NYTimes tends to not work for some reason. Probably has to do with their wonky URLs.
Hasn’t there only been a handful of town halls across all hope reps?
Oh fuck this.
We are in the matrix, guys. There’s no way this is real.
In case anybody is like me and missed the Trump cabinet meeting that lead to Schumer parody.
Here is CNN’s run down
Not only publicly bashing them, but now also draining their evil terrorist funds. Smart!
Turnbull has a solid sense of humor, not bad on the timing either.
I thought this was an old tweet until I checked the date. He’s starting to repeat his material. Freshen up the act, Donnie, or we’ll replace you with Turnbull as tweeter-in-chief!
What is MAGA? I clicked that link, and it took me to twitter, and I read a bunch of pro-trump people’s tweets, and I still can’t figure out what they’re talking about.
EDIT: Make America Great Again. Got it.
I just haven’t seen in acronym form since well before the election.
Maybe you shouldn’t have threatened and then fired the person investigating the phony story then. Just a thought.
It took you over a year to wonder this?
Never should have retired from hosting game shows.
Forget about it, it’s Rock8man
A piece in the National Review, pointing out how Trump is essentially everything that the GOP criticized Bill Clinton for.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448622/trump-defenders-bill-clinton-enablers
Lots of you guys won’t like the depiction of Clinton, that’s fine. Get past it to the point of the piece:
What’s old is new again. Donald Trump and his core supporters aren’t just following the Clinton playbook, they should be disciplined for plagiarism. It’s all there. Trump exploits the loyalty and gratitude of supporters shocked and relieved by his surprise win. He persuades them to hold him to an entirely different standard (Lies and threats that we’d never tolerate from a Democrat? That’s just Trump being Trump. You gotta understand, he’s an outer-borough kid who knows how to deliver a punch. He’s not a sissy elitist!) and then demands that his critics be better than he is. What’s old is new again. Donald Trump and his core supporters aren’t just following the Clinton playbook, they should be disciplined for plagiarism.
Think of the avalanche of vitriol against James Comey. Trump fired him, misled the public about the reasons, and then absurdly trashed his reputation. But how dare Comey fight back and defend himself? How dare he “leak” a memo? Never mind that he stood up and answered questions, under oath, just days later. He’s a “leaker,” and no one likes a leaker. The same people who decry a rush to judgment against Trump are forwarding and sharing article after article claiming that Comey (without yet seeing the relevant evidence) potentially violated his employment agreement or even federal criminal statutes when he asked a friend to read excerpts of his memos to the New York Times.
Lost in the anger is a serious look at the truth (and implications) of his allegations. Did a president demand personal loyalty from an FBI director? Did he improperly ask him to drop an active criminal investigation of a former close adviser? Did he circumvent normal channels and demand that Comey, in essence, “clear” him publicly? Did Trump fire him when he failed to comply with these demands, and then hide the ball about the reason?
Instead, we get the Ken Starring of James Comey and Robert Mueller. It’s not enough to trash Comey; now there’s blood in the water around Mueller. Men like Newt Gingrich have pivoted on a dime. On May 17, Gingrich is declared that “Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity.” On June 12, he attacked Mueller, saying that it was “time to rethink.” Others already got the jump on Gingrich. On May 18, Judicial Watch put out a statement calling Mueller a “bizarre choice” to be special counsel — because he was allegedly too politically correct on his approach to Muslim terrorism when he was FBI director. How does that bear on his fitness to investigate various aspects of the Russian election-interference controversy?
The goal is clear — to remove the focus from the actual claims against Trump and instead focus on the alleged perfidy of his opponents. Who do you want to win? The man who beat Hillary Clinton? Or the backstabbers in the “deep state” who are launching a “soft coup”? And through it all, Trump dissembles and bullies — secure in the knowledge that his supporters will attack and seek to destroy his opponents, all while “defending” his own dishonesty by declaring, “It’s just Trump being Trump. He fights.”
Beware. What “worked” for Clinton is far less likely to work for the GOP, and what “worked” for Clinton rightly brought defeat and shame for Democrats in years to come. Sure, Clinton survived impeachment, but his party lost the next two presidential elections, and the stench of corruption clung to his wife and was instrumental in two humiliating Clinton presidential defeats. The Clinton playbook left a party robbed of moral authority to confront Trump, and it indeed helped make his victory possible.
And that was with the mainstream media far more Clinton-sympathetic than it is Trump-friendly. Trump can’t win reelection with just his base, and there are already signs that outside the conservative bubble, Trump’s act is wearing thin. In conservative-land, it’s widely said that Comey “failed,” that he’s been completely discredited. Outside the bubble, Americans overwhelming believe Comey and disbelieve Trump.
“But Gorsuch” is the new “but abortion.” Bob Mueller is the new Ken Starr. “Fake news” is the new “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Hypocrisy abounds, and but for the double standards, many of Trump’s most zealous defenders would have no standards at all. Cultural decay? The loss of public trust? Credibility gaps? Let the pastors worry about all that. In the meantime, get on or under the Trump Train, conservatives. There’s a news cycle to win.
My god, the comments section there.
Look, I’ve got plenty to disagree with French on there, and while I believe his characterization of Clinton’s malfeasance is, charitably, overblown, it is a far better article than his readers deserve. Because most of those commenters are barking loony.
OH, and for kicks, at the bottom it recommended an article about Prog Rock that was written today. As a huge prog rock and metal fan, I went ahead and read it. While I may have disagreements with David French about some things, I found his article, at minimum, worth reading and well thought out. Kyle Smith, however, made me outright angry from the stupid. It was like if Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds learned to write complete sentences, and used it to bash Rush.
Dave Weigel has a book out on prog rock - The Show That Never Ends.
As for the Nat Review piece, I wish he would make his larger argument on the merits. Trying to frame it in reference to Clinton is pretty thin gruel (although I get it, he’s writing to his audience. Still find it irritating.)
Especially since there was pretty much nothing (based on the quote) in the way of explicit references, no justification for drawing parallels, nothing. Contrary to popular belief, jokes and political commentary don’t actually write themselves.
Like.
Which the article was largely a response to.
It was not a good article, it was the musical equivalent of a frat boy mocking the valedictorian for caring about things other than beer and sports.
Oh sure, I’d agree. But considering how even this article was received by his audience? Basically in some circles it is almost impossible to criticize Trump without also bashing a Clinton. Because the NR has fomented the opinions of idiots.