State of the Discussion

What this country needs is an antiTrump. That means a Democrat who is as big and boisterous an asshole as He, Trump (for "electability") but who is ruthless about deMAGAfication (a straightforward "policy") instead of milquetoast nuance. Someone who demonizes billionaires (a smaller class than trans people, let alone immigrants) and is not afraid to call MAGAts stupid. Someone who has yet to appear, alas.

I'm not kidding. For many years, I have been pointing out that "electability" is a crock. We nominated Kerry in 2004 because he was more "electable" than Dean. We nominated Obama in 2008, but not because he was The Electable One. We nominated Clinton in 2016 partly because Sanders was "unelectable". Can anybody claim with a straight face that "electability" in any but a post hoc sense was He, Trump's selling point to the GOP?

"Electability. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

--TP

This is Steward Lee's latest, on Trump's war against the media, and in this case the BBC. There are various links throughout it, so I am splitting it into 2 parts in the hope that it doesn't go into moderation.

Part 1

Stewart Lee: Trump’s BBC lawsuit isn’t about money. It’s about destroying a news providerThe White House’s dead-eyed shark has monetised his presidency so well that he can pay whatever it costs to discredit institutions that may threaten him.

Donald Trump is taking legal action against the BBC for defamation. Apparently the adjudicated sex offender and pussy-grabbing serial liar still has a reputation that can be damaged. Even if all the president of the United States had ever done was that weird hand dance to Village People’s YMCA and his ill-judged playground impression of the disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, it’s doubtful his reputation would have far to fall, but here goes. In other news, you can say what you like about Fred West but don’t criticise his patio-laying skills, which were exemplary.
There is now a terrible risk that, should Trump win the case, the BBC’s assets will be forfeited to him. This means he may own the Doctor Who franchise, and thus the Tardis technology itself, allowing Trump to turn back time in Britain on behalf of Nigel Farage, and return us to a homogenous warm-beer world of whiteness where you can hiss gas noises at Jews and say it was harmless banter if it even happened, which Richard Tice says it didn’t anyway, and he should know, as he keeps a close watch on British affairs from a sunbed in Dubai. 
It doesn’t matter how much the improbable legal action costs Trump, whose pockets are bottomless, especially since he worked out how to monetise almost every aspect of the presidency. You can even buy a Donald Trump cologne for men called Fight Fight Fight, after the phrase the president cried out after surviving the near-fatal attack on his right ear. I’m bringing out a Donald Trump scent for the ladies. It’s called Fight Fight Fight Fight Fight Off Donald Trump’s Unwanted Sexual Advances. 
Sniff the Trump scent hard enough and it may even erase the memory of the president’s penis, which, according to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels, looks like “the mushroom character in Mario Kart”, and is rumoured to have been the inspiration for the Can song Mushroom, after the group’s vocalist, Damo Suzuki, shared a urinal trough with the 25-year-old Trump in a Manhattan nightclub in 1971. 
Trump’s legal action against the BBC is worth it whatever it costs, because it allows him to spend however long the case drags on for repeating claims about the unreliability of journalists, specifically the BBC. This gradual process of erosion of public trust in news providers will benefit Trump enormously should, for example, anyone ever write scathingly about his monetisation of the presidency. Cheap at half the price! 
Is it possible that the death of accurate news reporting is just a side-effect of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and of dark forces trying to make sure whatever happened on Paedophile Island stays on Paedophile Island? And who decided to name it that anyway? It’s like Tracey Island but instead of being full of futuristic space-copter Thunderbirds saving lives, there’s just loads of middle-aged billionaires in toupees and Speedos leering at things.
Trump’s instinctive attempts to create smokescreens for his corruption don’t even have to make any sense. The son of film-maker Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle was charged with their murder last Sunday. Less than 24 hours later Trump took to social media to say that Reiner died “due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind-crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” (capitals the president’s own) as if some vengeful Maga-supporting deity had used the Reiners’ killer as his own instrument of justice. Did Charlie Kirk, a kind of saint who only wanted to spread love and kindness to all humanity, take a bullet in the face for this? And yet Keir Starmer still seems to think he can do business with this dead-eyed great white shark of a man. He’s going to need a bigger boat.

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 person who can win for the Dems

The challenge will be for such a person to get thru the primaries. Those tend to have a far higher concentration of, for lack of a better term, activists -- people who do care, often passionately, about policy. At least some policies.

Convincing primary voters that "someone who can win a general election" should be a necessary criteria (not sufficient, but necessary) will be a non-trivial task. Not least because they, too, tend to live in an information bubble populated by others who care about policy.

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?

to a good first approximation, zero.

wj - I'd never call Newsom a progressive, but I agree that any reasonable CA pol would be read as a loony leftie by default because that's the trope everyone knows.

First and foremost, the Dems need someone who is young-ish, charismatic, and a good communicator, and then whoever that is needs to hammer on the idea that the middle class needs saving and expanding, and that tax cuts have not done the job for that. They need to run on restoring dignity and affordability to working people and reducing the influence of corporations and donors over elected officials - basically a pro-labor message without the high church union messaging.

wonkie - agree that policy messaging is a loser, but think that a good fight message needs some sort of big picture policy narrative that resonates and that gets to the core of the party's values. And they need to take aim at all of the tropes that have harmed us - trickle down, tax cut prosperity; tough on crime justice; making schools compete - and replace them with a focus on investing in the public good.

They need a fascist who seems nice.

Kinda sounds like Vance has been cast for that position. He probably wouldn't have won if the cultists stayed home. (In a snit because their god-king wasn't nominated in this alternate history.) But as a post-Trump successor, especially if he succeeded a deceased Trump? I can see them believing that could work. And, with a little help from the Democrats, it might.

I harbor the optimistic hope that the Democrats will resist the temptation to nominate someone who self-brands as progressive. A candidate who holds those positions is fine. But in the current culture, brand is going to be important. So, Pritzker could work, but Newsom would not -- California's image is just too radical in too much of the country.

A number of people have reported that the real reason Trump is dismantling NCAR is to punish Colorado's governor for not releasing Tina Peters from jail. Peters is the former Mesa County clerk and "the 2020 election was stolen" fanatic who was convicted of several state crimes associated with her providing unauthorized persons access to the voting machines in her care, and that person breaking the seals, opening the covers, and tinkering with the insides.

I skimmed some of the stories in the Wyoming press. Wyoming's Congress critters either did not respond to questions, or said that they had not heard from the administration about the fate of the supercomputer center in Wyoming.

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.

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?

possibly apropos, from LGM which links to this CNN article

Other presidents receive similarly politicized descriptions, such as former President Barack Obama.
“Barack Hussein Obama was the first Black President, a community organizer, one term Senator from Illinois, and one of the most divisive political figures in American History,” the plaque reads. It dings him for passing what Trump calls “the highly ineffective ‘Unaffordable’ Care Act” and signing “the one-sided Paris Climate Accords.”

and

The plaques are eloquently written descriptions of each President and the legacy they left behind. As a student of history, many were written directly by the President himself,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement when asked for more information about who’s paying for them.

My general rule is that everything that comes out of Leavitt's mouth, including and, but, and the, is a lie, so there must be a writer's room of monkeys churning out this shit.

re: marching band as being for girls

Both marching and school band, when transported to Japan, became something that women could excel at. Instrumental stereotypes run deep (if you don't know about Abbie Conant, it's worth it to read about it. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about it in a chapter in Blink which brought a lot of attention. I would pass that on, but Gladwell wrote the chapter without ever contacting Conant or even giving her the courtesy of letting her know she was going to be the focus of a chapter in his book. I guess some people would argue that he brought attention to her case, I tend to think this is shitty on the part of Gladwell)

Unfortunately, because brass band is often for women, it is often viewed as a skill to raise a woman's marriagability. English functions in a similar way and I tell people that in some ways, my job is like teaching needlepoint in Victorian England.

Damn. I posted another link from the Atlantic (see Wiles thread) about the Trump Reiner quotes, but unbeknown to me the extract I also copied had too many links (5), so it's awaiting approval. So here, at least, is the full link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/trump-rob-reiner/685280/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCTLKSpntcAyNF4mSlC9MB3U&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

I know that the age difference between these musicians and Drum Corps International (22 max age) is vast, but the marching band show had me thinking about how much fun I used to have watching the DCI championships on PBS with my late brother back in the '80s, and set me to looking for a modern show that could give me a sense of the current state of DCI showmanship:

https://youtu.be/8EktPlyf7Ok?si=CEO9hjqJqB4bRi5d

Bluecoats: Downside Up 2016 performance.

Their 2014 show - Tilt - is also pretty amazing from a technical standpoint as they are performing the whole thing at an angle to the field markings, which seems like it would take a ton of practice to pull off consistently. I liked the music for the 2016 show a little better, though, so that's what you get.

I don't know re authorship. I do know there really isn't an antidote to such a terrible comment. James Woods' heartfelt tribute to Rob Reiner is, however, a start.

https://x.com/JesseBWatters/status/2000754643865891146?s=20

Disclaimer: I know it's Fox News, something I don't watch. This was linked to on a blog I read and is well worth the listen, IMO. I do give credit to Watters getting out of the way (mostly) and letting Woods express himself.

i've always assumed he writes his own social media junk. i doubt anyone else could really understand what's going on in his head and so would eventually end up contradicting what Trump actually thinks. and then Trump would have corrected it. but i don't think we've seen that.

i'm sure he posts things that were co-/written by other people now and then. but the rants are all him.

Trump has takento referring to himself in the third person, so the usage here doesn't indicate whether he wrote it or not.

TBH I'm not sure if it's better or worse if he did.

Speaking of Wiles, she has apparently gone on record sayingshe thinks that he has the mind of an alcoholic, only without the booze. Dry drunk would explain a lot. But then again, so would dementia plus flagrant narcissism.

The man is not well.

I have been assuming that he wrote his own posts on the assumption that even his core supporters in his top admin aren’t dumb enough to write that shit.

Seems like a bad assumption. At least based on the stuff they say in public on their own behalf.

Hegseth has proposed a plan to significantly reduce the number of four-star generals. The proposal appears to be consistent with the recently released National Security Strategy: increase the focus on the Americas and reduce attention to Europe.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pete-hegseth-to-slash-4-star-generals-in-pentagon-shake-up/ar-AA1St2RB

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.

"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"

The only error my grammar checker found was using "of" instead of "with." I would expect more grammatical errors unless whoever the writer is is using a grammar checker.

I would not discount He Who Slumbers as the "author" of those based on the language and the weird syntax. There's often a disconnect between people's spoken and written vocabularies that happens because one is synchronous and extemporaneous and the other is asynchronous and somewhat iterative. The Ancient Orange One could very well type part of it, get suggestions from AI that get incorporated, and then riff on the AI suggestions in ways that undo part of the coherence forced upon the first draft by the suggestions. They all read like patchwriting to me. He could be pissed and ranting, set it aside for an AI check and a McNugget, seize hold of a suggestion and then try to kick that suggestion up with his own special spin on it.

What I see is not so different from any freshman first draft done too late at night in a fit of pique.

So put me down as a vote for "it's him - with slight input from an inanimate assistant."