Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Bob Butler 54]

Hard to judge where to put this…

The Republicans have for a while been more an alliance than a single thrusting idea. In Bush 43’s time there was an alliance between neo cons, Big Oil and televangelists. More recently, the split is better understood as between establishment Republican and Trump’s more rural Tea Party association. I think he is quite flawed, but there is no question he knew how to mobilize votes. Meanwhile, there is a tug of war between those who want him to learn and use the established strings of power and those who want the rebellion to complete.

Breitbart and company seems looking to complete that split. If they are right, getting rid of the old money and corruption biases will clear the way for a populist effort. If they are wrong, they threaten to split the right and thus hand everything to the left. Meanwhile, the left seems to be leaning more to the left, with their establishment wing discredited, while Trump himself was long a Democrat at heart.

Too soon to guess how things will settle.

[Eric the Green]

It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

I certainly can't claim to be expert on all things supposedly conservative.  My only edge might come from visiting Breitbart fairly regularly.  Breitbart is fond of attributing vile motive to any coming from a different perspective.  A favorite shtick is to accurately quote an opponent, while by context and surrounding text they are attempting do discredit him and maximize the world view conflict.  They do have an agenda and regularly spin.

The alt right?  There seems to be a split between those who theoretically and idealistically seek the abstract ability to disparage and insult, and those like today's Nazi and Confederates who actually do so.  I don't particularly see this issue at the core of all things, but there seems to be quite a few rural folk who are also into the unraveling memes who tie into it.  It's about Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan's pregnant black welfare queen.  How do you exercise racism and get the racist vote without being too obvious about it?  The establishment isn't too obvious about it.  It doesn't mean none of them or all of them are into the game, but the old time traditionalists won't be wearing Nazi or Confederate flash.  This is the opposite of those who don't want to hide anymore. If you are young and full of testosterone, you don't want to hide.  If hate crime laws are unconstitutional, it must be American to hate.  Alas, it is, depending on what values you buy into.  Ever since King Phillip's War, the immigrants have been given a hard time by haters who have been here longer.

It seems some, including many at Breitbart, seek to split the Republican party or at least threaten the establishment to so so.  There are those who wish to teach Trump discipline, teach the ropes, and give lessons in how the game is played.  Then there are opposition who want Trump to ride the horse that got him there.  Breitbart has many of the latter on their team.  At minimum, they want the influence lost in many of the recent firings back.  If not, they threaten to ruin everything by reminding Trump and half the country of what he promised and why people voted for him.

In part, he promised the unraveling memes, but the Republican establishment knows better.  They won't work, a lot of folks know they will not work, but the hope of the middle of the country is that they will find someone who can make it work.  How hard will Trump bash into the stone wall?  Will the Democrat at heart be the new Reagan?  Is the flip on the budget a sign of interesting times to come?

I'm not saying there is no one at Breitbart who is corrupt, rich, and has an agenda.  Their focus is on Washington.  You have to assume everybody is tainted by the rich and / or corrupt with an agenda.  The spin is certainly visible for any to see.  I might even claim that this isn't just my blue leaning values talking as I'm as dubious of the blue as the red.

Anyway, I have my own ideas, but the dice are still rolling.

[David Horn]

(09-11-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hard to judge where to put this…

The Republicans have for a while been more an alliance than a single thrusting idea.  In Bush 43’s time there was an alliance between neo cons, Big Oil and televangelists.  More recently, the split is better understood as between establishment Republican and Trump’s more rural Tea Party association.  I think he is quite flawed, but there is no question he knew how to mobilize votes.  Meanwhile, there is a tug of war between those who want him to learn and use the established strings of power and those who want the rebellion to complete.

Breitbart and company seems looking to complete that split.  If they are right, getting rid of the old money and corruption biases will clear the way for a populist effort.  If they are wrong, they threaten to split the right and thus hand everything to the left.  Meanwhile, the left seems to be leaning more to the left, with their establishment wing discredited, while Trump himself was long a Democrat at heart.  

Too soon to guess how things will settle.

Keep in mind that Bannon is trying to trigger a climactic battle to resolve the 4T.  His view of the theory is odd, to say the least, but he does have a vision.  I'm not sure the GOP establishment has one anymore.  Bannon sees this as the GOP falling to the fate of the Whigs, with his alt-Right movement taking the reigns of what emerges.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

Uh, dunno about that Eric.  Election 2016 was like choosing between arsenic and lead.
Establishment?  Eh, no.  New boss, same as the old boss when "establishment" folks of any feather are around.
Wrt administrative state, I can see lots of things I'd like to take a wrecking ball. 
{NSA,Dept. of Education,etc. } I think there's like 7 spook agencies.  Just need 2.
FBI - spooks for domestic stuff.
CIA - spooks for international stuff.  



And remember what the DNC offered up.  Icky.   Oh, the illustrator left off something.

Polls are there, but no trolls.  Whadda about the trolls!

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-11-2017, 03:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: Keep in mind that Bannon is trying to trigger a climactic battle to resolve the 4T.  His view of the theory is odd, to say the least, but he does have a vision.  I'm not sure the GOP establishment has one anymore.  Bannon sees this as the GOP falling to the fate of the Whigs, with his alt-Right movement taking the reigns of what emerges.

I'm not giving up on the Whig pattern so soon.  We're still working our way through the process.

Winston Churchill Wrote:You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-11-2017, 05:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

Uh, dunno about that Eric.  Election 2016 was like choosing between arsenic and lead.
Establishment?  Eh, no.  New boss, same as the old boss when "establishment" folks of any feather are around.
Wrt administrative state, I can see lots of things I'd like to take a wrecking ball. 
{NSA,Dept. of Education,etc. } I think there's like 7 spook agencies.  Just need 2.
FBI - spooks for domestic stuff.
CIA - spooks for international stuff.  



And remember what the DNC offered up.  Icky.   Oh, the illustrator left off something.

Polls are there, but no trolls.  Whadda about the trolls!

There does seem no lack of partisans of one stripe demonizing partisans of the other. Hillary got it bad, but compared to Bush 43 or Trump she got of easy.  If one is as much into racism as some red partisans seem to be, one can only imagine how some have perceived Obama.  I'm almost sorry for Trump.  He deserves it and has dished out as he can, but is still ill portrayed.

But what can you do other than note how many and who are pushing the vile from where?  If your conclusion is lots from everywhere, what next?

[Eric the Green]

(09-11-2017, 05:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

Uh, dunno about that Eric.  Election 2016 was like choosing between arsenic and lead.
Establishment?  Eh, no.  New boss, same as the old boss when "establishment" folks of any feather are around.
Wrt administrative state, I can see lots of things I'd like to take a wrecking ball. 
{NSA,Dept. of Education,etc. } I think there's like 7 spook agencies.  Just need 2.
FBI - spooks for domestic stuff.
CIA - spooks for international stuff.  



And remember what the DNC offered up.  Icky.   Oh, the illustrator left off something.

Polls are there, but no trolls.  Whadda about the trolls!

Hillary would have been so much better, of course. No comparison. Her policies were mostly correct. But, Hillary has a lower horoscope score than Trump. Translation: her personality was not quite electable. The excuses were correct, but then, making excuses is not exactly appealing to folks like you.

Sorry, but the Breitbart/Bannon/Trump phony populists are not targeting the aspects of the admin state you don't like. They are only eliminating those aspects of the admin state that protect the people from the pigs like Trump and Bannon. There is no silver lining in the right wing; they have no interests in mind except their own.

[David Horn]

(09-11-2017, 06:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 03:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: Keep in mind that Bannon is trying to trigger a climactic battle to resolve the 4T.  His view of the theory is odd, to say the least, but he does have a vision.  I'm not sure the GOP establishment has one anymore.  Bannon sees this as the GOP falling to the fate of the Whigs, with his alt-Right movement taking the reigns of what emerges.

I'm not giving up on the Whig pattern so soon.  We're still working our way through the process.

Winston Churchill Wrote:You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.

OK, but we still have two parties with no vision, so the vision is all coming from the fringes.  If the establishment is failing, and nothing takes its place, then chaos ensues.  If the establishment is not failing, then someone needs to show what, why and how they are going to do "the right thing".  Frankly, I don't see it, which is not the same as saying the fringes of either party have viable answers either.

So we have Trump, and that's still an open question.  Will he actually do something good, even by accident, or will he trigger the crisis that's been hanging out there for decades?  I don't know.  Do you?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-13-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 06:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 03:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: Keep in mind that Bannon is trying to trigger a climactic battle to resolve the 4T.  His view of the theory is odd, to say the least, but he does have a vision.  I'm not sure the GOP establishment has one anymore.  Bannon sees this as the GOP falling to the fate of the Whigs, with his alt-Right movement taking the reigns of what emerges.

I'm not giving up on the Whig pattern so soon.  We're still working our way through the process.

Winston Churchill Wrote:You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.

OK, but we still have two parties with no vision, so the vision is all coming from the fringes.  If the establishment is failing, and nothing takes its place, then chaos ensues.  If the establishment is not failing, then someone needs to show what, why and how they are going to do "the right thing".  Frankly, I don't see it, which is not the same as saying the fringes of either party have viable answers either.

So we have Trump, and that's still an open question.  Will he actually do something good, even by accident, or will he trigger the crisis that's been hanging out there for decades?  I don't know.  Do you?

I am dubious about Trump.  I’d thought Bush 43 the ideal exemplar of the Buchanan / Hoover pre champion slot.  How can you prove the old ways and compromise aren’t working?  Two president’s later and Trump seems to have Bush 43 beat.  He just hasn’t demonstrated the people skills yet.  He has an affinity for making enemies.  Narcissm, vengefulness, gender hang ups and a liking for firing people don’t combine well.  Even if divinely inspired to do something right, has he got a team of detailed success oriented folk willing to make it happen?

But it’s early days yet.  It might.  I’m just not counting on it.

I do see the Republicans having a vision, though.  I’ve been calling it the unraveling memes.  Gee, let’s trim the budget while increasing military spending.  Well, except for the maintenance and training part.  Oops, sorry about Americans.  Gee, we’re running the government and everything the government does is a problem.  Do we really let our racism show more?  Trump has promised the Republican usual, which has traditionally been a disaster, unless you like division of wealth, though he seems to think ignoring promises is a great thing.

So I won’t hold my breath, waiting for something good from Trump, even by accident.  You can watch, wait, hope, but it is a stretch to expect.

The Democrats seem either too corrupt to have a vision, or too chicken to have a vision.  FDR’s New Deal hasn’t been forgotten, entirely, yet.  The idea of serving the people rather than the elites still isn’t popular enough.  There is a glimmer in the new Medicare for All movement.  Perhaps if they can make one thing work, they can build an ever expanding snowball.  Few have the personality or gumption for it though.  We have been unraveling for so long that caution is a fatal habit.

Echoing your dubiousness is easy.  All you can do is hope people will notice the real problems, and that we’ll eventually run out of Churchill’s “everything else”.

[pbrower2a]

Does it matter whether Donald Trump colluded with the Putin regime or with the Russian mafia?

[Eric the Green]

(09-13-2017, 10:59 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Here is what the pathetic piece of shit DJT and his minions of faux "Right" Duginist scum are doing to the Rightist brand:

===========================================================

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/s...index.html

Democrats have won 6 GOP-held seats in 2017. Republicans have won 0 Democratic seats.

Washington (CNN)On Tuesday night, Democrats flipped two Republican-held state legislative seats -- one in Oklahoma, one in New Hampshire -- that Donald Trump carried in the 2016 election.

That makes six turnovers from Republican to Democrat in contested state House and Senate races so far in 2017 -- and 26 out of 35 races (at the state legislative and congressional level) in which the Democratic nominee has overperformed Hillary Clinton's showing last November. (Worth noting: Republicans have yet to flip a Democratic-controlled seat so far this year.)

==========================================================

Any questions?

No. Looks like some progress; much more needed of course.

I saw part of the Bannon-Rose interview last night. I don't doubt that he's interesting and articulate, and he looked better physically than usual.

One thing I noted, is his claim that populists on the left and the right have many of the same concerns, and the adversary are the establishment politicians of both parties.

But on the other hand, he said the Democrats would lose if they put up candidates "from the resistance." So that doesn't sound like he's endorsing the populists on the left at all. Bannon spoke with forked tongue. He went on to say that unless the Democrats nominate someone who appears to be as straight as possible, works 9 to 5, dresses conventionally, goes to church, etc. (I forgot everything he mentioned), then they will lose. In other words, if the left is the left, it will lose. Doesn't leave any room for all those leftists he claimed he was endorsing as part of his coalition. He said Ossoff (in the GA 6 race) was from the resistance too. Wrong; Ossoff probably lost because he compromised too much and was too moderate. He was wishy washy.

Bannon is as far from a populist as you can get. His appointments were all rich folks who want their wealth-producing enterprises to run without any restraint. Get rich by any means, no matter whom it hurts; government should have no say. That's the Bannon philosophy and the philosophy of all whom Bannon and Trump appointed. They did not drain any swamps; they filled them with alligators like themselves.

And as far as "economic nationalism," which he claims is his concern and desire, I have seen precious little of it. TPP was thrown away; that was fine. But what has he done about NAFTA? Nothing, or what he has offered so far would make things worse. And his claims that restricting immigration is "economic nationalism" is as phony as a phony passport. Our economy benefits from immigration, and the only people who lose jobs from illegal immigration are poor people who make a pittance already, and are probably immigrants. Restriction of the more skilled immigrants (HB1 or something like that) imported by Silicon Valley etc.? He might have a point, and yet he wants "immigration by merit." Sounds to me like THAT would allow plenty of immigrants that would compete for the good jobs held by Americans!

Bannon is a big fat ugly liar.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-12-2017, 09:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 05:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

Uh, dunno about that Eric.  Election 2016 was like choosing between arsenic and lead.
Establishment?  Eh, no.  New boss, same as the old boss when "establishment" folks of any feather are around.
Wrt administrative state, I can see lots of things I'd like to take a wrecking ball. 
{NSA,Dept. of Education,etc. } I think there's like 7 spook agencies.  Just need 2.
FBI - spooks for domestic stuff.
CIA - spooks for international stuff.  



And remember what the DNC offered up.  Icky.   Oh, the illustrator left off something.

Polls are there, but no trolls.  Whadda about the trolls!

Hillary would have been so much better, of course. No comparison. Her policies were mostly correct. But, Hillary has a lower horoscope score than Trump. Translation: her personality was not quite electable. The excuses were correct, but then, making excuses is not exactly appealing to folks like you.

Sorry, but the Breitbart/Bannon/Trump phony populists are not targeting the aspects of the admin state you don't like. They are only eliminating those aspects of the admin state that protect the people from the pigs like Trump and Bannon. There is no silver lining in the right wing; they have no interests in mind except their own.

Uh, you find no humor with the cartoon.  Well .... OK, I guess I have another moral failing amongst my vices then.
Or... How about using it as an illustrated guide to this .

And... one may find out what covfefe means
So I slightly disagree. So maybe she's born under a bad sign.

[Bob Butler 54]

Breitbart just echoed a conclusion I published a few days ago.  The article is KASSAM: The Swamp Just Bounced Trump Into A European-Style Assault on Free Speech  The key picture is someone holding up a sign saying 'No Freedom for Hate Speech'.  There is a controversy over whether some speech is so bad that the government can be trusted to block it.  Breitbart comes up on the traditional US conservative position that speech should be protected absolutely.  This can be turned into a position that conservatives favor hate speech.

I'm of the opinion, of course, that the negative rights should not and do not protect a right to harm others.  US federal law seems to suggest more than one incident, the crossing or virtual crossing of state lines, and that the states should avoid too tight a link to free speech or race.  If not federal, well, it depends on the state.

It is messy.  I'm not going to go too crazy pushing any position.  For the most part I can respect what Scalia tried to do, but I can understand progressives foaming at the mouth on this one.  Meanwhile, while I'm generally in favor of free speech, people shouldn't have to endure harm in public.  The impression is given that some conservatives at least want hate speech, while the modern tendency towards vile stereotypes will imply that all conservatives are thus to be considered deplorable.  Meanwhile, Europe endured World War II being fought on their turf.  It is hardly surprising that they reached strong opinions about what harm can be done by Nazis.

Breitbart?  As usual, they seem quite ready to attribute vile motive to those who disagree with them.  As usual, the tug of war over Trump is quite visible.

Me, I'm in favor of Trump signing a paper saying hate is a bad idea.  Alas, this seems to collide with Breitbart's agenda.

[Bob Butler 54]

And now, two new deals between Trump and the Democrats...  DACA and border security.  Interesting.  Before the Birther feud with Obama, Trump was a Democrat at heart.  How much is he still?  What did he get trying to work with the Republican Congress?

One deal could be Trump being Trump.  Three?

It's too soon to leap to conclusions, but one might want to keep eyes opened.

[pbrower2a]

(09-13-2017, 09:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Breitbart just echoed a conclusion I published a few days ago.  The article is KASSAM: The Swamp Just Bounced Trump Into A European-Style Assault on Free Speech  The key picture is someone holding up a sign saying 'No Freedom for Hate Speech'.  There is a controversy over whether some speech is so bad that the government can be trusted to block it.  Breitbart comes up on the traditional US conservative position that speech should be protected absolutely.  This can be turned into a position that conservatives favor hate speech.

Arguments that 'the races' differ greatly in intelligence and morals, Holocaust denial, and the usual canards about Jews or members of any other identifiable group by religion or ethnic origin are within the realm of free speech. Of course, refuting those is available to those who recognize the power of free speech. The big problem arises in a tyrannical order in which there are no means of refuting hate speech, especially when the only expressions of political speech are either commands, incitements, or lies. Thus the death sentences to Julius Streicher (Holocaust) and Froduald Karamira (Rwanda genocide).

Quote:I'm of the opinion, of course, that the negative rights should not and do not protect a right to harm others.  US federal law seems to suggest more than one incident, the crossing or virtual crossing of state lines, and that the states should avoid too tight a link to free speech or race.  If not federal, well, it depends on the state.

Speech or writing that incites a crime has no protection under the First Amendment.

Quote:It is messy.  I'm not going to go too crazy pushing any position.  For the most part I can respect what Scalia tried to do, but I can understand progressives foaming at the mouth on this one.  Meanwhile, while I'm generally in favor of free speech, people shouldn't have to endure harm in public.  The impression is given that some conservatives at least want hate speech, while the modern tendency towards vile stereotypes will imply that all conservatives are thus to be considered deplorable.  Meanwhile, Europe endured World War II being fought on their turf.  It is hardly surprising that they reached strong opinions about what harm can be done by Nazis.

Nazis are forever rightly damned.

Quote:Breitbart?  As usual, they seem quite ready to attribute vile motive to those who disagree with them.  As usual, the tug of war over Trump is quite visible.

Me, I'm in favor of Trump signing a paper saying hate is a bad idea.  Alas, this seems to collide with Breitbart's agenda.

If you dislike Breitbart, then don't read it.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-13-2017, 10:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: If you dislike Breitbart, then don't read it.

Know thy enemy.  If you only keep up with your own perspective, how do you know the other perspectives?  There are folk out there who think this news source or that are not spun, are objective.  How do they see the world?  Like, it was interesting reading how Egypt threw diplomatic insults at Trump and the US recently, watching the US main line press be friendly to Trump for once, then flipping over the the Egyptian view of what was happening.  You can't get the picture if you only look at one side of the picture.

[Bob Butler 54]

Here's Brietbart's spin on the Trump - Democratic DACA deal.  Trump by their standard has rejected the Republican base and messed up Republican efforts considerably.  Steve King: If Reports Correct ‘Trump Base Is Blown Up, Destroyed, Irreparable’

This is interesting given Brietbart's assumption that the middle country base is the future of America, the reason Trump is where he is. Trump likely puts more faith in Trump. This seems closely akin to a declaration of war?

[Bob Butler 54]

And now, if you believe Trump tweets and the main stream press, Trump has blinked.  No Democrat deal and split with the Republican base?  CNN is reporting Trump pushes back on Dems' claims of DACA deal.  

But is Trump pushing back or has he been pushed back?

[Eric the Green]

(09-13-2017, 05:31 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 05:55 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:58 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's hard to believe that Breitbart and the alt right are not in league with big money and corruption. All their policies and appointments support them, including the dismantling of the administrative state which is set up to protect the people from them. "Populist" does not describe the alt right. The media has mis-applied that term to them. There is a split, but it appears to be between those who are willing to compromise with common sense and decency (the establishment wing) and those who are not (the alt right and the mis-named "freedom caucus").

Uh, dunno about that Eric.  Election 2016 was like choosing between arsenic and lead.
Establishment?  Eh, no.  New boss, same as the old boss when "establishment" folks of any feather are around.
Wrt administrative state, I can see lots of things I'd like to take a wrecking ball. 
{NSA,Dept. of Education,etc. } I think there's like 7 spook agencies.  Just need 2.
FBI - spooks for domestic stuff.
CIA - spooks for international stuff.  



And remember what the DNC offered up.  Icky.   Oh, the illustrator left off something.

Polls are there, but no trolls.  Whadda about the trolls!

Hillary would have been so much better, of course. No comparison. Her policies were mostly correct. But, Hillary has a lower horoscope score than Trump. Translation: her personality was not quite electable. The excuses were correct, but then, making excuses is not exactly appealing to folks like you.

Sorry, but the Breitbart/Bannon/Trump phony populists are not targeting the aspects of the admin state you don't like. They are only eliminating those aspects of the admin state that protect the people from the pigs like Trump and Bannon. There is no silver lining in the right wing; they have no interests in mind except their own.

Uh, you find no humor with the cartoon.  Well .... OK, I guess I have another moral failing amongst my vices then.
Or... How about using it as an illustrated guide to this .

And... one may find out what covfefe means
So I slightly disagree. So maybe she's born under a bad sign.

No humor, no. But maybe forward it to Seth and see what he says.

Scorpio is often considered a bad sign. We know she's typical: determined, and resentful if not vengeful. The lady reeks of Scorpio. Of course, no sign is really bad; just different.

Covfefe is Drump's word for coffee. I guess he didn't drink enough before his infamous tweet.