumably, you would predict that I'm "exactly" the person to be seduced by populists. Turning it into a generalization makes it meaningless.