It's a new height of idiocy from a dude who already was setting new records for it. He even, fishing, tariffed the Israeli's after they dropped all tariffs against the US.
The entire plan, such as it seems to be a coherent plan at all, is to let Trump do whatever he feels like while Musk and Trumps other hangers on run around damaging as many government functions (especially tax collection) as they can while trying to generate enough distraction that the GOP will somehow be able to eviscerate the safety net legislatively and pass an even bigger deficit exploding tax cut. The longer-term hope seems to be that somehow the voting rubes won't be angry enough to give Dems a big enough or long enough majority to undo the damage and tax the fish out of the plutocrats to pay for all their chicanery.
It is possible though I don't know if it's plausible. The Dems haven't really decided what the fish they're offering yet which is to be expected at this stage of the electoral cycle and Bezo's "personal liberty and free markets" lines are word for word republitarianism which is something Trump has coopted in word (though emphatically not in deed).
Well, sure, if they meant it they would be hammering Trump. If I were a libertarian I'd be absolutely furious with what Trump and Musk are up to. Small government nostrums and Libertarian terms are all over this stuff. If Musk and Trump keep at this the whole dictionary and directory of libertarianism will go from being not taken seriously to being actively despised.
Like an overhead projector? That you'd write on with erasable marker? That's just nuts! The past really is another country.
Also... what is with those various strike-spare animations? They are different at various alleys and a lot of them seem like they came right out of a crack hallucination.
I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
To be clear the little pleasure in this case is Stefanik's discomfiture; expecting a seat out of those districts isn't something you celebrate unless it's in hand.
Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/31/25”
It's a new height of idiocy from a dude who already was setting new records for it. He even, fishing, tariffed the Israeli's after they dropped all tariffs against the US.
On “Read It For Yourself: How Trump Admin Defines “Gang Members” For Deportation”
Probably because of your canine sympathies.
"
Based on their performance so far? Zero. But to be generous I'll assume it's one.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/31/25”
I have that impression as well.
"
Seems like a plausible explanation.
"
The entire plan, such as it seems to be a coherent plan at all, is to let Trump do whatever he feels like while Musk and Trumps other hangers on run around damaging as many government functions (especially tax collection) as they can while trying to generate enough distraction that the GOP will somehow be able to eviscerate the safety net legislatively and pass an even bigger deficit exploding tax cut. The longer-term hope seems to be that somehow the voting rubes won't be angry enough to give Dems a big enough or long enough majority to undo the damage and tax the fish out of the plutocrats to pay for all their chicanery.
"
Heheheh 20 million dollars to lose by 9 points, couldn't happen to a nicer plutocrat.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
It is possible though I don't know if it's plausible. The Dems haven't really decided what the fish they're offering yet which is to be expected at this stage of the electoral cycle and Bezo's "personal liberty and free markets" lines are word for word republitarianism which is something Trump has coopted in word (though emphatically not in deed).
"
Well, sure, if they meant it they would be hammering Trump. If I were a libertarian I'd be absolutely furious with what Trump and Musk are up to. Small government nostrums and Libertarian terms are all over this stuff. If Musk and Trump keep at this the whole dictionary and directory of libertarianism will go from being not taken seriously to being actively despised.
"
Smart. I'm not a coder but I can predict that if they're deranged enough to try it; it's going to be a clusterfish to rival all clusterfishes.
"
Is that before or after he tries to migrate Social Security off its legacy systems and onto newer ones in the course of a couple months?
https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/
On “Weekend Plans Post: Pantherine Vandals”
What cat isn't?
On “Bowling — Balling Up the Score”
Heh, my "enjoyment" of bowling is so marginal it'd easily tip it into a "nope, never wanna do it no matter how good the company is" mindset.
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
Yes it's very well done! Good on you DavidTC!
On “Bowling — Balling Up the Score”
Okay automated pin setters make a lot of sense- could you imagine paying for pin boys?
"
Like an overhead projector? That you'd write on with erasable marker? That's just nuts! The past really is another country.
Also... what is with those various strike-spare animations? They are different at various alleys and a lot of them seem like they came right out of a crack hallucination.
On “Don’t Go Torching Cyber Trucks”
Well done.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
I agree it was legal and I even agree it wasn't a great look which is kind of the Clintons in a nutshell. I just think you're projecting and exaggerating most of the alleged nefariousness of it. What it boils down to is that the Clintons caused billions of dollars to flow to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have. No one has been able to demonstrate any actual corrupt acts, any corrupt exchanges -the right just spins it up in their imagination; asserts it's true and then, jaw droppingly, try to one up on it when in power. It worked so well against the Clintons because they’d always been very skeevy but we’ve watched them throw it at every left wing political figure since: Biden; Bernie and, idiotically, even at Barrak fishin Obama (who is virtually the exact opposite of the Clintons both for good- he’s squeaky clean, and for ill- he’s always seemed to disdain retail politicking).
And that's where I bridle at the whole mess of it. You don't get to blame W's trillion-dollar war adventures or the way supporting his massive deficit spending obliterated libertarianism and neoconservatism in the hearts of the masses on Bill Clintons antics in the 90's. The neocons and the libertarians let W discredit them themselves. You don't get to blame Trump hollowing the GOP out and wearing it like a skin suit while being a convicted fraudster and nakedly (and legally convicted) being corrupt on Hillary Clintons behavior as Sec of state*. The GOP and conservatives sold their souls on that on their own.
And you sure as fish don’t get to blame the things Trump is doing now on the fishin’ Clintons- they’ve been off the scene for almost a decade now. Economic Sanity? The Clintons epitomized it and dragged the left along. Ethics? The Clintons committed appearances of impropriety but the right has convicted and unabashed corruption. And the Clintons never provoked constitutional crises and the GOP under Trump is churning it out on the weekly.
*Though anyone and everyone is entitled to blame her for losing to him. God(ess) damn it Hill, you. Had. One. Job.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
To be clear the little pleasure in this case is Stefanik's discomfiture; expecting a seat out of those districts isn't something you celebrate unless it's in hand.
"
Sometimes you have to enjoy the small, sweet moments in life.
On “Signal Controversy Over Houthi Strikes Deepens”
Ah I appreciate the explanation. I'm sorry, it hurtled so far over my head it didn't even ruffle my hair.
"
Jay me lad, you know I love you. You say some of the darndest things but sometimes I have no idea what damn thing you're saying. (and that may well be on me)
"
The convenient thing about all this is it is dependant only on what the right (and you( imagine with no other proof required, and yet- since the foundation was above board which is to say it was confirmed as distributing those billions to the worthy and charitable causes it said it was- then the "corruption" you are claiming consists of the Clintons getting entities to contribute more money to charitable causes than they otherwise would with no nefarious quid pro quos or nefarious benefit to the Clintons ever being demonstrated.
In light of the characters the Right barfed up during and following the Clintons (The pack of pedarests, serial adulterers and dopes that chased the Clintons around, followed by Bush II- arguably the most destructive President to the Republic in modern history; followed by Trump I- easily the actual generationally corrupt one and now Trump II who seems set on giving Bush II a run for his title) that seems downright quaint.
I wouldn't wish the Clintons back, personally, because it's definitely true they wrote the book on dancing right up to the line on unseemly self promotion and because Hilldog fished up and lost to Trump which she'll wear for all of history; but the invective the right heaps on them has always been way more overwrought than the provable facts ever supported.
"
The Clintons certainly been portrayed as corrupt and I don't deny the Clintons behaved in a manner that didn't weaken those allegations. But being proven in court is, ya know, kind of a big thing. Especially when you throw around the billions number which, let's be clear, requires you loop in the foundation which was regularly audited and found to be above board. So, you're saying the allegations about the Clintons make then the most "openly corrupt politicians of their generation" even above politicians actually found guilty of corruption or politicians legally banned from operating, say, charitable foundations or educational institutions? Like our current President? Most corrupt in their generation? Please.
But, on the other hand, the Clintons are happily done and gone from the political scene with no successors or new candidates so I don't
see much juice left in wrangling over them. But the Signal chats' very existence is assuredly wildly illegal (because it's so insecure) even before we get into the fact that the nimrods invited in a journalist by accident. And it's much more wildly illegal than Clintons server was found to be.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
Also Trump and the Muskrats would be, presumably, walking and talking a lot softer if they knew that excessive clowning would get them snap elections.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.