March 23, 2017

"I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not. You know. Say hello to everybody OK?"

TIME's interview with Trump is hilarious, right down to his last line, quoted above.

I'm just going to say: Hello, everybody!

184 comments:

Kevin said...

What happens to your hit piece when the subject fails to take you and your publication seriously?

Hello everybody! It's like he can see all the media people behind the one-way mirror.

Snark said...

Like some bread with that circus?

Sebastian said...

Trump using the Iraqi version of hello -- very snarky of him.

rhhardin said...

That's from a Bob and Ray skit, a reporter interviewing a senator.

Chuck said...

It is painful, that reporters following tradition and protocol, have to be so polite and deferential in a presidential interview.

Just about every third or fourth line out of Trump's mouth was a lie. I would have stopped him repeatedly, and cross-examined him. But then it wouldn't have been much of an interview.

A great many reporters are now reaching the point where they no longer aim to correct and confront Trump. They ask the question, get the answer, then let the public hear that answer.

It doesn't end there, of course. Because plenty of people will then go through the transcript patiently and carefully and pick it all apart. And even then, some percentage of the public will not allow their favorable view of Trump to be shaken.

Althouse; you have done some great transcript-deconstructions. You want to fact-check this interview? I would, if I had the time.

rehajm said...

But my idea is that whatever the reality of what you are describing, the fact that they are disputed makes them a more effective message, that you are able to spread the message further, that more people get excited about it, that it gets on TV.

Heh. Leftie 'TIME Staff' sounds like they might be catching on but immediately returns to leftie Trump truth talking points, as if the previous thought was a betrayal of their religion.

eric said...

This is shaping up to be the best presidency of my adult life.

Granted, lots can go wrong. But man, these first few months have been awesome.

Hagar said...

Well, these days it is certainly better to be Donald Trump than Chevy Chase!

Sebastian said...

DJT is the best bullshitter evah, in both the positive and negative senses of the word. Of course, we could have a pointless argument about that.

Hagar said...

It is going to be a long war; longer than one or two presidential terms.There will be battles won, battles lost, and battles fought more or less to a draw. It is not an even match, so the thing to do is fight "asymmetrically" and make them step on their own shoelaces.

Virgil Hilts said...

I'm not anti-trump. But "And a lot of information has just been learned, and a lot of information may be learned over the next coming period of time.. ." That stuff did remind me of the Dude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4
"New shit has come to light!"

Unknown said...

If a student of law wrote answers like Trump in the Time interview, I wonder what grade the student's Professor would give them.

I guess if you're a Trumpie, the grade would be at least an A+. The rest of us would just throw it into the garbage.

Trumpies call this way of talking "Americanese" ... Jeez!

buwaya puti said...

Here is one of those things I don't get.
Quite a few people seem to feel pain at Trumps style. Very much as they did at Palin's.
This seems to come from the bone. Why? Where did this come from?
The US has no real aristocratic tradition, it is odd that feelings of propriety should conform to those of a Bourbon court.

joucas said...

I don't get this new belief that reporters are supposed to "correct" Trump, or any interviewee for that matter, or to cross-examine someone who has agreed to an interview. It's an interview, not a debate. When did journalists stop doing journalism?

TreeJoe said...

I have come to the conclusion that if you work for one of the MSM outlets, you are actively engaging in dumbing down the populace. It's not just passively reporting to a populace who wants dumbed down content.

When you look at the current reporting on "russia meddling with our election", donald trumps tweets, what has been reported by or on FBI/NSA/CIA/GHCQ, there is simply no context. It is all about a narrative. I just read a cnn.com story about Nunes where they didn't actually report what he said and then they provided prodiguous quotes from 4 democrats (Pelosi, Cummings, and 2 others) and that he had "apologized" for releasing information extremely relevant to the ongoing news stories and testimonies and not in actual violation of any rules. They didn't quote him or seek a quote from him, but some democrats on the committee said he apologized. Was it simply "I'm sorry I didn't wait to tell you first, but I had to share this." ? We don't know - there's no context.

In this news environment walks DJT who will say anything he wants, repeat anything he wants, lie/twist facts blatantly, but also tell the truth in an unabashed fashion (as he sees it).

And this directness - this removal of the news media as parsers of statements - just is not being processed by the MSM.

Amazing phenomenon.

buwaya puti said...

It is "Americanese".
It is the tongue of the common man, in speech. That this is felt to be so terrible is a very curious thing.
I have been to places with vast differences in patterns of speech. There is always a reason for them, and the reactions to them, for instance as tribal markers, or out of fear of one class against another. But in this case it is not class as such.

Darrell said...

Trump 2,345,678
Lyin'Media 0

buwaya puti said...

It's not the press, but actual people who, in the Spanish colloquial, "les da grima", the nails on the blackboard feeling, upon hearing the American colloquial, the speech of Palin, or for that matter Mark Twain characters.

That deserves investigation, what sort of brainwashing created this near-physical reaction.

Kevin said...

"It is painful, that reporters following tradition and protocol, have to be so polite and deferential in a presidential interview."

Perhaps. But it's also painful, that the public following tradition and protocol, have been so polite and deferential to the media, when the media clearly despises them.

Exhibit A: CNN: Is Trump afraid of stairs?

Hagar said...

Actually, I immediately thought of it, but had "a senior moment" and had to go look up "A National Lampoon Vacatio" to get his name back.

Hagar said...

DJT is like Speedy Gonzales.

mockturtle said...

buways rightly asserts:
The US has no real aristocratic tradition, it is odd that feelings of propriety should conform to those of a Bourbon court.


This same kind of condescension was seen in John Quincy Adams toward Andrew Jackson. Since Adams had spent most of his career in the courts of Europe, the air of aristocracy and privilege had tainted his ideology. Bigly.

Michael K said...

But man, these first few months have been awesome.

Yes and I have been enjoying it hugely.

I have a theory on what is going on, not just about Muslim immigration but about the whole western media and politics.

The trouble is the men of the political class are mostly pussies. Look at the men in positions of authority in the West. Barak Obama was a wigger dork. Paul Ryan is a ridiculous pussy, afraid of his own shadow. The males in Western politics are effeminate, fragile people, who spent their youth in the library. There are no tough guys, former soldiers or adventurers in Western politics. It’s all power-skirts and the men who secretly wish to dress like them. The result is the female side is creating drama and the male side is sobbing in the corner, promising to hold the camera steady.

Than Trump came along,

Hagar said...

John Quincy Adams came from Boston (actually Braintree, but close enough).

Chuck said...

"Do you want me to give you a quick overview [of the story]?

Yeah, it’s a cool story. I mean it’s, the concept is right. I predicted a lot of things, Michael. Some things that came to you a little bit later. But, you know, we just rolled out a list. Sweden. I make the statement, everyone goes crazy. The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems."


No, that isn't the issue at all. The issue is that Trump said "last night in Sweden." When nothing happened the night before, in Sweden. And it telegraphed that Trump says crazy stuff after watching tv while apparently half-asleep. (Trump got his twisted notion from watching Tucker Carlson's show, and even Carlson had no explanation for what Trump was thinking.)

"Huma [Abedin] and Anthony [Weiner], you know, what I tweeted about that whole deal, and then it turned out he had it, all of Hillary’s email on his thing."

Good lord, that's a whole lot that I don't want to talk about. But apart from laughing at what Wiener had "on his thing" (after laughing, we'd all agree that "the thing" has a name and it is a "laptop"), we can also agree that Weiner DIDN'T have "all of Hillary's email on" it. And the FBI looked at it and figured out that it was mostly nothing, apart from being embarrassing (as it should) to everyone in ClintonLand. This interview with Trump sounds like something from the Howard Stern Show.

"NATO, obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism. They fixed that, and I said that the allies must pay. Nobody knew that they weren’t paying. I did. I figured it."

No, NATO is a military alliance, not a counter-terrorism operation. NATO is a treaty organization, but it's also voluntary. We, the USA, pay for NATO for no other reason than that it is in our gaddamn interest to do so. We should not pay a penny more than what is in our interest. But it is in our interest. As for others' contributions, it has been a subject of long debate. Long before Trump. Trump didn't start the discussion. And Trump hasn't changed a thing as far as I know. Give us a fucking break. Trump didn't "figure it."

"Brexit, I was totally right about that. You were over there I think, when I predicted that, right, the day before."

Nope, that one is another lie. Trump didn't predict Brexit the day before. What Trump said about Brexit the day before was, "I don't think anybody should listen to me because I haven't really focused on it very much, but my inclination would be to get out."

"Brussels, I said, Brussels is not Brussels."

I'm sorry; I don't even understand what Trump is saying there.

"I mean many other things, the election’s rigged against Bernie Sanders. We have a lot of things."

If saying "the primary is rigged against Bernie Sanders," is some sort of soothsaying, then the soothsayers' union must have 50 million members. Everybody thought so. I think even Hillary thought so, and worked to make it rigged, but wisely never confirmed it. Bernie Sanders sure thought so.

eric said...

Michael K,

As always, you are right. Exhibit A, Chuck the lifelong Republican.

traditionalguy said...

Time is not such a popular magazine anymore. Who cares who they slander today?

But why does the Wall Street Journal want to die off too. Why on earth did they feel a need to ridicule Trump for telling the truth about Obama in public. Maybe they are CIA owned and operated too. Because it is the CIA's job to lie and deceive its enemies.

Chuck said...

Michael K;

You don't think Trump is a "pussy"?

He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. He's such a hysterical social gossip, he pretended to be his own p.r. man, "John Miller," to feed gossip-page stories to reporters about who Trump was dating. Like he was a Kardashian, only more psychotic.

Unknown said...

"You want to fact-check this interview?"

Of course she doesn't want to.

buwaya said...

"I have come to the conclusion that if you work for one of the MSM outlets, you are actively engaging in dumbing down the populace."

The corporate MSM is an entirely different lot. These are a centrally controlled propaganda infrastructure, taking editorial direction from a hierarchical authority, almost certainly organized through the collusion of their owners, or the most senior management of their owning entities.
They are coordinated, with the daily or hourly party lines coming to each near simultaneously, and all their personnel follow it with discipline.

Unknown said...

"Michael K;

You don't think Trump is a "pussy"?"

They can't see a thing with their heads up Trump's ass.

Owen said...

Buwaya: interesting observation. All spoken communication (unless the most formal and rehearsed) will tend to carry its information differently. Partly because speakers need time to think ahead or correct and re-phrase, partly because they and the listeners use non-verbal cues to signal understanding or confusion, interest or disbelief.

So Trump's style is intensely that. He has been in the Bullshit, that is the Entertainment, business for his entire life. We are watching a master at work. He successfully read 60-odd million voters, and continues to reach many today. The media cannot be as uncomprehending and naive as they pretend; so my surmise is, they are trying to be "shocked, shocked" about his communication style in order to please their base (which, although small, is all-important within their Bubble), and in order for deny him, vainly I think, legitimacy in the daily argument.

Fascinating.

AllenS said...

I voted for Trump to be President, not Mr. Perfect.

Kevin said...

Wish I could take credit for this: "If Trump Tweets, "Mars Attacks!" is a prescient movie... then two things you can count on happening. For ten days the MSM will mock the hell out of Trump. On day 11, well, Mars Attacks!"

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

"He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. "

So was General Kutuzov.

AReasonableMan said...

Who says a BA is useless?

Unknown said...

"Trumpies call this way of talking "Americanese" ... Jeez!"

It's a white man's Ebonics with lots of lying.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Defender of Democrat "Stolen Valor" Liars Chuck: "No, NATO is a military alliance, not a counter-terrorism operation."

You are hopelessly, hopelessly behind.

And you will never catch up.

Unknown said...

Michael K:

"Than Trump came along,"

Then.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. He's such a hysterical social gossip, he pretended to be his own p.r. man, "John Miller," to feed gossip-page stories to reporters about who Trump was dating. Like he was a Kardashian, only more psychotic."

Oh, there is something psychotic in all of this, and it ain't Trump.....

Hagar said...

The Southern planter aristocracy and the Yankee bluebloods did not take a back seat to any European aristocracy I have heard about. Perhaps they still don't, but the media now is all for mob rule and do not bow to their betters. In fact they think they are the "betters."

Darrell said...

The issue is that Trump said "last night in Sweden."

Referring to a TV program he had seen that aired the previous night. Real people knew what he was talking about, or could do a little digging to find out. Assholes pretended to be utterly confused and called for impeachment. Chuck. You may be an asshole.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Michael K;

You don't think Trump is a "pussy"?

He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. He's such a hysterical social gossip, he pretended to be his own p.r. man, "John Miller," to feed gossip-page stories to reporters about who Trump was dating. Like he was a Kardashian, only more psychotic.


When the guy came on stage during a Trump speech, Secret Service put hands on Trump to move him. Trump brushed off SS guy and faced intruder.

While not maniacally and recklessly aggressive and ready to get down and throw down as Chuck and Inga, Trump was ready to defend himself from a man thirty or fourty years younger.

Darrell said...

Michael K:

"Than Trump came along,"

Then.


Real people saw that as a typo. Assholes saw a teachable, gotcha!, moment when there was none.

Drago said...

We could all learn alot about "courage" from "lifelong republican" Chuck who almost joined the military but decided that because there was not draft it was not necessary.

That level of personal bravery on the part of Chuck while challenging the courage of others is indeed something to behold.

Todd said...

Chuck said...

Lots of Trump quotes and lots of Chuck snark and more Trump quotes and more Chuck snark...

3/23/17, 11:59 AM


OK, ok, ok. I get it. When Trump does most things, you hear nails on a chalkboard.

Sweden, Sweden, Sweden. Nails, Nails, Nails.

Wiretap, Wiretap, Wiretap, Nails, Nails, Nails.

Huge victory, nails. Smartest, nails. Taxes, nails. HUGE, nails.

I think by now we ALL get it.

How about you give your self a break and instead of dissecting his past, current, and future tweets, you actual take a stab at commenting on an actual policy of his or an actual appointment?

The heart attack you prevent might just be your own...

mockturtle said...

Let's have an 'Ignore Chuck Day'. Or week. Or year.

OGWiseman said...

If unemployment really has gone to 42%, then this really has been the most disastrous start to a Presidency of all time. Imagine a 37% jump in barely two months. Sad!

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
The issue is that Trump said "last night in Sweden."

Referring to a TV program he had seen that aired the previous night. Real people knew what he was talking about, or could do a little digging to find out.


That is such laughable, ludicrous horseshit. I am not going to try to convince you or any other addlebrained Trumpkin on this. People can watch the video. Trump never said a goddamned thing about any television show. Trump mixed up file footage with a guest from Sweden, and actual real-time news reporting. Funny as hell. Like mixing up the facts on who got the most electoral votes in any presidential election since Reagan.


tcrosse said...

Trump is Bart Simpson in a world full of Lucy van Pelts.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Trump played baseball in college and was scouted by the Phillies. He passed on pro baseball because he wanted to make money and in the '60's pro baseball players didn't pull in big salaries.

MLB players are not generally considered "pussies."

Trump's hair is goofy and he is no longer a handsome man, but he was when he was young.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Chuck is demented in his hatred for Trump. And no, I don't believe he voted for him.

exiledonmainstreet said...

mockturtle said...
Let's have an 'Ignore Chuck Day'. Or week. Or year. "

Good idea. He's as loony as Trumpit.

Unknown Inga and sunsong are not loony, just stupid.

Chuck said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...
" I would, if I had the time."

Oh no, Vichy Chuck is unwilling to take time out of his busy day of pretending to be a lifelong republican and threatening female television personalities.

Whatever will we do?


Fuck you; I never threatened any female television personalities. And once again, you can't quote me or link to any occasion on which I have "threatened" any female.

Darrell said...

I saw that Sweden was fucked up the previous night, too. By watching a televised report on the problems. I see that you are fucked up everyday. By reading your comments.

Michael K said...

"Why on earth did they feel a need to ridicule Trump for telling the truth about Obama in public."

The WSJ is being run now by Murdoch's sons and the Second Law of Conquest applies.

1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing.
3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies .


The other two apply as well.

Chuck is kind of pitiful. I can't figure out if he is a MOBY or a Democrat or just a dope.

It is suspicious when he and Inga agree.

Todd said...

tcrosse said...

Trump is Bart Simpson in a world full of Lucy van Pelts.

3/23/17, 12:26 PM


OMG! I am so stealing that!

Drago said...

Every day as the dems fall further and further and behind Chuckie becomes a bit more unhinged and unmasked.

It's rather enjoyable.

Darrell said...

I warned Greta Van Susteren to up her security. Against "Titty Twister" Chuck. And "Slip and Fall" Michelle Fields.

dreams said...

Liberals are foolish to continue to underestimate Trump. Liberals are basically losers and when they're our leaders, we lose.

Fernandinande said...

Kevin said...
Wish I could take credit for this: "If Trump Tweets, "Mars Attacks!" is a prescient movie...


The movie can't be prescient because it's based on a set of trading cards which "sparked parental and community outrage over their graphic violence and implied sexuality" so I had to hide them from my mom.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"Now remember this. When I said wiretapping, it was in quotes."

exiledonmainstreet said...

It is suspicious when he and Inga agree.


3/23/17, 12:32 PM

Or Rachel Maddow. By definition, any "conservative" who finds himself agreeing with Maddow about anything should question himself.

Instead, he comes here and rages against Trump and "Trumpkins" for the most trivial reasons - just like any other addled leftist. And he champions the media and Democrats.

He's "conservative" like Rosie O'Donnell is svelte.

Francisco D said...

@ Michael K and exiled (and others)

I suspect that Chuck just needs attention. He is willing to blatantly lie and manipulate information to get it. It's getting really old and I wish he would find another site. Maybe if we ignore his rants ...

Inga is just stupid and a perfect example of a "bumper sticker" liberal.


Kyzernick said...

The Left continues to take Trump literally instead of seriously. There's a difference.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I suspect that Chuck just needs attention. He is willing to blatantly lie and manipulate information to get it. It's getting really old and I wish he would find another site. Maybe if we ignore his rants ..."

I will try to do that. It is quite boring.

"Inga is just stupid and a perfect example of a "bumper sticker" liberal."

Agree.

Bay Area Guy said...

Greatest.Interview.Ever!

Trump just runs circles around these ninnies.

It reminds me of a skilled trial attorney, who comes to court and connects with the jury and wins an impossible case, with a combination of hard thought, charm, eloquence and charisma -- as opposed to a bean-counter attorney, lost in a barrage of documents, who can't speak in front of a jury, because he's too nervous and bogged down with trivial details.

Big Mike said...

It is painful, that reporters following tradition and protocol, have to be so polite and deferential in a presidential interview.

@Chuck, I guess you're too young to have heard of Dan Rather or Sam Donaldson.

readering said...

This blog is going down the tubes. Everyone fixated on loving nutjob president (the great negiotator) and hating on one commenter.

Chuck said...

Francisco D said...
@ Michael K and exiled (and others)

I suspect that Chuck just needs attention. He is willing to blatantly lie and manipulate information to get it. It's getting really old and I wish he would find another site. Maybe if we ignore his rants ...


Why don't you find another site? Is this a Pro-Trump Only Zone now?

I chose one paragraph of Trump to fly-speck, and instead of addressing that, everybody wants to attack me personally.

I gotta admit; blowing off the facts and instead going on a personal attack against anyone who checks those facts is about as "Trump" as it gets.

Big Mike said...

@Michael K, Chuck is a moby and proud of it.

Darrell said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ-BJlDhQ9E

Much better views of the whole incident and the WaPo co-conspirator in the plaid shirt.

grackle said...

A great many reporters are now reaching the point where they no longer aim to correct and confront Trump.

Translation: A great many reporters are now … being completely fucked by Trump in interviews. And it bothers Chuck mightily that Trump deals with these whores in the manner they so richly deserve. A quick pig-tail holding blowjob and then a doggy-style fucking and then off they go and are told to say hello the other whores.

I figured a Trump presidency would probably be interesting but I had no idea it would be so much fun.

But you know what happens when you start having fun … Chuck happens. Chuck is like the guy in the group after the punchline of the joke that scratches his head in puzzlement and asks, “But why would the schoolgirls tie the ribbon around the drunk Scotsman’s dick? Would schoolgirls really do that?”

But we Trump supporters smile contentedly as the Chucksters of the realm get lost in the dark and foggy forests of the Fact Check Purgatory. O yes … Trump as POTUS … is fun.

Chuck said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Greatest.Interview.Ever!

Trump just runs circles around these ninnies.

It reminds me of a skilled trial attorney, who comes to court and connects with the jury and wins an impossible case, with a combination of hard thought, charm, eloquence and charisma -- as opposed to a bean-counter attorney, lost in a barrage of documents, who can't speak in front of a jury, because he's too nervous and bogged down with trivial details.


Thoughts:
1. Bad judge, to allow any appeals to emotion.
2. Dumb jurors, to respond to something other than the evidence.
3. Stupid public, that responds in general to people like Donald Trump, Johnny Cochran, Geoffrey Fieger, John Edwards, Harry Reid (although he apparently wasn't much of a trial lawyer), etc.

Achilles said...

Best line of the article in response to the reporter saying Mitch McConell wished Trump wouldn't tweet::

"Mitch will speak for himself. Mitch is a wonderful man. Mitch should speak for himself."

I am loving the fact that the Nunes has proof of obama admin surveillance and the leftists are realizing Trump's "wiretapp" in quotes tweet was 100% accurate. Watching Chuck's little lefty head explode on this thread is neato. I eagerly await unknown #11's defense of a sitting president surveilling political opponents.

Angel-Dyne said...

Chuck: You don't think Trump is a "pussy"?

He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. He's such a hysterical social gossip, he pretended to be his own p.r. man, "John Miller," to feed gossip-page stories to reporters about who Trump was dating.


And yet, for all that gay flamboyance, other Western male pols still come across as emasculated in contrast to him, regardless of their adhering to our traditional masculine norms in dress and in superficial comportment.

Which only reinforces Micheal K.'s original point about the want of manliness in contemporary Western male politicians. Where men of education and refinement are manly, Trumpian vulgarity repels in contrast. Where "elite" men are decadent and effete, energetic vulgarians with balls appear on the scene.

Btw, you're confusing "being a pussy" with having (vulgar) feminine tastes. Not really the same thing, as historical examples attest. A peacock may be a pussy, but is not necessarily so. (E.g., Louis XIV's brother, as flamingly flouncy a homosexual as ever rocked court diamonds and feathers, was, by all contemporary accounts, brave as a lion in battle. He probably went through more powder and perfume than all the court ladies combined, but he was not a pussy.)

Chuck said...

grackle said...
...

But you know what happens when you start having fun … Chuck happens. Chuck is like the guy in the group after the punchline of the joke that scratches his head in puzzlement and asks, “But why would the schoolgirls tie the ribbon around the drunk Scotsman’s dick? Would schoolgirls really do that?”


That's not too far off. But I would correct you. I would never be the guy to question the punchline of a joke. But since the vast majority of my friends are Republicans, I can't even begin to tell you, grackle, how many times I have been in a conversation where Trump supporters are all laughing about something Trump did or said, and how they all think that Trump got the better of something, and then I describe the "John Miller" incidents.

I am that guy.

I'd rather be right, than popular. And I regard it as my personal challenge, at that point, to make the conversation smart, and funny, and cheerful right after I have blown the we're-all-here-for-Trump thing. It usually means reinforcing my conservative/Republican bona fides. And sometimes it doesn't work at all. Sometimes I just blow up the whole conversation. I couldn't care less.

Rusty said...

Chuck said...
"Michael K;

You don't think Trump is a "pussy"?

He's a soft, fat fuck who wears pancake makeup and gallons of hairspray. He's such a hysterical social gossip, he pretended to be his own p.r. man, "John Miller," to feed gossip-page stories to reporters about who Trump was dating. Like he was a Kardashian, only more psychotic."


He still isn't Hillary Clinton, so we have that going for us.
The fact that his very existence winds you up is just entertaining as hell.
I can't thank Althouse enough for providing this venue.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...
I am loving the fact that the Nunes has proof of obama admin surveillance and the leftists are realizing Trump's "wiretapp" in quotes tweet was 100% accurate.


Those Tweets were 0% accurate. There was no "wiretap." There was no warrant, or application for any warrant. There was nothing in, or done to, Trump Tower. "Obama" hasn't been shown to have done anything, himself. Didn't order anything, didn't sign anything. And that is relevant, and important, because Trump personalized it as to Obama. "Bad (or sick) guy."

It's bullshit. You really are some stupid, fucked up people. Of course, you don't respect me; you hate me. The feeling's mutual.

Unknown said...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-devin-nunes-talking-about-guide-perplexed

"Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?

Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.

Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition. He didn’t allege that communications were intercepted legally. And he didn’t allege either that the problem—if there is a problem—lay in the masking or unmasking of U.S. persons in lawful intelligence community reporting.

Trump alleged, rather, (1) that his own wires were tapped—with two p’s, no less, (2) that a specific facility in the United States (Trump Tower) and that he personally were specifically targeted for collection, (3) that the surveillance was illegal, (4) that it took place during the campaign, and (5) that it was all ordered by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.

All of those claims appeared to be malicious lies when he made them. And nothing that Nunes is saying, even if it’s all true, supports any of them."

Chuck said...

Rusty said...
...
...
He still isn't Hillary Clinton, so we have that going for us.


That is true. So not only am I a Trump voter; I am a Trump voter who would have answered the recent poll by saying that I do not regret voting for Judge Gorsu- er, Donald Trump.

Darrell said...

I'd rather be right, than popular.

How do you feel about being neither?

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...


Fuck you; I never threatened any female television personalities. And once again, you can't quote me or link to any occasion on which I have "threatened" any female.


You lie! You threatened to bruise up Greta because she called out Michelle for her fake injuries.
Pretty sure you later said you would squeeze her tit or twist it or something to that effect.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Those Tweets were 0% accurate."

In your world they have to be 0% accurate, otherwise you are, again, and again and again, a buffoon.

Well, I know which way I'm betting.

Drago said...

Chuck: "So not only am I a Trump voter"

LOL

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Which only reinforces Micheal K.'s original point about the want of manliness in contemporary Western male politicians. Where men of education and refinement are manly, Trumpian vulgarity repels in contrast. Where "elite" men are decadent and effete, energetic vulgarians with balls appear on the scene. "

Exactly. If you think Trump is a "pussy," what would you call Obama? Justin Trudeau?

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Chuck said...
Fuck you; I never threatened any female television personalities. And once again, you can't quote me or link to any occasion on which I have "threatened" any female.

You lie! You threatened to bruise up Greta because she called out Michelle for her fake injuries.
Pretty sure you later said you would squeeze her tit or twist it or something to that effect.

No; and I am disappointed to have to do the silly work of calling you out and knocking you down on this yet again.

I never "threatened" Great in any way, shape or form. Never. I have never spoken to her or communicated with her in any way.

I commented, that I'd like to do to her, what Corey Lewandowski did to Michelle Fields. Because, and only because, Greta insisted on national television that what Corey did was not a crime, not even a misdemeanor. So I presumed I could do precisely the same to Greta -- no more and no less -- and that she'd be shocked and offended. But that she'd be forced to agree that since it was the same thing as Lewandowski, she'd have no claim.

I never said anything about Greta's tits. Ever. Full stop. And I think that this is at least the second time that you have imagined it. Which tells us more about you, than me.

And now, I demand that you either apologize, or quote me as to what you pretended to remember.

You miserable worthless piece of shit.

wwww said...



And yet, for all that gay flamboyance, other Western male pols still come across as emasculated in contrast to him, regardless of their adhering to our traditional masculine norms in dress and in superficial comportment.


Comes across as adolescent to many. He talked about his dick on a debate that is shown to jr. high school students. That's a public forum that should be family friendly. Many will never find that sort of behaviour dignified.

Here's the thing: Trump is more likeable then HRC. But he's not more likeable then many other politicians. He worries people with his erratic tweets and statements.

The great majority of people aren't overly ideological, and vote for the more likeable person.

traditionalguy said...

Chuck knows that a cell phone has no wires and therefore cannot be wire tapped. It is too late to fool him.

But what if DJT had two tin cans connected with a stretched cotton string. Then he could have been string tapped.


Drago said...

The interview was, of course, vintage Trump.

It was like so many discussions I've had with New Yorkers in business, private and military venues.

They never give an inch, they never concede, it's everything AND the kitchen sink thrown in, it's "screw you" while simultaneously "hey yer alright...".

There were so many times I felt like I was in a Seinfeld episode where whatever you said you would hear the other party wait a second and mumble something along the lines of "I don't think so". They always have to have to last word! I can't complain about that, I'm no different.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And now, I demand that you either apologize, or quote me as to what you pretended to remember.

You miserable worthless piece of shit."

LOL

Drago said...

Angel-Dyne: "Btw, you're confusing "being a pussy" with having (vulgar) feminine tastes. Not really the same thing, as historical examples attest. A peacock may be a pussy, but is not necessarily so. (E.g., Louis XIV's brother, as flamingly flouncy a homosexual as ever rocked court diamonds and feathers, was, by all contemporary accounts, brave as a lion in battle. He probably went through more powder and perfume than all the court ladies combined, but he was not a pussy.)"

So true.

Military history is replete with examples of Peacock-Warriors whom you would never want to cross swords with or compete against. In fact, it's that peacock nature that can be very indicative of a personality type that will happily assume great risks with the ultimate penalty on the line to attain greatness.

Just google the Navy Blue Angels manning their aircraft for an airshow if you want to see peacocks!

Of course, when it comes to Naval Aviation, the catchphrase is: "Appropriately Arrogant".

grackle said...

Let's have an 'Ignore Chuck Day'. Or week. Or year. "Good idea. He's as loony as Trumpit.

I respectfully disagree. Chuck is not loony. And he’s not a troll. For me Chuck is an important part of the Trump commentary on this blog. Do we want an echo chamber? And he’s not a classic Moby because I have no doubt of his conscious sincerity in his Trump criticisms; his subconscious is another question – as it is for all of us.

And his criticisms are at least based on some part of reality. Example: Can anyone of us Trump supporters credibly claim that Trump is not supremely self-confident? To Chuck it simply translates into brashness and dangerous impulsiveness. Valid or not, it’s only a different interpretation, a different opinion. Unknown is a Moby or a troll – take your pick. Chuck is neither.

Cruz was Chuck’s choice and I identify with that because with minor reservations I also liked Cruz. Cruz would make a great SCOTUS, probably a good AG. What Trump did to Cruz was brutal. It’s what invariably happens when someone tries to fuck Trump. They get dealt with – sometimes harshly. Chuck will never forgive Trump for that.

Respond to Chuck with ridicule, irony and the full complement of rhetorical devices and debate techniques but Chuck deserves some respect. He sometimes ends up debating several different people at once. I think he does fairly well, everything considered, as do a couple of other Trump-haters that frequent these comments.

Angel-Dyne said...

wwww to me: "And yet, for all that gay flamboyance, other Western male pols still come across as emasculated in contrast to him, regardless of their adhering to our traditional masculine norms in dress and in superficial comportment."

Comes across as adolescent to many. He talked about his dick on a debate that is shown to jr. high school students. That's a public forum that should be family friendly.


And yet, for all that, other Western male pols still come across as emasculated in contrast to him, regardless of their adhering superficially to more "adult" comportment.

Many will never find that sort of behaviour dignified.

That would be a good point, if we were talking about what people do and do not consider dignified, and how a "dignity deficit" affects their vote. But we weren't.

The great majority of people aren't overly ideological, and vote for the more likeable person.

The great majority of people aren't overly ideological, but many do seem to respond at a gut level to balls vs. passive effeminacy, which is what was being discussed.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Comes across as adolescent to many. He talked about his dick on a debate that is shown to jr. high school students. That's a public forum that should be family friendly. Many will never find that sort of behaviour dignified. "

As compared to "boxers or briefs?" Obama's habit of slyly giving the finger to pols he detests (he did it to both Hillary and Paul Ryan)? Biden's grabbiness? (Trump only talked of pussy grabbing; Biden's hands do the talking.)

Trump IS vulgar. However, it's amusing to see liberals behaving like Emily Post watching someone drinking from the finger bowl when it comes to Trump, while ignoring the public vulgarity displayed by their own pols.

alan markus said...

Traditionalguy said Chuck knows that a cell phone has no wires and therefore cannot be wire tapped. It is too late to fool him.

True story - Chuck wanted internet & he called AT & T. When they looked at his area, they said there was no cable or DSL service available at his location, but they could offer him their Dialup service. Chuck politely declined. He did not want to have to move in with his grandmother - she was the only person he knew who still had a rotary dial phone. True story!


AT & T Dial - Dial-Up Internet

Chuck said...

grackle said...
...

Cruz was Chuck’s choice and I identify with that because with minor reservations I also liked Cruz. Cruz would make a great SCOTUS, probably a good AG. What Trump did to Cruz was brutal. It’s what invariably happens when someone tries to fuck Trump. They get dealt with – sometimes harshly. Chuck will never forgive Trump for that.

Thank you grackle. Without agreeing with all of what you write, I think Althouse knows better than most of you that I regularly congratulate the many good posts I find here. I love the good ones! I meet respect with respect. The personal attacks on me here were only -- only! -- a function of my criticizing Trump. NEVER any other commenters.

I continually laugh at how no one remembers the years I was here, as a Walker-supporter and a garage mahal-antagonist.

A minor correction for you, grackle. I voted for Kasich in the Michigan primary. And said so here.

But you are to be forgiven, because I have said a lot of nice things about Ted Cruz, who in all honesty has never been a loyal footsoldier of the GOP establishment. I'm a Cruz fan.


clint said...

grackle said...
"A great many reporters ... that Trump deals with these whores in the manner they so richly deserve..."

Prostitution is a bad analogy. Prostitutes don't pick sides, they'll service whoever's got the cash. Calling them prostitutes would suggest that they have neither ideals nor integrity but simply flack for whoever pays them.

More accurate to call them partisan gossip-mongers. Or if you want to be mean, propagandists.


"Unknown said...

"Does any of this vindicate or validate Donald Trump’s claims that President Obama wiretapped him?

Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.

Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition. He didn’t allege that communications were intercepted legally. And he didn’t allege either that the problem—if there is a problem—lay in the masking or unmasking of U.S. persons in lawful intelligence community reporting.

Trump alleged, rather, (1) that his own wires were tapped—with two p’s, no less, (2) that a specific facility in the United States (Trump Tower) and that he personally were specifically targeted for collection, (3) that the surveillance was illegal, (4) that it took place during the campaign, and (5) that it was all ordered by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.

All of those claims appeared to be malicious lies when he made them. And nothing that Nunes is saying, even if it’s all true, supports any of them."

Um. If what Nunes is saying is true then at the very least (4) is supported.

The claim as I understand it: During the campaign phone calls by people in the Trump campaign made from Trump Tower were recorded (perhaps legally) -- and then those recordings (or transcripts thereof) were illegally disseminated within the Intelligence Community without any of the legal protections owed to U.S. citizens. And then details of those transcripts have been selectively leaked to attack the Trump administration.

If we end up with solid evidence of all of that -- is it really your position that the biggest problem is President Trump's tweet?

If he heard details of a private phone call he made from Trump Tower during the campaign in a news story attributed to "an anonymous source in the intelligence community" -- would that justify his tweet? Or would you still consider him a malicious liar?

Chuck said...

alan markus;

You've got a lot fucking nerve to ridicule anybody over the use of the term "wiretap."

We didn't start it. It was Trump's term. Trump couldn't even decide which formulation to use. There was "wires tapped." And then "wire tapping." He tried "tapping my phones." And finally "tapp my phones."

I'm going to agree with you that it is like something out of a 1950's detective show, to speak of "wiretapping." Although there are a number of federal statutes on "wiretapping," and as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Trump should have had somebody help him on that.

So yeah it is silly to speak of "wire taps" in the age of digital and cellular communications. Blame Trump.

Michael K said...

Answer: Not even close—even assuming that the most flamboyant version of Nunes’s comments are wholly true.

Trump did not wake up early on a Saturday morning and tweet that the NSA or FBI in the course of its normal foreign intelligence operations incidentally intercepted communications or data involving the Trump transition.


Hilarious. Inga is the one who says, "Why would a farmer's daughter be interested in a traveling salesman ?"

Inga, Trump talks like real people. Politicians don't talk that way.

Bay Area Guy said...

I do concede that Trump's style and cadence and tone don't work for many people. Granted.

However, this isn't a popularity contest. This is about power. Nick Kristoff and his buddies can vent at Trump every day in NyTimes, but so what? He's prez for at least 4 years, probably 8. Gorsuch will join SCOTUS. OCare will be hopefully repealed. Mattie is great. Immigration is down.

Life is good!

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Forgetter Of New York Times Headlines Chuck: "You've got a lot fucking nerve to ridicule anybody over the use of the term "wiretap."

We didn't start it. It was Trump's term. Trump couldn't even decide which formulation to use. There was "wires tapped." And then "wire tapping." He tried "tapping my phones." And finally "tapp my phones."

Hmmm.

The New York Times front page, January 20th, 2017: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”.

Hmmm.

Matthew Sablan said...

"A great many reporters are now reaching the point where they no longer aim to correct and confront Trump."

-- What media are you watching/reading? We literally had CNN asking "Is the president afraid of stairs?"

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...
Inga, Trump talks like real people. Politicians don't talk that way.


You are giving credit where none is due.

This wasn't a case where a real, educated adult-type person was able to go before the press later that Saturday morning and say, "What Mr. Trump was communicating, was the fact that "Surveillance was conducted by _____, under the _____ program, pursuant to order number _______, and that the surveillance was contrary to U.S. Code Section _____."

Fill in the blanks as you see fit. Or create your own explanation for the Trump Tweet. But you can't, really. Because nobody knew what the fuck Trump was Tweeting about, other than that it was yet another example of a sleepy, insomniac Trump blearily typing something about what he had just been watching at Breitbart or InfoWars or some other batshit website. Nobody ever offered any clearer explanation, because there was no clearer explanation.

Drago said...

Note to self: "lifelong republican" Chuck believes the New York Times staff is a part of Trumps team.

Drago said...

Mathew Sablan: "-- What media are you watching/reading? We literally had CNN asking "Is the president afraid of stairs?"

Yes but that was YESTERDAY.

It's not like the media have confronted Trump in the last 15 minutes.

wwww said...

However, this isn't a popularity contest. This is about power. Nick Kristoff and his buddies can vent at Trump every day in NyTimes, but so what? He's prez for at least 4 years, probably 8. Gorsuch will join SCOTUS. OCare will be hopefully repealed. Mattie is great. Immigration is down.


That's true -- it is about power and Trump is in power for 4 years, and 8 if he doesn't mess up.


There's a branding issue because of Trump, and maybe an ideological shift. Will see what happens. But I'm not sure the Republican party is still the Republican party.

mockturtle said...

Exiled proclaims: Trump IS vulgar. However, it's amusing to see liberals behaving like Emily Post watching someone drinking from the finger bowl when it comes to Trump, while ignoring the public vulgarity displayed by their own pols.

And there is Hollywood, that bastion of good taste and refinement.

Birches said...

I just read a cnn.com story about Nunes where they didn't actually report what he said and then they provided prodiguous quotes from 4 democrats (Pelosi, Cummings, and 2 others) and that he had "apologized" for releasing information extremely relevant to the ongoing news stories and testimonies and not in actual violation of any rules. They didn't quote him or seek a quote from him, but some democrats on the committee said he apologized. Was it simply "I'm sorry I didn't wait to tell you first, but I had to share this." ? We don't know - there's no context.

Because they want to continue to call Trump a liar for his tweets, but also say that he's under FBI investigation and has been since last summer. I think most people are smart enough to know they've been caught trying to have it both ways.

Angel-Dyne said...

exiledonmainstreet: Trump IS vulgar. However, it's amusing to see liberals behaving like Emily Post watching someone drinking from the finger bowl when it comes to Trump, while ignoring the public vulgarity displayed by their own pols.

I agree; watching a class of grasping, hustling dirtbags play-act at caring about social refinement is one of the more entertaining features of the day.

jaydub said...

Chuck, for God's sake, go see a mental health professional. I'm not being snarky or disingenuous, it's just got to the point where it's painful to read your comments. Your fixation on Trump is really, really unhealthy. You seem like a basically decent person. Go get some help before it's too late.

Unknown said...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trumps-defense-of-his-lies-im-president-and-youre-not.html

"I once suggested that Trump’s most anti-democratic quality is his authoritarian epistemology. He tells repeated, brazen lies about matters large and small, in the confidence that his supporters have surrendered all independent judgment to him. That is not a democratic relationship between elected official and polity."

Drago said...

Unknown lefty finds other lefties who believe lefty things and write about them in lefty publications.

Unexpectedly.

Angel-Dyne said...

alan markus @1:55 PM:

Lol.

Drago said...

So, the question for "lifelong republican" Chuck remains: Just how did Trump's team trick the New York Times into using the term "Wiretapped" in their Jan 20 print edition headline?

Trump's team MUST have done that else "lifelong republican" Chucks other point about "wiretapp" being Trumps term will be false.

And we know that when it comes to Trump our psychotic "lifelong republican" is never ever wrong.

Lest he becomes a danger to himself and those around him.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Good column on the surveillance issue:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/23/heres-why-nunes-obama-spying-revelations-are-such-a-big-deal/#.WNQFcMCzpL8.twitter

wwww said...


The way Congress operates in the Republic is fundamentally shifting.

Prediction: within 4 years Mitch gets rid of the fillibuster on not just SCOTUS nominees, but on legislation.

This means it's easier for Rs to repeal things like Obamacare.

But next time Ds are in power like they were in 2008, watch out for single-payer. Or including everyone over the age of 40 eligible to sign up for Medicare. Or $$ for trains, trains everywhere! Or free University tuition. Or higher social security payments.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

'Bammy lied. Comey spied.

Matthew Sablan said...

Mind you: I dislike Trump, in part because of his approach and style. But, I also acknowledge that the left promoted him, essentially, by punishing Republicans for being mild and deferential. Boy Scouts like Mitt Romney and reformed hellraisers like George Bush were treated *just as bad as Trump is being treated*. What reason is there for a Republican to NOT go full Trump if they're going to be called Hitlerian capitalist blood mongers anyway?

Likewise, if Obama were given half as much interrogation as Trump, he'd still have a relatively friendly press comparatively.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
...
The New York Times front page, January 20th, 2017: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”.


ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING US? You're not selling the usual bullshit to a bunch of Trumpkins here. Trump didn't read "wiretapping" in the New York Times. The Times sure did use that headline in the newspaper, and then the story explained just what they were talking about.

And Trump didn't put out those "wire-tapp" Tweets on January 21. He put those Tweets out immediately after Trump read something on Breitbart about what alt-right lunatic Mark Levin said on his radio program. ON MARCH 3. RIGHT BEFORE THE TWEETS. THOSE TWEETS, IN WHICH TRUMP SAID, "JUST FOUND OUT..."

So no, Drago; don't think that you can run that 1-20-17 NYT bullshit by somebody like me. The Washington Post called it all out here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/about-that-new-york-times-wiretapping-article-trump-has-it-all-wrong/2017/03/16/7f57d99e-0a86-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.adab50d0457c

In all honesty, it's worse than what I have already recounted. Because the Trump White House tried to re-engineer the "wiretap" Tweets and some researcher found that Times "wiretap" headline. And they fed it to Trump, who then lied and said that he got it from the New York Times. Two months earlier? In an article that says nothing like what he said? And not from Mark Levin the night of the Tweets?

Unknown said...

Drago, the Disinformation Troll is just doing his job.

Unknown said...

No vote on the TrumpCare Bill today. Disinformation Troll Drago hardest hit.

Drago said...

later Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck: "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING US? You're not selling the usual bullshit to a bunch of Trumpkins here. Trump didn't read "wiretapping" in the New York Times. The Times sure did use that headline in the newspaper, and then the story explained just what they were talking about."

Emphasis: "The Times sure did use that headline in the newspaper..."

Early Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck: "alan markus; You've got a lot fucking nerve to ridicule anybody over the use of the term "wiretap." We didn't start it. It was Trump's term."

So, Early Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck is referring to the "term" being Trumps and that Trump was the first to use it.

I simply showed where the New York Times, utilizing their links to the Chucks dem pals in the deep state, used the term prior to Trump.

Later Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck admits as much....but then TRUMP MUST STILL BE WRONG!!

Thanks "lifelong republican" and lunatic Chuck!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Drago said...
Unknown lefty finds other lefties who believe lefty things and write about them in lefty publications.

Unexpectedly.

3/23/17, 2:20 PM

Ah, well, if it's in NY Magazine, we all should believe it. It's not just another leftist's ignorant brain farts. It's a NY Magazine writer's ignorant brain farts!

Unknown Inga is soooo deferential to lefty authority. She loves plopping long quotes into her comments, quotes she imagines are impressive. Just wait until she hauls out the big guns - like NY Times or Politico writers! Oooooh.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, I just assumed that Trump, like every other person in America, was using "wiretapped" to mean "surveillance" since that's how it has been colloquially used for... years now? He should have been more precise, and we know that no one literally tapped his wires.

We also know that his people WERE being caught in surveillance and deliberately having their identities exposed. Whether this was done legally or illegally is the open question.

Drago said...

Unknown: "No vote on the TrumpCare Bill today. Disinformation Troll Drago hardest hit."

I'm good. I'm with the Freedom caucus on this as I don't believe the process should be constrained by a potential parliamentarian ruling.

It's perfectly acceptable to me if it takes a bit longer to get it right.

Qwinn said...

Chuck:

I wanted Cruz too (voted for him in the primary) and I'm still very annoyed with Trump for what he did to him, though his exceeding my expectations on the policy front has earned some forgiveness from me.

But your insistence that Trump is to blame for using the term that the NY Times introduced into the debate on Jan 20th is bordering on psychopathic. It is wholly, egregiously unfair and indefensible, and you are rightfully losing whatever credibility you had left by sticking to it. You have already gone beyond the point of owing everyone, including Trump, an unqualified apology for ypur accusations, attacks and insults over the matter. If you can't bring yourself to admit how wrong you are on this, I don't want to hear any more whining about how unfair the attacks on you have been. You're validating every one of them over this.

Pookie Number 2 said...

He should have been more precise

Sure, but I think that most people that are interested in the truth recognize that his style of speaking is imprecise. And I think the unhinged shrieking of the Trump-haters ("His language was inartful AGAIN!!!") provides him more benefit than cost.

Matthew Sablan said...

I bet Trump uses literally wrong all the time.

Unknown said...

DIsinformation Troll Drago,

Last night you swore they had the votes,

Unexpectedly... they didn't!

LOL

Chuck said...

LOL. Donald Trump on health care:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

Fucker has no idea what he's talking about. Except he's learned now that "it's complicated."

Drago said...

Unknown: "Drago, the Disinformation Troll is just doing his job"

I find your labeling of a hardcopy, archived for all time, New York Times print version headline from Jan 20, 2017 using the term "Wiretapped" interesting.

Do you consider all New York Times Headlines disinformation, some of them, or just that one?

Matthew Sablan said...

Chuck: If he learned it was complicated, that still puts him up on the folks who passed the ACA.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Except he's learned now that "it's complicated."

"It turns out buying health insurance was more complicated than we thought." Former U.S. President Barack H. Obama.

Drago said...

Pookie Number 2: "It turns out buying health insurance was more complicated than we thought." Former U.S. President Barack H. Obama."

Uh oh.

"lifelong republican" Chuck is NOT going to like that quote.

Not one bit.

Matthew Sablan said...

What does Trump think about the shovel readiness of jobs?

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "What does Trump think about the shovel readiness of jobs?"

If you guys don't stop criticizing obama "lifelong republican" Chuck is going to meltdown again.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, I prefer our presidents admit that something is harder than thought BEFORE they screw it up.

Chuck said...

Qwinn said...
Chuck:
...your insistence that Trump is to blame for using the term that the NY Times introduced into the debate on Jan 20th is bordering on psychopathic. It is wholly, egregiously unfair and indefensible, and you are rightfully losing whatever credibility you had left by sticking to it. You have already gone beyond the point of owing everyone, including Trump, an unqualified apology for ypur accusations, attacks and insults over the matter. If you can't bring yourself to admit how wrong you are on this, I don't want to hear any more whining about how unfair the attacks on you have been. You're validating every one of them over this.


Do I need to explain this again? I know how hard it is, to get people to accept facts that go against their prejudices, but I am willing to do it in detail.

Way back in January, the Times ran that headline with the word "wiretap" in it. Trump did and said nothing about "wiretaps" at that time. The story accompanying that story didn't give Trump any good reason for his March 4 series of "wiretap" Tweets.

The March 4 Trump Tweets had a different origin. What Trump Tweeted at that time was that he "just found out." Right? He wrote that he "just found out." NOT back in January.

How did Trump "just find out"? He had just gone to Breitbart, and saw this lunatic story:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

From March 3. Hours before the Trump Tweets.

What about that are you not getting?

AJ Lynch said...

Ditto what Matthew said at 2:41PM

And Chuck, contra your comment at 11:08AM where you said:

"Althouse; you have done some great transcript-deconstructions. You want to fact-check this interview? I would, if I had the time."

Apparently you did have the time because you have been nonstop commenting here for the last 4 hours.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Like, don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure the proposed plan has a lot of problems. But, at least we're getting the, "Hey, this is hard, maybe we should re-think it," not "Let's pass it and find out what is in it!" Score one for Team R, even if it is a Pyrrhic one.]

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: ".............................." (lots and lots of words which help Chuck avoid having to admit what is already established: that Chucks beloved lefty MSM were the first to use the term "wiretap")

it's sad really.

Chuck said...

Matthew Sablan said...
What does Trump think about the shovel readiness of jobs?

Trump's bullshit is shovel-ready! A back-hoe is what I might suggest.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "The March 4 Trump Tweets had a different origin."

LOL

Objection Your Honor. Opposing Counsel is attempting to introduce CLARVOYANCE into the proceedings.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "What does Trump think about the shovel readiness of jobs?"

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Trump's bullshit is shovel-ready! A back-hoe is what I might suggest"

LOL

Our Chuckie will not brook any criticism of his earth-bound Messiah obambi.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Matthew Sablan: "What does Trump think about the shovel readiness of jobs?"

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Trump's bullshit is shovel-ready! A back-hoe is what I might suggest"

LOL

Our Chuckie will not brook any criticism of his earth-bound Messiah obambi.


Fuck you. I voted for, and worked for, the McCain and Romney campaigns.

Talk to Althouse, about support for Obama.

Darrell said...

'Bammy tapped. Comey yapped.

Drago said...

Again, we have a self-described "lifelong repubican", clarvoyant, MI electoral expert who for some strange reason is not leading campaigns!

What is wrong with the MI GOP?

Hire this savant now!

Pookie Number 2 said...

Objection Your Honor. Opposing Counsel is attempting to introduce CLARVOYANCE into the proceedings.

It's fascinating to see Mr. "I know how hard it is, to get people to accept facts that go against their prejudices" build a case that ultimately boils down to "since I think Trump is dumb, that proves that he's dumb". I get that Trump is only a billionaire that got himself elected president, and nowhere near smart enough to become a failed Michigan lawyer, but still, the dissonance is entertaining.

Drago said...

"llfelong republican" Chuck: "I voted for, and worked for, the McCain and Romney campaigns"

It's so easy to get confused when you meant to write "worked against".

Michael K said...

Nobody ever offered any clearer explanation, because there was no clearer explanation.

Chuck, come on. Try not to sound like Inga. We know Inga is clueless.

I'm good. I'm with the Freedom caucus on this as I don't believe the process should be constrained by a potential parliamentarian ruling.

It's perfectly acceptable to me if it takes a bit longer to get it right.


This is what legislation used to look like before Harry Reid, who wanted to keep his fragile majority who were doing things Americans did not support. My post at Chicagoboyz is about why politicians do things their voters don't want.

We once had a Congress that wrote legislation, presented testimony to committees and made amendments on the floor.

A lot of that was lost, in my estimation, with McCain-Feingold which purported to reduce money in politics and instead put politicians in a situation of having to spend all their time raising money and putting the legislation in the hands of their staff and lobbyists and the Administrative State of bureaucrats who wrote regulations that filled legislation with impenetrable legaleze.

Drago said...

I like that Rep. Meadows and his group have a demand that premiums for Americans immediately start coming down in a significant way and that more choice be available in the health care market in order to proceed.

That's what this was all about.

Matthew Sablan said...

Oddly enough, I think Chuck and I are both equally Trump pessimistic, we're just manifested in different ways. I was mentally prepared for Republicans to nominate a dirty fighting, somewhat non-mainstream, vulgar politician who was willing to play hardball because, for 16 years, we elected Bush, nominated McCain and Romney -- essentially tripling down on "If we're just nice, mainstream and non-objectionable, maybe the left will be calm and reasonable."

Chuck is seeing that the right has devolved into Trump, while I see Trump as the natural response to Harry Reid lying about Romney's tactics and being praised because his lie helped Obama win and Republicans thinking: "Why don't we have guys like that?"

Bruce Hayden said...

@exhelodrv1- thanks for the article. To summarize, what appears to have happened is that an awful lot of surveillance was done that scooped up information about Trump and his family and team. Maybe legitimate FISA intelligence gathering, maybe not. Too early to tell (which presumably means tracking the collected information back to the underlying FISA warrants, and seeing if they are completely legitimate, and not subterfuges, as suggested by the revising of the rejected June applications to get FISC approval in October - remember, they have to be under oath and cannot skip on information that the FISC would have found relevant). What Committee Chair Nunes said, and what is worrisome, is that there was an extensive amount of information, with no apparent national security relevance, collected and not minimized, as required by FISA. Anything that involved US citizens should have been minimized, with identifying information removed. It wasn't, but rather the identities of those surveiled were "unmasked" and disclosed in the large amt of intel floating around the govt. concerning Trump and his people. Making this worse, it seems to have been politically motivated, aimed at the Republican candidate and President elect.

I think that ultimately we are going to find out one of two things. One is that the Oct FISA warrants were issued based on subterfuge, with the applications intentionally not including critical information (notably that the real target was Trump and his people). Alternatively (or in combination), the NSA routinely collects huge amounts of information on citizens, incidental to surveiling real foreign intelligence targets, and they just pulled it together. They have pretty much always had some of the fasted computers in the world, so correlation is entirely plausible - just as long as they ignore FISA minimization requirements. We shall see.

Matthew Sablan said...

Taxes, not tactics.

poker1one said...

Buwaya Puti wrote:

"The US has no real aristocratic tradition."

Well, The US does, the settlers of Northern Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay area in the 17th century were cavaliers in the English Civil War who came here to escape Puritan rule. They set up a hierarchical form of government and society which prevented the lower classes from advancing socially or politically.

The Puritans who settled the Massachusetts Bay colony who fled here to escape the pre English Civil War monarchy's persecutions. The Puritans set up an oligarchical form of government that made it very difficult for non-Puritans to participate. Puritan ministers picked the politicians while the politicians picked the ministers.

Bostonians, just a generation or two removed from the Revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny, turned out in great numbers to see the Prince of Wales in 1860.

Quakers who settled the Delaware Bay area continued to exert a disproportional influence on politics even after their numbers as a percentage of the population declined.

Only the Scots-Irish who settled the back country of the Appalachians, the original hillbillies, were immune from the lure of aristocracy. They didn't like anybody no matter who their ancestors were or where they came from.

Jack Wayne said...

Drago, I would appreciate it if you could dial back the Chuck posts. He's annoying so I just skip over his moby crap. I used to read your posts but I'm skipping them a lot now because they're so much about Chuck. Your other comments are usually worth reading so please do me a favor.

Lewis Wetzel said...

OpenID poker1one said...
Buwaya Puti wrote:

"The US has no real aristocratic tradition."

Well, The US does, the settlers of Northern Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay area in the 17th century were cavaliers in the English Civil War who came here to escape Puritan rule.
It was not the US in those days. The constitution specifically forbids the granting of titles of nobility: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
The constitution also requires member states of the US to have republican forms of government:"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

exhelodrvr1 said...

Bruce Hayden,
Yeah - I suspect that they started with what was technically legal, although probably unethical, and then just kept the surveillance going even after finding out that there was no collusion. It will be interesting to see how much the administration pushes for a full investigation - I'm guessing the White House won't, even though it is probably warranted, because that would use up a lot of cycles, and there's so much that needs to be done. Maybe Congress will. I wonder if Flynn will sue? I hope he does.

Then.

Drago said...

Jack Wayne: "Drago, I would appreciate it if you could dial back the Chuck posts."

Well, I would be less than a gentleman were I to fail to honor your request.

Very well.

If course this comes too late in the year to qualify as self-denial for Lent!

gadfly said...

Next up - Nursery rhymes.

Chuck said...

Matthew, your answer (an answer that you will like, and enjoy reading) is in this WSJ editorial, "The Obama-Trump Dialectic." Their thesis was that Obama's lax anti-terror waffling, and his cozy relationship with the legalistic anti-antiterror Left, led to the public hunger for Donald Trump's (dubious) strongman anti-"Radical Islamic Terrorism" campaign. And it was written long before anybody imagined that Trump could become a nominee for president at all.

Sorry for the WSJ paywall; I hope that you can find a way to read it:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obama-trump-dialectic-1449621957

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/trumps-defense-of-his-lies-im-president-and-youre-not.html

"I once suggested that Trump’s most anti-democratic quality is his authoritarian epistemology. He tells repeated, brazen lies about matters large and small, in the confidence that his supporters have surrendered all independent judgment to him. That is not a democratic relationship between elected official and polity."


Because you are too stupid to look up the concept yourself:

Confirmation Bias

Now that I looked it up for you your job is to apply it to yourself in self-reflection.

tcrosse said...

"The US has no real aristocratic tradition."
Have a look at the wedding announcements in the Sunday New York Times.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"Drago said...
...
The New York Times front page, January 20th, 2017: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”."

Drago makes a critical mistake when arguing with Chuck. Chuck cannot deal with anything that contradicts the "life-long republican" paradigm.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING US? You're not selling the usual bullshit to a bunch of Trumpkins here. Trump didn't read "wiretapping" in the New York Times. The Times sure did use that headline in the newspaper, and then the story explained just what they were talking about.

Lefty head exploding. Chuck KNOWS what Trump has read. Cereal.

And Trump didn't put out those "wire-tapp" Tweets on January 21. He put those Tweets out immediately after Trump read something on Breitbart about what alt-right lunatic Mark Levin said on his radio program. ON MARCH 3. RIGHT BEFORE THE TWEETS. THOSE TWEETS, IN WHICH TRUMP SAID, "JUST FOUND OUT..."

This is proof for Chuck. Because you can't go into archives or something. Can a head explode twice?

So no, Drago; don't think that you can run that 1-20-17 NYT bullshit by somebody like me. The Washington Post called it all out here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/about-that-new-york-times-wiretapping-article-trump-has-it-all-wrong/2017/03/16/7f57d99e-0a86-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.adab50d0457c


Nope. Cant get anything past Chuck. The WaPo keeps him straight and well informed.

In all honesty, it's worse than what I have already recounted. Because the Trump White House tried to re-engineer the "wiretap" Tweets and some researcher found that Times "wiretap" headline. And they fed it to Trump, who then lied and said that he got it from the New York Times. Two months earlier? In an article that says nothing like what he said? And not from Mark Levin the night of the Tweets?

Nobody knows Trump's mind like Chuck. Chuck must be his psychiatrist or something. Emphasis on the or something.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
OpenID poker1one said...
Buwaya Puti wrote:

"The US has no real aristocratic tradition."

Well, The US does, the settlers of Northern Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay area in the 17th century were cavaliers in the English Civil War who came here to escape Puritan rule. "

The plantation owners of the antebellum South might not have had titles, but many of them (like the Lees of Virginia, for instance) were indeed descended from British nobility - usually younger sons without an inheritance - and they thought of themselves as nobility even after the Revolution. They were a very small percentage of the population and, since this was America, soon they were joined by the noveau riche, but that class certainly existed and exercised a great deal of political power until the Civil War. The novel "Gone With the Wind" actually does a good job of depicting tensions between the old established families of cities like Charleston and Savannah and the brash newcomers.

Their power as a class might have died after 1865, but the pretensions lasted much longer. The late humorist Florence King has written about the little old ladies who used to haunt old courthouses and libraries in the South, desperately hoping to dig up a family link to an aristocratic dynasty. She told of her own grandmother trying to find such a connection and discovering to her dismay that her forebears were indentured servants, rather than lords and ladies.

Lewis Wetzel said...

There is a difference between a snob and an aristocrat. Aristocrats power because they are aristocrats. The law treats them differently than non-aristocrats.
I have often said that the closest you con get to being an aristocrat, in the US, is to have a charitable foundation controlled by your family. Like Bill and Melinda Gates or the Clintons.

jdniner said...

I don't mind what Chuck says. There is some semblance of facts and opinions. Versus the low level slants by unknowns that have no real purpose in life.

Trump's not stupid. If a person thinks that then IMO the block is in their own head. They have a rigid view they are comfortable with. Is that effective?

Unknown said...

Achilles, you are confused....as usual.

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
əˌpistəˈmäləjē/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Fuck you. I voted for, and worked for, the McCain and Romney campaigns.

Two campaigns that were run just like you would expect life-long republicans to run a campaign. It would explain to an extant your irrational hatred of Trump as he won. Now he is actually implementing positive change and fighting the forces aligned against us.

This just high-lights he cowardice of the losers. Romney in particular came off as a total fuckhead and Hillary supporter during the campaign. Ditto McMuffin, NRO and George Will. I think there was some publication written by another loser that had standard in the name but they are becoming forgotten.

Lewis Wetzel said...

It must make McCain volunteers in 20008 proud that, in the final weeks of the campaign, McCain stopped campaigning.

jaed said...

Quite a few people seem to feel pain at Trumps style. Very much as they did at Palin's.
This seems to come from the bone. Why? Where did this come from?


Buwaya, you should read (if you haven't already) Paul Fussell's book Class. Trump is one of Fussell's High Proles. Palin is Middle Middle.

(What's missing from Fussell's book, which is a few decades old, is what I call the Aspirational Class—which has more or less replaced his Upper Middle class. Aspirational-class people are like... hmm.... like this. Advanced degrees (but not in science or engineering). Hipster-ish cultural sensibilities with a stable home life. High-achieving children involved in many activities that will look good on the Ivy League application. Effortless perfection. Dwell magazine. The "New Class", grown a bit older. This class didn't exist twenty years ago, but it does now and it's very much hereditary and clan-based. (Look at all the family ties between the elite media, the federal government, and certain businesses and the non-profit sector. This federal official is married to that professor of law or political science, this media figure is the brother of that State Department assistant secretary. That part's new too.)

One thing that hasn't changed between yesterday's upper middle class and today's aspirational class is the horror that this class has for those immediately beneath them. You'd never mistake a member of this class for Fussell's low proles... but you might mistake them for a middle-class or high prole person, and that prospect is terrifying, so this class insists on strong distinctions in this area of the class ladder.

grackle said...

Prostitution is a bad analogy … More accurate to call them partisan gossip-mongers. Or if you want to be mean, propagandists.

“ … partisan gossip-mongers …” has no bite. They have prostituted their profession. They are whores, nothing more. They are the MSM; their customers are the Globalists, Democrats, eGOP, socialists, ersatz Marxists, Neocon hypocrites and other motherfuckers.

There’s Talking Whores nightly on the cables, Guest Whores and Special Guest Whores from Academia and the Intelligentsia with Pulitzers and Nobels on their resumes. Trump is NOT their customer. He is their nemesis.

How did Trump "just find out"? He had just gone to Breitbart, and saw this lunatic story …

“ … lunatic story …”? It starts off this way:

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known.

And it goes on to quote sources from the MSM.

Here’s the summary:

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

I’m not understanding why you consider the article “lunatic.” Is it lunatic to quote the MSM?

Fernandinande said...

jaed said...
Aspirational-class people are like... hmm.... like this.


I liked the part about how much their clothes cost. That's pretty classy.

But, yes, a disturbing trend.

Bruce Hayden said...

"She told of her own grandmother trying to find such a connection and discovering to her dismay that her forebears were indentured servants, rather than lords and ladies".

Or, you can have a bit of both - a cousin (through the Bolyns) of Elizebeth I, apparently building the last legal private castle in England, and a couple generations later, the younger sons coming over here indentured.

mockturtle said...

My ancestor, John Howland, came over on the Mayflower as an indentured servant.

buwaya said...

" Aspirational-class people are like... hmm.... like this. "

A very scary lot! Well, of course most I know are something like this - or a lot like this.
Still, I am no psychologist, but I don't detect the sort of insecurity that would create such rage. Its not that they are likely to become poor.

jaed said...

Not fear of poverty, but fear of loss of status via being confused with a slightly lower class. These classes are social, not economic; they're not determined by wealth or income but by values, priorities in life, likes and dislikes. The threat is not to material well-being but to social status.

The admittedly somewhat frightening Carney-Shipman household is successful enough in the status game that it probably merely snickers gently at Sarah Palin's accent or Trump's love for the word "classy". You find more frantic rage at levels of this class that are less status-secure, and more afraid of being confused with mere middle-class people. Politics is one way to differentiate one's self from Those Heartland Types, and probably the most achievable way.

Come to think of it, the rise of the aspirational class, and consequent need for new indicators of status, may help explain how political affiliation became a class signifier in the first place. That wasn't the case even thirty or forty years ago; there were Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals in all social classes. Fussell's upper-middle-class contempt for Reagan—a movie star, for God's sake!—was an early example of the trend.

poker1one said...

For a better understanding of our past and how it still affects us today read:
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America, by David Hackett Fischer.

mockturtle said...

For a better understanding of our past and how it still affects us today read:
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways In America, by David Hackett Fischer.


I read it several years ago. Fascinating book.

Gahrie said...

while I see Trump as the natural response to Harry Reid lying about Romney's tactics and being praised because his lie helped Obama win and Republicans thinking: "Why don't we have guys like that?"

This is true...but it is more than that. It is also that we got tired of Republicans in Washington keep trying to kick the football as the democrats snatched it away, time after time after time after..........

mockturtle said...

Gahrie, I see the problem as much deeper and more disturbing than that. I think that the GOP is fundamentally the same party as the Democrats and they don't want to win. The neocon is all about globalism and nation building. Their constituent corporations expect them to be. Make no mistake: It's all about the money.

Todd said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Honestly, I just assumed that Trump, like every other person in America, was using "wiretapped" to mean "surveillance" since that's how it has been colloquially used for... years now? He should have been more precise, and we know that no one literally tapped his wires.

We also know that his people WERE being caught in surveillance and deliberately having their identities exposed. Whether this was done legally or illegally is the open question.

3/23/17, 2:36 PM


And what happened to the stores about the warrants(?) to surveillance from last year? The first one that got denied and the second one that got approved. Did that all turn out to be nothing or did that happen? If it happened how did Trump lie?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14546/trump-exonerated-msm-stands-reports-obama-admins-john-nolte#exit-modal