ChrisWeigant.com

Donald Trump As Shadow President

[ Posted Wednesday, October 21st, 2020 – 17:10 UTC ]

For the purposes of discussion today, we're going to assume that Joe Biden wins the upcoming election. This is in no way guaranteed, of course, but the rest of the article makes no sense unless this happens. Consider it a thought-experiment.

If Joe Biden wins the election, what will President Donald Trump do next? Let's ignore all the expected lame-duckery for the moment (lawsuits against the election results, epic tantrums, Trumpian chaos, self-pardons, refusing to attend the inauguration, etc.) and take the longer view of what Trump will do after Biden is sworn in next January.

Many are assuming that Trump will somehow magically disappear from the political scene. In this fantasy, the Republican Party will wake up from its four-year delusion, shake its head in bewilderment, and then go back to being a normal opposition party in American politics. Biden himself is somewhat of a proponent of this viewpoint.

In more normal times, this might be the case. Ex-presidents are generally known for largely retreating from the public stage and assuming the role of "elder statesman" within their own party. They do not regularly involve themselves in the day-to-day political struggle, but instead take a more gentlemanly approach and for the most part refuse to second-guess the new Oval Office occupant (at least, in public). But these are not normal times, so why would anyone expect Donald Trump to be a normal ex-president? Instead, Trump will likely become what could be called a "shadow president." Now, this requires a digression to explain what I mean by that term, so please bear with me.

In some parliamentary systems, the "out" party in parliament forms what is known as a "shadow cabinet." They appoint one leader from their own ranks to serve as party leader, who essentially becomes the "shadow prime minister." But then they go further and also appoint other sitting members as "shadow ministers" for all the various departments. So Member of Parliament Cecily Whipplethwait (for instance), whose father and grandfather both worked as train engineers, and who is generally acknowledged by everyone as an expert on the industry, is appointed shadow minister for transportation. She not only acts as a member of parliament but also as the "out" party's expert and point person on all transportation matters. If there's a contentious issue on the subject, the press will ask Cecily to present the "out" party's official position on the matter.

Now say a parliamentary election happens, and the "out" party wins and becomes the "in" party. Unlike the American system with its built-in "transition period" (or "lame duck period," if the sitting president's party loses), in a parliamentary system the new prime minister is sworn in the very next day. They are expected to take up the reins of government immediately. Which is the biggest reason why the shadow cabinet exists in the first place. Usually, the shadow cabinet ministers automatically advance to being the new actual ministers (what the American system calls "secretaries," as in "secretary of State").

This is not guaranteed, however. There are two main reasons why a shadow minister might not become the actual minister. The first is that Whipplethwait loses her own parliamentary election in her district, even as her party gains a majority overall. Ministers are also sitting members of parliament, meaning she is now no longer qualified for the job. The second is that Cecily and the new incoming prime minister had an exchange of insults as 12-year-olds while in school, and these insults have never been forgotten (much less forgiven). So the new incoming prime minister chooses her own new minister of transportation, and snubs Whipplethwait.

Political playground intrigue aside, though, you can see how having an unofficial opposition cabinet works, in general. And how countries like the United Kingdom manage to change their country's leadership one day after an election is held. The new cabinet members don't normally hit the job cold -- they've been actively preparing for it for years.

Of course, the American system doesn't have "shadow" positions at all. There may be one senator from the opposition party who is generally seen as an expert on certain matters, who regularly gets interviewed by the media to give the opposition's response to a sitting president's actions (think of: Senator John McCain, on military matters, under President Barack Obama -- that's the most obvious example I can come up with). But there's no "shadow" unofficial title, and there's no guarantee that Senator McCain would have become Secretary of Defense McCain if, say, Mitt Romney had won.

But getting back to our main theme, this is pretty close to what Donald Trump would morph into if he loses the election -- he'd anoint himself as "shadow president," whether the Republican Party liked the idea or not.

Trump will likely choose one of three courses if he is defeated. In the first, he publicly criticizes every single move President Biden makes, from Biden's official policies to what he eats for breakfast. Trump continues to tweet up a storm each and every day, and goes into great detail about why: (1) the election was stolen from him, (2) therefore Biden is an illegitimate president, (3) the election was stolen from him, (4) everything Biden does just monumentally screws everything up, and (5) the election was stolen from him, dammit! Trump, of course, will have all the answers and will state that things could have been so much better if he had won a second term. This pressure will be ceaseless and unrelenting. The only thing which could possibly stop this from happening would be if Twitter and Facebook and all the rest of the social media platforms just kick him off for consistently violating their rules.

In the second scenario, Trump demands (and is given) a two-hour slot on Fox News, five nights a week. In these freewheeling broadcasts, Trump relives every single perceived slight against him while he was president, in addition to -- at greater length -- doing everything mentioned in the first option. The only difference is Trump would be performing live in front of the cameras instead of just tweeting. There would almost have to be a live audience in the studio as well, to feed Trump's gargantuan ego with raucous chants and thunderous applause. Trump might have guests on his show, but for the most part they'll struggle to get a word in edgewise.

The third scenario is exactly the same one most people were expecting if Trump had lost in 2016. He'll either create or take over some other cable news channel and turn it into "Trump TV." He might try to hire away his favorite Fox News personalities to work at his new channel, and he'll definitely have his own show every night -- although it might be three hours long instead of two. Maybe he'll fill up all the other hours in the day with nostalgic videos of all his earlier rallies, or something. Maybe Ivanka and Donnie Junior will get their own shows, too. Why not?

You'll note that these three options do not contain: "Trump retreats from public life and joins the gentlemanly club of ex-presidents." This is because I do not see this as a rational possibility for anyone to intelligently contemplate. As long as Trump still draws breath, he will be complaining about how unfair the universe has been to him, and how he would have made everything so much better. I'd bet that farm on that one, personally.

The Republican Party -- and the rest of us -- had better get used to the idea of Trump sniping from the sidelines, taking every possible potshot at Biden and generally causing the biggest ruckus he can manage. Because one way or another, that is what is going to happen.

For the GOP, this is going to present a rather large problem. There's a country song title that sums it up: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?" The Republicans who remain in office may wish to move beyond Trump, but this will be incredibly hard to do -- if not downright impossible -- with Trump still around egging everyone on. Trump's base, after all, is loyal to him personally, not to the Republican Party. So if a Republican gets on Trump's bad side, then Trump will whip hatred for that person up among the Republican base. Just as he does now, in fact.

There will be no other strong Republican voice to counterbalance him, either. Trump will be shadow president because he was president, and because there will be no automatic standard-bearer from the Republican ranks. The 2024 Republican presidential nomination race will start the day after Trump is defeated, but who among the many (perhaps dozens) who will run will be seen as the automatic party leader? Trump himself may even run again in 2024. Even if he doesn't, his kids might. Which Republican today thinks he or she has a bigger following in the party's base? Mike Pence? Don't make me laugh. The only realistic possibility might be Mitt Romney, who not only has run for president before but also tends to lead the anti-Trump wing of the party. However, it is not likely that Romney will run again, and he did lose, the first time around. So his influence would be nowhere near as large as Trump's.

No matter the medium (or media) Trump chooses, his post-presidency is going to be a lot like the last 10 years of his life. He'll rage-tweet constantly, he'll whip people into a frenzy, and he'll paint himself as the greatest political genius of all time. At first when he began doing this, few paid much attention (even during all the birtherism years). Then he became president and we all were forced to pay attention. As ex-president, however, even though the rest of us will want to move away from him, Republican voters will still be paying very close attention to Trump -- which is going to put all other Republicans in a very tight spot. They may not want Trump to be their shadow president, but they may be absolutely powerless to stop him from effectively doing so.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

45 Comments on “Donald Trump As Shadow President”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Which Republican today thinks he or she has a bigger following in the party's base?

    Rush Limbaugh, (but he's dying) Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity: Remember, you asked which Republican "thinks he or she has a bigger following" and not which one actually does. But it is likely to be a celebrity before it'll be an actual politician, am I right? The GOP worships celebrity candidates despite all their hysterical and hypocritical -- and totally devoid of a scintilla of self-awareness -- whining protestations to the contrary.

    Honestly, though, Benedict Donald has already informed America what he's quite likely to do regardless of whatever else he does, and that's leave the country. He's going to be hiring a lot of lawyers, and he's going to be held accountable for at least some of his crimes against the United States and the State of New York and other states. Count on it.

    Keep in mind that should Trump lose, there will be no one in the upper levels of government to lie for him, run interference for him and to turn a blind eye to his multiple crimes... quite the contrary, in point of fact.

    So to recap: Trump lives in a insular construct wherein he surrounds himself with those who will perpetuate his Trumpian fantastical worldview. Anyone who deviates from that construct is removed. When Donald is surrounded by an environment wherein he is not in control of the narrative, he runs for the exits. #Coward

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if we're going to postulate hypotheticals, i say after first killing the filibuster liz warren should put forward a bill to remove andrew jackson from the twenty dollar bill, and replace him with pocahontas.

  3. [3] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm not sure what guise Trump's post-presidential existence will adopt, but I'm fairly sure it will follow one recipe, that whereby all Trump's hard work in the cultivation of his mob is monetized to the hilt.

    I like the 'Trump TV' angle personally... Trump TV, (TTV) would be a vulgar combination of Fox opinion (the three nutters), shows that exhault Trump in every way, the Praise The Lord (PTL) channel, (now the Lord suspiciously appears with an abbreviation of his schoolyard nickname, 'Donny the Deity') and the shopping channel with it's recently patented and jealously guarded red coloured merch... Red Bibles, red MAGA hats with matching crotchless panties, and red porch lights to mark your house in the overrun urban hell that was once your suburban dream...

    I do see Trump hanging onto the limelight until he gets too close and zaps himself by becoming too much of an irritant. As an ordinary citizen, Trump is open to all manner of retribution from any direction, he's shat upon all kinds of folks, especially the professional civil servant types and diplomats. Let's face it, he's monstered his own party in particular, I see John Ratcliffe was given the task of awkwardly pinning the threatening emails sent to voters on Iran, whom he sheepishly refers to as second-rate cyber-players working in the shadow of the GRU. What's to follow, Lindsay Graham, in a gynandromorphic pique, starts to play off the womens tees at Bedminster and refuses to take a piss in the bushes in mock-rebellion to Trump's will? Topsy-turvy, the world may seem in normality in comparison to this Trumpian tizzwas that won't be anymore...

    It'll take a while, but eventually Trump will tire of all the second billing and go back to washing oligarchial ill-gotten booty and grabbing at random muffins that he sees in the matching hat and panty set. He'll know they're his liscenced product, they'll bear a large black tag saying, Made in China, Under Patent to Ivanka Trump....

    ;)

    LL&P

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    He's actually even more boring and repetitive than Death Harris. Is there really a big audience for that once he's been voted off the island? I'm sure that he believes there is, so I guess we'll find out.

    Everything will become expensive for him if he can no longer exploit presidential resources and he's deep in debt, so who knows? Twitter might just ban him. The conservative entertainment complex probably hates him as much as everyone else and may move on to a little brighter hater.

  5. [5] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [2] Maybe the Treasury can be lobbied into issuing a three dollar bill with Trump's likeness on one side and Moscow Mitch on the other. Wallmart could offer special $3-6 and 9 specials on Chinese Turkeys at Thanksgiving?

    There would be line-ups around the corner, due to the Democrats closing all but one Wallmart per state every time there's a no-miss special or lost leader...lolo

    LL&P

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There is no way in Hell that Trump could pull off having a talk show running 3 hrs. each night! He is not smart enough to come up for even a nightly show that lasts only 15 minutes! Think about it: Trump’s rallies have not changed at all in the four years that he has been holding them! That is why he has to travel to a new city every time he holds one. Yes, he may draw a few hundred/thousand people to each rally, but that’s only because it’s a new show to those living in that town he is visiting. Put Trump on nationwide TV every night doing the same schtick over and over, babbling incoherently half the time, whining like a little biatch, and you think people will want to tune into that every night?

    Trump’s success with the Apprentice was largely due to how little time he was on camera! Trump was playing a fictional character named Donald Trump that was actually a very successful businessman. He said what he was told to say. He did not make any decisions on who was actually fired each week. That would require him to pay attention to something that was not about HIM... and we all know THAT ain’t gonna happen!

    Also, we will possibly be at close to half a million COVID-19 deaths by January 2021 thanks largely to Trump’s refusal to address the pandemic seriously. How do you think Trump’s glowing praise for how well he handled the pandemic is going to received by the masses when Biden actually implements a national plan for battling COVID and things start to get better? People are not going to be wanting to hear anything that man has to say!

    Trump is going to go out of his way to make Americans suffer for not re-electing him as long as he is in office. He won’t sign any relief bills and will immediately kill the ACA if SCOTUS strikes it down. He won’t be able to help himself, he is just that horrible of a person!

    Lastly, the Republican Party cannot allow Trump to retain any of the power that he has held over them these past four years or they will continue to be at risk of Trump turning against anyone who does not agree with him no matter what batshit things he spews. They will have to turn on him like they should have done when he was impeached. Trump is compromised. He is going to have lots of damaging news being uncovered in the weeks ahead that the GOP will want to distance themselves from as much as possible. Trump has become so toxic that even the cowards that remain in the GOP aren’t going to let him bully them anymore.

    Trump has already told us what he plans on doing if he loses — he’s gonna tuck tail and run! (To a country that has no extradition treaty with the US, I am guessing.). I think we should take him at his word.

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    6

    I have a better chance of dying in a car crash than I do from COVID.

    Dear Deceased Trump Sycophant/Bootlicker: Thankfully, you didn't kill the other driver, but if you're driving under the influence of alcohol like you were, you certainly do have a "better chance;" however, it's also infinitely ignorant to attend Trump super-spreader events by the dozens as if they're perfectly risk-free, particularly when Your Worship got infected and is now advocating "herd immunity" for everyone. With no vaccine yet, there is only one possible way to achieve herd immunity: Mass infection that will kill multiple hundreds of thousands of Americans.

    You've avoided all that and won't be around to vote for Trump. Win-win.

  10. [10] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Speculation about Trump's post-loss political life next year reminds me of the oncoming rumblings during the 2016 election about the GOP impeaching soon-to-be-President Clinton in 2017, as soon as she landed in the White House. Since she didn't make it, it became a dead letter, but the GOP gang sounded pretty serious about it at the time - Trump's entire campaign was predicated on her supposed criminality. People who bemoan the lost decency and efficiency of the Clinton administration tend to forget the reefs and storms she was going to have to navigate in.

    In terms of Trump's career next year, I tend to go with the comments here that he may be more of a spent force than Chris fears. Just as this election is proving difficult for him because this time he's not the refreshingly blunt outside business expert but the demonstrably failed first term president, so his post-office career won't be the same as his pre-office career, boasting of his expertise and shaking the establishment with his comic insults. The act has been on the road for too long, with piss-poor receipts, and everyone's heard all the jokes dozens of times over.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    FPC (16)

    Generally, when you put a statement in quotes that means you are quoting another person.

    But you quoted "there's no difference between the two parties' candidates!"

    I did not say that and no reasonable person could infer that that is what my comment was about.

    The fact that you had to change what my comment was about shows that you are clearly part of the deception as that is a typical tactic of those enemies of America and democracy that are trying to deceive.

    Shame on you.

    But what else should be expected from someone that gives an award to Gavin Newsome for saying the War on Habitat is real while at the same time Newsome has issued dozens of FRACKING PERMITS THIS YEAR ALONE?

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.

    GET REAL.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @jfc [5],

    as my wife pointed out, the 20 is already earmarked for harriet tubman. not quite as on the nose given jackson's particular history, but maybe pokey can still pip grant on the fifty? cool thing is, the design's already done:

    https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/pocahontas.jpeg

    as to the trump 3-dollar bill, no one would be more deserving.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Biden wins, Trump will be the least of the problems to deal with created by a Biden presidency.

    "I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again. I am not banning fracking."
    -Joe Biden

    "Nothing will fundamentally change."
    -Joe Biden to big money donors

    Actual quotes that Biden actually said and actually meant.

    If you are going to experiment with thought you should try thinking about reality.

    And try actually dealing with reality instead of ignoring it because it conflicts with your fantasy world where the Deathocrats are the good guys and are not part of the problem.

    That's what a REAL journalist does.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    in weigantia the convention for a verbatim quote is to italicize or put in a text box. when you put an unformatted paraphrase in quotation marks it means you're claiming that what the person wrote was equivalent, not necessarily verbatim.

    e.g. "a noun, a verb, and pie!"

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Alin wrote:

    @listen [8]
    I agree that the GOP would do well to defang Trump and his weaponized base. This type of loose cannon being wielded solely for the benefit of Trump's ego isn't to anyone's advantage (except Trump's of course). Question is, can they do it? Their abdication of all forms of governing over the last decade may have left them deskilled in the arts of practical politics - their obvious toolkit.
    We shall see - either next year (hopefully) or 5 years from now.
    Alin

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    begala made an interesting point - that contrary to all his campaign's protestations the mute button might actually help trump be perceived by the electorate as less crazy.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/opinions/unmute-trump-at-the-presidential-debate-begala/index.html

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Death Harris,

    This blog's purpose is to present to the public one man's view of politics.

    Not yours.

    STF up. STF up. STF up.

    GET HELP.

  18. [18] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [16] I caught a bit of that conversation, and yes.

    Biden has to be careful not to become vexed with Trump's expected digs at his family, most of which is known bubkiss at this point.

    Also, watch to see if Trump is strangely subdued and mindful of Biden's time to speak, The Trump campaign is hoping to give Biden the time, and thus the rope, with which hang himself. A scenario predicated on the false Trumpian assumption that Biden's a syphilitic soft brain and incapable of putting two words together... I get that Trump would prefer we all ignore our lying eyes but has he reached the point where he's convinced himself of his own dupe? Astonishing.

    All this is most likely moot, as Trump will be five minutes in and all the voices in his head that drown out reality and social convention will come alive in a cacophony of bombast, rage and victimhood... with a healthy spoonful of megalomaniacal paranoia to make it all a familiar scene to those of us in the cheap, sane seats.

    LL&P

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Biden's new statement about the supreme court is just about as awful as it could get. A bipartisan commission? 180 days? WTF? Here we go playing stupid games with bad faith Republicans all over again.

    When they ask him about it, he should say: McConnell's the court packer. We're going to unpack it.

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that the orange ignoramus has released the 60 Minutes tape, Kristen Welker should ask him the same questions that he walked out on.

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Did Trump release the 60 Minutes interview video as a training video to his supporters:

    ”Any questions covering these topics are unfair and are “fake news” that I cannot answer without looking bad!”

    ???

    That way, if Trump is asked questions covering the same topics, Trump can rant about just answering these fake news questions with 60 Minutes for two minutes so it seems like he is actually answering the question being asked!

    It will be interesting to see how someone reacts to combining COVID-fighting drugs with a cocktail of cocaine and Adderall. We could see maximum craziness tonight!

  22. [22] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John from Censornati

    Biden's new statement about the supreme court is just about as awful as it could get.

    I agree completely with ya on this. I think Biden should turn it back on McConnell:

    “We will simply be continuing the hard work started by Mitch McConnell to placing judges on the Federal bench to help combat the volume of cases the court is being asked to hear. It should not take years or decades for justice to be administered in these cases, and increasing the number of justices will help alleviate the backup of cases on the docket, thus speeding the process up for everyone.”

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Alin,

    Question is, can they do it? Their abdication of all forms of governing over the last decade may have left them deskilled in the arts of practical politics - their obvious toolkit.

    Very good question! Unless they were elected prior to 2008, it is unlikely that they have worked on a bipartisan piece of legislation that actually became law. That is truly horrific when you realize that THAT is really their only job.

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    16

    begala made an interesting point - that contrary to all his campaign's protestations the mute button might actually help trump be perceived by the electorate as less crazy.

    But what if they keep the split screen on Trump and then Dopey Donald keeps right on interrupting (hands flailing as usual) even though his mic has mercifully been switched off? Body language speaks volumes, and Trump seems incapable of stopping himself from repetitive dipshittery.

    Some people can't be helped by others; they live in their own created Foxnewsian-type fantasylands and spew the exact same ridiculous invented propaganda bullshit over and over and over like salivating and whining pavlovian animals on cue. When barking doesn't work, they resort to whining... like a dog... but too stupid to realize they appear to others like a giant asshole spewing verbal diarrhea unabated and whimpering endlessly about how things are so unfair and they're victims.

    So to recap: It will surprise me if Trump doesn't demonstrate writ large that he's the poster child for white male grievance who acts out and/or cuts and runs for the exits when confronted with facts. #Coward #Wussy

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just a reminder:

    Today's column will be late, as I'll be doing another (the last one!) snap-reaction post-debate column.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [1] -

    That's a good point. I was thinking mostly of GOP politicians, but I should also have considered celebrity wannabes as well. After all, that's where we got Trump in the first place. Good point.

    nypoet22 [2] -

    BWAH hah hah! Now THAT was funny!

    :-)

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    I cannot believe the sheer amount of times that Trump just flat out pulls outright lies and misinformation straight out of his fat ass. It is stunning just how often he fabricates. Trump literally has no clue what he's talking about on near every subject.

  28. [28] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [27] Kick

    Note, too, the intricate detail Trump has command of on all of his lies and misinformation, while knowing little to nothing about the Proud Boys, David Duke, the content of legislation, or anything that actually happened yesterday.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    28

    Yes, sir, exactly!

    Trump again claimed during the debate that he has a great health care plan that will be unveiled any day now and again claims those taxes are going to be published soon.

    Trump might as well be looking into the camera and stating:

    "I've been claiming my healthcare plan and taxes are going to be unveiled imminently, any day now, and soon for almost six years running because that's how effing stupid I think the you American People are. Are you this damn dumb? Obviously, I believe you are."

  30. [30] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I was glad the whole thing wasn't a complete dumpster fire. It was more of the smoldering leftovers from the previous event.

    When it came to health care I was sorely disappointed that Biden didn't break out the large blunt force object of Trump telling Leslie Stahl "I hope that they end it. It’ll be so good if they end it." Just to watch him increase his LPM rate would have been schadenfreude gold.

  31. [31] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Trump also claimed that the bailouts of the farmers were not from taxpayer dollars, but from the billions of dollars China is paying us. He didn't use the word tariffs, but "we" are probably too "effing stupid" to understand how tariffs work.

    P.S. I am not a sir. I didn't think Michale could handle
    me not being some big bruiser. My twin is about a foot taller than I.

  32. [32] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    In a thing that makes you go Hmmm moment...

    Is it just me or is it a bit odd that the proclaimed standard bearer of the evangelicals doesn't wear a wedding ring?

    His wife does...

    I know folks who don't wear their rings, but isn't it odd that the standard bearer of their movement doesn't ?

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    31

    Trump also claimed that the bailouts of the farmers were not from taxpayer dollars, but from the billions of dollars China is paying us. He didn't use the word tariffs, but "we" are probably too "effing stupid" to understand how tariffs work.

    Yes, sir ma'am sir. ;)

    P.S. I am not a sir. I didn't think Michale could handle me not being some big bruiser.

    Who?

    My twin is about a foot taller than I.

    When I was a tiny rambunctious little thing, I thought everybody came in pairs like me. You seriously have a twin too? :)

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [33]

    Yeth! I am a twin as well. My twin is about a foot shorter and he didn't get my good looks haha.

  35. [35] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [17]

    John From Censornati wrote:


    Death Harris,

    This blog's purpose is to present to the public one man's view of politics.

    Not yours.

    STF up. STF up. STF up.

    GET HELP.

    Starting with sharpening up your reading skills. You don't get it.

  36. [36] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I had a pleasant chat with someone who can thank the hills and sky the chat wasn't face to face...

    Behold.

    I can answer the "who built the cages, Joe?" question... Obama built the cages, that's how he became known as the 'Deporter-in-Chief' by the GOP when it suited their duplicitous ends. Trump put the kids in them and somehow misplaced their fucking parents to disincentivise illegal entry, now the US taxpayer gets 500 reminders of what happens when they don't GET OUT AND VOTE.

    His reply.

    'don't tell 1/2 the story. the kids were separated to ensure they were with authentic parents. most were not. they were taken by drug runners & human traffickers. they took off as they usually do & left the kids which were used to gain entry.'

    My rebuttal and why some people are in dire need of some humanity.

    "Don't be absurd, and above all else, don't enable that greasy Trump narrative when the person who reluctantly carried out his policy later quit her job in disgust of a policy she described as heartless and uncaring. People without any curiosity and in turn, any factual evidence other than, 'Trump insists this is what happened, therefore it must be so,' are equally repellant as the specimen who inaugurated the human herding to kick off this stain on the American soul... I'll wager you're disabled by one or other of the Catholic chimaeras that seem to thrive in the undereducated, self-loathing white lower class? Almost without exception, that sub-sect parrot Trump's BS because it suits them to look away."

    People depress me unutterably at times, those times are here frequently these days.

    LL&P

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Watched the debate. The "two minutes uninterrupted" kept this from being a shit show like the first, and the moderator did better than the first two moderators combined.

    Nothing happened that will move the needle much at all. Joe didn't pee himself on stage and that's all he needed to do.

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    goode trickle
    30

    When it came to health care I was sorely disappointed that Biden didn't break out the large blunt force object of Trump telling Leslie Stahl "I hope that they end it. It’ll be so good if they end it." Just to watch him increase his LPM rate would have been schadenfreude gold.

    He actually told Leslie Stahl that!? Well, that was an "off the charts" ignorant thing to say considering the midterms, and then throw in a pandemic and it's positively moronic. The silent part out loud again. So did he admit he actually has no health care plan? No wonder he left the interview.

    I'll never forget that time Trump began to cry during an interview and it was ended as Trump was abruptly rushed out of the room. The subject was how Trump thought he was being poorly treated. I guess he forgot how he treated Barack Obama and was under the mistaken impression that he was the only asshold in America, but I digress.

    Tune in tomorrow night when "Borat Subsequent Movie" (or whatever the name is) has Donald Trump's personal lawyer proving exactly what a national security risk Donald Trump and the Trumpanzees really are. These bozos couldn't get a security clearance to clean the toilets in the White House... as I know you know.

  39. [39] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Then I watched the Leslie Stahl 60 Minutes interview -- the one that Trump bailed out on.

    The video doesn't help Trump. Stahl wouldn't accept Trump's usual bushel baskets full of lies and she kept trying to get Trump to answer the question at hand.

    It's officially "Hail Mary" time for Trump and the Repugs. Only it doesn't make a difference if you're down by thirty points when you get the ball.

    There's not enough time for Trump to pull this off.

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT [38]

    asshold = asshole

  42. [42] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [36]

    James T. Canuck wrote

    "Don't be absurd, and above all else, don't enable that greasy Trump narrative when the person who reluctantly carried out his policy later quit her job in disgust of a policy she described as heartless and uncaring. People without any curiosity and in turn, any factual evidence other than, 'Trump insists this is what happened, therefore it must be so,' are equally repellant as the specimen who inaugurated the human herding to kick off this stain on the American soul... I'll wager you're disabled by one or other of the Catholic chimaeras that seem to thrive in the undereducated, self-loathing white lower class? Almost without exception, that sub-sect parrot Trump's BS because it suits them to look away."

    People depress me unutterably at times, those times are here frequently these days.

    Ouch! You hit that nail right on the spot.

    Repug voters aren't very bright. They've been voting for tax cuts for the rich for 40 years and it predictably work great -- for the rich, only.

    The line good thing about Trump is that it awakened the Progressives in a way that never would have happened under Hillary. So 200,000 dead Americans & another trashed American economy may prove a price worth paying if it undos the damage that Reaganism hath wrought.

  43. [43] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    [33] Kick

    Seriously. I'm the younger by three minutes. As we have older siblings, however, I was familiar with that singleton phenomenon. I'm also familiar with being asked if we're identical twins, even while seeing us together. I learned to answer with tact.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    34

    Yeth! I am a twin as well. My twin is about a foot shorter and he didn't get my good looks haha.

    There are three of us here!? Sweet. :)

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    43

    Seriously. I'm the younger by three minutes.

    Sweet! There are three of us here! Great things come in pairs... as y'all know.

    As we have older siblings, however, I was familiar with that singleton phenomenon. I'm also familiar with being asked if we're identical twins, even while seeing us together.

    Oh, yes, ma'am sir ma'am; I hear you. My twin is much shorter than me, has a different hair color and even a totally different color eyes and much lighter skin tone, and people still ask if we're "identical."

    I learned to answer with tact.

    My absolute favorite answer: "Can't you tell?" ;)

Comments for this article are closed.