Friday Talking Points -- Trump's Disgusting Supporters

[ Posted Friday, September 18th, 2020 – 17:35 UTC ]

Olivia Troye used to be a high-level staffer for Vice President Mike Pence, and she worked closely with him on the coronavirus task force which he led. She recently quit in disgust and went public this week with her support for Joe Biden (in yet another "Republican Voters Against Trump" video). The most damning thing she had to say about the president was the following:

When we were in a task force meeting, the President said "maybe this COVID thing is a good thing, I don't like shaking hands with people, I don't have to shake hands with these disgusting people." Those disgusting people are the same people that he claims to care about. These are the people still going to his rallies today, who have complete faith in who he is.

Now, as you'll remember, Hillary Clinton was famously raked over the coals by both the media and Republicans for labelling Republican voters as a "basket of deplorables." But she was talking about opposition voters, not her own. This time, President Donald Trump is calling his own followers -- the ones who stand in line for days, at times, so they can be in the front row and get a chance to shake Trump's own hand -- "disgusting people."

If you're waiting for the same level of outrage from Republicans that they exhibited when Clinton used the "deplorable" term, you've likely got a long wait coming. Because now, apparently, it's OK to call Republican voters "disgusting people."

Troye had plenty else to say as well, condemning Donald Trump's essential inhumanity (" a flat-out disregard for human life") and confirming what every other tell-all has said -- all Trump cares about is his own re-election, period. She also tells the story of one of the few times Trump actually attended one of the task force meetings, where he spent 45 minutes complaining about how Fox News was personally treating him, urging everyone there to call up Fox News and yell at them. Because of course he did.

Meanwhile, America will soon (likely tomorrow) hit the grim milestone of 200,000 coronavirus deaths. But according to Trump, that's OK because now he doesn't have to shake the hands of his own "disgusting" supporters -- which makes it all a "good thing" for Trump.

Is it Election Day yet? Can't get here fast enough, as far as we're concerned. Personally, we're voting the "Not A Sociopath" party ticket.


In other sociopathic news, it was revealed that the U.S. Post Office -- before it got a new postmaster general, please note -- actually had an astoundingly good idea, way back in April. Instead of sending out inane postcards signed by Trump to every American, the U.S.P.S. would send out a free pack of five reusable cotton face masks to every residential address in the country, including P.O. boxes. In April! That might have actually done a whole lot of good, of course, so it is no surprise what happened to the idea -- it was axed for political reasons: "There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic." I guess Trump has now effectively redefined the word "panic" as: "anything that would easily save tens of thousands of lives."

In related panicky news, during a town hall on ABC this week Trump continued to tell gigantic lies about Winston Churchill's response to the London Blitz. According to Trump, Churchill used to regularly climb onto rooftops (we are not making this up) and speak to the people of London. What Churchill told them was, essentially, to keep calm because there simply were no bombs falling. Nothing to worry about at all! The Nazis will miraculously go away (perhaps when the weather gets hotter). Well, OK, we made that last one up, but the shamelessness of these lies is simply breathtaking. What Winston Churchill actually did tell the British people: (1) the truth of the situation, (2) that things were going to get really bad, (3) that Britain would prevail by taking decisive action. Oh, and: (4) that bombs were definitely falling on London, of course. In other words, Churchill actually did everything Trump failed to do. And he didn't lie to the British at all, which was the point that Trump was somehow trying to get away with.

That was merely one of the enormous lies Trump told during his disastrous town hall, by the way. There are too many others for us to fully list, but here are two whoppers that the Washington Post fact-checkers caught:

"Rudy Giuliani did a fantastic job. The city was safe, and then all of a sudden we have a mayor who starts cutting the police force and crime is up 100 percent, 150 percent."

Major crimes are down under New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D). There has been a jump in murders in 2020, but the annual number of murders under de Blasio has been about half as high as it was in Giuliani's best year, according to

"So I just saw a poll where African Americans in this country, Black communities, are 81 percent in favor of having more police."

Actually, Trump is confused. A Gallup poll conducted from June 23 to July 6 of more than 36,000 U.S. adults found that 20 percent of Black Americans would like more police, while 61 percent said they would like police to spend the same amount of time in their community. That does, however, add up to 81 percent.

The other notable thing Trump was confused about is that Joe Biden is not actually president. Trump tried to make political hay over the fact that Biden hadn't issued a national mask mandate order -- something which, as a private citizen, he is absolutely unable to do. Meanwhile, the head of the Republican Party said in an interview with Chuck Todd that she thought "it's disgusting to take a crisis in our country and try to lay it at the feet of the president." All while she was (as the article notes) trying to lay the crisis at the feet of "Hypothetical President Biden."

Speaking of Trump lies, Donald Trump just gave a press conference today, where he asserted that "we kept the oil" in Syria, that federal judges are wonderful people (even though he's losing most of his election-related federal lawsuits, including some fresh big decisions against him in Michigan and Pennsylvania), and that because his poll numbers look really shaky in Florida he's now changed his mind and decided to send billions of dollars to Puerto Rico in hurricane aid -- for a hurricane that happened three years ago, mind you.

The entire apparatus of the executive branch is also springing into action to help Trump. The Department of Transportation just announced a whole slew of grants... for certain states:

Some states that may be competitive in November's election -- including Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas -- raked in millions in infrastructure grants awarded Wednesday by the Department of Transportation, while blue states like New York got comparatively little.

Though the department says politics plays no role in these decisions, this round of annual discretionary "BUILD grant" awards for infrastructure projects saw the most money go to Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, which together hold 87 electoral votes combined in the presidential race. Congress ordered that the money be split evenly between rural and urban areas for this round, which could account for at least some of the way the figures broke down.

Texas -- where President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden are polling roughly even as of Sept. 9, according to Morning Consult -- received two awards worth $25 million each to reconstruct an existing interchange in the Odessa-Midland area and for rail capacity improvements between Fort Worth and Dallas. Florida got $49 million and Pennsylvania got $46 million.

Arizona, Minnesota and North Carolina -- all important swing states -- led the pack too, with more than 10 percent of the $1 billion haul among them.

. . .

The non-swing state of Kentucky -- represented in the Senate by DOT Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- netted the eighth biggest award total at $38 million, despite ranking 26th by population.

The losers: Reliably Democratic states took a beating. New Jersey, the state with the greatest population density, got nothing. So did Hawaii, Delaware, Vermont and the District of Columbia, all Democratic strongholds. New York received $1.4 million for a street improvement project in an upstate Republican district. California managed to net $36 million -- 3.6 percent of the grant total for a state with 11.9 percent of the nation's population.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

A whistleblower from the National Guard had a rather frightening story to tell about the day Trump cleared Lafayette Square for his "hold up a Bible" photo op: to prepare for the clearing of peaceful protesters, the Trump administration stockpiled 7,000 rounds of ammunition and requested both an "LRAD" and an "A.D.S." The first is a Long Range Acoustic Device that could blast the crowd with high-volume sound and the second is an Active Denial System which has been called a "heat ray" because it basically microwaves humans from a distance -- making them feel like their skin is burning. It was developed for use in wars, but never deployed because of questions about its safety and the ethics of using it against enemies. But apparently the White House saw no problem in deploying it against peaceful protesters in America.

Let's see, what else? Bob Woodward's book Rage was released this week, although most of the revelations were teased last week. Some further fun stories from the book: Trump respects the troops, once again, by saying: "My fucking generals are a bunch of pussies." Trump also spilled the beans to Woodward about a previously-secret nuclear weapons system: "We have stuff that [Vladimir] Putin and Xi [Jinping] have never heard about before." When asked to confirm it, "Sources confirmed to Woodward that the U.S. military has a such a weapons system but declined to say more and expressed surprise that Trump disclosed it."

In "we've heard it so often it's barely newsworthy" news this week, another woman has accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her. And Donald Trump once again tried to convince the public that he knows more about the coronavirus pandemic than the experts and doctors he has working for him (this time his target was C.D.C. Director Robert Redfield).

We did get some good news this week (bizarre as it was), as a Trump loyalist had a full-blown meltdown. Michael Caputo has been the point person at the Health and Human Services Department for censoring the scientists and instead shaping the narrative to align with whatever nonsense Trump is spouting about the pandemic. He's tried to tell Dr. Anthony Fauci what to say, he's been instrumental in editing scientific reports so they don't contradict Trump in any way, and he used to live in Russia, where he helped Vladimir Putin improve his public image.

Last weekend, he went on a Facebook rant, where he claimed there was a "deep state" in the C.D.C. that was out to get Trump. He also predicted a massive insurrection after the election and warned Trump supporters to "buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it is going to be hard to get." He also revealed: "I don't like being alone in Washington," describing "shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long."

He had to apologize to his staff after this video went viral, and in doing so he "concluded the meeting by encouraging his staff to listen to music by the Grateful Dead." We wrote about this earlier this week (in extra-snarky fashion), if anyone's interested.

The next day, it was announced he'd be taking a medical leave until after the election. He proved to be too crazy for Team Trump, which is actually a pretty astonishing feat.

Speaking of Team Trump, let's end with a few moments of comic relief.

The Trump campaign released an ad this week that falsely claimed Trump "has achieved PEACE in the MIDDLE EAST." They added a caption to the ad stating: "President Trump was nominated for the Noble [sic] Peace Prize."

Trump has misspelled "Nobel" before, in tweets, but this was actually included in a campaign ad (which, assumably, is supposed to involve editing and vetting).

But that wasn't the only face-palm moment from Team Trump this week.

A digital ad released by a fundraising arm of the Trump campaign on Sept. 11 calling on people to "support our troops" uses a stock photo of Russian-made fighter jets and Russian models dressed as soldiers.

The ad, which was made by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, features silhouettes of three soldiers walking as a fighter jet flies over them.

Except that one of those soldiers is carrying a Russian AK-47, and -- as a designer of fighter planes for the U.S. Air Force snarkily put it -- "That's definitely a MiG-29. I'm glad to see it's supporting our troops." Heh.


Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the Democrats eligible for this award, we have two who aren't that deserve some praise.

Once again, the Republicans at the Lincoln Project have delivered another scathing anti-Trump ad. This one's called "Don The Con," and it mercilessly taunts Trump for essentially wasting $800 million of his campaign warchest:

"You really don't get what they did, do you, Donald?" the narrator asked, then suggested how money intended for his campaign could've been siphoned off by advisers to pay for beach houses and fancy cars.

"Pretty soon that $800 million you raised did nothing but make a lot of people rich," the narrator said. "And put you in a big hole."

The ad also calls Trump a "loser" and a "sucker," just for good measure.

We also would like to applaud CNN's Erin Burnett, for calling a lie a lie on air this week, on an issue we addressed yesterday -- Trump's non-existent new healthcare plan. Burnett was interviewing Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh, in an effort to find out what was in this so-called plan.

The exchange on Wednesday's broadcast of Outfront began when [Erin] Burnett asked [Tim] Murtaugh if the health plan Trump touted during his disastrous town hall with ABC News Tuesday was "real or just an empty campaign promise."

"Of course it's real," replied Murtaugh. Instead of teasing any details, he then criticized Biden's plan and the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, and said he wouldn't "get ahead" of the White House about any announcement.

Burnett hit back:

"I understand you don't like the (Biden) plan, Tim, but I'm merely pointing out that you don't have a plan," the anchor said. "The president has said for three years he's going have to a plan. It's going to be better. I understand the criticisms of Obamacare. We've all heard them. We've all dealt with it. You got rid of it and there's been no plan put out to replace it and no specifics. Why is it taking so long? Why is it now going to come right before Election Day?"

Murtaugh repeated that he would defer to the White House on any announcement, then resumed attacking Biden's policy proposals.

Burnett reminded Murtaugh that "at least Joe Biden has a plan out there. President Trump has promised one for three years. If there was a plan, we would have seen it by now. Pretty obvious, right?"

Murtaugh again attacked Biden's plan. And Burnett wasn't having it.

"I'm merely going to say I don't think it's fair to the conversation where you get to say his plan is bad when you don't have your own to defend," she said.

Burnett deserves some sort of award for standing up and loudly declaring: "The emperor doesn't have any new clothes -- he's stark naked!"

Moving right along... we found we had to give out two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards this week, to California Governor Gavin Newsom and to California Secretary of Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot.

Donald Trump was shamed into visiting California this week after people began pointing out that the state had been burning for three weeks without a single mention by Trump. So he flew in (as a side trip on a campaign jaunt) and expected to give his usual "rake the forests" rant. But this time, the Californians were ready for him.

Here is some of what Newsom had to say to Trump, during a roundtable meeting with the state's experts:

We obviously feel very strongly that the hots are getting hotter, the drys are getting drier. When we're having heat domes the likes of which we've never seen in our history -- the hottest August ever in the history of this state, the ferocity of these fires, the drought five-plus years, losing 163 million trees to that drought -- something's happened to the plumbing of the world. And we come from a perspective, humbly, where we submit the science is in and observed evidence is self-evident that climate change is real and that is exacerbating this.

. . .

Record-breaking temperatures, record droughts, and you've got something else at play, and that's exactly what the scientists have been predicting for a half a century. It is here now. California, folks, is America fast-forward. What we're experiencing right here is coming to a community all across the country unless we get our act together on climate change, unless we disabuse ourselves of all the B.S. that's being spewed by a very small group of people.

This small group of people, of course, is led by President Trump himself. And to counter all of Trump's blather about how forest management would solve all the problems, Newsom pointed out a very pertinent fact Trump doesn't seem to have ever heard before:

We acknowledge our role and responsibility to do more in that space, but one thing is fundamental: 57 percent of the [forest] land in this state is federal forest land. Three percent is [owned by] California, so we really do need that support.

In other words, over half of the forests are your responsibility, not ours -- so why haven't you dealt with it?

But the crowning moment of the roundtable -- the one clip that went viral -- was when Wade Crowfoot had the following exchange with Trump (Crowfoot was responding to Trump's forest management complaint):

"If we ignore that science and put our head in the sand and think it's all about vegetation management, we're not going to succeed at protecting Californians," Crowfoot responded.

"It'll start getting cooler," Trump replied. "You just watch."

"I wish science agreed with you," Crowfoot said.

"Well, I don't think science knows actually," Trump retorted, laughing.

In related news, the longest-running magazine in American history, Scientific American, issued its first presidential endorsement this week, for Joe Biden (because he believes in science). This is the first time in 175 years that the magazine has felt it necessary to get involved in presidential politics, for obvious reasons.

Congratulations to both Gavin Newsom and Wade Crowfoot, for attempting the impossible: teaching Trump the truth about science.

[Congratulate California Governor Gavin Newsom on his official contact page, and California Secretary of Natural Resources Wade Crowfoot on his official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]


Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Sadly, we have to award Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week, for once again showing timidity on marijuana reform instead of leadership.

In general, Democratic politicians have shied away from legalization efforts since the height of the Drug War in the 1980s, since Republicans have been regularly beating them up (for being "soft on crime") since then, politically. Specifically, though, the move this week to punt a historic vote in the House is due to the fact that the Democratic leadership doesn't want the issue to be used against them in this election. "You couldn't get a coronavirus relief bill done because you were too busy legalizing weed and defunding the police" is precisely what Republicans would say.

This thinking, however, is increasingly outdated. The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement Act would have been more of an asset for Democrats running for office this year than a millstone.

"In about two weeks, the conversation has gone from 'no problem' to people now doing a stutter step, maybe trying to... avoid this vote altogether," said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.), a co-chair of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition and a strong supporter of cannabis legislation. "[It] should have been a non-partisan vote, support on both sides of the aisle."

Marijuana legalization has far-reaching national support from Democrats, independents and even a majority of Republicans, multiple polls show. Democrats have touted the MORE Act all summer as a criminal justice reform bill, amid ongoing protests over racial equity that a majority of the public supports. A disproportionate number of Black or brown people are arrested for cannabis possession each year, and this bill aims to reduce arrests and erase some marijuana criminal records.

Democrats also wanted to use this historic bill -- legislation to remove federal penalties on marijuana never passed out of committee until earlier this year, let alone had a floor vote -- to show that legalization would be possible if Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

. . .

Even though the bill is not likely to pass the Senate, House Democrats thought the messaging created by this bill was important. Progressives and Democrat strategists say the marijuana vote would actually help in most congressional races and that a vote for the measure won't turn away voters in droves.

"If you're trying to punt it as a result of a political calculation, I disagree with that calculation," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the bill. "This is an enormously popular policy -- not just for our base, but it's also very popular amongst certain parts of registered Republican voters and independent voters. I think this is a win-win-win policy, and I think that we should be doing this before the election."

Political strategists say that while each House race has its own dynamics, moderates should see the MORE Act as a way to turn out both their Democratic base and undecided independents and not worry about how it plays to voters worried about the "defund the police" movement.

"If you're already motivated on the [idea that] the thundering hordes are coming over into your suburbs to take away your wife and imprison you in a socialist hell, I'm not sure being for [marijuana] is going to add any fuel to that fire," said Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist.

Talking about marijuana has helped boost turnout in past elections, said Sal Pace, a former Colorado House minority leader who now is a consultant focusing on the role cannabis plays in political races. He said targeting voters who care about cannabis helped increase turnout during now-Colorado Gov. Jared Polis' 2018 campaign, which he worked on.

"If a candidate is talking about cannabis in an effective way, and they're running against someone who is not pro-cannabis legalization, that issue can be used to turn out young voters," Pace said.

And with the national focus on criminal justice reform, many progressive say this bill should be a lock.

"This should be seen as a prime opportunity to address a form of systemic racism," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), pointing out that the number of co-sponsors on the bill has jumped from 87 to 111 in the last two weeks.

. . .

Progressive lawmakers also see voting on marijuana ahead of the election -- rather than afterwards -- as part of a bigger strategy: It could help flip the Senate.

Both Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) argue that taking the unprecedented step of passing legislation to decriminalize marijuana -- even if the bill will not pass the Senate this year -- would encourage their base and increase Democrat turnout in key Senate races this year.

"There's a moral urgency in this I think a lot of voters understand -- and that this is a motivating issue for them -- especially for younger voters," Booker said. "I know that everything's through a political guise, but I think no elections are going to turn based upon voting for something that is all about restorative justice in this country."

In other words, holding the vote would have helped in both the House and Senate races. But this theory will not be put to the test.

Nancy Pelosi is instead playing it safe. While we understand her logic and reasoning, we cannot agree that this is the way to go. You're supposed to give the voters positive reasons to vote for your candidates, and showing the voters what a Democratic-led Congress would do next year with a Democratic president is a big part of that.

Sooner or later the Democratic Party will realize how potent an issue legalization truly has become, and how it cuts across party lines in a way that few other contentious issues do these days. But that day will have to wait, because once again Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, are choosing to play it safe instead. Which is why she's this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]


Friday Talking Points

Volume 589 (9/18/20)

We have a rather mixed bag this week for the talking points. Oh, before we forget, there was one article this week that is worth a read for anyone dreading chaos on Election Day. Politico created a list of all the states which could be battleground states and rated them by how fast they are likely to count their votes. The bad news was that states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin may take days to accurately count all their ballots, but the good news is that there's one state that actually does a good job -- so we could find out on the night of the election who won Florida. If Biden beats Trump in Florida, a whole bunch of other states simply aren't going to matter -- and we may know who won the whole election a lot earlier than anyone expects. Days later, we'll learn just how big a margin of victory in the Electoral College Biden managed, but if Biden takes Florida, it will be almost impossible for Donald Trump to get to the 270 electoral votes he'll need to win. One way or the other, though, the article is a good read for those who are interested in such wonky things.

With no further ado, though, let's move right on to this week's talking points for Democrats to use. As always, please use responsibly.


   Delivering for working people

Occasionally we let the professional wordsmiths have a talking point, and this is one of those times. The following is from an excellent article from Politico which offers up a beautiful talking point for Democrats to use:

We know this because in 2018, the progressive group Rural Organizing surveyed 820 rural Americans to test the power of the following message: "Instead of delivering for working people, politicians hand kickbacks to their donors who send jobs overseas. Then they turn around and blame new immigrants or people of color, to divide and distract us from the real source of our problems."

Note the three elements: 1) Americans of all races need good-paying jobs; 2) politicians have let the donor class gut Americans' standard of living; 3) then they try to deflect the blame onto immigrants or people of color. In the survey, three-quarters of rural respondents agreed with this message, which appealed not just to liberal voters (who made up only 23 percent of the respondents), but also to the 42 percent who were conservatives and the 26 percent who were moderates.


   Last time I checked...

This one, sadly, has got to be hammered home from now until Election Day.

"There's a funny thing about listening to Donald Trump or his campaign ads -- they seem to think that Trump is not currently president. Now, the last time I checked, Joe Biden is not actually president of the United States. He just isn't! And yet Trump ads warn of 'Joe Biden's America,' while showing video footage of things that are happening right now in Donald Trump's America. Trump complained that Biden hadn't issued a national mask mandate, even though Biden has no power to actually do so. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in politics -- not only is Trump not even pretending to run on his own record, he has apparently slipped into the Land of Make-Believe, where Joe Biden is currently running the country. Now, to be fair, tens of millions of Americans would love to live in that Land of Make-Believe where Donald Trump is not currently president. But that's not reality. In reality -- just to stress this basic fact once again -- Joe Biden is not actually president."


   200,000 people died

This also needs to be hit hard until November.

"Trump lied, and now 200,000 Americans have died. As Joe Biden points out, it didn't have to be this way. If Trump had shown the slightest hint of leadership, tens of thousands of people might be alive today who are not. Trump lied. 200,000 people died."


   Climate change is real

Gavin Newsom has the right idea.

"Climate change is real and it is devastating. Look around California and the West Coast. Fires are raging like they've never raged before. An area the size of Connecticut has burnt up in California alone this year. Or look down to the Gulf Coast. We have had more hurricanes this year than there are letters in the alphabet -- they've actually run out of names and are now moving to 'Alpha' and 'Beta.' The debate is over. Climate change is real, and it is an enormous problem. And the only way we'll ever solve it in any way is to elect politicians that believe in science."


   Up on the rooftops...

Seriously, someone needs to call Trump on this one.

"Donald Trump said in his recent town hall, and I quote:"

When [Winston] Churchill was on the top of a building, and he said everything's going to be good, everything's going to be -- be calm. And you have the Nazis dropping bombs all over London, he was very brave because he was at the top of a building. It was very well known that he was standing on buildings, and they were bombing. And he says everyone's going to be safe. I don't think that's being necessarily honest, and yet I think it's being a great leader. But he said, you're going to be safe. Be calm, don't panic. And you had bombers dropping bombs all over London. So I guess you could say that's not so honest, but it's still a great leader.

"One at a time, let's debunk this pack of lies. First, Winston Churchill never gave speeches or radio addresses from the top of buildings in London. He just didn't. Edward Murrow famously did do so, so perhaps Trump got confused. Churchill did occasionally watch the Blitz from a rooftop, but this was not well-known to the British at the time. Churchill most certainly did not say 'everyone's going to be safe,' instead he warned the public about the dangers and hardship that was ahead. Churchill did not lie to the British people about what they faced. He did withhold some military details in a time of war, but while he was doing so he was also telling the unvarnished overall truth to the public, instead of lying or 'cheerleading' or whatever Trump wants to call what he did at the start of the pandemic that has now taken over 200,000 American lives. Trump may think everyone else lies as much as he does, but in the case of Winston Churchill, this is just not true. Trump is lying, not Churchill."


   Bill Barr cuts loose

Hoo boy.

"Attorney General William Barr once again showed what an out-of-control Justice Department looks like. He defended his twisting of the department's mission into attacking Donald Trump's enemies while helping his friends, and he declared that coronavirus precautions were the equivalent of slavery. With apologies to King Louis XIV, Barr seems to think his motto is: 'La loi, c'est moi.' Or, to update the thought a bit, he is like Judge Dredd declaring: 'I am the law.' This should truly frighten any American who truly does believe in the concepts of law and order and justice for all."


   Herd mentality

This one is just too, too easy.

"Donald Trump has been trying to make the case that Joe Biden has mental problems, but he just keeps proving over and over again that he is the one with a few screws loose. While trying to remember the term 'herd immunity' -- a theory that everyone should just get sick with COVID-19, no matter how many millions of people die as a result -- all Trump could come up with was 'herd mentality.' No, Mister President, 'herd mentality' is when a whole bunch of bovine types all blindly follow a leader even if the leader runs them all off a cliff. You know -- kind of like your rallies."

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground


134 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Trump's Disgusting Supporters”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Editorial Note:

    This was obviously all written before I heard the sad news about RBG.


  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm guessing Kushner will be the next SCOTUS member.

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    We have had more hurricanes this year than there are letters in the alphabet

    Tropical storms, total, not just hurricanes. And 23, not 27. There's no such thing as a Hurricane Xerxes, tropical storm Yvette, or Hurricane Zeus.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Have you ever written a Saturday column? :)

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hey CW,

    Great article! Just a thought as something you might want to do when you get some free time... update your lists of links in My Links and Activist Links. I somehow doubt that the Thomas Jefferson Center for The Protection of Free Expression has become a satellite internet provider, but then again fund raising in this economy is not an easy task so maybe they are expanding their services. There were multiple ones that go nowhere.

    Just wanted to give you a heads up.

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Now that Trump is claiming to have brought peace to the Middle East — saying that he expects Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to follow suit very soon — it would seem that there is no reason for the US to complete our sell of military weapons to the Saudi’s...they don’t NEED them anymore thanks to Trump!

  7. [7] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    The whole Biden mask mandate thing was puzzling to me for a bit... but I had a COVID work project bring something back to the bottle in front of me, err, I meant frontal lobotomy.

    Assuming trump can remember his strings of BS. I would point out that trump and captain skinny pants along with the entire cavalcade of sycophants spent weeks claiming Obama and Biden left them with bare cupboards and no plan (despite facts to the otherwise). I can't help but wonder if this is not a continuation of that line of faulty logic.

  8. [8] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    As for TP1, is it too soon to have the Dems start pointing out that trump has yet to return any of his companies middle class manufacturing jobs back to the US?

    Dems have always been weak on hammering scrotal sacks when they need to.

    If trump wants to be a populist shilling how he alone has brought back manufacturing the Dems need to sack up and start hammering that trump has thousands of jobs offshored and as a bonus they can also hammer him on how having those jobs offshored is environmentally unfriendly and puts money in the pocket of his rich buddies while leaving many unemployed.

  9. [9] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    As to the sad RBG news, I hope the Senate Dems sack the fuck up and take Mr. Snapping Turtle to task.

    After all he did take an out of context snippet from a Biden speech and turned it into the " Moscow Mitch doctrine". What's good for the gander is good for the goose, right?

    Wait a tic, I forgot we are talking about the Greed Over Populace party here... I am sure they will argue that we need a full slate justices on the court to hear any election disputes so therefore were going to shove our guy down your throats.

  10. [10] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    OTH, if we do win decisively, I would hope the Dems would go scorched earth and not only place term limits on the SC in a rolling fashion that prevents one side from stacking the court, but also go in and impeach any of the Moscow Bitch and trump appointments that have an unfit ABA rating.

    While we are at it add some more limited term seats and stack the hell out of the SC. If the Greedy Old Poofters want to impose their minority rule on the majority I say turnabout is fair play and the majority should show them what it is like to be a minority.

    We should however retain the filibuster ( the real one requiring on topic in person speaking with members on the floor) and get rid of cloture.

    To be perfectly fair on the filibuster thing both sides have abused cloture too much. Given what the congress critters are paid, the whole cloture things has been way to used and abused.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yippee. I wrote one of today's talking points for you:

    [30] from "Debate Prep made Easy"

    Or am I supposed to call it

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I tell you I am feeling the power

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Maybe Harriet Miers is available.

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I couldn't agree more with your MDDOTW. Somebody needs to show Pelosi (or Nancy as I call her) a map of the states that have already legalized. These older-than-Gawd Dems with their reefer madness mindsets need to drop dead already.

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    good trickle [10]

    It's not clear that McConnell has the time or the votes to get it done before the election. He'll do it after. Nobody should fool themselves into thinking that he gives a rat's ass about what he said in the past.

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Never Trumpers say that they have a high level administration official set to flip on Fat Donny in October. I'm not holding my breath, but if it's true, I hope he or she had a recorder running while the orange one gleefully danced on RBG's grave last night.

  17. [17] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yeah but Fat Donnie dancing on RBG's grave IS A GOOD THING to the "win at all costs even if we have to suppress the vote" brainwashed average rural whites, Christofacists and white supremacists.

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Caddy [18]

    Despite what they say, I have a difficult time believing that there are any undecided voters regarding Drumpf. It's all about the senate. McConnell's gotta go. Bunker Boy's gonna put some squeamish senators between a rock and a hard place.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the current president should nominate someone to replace the irreplaceable RBG if he chooses a consensus nominee and consults with Democratic leadership on the choice.

    Otherwise, the choice should be left to voters and the next president, whomever that will be.

    This is the so-called 'Biden rule'.

    Given what we all know about this president, that kind of reflective choice is not possible so count me in the group that would be against a Trump nomination so close to the election.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    You won't get very far with your campaign to get big money out of politics, an issue many people would agree with, until you set down the necessary and back-breaking groundwork.

    Unless, of course, you have a magic wand that you haven't shown us yet. Heh.

    Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

  21. [21] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Last night Bill Maher made a point that seems so obvious and I've been waiting in vain for the media elite to make it.

    Drumpf got more votes from deep blue California than about six or eight red states combined. The death cult members live in every state. They're apparently too stupid to understand that he has no use for them. When he "takes out" the blue states, they'll get to go along for the ride.

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [23]

    Do you really still fall for that after all the times Death Harris has demonstrated that his "campaign" is really just grifting (inept as he is at it)?

    "Necessary and back-breaking groundwork" and grifting are incompatible.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    What do you think about the 'Biden rule'?

  24. [24] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    The spit has hit spam, no doubt.

    Does Trump dangle the carrot, to presh his 'herd' to drove, or does he seal he GOP's distinction as forevermore the hypocrites of our time...


  25. [25] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What do you think about the 'Biden rule'?

    The senate has rules and it's not one of them, so it's not a really a thing.

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    No matter the results in November (December?) one side will contest. This POLITICO article How to Know if the Election Is Actually ‘Rigged addresses what to look at should the time come.

    All elections have flaws. And in today’s environment of mistrust, it’s easy for politicians to exploit those flaws to cast doubt on the result. When problems inevitably arise this fall — and when the two sides inevitably raise objections — then the loser, the loser’s party and the American people need to be prepared to know whether there truly is cause for some kind of recount or “redo,” or whether to accept the electoral verdict and move on. What should we look for?

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    the choice should be left to voters and the next president, whomever that will be.

    This is the so-called 'Biden rule'.

    If I read it right (I didn't remember, and had to check), Biden actually said that the then-current president (Bush) should nominate a justice immediately after election day, and the Senate should expedite the confirmation process.

    The McConnell rule is that no Democratic president gets to have a nominee considered within eight years of the end of his term.

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Apparently Mark Kelly could be sworn in as early as November 30 because that's a special election in AZ. That would change the math during a lame duck session.

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Moscow Mitch is without shame. Nobody should think that he will change course unless he thinks it's in his best interest. He's a lot like Fat Donny.

    Here's a comment I made six years ago when he was up for election last time. I live in KY and it really is worth a look.

  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow. sometimes life is stranger than attack ads.

  32. [32] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Does anyone have any ideas how to actually stop Mitch from making Ted Cruz (or someone like him) our next Supreme Court justice? Not just laments or lamentations but actual ways to keep this from happening?

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


    how to actually make mitch do something he doesn't want to? well, make him think he and his family are going to suffer personally if he doesn't. how to actually accomplish that feat is another question.


  34. [34] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Fat Donny lies sometimes, so we can't take his word that he'll nominate somebody immediately. I don't believe that's in his best interest. Dragging his feet is.

    If it's over before the election, then nothing changes. If he can say "re-elect me and we overturn Roe", then he can leverage this nomination with GOP voters.

  35. [35] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The only way to stop McConnell is to get Collins, Grassley, and Romney to join Murkowski. That's a long shot.

    Only three are needed if Kelly replaces McSally in the lame duck session. Still a long shot.

  36. [36] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Ahem. Joe Manchin.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    When you quoted me, above, saying the choice should be left to voters and the next president, whomever that will be. This is the so-called 'Biden rule'.

    You didn't quote enough of my comment about the 'Biden rule.' In fact, you left out the most important part that is the Biden rule. What you quoted me saying is most decidedly NOT the 'Biden rule'.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you're going to quote me, don't forget the all important context or leave the most important part. Please.

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The senate has rules and it's not one of them, so it's not a really a thing.

    Well, I though it might be a subject for discussion, official senate rule or no.

    Are you one of those people who think she should have retired after her first bout with cancer when there was a Democratic president and that she was selfish for not doing so?

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And that is a factual basis that you are trolling.

    Says the man who continues to spew his horseshit desire to be known for thinking up a game-changing political movement without actually coming up with one! Trolling is you returning daily to this site pushing your brain fart of a scheme on an audience that has made it abundantly clear that it is not interested in what you are pushing! Yet, here you are day after day, week after week...keep on trolling!

  41. [41] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Are you one of those people who think she should have retired after her first bout with cancer when there was a Democratic president and that she was selfish for not doing so?

    There's probably something to that, but she would hardly be alone on that court in that selfishness.

    I thought it might be a subject for discussion, official senate rule or no.

    I suppose I have no objection to it as a concept, but the days when something like that might be workable are over now that the GOP has completely devolved into a win-at-any-cost hate group / death cult. I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future.

  42. [42] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that I've given it a little more thought, I think the Biden rule is a just plain bad idea. It essentially cut Obama's 4 years down to 3 and extended Fat Donny's to 5.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I suppose I have no objection to it as a concept, but the days when something like that might be workable are over now that the GOP has completely devolved into a win-at-any-cost hate group / death cult. I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future.

    Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    But, in it's time, the Biden rule was a very fine idea that promoted bipartisanship. I know, I know ... just how quaint can I possibly be.

    In any event, do you think it is time now for some sort of law that would dictate when future high court nominations could not take place? For instance, what about a law that would prohibit these nominations after a presidential candidate has been officially nominated at a nominating convention, assuming that the US Congress will ever be capable of passing such a law?

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I don't know that it promoted bipartisanship. It didn't do anything at all until Moscow Mitch found it useful to burn the place down.

    If the congress passed such a law, I believe that the supremes would invalidate it.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    On what basis would they invalidate it?

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Another thought has been swirling around in my mind but, I'm not sure about some of details.

    What led to the Senate voting to make a mere simple majority all it takes to confirm a Supreme court justice? My memory seems to be getting worse, especially the long-term memory. I remember there being a big debate about the nuclear option but that's about it ... I seem to remember that Democrats dug their own grave on this ...

    I think Democrats, should they ever regain the Senate should change that confirmation vote requirement back to two-thirds.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, that last thought did not take into account the fact that one of the two political parties has devolved into the crass, win-at-all-costs, interest of the people and democracy be damned.

  49. [49] 
    TheStig wrote:


    "What back breaking work haven't I done? You have no idea what I have or haven't done."

    You're right, LM and the rest of us don't know what you have or haven't done because you haven't bothered to tell us. That's one of the facts you should include in a proper resume, which you have never given us. You don't even seem to have a website these days.

    Your plan reduces to a single sentence: Don't vote for any candidate that accepts campaign contributions greater than $200. That's it-and "it" doesn't seem very back breaking to me. Trolling isn't especially backbreaking, and that's the only type of "work" the CW community has evidence of.

    I'm throw some of your favorite "catch phrases" back at you.

    Wake up!

    Get Real!

    Plus one more of my own - Get help from a mental health professional.

  50. [50] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Here's a sobering contrast:

    Ginsburg is expected to lie in repose at the Supreme Court

    Trump is just expected to lie.

  51. [51] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Last night at his death cult rally, in addition to threatening to sign an executive order making Big Money Joe ineligible to be president, the Biggest Orange Loser told the zombies that “If I lose to him, I don’t know what I’m going to do”.

    Then he upped the ante by saying “I will never speak to you again, you’ll never see me”. Now if that isn’t a winning Biden ad, I don’t know what is.

  52. [52] 
    John M wrote:

    [22] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "I think the current president should nominate someone to replace the irreplaceable RBG if he chooses a consensus nominee and consults with Democratic leadership on the choice."

    Trump has said that his Supreme Court pick to replace R.B.G. is going to be a woman.

    Other than that, the choice will probably be very conservative, with anti-abortion views, and approved and on the list of the conservative Federalist Society.

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    [38] John From Censornati wrote:

    "The only way to stop McConnell is to get Collins, Grassley, and Romney to join Murkowski. That's a long shot."

    Actually both Murkowski and Collins are both now publically on record as letting the next President decide. Now if we can only get the other two to join as well.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump suggested last night at a rally in NC that maybe he’d sign an executive order that says Joe Biden CANNOT be President. That is one way to keep Biden from winning!

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    JFC [56]

    Ya beat me to it! You know that Barr has told him that he can do ANYTHING that he wants as President.

  56. [56] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    John M,

    You need to re-read that Collins statement. She hasn't promised anything.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Other than that, the choice will probably be very conservative, with anti-abortion views, and approved and on the list of the conservative Federalist Society.


  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm looking forward to seeing everyone tonight at the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party and to listening to all of your musical contributions!

    I'll start by making note of the fundraiser held just this past Friday in support of Crew Nation. This show included a variety of artists performing in support of all of the crew workers who make live music performances possible. They have been out of crew work for a long while now and it looks like it'll be a long while yet before we can all enjoy live music in a concert setting. It seems my Styx concert next month will be a no-go. :(

    Anyway, here is the link to see the show ... - there is no charge but donations are being accepted!

    And, here is one of the performances - Styx's Tommy Shaw with the Contemporary Youth Orchestra ...


  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm looking forward to seeing everyone tonight at the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party - love listening to all of your musical contributions!

    I'll start by making note of a fundraiser that was held this past Friday night featuring a variety of artists performing in support of Crew Nation. The live music we all used to enjoy - and will again - would not be possible without the dedicated crew workers. They've been out of crew work for a long while now and it looks like it'll be a long while yet before they get back to work. It looks like my Styx concert rescheduled from March to next month will be a no-go, again. :(

    Anyway, you can see the show now as it will be streaming for some time yet here ...

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, from Six String Salute streaming concert, here is Styx's Tommy Shaw and the Contemporary Youth Orchestra performing Fooling Yourself ...

  61. [61] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I’m offering up the Jayhawks today sort of in honor of RBG’s life well lived.

    Sister Cry


    BTW – Hollywood Town Hall is an amazingly awesome album from start to finish.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice!

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought I'd post something in honour of the Notorious R.B.G., too.

    Not sure if La Boheme was her favourite opera but, here it is in it's entirety!

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


  65. [65] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Lights was from an album called Sweet Relief. It was a fundraiser for songwriter and musician Victoria Williams. She was diagnosed with MS and had no health insurance. All of the songs were written by her and performed by others. Here are a couple more:

    Frying Pan by Evan Dando

    Crazy Mary by Pearl Jam

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I remember you highlighting Victoria Williams before - a great songwriter!

    And, it's official ... love, love, love the Jayhawks! Listening now to a bunch of their songs from the Sweet Relief benefit.

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's one you might like, JFC!

    The Cooper Brothers, active in the 70s and 80s, are a southern rock band from Ottawa.

    Just recently, though, one of the brothers posted a quarantine song ...

  68. [68] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Jayhawks have a song called Miss Williams' Guitar.

    One night in a bar in Louisville, we had some fun

    We walked through a graveyard park, left the flowers alone

    The places mentioned are within easy walking distance from my home although the bar is no longer there and the graveyard is untended.

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here they are from way back when ...

  70. [70] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    That made me sad. My dog Cooper died during the pandemic.

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The places mentioned are within easy walking distance from my home although the bar is no longer there and the graveyard is untended.

    Neat! :)

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OMG! So sorry to hear that.

    Well, if you like the Cooper Brothers - and I think you will - you can listen and think of Cooper ...

  73. [73] 
    John M wrote:

    [61] John From Censornati wrote:

    "You need to re-read that Collins statement. She hasn't promised anything."

    Actually she has. Here is the pertinent part of the official statement that she released: "Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, John M!!! You know the rules around here ... where's your tune!?

  75. [75] 
    John M wrote:

    In addition, Pelosi announced that the House could also take further action to delay any vote on the Supreme Court by the Senate, including either another impeachment of Trump or an impeachment of Attorney General Barr. So there's that possibility....

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's quite enough!

  77. [77] 
    John M wrote:

    [74] John From Censornati wrote:

    "That made me sad. My dog Cooper died during the pandemic."

    Whenever I think of sad songs, I think of this one:

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That video is unavailable in my country - you got another one?

  79. [79] 
    John M wrote:

    [82] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "That video is unavailable in my country - you got another one?"

    The only link I seem able to find is the You Tube one at the moment. Anyway, the song is called "Seasons in the Sun." Nirvana also did a version of it, which seems to be almost all that I can find online, though the song was a worldwide hit for Canadian singer Terry Jacks back in 1974. How about that Elizabeth!

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I know THAT song! :)

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  82. [82] 
    John M wrote:

    [85] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, John, here ya go ...

    Yes that's the one. A little too depressing. Got me thinking about the loss of RBG.

    How about something as little more positive affirming?

    Or do you have trouble with You Tube in general?

  83. [83] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Well, there's always Goodness from the Lincoln Project.

  84. [84] 
    John M wrote:

    But the best of all, I always thought, especially for a campaign theme ( besides Bill Clinton's use of Fleetwood Mac's Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow) would be Rod Stewart's "Faith of The Heart."

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i really can't bring myself to think about music right now.

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, come on, Joshua! I know you can! And, I know you'll feel better for it ...

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua, this one's for you, with love ...

    It's the Eagles! Take it easy ...

  88. [88] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    fine liz. for you, just one.

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and if anyone wants more, just put this one on repeat.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ah, a double shot of Paint it Black! That got me up on the dance floor, dancing across the living room. You should've seen me!!!

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Joshua, my friend, are you okay? What can I play to help?

  92. [92] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This song has become more and more relevant in the last few weeks...and I was so thrilled that Pentatonix has finally covered it! Here is Mad World:

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:



    This is little ditty from, you guessed it, PRiSM, and I'm sending it out just for you, to help cheer you up a bit...

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    That was very, very nice - don't think I've ever heard of Pentatonix ... unless you've posted on another Sunday night before ...

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As bad as things may seem today, I still believe that there is a lot of hope ... more hope than even I thought possible before you know who got the, ah, nomination. :)

    And, ya know, music really is the best tonic for all that is wrong with our world.

    Coming up later, an other worldly tune and little tribute...

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here's one from Pentatonix, for all of us!

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  98. [98] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ok, here's the only thing that could possibly have cheered me up a little: one of the best versions ever performed, of one of the best pieces ever composed, played while tickling one of the cutest toddlers ever born.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's sweet.

  100. [100] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    You know what would be insane, but arguably politically genius?

    Trump nominates Merrick Garland.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You got a tune to go with that?

    Or, how would you like to get slapped up the side of your head?

  102. [102] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Why does it have to require back breaking work to have a legitimate idea discussed and entered into the public discourse?

    Dude you've entered OD into public discourse repeatedly at least here and haven't interested anyone. Full stop.

    That's all the feedback that OD apparently merits.

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, everyone ... so very sorry for the interruptions this fine evening. But, we won't let it get us down.

    So, here is a very fun version of Hotel California, ahem.

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Any Foreigner fans out there? Ahem.

    I want to know what love is!

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I heard this song on the radio today and haven't been able to get it out of my head ... maybe this will do it ...

    This is the, ah, long version of (I just) Died in Your Arms by Cutting Crew,

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll finish up my part of tonight with a tune from the 1977 debut PRiSM album.

    Spaceship Superstaaaaaarrrr was their first hit, coming after Ron Tabak entered the picture and made the band complete with his brilliant lead vocals. His birthday is coming up on September 25; he would have been 67 years old and the band would still be going strong, I like to think, some 40 years later.

    I also like to believe that he's helping to make the stars shine just a little brighter and enjoying being part of the great rock band in the sky. This one's for you, Ron ...

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a live version which is a stereo sync to the only live version that out but it had very poor sound ... this stereo sync is pretty good!

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, this was Ron's favourite, Take Me Away, off of the 1978 See Forever Eyes album and written by bandmate Al Harlow, who is soon to come out with a new solo album!

    G'nite, all!

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Wow, hypocrisy. In a presidency filled to the teeth with undeserved superlatives on both the positive and negative sides, i think we may finally have reached one that is fully merited.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is one reason, among many, to show why Democrats don't know how to fight the good fight and why there will probably be a massive shift to the right on the US Supreme Court, sooner or later. Democrats won't take the time to explain a God damned thing! Why? Maybe it's because they don't know how to explain things or they don't think enough people will understand their explanation. I think it's both and they will rue the day.

    This morning on CNN, Biden's number one guy, Senator Coons, was asked about the Biden rule and whether Republicans were correct in citing it as an argument to prove their case in moving forward on a Trump nomination to replace Justice Ginsburg's seat.

    Would anyone like to guess how he answered?

    He said the Biden rule was a stray comment.

    What did he say!? A. Stray. Comment!!!??? And, then moved with light speed on to something else.

    Coons couldn't take two lousy minutes to explain, number one, what the Biden rule is and, number two, how Republicans have done what they always do - use a Democratic strength against Democrats and democracy, misinterpret, mislead and mangle the truth just before they outright lie about it.


    Good luck to us all! And, if we're betting on luck we may as well go home now and concede it all.

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No matter, I doubt Biden would have explained it any better, either.



  112. [112] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    John M [77]

    That Susan Collins statement is classic Collins. She has not promised anything.

    Based on the way Garland was treated, her statement is entirely reasonable, but it just another example of her treating her constituents like suckers. She might as well have said that the world should be nice place where everybody gets along. She said the weasel word "should" twice. Nowhere did she say what she would or would not do.

    Here's what she left out: "but if Mitch McConnell forces a vote before inauguration day, I'll do what I always do."

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Context, context, context!

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    The Notorious RGB

    Joan Ruth "Kiki" Bader Ginsburg... one of the most ferocious "kicks" on the planet. We will miss her. :)

  115. [115] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [114]

    Could it be that some people are just not ready to go all out in battle with the death cult before RBG's funeral has even taken place?

    That possibility is a charitable explanation, I know. On the other hand, parsing words for news junkies doesn't seem all that useful. Did he at least say "no"? As far as I'm concerned, that question doesn't need a longer answer than that.

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    There isn’t a Biden’s Rule — it was just something the Republicans coined in their attempts to justify not allowing a hearing for Obama’s nominee. I think Democrats need to start citing the McConnell Rule — if McConnell’s jowls are flopping, the bullshit is flowing!

  117. [117] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Republicans are able to put a new Justice on the Supreme Court prior to the election, the Evangelicals won’t have much reason to vote for Trump....he’ll have fulfilled what they wanted from him and can toss him aside like a used tissue. If Republicans wait until after the election, Trump can use that as a drive to get his base excited about voting for him again, but they also risk that some Senate Republicans won’t be so willing to be seen as hypocrites if Biden is going to be President.

    I think this should be a massive wake up call for Democrats — they can no longer afford to hesitate when it comes to punishing wrong doers. If Dems take both houses and the White House, it will be time to overhaul the government to their liking in order to make the changes we need to recover as a nation. We can no longer rely on public pressure and social norms to assure that those we elect will do what is best for this country... the rules must be written into law that come with clear punishments for those who choose to break the rules.

    I still think we must require that every candidate must pass the same background check that the maids working in the White House have to pass in order to run for office. Trump would never have been on the ballot and we would not be suffering the way we are had that been required for him to be on the ballots.

  118. [118] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Yea, verily,it's tempting to write anti-Trump-ish legislation but I think it's probably unnecessary. Trump has likely ruined it for other unqualified people -- Exhibit A: Oprah.


    Exhibit B: Sean Hannity

    However I do believe that 10 years Federal and State tax returns should be law.

  119. [119] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Let's say Trump waits until after Nov. 3rd to nominate some Christofacist female to SCOTUS instead of doing so now. This obviously to motivate Evangelicals to (holding their noses as needed) show up November 3rd.

    Do Evangelicals realize that Trump can pull that nominee if he loses the reelection, in effect, to punish them?

  120. [120] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I mean, do they trust Trump?

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Basic democracy.

    you got that half right. let's do background checks for pie.

  122. [122] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Requiring candidates be able to pass the same back ground check that the lowliest federal employee must pass to work in the White House would weed out those who would pose a risk of being influenced because of their financial problems. It’s an unbelievably thorough in its scope — every neighbor you have lived next too through out your adult life will likely be contacted and questioned; your finances will be put under a microscope by investigators. Any past association with individuals with a criminal records can prevent you from passing — current associations with individuals with a criminal record will definitely cause you to fail. But still you think that your plan to demonize candidates simply for accepting LEGAL campaign donations would better prevent corrupt candidates from running for office.

    Rejecting Big Money in politics has nothing to do with the donations that the politicians’ campaigns are legally allowed to accept — those are pennies compared to the actual Big Money amounts that get pumped into PACs. You have failed to offer even a single case that demonstrates a politician having been corrupted by legal campaign donations of ANY size. Illegal campaign donations??? Sure, there are plenty examples of politicians giving in to corruption, but you cannot name a single politician actually being “bought” and corrupted by legal campaign donations.

    But then again, you tell the world that you have no actual experience or education in these matters, so you not knowing what you are talking about should not surprise anyone!

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Could it be that some people are just not ready to go all out in battle with the death cult before RBG's funeral has even taken place?

    What do you take me for?

    A simple two minute answer given in the spirit of bipartisanship would have sufficed. And, RBG would have agreed.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, the real answer takes about an hour and a half. Heh.

  125. [125] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    Yea, verily,it's tempting to write anti-Trump-ish legislation but I think it's probably unnecessary.

    I agree, but I’ve been pushing for thorough back ground checks for all political candidates well before Trump! The fact that we hold the person scrubbing Trump’s toilets to a tougher standard for employment than we do for the most powerful job in this country is just batshit crazy!!!

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Death Harris


    I have done the same and more than many.

    Death Harris yet again makes the nonsensical and asinine claim that he knows what others have done and that he's done "the same and more."

    What back breaking work haven't I done? You have no idea what I have or haven't done.

    Then he follows up that ignorance by informing another commenter that they "have no idea" what he has done.

    Y'all got that? *laughs*

    This is exactly why no one here need ever take this clown seriously.

    Why does it have to require back breaking work to have a legitimate idea discussed and entered into the public discourse?

    "Your idea" that isn't really your idea has already been entered into the public discourse via your shitty excuse for a website that contains disinformation to the voting public, which is an actionable felony in multiple jurisdictions. Your website is living proof to everyone with eyesight that you aren't doing any "back breaking work" to further your idea that isn't really your idea.

    An idea from a citizen is all that should be required. The lack of back breaking work false claim is just another excuse for you have no legitimate reason why this idea should not be discussed and entered into the public discourse.

    Your shit has been discussed ad nauseam on this website, and your own website is full of outdated and incorrect information. You've been mooching off this website for 5+ years and have nothing to show for it except the same stale bullshit mountain, and now you're whining that having an idea is all that should be required. *laughs* And to top it off, you're taking issue with someone claiming you haven't "put in the work" by claiming having an idea is all that is required. *laughs*

    But apparently ideas that expose the deception that you want to believe in do not deserve to be discussed.

    Allow yourself to accept the "idea" that you have no idea what everyone "wants to believe." It's an asinine argument that you keep making over and over ad nauseam while claiming to know what everyone else believes.

    So to recap: You genuinely suck at this. I believe it is your lack of basic reasoning skills. Claiming constantly to know what everyone else is doing and thinking and believes while claiming that no one knows the amount of work you've done while whining that having an idea is all you need... *laughs*

    Your repetitive rhetoric and ignorance keeps betraying you. Full stop.

    That is the bottom line-- you do not want to face reality.

    Said the moron still flogging the corpse of the dead horse. *laughs*

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller

    I think Democrats, should they ever regain the Senate should change that confirmation vote requirement back to two-thirds.

    And here I thought you were a fan of Joe Biden. So why bother to regain the Senate only to neuter yourself?

    I will be charitable now and not type what I'm thinking. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:


    Yes, sir... exactly this.

    Plus one more of my own - Get help from a mental health professional.

    It's good solid advice. He clearly thinks he's clairvoyant and knows what everyone is doing, thinking, and believes while at the same time claiming that no one knows what he's done when we've heard 5+ years of his bullshit mountain and seen his pathetic website.

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati

    Last night at his death cult rally, in addition to threatening to sign an executive order making Big Money Joe ineligible to be president, the Biggest Orange Loser told the zombies that “If I lose to him, I don’t know what I’m going to do”.

    Then he upped the ante by saying “I will never speak to you again, you’ll never see me”. Now if that isn’t a winning Biden ad, I don’t know what is.

    Biden endorsed it:

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:


    Good picks on the music. I was there Sunday, listening while I worked to flip Texas. The opera from EM took awhile, and then I found myself way behind.


    This song has become more and more relevant in the last few weeks...and I was so thrilled that Pentatonix has finally covered it! Here is Mad World:

    Pentatonix! I love them. They are from Arlington, Texas.

    Anybody ever noticed the plethora of great musical talent of all genres that was born and bred in Texas!? ;)

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati

    Could it be that some people are just not ready to go all out in battle with the death cult before RBG's funeral has even taken place?

    You're right, of course. Also, as you've pointed out: The "Biden rule" doesn't exist. It's right-wing drivel and spew... part and parcel of their rank hypocrisy.

    Don't sweat the SCOTUS, y'all. It seems the new "Moscow Mitch McConnell Rule" is that only the Party who holds the Senate may appoint Supreme Court Justices.

    If you will recall, Ted Cruz stated in 2016 that if HRC became POTUS, the GOP would block all of her SCOTUS picks... the "Cruz Rule."

    I have a point in there about the "Biden Rule" not existing any more than the "McConnell Rule" or the "Cruz Rule." Whenever the Democrats win back the Senate, they will be free to write the Senate rules, and I have conveniently already written the McConnell Rule and Cruz Rule for them to spew on cue.

    When Democrats regain the Senate, they will make the rules, and I would definitely be for expanding the makeup of the Senate to more resemble the electorate. Washington, DC has been taxed without representation for far too long, and I believe Puerto Rico would love statehood if it was offered.

    So to recap: A lot of this shit can be fixed via some Senate rule changes and legislation. For instance, legislation that killed the individual mandate has brought us the lawsuit to invalidate the ACA... so legislation that reinstates the individual mandate makes the issue moot in any court.

    The pendulum always swings back. Big picture. :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:


    There isn’t a Biden’s Rule — it was just something the Republicans coined in their attempts to justify not allowing a hearing for Obama’s nominee.


    I think Democrats need to start citing the McConnell Rule — if McConnell’s jowls are flopping, the bullshit is flowing!

    Yes, exactly this, Russ. The McConnell Rule and the Cruz Rule... roll tape! :)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:


    I mean, do they trust Trump?

    You're making a good argument for why we absolutely do need some clarifying statutes to avoid the Trump stench from happening again. I would say you could start with expanding the legal definition of "war" to include cyberwarfare. I have others, but that'll do for starters. :)

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden is a big fan of the two-thirds vote requirement, you know. But, I probably shouldn't have said that out loud. Heh.

Comments for this article are closed.