Sir Rod Stewart released a video statement about Trump's diss of UK soldiers.
That Tacticus quote is right on the money-which is why the actions in Portland and Minneapolis are so important and inspiring. There's no giving in to cynicism there and a strong assertion of the moral values the dictator is trying to destroy.
That poem is exactly right. In terms of civic involvement, sociopathy is the norm with R base voters, combined with self-aggrandizement and self-pity. I wonder if there has always been a percentage of the population that is like this or is or were they created by Faux and the rest of the hate propaganda network? Or always there, but more apparent now, give the decades Republicans have spent encouraging this mindset?
That really shows world domination clearly. And not coincidentally, many people are leaving those colonized parts of the world for because of the difficult living conditions.
I have been noticing incidents of cultural transfer possible because of the Internet. Have you seen/heard "Jerusalema?" It started with a South African musician using European musical instruments but his own language and music traditions who wrote a song about a Middle Eastern religion. He produced a video of people dancing in the style of his cultural background which because a global phenomenon of people doing watered down versions of the dance. The song is simple, addictive, and emotionally resonate, full of yearning. It is notable how much better the dancers are in the African videos!
Another example is Music for Change, tho they focus on songs that originate in the US, mostly.
If we are converging globally, I hope some of the better aspects of other cultures influence us rather than just us influencing them. I mean values, not just food and music.
I think aging has affected my attention span. I CANNOT listen to videos. It seems like no one has the skill of getting concisely to the point. I can't tolerate rambling, circling the point without landing the plane, or a long buildup of "context" that I already know. A video presentation should be like a persuasive essay: the thesis should be stated clearly at the outset.
I like Talarico. He entered the race before Crockett, so no conspiracy against her by evil white liberals--despite the rumors on Bluesky. I think Talarico's reclaiming of Christianity is hugely beneficial. Also, he is clear spoken and makes the moral issues front and center--the morality of Dem policies and the immorality of so many Texas Republican actions and policies. He isn't defensive. He is attacking and moving the Overton Window.
I like Crockett, too, but I don't think she has the ability to change the terms of the conversation the way Talarico can.
That change in the terms of the convo seems important since it is unlikely that either will win a Senate seat. The goal needs to be to change TX politics over the long term by changing hearts and minds and that means reframing perceptions.
Of course I don't live there, so I won't be voting and likely don't have sufficient local knowledge to support my opinions.
A million years ago when I was, oh, about twenty I can remember being very afraid of the year 2000. I thought by then 1984 would be true plus global warming. I thought that the death would come of everything I love: nature, animals, free thought...and I thought the killer would be the substitution of international corporations for national governments. Oceania, etc. with the real decisions made in board rooms.
I was also scared to death of getting old.
I comforted myself with the thought that I would die just about the time everything I care about dies. I think I am right about that, though off by about 25 years.
Well, I'm certainly starting the new year off on a happy note! Sorry about that. I guess I need to buy some hydrangeas.
To me, shocking as the murder, it is even more shocking that people in Minneapolis can't go about their routine lives anymore without running into harassment by shit tons of ICE border patrol prosecutors and, apparently, armed militias who have empowered themselves to join it. And this is being covered with headlines about "surges" in response to "protests breaking out" language that assumes the invasion by Trump forces is legit while supposedly there is something scary about the protests.
I desperately hope the people of Minn can stay nonviolent. When the George Floyd protests degenerated into riots, that movement died and all that was accomplished was help for the Republicans in the midterms.
It's becoming clear through statements by Rubio and Miller, that the goal is hemispheric dominance by the US for the sake of dominance. Of course, there's no commitment to freedom or elected government--they oppose that here and they sure don't support it elsewhere. Trump, in rare bursts of honesty, has stated his motive: he sees money for himself. He has been planning for a while now to broker a deal with oil companies to give them access to Venezuela's oil and he will want a percentage for himself beyond the money already paid to his election campaign.
I was generally optimistic about the near future (within the framework of being a doomfreak) until this week. I thought the tide was tipping against King Pussygrabber and that, as his support eroded, the Rs in Congress would start showing some spine and Dems would win lots of elections.
Instead it's Iraq all over again except this time with an executive who is literally insane. Rubio is similar to the people around Bush in that he believes in a kind of domino theory (US takes one nation and the others fall into line, maybe with some more pushing we win!) that completely ignores the spirit of nationalism in other nations and their desire to not be de facto colonies. The war(s) will be marketed to the rubes in the US by wrapping it up in a flag and demanding that all good true real Americans all salute.
Bush's Great Adventure ended in tears, of course, and now even Republican voters will say that Bush fucked up. The initial flush of jingoistic excitement ran aground on the short American attention span and some American deaths (Who cares about all the civilians who died or the million refugees or the destabilization of Syria? Down the Memory Hole.)
So I think the War for Greater Trumpistan will also run around on the limited attention span of the voters and the unwillingness to invest more than a couple thousand American lives. I think that even MAGAs would object to trading American lives for oil--if they know that's what's happening.
The past being the best predictor of the future, moral principles, rule of law, the exposure of lies, and foreign civilian deaths will not influence public opinion here beyond those who are already appalled, so the Republican party won't be held responsible for this any more than they were for Watergate, Iran/countra, Iraq, Trump's attack on Congress, or Trump and all of his crimes, or anything else they do. They represent the worst in human nature and, sadly, there's always going to be enough of that around for a viable party.
I don't watch TV news so I don't know how far the regression has gone, but CBS, aka Pravda West, has had the opposite of an epiphany.
The msm let themselves get used by Republicans to promote slanders, lies, fake investigations, all kinds of bullshit until part way through Trump's first term when they finally figures out that they needed to be more than a megaphone. An epiphany! They needed to actually do their jobs.
CBS is collaborating by spreading Republican lies. The coverage consists of extensive repetitions of Republican false allegations, followed by a brief partial rebuttal, followed by horse race coverage of how the false allegations might affect Walz. At no point to they explain that the Biden admin already did a massive investigation and achieved around 50 indictments. A viewer would come away with the impression that Minn had done nothing about the fraud, that DHS deserved all the credit and that opps! a Republican blogger was mistaken about the Somali day care centers. Not one word said about the devastating flood of hate now directed at those centers.
And, of course, not one word about the organized hate campaign now underway by Republicans against all Somalis.
"through an Overton lens, Trump’s increasingly-insane inanity will make any Bush-style Republican very attractive in 2028. a white man who isn’t a psychotic narcissist will be soberly declared, by once-again-endorsement-friendly editorials everywhere, to be the kind of stable genius we all need. the press will wet themselves in bliss at the idea of the GOP returning to a normal balance."
This is my fear. And I don't think the Republicans under that hypothetical person will be different in substance than they are not. In degree, yes. Substance, no. And the substance will be gerrymandering, election rigging, tax cuts for the rich and screw everyone else, pro-corporate power and anti-public interest legislation, and more Federalist SOciety ideologues in judgeships as they go full steam ahead on the plant to turn the US into a one-party oligarchy and only looks like a representative democracy.
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican. There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons. There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake. There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all. Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
I'm with Cleek. I don't vote on policy except in the very broad sense that Democrats try to devise policies to solve problems and Republicans don't.
I vote for whoever wins the primary. During the primary I tend toward whoever seems the most authentic, the best public speaker, and the least likely to do something stupid during the campaign, and the one who isn't being negatively stereotyped by the msm. Those are some of the factors that contribute to election chances.
My objection to Newsome is that the msm will collaborate with the Republicans to promote a negative stereotype of him and that will significantly impair his chances.
My objections to HRC were: she started out pre-slimed by Republican slander with a 50% negative rating and had a history of stupid decisions (Iraq and her campaign decisions during the primary race with Obama).
I didn't like Bernie, but he seemed less likely to lose the election to Trump.
I thought Harris would lose because we live in a society that is pretty misogynistic and has a wide and deep disrespect for Black women.
Right now my preferred choice is Pritzker, but that's tentative. I also like Buttigieg, also tentative. FWIW.
The labels annoy me too because there is no shared meaning. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean--largely unattached to policy responses to issues. Yet the news media and many citizens treat those labels as if they were useful analysis tools for explaining where pols are on policy. It's annoying.
I don't think elections are won on policy and certainly not on policy nuances--unless there is a very clear harm done to a large number of people that is simple to see like taking away their health insurance. I think I persistent mistake made by Dems and especially by self-proclaimed progressives is the belief that the majority of voters are moved by policy. "HRC would have won if she had run on Medicare for All" etc.
Most people vote the way they shop: brand, eye appeal, connotations they put on a product, previous experience, what their family always did, etc. I doubt if your typical voter has more than the faintest slogan level understanding of policy. They notice style, though.
Maybe I'm cynical. But I'm looking at elections that were won THREE TIMES by Republicans who cut taxes for rich people and created deficits while blaming the deficits on Democrats before electing a Republican who did it AGAIN--and yet your typical Republican voter claims to be opposed to deficits, and I doubt if many really want tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile on Blue Sky self-identified progressives say things like, "Democrats are the party of corporate power!"
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is "better on the issues" but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
The problem with the survey results that I posted is that, as far as I can see, there are no moderate Republicans--in terms of policy. Some are more polite than others but nearly the entire party from top to bottom is fully complicit in all of the excesses of Trumpism from Project 2025 to the DOGE rampage, to the treason, to tax cuts for rich people and the attacks on the not-rich to the ethical, moral, and financial corruption and the violations of the rule of law. Yes, there are individuals here and there and some slight breaking of ranks recently, but moderates? Even the three ladies who get called moderate are complicit with the majority of what the Trump admin has done.
I think people are reacting to style. They don't want the overt bullying (the pseudo polite hatemongering of pre-Trump Republicans who outsourced their most overt rhetoric to people like Limbaugh is probably still acceptable). They don't want the shouting and yelling and shrillness.
I've always thought that the Republicans erred in nominating Trump because he was a threat to their goal of changing the US into a one party oligarchy. They need a fascist who seems nice.
The survey, which was conducted between December 14 and 15 and measured public opinion based upon the answers provided by 1,000 registered voters, found that if they had their pick between a progressive Democrat, MAGA Republican, moderate Democrat, and moderate Republican, American would most prefer the last, followed by a moderate Democrat, then a progressive Democrat, and then a MAGA Republican. New poll reveals what kind of president Americans want most
HIs aides seem to think that MORE exposure of Trump being Trump will help him, but I don't think his performance on prime time went over all that well with anyone outside the cult--and might have been a bit cringy to some cult members. I know Trump and Republican media have degenerated the tone of our public discourse and normalized behavior which should seem disgusting, but even with that, how many people like being shouted at by a red-faced, angry old man?
Previously to this discussion, I assumed that Trump's posts were all his and expressed who he is. I wondered why some staffer person wasn't assigned the job of constantly checking and removing his posts. Then I read this excerpt from a a discussion about his top office manager: “There is this idea that people have that I think was very common in the first administration,” he told me, “that their objective was to control the president or influence the president, or even manipulate the president because they had to in order to serve the national interest. Susie just takes the diametrically opposite viewpoint, which is that she’s a facilitator, that the American people have elected Donald Trump. And her job is to actually facilitate his vision and to make his vision come to life.” So Trump unleashed and uncensored, served straight without a mixer, is her goal. And if he stays up all night broadcasting out his character deficiencies and mental issues, so be it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Moral insanity”
Sir Rod Stewart released a video statement about Trump's diss of UK soldiers.
That Tacticus quote is right on the money-which is why the actions in Portland and Minneapolis are so important and inspiring. There's no giving in to cynicism there and a strong assertion of the moral values the dictator is trying to destroy.
"
That poem is exactly right. In terms of civic involvement, sociopathy is the norm with R base voters, combined with self-aggrandizement and self-pity. I wonder if there has always been a percentage of the population that is like this or is or were they created by Faux and the rest of the hate propaganda network? Or always there, but more apparent now, give the decades Republicans have spent encouraging this mindset?
On “An interesting map”
That really shows world domination clearly. And not coincidentally, many people are leaving those colonized parts of the world for because of the difficult living conditions.
I have been noticing incidents of cultural transfer possible because of the Internet. Have you seen/heard "Jerusalema?" It started with a South African musician using European musical instruments but his own language and music traditions who wrote a song about a Middle Eastern religion. He produced a video of people dancing in the style of his cultural background which because a global phenomenon of people doing watered down versions of the dance. The song is simple, addictive, and emotionally resonate, full of yearning. It is notable how much better the dancers are in the African videos!
Another example is Music for Change, tho they focus on songs that originate in the US, mostly.
If we are converging globally, I hope some of the better aspects of other cultures influence us rather than just us influencing them. I mean values, not just food and music.
On “Talarico”
LJ, I was not complaining about you or your posts! I appreciate you watching stuff so I don't have to! And I appreciate you making posts.
"
I think aging has affected my attention span. I CANNOT listen to videos. It seems like no one has the skill of getting concisely to the point. I can't tolerate rambling, circling the point without landing the plane, or a long buildup of "context" that I already know. A video presentation should be like a persuasive essay: the thesis should be stated clearly at the outset.
"
I like Talarico. He entered the race before Crockett, so no conspiracy against her by evil white liberals--despite the rumors on Bluesky. I think Talarico's reclaiming of Christianity is hugely beneficial. Also, he is clear spoken and makes the moral issues front and center--the morality of Dem policies and the immorality of so many Texas Republican actions and policies. He isn't defensive. He is attacking and moving the Overton Window.
I like Crockett, too, but I don't think she has the ability to change the terms of the conversation the way Talarico can.
That change in the terms of the convo seems important since it is unlikely that either will win a Senate seat. The goal needs to be to change TX politics over the long term by changing hearts and minds and that means reframing perceptions.
Of course I don't live there, so I won't be voting and likely don't have sufficient local knowledge to support my opinions.
On “An open thread”
GtNC is scaring the crap out of me.
A million years ago when I was, oh, about twenty I can remember being very afraid of the year 2000. I thought by then 1984 would be true plus global warming. I thought that the death would come of everything I love: nature, animals, free thought...and I thought the killer would be the substitution of international corporations for national governments. Oceania, etc. with the real decisions made in board rooms.
I was also scared to death of getting old.
I comforted myself with the thought that I would die just about the time everything I care about dies. I think I am right about that, though off by about 25 years.
Well, I'm certainly starting the new year off on a happy note! Sorry about that. I guess I need to buy some hydrangeas.
"
To me, shocking as the murder, it is even more shocking that people in Minneapolis can't go about their routine lives anymore without running into harassment by shit tons of ICE border patrol prosecutors and, apparently, armed militias who have empowered themselves to join it. And this is being covered with headlines about "surges" in response to "protests breaking out" language that assumes the invasion by Trump forces is legit while supposedly there is something scary about the protests.
I desperately hope the people of Minn can stay nonviolent. When the George Floyd protests degenerated into riots, that movement died and all that was accomplished was help for the Republicans in the midterms.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
It's becoming clear through statements by Rubio and Miller, that the goal is hemispheric dominance by the US for the sake of dominance. Of course, there's no commitment to freedom or elected government--they oppose that here and they sure don't support it elsewhere. Trump, in rare bursts of honesty, has stated his motive: he sees money for himself. He has been planning for a while now to broker a deal with oil companies to give them access to Venezuela's oil and he will want a percentage for himself beyond the money already paid to his election campaign.
"
I was generally optimistic about the near future (within the framework of being a doomfreak) until this week. I thought the tide was tipping against King Pussygrabber and that, as his support eroded, the Rs in Congress would start showing some spine and Dems would win lots of elections.
Instead it's Iraq all over again except this time with an executive who is literally insane. Rubio is similar to the people around Bush in that he believes in a kind of domino theory (US takes one nation and the others fall into line, maybe with some more pushing we win!) that completely ignores the spirit of nationalism in other nations and their desire to not be de facto colonies. The war(s) will be marketed to the rubes in the US by wrapping it up in a flag and demanding that all good true real Americans all salute.
Bush's Great Adventure ended in tears, of course, and now even Republican voters will say that Bush fucked up. The initial flush of jingoistic excitement ran aground on the short American attention span and some American deaths (Who cares about all the civilians who died or the million refugees or the destabilization of Syria? Down the Memory Hole.)
So I think the War for Greater Trumpistan will also run around on the limited attention span of the voters and the unwillingness to invest more than a couple thousand American lives. I think that even MAGAs would object to trading American lives for oil--if they know that's what's happening.
The past being the best predictor of the future, moral principles, rule of law, the exposure of lies, and foreign civilian deaths will not influence public opinion here beyond those who are already appalled, so the Republican party won't be held responsible for this any more than they were for Watergate, Iran/countra, Iraq, Trump's attack on Congress, or Trump and all of his crimes, or anything else they do. They represent the worst in human nature and, sadly, there's always going to be enough of that around for a viable party.
"
I saw this in a comment on Blue Sky: Wag the Dog meets Grand Theft Oil.
On “Moving towards Epiphany”
Than you, Russell. That was lovely. You all might find this comforting: Turning Toward the Morning
"If I had one thing to give you, I would tell you one more time that the world is always turning toward the morning."
"
I don't watch TV news so I don't know how far the regression has gone, but CBS, aka Pravda West, has had the opposite of an epiphany.
The msm let themselves get used by Republicans to promote slanders, lies, fake investigations, all kinds of bullshit until part way through Trump's first term when they finally figures out that they needed to be more than a megaphone. An epiphany! They needed to actually do their jobs.
But CBS seems to have regressed: DHS conducting massive investigation after viral video alleges fraud at Minnesota day care centers | Watch
CBS is collaborating by spreading Republican lies. The coverage consists of extensive repetitions of Republican false allegations, followed by a brief partial rebuttal, followed by horse race coverage of how the false allegations might affect Walz. At no point to they explain that the Biden admin already did a massive investigation and achieved around 50 indictments. A viewer would come away with the impression that Minn had done nothing about the fraud, that DHS deserved all the credit and that opps! a Republican blogger was mistaken about the Somali day care centers. Not one word said about the devastating flood of hate now directed at those centers.
And, of course, not one word about the organized hate campaign now underway by Republicans against all Somalis.
Fuck you, CBS.
"
"through an Overton lens, Trump’s increasingly-insane inanity will make any Bush-style Republican very attractive in 2028. a white man who isn’t a psychotic narcissist will be soberly declared, by once-again-endorsement-friendly editorials everywhere, to be the kind of stable genius we all need. the press will wet themselves in bliss at the idea of the GOP returning to a normal balance."
This is my fear. And I don't think the Republicans under that hypothetical person will be different in substance than they are not. In degree, yes. Substance, no. And the substance will be gerrymandering, election rigging, tax cuts for the rich and screw everyone else, pro-corporate power and anti-public interest legislation, and more Federalist SOciety ideologues in judgeships as they go full steam ahead on the plant to turn the US into a one-party oligarchy and only looks like a representative democracy.
On “An inscrutable Merry Christmas”
Merry winter solstice to everyone. I hope you all are safe and warm.
On “Weekend Music Thread music thread #09 In Russia, Christmas music sings you!”
I like these: Heather Dale: Huron Carol, in 4 languages (Huron, French, English, American Sign Language)
This is a Mongolian band. It's very rich and interesting: GG 16x9 Multipants v25 0 c linh phuonglelinh hoanh
"
Re: weather voice. Out here, the voice on the weather channel for boaters is referred to as "The Swede".
On “The Wiles Interview”
Re: the Dean Scream: The tendency of journalists to mistake their herd instinct for repeating superficialities as inspired insights and then repeat their bullshit ad nauseum has a serious effect on election outcomes. It seems to happen more to Dems than Republicans. I don't think it is a conscious act on the part of big media. I think it is mediocre people who are way too high on their own supply, have no insights, live in a bubble, and like to sneer. The don't do this to Republicans because they like to pretend to not be biased.
Unfair and unprofessional as this bullshit may be, it still has an effect. Dems get slapped with these stupid labels and the labels become truths with the low info voters which is most of them, given that so many big media journalists can't be bothered to do their jobs.
So that's why as a primary voter I try to figure out which Dem will trigger one of those mindless collective sneer fests from the msm. Newsome will. It's guaranteed. I also try to see who is best at playing the media, speaking past the media and has the ability to define themselves clearly.
"
"I suspect that many of those low-engagement voters don’t know themselves what they are going to go for, so it’s a lot of guesswork. Most of the primary voters seem to have strong preferences and too much faith in the power of reason."
I think that's a real problem. I also think that electability IS an factor but we need to remember that elections are based on a lot of voters who think and feel in ways that we, the primary voters, don't understand very well which makes it hard to know what will make them jump one way or another.
Republicans nearly always vote Republican.
There is a growing population of independents. They are a grab bag of people who arrived at independent from different directions and for different reasons.
There are infrequent voters who come out for charisma or because there is a really visceral issue for them at stake.
There are one issue voters who either vote for the candidate who represents their issue or don't vote at all.
Democrats nearly always vote for Democrats.
So what we are really fighting for is the votes of the indies and infrequent voters--the people Dem primary activists are least likely to understand.
"
I'm with Cleek. I don't vote on policy except in the very broad sense that Democrats try to devise policies to solve problems and Republicans don't.
I vote for whoever wins the primary. During the primary I tend toward whoever seems the most authentic, the best public speaker, and the least likely to do something stupid during the campaign, and the one who isn't being negatively stereotyped by the msm. Those are some of the factors that contribute to election chances.
My objection to Newsome is that the msm will collaborate with the Republicans to promote a negative stereotype of him and that will significantly impair his chances.
My objections to HRC were: she started out pre-slimed by Republican slander with a 50% negative rating and had a history of stupid decisions (Iraq and her campaign decisions during the primary race with Obama).
I didn't like Bernie, but he seemed less likely to lose the election to Trump.
I thought Harris would lose because we live in a society that is pretty misogynistic and has a wide and deep disrespect for Black women.
Right now my preferred choice is Pritzker, but that's tentative. I also like Buttigieg, also tentative. FWIW.
"
The labels annoy me too because there is no shared meaning. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean--largely unattached to policy responses to issues. Yet the news media and many citizens treat those labels as if they were useful analysis tools for explaining where pols are on policy. It's annoying.
I don't think elections are won on policy and certainly not on policy nuances--unless there is a very clear harm done to a large number of people that is simple to see like taking away their health insurance. I think I persistent mistake made by Dems and especially by self-proclaimed progressives is the belief that the majority of voters are moved by policy. "HRC would have won if she had run on Medicare for All" etc.
Most people vote the way they shop: brand, eye appeal, connotations they put on a product, previous experience, what their family always did, etc. I doubt if your typical voter has more than the faintest slogan level understanding of policy. They notice style, though.
Maybe I'm cynical. But I'm looking at elections that were won THREE TIMES by Republicans who cut taxes for rich people and created deficits while blaming the deficits on Democrats before electing a Republican who did it AGAIN--and yet your typical Republican voter claims to be opposed to deficits, and I doubt if many really want tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile on Blue Sky self-identified progressives say things like, "Democrats are the party of corporate power!"
Everyone says they vote for whoever they think is "better on the issues" but how many people have any idea what policies a candidate is committed to on those issues?
"
The problem with the survey results that I posted is that, as far as I can see, there are no moderate Republicans--in terms of policy. Some are more polite than others but nearly the entire party from top to bottom is fully complicit in all of the excesses of Trumpism from Project 2025 to the DOGE rampage, to the treason, to tax cuts for rich people and the attacks on the not-rich to the ethical, moral, and financial corruption and the violations of the rule of law. Yes, there are individuals here and there and some slight breaking of ranks recently, but moderates? Even the three ladies who get called moderate are complicit with the majority of what the Trump admin has done.
I think people are reacting to style. They don't want the overt bullying (the pseudo polite hatemongering of pre-Trump Republicans who outsourced their most overt rhetoric to people like Limbaugh is probably still acceptable). They don't want the shouting and yelling and shrillness.
I've always thought that the Republicans erred in nominating Trump because he was a threat to their goal of changing the US into a one party oligarchy. They need a fascist who seems nice.
"
The survey, which was conducted between December 14 and 15 and measured public opinion based upon the answers provided by 1,000 registered voters, found that if they had their pick between a progressive Democrat, MAGA Republican, moderate Democrat, and moderate Republican, American would most prefer the last, followed by a moderate Democrat, then a progressive Democrat, and then a MAGA Republican. New poll reveals what kind of president Americans want most
On “Author, author?”
HIs aides seem to think that MORE exposure of Trump being Trump will help him, but I don't think his performance on prime time went over all that well with anyone outside the cult--and might have been a bit cringy to some cult members. I know Trump and Republican media have degenerated the tone of our public discourse and normalized behavior which should seem disgusting, but even with that, how many people like being shouted at by a red-faced, angry old man?
"
Previously to this discussion, I assumed that Trump's posts were all his and expressed who he is. I wondered why some staffer person wasn't assigned the job of constantly checking and removing his posts. Then I read this excerpt from a a discussion about his top office manager: “There is this idea that people have that I think was very common in the first administration,” he told me, “that their objective was to control the president or influence the president, or even manipulate the president because they had to in order to serve the national interest. Susie just takes the diametrically opposite viewpoint, which is that she’s a facilitator, that the American people have elected Donald Trump. And her job is to actually facilitate his vision and to make his vision come to life.”
So Trump unleashed and uncensored, served straight without a mixer, is her goal. And if he stays up all night broadcasting out his character deficiencies and mental issues, so be it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.