“Fuck Donald Trump!”

I was bemused to see a Sunday New York Times front page story described the White House as beset with “scandals.” Try as I might, I couldn’t come up with anything that qualified as a “scandal” applying the prior standards of ethical journalism, and especially if one considered the standards the news media applied to the Obama Administration. For reference purposes, the Obama White House manipulating the facts of the Benghazi raid to avoid accountability was not a scandal, it was a “nothingburger.”  The IRS, an executive agency under the authority of President Obama, deliberately and illegally sabotaging conservative groups to assist in Obama’s re-election wasn’t a scandal,  it was just “rogue employees.” Obama’s Justice Department surveilling a Fox journalist in defiance of the First Amendment wasn’t a scandal, because Fox News.

“Fast and Furious” wasn’t a scandal because the Attorney General who oversaw it said it wasn’t, and besides, the Justice Department was investigating itself, so all was well. Barack Obama repeatedly lying about what was in the health care bill that we had to pass to know what was in it wasn’t a scandal, it was just a slip of the tongue, over and over again. The same slip. Secretly trading five terrorists for a deserter whom the administration first described to the public as a soldier who “served the United States with honor and distinction” wasn’t a scandal because the mainstream media gave it a pass…and so on.

Firing someone a President has the power and right to fire and who was objectively untrustworthy  is not a scandal, nor is it a “crisis,”  no matter how many times reporters say it is. Alleged statements made by a President leaked by anonymous sources are not scandals, because they are alleged statements made by a President leaked by anonymous sources. A news media—led by two rival national newspapers trying to top each other by publishing breathless accounts of hearsay as if that is ever  evidence of anything—that has openly abandoned all ethical journalism standards and allied itself with a partisan effort to undermine and remove an elected President is a scandal, as well as a crisis. More on that one later.

The other scandal and crisis is the complete abdication of reason, responsibility, civility and sanity by the Democratic Party as it commits to satisfying the blood lust of its most hard-core and irrational supporters, by trying to unseat the President of the United States without the inconvenience of having to win an election. The latest ugly proof that this scandal is real came from California, where the state Democratic Party convention climaxed with outgoing party Chair John Burton extending two middle fingers in the air and leading a cheering throng in the chant,  “Fuck Donald Trump,” as Nancy Pelosi laughed it up in the crowd (as you can see in the photo.)

Nice. You really want to be a member of this party of seventh-graders, or trust its  judgment on anything? Good luck. The Libertarian Party signaled that it was hopelessly sophomoric and dumb when its national convention featured a speaker who tore off his clothes and streaked the stage. Yet one of the two major parties in the largest state in the nation leading a chant of ‘Fuck the President of the United States’ is far, far worse. Admittedly, California has become something of a Galapagos Island of political culture, evolving in strange, unique and ugly ways. Nevertheless, there were national leaders of the party present during the chant. None had the integrity, nor the guts, to take over the podium and say, “Stop this now. This is a proud party of noble words, American ideals and vital principles. Don’t lower us to this. You degrade the legacies of Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, JFK, and Barack Obama.  You are disgracing us!”

I can only surmise that this didn’t happen because there are no national Democratic leaders with integrity or guts. If there are, where are they? U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, often mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate for President in 2020, accused Trump of putting “Russia first, America second.”  Even with the leeway given to political demagoguery, this is disgusting. There is, literally, no evidence to support that calumny. It echoes exactly the rhetoric of the John Birch Society in the 50’s and 60’s, and the inflammatory charges of Joe McCarthy. Did anyone predict that the party that once condemned McCarthy and the Birchers would ever embrace their words and tactics?

It is an interesting exercise to read the furious attempts by progressives, in various comments on the web, to rationalize this moment of the Democratic canary dying in the mine. One said that there was no evidence that everyone was chanting, or how long they chanted. The leader of the California Democrat Party led the chant. One wrote that Republicans created a precedent in 1964. How was that? Nelson Rockefeller, having just lost the nomination to Barry Goldwater, raised a middle finger to a heckler and was captured in the act by photographer. Yup, that’s exactly like leading a “Fuck the President” chant from the podium. But such is the degree to which hate and bias have made so many Democrats stupid, as well as uncivil and obscene. What will come next?

My guess is violence. Well, more violence.

This scandal/crisis also merged with the other one, the news media’s recruitment as a weapon of insurrection. The AP reported this horrible scene in the most respectful way and whitewashed manner imaginable. “California’s elected Democrats had tough words for President Donald Trump,” said the AP. That’s deceit. “Fuck Donald Trump” are “tough words” like “Kill Donald Trump” are tough words. In the AP’s eyes, the state party chair leading an obscene chant was “a sign of the vigor of the party’s distaste for the President.” A sign of vigor!

It will not just be the Associated Press that helps spin this episode of signature significance. (Responsible, trustworthy parties do not encourage “Fuck the President” chants, just as they don’t feature strip teases by fat guys.) I’m looking for mainstream media coverage and op-ed criticism. None so far, not even from Fox News. Funny, I remember every outlet condemning the spontaneous outbreak of a “lock her up” chant at the Republican National Convention.

_______________
Graphic: LA Times

84 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, language, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President

84 responses to ““Fuck Donald Trump!”

  1. Steve-O-in-NJ

    MSN,com used to save the red “Breaking” ticker for really important and significant new like the Boston bombing. Now it seems like that ticker glows red half the time, anytime anything that even MIGHT cast doubt on the president hits the press. I said once that the upside to a President Trump would be that the mainstream media would wake up and not let him get away with stuff the way they allowed Obama to do. I am disgusted that they have not just woken up, but become a de facto organ of the opposition, looking to destroy this President as vigorously as they protected the last one. A nation can’t function with a news industry it can’t believe or trust.

  2. Junkmailfolder

    When they go low, you get a shovel.

  3. Just when I had seriously thought they had shown us the lowest point of their morally bankrupt character they prove me wrong again. What’s sad is that these people are going to look back at moments like these as their “finest hour”.

    “Nothing shows a man’s character more than what he laughs at.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Nothing shows a man’s character as much as what and who he honors. We create our gods in our own image.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “Nothing shows a man’s character as much as what and who he honors.”

        That works reasonably well too however, it has one big difference, spontaneous laughter is revealing in a way that honoring is not, honor is something that is consciously thought about where spontaneous laughter is not.

        Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “We create our gods in our own image.”

        That one depends on individual opinions and doesn’t appear to be related to the previous sentence.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          I think the question of what you find funny and what you honor go together. One reveals what your hidden or unconscious way of thinking is, the other shows what your conscious way of thinking and image you want to project is. The combination can be very revealing, particularly if the two don’t appear to match up.

          The next part isn’t really related to your post, I admit, but I think the thought builds on my first, and I’d like to build on that a little more. Not only do we all create our gods – the things we honor above all and won’t allow to be questioned – in our own image, or at least the image of what we want to be, but we also create our demons – the things we can’t honor at all and loathe – in, if not our own image, the opposite or the antithesis of ourselves. That’s why the left can brook no criticism of Obama or wither of the Clintons, and also why Al Gore howled the name “Wolfowitz” in a speech like he was shouting at the man rather than saying his name, and now “Fuck Donald Trump” is becoming the mantra of the Democratic party.

  4. Two comments

    They are Democrats, who have not been upstanding pillars of virtue in my entire lifetime;

    They are California (apologies the Chris and any other Californian here, but nutjobs are us seems to headquarter in that state these days) and;

    They are born to lead… just ask them

    I have come to expect no less (and no more) from the frothing at the mouth progressives.

    • Isaac

      Our progressive California state government just ordered private businesses to reassign their restrooms into “gender-neutral” restrooms, complete with signage mandated by the State with a symbol designed to represent “inclusiveness.” I believe it was governor Brown who then crowed that his (bankrupt, corrupt) state was the going in the opposite direction from the “discrimination we’re seeing in other states.” Some inferiority complex going on there.

      To clarify, women in California must now choose between two equally crap-covered restrooms at every gas station or fast-food joint instead of being reasonably sure that the ladies’ room is of decent quality…low-wage workers now have to deal with two filthy restrooms per establishment instead of one filthy and one reasonably clean, and private businesses in California are further inconvenienced and subjected to even more regulation in ever-more minute details, and God forbid you forget to lock the restroom or have to deal with a faulty lock. All so that one transgender customer out of 100,000 might not be faced with the very slight chance of being offended or inconvenienced in a negligible way. Very forward-thinking. Sorry ladies, sometimes there have to be winners and losers.

      • Any so called ‘ladies’ who support this insanity deserve what they get. They wanted this insanity when they voted in Democrats, or could not be bothered to vote at all! Elections have consequences.

        I weep for the innocent victims: our young children (both genders,) who need an adult to guard the bathroom to feel safe to lower their pants.

        • Chris

          I’m baffled by the logic in these two comments.

          Isaac, if only 1 out of 100,000 customers will be trans, why would you assume this move would result in lower quality of restrooms across the board? Why would this move cause staff to clean the restrooms less?

          slickwilly, why would children need an adult to guard the bathroom to feel safe to lower their pants any more now than they already do? You do realize most pedophiles are men who target young boys, right? Where is the push for separate restrooms for adult men and little boys? No one has ever said that young boys should not have to use the same restroom as a grown man–and yet that has always been a statistically bigger risk than a transwoman assaulting a young girl in a ladies’ restroom. There’s also the fact that laws requiring trans people to use the restroom of the gender on their birth certificate force transmen who look and act like men to use the women’s restroom. How does that keep anyone safe?

          • Chris,
            I believe you are deliberately missing the point, and the concern. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I realize this tactic is all too often used by the left to seem reasonable while changing the narrative. I will unpack:

            There is no concern about ‘trans’ anything on the right. Those people do not WANT to be noticed, and have used the bathroom just fine up until now. This is such a tiny portion of the population that it is ludicrous to accommodate them at the expense of 99.9% of the population. The entire bathroom sheet-storm is about one thing only: progressives need something to screech about, and they got gay marriage already. notice how this came from nowhere just after that became law? Pure virtue signalling.

            The concern is not about male on male pedophiles, either. This will not change, and is pretty rare in any case. Any male old enough to visit the bathroom without an adult outside also will not submit to BS without telling about it. Males are taught self assertive attitudes and have a natural inclination that way. Males tend to physically contend with each other at a young age, and this give the confidence and ability to fight back, should it come to that.

            The concern is for females who must share a bathroom with a male who is NOT trans. Let me lay this out. Females tend to be more pliable when younger, and are taught to be more submissive at a young age. They can be exploited much easier than young males, in that there is a far greater market for illicit pictures (for example) than for young males. Females many times do not want attention drawn to them, and thus are generally more vulnerable to manipulation. They are physically less capable, and less experienced at personal defense, and males can overpower them more easily. There are enough rape statistics these days to know that this happens far more often to females than for males. This is the risk.

            Make it less noticeable that a man is walking into a previously safe haven, and predators will become more bold. Those male predators are far too common to allow this risk, especially for so little return.

      • Do not sex segregated restrooms, by definition, discriminate on the basis of sex?

  5. Warren

    Just to be clear: your position is that the fact that the President as well as his surrogates have been constantly lying about matters large and small does not constitute a scandal. I assume this goes back to the breathtakingly elastic Julie Principle, whereby nearly any illicit or unethical behavior on the part of this President is excusable as long as it was previously demonstrated during the campaign whose results ratified said behavior.

    As for the outgoing party Chair John Burton’s rudeness, you are certainly right that it was morally and ethically wrong. I have never heard of John Burton, though, and I doubt anyone reading this blog has. I have heard of Donald Trump, of course, and I eagerly await the Ethics Alarms post which deals with his calamitous administration in isolation, and not as a side note to what is apparently much more invigorating here: the fulminations of fringe progressives or the bias of the news media which, despite that bias, has somehow managed to correct the record again and again against the Trump administration’s repeated attempts to lie to the public.

    • Wayne

      Purely partisan. No substance here.

    • In politic, a scandal is something of sufficient seriousness and impact to have actual, substantive effects. Here’s your test: which of these do you think are a scandal:

      1. Trump saying that his crowd at the swearing in was bigger than it was
      2. Trump saying that Obama wiretapped him (Note: there is still more evidence supporting that than Trump colluding with Russia)
      3. Trump saying that Andrew Jackson might have stopped the Civil War
      4. Trump saying he wanted Comey to end the Russian investigation.
      5. Trump allegedly saying Comey was a “nut job.’

      (None of these are scandals or crises.)

      Or are you just asserting in general that the US having a President who just says stuff whether it’s true or not is a scandal and a crisis? I might agree with that, except that scandal is called “an election,” and the ones embarrassed, if any, should be voters, That isn’t Trump’s scandal. He never hid the fact that he spoke like this.

      • …amazing how this concept lends itself to how Obama talked in office (lying if his lips were moving) but a fawning press covered and spun away the objections.

        • No doubt, Obama and Hillary lie differently than Trump. Trump’s lies, if they are lies, are spontaneous and usually laughably obvious. Their lies are calculated and careful, making them more persuasive. Someone I know is lying is just ridiculous: he can’t harm me. The other kind are far worse.

      • Chris

        1. Trump saying that his crowd at the swearing in was bigger than it was
        2. Trump saying that Obama wiretapped him (Note: there is still more evidence supporting that than Trump colluding with Russia)
        3. Trump saying that Andrew Jackson might have stopped the Civil War
        4. Trump saying he wanted Comey to end the Russian investigation.
        5. Trump allegedly saying Comey was a “nut job.’

        2 is definitely a scandal.

        A current president accusing the former president of a serious crime, with absolutely no evidence of that charge, is certainly scandalous.

        Your statement that there is more evidence of Trump’s claim than the Russian collusion is ludicrous. There is no evidence, not even of the circumstantial sort, that any wiretapping of Trump ever occurred.

        The evidence that Trump colluded with Russia is entirely circumstantial, but it is there. We have, of course, Trump’s public statements encouraging Russian hacking against Hillary. We have an active FBI investigation into whether or not his campaign colluded with Russia. We have Trump welcoming Russian officials to the White House the day after firing the man investigating his campaign’s connection with the country, where he threw an American citizen and patriot under the bus to curry favor with said Russian officials while bragging that he is now under less pressure from the Russia investigation, as well as giving them classified intel that endangered a source. We have multiple members of Trump’s team who said they had no contact with Russians when they did. We have 18 undisclosed contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia:

        http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106

        Again, this evidence is circumstantial, and is not enough to convict anyone of anything. But it exists. You should stop ignoring it. It is entirely scandalous.

        4 is part of a scandal when taken in the context of the above.

        • Warren

          “Trump’s lies, if they are lies, are spontaneous and usually laughably obvious.”

          If they are so obvious, why has so much of the commentary here, including from the host, insisted on calling those who’ve cited the President’s lies crazy?

          • Chris

            Good question, Warren.

            I mean, above we even see an excuse for Trump’s wiretapping lie, of which there is no evidence.

            And of course, the obvious lie that Trump fired Comey for any reason other than personal vengeance over the Russia investigation and his refusal to back up the wiretapping lie was immediately accepted here, and those who did not accept it were called deranged leftist propagandists, despite the many conservatives who immediately saw through the lie as well.

            Trump’s lies are indeed different. What’s also different is the excuses trotted out for him by the anti-anti-Trump movement.

          • That’s a non-sequitur. The anti-Trump deranged work on a principle that whatever he says, if it can be interpreted in a way that reflects as badly on him as possible, that’s what he means. For example, it should have been obvious that when he was boasting with Billy Bush, he was not literally admitting that he goes around sexually assaulting women and “grabbing them by the pussy.” So the assumption was that he was telling the truth. (It was obvious that he was wildly exaggerating.) When he claimed that there were at least 3 million illegal voters who voted for Clinton, he was obviously making positing a wild theory without any basis in fact—that not a lie, it’s just a silly, face-saving seat-of the pant opinion. The claim that he saw Muslims ion the US rejoicing over 9-11—on TV!—was obviously wrong the second he said it. Something is either on TV, or it’s not. Someone can’t convince the country of something like that, so it is probably just a delusion, not a lie. If he said that the United States was part of Europe and that he was sure of it, what would that be?

            “Trump’s lies, if they are lies, are spontaneous and usually laughably obvious.”

            • Chris

              When he claimed that there were at least 3 million illegal voters who voted for Clinton, he was obviously making positing a wild theory without any basis in fact—that not a lie, it’s just a silly, face-saving seat-of the pant opinion.

              Oh, come on.

              I’ll give you the pussy grabbing thing. It was likely an exaggeration or an empty boast.

              But he stated as fact that 3 million illegal immigrants voted. He did that on multiple occasions. That is a lie, as much as a random liberal who states that Russia hacked the election is a lie. If you wouldn’t call the latter an “opinion,” you can’t call Trump’s statement about the election an opinion, unless you hold Trump to a lower standard than your average Daily Kos commenter.

              The claim that he saw Muslims ion the US rejoicing over 9-11—on TV!—was obviously wrong the second he said it. Something is either on TV, or it’s not. Someone can’t convince the country of something like that, so it is probably just a delusion, not a lie.

              Since when is the ability to convince an entire country of something necessary to constitute a lie?

              Plenty of Trump supporters were and still are convinced that the Muslim thing actually happened. Does it not count as a lie if only the stupidest people in a given set of people believe it? Did Jim Jones not lie to his followers? If CNN reports fake news about Trump and only a few people believe them, does that mean they’re not lying?

              • It is not a lie, Chris, any more than someone is lying who says climate change is a hoax. Trump may be convinced of it. I bet he is. I was just on a long drive with a conservative lawyers who said HE’S certain that at least 3 million illegals voted. You can’t prove it isn’t true, and he can’t prove it is, but the fact that it seems ridiculous to you (and me) doesn’t make it a lie. Are all my Facebook friends LYING who write, almost daily, that Trump colluded with the Russians, not as opinion, but as fact? No. They believe it

                • Chris

                  Are all my Facebook friends LYING who write, almost daily, that Trump colluded with the Russians, not as opinion, but as fact?

                  Yes.

                    • Jack,
                      Most people are actually ignorant as to what a lie is, Chris is one of those people. There are too many people that think that a false statement is automatically a lie, they are wrong. These people need to consider these points of fact…

                      lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

                      1. If a person makes a statement and believes (for whatever reason) that the statement is true, it is not a lie.

                      2. If a person making a statement knows that the statement is not true, it is a lie.

                      3. If a person makes a statement and “believes” the statement is true and then that statement is later found to be false that does not make the original statement a lie it makes the original statement false.

                      4. False is not equivalent to lie.

                      5. A lie is certainly false but a false statement is not necessarily a lie; a lie MUST have intent to deceive or it is not a lie.

                      People like Chris will continue to spread their ignorant false statements are equivalent to lies opinion as long as it supports their argument, it’s dishonest, it’s the ends justify the means, political hacks do this all the time. But if someone dares to call these idiots a liar watch the sparks fly; it’s a double standard and they’re too ignorant to know it.

                    • Chris

                      Zoltar, what you’re describing is the George Costanza Defense. (Might want to add that one to your urban dictionary profile.) It’s bullshit.

                      People are able to convince themselves of all kinds of things. I have seen people here characterize the wage gap as a lie, even though plenty of people believe it; Jack previously referred to Trump’s “Muslims celebrating 9/11” statement as a “Nazi lie,” but now it isn’t because Trump is president.

                      Whether Trump believes, in his heart of hearts, the false things he said is impossible to know, therefore it is ultimately irrelevant to me. Your standard requires that we be telepaths before being able to call anything a lie, and it is thus an unreasonable standard.

                    • No, I called it a Big Lie, which is a propaganda technique: it was used by the Nazis, but it also used by both political parties. BLM still says that Zimmerman stalked and murdered Trayvon. False narratives are Big Lies.

                      That was an example where Trump acolytes, to my amazement, tried to assert that what he said was true, even though it could not have been. Trump may create Big Lies without knowing or even intending them to be Big Lies. Then others, who know they are indefensible, DO lie by defending them.

                    • Chris wrote, “what you’re describing is the George Costanza Defense.”

                      Maybe Chris is thinking of a different George Costanza Defense than I’m thinking about.

                      Chris should present a reasonable explanation to readers of how my comment about the definition and application the word “lie” is equivalent to the George Costanza Defense.

                      If Chris cannot present a reasonable explanation then Chris should tell readers if his claim was a lie, a false belief, or just ignorance.

                    • Chris

                      That was an example where Trump acolytes, to my amazement, tried to assert that what he said was true, even though it could not have been. Trump may create Big Lies without knowing or even intending them to be Big Lies. Then others, who know they are indefensible, DO lie by defending them.

                      How can you be sure they know they are indefensible? The fact that they’re defending them would indicate they don’t know that.

                      This is my problem with the distinction you’re drawing: how is it possible for us to know whether someone really “knows better?” It seems to require mind-reading. And then if someone is stupid enough, or disregards the truth enough, we stop calling their false statements “lies” because we assume they don’t know any better? That would seem to exempt some of the world’s biggest liars from being called liars.

                    • Oh, I don’t know—because they mostly came from Breitbart?

                    • Chris

                      Zoltar, the George Costanza defense says “It’s not a lie if you believe it.” That is exactly the logic you and Jack are using.

                    • Chris wrote, “Zoltar, the George Costanza defense says “It’s not a lie if you believe it.” “

                      I’ve never heard of that one, I heard of other things being called the George Costanza Defense but never that. I never was a fan of the Seinfeld show so you’re going to have to explain this to me.

                      How and when did this one become the George Costanza Defense (link to something) so it could be used to insult the intelligence of others that are using critical thinking?

                    • Chris

                      Zoltar,

                      That’s how I remember the George Costanza defense, but you have a point; when I Googled I found other results as well.

                      I did not use the phrase to insult you, however. I used it to show why I find the specific argument you and Jack are using unconvincing. I try to refrain from insults, and while I have not been perfect, I genuinely did not mean to insult you in that moment.

                    • I have never, ever, seen a presented comparison to a George Costanza Defense as being anything other than an insult to intelligence, but I guess I’ll just have to accept that you are unique and it’s a freak occurrence that everyone else using it is insulting someone in some way or another. I’m done with this chapter.

                      As for claim that the argument that if a person makes a statement and believes (for whatever reason) that the statement is true, it is not a lie is somehow “unconvincing”; I’ll say this, it’s understandable that you think it’s unconvincing when you obviously don’t truly understand what a lie actually is and you refuse to accept reasonable arguments that support the argument. I’ll just chalk up this part as ignorance* on your part, willful ignorance but ignorance all the same. The part that is truly disturbing is your willfulness to stick to the ignorance and ignore the “facts”, therefore you’re actually choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

                      *When I say ignorance I am specifically saying it as it is defined: lack of knowledge or information.

                      The End.

                  • Chris,

                    Did you just say that the entire Trump Russian investigation is based on a lie?

                    This is not a gotcha: it just seems inconsistent on your part, and I think I misunderstood.

                    • Chris

                      You misunderstood. I said that stating as fact that Trump colluded with Russia is a lie. It is my opinion that some form of collusion most likely happened, but I don’t know that for certain, and would not state it without qualifying that it is just my opinion.

                    • But these people state it as fact because they believe it is fact, just a fact that hasn’t been proven yet.

                    • Fair enough, Chris. Thank you for clearing that up

  6. Wayne

    I’m beginning to hate living in the Golden State with the governmental leadership we now have, both State and Federal. All conservatives can do is try to recall some vunerable State Legislators.

  7. Other Bill

    If Bernie Sanders had managed to capture the nomination and gone on to win the general election, I wonder whether these life time professional party operatives would have gone after President Sanders as vehemently as they’re going after a the outsider from the other party. I think they might have. How dare a non-politician try to play in their sand box?

    • Other Bill wrote, “If Bernie Sanders had managed to capture the nomination and gone on to win the general election, I wonder whether these life time professional party operatives would have gone after President Sanders as vehemently as they’re going after a the outsider from the other party. I think they might have.”

      I completely disagree with “I think they might have.” I think that most Progressives and Liberals want to go further left than Bernie Sanders, but he would have been a totally acceptable major pendulum swing towards socialism for them.

      P.S. There is no conceivable way that Bernie Sanders could have won the Presidency in 2016.

      • Another example of Hillary having to ‘trump’ in and take every trick (sorry for the domino pun)

        She did not need to cheat to win, but felt that any threat was an existential one, and therefore used every trick to throttle the opposition.

        She lied when the truth was acceptable. She cheated while holding the winning cards. (Her husband Bill, tellingly, as not allowed by their daughter to score family games of putt putt golf, I have heard, with the implication that he would cheat) She plotted with the media to make Trump the Republican candidate, then called his supporters a “basket of deplorables.”

        Bernie would have never won because Trump voters would have done the same as they did to Hillary. Showed up.

        • Other Bill

          I guess my growing suspicion, which I tried to convey, is that career pols and bureaucrats of all stripes seem to be absolutely and irrationally beside themselves that they have lost control to an outsider and they are willing to do anything to simply drive Trump out of power. There’s really no other explanation for what’s going on. No one’s making policy arguments anymore, it’s just one faux impeachable offense controversy after another. The pols and newspapers seem to have them cued up all the way to the horizon.

          • For what it is worth, OB, I agree that the Establishment is scared silly that their jig is up, and the cushy jobs might be endangered by the peons they rule.

            I suspect many aristocrats in France had the same fear, and it was justified when the peons did take over and execute their oppressors.

            Note that was a particularly horrible revolution, where no one was safe.

            • slickwilly wrote, “I suspect many aristocrats in France had the same fear, and it was justified when the peons did take over and execute their oppressors.

              Note that was a particularly horrible revolution, where no one was safe.”

              That’s exactly what can happen when mob rules rule. That’s another reason that what’s going on with politics in the USA today is so dangerous.

              • Respectfully, Z, where do you see this leading, if the left does not throw water on the fire? Conservatives are not fighting back in the same manner (yet) but will that continue?

                • slickwilly asked, “where do you see this leading”

                  Personally I think if the media would just start using some critical thinking, be really honest journalists, and act like the adult in the room that this will all just fizzling out to just another page in a long list irrational historical political events; however, seeing what’s happened in the media since 9/11 I think this will end in bloodshed in the streets before the left finally sees the ultimate error of their ways and drop the bull shit. Why do I think that; because when death literally comes to roost on their doorstep the snowflakes and political hacks suffering from TPSD will reevaluate their actions; let’s face it, they really aren’t actually stupid, they’re just blinded by their rage and propaganda is pulling the wool over their eyes.

                  Remember…

                  “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

                  I think what we are seeing in the media right now is a clear example of abuse of their power they are intentionally trying to gin up anything they can to achieve their goals – whatever those might actually be. Remember the plot to the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies?

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  Belfast 1970. Despite the romanticizing of “The Troubles” in song and movie, it wasn’t a period you wanted to live in.

  8. Other Bill

    Shouldn’t Nancy at least have attempted to feign mortification?

    • She’s fortunate if she can form a coherent sentence and remember what month it is. Be fair.

      • Other Bill

        I guess I assumed her daily talking points briefing included appropriate facial expressions. Maybe not. The Botox has probably incapacitated her control of her face muscles.

        • luckyesteeyoreman

          She is one re-election (2018) and two impeachments (Trump, Pence) from the office of POTUS. Remember this unbreakable political law: the first female president MUST be from the Democrat Party. Even if she is white.

          • Other Bill

            I just can’t believe Trump voters are as upset with Trump as the Dems, NYT and Post want people to believe. They’d have to take back the House AND the Senate in 2018 to get both two impeachments and two convictions. Who knows? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the GOP get a super majority in both houses of Congress in 2018 if the Dems and media keep up their current shtick.

  9. CBP

    Jack, please apologize to the Galapagos Islands. They are unique, fascinating and magical to explore – nothing like California’s present political climate.

  10. Glenn Logan

    My guess is violence. Well, more violence.

    I bought my first firearm the other day, and it won’t be the last by a long chalk. This is why.

    Interesting times, interesting times.

    • If it comes to that and the Democrats really want to go 0 for 2, I’d rather it happens sooner than later, so my children can at least be young adults and adults in a post violence filled nation.

      I’d rather it not come to that, I’d rather the Moderate Left come to its senses and dump the virulent and growing fringe in command of it, but the Dems seem to have their sights set otherwise.

      • Junkmailfolder

        I’m finally investing in a significant amount of food/water storage and have been considering owning a gun for the first time in my life. That would most likely be extremely surprising to anyone who knew me well.

    • Glenn Logan wrote, “I bought my first firearm the other day”

      A piece of personal advice; go out now and get personal training on firearm safety, how to use it properly, and the legalities of when you can legally use it. Having it does nothing if you do not understand how and when to use it and have the personal fortitude to make the life changing choice to actually use it. Always treat all firearms as if they are loaded and never ever pull out a loaded firearm unless you actually intend to use it.

      Go now, don’t wait!

      • Glenn Logan

        I’ve already had that. I had to qualify every year when I was in the Navy, even though it seems kind of weird for submariners to have to qualify with John Moses Browning’s finest creation, and also the military version of Armalite’s most famous.

        Heck, I grew up with firearms, and I remember when Jeff Cooper coined the Four Rules of Firearms Safety. Dad had several long guns, mostly for hunting. I wasn’t much of a hunter so I didn’t shoot them very often back then; we weren’t wealthy enough to fire ammunition for fun. But I knew the rules even then, because my father made damn sure I did.

        It’s just that until now, I never felt the need to own one. Now, I feel the need to own significantly more than one, and that will happen.

        But thanks, anyway. That’s good advice and needed to be said. In fact, it can’t be said too often. I pray I never have to fire a shot in anger. If I do, it will be as a last resort, but nowadays, it seems necessary to remember rule #1; always bring a gun to a gunfight, if the fight cannot be avoided.

        • Glenn Logan,
          I guess I made a false assumption when I read “I bought my first firearm”.

          Thank you for your service.

          • Glenn Logan

            I understand. It is a little strange, I guess, but I’ve just never felt the need to own one. Until now.

            It was an honor to serve. Still the best thing I’ve ever done next to marrying my wife.

  11. Chris

    There is no excuse for Burton leading this chant. I would have found it vulgar at a street protest, let alone a state convention. Despicable.

  12. Chris

    This level of trolling is really something else.

  13. Jeanette Burns

    While this incudent may have been grossly inappropriate for a public figure – I think your article couldn’t be more pro-trump and anti anything not trump if you had worn a MAGA hat and matching cape in your cover photo. I’m sure if you apply, you can snag one of the many open positions trump has. Being as you’re grossly unqualified for anything, especially journalism, I’m sure you’ll get a position.

    P.S. Yes, I am aware I did not capitalize trump, he is not worthy of that modicum of respect.

    • Thanks, Jeanette: it is useful to periodically receive classic examples of the kind on non-reason that hyper-partisan and grossly unethical members of the public use to deny inexcusable behavior. In litigation, it is called demonstrative evidence. It’s relatively grammatical, and will be representative of the more moronic versions of the same sentiment I receive from your hive.

      Don’t try a second comment; it won’t make it. quit while you’re ahead.

    • All ad hominem not relevant content.

  14. Firing someone a President has the power and right to fire and who was objectively untrustworthy is not a scandal, nor is it a “crisis,” no matter how many times reporters say it is. Alleged statements made by a President leaked by anonymous sources are not scandals, because they are alleged statements made by a President leaked by anonymous sources. A news media—led by two rival national newspapers trying to top each other by publishing breathless accounts of hearsay as if that is ever evidence of anything—that has openly abandoned all ethical journalism standards and allied itself with a partisan effort to undermine and remove an elected President is a scandal, as well as a crisis. More on that one later.

    That constitutes interference with an election. Maybe Special Counsel Robert Mueller should investigate this.

    U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, often mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate for President in 2020, accused Trump of putting “Russia first, America second.”

    She also said this.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_25243849/concealed-carry-gun-law-california-appealed-kamala-harris

    “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”- Kamala Harris

    How can we reconcile this statement with the beliefs held by Black Lives Matter?

  15. Billy Thomas

    Excellent piece Jack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s