The Trump Diet consists of feeding his followers crap until they gag till they gag, They never do,
We have seen the Republican political establishment from Romney on down consume unlimited quantities of crap and say it tastes good.
Coal miners love to crap eat crap.
The farmers say they don't like the taste of crap but they chow down on it all the same,
And now we have the active military and the retired, We'll see how much crap they want. If they don't respond to Trump's studied insult to McCain, they will have to eat the crap that he's put on the table for them.
I predict they will salute it and eat it,
Very good. This is an important insight for you. That Trump supporters will be Trump supporters NO MATTER WHAT.
ReplyDeleteThat's important if you think about it.
The next important step is to realize that it matters little if they're the most racist, sexist, horrible, deplorable, etc. bunch of primates that ever existed in the universe. They are who they are pretty much no matter what you say or do. If you can grasp that insight as well, then you might have a chance to actually have influence.
Actually, Bret, there is no insight in this post.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Harry, but this is trivial, as promptly demonstrated by Bret. He is eating this crap whole, and enjoying it, since the very begin.
What's more, if a very smart person as he is does so - willingly taking part in this sad and farcical savagery that is to support Trump and his policies, you have no hill to run to.
McCain made it perfectly clear Trump wasn't invited to the funeral.
ReplyDeletePerhaps grace in death goes both ways?
It's his funeral. The White House flag doesn't belong to Trump.
DeleteM:
DeletePoint missed.
[Clovis:] ... willingly taking part in this sad and farcical savagery that is to support Trump and his policies, you have no hill to run to.
ReplyDeleteWhich is worse, anything Trump has done, or the epic political corruption in the DOJ and FBI?
That's easy - anything Trump has done. Most of the political corruption you and other Trumpsters are so livid about is "fake news" anyway. It amounts to nothing more than a select few agents and officials holding political opinions with which you disagree.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[M:] Most of the political corruption you and other Trumpsters are so livid about is "fake news" anyway.
ReplyDeleteBollocks.
Here are the facts.
From an organization that hates Trump, and in the run-up to the 2016 election published 22 opinion pieces from every writer at NRO slamming Trump.
Lots of facts there. I'm sure you can tell us how they are fake news.
After you have done that, which you won't because you can't, then we can discuss what Trump has done that is worse.
When you side with the criminals, I give up on you.
DeleteVictor Davis Hanson is not NRO. He's just a columnist, and like the rest of the Republican party, he's tied himself to the sinking ship of the most corrupt presidency in history. There are precious few "facts" in that article; what facts there are have been twisted and presented in incomplete forms. It's pathetic.
As I have said before, for a large plurality of Americans, democracy is the hated enemy. I am well aware of the despicable character of the Trumpeters.
ReplyDeleteA person is either a fascist or an antifascist. All the fencestters are just fascists
[M:] When you side with the criminals, I give up on you.
ReplyDeleteVictor Davis Hanson is not NRO.
Then by all means google Andrew McCarthy and Trump.
Once having done that, do what you have failed to do to this point, and demonstrate how the facts are wrong.
Instead of indulging in ad hominem attack, which is about the most pathetic fallacy there is.
[Harry:] As I have said before, for a large plurality of Americans, democracy is the hated enemy.
ReplyDeleteIf you knew anything about US history, then you would know that to the founders, democracy was a very feared enemy.
Which is why the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Bret, the following is from a FB thread (in which I was probably the most rightward participant). Dunno who Julius Goat is:
ReplyDelete' "Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
'That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
'They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?" -Julius Goat'
It is worth remembering that when 3,000,000 Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Spaniards and Finns crossed the borders of the USSR in June 1941, they were made up of many different attitudes toward naziism, but all the Red Army soldiers saw was fascists; and that by 1943, when the Stalin organs were raining down hundreds of thousands of rockets on them, the rockets did not distinguish between the fanatical brownshirt and the reluctant conscript.
I think the judgement of history is already fairly clear. "Trump" will have the same connotation as "Nazi" - if not in degree, then in kind - and Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" comment will be seen as perhaps the single most Kinsleyesque statement of all time. The only question is how long before the Trumpists are relegated to the fringe status they deserve.
DeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
Which is worse, anything Trump has done, or the epic political corruption in the DOJ and FBI?
---
Can you objectively differentiate, among the aggregate actions of the DOJ and FBI, between operatives trying to subvert an election (which, as I understand, is your main charge - correct me if wrong) and too eager agents of the Law trying to get closer view on suspect activities, among them foreign actors trying to help Trump's campaign?
I can't. And 2/3 of the points on your link are very biased to the subversion hypothesis, without recognition of shady aspects of the campaign and its operatives.
Those are unbalanced views, as are yours. But I just won't lose my time correcting your perceptions to what I believe to be a more honest light, it is hopeless.
And to answer your initial question, I believe Trump's damage to the DOJ and FBI has been greater than any damage those institutions have caused with their own mistakes. Most of the actors now villified by your Trump bubble were doing their best, even if acting under on their own investigative biases - they were not trying to sabotage the elections as you pose. Trump, OTOH, is clearly aiming at directly hindering due process and counter-weights to his executive power. His constant whining about Jeff Sessions (a staunch Trumpster who no one can acccuse of subversion, or can you?) gives away the game, and makes a clown of supporters such as you, Mr. Skipper.
If te DOJ or FBI were actually biased in favor of Democrats, that would be astounding news. It has always been the other way round.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence I've seen of bias toward Democrats, just as there was never any evidence of scandal regarding the Benghazi attack, although that did not stop the fascists from running endless investigations.
There's this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/world/europe/germany-neo-nazi-protests-chemnitz.html?imp_id=823289897&action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Don't expect to see as much about this on Fox as about the non-existent violence against white farmers in South Africa
And this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-doesnt-see-latinos-as-americans/2018/08/30/0ab8b7de-ac83-11e8-b1da-ff7faa680710_story.html?utm_term=.f74c76668cfe
[Clovis:] Can you objectively differentiate, among the aggregate actions of the DOJ and FBI, between operatives trying to subvert an election (which, as I understand, is your main charge - correct me if wrong) and too eager agents of the Law trying to get closer view on suspect activities, among them foreign actors trying to help Trump's campaign?
ReplyDeleteMy main charge is that there is ample evidence of epic DOJ corruption in the runup to the election, and then ongoing attempts to subvert the outcome of a fair election.
So instead of blather, how about providing specifics about how, say, Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal got it wrong.
Or National Review's Andrew McCarthy.
Just for starters.
Remember, this is the same FBI responsible for that grotesque Ted Stevens investigation, which is the same FBI whose anthrax investigation drove an innocent person to suicide, and did its level best to destroy the life of Richard Jewell.
The evidence against the FBI is damning and extensive, despite the FBI's attempts to keep it hidden.
Oh, and pertaining to this post, McCain gave the Steele dossier, funded by the DNC through a cutout, which colluded with a foreign national, to pay anonymous informants for made up stories, to the FBI.
[Harry:] There is no evidence I've seen of bias toward Democrats ...
ReplyDeleteYou don't get out much, do you?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Oh, and pertaining to this post, McCain gave the Steele dossier, funded by the DNC through a cutout, which colluded with a foreign national, to pay anonymous informants for made up stories, to the FBI.
---
Do you believe McCain's action was wrong? In his position, wouldn't you want to pass it on to the FBI too, so they could check it up?
If not, why?
And the point you miss about the FBI is that, even knowing the money trail hiring Steele, most of the agents with connections to him had only good reasons to take his work seriously.
And, heck, there is alot in the dossier that was pretty close to mark. Because a lot of Trump associates are indeed pretty shady. Or do you think the allegations against Manafort and Cohen are pure fabrications?
Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF, I believe you wouldn't do things too diferently than a lot of those FBI agents.
Clovis, the FBI violated DOJ and FISA guidelines -- they corrupted the FISA court. They used their leaks of the dossier reported in the press as "verification" of its contents. The FBI failed to report Steele's antagonism towards Trump, and also completely neglected to mention that the DNC was the source of the dossier's funding.
ReplyDeleteBruce Ohr, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, failed to disclose that his wife was working with Steele.
There is absolutely no evidence for anything in the dossier, save for the fig leaves that were already public knowledge.
Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF ...
I'd like to think I'd never have anything to do with something as epically corrupt as what the DOJ and FBI have gotten up to (and we haven't even gotten to the incredibly shambolic investigation of Hillary's server).
Your comment is disgusting, btw.
This should help relieve your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
Your comment is disgusting, btw.
---
Why?
[Clovis:] Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF ...
ReplyDeleteThat's disgusting. Your ignorance is no reflection upon my career.
The Air Force is and has been a notoriously corrupt organization since at least 1966. FBI ditto, and for even longer, although the FBI has always been a rightwing secret police. If it suddenly started being corrupt for Democrats, that would require a monumental explanation.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete---
That's disgusting. Your ignorance is no reflection upon my career.
---
Would you expand that one?
I was not really mentioning your career, of which I am indeed ignorant, but the ethos of the office.
Why would it be a 'digusting' argument?
Harry,
ReplyDelete---
The Air Force is and has been a notoriously corrupt organization since at least 1966.
---
What changed in 1966? And why?
[Clovis:] Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF ...
ReplyDeleteLater ...
I was not really mentioning your career ...
Mr. Jaw meet Mr. Floor with loud, anvil-like clang.
Why would it be a 'disgusting' argument?
Because it is just a different version of shouting racist. It is an insult where an argument belongs.
If you had an argument, you would have shown how Holman Jenkins or Andrew McCarthy got it wrong, and that therefore the FBI's conduct was absolutely pristine.
But instead of doing that, you accuse me of being a lousy officer because I wouldn't have been engaged in perhaps the worst political corruption of the last 150 years.
Do you believe McCain's action was wrong? In his position, wouldn't you want to pass it on to the FBI too, so they could check it up?
What else might McCain have done? After all, the dossier wasn't classified, was it?
One of the things he could have done is given it to the Trump campaign. After all, since it was funded by the DNC through a cut-out to collude with a foreign national in order to purchase unverifiable stories from anonymous sources, why shouldn't the Trump campaign see it?
Or, at the very least, alert the Trump campaign to what he had given the FBI.
He didn't do either of those seemingly obvious things.
And, it should be worth noting, had Hillary won, we would have learned about none of this.
[Harry:] The Air Force is and has been a notoriously corrupt organization since at least 1966.
ReplyDelete---
[Clovis:] What changed in 1966? And why?
Nothing. Everyone and everything disagreeing with Harry is incompetent or corrupt. And racist too. Oh, and don't forget fascist.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
But instead of doing that, you accuse me of being a lousy officer because I wouldn't have been engaged in perhaps the worst political corruption of the last 150 years.
---
I don't think you were a lousy officer, but I am absolutely sure you are a lousy reader.
Text interpretation is bound to fail for every one, but after I explicitly reframed my question, you have no excuse anymore, Sir.
---
If you had an argument, you would have shown how Holman Jenkins or Andrew McCarthy got it wrong, and that therefore the FBI's conduct was absolutely pristine.
---
I do have a fre counter-arguments, but I am not motivated to engage on that discussion with you, unless you greatly improve your good will to exchange written words.
---
One of the things he could have done is given it to the Trump campaign.
---
Two questions:
1) Why ought he? The Trump campaign were not offciers of the law. I find this point almost absurd.
2) Why are you so sure he didn't?
[Clovis:] 1) Why ought he? The Trump campaign were not officers of the law. I find this point almost absurd.
ReplyDeleteWhat does being officers of the law have to do with it? The dossier wasn't a legal document, it had no classification, and even then should have been viewed as likely slander.
What is absurd is that the dossier was kept secret from the Trump campaign, while it was being used as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign. What is appalling is that the FBI themselves never told the Trump campaign about it.
2) Why are you so sure he didn't?
You tell me. When did Trump find out about it?
I do have a fre counter-arguments, but I am not motivated to engage on that discussion with you, unless you greatly improve your good will to exchange written words.
Then how about avoiding stuff like Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF ... in the first place?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Then how about avoiding stuff like Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF ... in the first place?
---
Unless you were a disaster of an officer in the AF, you do understand the concept of due dilligence and honest pursue of a task.
I hold that most of the FBI officers you villify were doing just that.
And as you see, my comment, though placed in personal language, can't possibly be a personal one, since you obviously know the extent of my true knowledge about your career (zero!).
I can't understand how you could interpret any different. And in the above context, my comment was fair play and within civil boundaries. The possibly slightly provocative content being there as eye-catcher, not as insult.
And this has been my style since we first engaged in this absolute waste of time that blogs are.
I hold that most of the FBI officers you vilify were doing just that.
ReplyDeleteClovis, I'm not vilifying them, reality is. They scrapped their professional obligations and went all in to first elect Hillary, and when that failed, undermine Trump. That isn't due diligence, that is a disgrace.
What crap. They were investigating potential criminal activity. They were under no obligation to share their evidence with the suspects. They were doing their duty, and nothing more - as opposed to the elements within the FBI (primarily the Clinton-hating NY office) that went above and beyond and helped elect your guy.
DeleteThey were investigating criminals. You would abet them. That is, in a word, deplorable.
Skipper,
ReplyDeleteSince you have great difficulty at understanding what corruption is, let me show by an explicit example. This is corruption, pure and simple:
Trump, in the last 24 hours:
""Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff...."
See, this is what you defend.
[M:] What crap. They were investigating potential criminal activity.
ReplyDeleteM, how about you take a look at the link I provided above, this one, and tell us what it got wrong.
Everything. I can summarize, however, with one simple fact: if there was such a dichotomy in the handling of Clinton's e-mails vs. the Russia investigation, then how come all we heard about through election day 2016 was the former?
DeleteThe fact is, Clinton's e-mails were a political circus invented solely to weaken her candidacy, while the Russia investigation dated back to 2012 and only involved Trump when his campaign took on an alarming number of individuals with ties to Russian organized crime.
It is certainly possible to attack the FBI and DOJ for institutional failures and even corruption. But the specific cases you're so interested in give your game away; you have no real interest in institutional corruption. You just want to protect Trump and your tribe.
I've really had enough at this point. Call it throwing in the towel if you want, but you're never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you. This has wasted enough of my time, and I need to go back to lurking.
[Clovis:] See, this is what you defend.
ReplyDeleteAttacking the FBI and DOJ for epic political corruption is not defending Trump.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Attacking the FBI and DOJ for epic political corruption is not defending Trump.
---
While closing the eyes to worst corruption from a place even more powerful than those two institutions?
I knew I would be wasting my time by even getting at this subject with you, and I still regret it nonetheless. Dumb me.
While closing the eyes to worst corruption from a place even more powerful than those two institutions?
ReplyDeleteThat is ridiculous. Nothing Trump has done comes anywhere close to what the FBI and DOJ have gotten up to.
And, if you want to play this game, you should understand that Hillary is far more corrupt than Trump.
Let's start with the worst thing Trump has done, and compare with the worst the FBI/DOJ has done, and the worst Hillary has done.
ReplyDeleteYou first.
In '66, a very high officer in the AF was caught faking bombing reports to Congress. (There was a great deal of corruption bein exposed in other services at the same time.) There was little if any outrage voiced by the AF officer corps at the time.
ReplyDeleteSince then there have been endless revelations of corruption in the AF and the other armed services.
Why then? It probably didn't start then. The press started looking critically in light of the complete failure of the military when actually at war.
The chief of staff of the AF at that time was a madman.
A combination of paranoia and zunimited money perhaps would help explain the rot.
[Harry:] The Air Force is and has been a notoriously corrupt organization since at least 1966.
ReplyDeleteMore Harry:
In '66, a very high officer in the AF was caught faking bombing reports to Congress. (There was a great deal of corruption bein exposed in other services at the same time.) There was little if any outrage voiced by the AF officer corps at the time.
Since then there have been endless revelations of corruption in the AF and the other armed services.
In other words, unless the AF (and the other services) are impeccably perfect, they are notoriously corrupt.
Fine. Let's apply that same standard to every other government agency. Or, even easier, journalism.
Alternatively, absent extensive proof, conclude that "notoriously corrupt" gives over egging a very bad name.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
Let's start with the worst thing Trump has done, and compare with the worst the FBI/DOJ has done, and the worst Hillary has done.
You first.
---
I will let the "who's got bigger" discussion for the 8 years old out there.
The exercise you ought to do is, which basic principles you believe in and this President crossed over?
Apparently, in your tribal thinking, you only ask for principles from the "other", and avoid a mirror like a vampire would.
[Clovis:] Apparently, in your tribal thinking, you only ask for principles from the "other", and avoid a mirror like a vampire would.
ReplyDeleteWrong.
I'm insisting that if you have principles, then those principles have to be applied equally.
That means they must apply to Trump's alternative -- Hillary -- just as much as they do to Trump himself.
And I think it safe to say, with plenty of examples to back me up, that Hillary is worse than Trump in virtually every aspect.
Trump paid women to stay silent (which good manners would have suggested in any event) about consensual affairs.
That's tawdry stuff. Not illegal, but tawdry.
Hillary actively shamed rape victims.
Apply your principles.