President Donald Trump characterized former FBI director James Comey, whom the president had fired just a day earlier, as a "nut job" to top Russian government officials during a recent Oval Office meeting, the New York Times reports on Friday citing an anonymous U.S. official who read from an internal document that purportedly summarized the exchange.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of the United States of America.
So Comey's a "nut job"? Sorry to be so trite, but as the old saying goesL, "it takes one to know one."
Which is worse, the predictability of a scandal a day from nut job Drumpfl, or the overzealous
nutjobPence??? I think I'll be happy w/Drumpf. PENCE SCARES THE HELL OUTTA ME. djt
IS MERELY mentally challenged....Jeepers Creepers, do y'a wanna be boiled in oil or burned
at the stake???U choose !!!
And while the demented dimwit is being undiplomatically disparaging, Lavrov and Kislyak are thinking: "This from the world's biggest oaf...an American banderovski."
What a classy guy, DJT!
Oh yes I mean, it's not like Trump could possibly be as dangerous as the guy he appointed to be VP or anything.
Your logic is as clear as crystal. Let's make sure the fucking fascist stays in office. Do everything you can to fight against impeachment!!!
I think maybe John Pilger and others on the alt-left might do some real organizing to support Trump, the fascist so keep your hopes up as there could be a groundswell of such support for the fascist.
First is was Hillary Clinton who was more dangerous than Trump. Now it is Pence. I don't think many people pay attention to these bizarre statements but following this type of reasoning could indeed lead to fascism. This remains a precarious situation.
I generally agree. I think the way out of the quagmire is to stretch out the impeachment process until, say, September or October of next year, then recapture the House and maybe the Senate. Pence would be neutered with a D-controlled House or Senate.
Otherwise, we're screwed.
What type of logic is that? Who is supporting Trump? Pence is just as right wing as Trump is, more right wing on some issues, and the entirety of the right wing is fascist. I’m sorry, but there is no radical difference between what Trump has done to this point and what previous presidents did in regards to things like press freedoms, constitutional rights, etc. Go ahead, give an example, and I’ll give you countless examples in response, especially since 9/11. Trump just isn’t as articulate or as good at bullshitting as they were, and he does pose a threat to the freedom of the press and other constitutional protections, but the power he has been given to him (which he shouldn't have and which the left fought against) was gained by previous presidents largely because of the "war on terror". People warned against giving the state those powers because there was always the potential of someone like Trump getting elected and then abusing his power. Well, here we are. Pence is authoritarian, look what he freaking did in Indiana. He’s also far more competent and is a rigid ideologue. It isn’t irrational at all to think that things could be just as bad, possible worse, with Pence and someone like Ryan as vice president, and saying that in no way should logically lead a person to think that someone saying as much supports Trump. Look at what they have done in regards to healthcare, privacy and the economy. You think the right wing has shown an appreciation for democracy, the will of the people or working with people that don’t share their values or worldview?
It would be best for the left in general to never again mention Hillary Clinton, but she won’t go the hell away. Trump was the most unpopular major party nominee ever and he beat her despite being outspent two to one. He is historically unpopular and has been an utter disaster, and her approval rating in a recent poll was still below his. She recently announced that she is going to form a PAC, and she has been meeting with big money donors. Howard Dean, the healthcare lobbyist, is going to head the PAC. She has not said if she will disclose who the donors are (keep in mind, she said she was against dark money in politics and Citizens United, during the campaign, which is a real knee slapper), Dean has said that he didn’t know if she would reveal the top donors but assumes she will. Cause, he said, she is transparent and has lots of character. The PAC is going to support candidates, and I am sure they will be champions of the people and will in no way undermine the donors funding her PAC, right?
Regarding who was more dangerous, Clinton is extremely hawkish, she came out of hiding to try and push Trump to be more hawkish too. Was perfectly happy with what he did in Syria. She happily shared the stage with Kissinger, was surrounded by extreme hawks like Kagan and Nuland, and had the support of a wide range of neocons. She has an extremely hawkish record and worldview as well. She would certainly be more competent than Trump as an administrator, but she also would have been a nightmare for people around the world and is everything the left should fight against, as is Trump. The problem is, of course, that if she were elected and did horrible things many on the "left" like you wouldn't challenge her, you'd likely provide cover for her, as many did during the primaries.
I also think it is naïve in the extreme to think you’re doing a damn thing about fascism by going after a single person, when what we are dealing with is clearly systematic and in response to mass suffering, misery, and anger at the system. You could get rid of Trump, Pence, Ryan and the rest tomorrow, and the threat of actual fascism wouldn’t go away with them.
It's simple. Impeach Pence.
Republicans understand power so much better than non-Republicans, it seems to me. When you have an advantage, press it. Always. Every. Single. Time.
Republicans crippled Clinton's presidency with Starr. That benifitted Republicans ultimately. If Trump goes and Pence steps in (didja know he just created a PAC?), then we cripple his presidency as best we can. If Ryan gets in, same thing. There is no end to the fight. There is not going to be a time when the far right just stops. Fascism is ALWAYS waiting to get back into power.
And yeah, I'll say it: they're better at organizing than the Left has been for a few decades now. Richard Spencer is part of a TRADITION on the right. He didn't spring fully-formed from the head of Steve Bannon. When it looked like their kind was done, consigned to the dustbin of history, they emerge even stronger, because they never stop. They get that the fight never, ever ends. The only folks on the Left at all who seem to get that are labor organizers and hardcore socialists. Of course, they actually have something to fight for, not just against, and that makes a difference.
Recall that Spiro Agnew exited the VP office prior to Nixon resigning.
While Ayatollah Pence is Christian extremist theocrat who makes Agnew look like shoplifter by comparison, Pence is much smarter and devious than Trump and we would be thrown from the frying pan into the fire if Pence became POTUS..
I couldn't disagree more. You want to beat Trump? Pretty simple. Push for progressive and wildly popular progressive policies. You don't have to rely on any of this to gain power, you just have to do what the DNC refuses to do, which is to push for policies that would benefit working people and the poor, but not their donors. That is the strength of the left and if the left is making any mistakes it is in assuming that it must operate within a totally corrupt and broken vehicle that is largely opposed to it, which is the Democratic Party. Even after the recent election, even with being utterly wiped out nationally, even with there being a total collapse in the last half century as far as party affiliation, the Democrats haven't changed a damn thing and leaders like Pelosi are publicly announcing that their party doesn't want to change.
I also think that you are focusing entirely on the symptoms of fascism instead of fascism itself. How exactly did Trump emerge in the first place? He emerged because Clinton was rotten candidate and backed policies that have destroyed working people and the poor, she lost because she was utterly corrupt and ran a tone deaf campaign. Her party has no interest in doing anything different. That is what feeds into fascism spreading. He also won because people have been getting kicked in the teeth for decades now and wanted to lob a wrench into the machine. I don't agree with the wrench, but I understand wanting to do so. You don't deal with fascism unless you deal with policies that are leading to a context in which fascism could emerge. Get rid of Trump and you have Ted Cruz or some other monster there waiting. The left's ideas are popular but the Democrats don't offer the left's ideas, and often outright oppose them, because doing so would require them to challenge their top donors. You aren't going to challenge fascism unless you deal with these things.
For sure. The Russians know they are dealing with a complete fool. They have no respect for him. He's just an inarticulate mental midget to be used. Somehow though I don't think this will bring Trump down.
Oh yes Joan, if you read my comment history you will see that have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
I'm blind to the corporate coup of 40 years and such.
Save you clucking lecture for someone deserving of it.
I suffered months and months of this alt-left logic that Trump represented some bulwark against the "establishment", and that the "Deep State" (not denying the existence of such) didn't like Trump, or that Trump was the "peace candidate", or that he was "against globalism", or that he would "reign in US policies of global hegemony"..............ad nauseum.
And that idiotic brain rot was coming from people that I have deemed the alt-left, who quote James Pilger and the like.
These same people, for months and months and months defended Trump by dismissing the fact that he was campaigning to cheering crowds the fact that he wanted to have MORE torture, and WORSE torture, and that he wanted to MAKE IT LEGAL!!!
I wrote two courteous letters to John Pilger asking him how he could possibly ignore Trump on torture, how he just brushed off the fact that Trump had given one of the most vile speeches to AIPAC, and that if anything it was much worse than Clinton's to AIPAC, sans her statements against BDS.
Did Pilger ever take on Trump for his fascist leanings? Perhaps someone can find a quote for me.
For months and months and months I kept pointing out that Trump was RUNNING on a big military buildup, of confronting China militarily as a bargaining chip on trade, how he wanted to ramp up the wars in the ME, how he was taking the Neocon policy against Palestinians and Iran, and in support of Saudi Arabia.
I pointed out his taking on Neocon James Woolsey as foreign policy advisor in September.
I of course would be accused by those apologizing for Trump (supposedly from the left) that I was a Clinton supporter. Cluck.
These same people that ignored all of that, are now uniting to say that we should not be supporting impeaching Trump!!!!!!
If me attacking that logic somehow makes me, according to you, oblivious to the overall slow motion coup that has happened in the last 40 years in this country, then I really couldn't give less than a flying cluck.
In the meantime, I'll argue that removing a fascist jerk, and the months long slow down of what otherwise might be a continuing rolling over of regulatory agencies and worse.
This notion that a months long impeachment battle could not damage Pence or even Ryan in the process is bizarre.
This notion that a growing political movement to get this fucking jerk out of office would somehow translate into a sure win for Pence and Ryan is just bizarre.
I'm countering THAT logic specifically. And I'm also countering the pattern of the alt-left consistently distracting from every criticism of Trump.
But of course they don't support him.
And before you go all half cocked on me regarding things I'm supposedly oblivious to, check out my comments first.
This notion that opposing Trump is by definition some denying of "these things" you point out, is pure fallacy.
I for one, can walk and chew gum at the same time, AND recognize that TRUMP himself DOES pose a unique danger, ON TOP OF IT ALL.
You're a joke. What the hell percentage of the left championed Trump as a bulwark against the establishment? What person on the left of note made these claims? They simply said that he was tapping into anger that people had at the system. They were correct to do so, one of the many reasons Clinton was a rotten candidate. By the way, the actual left was proven entirely correct about her and this election.
"These same people, for months and months and months defended Trump"
Name them. Provide proof that they existed in large numbers outside of your silly head. You know, these things aren't the case simply because you saw a person here or there saying they were on the left and making these types of arguments. It's absurd on its face to claim this was a widespread mindset on the left, and you are posting on a site that did not say those things.
"I of course would be accused by those apologizing for Trump (supposedly from the left) that I was a Clinton supporter."
No, you chose to support a rotten candidate that still has lower approval ratings than he does and who now wants to form a PAC with big money donors to support candidates those donors want. Thanks for backing someone that lost to that train wreck, despite spending far more than he did on the campaign.
Get this through your head. The actual left tried to warn you about Clinton. The actual left opposed the War in Iraq, which she supported, opposed the economic model she and Bill supported. The leftist critics of those policies were proven correct. They were proven correct about austerity, the threat of global warming, financial deregulation, the WTO and NAFTA undermining democracy, the environment and workers. They were correct. THAT is the damn left, not your straw man.
What I said, which you horrible mangled, was the you don't fight fascism without focusing on the policies that have created a context in which fascism could emerge. You don't confront fascism by removing a politician, since the reasons why that politician got power are still there and someone will come up to take their place and could be even more competent. You didn't actually address that at all, you just argued against some "alt-left" strawman.
Oh, and regarding neocons, do I need to give you a list of neocons (outside of the neocon herself, Clinton) that supported Clinton and the neocons she proudly shared stages with, the neocons that she proudly took support from? Do I need to give you examples of her extremist hawkish record?
Hey joke. Can you fucking read? I said the "alt-left", and I qualified (supposedly from the left)
And now you are lecturing me about Clinton.
Believe me, to those who have been around these parts you are presenting yourself as an utter fool.
Read my comment history jerk.
"Your logic is as clear as crystal. Let's make sure the fucking fascist stays in office. Do everything you can to fight against impeachment!!!"
This is your nonsensical comment above. What exactly do you think this comment means? A logical person, not you of course, would read that and think that a person against impeachment is in favor of keeping a fascist in power and that by Pence becoming president you wouldn't face the same exact problem. Is he somehow less noxious, less of a threat to working people, women, freedom of the press, would he be better on healthcare, LGBTQ rights, police violence?
I think the best that can be done now is to ignore her. Sure, she was a foreign policy hawk, and too retrograde on a range of issues. Her campaign was a waste. Yes, still she would have been far better than Trump and Co. and they have just begun.
But that is all over. She should go away. She can be dismissed. The battle now is not over her. We need to, I hesitate to use the phrase, move on.