More on Rand Paul here. Nothing can penetrate their bubble. Nothing.
I don’t know what the answer is for this, no matter how you approach it the conclusion remains the same.


Hawley uses twitter to promote his NY Post front page exclusive on how he’s been silenced.

Lisa Kudrow’s scenes in Death to 2020 were spot on.

Washington Post publishes a “Mayorsplaining to Joe Biden” op-ed. Expected dunkage occurs in the comments. (The headline continuation is “he should study mayors like me.”)

Ouch

Award-winning WaPo editor Marty Baron is retiring at the end of next month. He pretty much saved WaPo, which has been falling into irrelevance, after being made executive editor in 2012.

Meanwhile, there’s no sign that NYT editor in chief Dean Baquet is retiring, even though at one point he was supposed to after the Inauguration. Indeed, back in the summer there was speculation he would stay on longer, to clean up after the aftermath of … screwups under his own tenure.

He’s the same person that was played by Liev Schreiber in the movie Spotlight (about Boston Globe’s revelations about the Catholic Sex Abuse scandal). Mad respect for that guy.


image





"Aggrieved Defenders."

One more, because why not. (Unfortunately the clip ends before the response, but according to comments in the thread they were having none of it.)

Why not just delay everything until the Republicans have control again and then ensure we continue out status quo of doing nothing in perpetuity. And that line of thinking is why the Democrats have a reputation of doing nothing all the time.

They really don’t want a wealth tax.

The White House Communications Director replied immediately and forcefully to the NYT’s attempt to bothsides Biden’s actions:

Good deal. Earlier yesterday someone floated a trial balloon for splitting the covid relief bill, one with Republicans support and then whatever they rejected in a reconciliation bill. That did not last long as it was quickly shot down. Democrats could spend weeks appeasing Republicans but they’d still vote against it anyway.

WaPo editorial board joined the bipartisanship parade too.

I normally dunk on the press here, so let me make up for that a bit by posting a feel-good read by Jennifer Rubin, an editorial writer who I used to vehemently disagree with (and probably still do on some things) but who became fervently anti-Trump and who has come to realize Democrats are not the enemy.

This new administration seems kind of decent!

I don’t really think this one needed to be included though. Seems out of place honestly, compared to the rest. I could give a shit if Biden goes to church and participates in rituals. Just want him to be a decent person.

  1. We have a churchgoing president “who has spent a lifetime steeped in Christian rituals and practices.”

Rubin today is nigh unrecognizable compared to her op-eds during the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Trump Administration may have ended, but the press’s attempts to excuse Trumpism as “economic anxiety” haven’t.

And today it’s not coming from the NYT, it’s coming from the usually more sensible WaPo:

Nearly 60 percent of the people facing charges related to the Capitol riot showed signs of prior money troubles, including bankruptcies, notices of eviction or foreclosure, bad debts, or unpaid taxes over the past two decades, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records for 125 defendants with sufficient information to detail their financial histories.

The group’s bankruptcy rate — 18 percent — was nearly twice as high as that of the American public, The Post found. A quarter of them had been sued for money owed to a creditor. And 1 in 5 of them faced losing their home at one point, according to court filings.

The financial problems are revealing because they offer potential clues for understanding why so many Trump supporters — many with professional careers and few with violent criminal histories — were willing to participate in an attack egged on by the president’s rhetoric painting him and his supporters as undeserving victims.

OK, so how to interpret that information? The rest of the article seems to operate under the assumption that these specific financial troubles cause Trumpism, while failing to entertain the thought that maybe it’s the reverse: people who like Trump have certain underlying characteristics that also lead them to be in financial trouble.

Does it really make sense that people in financial trouble turned to Trump because of their financial trouble? It’s not like Trump supported policies of debt forgiveness, easy loans for the bankrupt, eviction waivers, etc.

It’s probably far simpler. The January 6th insurrectionists love Trump because they feel Trump is just like them: a pathological narcissist with poor impulse control. Or to put it less charitably: an idiot asshole grifter who does whatever the fuck he wants, thinking he won’t have to face consequences. And someone with those characteristics is, like Trump, more likely to get into financial difficulties than a sensible person.

A sensible, decent person facing financial difficulties and wanting to alleviate those difficulties would not travel all the way to DC and then join a riot trying to overthrow the government, which puts zero money in their pockets. But would an idiot asshole grifter who does whatever the fuck he wants, thinking he won’t have to face consequences? Absolutely.

And that also explains why the insurrectionists took private jets they couldn’t afford, wore easy to identify clothes, posted their crimes on social media, etc.