I don’t think American voters, as a general rule, give a shit about what goes on outside of the borders, unless it is for the purposes of mythologizing
I think this is probably true. Although I suppose foreign affairs is only one of the ways an administration may behave dishonourably. January 6th was within the first Trump administration, and I guess was a sort of epitome of dishonourable behaviour. But it is debatable to what extent honour is even an applicable concept in the context of nations or administrations. Breaking promises and commitments, now, that's another matter, and can have serious practical repercussions.
As a Wall Street Journal editorial on Friday put it: “Mr. Trump may figure he can finally wash his hands of Ukraine if Europe and Ukraine reject his offer. He’s clearly sick of dealing with the war. But appeasing Mr. Putin would haunt the rest of his presidency. If Mr. Trump thinks American voters hate war, wait until he learns how much they hate dishonor. … A bad deal in Ukraine would broadcast to U.S. enemies that they can seize what they want with force or nuclear blackmail or by pressing on until America loses interest.”
Well, I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency. The piece from which I have taken that is in today's NYT:
However, I do have some (tiny amount of) hope that if this kind of criticism is very widespread, along with all the signalling from Europe, Trump might (once again!) back slightly off from this kind of approach. I guess this is what's behind today's statement that this was not his final offer. But to follow that by saying if Zelensky refuses to accept the terms, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” makes me feel sick. The Chamberlain comparison makes sense; appeasing Putin has been Trump's consistent approach as POTUS in both his terms.
Definitely true of Witkoff, and many other Trump appointees. But I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of "but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change". To me it has looked absolutely clear from the beginning that Trump's intention is essentially to give Putin whatever he wants, that he will throw Ukraine to the wolves, and that any little zigzags have been purely performative. There could be many explanations: that he is bought and paid for, that Putin has kompromat on him, that he hates Zelensky ever since the perfect phone call, or that he is at heart a weak and pathetic man who kowtows to those he sees as ruthless, strong and powerful. It could be a combination of any of these. But as for the bunch of clowns, dumb or not, if they know they are giving Trump what he really wants, it may not be their competence that is the problem.
I fault Obama for not acting on Crimea in 2014. But the behaviour of the Trump administration over Ukraine is a stain on America which, to paraphrase Trump, is probably the greatest ever seen.
Josh Marshall thinks that the MBS/Khashoggi issue will play badly in the light of Vindman's intervention because it will demonstrate that Trump outright lied to the press and public in that oval office meeting. I hope he's right, but personally I doubt it. Trump's well established as an outright liar, and I can't see, even if the call were to prove that MSB conceded to him that he knew about the murder, that MAGA or Trump's base would give a damn. And it really looks like that's all that Trump cares about.
Carole Cadwalladr has been on this for a while, and posted about Thiel and Nvidia yesterday. Many of her informant techbros are seriously sounding the alarm about the imminent pop....
Also treating this as an open thread: this is an piece from today's NYT, about the Tucker Carlson - Nick Fuentes interview and more importantly the Heritage Foundation's reaction, and on to Vance's response to so much of what has been happening around the tolerance of Nazi/fascist opinion among the right:
I posted this on People and Politics, which might now be a kind of defunct thread. But since lj has luckily now posted a thread specifically about the Epstein email releases, I am copying it here. Now that lj has helpfully given us the link, there may be other worthwhile finds.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure. Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It’s an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon’s part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn't notice it contained several links so it's awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great - sorry!
I can't even remember why I get Axios newsletters, but I thought this might be of interest - I know lj pays attention to Klein:
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein isn't content with opining about the Democratic Party — he's positioned himself as a powerbroker inside of it. Why it matters: Klein's columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Through his columns, hit podcast, private briefings with Democratic lawmakers and his bestselling book "Abundance" with reporter Derek Thompson, Klein has shaped the party's strategies and policies in President Trump's second term.
Driving the news: Klein has spoken privately this year to potential 2028 candidates such as former Vice President Harris, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, people familiar with the conversations told Axios.
He's also spoken with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on the sidelines of public events, and their teams have been discussing Shapiro appearing on Klein's podcast.
When Newsom signed a California deregulation law aimed at making it easier to build housing, he posted on X: "We're urgently embracing an abundance agenda" — a reference to Klein's book that argues Democrats need to back pro-growth policies.
Klein's column in early September urging Democratic senators to shut down the government to confront Trump's expansion of executive power was influential in the senators doing just that for an unprecedented 43 days, according to Senate Democratic officials.
After some moderate Senate Democrats said last weekend that they were going to vote to end the shutdown, Klein urged Democrats to keep fighting: "If I were in the Senate, I wouldn't vote for this compromise."
Klein's role in the partisan event raised internal concerns at the Times, people familiar with the situation told Axios. The Times typically has frowned on such actions by its journalists, even opinion columnists.
A Times spokesperson said Klein attended the event to discuss his book and told his editor in advance.
Jill Abramson, the paper's former executive editor, told Axios she doesn't see a conflict.
"It's true that this is a blurry line between journalism and politics and governing. But he's in the opinion category and not covering news — that's a little blurry itself."
"I'm a stickler for staying in your lane," she added. "I think his lane is the Ezra-lane and I don't see him crossing a line. I'm assuming the New York Times is cool with it."
Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: "Ezra is a tremendous talent .... he talks to people across the ideological spectrum; it's essential for his reporting to have those conversations, and he approaches them as a journalist. All of this makes him an ideal opinion columnist and host."
Klein did not respond to a request for comment.
Klein's large audience and brand has endeared him to some of the Times leadership.
His columns consistently have some of the outlet's biggest online traffic, according to people who have seen internal numbers.
Deputy managing editor Sam Dolnick, an influential member of the Sulzberger family that owns the Times, has been privately promoting Klein inside the paper and to other media reporters over the past year, people familiar with the matter told Axios.
Klein also changed his appearance — working out and growing a beard — which he acknowledged recently "has changed my public image more than I would have thought."
What they're saying: Some Democratic officials advising potential presidential candidates are worried about Klein's influence with party elites at a time when the party is trying to win back working-class votes, having suffered from being cast as too elite and coastal.
Klein isn't the person to guide Democrats out of the wilderness, they argue.
"You're telling me this man who sits in a f**king West Elm-decorated office is going to be the thought leader for Democrats?" one Democratic aide to a potential presidential candidate said.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It's an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon's part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began. “I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
I'm glad of these slightly more positive interpretations (inc Josh Marshall, who hilzoy seems to respect), without having any idea which approach is more correct.
What a spineless bunch they are, or maybe just so stupid and naive they still think they're essentially dealing with politics as usual. They are the very definition of the frog in the heating-up pot.
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
Perfect example: Johnny Cash singing Hurt. The video's pretty amazing too.
On a lighter note, while thinking of examples of rightwingers only showing compassion to suffering encountered in their own circles (remembering that Dick Cheney's support for gay marriage was undoubtedly to do with having a lesbian daughter), I was reading various pieces about DC and smiled to see this:
Former US vice-president Dick Cheney, who has died, had intimidating power. For instance, when Cheney shot a friend while hunting, an apology was made by the friend to Cheney. His fearful aura made it all the more amusing when CNN accidentally published an obituary of Cheney in 2003, but it was unfinished and had been based on a template used for the Queen Mother. Cheney was described as “the UK’s favourite grandmother”.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
I don’t think American voters, as a general rule, give a shit about what goes on outside of the borders, unless it is for the purposes of mythologizing
I think this is probably true. Although I suppose foreign affairs is only one of the ways an administration may behave dishonourably. January 6th was within the first Trump administration, and I guess was a sort of epitome of dishonourable behaviour. But it is debatable to what extent honour is even an applicable concept in the context of nations or administrations. Breaking promises and commitments, now, that's another matter, and can have serious practical repercussions.
"
As a Wall Street Journal editorial on Friday put it: “Mr. Trump may figure he can finally wash his hands of Ukraine if Europe and Ukraine reject his offer. He’s clearly sick of dealing with the war. But appeasing Mr. Putin would haunt the rest of his presidency. If Mr. Trump thinks American voters hate war, wait until he learns how much they hate dishonor. … A bad deal in Ukraine would broadcast to U.S. enemies that they can seize what they want with force or nuclear blackmail or by pressing on until America loses interest.”
Well, I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency. The piece from which I have taken that is in today's NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/22/opinion/ukraine-russia-negotiations-trump-deal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E8.xN85.ecN93aJ-jZL7&smid=url-share
However, I do have some (tiny amount of) hope that if this kind of criticism is very widespread, along with all the signalling from Europe, Trump might (once again!) back slightly off from this kind of approach. I guess this is what's behind today's statement that this was not his final offer. But to follow that by saying if Zelensky refuses to accept the terms, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” makes me feel sick. The Chamberlain comparison makes sense; appeasing Putin has been Trump's consistent approach as POTUS in both his terms.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
If you want it lj, here it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/opinion/dubai-migration-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E8.A3HK.Gd0uik9LLL9G&smid=url-share
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
What a fucking bunch of clowns.
Definitely true of Witkoff, and many other Trump appointees. But I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of "but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change". To me it has looked absolutely clear from the beginning that Trump's intention is essentially to give Putin whatever he wants, that he will throw Ukraine to the wolves, and that any little zigzags have been purely performative. There could be many explanations: that he is bought and paid for, that Putin has kompromat on him, that he hates Zelensky ever since the perfect phone call, or that he is at heart a weak and pathetic man who kowtows to those he sees as ruthless, strong and powerful. It could be a combination of any of these. But as for the bunch of clowns, dumb or not, if they know they are giving Trump what he really wants, it may not be their competence that is the problem.
I fault Obama for not acting on Crimea in 2014. But the behaviour of the Trump administration over Ukraine is a stain on America which, to paraphrase Trump, is probably the greatest ever seen.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
What is our current Open Thread? Where should one talk about the Russia-US 28 point plan giving Putin almost everything he wants?
On “Your quest begins now!”
Josh Marshall thinks that the MBS/Khashoggi issue will play badly in the light of Vindman's intervention because it will demonstrate that Trump outright lied to the press and public in that oval office meeting. I hope he's right, but personally I doubt it. Trump's well established as an outright liar, and I can't see, even if the call were to prove that MSB conceded to him that he knew about the murder, that MAGA or Trump's base would give a damn. And it really looks like that's all that Trump cares about.
"
Pro Bono: FYLTGE
On “Pop!”
Carole Cadwalladr has been on this for a while, and posted about Thiel and Nvidia yesterday. Many of her informant techbros are seriously sounding the alarm about the imminent pop....
On “Your quest begins now!”
Also treating this as an open thread: this is an piece from today's NYT, about the Tucker Carlson - Nick Fuentes interview and more importantly the Heritage Foundation's reaction, and on to Vance's response to so much of what has been happening around the tolerance of Nazi/fascist opinion among the right:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/opinion/tucker-carlson-trump-groypers-fuentes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2E8.dcFB.iS10t8lip43s&smid=url-share
"
I posted this on People and Politics, which might now be a kind of defunct thread. But since lj has luckily now posted a thread specifically about the Epstein email releases, I am copying it here. Now that lj has helpfully given us the link, there may be other worthwhile finds.
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It’s an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon’s part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn't notice it contained several links so it's awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great - sorry!
"
I can't even remember why I get Axios newsletters, but I thought this might be of interest - I know lj pays attention to Klein:
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein isn't content with opining about the Democratic Party — he's positioned himself as a powerbroker inside of it.
Why it matters: Klein's columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Driving the news: Klein has spoken privately this year to potential 2028 candidates such as former Vice President Harris, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, people familiar with the conversations told Axios.
Klein's column in early September urging Democratic senators to shut down the government to confront Trump's expansion of executive power was influential in the senators doing just that for an unprecedented 43 days, according to Senate Democratic officials.
The intrigue: Klein also privately briefed Senate Democrats at their summer retreat.
Jill Abramson, the paper's former executive editor, told Axios she doesn't see a conflict.
Klein's large audience and brand has endeared him to some of the Times leadership.
What they're saying: Some Democratic officials advising potential presidential candidates are worried about Klein's influence with party elites at a time when the party is trying to win back working-class votes, having suffered from being cast as too elite and coastal.
On “People and poliltics”
I guess this is the closest thing we have to an open thread at the moment? I find it hard to know for sure.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that on the Epstein emails release, I think the most interesting thing so far is the correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. It's an astonishing illustration of moral bankruptcy on Bannon's part, and to the extent that he is such an integral part of MAGA world I do think it really keeps the heat on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/15/steve-bannon-jeffrey-epstein-text-messages-publicity
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
That's a terrific speech, nous. Thanks for posting it.
"
Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT on the whole thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/opinion/shutdown-democrats-senate-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k8.DRXA.pz0WPK3A3HUY&smid=url-share
"
Jon Stewart on top form. Sigh.
On “When virtues become vices”
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began.
“I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
On “When virtues become vices”
I'm glad of these slightly more positive interpretations (inc Josh Marshall, who hilzoy seems to respect), without having any idea which approach is more correct.
"
Josh Marshall seems reasonably sanguine about it:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win/sharetoken/32bf02be-00e6-4b69-8f8e-4aa805cf9e0e
Also:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/with-a-day-to-think-about-it
"
What a spineless bunch they are, or maybe just so stupid and naive they still think they're essentially dealing with politics as usual. They are the very definition of the frog in the heating-up pot.
"
If or to what extent....
"
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCRF_CkCtm_1560slsmw2zv8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
Perfect example: Johnny Cash singing Hurt. The video's pretty amazing too.
On “People and poliltics”
On a lighter note, while thinking of examples of rightwingers only showing compassion to suffering encountered in their own circles (remembering that Dick Cheney's support for gay marriage was undoubtedly to do with having a lesbian daughter), I was reading various pieces about DC and smiled to see this:
Former US vice-president Dick Cheney, who has died, had intimidating power. For instance, when Cheney shot a friend while hunting, an apology was made by the friend to Cheney. His fearful aura made it all the more amusing when CNN accidentally published an obituary of Cheney in 2003, but it was unfinished and had been based on a template used for the Queen Mother. Cheney was described as “the UK’s favourite grandmother”.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.