Were the Allegations Against Trump Answered by the Election? (plus Tweets)

I’m getting sick of the right-wing people who are constantly telling us via tweets, news conferences, editorials, and more, that the question of the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump was answered by “the people” in the 2016 election.

Somehow, Trump is innocent of all the allegations because he won the Electoral College.

If that’s the case, it’s also time for them to shut up about Bill Clinton’s shenanigans. After all, he won an election too, and he got the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.

Oh, and as Hillary Clinton got a much greater share of the vote than The Donald, she’s in the clear too. I don’t think she’s done anything illegal myself, but surely winning the popular vote means she’s out of the woods on any charges made before the election? That’s the logic at work when Sarah Sanders says “the people” answered that question.

And there’s no need to investigate whether the Trump campaign was in collusion with the Russians either. Trump’s win in the election means no one cares whether he did or not. (Actually, I think they’d agree with that one.)

Give me a break.

Winning an election doesn’t put you above the law. Being president doesn’t put you above the law. That’s one of the things the Republic was built on – the rule of law for every body. The president is not a king, though Trump clearly sees himself that way.

It is clear there was a massive attempt by the Russian government to influence US voters to vote for Trump. The only question is whether the Trump campaign was part of the efforts. There are pointers that they were aware of it. There is evidence they were willing to collude. So far, the general public hasn’t seen a smoking gun. We don’t, however, know if the Mueller investigation can say the same.

What’s also interesting is the number, especially on the right, who say there’s no evidence Russia’s interference had any influence on the result of the election. That’s like asking people how much advertising influences them.

We know that the Russian fake news campaign had it’s focus on states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Those states went to Trump largely because reliable Clinton voters didn’t cast a ballot. It’s understandable why they didn’t too. There was an avalanche of negative media about her.

Towards election day, even I had moments of doubt about Hillary Clinton. When James Comey came out and said there were more emails, I began to think I was wrong about her. Of course, a few days later came the announcement that all the emails were copies of ones the investigation saw earlier.

Remember, I was getting almost none of the anti-Hillary social media. When I saw it, it was usually part of a debunking story. For example, I had absolutely no idea about the pizza shop child prostitution story until the man with the gun turned up to rescue the kids. That’s not a story I would have ever thought true, but then I wasn’t the target audience. There was some extreme sophistication in the audience selection for the messages, and there were, and are, plenty of believers. Many still think the Deep State is hiding the truth.

We are still seeing that people will believe almost anything if you package it right. Most Republican voters didn’t believe the pizza-gate story. However, plenty of otherwise intelligent, reasonable Republicans were and are ready to believe the Uranium One story. So are plenty of others.

Ever since his announcement he was running for election, Donald Trump has been in a battle with the “main-stream” media. He calls it the “enemy of the people” and goes out of his way to make people distrust it. Instead, people are told to trust his tweets. I find it very concerning that this message is successful with a  pretty large portion of the US population. I saw them during the election. In interviews they said things like, “I thought Donald Trump was a liar. Then I went to one of his rallies and I found out he is the one telling the truth. He wouldn’t saw all those things direct to the people if they were lies.”

So when the truth does come out in mostly reliable the “main-stream” media, and if that truth is that Trump is a sexual predator who colluded with the Russians, a huge chunk of USians has been conditioned not to believe it. And they won’t. If and when that happens, in a country that is already strongly divided along partisan lines, we could see social uproar.


Political Tweets

I wrote today’s homily before I saw this tweet. I can’t believe this is still going on! But what a brilliant job of dismantling the Republican attempt to deceive!
(Via Ann German.)


How the GOP Tax Plan works:
(Via Ann German.)


(Via Ann German.)

This is truly nauseating. It reminds me of a third-world dictator requiring his subordinates to constantly praise him.


Sound familiar?
(Via Ann German.)


Mueller Time Tweets

The plot thickens.
(Via Ann German.)


Just Plain Worrying Tweets!

(All via Ann German.)



I agree with this response to the above tweets:


There are more reasonable voices, and we can only hope that they carry the day. (The video is 12 minutes long, but worth listening to if you have the time.)
(Via Ann German.)


Human Rights Tweets

Some nice news for a change.
(Via Ann German.)


Very cool.
(Via Ann German.)


More good news. I hope he gets to be a barber like he wants.


Space Tweets

Sensible Canada.
(Via Ann German.)


Very cool indeed.


Also very cool indeed!


Funny Tweets



If only …
(Via Ann German.)


Oh dear …


Weather Tweets

Investigating climate change in Antarctica.


Other Animals Tweets

A lovely short (c. six minutes) film about the Norfolk Broads. (There’s a lot more in here that just “other animals”!)




Otters are still cute.


Reptile Tweets

Beautiful? No. Still as effing scary as ever!!!
(Via Ann German.)


Insect Tweets



Bird Tweets

Lovely swan rescue.


Who knew?
(Via Ann German.)


Dog Tweets

The Far Side cartoons are so good!
(Both via Ann German.)


Tastes like chicken?


This made me laugh!


Cat Tweet

(Via Ann German.)


Moshow spreads some pawsitivity.
(Via Ann German.)


Loving Christmas!


Poor kitty!


I think this is photo-shopped, but it’s cute all the same.


It doesn’t look real!


A cat’s view!



If you enjoyed reading this, please consider donating a dollar or two to help keep the site going. Thank you.



76 Responses to “Were the Allegations Against Trump Answered by the Election? (plus Tweets)”

  1. rickflick says:

    “Being president doesn’t put you above the law. That’s one of the things the Republic was built on – the rule of law for every body.”

    Your a better American than the majority of Americans.

  2. j.a.m. says:

    Trump got a higher share of the popular vote than Bill Clinton did. Hillary got a couple of points more than Trump, which is not what I’d call a “much greater share”. That said, I would agree that Americans are done with the Clintons at this point and don’t really care if they are ever held to account. We just want them to shut up and go away.

    Sexual assault is a crime (albeit not a federal crime). If someone claims Trump assaulted them, all they need to do is swear out a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Police and prosecutors can then investigate the complaint. Of course, that’s not what you’re talking about. You want a political investigation that you hope somehow will damage the President politically. That political question has nothing to do with the administration of justice, and it’s entirely fair to say that the people answered it in the election. (Moreover, in the Clinton impeachment trial, the people, through the Senate, decided that not even perjury and obstruction of justice in the course of covering up sexual misconduct warrant removal from office, so the whole matter should be deemed moot.)

    • j.a.m. says:

      The lamestream media has lost credibility in direct proportion to the rise of the Internet. Trump merely tweets the obvious.

      Over the years the Clintons have proved themselves masters of deceit and disinformation. Few would be surprised if Putin studied their techniques.

      The longer the so-called “collusion” investigation drones on without surfacing anything that remotely resembles collusion, the more it feels like fake news.

    • j.a.m. says:

      “Psychiatrists: President trump ‘is a danger to the public, and the international community.'”

      As long as we’re pathologizing political differences (a la the Soviet Union), we should ask these shrinks to diagnose Sore Loser Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      • Linda Calhoun says:

        Is “Sore Loser Syndrome” your newest snarky meme?

        You yourself said that the goal that people who lose an election should have is to focus on the next election. Well, we are. Pointing out the horrible consequences of Republican policies is focusing on the future. We will continue to shout it from the rooftops. So, you can snark all you want, but it’s probably a better use of your energy to just get over it.

        Trump lied on the campaign trail when he said they were not going to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. The bill just passed will skyrocket the deficit, and then the Republicans will scream that we have to cut the social safety net in order to get it under control. Ryan is already saying that.

        The contract that our country made with people who pay into Social Security and Medicare with each paycheck should not be reneged. I have paid into both for more than half a century, and we’re still paying in because we’re both still working. Should we just kiss that money goodbye so that rich people can have more? Why? And why should I not speak out against that?

        Why are polluted air and water better than clean air and water?

        Why is coal the best fuel, when natural gas burns cleaner, is cheaper, and is easier to transport?

        And, what’s wrong with renewables, other than the fact that they are competing with the oil industry? My electric bill is $16.82 per month, which is a service charge for the billing, not for the electricity itself. When the power companies gouge customers, I’m home safe.

        Why was the tax bill done in secret, with no hearings, and no input from anyone? What’s wrong with transparency?

        Speaking of transparency, I notice you’re still hiding behind your initials. I’m assuming you’re going to continue to do that. I just wanted to let you know that dodging the issue doesn’t make it go away. I get it that that’s the Republican strategy, but some of us out here are still willing to put our names on our opinions.


        • Trevor says:

          He is and always will be to me just.another.moron.

        • j.a.m. says:

          @LC: I would respectfully suggest that we’ve lost a bit of context here. I’m all for substantive debate. However, the context of this thread was set by the original post, followed by other comments that don’t advance healthy debate or understanding — rather, they merely rehash the last election ad nauseam (while throwing out some crackpot coup d’état fantasies). That’s the context for my comments about sore losers, which I must say seems a fair description under these circumstances. One of these fantasies insinuates that the president suffers from a psychiatric disorder. I don’t see how I can be faulted for simply responding to such outrageous provocations.

          If I fulminate or denigrate, that would hardly make me unique around here, would it? But I would respectfully suggest that challenging is not denigrating, and forthright debate is not fulminating. Making a case forcefully in a debate does not mean that one is unwilling to learn. If you have what you consider to be good reasons for what you believe, I assume everyone here is sincerely interested in hearing those reasons. As far as I know, that is the function of a debate.

          I’ve got news for you — the “contributions” that you supposedly “paid into” Medicare for more than half a century will only fund a fraction of the benefits you will receive. The politicians who are lying to you are the ones who tell you the system doesn’t need to be modernized. You can “speak out” all you want, but please get the facts first.

          Everybody’s for clean-enough air and water. If that’s all environmentalism were about, it would be uncontroversial. Unfortunately, it has become a fanatical ideology.

          As for one’s choice of moniker in a forum like this, I frankly don’t see what bearing it has on the soundness of an argument, nor do see that it makes any conceivable difference whether a moniker is abbreviated or spelled out.

          • The reason the election still gets discussed is because Trump continues to bring it up from his bully pulpit. Sarah Sanders said again this week that the question of Trump’s behaviour with women was put to rest by the election. I don’t think it was, which was what I wrote about. I would not have written this post if it was not for Trump spokespeople using the election to answer the question as to why he isn’t responding to charges of sexual abuse.

            As I’ve said multiple times, the GOP is the only major political party IN THE WORLD that doesn’t accept that man-made climate change is a problem. Pulling the US out of the Paris Accord is one of the stupidest things Trump has done. It placed no requirements on him and not only took away US influence in a world body, he handed it to China. The same with TPP. By pulling out of that, he handed over influence in the Asia-Pacific region to China. We have an FTA with China. The US won’t give us one. Then you complain about Chinese influence in NZ. There’s a good reason for that – China is where we make our money. Wtf do you expect?

            It is polite to use your own name in fora such as this. I understand that’s not always possible for reasons of employment etc, but in those cases people should be able to at least use their first name.

          • Linda Calhoun says:

            “Everybody’s for clean-enough air and water.”

            No, they’re not. Scott Pruitt has just rescinded pollution standards for industry which will now allow them to pollute at will. Being “for” something in theory, but not following that up with consistent policies to achieve it is just phony.

            I’m aware that I will get more from Social Security than I have paid in. But all the shrieking about the deficit would carry a lot more weight if Repubs hadn’t just passed a tax cut for rich people that will balloon the deficit by a trillion and a half. Also, there’s the contractual aspect of Social Security. I paid in in good faith. If my country now wants to renege, that’s bad faith, again, especially in light of the tax cut just passed.

            I know that the argument for the tax cut is that it will stimulate the economy and create jobs. It won’t happen. CEOs themselves have told us that; they’re not going to invest in expansion, they’re going to do stock buybacks and bonuses for upper management. And, even if they wanted to expand production, which they don’t, if the buying public has less to spend, it’s not worth the expansion if there’s no market. I remember the Reagan tax cuts well. My big tax cut amounted to less than $2.00 per month. Big Whoop!!

            Interesting factoid: Did you know that Ayn Rand lived out her life being supported by Social Security?


          • nicky says:

            Yes Linda and Heather, that is well put.
            One could add a lot, but not really necessary.

          • j.a.m. says:

            Ayn Rand was an atheist who (unfortunately) took her atheism very seriously.

            If Medicare is a “contract”, then you’re the one who’s in breach, because you haven’t “contributed” enough to cover your benefits on an actuarial basis.

            If the management and board of a company honestly can’t figure out how to make productive use of increased profits resulting from the reformed tax code, then yes, those profits will flow back into the capital markets via dividends and buybacks to fund other ventures. The point is that more capital will be put to work in the productive economy, rather than handed over to politicians.

            Needless to say, the claim that Scott Pruitt has allowed polluters to “pollute at will” (much less that he has the authority to do so) is a ridiculous distortion. At most he’s dialed back some of Obama’s illegal and ideologically-driven excess.

    • David Coxill says:

      HRC got more than 2 million more votes than the snatch snatcher.

    • If the people really don’t care about the Clintons, why do Trump and his fans on Fox stop going on about them?

      And I’d call three million more votes than Trump a lot! It’s a huge victory by presidential election standards, and why so many have a problem accepting that Trump won.

      • j.a.m. says:

        Your guess is as good as mind as to why anyone would care about the Clintons at this point, but I would guess it has something to do with double standards.

        Math is math, and two percent is two percent — NOT a victory at all in this case, and not that much to fuss about in any case. Reagan was elected by 9.7 points, re-elected by 18.2 points. Nixon was re-elected by 23.15 points. Eisenhower was elected by 10.85 points, re-elected by 15.4 points. Obama was elected by 7.27 points, and has the singular and dubious distinction of being re-elected by a much smaller margin, only 3.86 points. Clinton couldn’t even manage that much four years later — against Donald Trump!

        You speak of accepting reality and the rule of law. The reality established per the rule of law is that President Trump is our president, duly elected and sworn. It is the sore losers who are “completely out of touch with reality”. They’re hurting our country, but mostly they’re just damaging their own fragile mental health.

        • Linda Calhoun says:

          “It is the sore losers who are ‘completely out of touch with reality’. They’re hurting our country, but mostly they’re just damaging their own fragile mental health.”

          How does it hurt our country when people with a different viewpoint than yours fight for their viewpoint? I am as committed to my beliefs as you are to yours, and I have what I consider to be good reasons for what I believe. Calling people “sore loses” over and over again does not constitute a contribution to the debate.

          And, you have absolutely no basis for assessing anyone’s mental health. Again, that does not contribute to a healthy debate.

          If you’re so smart, and so mentally healthy, why haven’t you figured out that denigrating people isn’t a good strategy for convincing them of your views? It looks like you just come here to fulminate. I don’t see any real interest on your part in anything beyond that.

          My mental health is just fine, thank you.


          PS: Here’s a hint. Being a good LISTENER helps a lot. And, you might even learn something. Of course, if you already know it all, that’s not really possible, is it?

        • Have I ever said Trump is not president? No, I have not. What I have done is criticize your election system which I see as both unfair and corrupt. Imo, a president should be elected by popular vote. I think it is wrong that that in most states a candidate only has to get the most votes to get all electoral college votes for that state. I also think the electoral college votes are unfairly distributed. I also think it’s wrong that electoral boundaries aren’t determined by independent commissions as they are in most countries. Gerrymandering is a disgusting practice. Both parties do it, but the Republicans do it more. Then there’s all the rules designed to make it hard for people who are likely to vote Democrat to vote at all. Alabama, for example, doesn’t even have early voting. If you can’t vote on a Tuesday, that’s it. Many states even limit the number of polling places in poor districts. That is also a problem for disabled voters.

          Voting is one of the fundamental parts of o good democracy and should not be the way it is in the US. Many states are still doing their best to stop African Americans from voting for goodness sake! The whole thing sickens me.

          • j.a.m. says:

            Okay, I hear you and I have an elegant solution: Don’t move here.

            Better yet, spend a couple of years here and unburden yourself of your misconceptions.

          • Steven in Tokyo says:

            @jam You’ve written the same thing many times in the past. Are you running out of snarky comments? Or are you unsatisfied unless you can be rude to our host on a regular basis?

          • j.a.m. says:

            “Imo, a president should be elected by popular vote.”

            If that is your considered opinion, then wouldn’t it make sense to start your campaign with your own country? Your current head of state was appointed for life by God, solely based on heredity, before most of her royal subjects were born. The current prime minister received less than 37% of the popular vote (way less than Trump’s popular vote share, in case the point is lost on anyone).

          • Wait and see what I’m doing about our head of state. It;s not time for a public announcement yet. And I’ve written that I don’t think that Jacinda should be PM based on her poll numbers and that our system should change. Most NZers agree on that. No one is pretending that she is anything other than she is though, unlike Trump, who still hands out maps with the counties coloured in to interviewers etc FFS!

          • j.a.m. says:

            Great to hear, will eagerly await the public announcement.

            Don’t forget our northern neighbors, who also need to be liberated.

      • nicky says:

        And she would have won the Electoral College too if it hadn’t been for voter disenfranchisement, ‘Cross check’ and counting ‘irregularities’. Fraud, in other words. Mr Trump is an usurper.

      • nicky says:

        Well, I don’t have much problems with an EC that elects a president despite the popular vote in itself, rules of the game and things like that. That is, in fact I do have serious objections, but it is not the main reason I object to the election of Mr Trump.
        At the risk of repeating myself, I object to voter disenfranchisement, particularly ‘Cross-Check’ that barred tens of thousands from voting, but also, say, closing of voting stations in ‘coloured’ areas, and not having an official off-day on voting day (there is much more there, but i won’t go into that here) .
        And, even more importantly, I object to the counting ‘irregularities’. In all the swing states where Ms Clinton had a lead in the exit polls, Mr Trump won. All those states had a Rep overseeing the voting. Only one exception: Virginia. The exit polls and counting went the same way, and, surprise, surprise, the vote was overseen by a Dem there.
        Exit polls are considered very reliable, they rarely differ more than a few tenths of a percent from the final results (eg. Brexit). As soon as they differ by more than one percent, let alone 3, 4 or even 7 % (as found in those swing states), there is a very strong case for foul play to be made*. These discrepancies were not investigated, and as long they are not investigated by an impartial or bipartisan body, I claim that Mr Trump became president by fraud. He is an USURPER, in other words.

        *note that the election results in Ukraine were rejected by the US precisely for that reason: exit polls differing from results by 2 to 4%.

        • j.a.m. says:

          @nicky: I’m afraid you are repeating yourself. Your implicit assumption is that the losing party lacks the political will or financial wherewithal to mount a challenge where there are factual and legal grounds for doing so. If you really believe that is the case, I invite you to Google “hanging chad”. There was no such challenge in 2016 because there were grounds. (I know, I know, that does not mean that UFO sightings are not real.)

          Respectfully, your faith in exit polls is just naive. You underestimate the logistical and statistical complexity of designing and executing them at the scale of a U.S. presidential election.

  3. nicky says:

    Unbelievable, that sycophantic, puppy-bullying, arselicking floormatting by Mr Pence. Toe-cringingly, prostate-crampingly, nauseatingly embarassing.
    Would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. The demise of a democracy…

    • j.a.m. says:

      Sounds like the White House press corps when Obama walked in the room.

      • No, it doesn’t. There were some like that, just like there are some like that with Trump. The main stream media were simply fair. It never seems to occur to extreme partisans like you that they criticized Obama less because there was less to criticize!

        • Mark R. says:

          And Obama wasn’t a blatant liar and a self-serving moron. It is much more difficult to criticize someone who has class, intelligence and honor.

          • The bi-partisan fact checkers mentioned elsewhere prove this. While the right-wing are writing them off as having a liberal bias, Politifact actually labelled one of Obama’s lies “Lie of the Year”.

          • Otherwise, most of his comments were honest.

            Hillary Clinton, who has a reputation for dishonesty, due in no small part to Trump’s labelling of her, was actually the most honest politician in the 2016 race. And yes, she was more honest than Bernie too.

          • j.a.m. says:

            The Clintons’ record of shameless mendacity goes back decades. Their reputation was well-established long before Trump.

        • j.a.m. says:

          And it never seems to occur to extreme partisans like you that they dared not question Obama because he was their Dear Leader and they were his worshipful disciples.

          • Except I’m not an extreme partisan, and I did criticize Obama when I thought he was wrong.

            As for “daring” to criticize, I have absolutely no fear about criticizing anybody. It’s one of the advantages of living in a truly free country. I have always, from my earliest childhood, been the sort of person who speaks their mind. It’s not something women were supposed to do 50 years ago of course, and I frequently got in trouble for it (though never legal trouble), but it never stopped me.

          • nicky says:

            That is simply not true, he got quite a bit of criticism from his ‘own side’:
            Obama got a lot of flak for his escalation of the ‘drone tactics’.
            He got criticised quite a bit for not calling Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism.
            His administration was criticised for the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter.
            Voilà, took me just a few seconds to give three examples.

          • j.a.m. says:

            You may have missed the point. Those criticisms did not come from, and were underreported by, the lamestream media.

          • Rubbish. Several were started by the New York Times, supposedly the biggest bogey of them all.

            And you need to check the definition of usurper.

      • nicky says:

        @j.a.m., you do realise that that is a typical example of ‘whataboutism’, do you? (I think the term was coined by John Oliver)

        • j.a.m. says:

          An important distinction: The cabinet is supposed to be subordinate to the chief executive, whereas the press is not supposed to be subordinate.

          • nicky says:

            The cabinet is supposed to be a team, and its members part of the team. There is (or should be) nothing to sycophantically lie on your back legs open and piss over your belly (aka puppy-bellying). As said: toe-cringing, prostate-cramping, stomach-churning, disgusting, unconscionable, reminiscent of a third world petty dictatorship indeed.

          • nicky says:

            Note, if I were Mr Trump, I would be very weary of Mr Pence. He is at least the Uriah Heep kind, and probably worse. Those who sycophantically flatter you are the ones who will stab you in the back as soon as they think they can safely do that.
            Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (I fear the Greeks when they come with presents), but then, as a real estate shyster, he should know that very well.

    • The worst thing is it’s not the first time it’s happened. It’s a regular occurrence at cabinet meetings. Like the one where Trump required everyone around the table to compliment him and thank him for their appointment for the camera.

  4. nicky says:

    puppy-bellying, four legs up style.

  5. nicky says:

    Umberto Eco must be a clairvoyant 😀😀😀

    • He’s describing a fascist, authoritarian government, which is what the US government is becoming. The trouble is, too many either actively like the idea, or are prepared to put up with it for reasons of political expediency.

      • j.a.m. says:

        I hadn’t heard that we’re getting a fascist, authoritarian government, but that’s a capital idea. Bravo! Excellent news!

        • nicky says:

          I would not call Mr Trump an “Ur-Fascist” (what Mr Eco described), I was just struck how near-perfect it matches Mr Trump. As if written for him, 2 decades before the present disaster.

        • I hope you’re not serious because supporting even the idea of a fascist, authoritarian government is simply beyond the pale.

          And I’ve written about the authoritarian tendencies (and the consequent dangers) of both Trump and his supporters and those on the far left here. Of course, Republican/right-wing authoritarianism is currently far more dangerous because it has power.

        • Yakaru says:

          I had a slightly higher opinion of you and your education before I read that comment.

          • j.a.m. says:

            I have enough grasp of history to know that the federal government is not in the process of becoming a “fascist, authoritarian government”, as was claimed — at least not any more than it has been in the decades since the New Deal. The mind-bending irony is that it’s usually the far right making that complaint.

  6. darrelle says:

    At another site recently it was mentioned by the proprietor that establishing a market of fact checking organizations might help with reducing the number of people that, for example, believe the Republican Party’s and Trump Administration’s lies and thereby continue to vote these people into positions of power.

    But, I don’t see it. There already exists a few pretty good fact checking organizations. These are good resources for people who care about reality, accuracy and the actual truth of a matter to find accurate information and sources and to verify data. But that is pretty much preaching to the choir. But people like your regular commenter j.a.m.? The facts don’t necessarily matter. Much like many religious believers such people have a prior ideological commitment. They look at something like a fact checking organization, label it “liberal media” and discount it. They believe that the fact that fact checking organizations rate Republican politicians’ claims to be lies 2-3 times more than Democratic politicians’ claims, and Trump’s even higher, as proof that such organizations are lying rather than evidence that their favored leaders are lying to them much more often than their opposition. They’ll rationalize inconvenient facts away. They have a double standard. It’s not so bad if their side does it, but if the other side does it it’s a crime.

    These people would crack me up if they weren’t screwing up my country, the world, so badly. The same people that were wearing “I Kill Commies For My Mommy” T-shirts back in the ’80s today think that Putin is just swell, a real man’s man. That Trump cozying up to him is fine and that regardless of good reason to suspect illegal associations between Trump and Russia it isn’t serious enough to warrant an investigation. While at the same time getting all worked up about the Uranium One “fiasco.”

  7. Lee Knuth says:

    Thank you for those Far Side tweets. He is a favorite of mine. Refreshing and helps to banish the administration and all the evil it’s done for a little while from my mind.

  8. Mark R. says:

    For some reason, most of the media wouldn’t play for me. Perhaps I need to restart the computer. Some worked (saving the swan / polar bear) but not the alligator or the other animal tweets. Probably a problem on my side, but just wanted to let you know in case others have a problem.

    It’s easiest for me to compare Obama and Trump by the way Trump’s cabinet members stroke him. Could you imagine VP Biden giving Obama a blow-job prayer like that? And then each member lauding there emperor in turn? Fox pundits and viewers would be tearing their hair out. There really is no reason to look any further than these disgusting, hollow, sycophantic displays to realize how far gone this administration is; they are a mockery to our democracy and any democracy. And for POTUS, a case study in narcissism to be sure. Sick to see, and sick to see so many think it admirable to metaphorically suck Trump’s dick. That’s true democracy people! But as we know, prayer is pure foolishness and it won’t get anyone anywhere. This tax bill just fuels the blue tsunami that will come 11/2018 and purge a lot of infected red areas. New Jersey, Virginia and Alabama are just the writing on the wall. I hope they are enjoying their tomfoolery and country-looting while it lasts, because their days are numbered. Obama’s successful 8 years in office put many democrats to sleep; I see it as a kind of victory blindness. Our eyes are wide open now though, and I know Republicans behind closed doors realize they’re in big trouble. Money won’t save them this time and neither will gerrymandering, voter-suppression or Russian-meddling; there are too many of us.

    • Well said.

      (I think a restart would be worth a try. Nothing has changed my end and I’ve had no other complaints.)

    • nicky says:

      Mark, I admire your optimism. You must keep up working on it, Challenge crosschek, beleaguer your congressmen, organise exit polls, etc etc. Hard work. I seriously wish you good luck next year!

      • Mark R. says:

        Thanks, I appreciate your encouragement. I’ve made calls, written letters and I’ve thrown money around. Some of it went to Jones, so I’m glad it wasn’t wasted. 🙂

  9. Mark R. says:

    Yeah, restart worked. Thanks Heather for the Homilies and have a very Merry Christmas! And a happy New Year to boot.

    Have you seen Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk yet? The guy gets it done correct and full of impact. But alas, no tanks! I’ve never seen a WWII movie w/o tanks and this one breaks a lot of rules like that. Not a lot of blood, barely any cursing, lots of subordination. Brilliant.

    • Unfortunately I haven’t seen it. I don’t go to the movies anymore because I can’t sit in their seats without too much pain, so I have to wait until they come out on DVD or Blu-ray. ( I don’t subscribe to any movie channels either because they’re too expensive.)

  10. nicky says:

    What a formidable woman, this Joy Ann Reid!
    Destroys the Uranium 1 conspiracy in 110 seconds. That is what I mean by not letting yourself be interrupted.
    Good speech by Mark Warner too.

    • She’s bloody fantastic! I’ve seen her do this on other stuff too. She’s always got her facts in a row and is wicked smart and sharp.

      • j.a.m. says:

        Donald Trump married one American (his second wife) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia: Ivana-Slovakia, Melania-Slovenia.
        — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 21, 2017

        I imagine the old time American Communist Party is spinning in its collective grave with envy at what Trump is accomplishing.
        — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) September 9, 2016

        • I’m not sure what your point is?

          And I think you’re misunderstanding the second tweet. It’s about how Trump is destroying the US. It wasn’t a compliment.

          • j.a.m. says:

            She’s always got her facts in a row and is wicked smart and sharp, yet gets a bit fuzzy on the distinctions among the USSR, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, the former Yugoslavia, and the Cold War American Communist Party. Other than that, she’s awesome!

        • nicky says:

          Joy called Mr Putin a communist, and got a lot of flak for that. I think that is what j.a.m. is referring to.
          Well, although Russia is officially not communist anymore, and even less in practice, she actually has some pillars to stand on:
          – Mr Putin was a KGB chief. That’s where he ‘learned the trade’.
          – Mr Putin officially says he’s communist, and that he never wavered in his communist ideals.
          – He has kept his membership card of the Communist Party.
          – He regrets the demise of the USSR, and the loss of it’s influence in the World.
          – His style of authoritarian government is close to the old soviet one (big statism, military, surveillance grid, state run corporations and idolising the Leader).
          – The USSR was arguably not really more ‘Communist’ than the present regime.

          That being said, I do not think it was very clever to call Russia a Communist state. It is an old-fashioned right wing dictatorship.

  11. nicky says:

    Oops, posted the following inadvertently on the ‘Sin and the Meaning of Christmas’ thread.

    For our interest, I checked the presidents of the US and popular vote. It happened exactly five times that the candidate winning the popular vote did not become president since the popular vote is counted (1824). Three of those were in the 19th Century, and the other two in the 21st Century (never in the 20th Century). Once in 2000 where Mr Bush lost the popular vote by 0,51% against Mr Gore, and in 2016, when Mr Trump lost the popular vote by 2,10% against Ms Clinton. In absolute numbers the latter discrepancy is the largest ever (2.864.974 votes).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.