Trump gleefully celebrates violence done to his political enemies, domestic and foreign … cruelly denigrates members of the press simply for asking questions …constantly “tweets” hateful rhetoric and images and now has the audacity to wonder why people target him? Does he not know his “favorite book” warns about reaping what you sow?
According to MAGA apologists, Trump has a very special kind of heroic morality that exempts him from the rules they impose on their political opponents.
Exactly! I agree with Kristol's comments, but they're too defensive. We know that "No Kings" is non-violent, because we've had a year of huge protests without serious incidents. Yes, we should be prepared to defend civil liberties against efforts to curb them in the face of lone wolf attacks, but we should also take the offensive. If Trump and his MAGA crowd want to reduce violence, hold them accountable for every act and word of incitement: how immigrants have been characterized, for example, or how excessive force by law enforcement and cruelty in detention centers has been defended and even celebrated. The list of offenses is long: the glee over the destruction of the boats in the Caribbean, Hegseth's batshit crazy performances, the president's threats to Iran, the indiscriminate violence we tolerate from Israel in Lebanon and elsewhere, and on and on. Connect the dots, and let's make sure they are reminded, as you say, that we "reap what we sow". That's not a threat at all, it's a prudent warning about how violence, once encouraged, escapes any control.
My earliest hair-raising regime wasn't the Soviets, despite our attention to Sputnik tracking across the autumn evening sky. Based on what we'd already heard from dads & uncles (or ABOUT those who hadn't come back), the upsetting image came from a bit West of USSR... for me, 'homeland' always connotes Vaterland
Richard, I was mere youth of ~50 years at the time, had only ever heard 'homeland' in one VERY specific context. It was indeed troubling to my ear, and has continued to prove itself so
I understand where you are coming from here, but my take is that 9/11 was the great national breakdown - the psychic blow that has led to almost everything since, building on fear, doubt, anger, and leading to the creation of the tools the government is now using against us.
Exactly! They tried to govern a country that no longer existed. That country died on 1/6 and the magats killed it. They should have went after trump & co. with both barrels!
I'm not quick to blame them for thinking bad man gone. I didn't perceive the depth of the allegiance to the man until the 2024 election returned the man to the presidency. I didn't, even then, realize the power of the Internet driven world to create and sustain an alternative set of facts and history for a group of people that are so alienated from the rest of us.
I am with Max on this. I think we can be excused for thinking that after Biden's election and the failure of the Jan. 6 attempted coup, Trump was, as he likes to put it, all out of cards. The fact that enough of my fellow citizens voted for him to return him to power will never cease to amaze and horrify me, and, I'm pretty sure, the rest of the world.
Unfortunately they didn't perceive it either, to the possible death of our democracy. The problem is that they underestimated the stupidity of the American electorate. I figured it out back in the Fabulous 80's when Reagan and his GOP henchmen were able to con the working/middle class into voting against their own best interests. They were able to fool them into thinking that the poor and minorities were robbing them as the GOP and their corporate buddies were picking their pockets. The Golden Rule of American politics, never underestimate the stupidity of Americans. You'll never be disappointed.
Is it hard to get people to blame minorities and poor for robbing them? People always look for someone to blame and it's easy to blame people that are different from the blamers...different by ethnicity, income class, sex...
And the Reaganites played those working class voters like BB King played Lucille! Those voters were stupid enough to blame those who had less than them instead of the actual thieves robbing them blind.
No, it's not reasonable to object to Norah O’Donnell question; in fact we need more like it.
What IS objectionable is Dana Bash asking Jamie Raskin about democrats using "heated rhetoric" against the president. A president who has a long list of using violent rhetoric against everyone he deems an enemy.
"heated rhetoric" is not, " ___ person is bad for the country." It is saying that plus following it up with an incitement to a violent end of that person such as "he should be drawn and quartered."
my guess, Dana wants a job, any job.. that, to me was a little tiny sign of loyalty, which does not really surprise me. Once or twice maybe three times she has shown some fire in her belly, pretty rare.
"Over the weekend, Trump canceled a planned trip to Islamabad by his lead negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff,² citing “too much time wasted on traveling” and “too much work.” “We have all the cards, they have none,” Trump insisted. “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!”"
< rubs temples >
If the Trump administration were truly serious (quit laughing for a moment), they would send experienced diplomats that have expertise in the region. But Trump doesn't do that because Kushner and Witkoff don't represent the United States. They represent Trump, and the Iranians have figured out that Trump is weapons-grade mercurial. He's prone to emotional outbursts and has the attention span of a gnat. More to the point, we are where we are because eight years ago, Trump tore up the JCPOA. The Mullahs are monsters, but at least they're sophisticated enough to know that they can't trust Trump at all.
Also, with news that farm bankruptcies are skyrocketing and the cost of fertilizer is doing likewise due to the war, is anyone laughing their ass off about farmers getting exactly what they voted for?
No fertilizer, not enough oil, not enough bombs, not enough military knowledge, not enough money to [ay for all of this, no allies, no one trusts a word he says. Once Trump ruins the Fed, bond market interest rates could trigger a huge recession. Trump, and I guess every Republican, doesn't care about the future of the US beyond the end of May.
The Washington Post sent reporters to North Carolina to talk with farmers after USAID was cancelled. Of those reported on, the farmers said they didn’t vote for Trump. Fair enough. I commented that these people were not asked the follow up question, “Who did you vote for?” Never was asked that question. If you didn’t vote, or did not vote for Harris, then you wanted Trump to win. Just didn’t want to be called out for doing so. Did get one reply backing up the farmers. Told the writer to go pound sand, in a nice way.
I'm with you, Katherine. That follow up question should always be asked and never seems to be: if you didn't vote for Trump, did you vote for someone else? Or did you just sigh, turn your head away and not vote at all, because come on, I never have and never will vote for a Democrat, especially one with brown skin and ovaries.
Exactly. The negotiation of the JCPOA was a recognized, concerted, and prioritized international effort to constrain the most pressing of Iran's "problems with the world community and neighbors". A cast of hundreds of subject matter experts, negotiators, and diplomats with experience and direction. Years in the making, months "in the room" to craft an agreement. It was not perfect, but presented as a framework for which, over time, as parties got used to the reporting and monitoring structures, finding some level of credibility, integrity, and honesty in the process of mutually agreed upon benefits for all parties, could be expanded to other regional issues and priorities.
I've had an axe to grind with farmers my whole adult life. So I don't hate the idea of consequences and smile, but I know who's gonna be buying those and that's not ideal.
For me? Both. The vast majority of farmers voted for trump knowing he will act against their own best interests and if they fail Daddy trump will give them that sweet bailout welfare! Big corporate farming operations are just voting for their own profit and not to provide healthy, reasonably priced food.
It's rooted in the personal animosity towards of watching them (both corporate and traditional farmers) do exactly the opposite of all they claim: To care for the land, building future generations, hard work.
And then they ignore every conservation practice that exists unless they're subsidized for every little thing. They hire illegal aliens and curse them in the same breath.
Having a father who worked in a state natural resources department highlighted those hypocrites.
And then I watched them elect Scott Walker, and attack state employees and public unions and even further degrade conservation practices while demanding more and more money, and more and more respect for "Feeding America." And if know a lot of Bulwarkian Republicans liked what they saw there.
And they're doing it at the national level. So my default is, "Fuck Farmers."
Garden and support farmers markets is the only personal remedy I have until I can find a political movement willing to address our own ills.
The mullahs are consistent predictable monsters. Us under the Orange narcissist are unpredictable and unlikely to keep our word: Trump has torn many of the deals he negotiated in his first term. Which would you rather deal with, the predictable devil you know or the hobgoblin with no mind let alone any consistency.
Re the Iran debacle, and the Iranian 'position,' this is a nation that helped usher in civilization as we know it, regardless of the current, abhorrent regime.
They have spent 5,000 years perfecting their diplomacy. They know exactly what they are doing now.
By comparison, the regime of the orange narcissist-felon doesn't have a clue, including sending two rank amateurs as the official representatives, two men with grave conflicts of interest in the region, and fundamental delusions of adequacy.
John, thank you for reminding us that Persians have existed for thousands of years. With the arrival of Cyrus the Great in 550 B.C., he and his successors introduced significant achievements in governance, was tolerant of diverse religions and cultures and allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple after their exile in Babylon (see OT Book of Ezra), built infrastructure such as new roads and a postal service to name a few.
Granted, the current Islamic Republic of Iran bears little resemblance to its historical Persian past. The current regime is a cabal of blood-thirsty, ruthless dictators who rule with an iron fist.
However, they are not stupid and can spot easy marks when they see them (I'm looking at you Drumpf, JDV, Kushner and Witkoff). Dispatching JD Vance (or whatever he calls himself today) to hammer out a deal in just 21 hours was a laughable exercise in futility and incompetence.
During the Obama Administration, it took seasoned diplomats 20 months of intense and delicate negotiations to hammer out the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. Early negotiations actually began in 2012. Of course, that agreement was thrown in the garbage by the orange-faced petulant lunatic. We'll never know, but had that deal remained in place, we might not be in the quagmire we're in right now.
What we have is a spoiled toddler-man in the WH with the attention span of a gnat who is only interested in massaging his paper-thin ego and may blow up the entire planet in the process.
No wonder our former allies are not lifting a finger to participate in this outrageous, unnecessary and illegal boondoggle.
The most immediate and important thing to negotiate is opening the strait. Nuclear weapons are a matter for later negotiations. Why start with nuclear weapons instead of the supposed mission of preventing nuclear weapons instead of the consequences that followed this attack.
Because orange Man needs something that looks like a principled win to justify his war--and reopening the straightthat he caused to be closed ITFP is not that thing.
Why I called their regime today abhorrent, Daphne. If the orange narcissist-felon had a functional brain, or any of his 'cabinet' sycophants had the slightest idea of what they were doing, they would have anticipated Hormuz, gamed thoroughly over the past 30+ years in the right military and geopolitical places in Washington, though abandoning the Iranian population, brutalized by the regime, would have been a tragedy (it was the least of all the evils the orange narcissist-felon unleashed vs. his Netanyahu-inspired war).
Pretty ghoulish how Trump et al. immediately launched into, "See, this is why we need the ballroom." Despite my best instincts, I watched the press conference and was a bit shocked to hear him bring up his ballroom of all things. Then all of the MAGA-stan accounts on social media tweeted in unison over 24 hours about how badly we need the ballroom.
I don't think it's manufactured, I believe it was a real attack, and thank goodness it seems to have failed. But Trump is wild for trying to leverage it. And I think Trump trying to spin to his advantage is why there is so much conspiracism already around this attack and previous ones.
It is not surprising that so many think the shooting was a false flag operation. Trump & Co. have spent years making people mistrust government, institutions, etc. So now they are supposed to believe and trust a statement by government agents? "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening", he once said. Guess he didn't think people would apply that to what HE says.
Manufactured is too strong, but some scenario like this was recorded in some playbook, so the Felon Trump toadies could do just what happened; taking advantage of a situation before cooler heads prevail. It’s what they do.
100%. Like it was crazy that they got everyone to the White House briefing room so quickly. Surreal to have everyone in gowns and tuxedos.
Shooting was at about 8:30 pm, the President was at the main table in the room. President got into the briefing room to the podium at about 10:30 pm.
It's not an impossible timeline, two hours. It's just amazingly fast and shows how quickly they moved to get Trump to a microphone. And Trump used that speed and urgency to... say he needed his ballroom.
It shows that the president and the people around him weren't that concerned about the gesture towards assassination...that no one was really traumatized by it probably because the man was stopped on the floor above the ballroom. They had the time and emotional space to come up with "hey this a great opportunity to promote the building of the ballroom."
Yeah. That and the fact that most of the presidential succession line was there. Were they going to leave us in the hands of Grassley? What is Chuckie now, 700 hundred years old? (I can laugh, I'm old myself)
They have brought this on themselves. As have all the MAGAs crying for norms after shouting at traumatized kids and grieving parents calling them crisis actors. As have all the 2A proponents who let that behavior slide to keep the things they want no matter the cost.
I don't know where to go because I'm can believe they would manufacture this. Because of their words. Because of their actions. And because accountability for either is the thing that gets attacked.
I haven't seen anyone mention that the alleged attack does not logically lead to a need for the ballroom, unless the implication is that the President will never leave the White House for any event.
Among other things the size of the WHCA dinner would not have fit in the planned ballroom. Additionally, the president will presumably conduct and attend numerous events in places other than the ballroom so now the argument is that we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a ballroom (and wreck the beauty of the White House) to reduce the potential threats against the president by a fraction of one percent? At least the argument that a ballroom is needed to host official events that already take place at the White House, just under an allegedly inappropriate tent, is an apples to apples comparison.
Trump is a pedophile and rapist and it should be stated regularly. The rapist aspect was established in court, and the illicit sexualizing of teenage girls by his own bragging on Stern.
MAGA supports this and shouldn't be let off the hook for it.
It's hard to square National Security Memorandum #7 with the administration's current attack on the SPLC. It almost seems like they only object to domestic terror when they are the targets.
I guess if we hold all the cards on Iran, they will come groveling to us any minute now begging for that peace treaty. So far, for not holding any cards their surrender has been remarkably elusive and the price of oil due to the still closed straight still making life miserable for everyone. Honestly I am tired of the whole Iran adventure and like Trump if it would just disappear, I would be quite happy. Even an extended stalemate which is where we seem headed isn’t the end of the world a slower bleed, but still a bleed with just a tourniquet wrapped on. The longer this goes on the more global credibility we lose, the more the Gulf States model of doing business no longer makes sense, or is seen as safe and people will hedge on the UAE, Qatar and the rest of them. The counters of the agreement are there and have always been there, and when Trump is ready he can give Barak Obama a call on how a deal is done.
We can't unring the bell, put toothpaste back in the tube...whatever other trite phrase there is to say we put the events into motion and there is no way to go back to the state of affairs before the launch of this war. The economic reverberations will continue no matter what is done and the US's standing in the world is forever damaged (and it was pretty damaged already by the Iraq War in particular).
yes, global everything, many are having a rough time as we, again are so far somewhat insulated, other than diesel, tariffs and a fool in the oval. global honor, global trust
global esteem, faith etc. The chickens will come home to roost.
I honestly think your Cheap Shots today should make the history books. I have never seen such an excellent encapsulation of our moment. Just call ICE NICE and then you can call the people who object to NICE degenerates, and nobody will care if you shoot them. It's not like anyone cares about the particulars of what NICE does. All that matters is how it plays on TV.
Also, not one single person has explained how the new ballroom is going to fit all the schoolchildren we don't want shot.
Oh, it's just for adults? We don't care about children? Yeah, forgot where I lived for a moment.
Onwards, people. Although I may just take a break from reality considering everyone else in the world has. Nah, I think I'll stay here in reality now that there aren't any crowds.
The idea that the assassination attempt shows why we need Trump’s ballroom is idiotic. The Founding Fathers considered a free press essential to maintaining our democracy, and Presidents ever since have been vexed and annoyed by some of the writings of the press. They were meant to be watchdogs, not lapdogs, and public hotels are neutral territory.
And we already had a perfectly good ballroom, where Princess Diana danced with John Travolta.
Anyhoo, Tillis got his fig leaf so he can confirm Warsh.
And then feign surprise that Sock Puppet Pirro said that she found "facts" which were brought up in the investigation justifying reviving her criminal complaint against, by then, no longer Chairman Powell
You know, this is an interesting tension that I feel is at the heart of the resistance movement: how far is too far to stop a dictator?
Of course, our polite society has long distanced itself from violence of any kind. The normal condemnations from people who still have morals abound, and the fetid swamp creatures of the right are straight away at their sacred act of never wasting a good tragedy.
But here's the thing, guys; we do use and endorse violence. The Shield of the Republic guys were expressly supporting the war in Iran on yesterday's pod. The country has long since moved on from the 100+ people killed in the Gulf of Mexico last year by our navy. Some, including myself, endorsed a violent response to the October 7th attacks in Israel for much longer than we should have, given how quickly the war stopped being defensive.
Given the right context, we are more than happy to endorse violence. When it comes to the current regime, we rush to condemn what this person did; but for how much longer does what he did really constitute a radical act?
The founding fathers eventually turned to violence, and you would be hard pressed to tell me that the families of Rene Good or Alex Pretti wouldn't feel some sense of justice if this Cheeto Hitler had his brains blown out at some point during this nightmare.
My point is this: there is a line where violence is the answer. The question is, for how much longer are we actually going to stay on this side of that line?
Indeed, for how much longer does it even make sense to do so? Because if your answer is truly "never," you would have been a Redcoat during the Revolutionary War, and quite likely we would still have slavery in this country. Some things can only be solved one way.
Where is that line for us today? Because I honestly dont know.
I also wonder about this, probably because last night I watched a movie starring Peter O'Toole called Rogue Male. He plays an Englishman who tries to assassinate Hitler too soon, while Chamberlain is still in office. This makes him a hunted outlaw by the British until they declare war, and then suddenly he isn't an outlaw for trying but a bungler for failing. You just can't win if you're right too early.
and, Asimov whatever he was referring to in what manner is worth thinking about, Oh, I miss the older puzzles, even if someone else wrote them? what shall we do, contemplate or comprehend or both.
"(T)here is a line where violence is the answer." I think that Issac Asimov found the correct side of that line: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Is the police officer who uses violence against a criminal incompetent? The soldier who kills the enemy? The founding fathers? The Union army? The father protecting his children?
Violence isn't the refuge of the incompetent; it's the last resort of people who've exhausted every other option and still face an existential threat. The question isn't whether violence is ever justified. It's whether we're honest enough to ask when.
Not being Issac Asimov, I can not give you his answer. However, if one can not convince the opponent by rational non-violent means, then is that one "incompetent" in making that argument which may be what Asimov thought to counter you mixing up "just=legal" and "unjust=illegal" violence. That could also be why most law enforcement agencies deserving the name are trained and training in de-escalation tactics and methods, to use non-violent means to "win" the argument or stop the illegal actions of those who think violence is the answer.
David, you quoted Asimov as a rebuttal; you don't get to retreat behind 'I'm not Asimov' when the quote doesn't hold up.
And you've actually made my point for me: you're now distinguishing between legal and illegal violence, which means you've conceded that violence itself isn't the problem. The question was never legal vs. illegal; it's justified vs. unjustified.
The founding fathers' violence was illegal. The Underground Railroad was illegal. Sometimes the law is the thing that's wrong.
Marshall you asked five specific questions, directed at the one quoted. Is that your form of "gotcha" when the originator of the quote has been dead for moe than three decades? Or how else did you mean the perjorative phrase "retreat"?
So you believe that violence, without further differentiation is the answer? OK, if that is your position, take it and run with it. And the real problem between you trying to distinguish between "legal vs. illegal" and "justified and unjustified" without addressing who determines "justified and unjustified". Legal versus illegal is a matter of law as passed by the society and enforced by the courts versus everyone for himself. Who will you have deciding what is and is not justified? One man's meat is another man's poison, or one man's ceiling is another man's floor, are two phrases that expose the problem of "justified" according to whose definition?
David, I wasn't playing 'gotcha' with a dead man; I was responding to you, who chose to use his words as a rebuttal. If the quote can't survive scrutiny, that's not my problem.
As for who decides what's justified; we all do. Again, that's the entire point of the post.
Every society eventually faces that question and history judges the answer.
The colonists decided. The abolitionists decided. The French Resistance decided. You're framing 'who decides' as if it's an unanswerable gotcha, but people answer it all the time.
Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong.
The question is whether we're willing to engage with it honestly or just hide behind clichés about one man's meat
There are plenty of times where violence is done by someone who can't get their way by any other means. Look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and our current fiasco in Iran.
I look at Asimov's line as a caution against glorifying violence, not a blanket prohibition against self-defense.
Agreed. I think Asimov was referring to people, governments, etc. who initiate the violence, not those trying to protect themselves from or end said violence.
The entirety of the Trump movement is creating new legal reasons to hurt people in many ways, including state sponsored violence.
Shield of the Republic is a great point because apparently we abhor political violence but if a war breaks out due to incompetence and malice allegedly on our behalf, shut up and keep the bombs flowing because "we're all in this together."
Violence for political gain is acceptable as a nation moving as one, but not political violence between us, apparently.
It's a hypocrisy.
I don't condone assassination attempts.
But I'll gleefully celebrate when a thrombosis shows up for him.
you simply cheered me by using the word resistance. I had to stop with the shield, found myself getting too steamed up. have to take a break from that/them. But, it is complicated, they have knowledge, some experience, some wisdom but my views are so different on specific side issue(s) !
“I take the Department of Justice at its word: the investigation is closed. . . . With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh’s confirmation.” -- Thom Tillis
How has taking this administration at it's word worked out for anyone?
Timid Tillis is retiring after his current term. His real goal is not to stand up to trump, it's to try to polish his turd of an image/history so hopefully he can parley a rehabilitated reputation into speaking fees, a book, and maybe a corporate lobbying gig. That way he can say "I wasn't a trump bootlicker, I stood up to him until the end", as he's wiping Kiwi polish off his chin.
Trump gleefully celebrates violence done to his political enemies, domestic and foreign … cruelly denigrates members of the press simply for asking questions …constantly “tweets” hateful rhetoric and images and now has the audacity to wonder why people target him? Does he not know his “favorite book” warns about reaping what you sow?
The right wins elections by gleefully celebrating the death and violence their enemies suffer
And whines loud and long when their shortfalls become public. Everybody picks on them and they don’t know why!
all day, all night, victimhood
According to MAGA apologists, Trump has a very special kind of heroic morality that exempts him from the rules they impose on their political opponents.
IOKIYAR
Bulwark Community Word of the Day™️ winner!
Exactly! I agree with Kristol's comments, but they're too defensive. We know that "No Kings" is non-violent, because we've had a year of huge protests without serious incidents. Yes, we should be prepared to defend civil liberties against efforts to curb them in the face of lone wolf attacks, but we should also take the offensive. If Trump and his MAGA crowd want to reduce violence, hold them accountable for every act and word of incitement: how immigrants have been characterized, for example, or how excessive force by law enforcement and cruelty in detention centers has been defended and even celebrated. The list of offenses is long: the glee over the destruction of the boats in the Caribbean, Hegseth's batshit crazy performances, the president's threats to Iran, the indiscriminate violence we tolerate from Israel in Lebanon and elsewhere, and on and on. Connect the dots, and let's make sure they are reminded, as you say, that we "reap what we sow". That's not a threat at all, it's a prudent warning about how violence, once encouraged, escapes any control.
Hey, Republicans, we've been in a "state of national emergency" since you refused to stand up to Trump after January 6, 2021.
I'd say that the country has been in a state of emergency since 9/11, and the government machinery we built to counter al-Qa'eda is now coming for us.
Agreed! As soon as the "Department of Homeland Security" was spawned, just the name itself gave me a bad feeling of fascism rising!
Yeah that and the Patriot Act had the hairs on the back of my neck rising.
Absolutely! That had a certain Soviet odor coming off it!
My earliest hair-raising regime wasn't the Soviets, despite our attention to Sputnik tracking across the autumn evening sky. Based on what we'd already heard from dads & uncles (or ABOUT those who hadn't come back), the upsetting image came from a bit West of USSR... for me, 'homeland' always connotes Vaterland
Yes, Homeland reeks of the regime you refer to.
Richard, I was mere youth of ~50 years at the time, had only ever heard 'homeland' in one VERY specific context. It was indeed troubling to my ear, and has continued to prove itself so
I understand where you are coming from here, but my take is that 9/11 was the great national breakdown - the psychic blow that has led to almost everything since, building on fear, doubt, anger, and leading to the creation of the tools the government is now using against us.
The imperial boomerang is a real bastard.
I wonder if that was the plan all along... of course, I've lived in Eastern Europe so maybe I'm conditioned to be paranoid.
Republicans always overcompensate for their lack of natural talent.
The clueless Biden administration didn't seem to comprehend this. They thought " bad man gone " .
🙄
Exactly! They tried to govern a country that no longer existed. That country died on 1/6 and the magats killed it. They should have went after trump & co. with both barrels!
I'm not quick to blame them for thinking bad man gone. I didn't perceive the depth of the allegiance to the man until the 2024 election returned the man to the presidency. I didn't, even then, realize the power of the Internet driven world to create and sustain an alternative set of facts and history for a group of people that are so alienated from the rest of us.
I am with Max on this. I think we can be excused for thinking that after Biden's election and the failure of the Jan. 6 attempted coup, Trump was, as he likes to put it, all out of cards. The fact that enough of my fellow citizens voted for him to return him to power will never cease to amaze and horrify me, and, I'm pretty sure, the rest of the world.
Unfortunately they didn't perceive it either, to the possible death of our democracy. The problem is that they underestimated the stupidity of the American electorate. I figured it out back in the Fabulous 80's when Reagan and his GOP henchmen were able to con the working/middle class into voting against their own best interests. They were able to fool them into thinking that the poor and minorities were robbing them as the GOP and their corporate buddies were picking their pockets. The Golden Rule of American politics, never underestimate the stupidity of Americans. You'll never be disappointed.
https://youtu.be/hYTQ7__NNDI?si=Om06NdHAMLGiN566
Is it hard to get people to blame minorities and poor for robbing them? People always look for someone to blame and it's easy to blame people that are different from the blamers...different by ethnicity, income class, sex...
And the Reaganites played those working class voters like BB King played Lucille! Those voters were stupid enough to blame those who had less than them instead of the actual thieves robbing them blind.
In any horror movie, you think the monster is dead. But they always rise one more time.
The orange thing and many others belong in a federal supermax .
Half the Supreme Court belongs in a courtroom for treason against the Constitution. But they worked hard to shut out voices like ours.
No, it's not reasonable to object to Norah O’Donnell question; in fact we need more like it.
What IS objectionable is Dana Bash asking Jamie Raskin about democrats using "heated rhetoric" against the president. A president who has a long list of using violent rhetoric against everyone he deems an enemy.
CNN is getting ready for the Ellis Reign, apparently.
Bash, Tapper, Cooper, and the rest have been doing this "whataboutism" for years. There's no excuse for it.
And don't even get me started on Scott Jennings
It's particularly obnoxious given all the moral carveouts that have been granted to Trump.
"Oh, that's just Trump being Trump." It's infuriating.
Scott Jennings could be replaced by a trained parrot. Every time a question is asked, the response is: “What Trump said”.
"heated rhetoric" is not, " ___ person is bad for the country." It is saying that plus following it up with an incitement to a violent end of that person such as "he should be drawn and quartered."
Yes, thank you. Pointing out that rapists are actually rapists is not violence.
Why is speech only considered violence when the speech is objecting to abusers?
my guess, Dana wants a job, any job.. that, to me was a little tiny sign of loyalty, which does not really surprise me. Once or twice maybe three times she has shown some fire in her belly, pretty rare.
"Over the weekend, Trump canceled a planned trip to Islamabad by his lead negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff,² citing “too much time wasted on traveling” and “too much work.” “We have all the cards, they have none,” Trump insisted. “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!”"
< rubs temples >
If the Trump administration were truly serious (quit laughing for a moment), they would send experienced diplomats that have expertise in the region. But Trump doesn't do that because Kushner and Witkoff don't represent the United States. They represent Trump, and the Iranians have figured out that Trump is weapons-grade mercurial. He's prone to emotional outbursts and has the attention span of a gnat. More to the point, we are where we are because eight years ago, Trump tore up the JCPOA. The Mullahs are monsters, but at least they're sophisticated enough to know that they can't trust Trump at all.
Also, with news that farm bankruptcies are skyrocketing and the cost of fertilizer is doing likewise due to the war, is anyone laughing their ass off about farmers getting exactly what they voted for?
No fertilizer, not enough oil, not enough bombs, not enough military knowledge, not enough money to [ay for all of this, no allies, no one trusts a word he says. Once Trump ruins the Fed, bond market interest rates could trigger a huge recession. Trump, and I guess every Republican, doesn't care about the future of the US beyond the end of May.
Everything is a scam. Everything is corrupt.
And everything from 1 20 25 is scripted. They had 4 years to plot this .
Keeping us poor and starving - is that in P2025?
The Washington Post sent reporters to North Carolina to talk with farmers after USAID was cancelled. Of those reported on, the farmers said they didn’t vote for Trump. Fair enough. I commented that these people were not asked the follow up question, “Who did you vote for?” Never was asked that question. If you didn’t vote, or did not vote for Harris, then you wanted Trump to win. Just didn’t want to be called out for doing so. Did get one reply backing up the farmers. Told the writer to go pound sand, in a nice way.
I'm with you, Katherine. That follow up question should always be asked and never seems to be: if you didn't vote for Trump, did you vote for someone else? Or did you just sigh, turn your head away and not vote at all, because come on, I never have and never will vote for a Democrat, especially one with brown skin and ovaries.
Exactly. The negotiation of the JCPOA was a recognized, concerted, and prioritized international effort to constrain the most pressing of Iran's "problems with the world community and neighbors". A cast of hundreds of subject matter experts, negotiators, and diplomats with experience and direction. Years in the making, months "in the room" to craft an agreement. It was not perfect, but presented as a framework for which, over time, as parties got used to the reporting and monitoring structures, finding some level of credibility, integrity, and honesty in the process of mutually agreed upon benefits for all parties, could be expanded to other regional issues and priorities.
Experts , who needs experts when we have the orange things big Macs bloated gut .
Experts? We don't need no stinkin' experts!
Not yet, but wait until there are no crops this Summer and Fall and no Rs dare campaign without a phalanx of security, decked out like ICE on parade.
I've had an axe to grind with farmers my whole adult life. So I don't hate the idea of consequences and smile, but I know who's gonna be buying those and that's not ideal.
I would be interested to know about why you have an axe to grind with farmers? Is it all farmers or the big corporation farmers?
For me? Both. The vast majority of farmers voted for trump knowing he will act against their own best interests and if they fail Daddy trump will give them that sweet bailout welfare! Big corporate farming operations are just voting for their own profit and not to provide healthy, reasonably priced food.
It's rooted in the personal animosity towards of watching them (both corporate and traditional farmers) do exactly the opposite of all they claim: To care for the land, building future generations, hard work.
And then they ignore every conservation practice that exists unless they're subsidized for every little thing. They hire illegal aliens and curse them in the same breath.
Having a father who worked in a state natural resources department highlighted those hypocrites.
And then I watched them elect Scott Walker, and attack state employees and public unions and even further degrade conservation practices while demanding more and more money, and more and more respect for "Feeding America." And if know a lot of Bulwarkian Republicans liked what they saw there.
And they're doing it at the national level. So my default is, "Fuck Farmers."
Garden and support farmers markets is the only personal remedy I have until I can find a political movement willing to address our own ills.
To sum it up anyone who trusted Trump is stupid to the point of mental incompetence.
The mullahs are consistent predictable monsters. Us under the Orange narcissist are unpredictable and unlikely to keep our word: Trump has torn many of the deals he negotiated in his first term. Which would you rather deal with, the predictable devil you know or the hobgoblin with no mind let alone any consistency.
Re the Iran debacle, and the Iranian 'position,' this is a nation that helped usher in civilization as we know it, regardless of the current, abhorrent regime.
They have spent 5,000 years perfecting their diplomacy. They know exactly what they are doing now.
By comparison, the regime of the orange narcissist-felon doesn't have a clue, including sending two rank amateurs as the official representatives, two men with grave conflicts of interest in the region, and fundamental delusions of adequacy.
John, thank you for reminding us that Persians have existed for thousands of years. With the arrival of Cyrus the Great in 550 B.C., he and his successors introduced significant achievements in governance, was tolerant of diverse religions and cultures and allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple after their exile in Babylon (see OT Book of Ezra), built infrastructure such as new roads and a postal service to name a few.
Granted, the current Islamic Republic of Iran bears little resemblance to its historical Persian past. The current regime is a cabal of blood-thirsty, ruthless dictators who rule with an iron fist.
However, they are not stupid and can spot easy marks when they see them (I'm looking at you Drumpf, JDV, Kushner and Witkoff). Dispatching JD Vance (or whatever he calls himself today) to hammer out a deal in just 21 hours was a laughable exercise in futility and incompetence.
During the Obama Administration, it took seasoned diplomats 20 months of intense and delicate negotiations to hammer out the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. Early negotiations actually began in 2012. Of course, that agreement was thrown in the garbage by the orange-faced petulant lunatic. We'll never know, but had that deal remained in place, we might not be in the quagmire we're in right now.
What we have is a spoiled toddler-man in the WH with the attention span of a gnat who is only interested in massaging his paper-thin ego and may blow up the entire planet in the process.
No wonder our former allies are not lifting a finger to participate in this outrageous, unnecessary and illegal boondoggle.
Outstanding, Steven. Merci mille fois, mon brave!
Your comment about the long history of the Iranian people was the catalyst. Merci beaucoup.
The most immediate and important thing to negotiate is opening the strait. Nuclear weapons are a matter for later negotiations. Why start with nuclear weapons instead of the supposed mission of preventing nuclear weapons instead of the consequences that followed this attack.
Because orange Man needs something that looks like a principled win to justify his war--and reopening the straightthat he caused to be closed ITFP is not that thing.
Don’t forget the Iranians are just as sadistic as Trump.
Why I called their regime today abhorrent, Daphne. If the orange narcissist-felon had a functional brain, or any of his 'cabinet' sycophants had the slightest idea of what they were doing, they would have anticipated Hormuz, gamed thoroughly over the past 30+ years in the right military and geopolitical places in Washington, though abandoning the Iranian population, brutalized by the regime, would have been a tragedy (it was the least of all the evils the orange narcissist-felon unleashed vs. his Netanyahu-inspired war).
Pretty ghoulish how Trump et al. immediately launched into, "See, this is why we need the ballroom." Despite my best instincts, I watched the press conference and was a bit shocked to hear him bring up his ballroom of all things. Then all of the MAGA-stan accounts on social media tweeted in unison over 24 hours about how badly we need the ballroom.
I don't think it's manufactured, I believe it was a real attack, and thank goodness it seems to have failed. But Trump is wild for trying to leverage it. And I think Trump trying to spin to his advantage is why there is so much conspiracism already around this attack and previous ones.
It is not surprising that so many think the shooting was a false flag operation. Trump & Co. have spent years making people mistrust government, institutions, etc. So now they are supposed to believe and trust a statement by government agents? "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening", he once said. Guess he didn't think people would apply that to what HE says.
You have this 100 percent right , what kind of sap would believe anything that comes out of this administration's pie hole ?
I do. I believe that everything that comes out of this administration is 100% Grade A bullshit.
Manufactured is too strong, but some scenario like this was recorded in some playbook, so the Felon Trump toadies could do just what happened; taking advantage of a situation before cooler heads prevail. It’s what they do.
100%. Like it was crazy that they got everyone to the White House briefing room so quickly. Surreal to have everyone in gowns and tuxedos.
Shooting was at about 8:30 pm, the President was at the main table in the room. President got into the briefing room to the podium at about 10:30 pm.
It's not an impossible timeline, two hours. It's just amazingly fast and shows how quickly they moved to get Trump to a microphone. And Trump used that speed and urgency to... say he needed his ballroom.
It shows that the president and the people around him weren't that concerned about the gesture towards assassination...that no one was really traumatized by it probably because the man was stopped on the floor above the ballroom. They had the time and emotional space to come up with "hey this a great opportunity to promote the building of the ballroom."
THIS!!!
Katherine, whose "cooler heads" did you see who could have prevailed? None of them (assuming that they exist in MAGAland) would have been invited.
Right you are David! Silly me. I keep forgetting who we are talking about. Thanks for the chuckle.
Thanks for the opening 😏
The thing that bothers me is that Trump does not usually attend this event. Huge coincidence thst the one year he goes, thus happens. It's bugging me.
Yeah. That and the fact that most of the presidential succession line was there. Were they going to leave us in the hands of Grassley? What is Chuckie now, 700 hundred years old? (I can laugh, I'm old myself)
They have brought this on themselves. As have all the MAGAs crying for norms after shouting at traumatized kids and grieving parents calling them crisis actors. As have all the 2A proponents who let that behavior slide to keep the things they want no matter the cost.
I don't know where to go because I'm can believe they would manufacture this. Because of their words. Because of their actions. And because accountability for either is the thing that gets attacked.
I haven't seen anyone mention that the alleged attack does not logically lead to a need for the ballroom, unless the implication is that the President will never leave the White House for any event.
Among other things the size of the WHCA dinner would not have fit in the planned ballroom. Additionally, the president will presumably conduct and attend numerous events in places other than the ballroom so now the argument is that we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a ballroom (and wreck the beauty of the White House) to reduce the potential threats against the president by a fraction of one percent? At least the argument that a ballroom is needed to host official events that already take place at the White House, just under an allegedly inappropriate tent, is an apples to apples comparison.
MAGA influencers participate in a group chat that is directed from the White House.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Trump is a pedophile and rapist and it should be stated regularly. The rapist aspect was established in court, and the illicit sexualizing of teenage girls by his own bragging on Stern.
MAGA supports this and shouldn't be let off the hook for it.
Simple and straightforward post. Well done. Totally agree with you.
It's hard to square National Security Memorandum #7 with the administration's current attack on the SPLC. It almost seems like they only object to domestic terror when they are the targets.
Or when they can convince MAGAland that they are/were/were intended to be the targets.
They and Charlie Kirk.
I guess if we hold all the cards on Iran, they will come groveling to us any minute now begging for that peace treaty. So far, for not holding any cards their surrender has been remarkably elusive and the price of oil due to the still closed straight still making life miserable for everyone. Honestly I am tired of the whole Iran adventure and like Trump if it would just disappear, I would be quite happy. Even an extended stalemate which is where we seem headed isn’t the end of the world a slower bleed, but still a bleed with just a tourniquet wrapped on. The longer this goes on the more global credibility we lose, the more the Gulf States model of doing business no longer makes sense, or is seen as safe and people will hedge on the UAE, Qatar and the rest of them. The counters of the agreement are there and have always been there, and when Trump is ready he can give Barak Obama a call on how a deal is done.
We can't unring the bell, put toothpaste back in the tube...whatever other trite phrase there is to say we put the events into motion and there is no way to go back to the state of affairs before the launch of this war. The economic reverberations will continue no matter what is done and the US's standing in the world is forever damaged (and it was pretty damaged already by the Iraq War in particular).
Nail in the coffin, so to speak.
I guess we can stop looking for the barn door to close, huh? (another trite phrase/analogy)
but ! but, that marie with two eyes, or alyssa poster says everything is national, nothing is global, right.
yes, global everything, many are having a rough time as we, again are so far somewhat insulated, other than diesel, tariffs and a fool in the oval. global honor, global trust
global esteem, faith etc. The chickens will come home to roost.
Well, on the bright side no one should be squawking about the price of eggs with all those chickens.
crowing, clucking
Not sure "Nice agents murder protesters" really carries the message Alyssa hopes for.
IKR?
I honestly think your Cheap Shots today should make the history books. I have never seen such an excellent encapsulation of our moment. Just call ICE NICE and then you can call the people who object to NICE degenerates, and nobody will care if you shoot them. It's not like anyone cares about the particulars of what NICE does. All that matters is how it plays on TV.
Also, not one single person has explained how the new ballroom is going to fit all the schoolchildren we don't want shot.
Oh, it's just for adults? We don't care about children? Yeah, forgot where I lived for a moment.
Onwards, people. Although I may just take a break from reality considering everyone else in the world has. Nah, I think I'll stay here in reality now that there aren't any crowds.
We should advocate for a ballroom in every school in America.
You can come sit here, next to me. It's rather lonely in this little corner.
The idea that the assassination attempt shows why we need Trump’s ballroom is idiotic. The Founding Fathers considered a free press essential to maintaining our democracy, and Presidents ever since have been vexed and annoyed by some of the writings of the press. They were meant to be watchdogs, not lapdogs, and public hotels are neutral territory.
And we already had a perfectly good ballroom, where Princess Diana danced with John Travolta.
Anyhoo, Tillis got his fig leaf so he can confirm Warsh.
And then feign surprise that Sock Puppet Pirro said that she found "facts" which were brought up in the investigation justifying reviving her criminal complaint against, by then, no longer Chairman Powell
What I found interesting was that Jerome Powell himself requested the initial investigation in June of 2025.
You know, this is an interesting tension that I feel is at the heart of the resistance movement: how far is too far to stop a dictator?
Of course, our polite society has long distanced itself from violence of any kind. The normal condemnations from people who still have morals abound, and the fetid swamp creatures of the right are straight away at their sacred act of never wasting a good tragedy.
But here's the thing, guys; we do use and endorse violence. The Shield of the Republic guys were expressly supporting the war in Iran on yesterday's pod. The country has long since moved on from the 100+ people killed in the Gulf of Mexico last year by our navy. Some, including myself, endorsed a violent response to the October 7th attacks in Israel for much longer than we should have, given how quickly the war stopped being defensive.
Given the right context, we are more than happy to endorse violence. When it comes to the current regime, we rush to condemn what this person did; but for how much longer does what he did really constitute a radical act?
The founding fathers eventually turned to violence, and you would be hard pressed to tell me that the families of Rene Good or Alex Pretti wouldn't feel some sense of justice if this Cheeto Hitler had his brains blown out at some point during this nightmare.
My point is this: there is a line where violence is the answer. The question is, for how much longer are we actually going to stay on this side of that line?
Indeed, for how much longer does it even make sense to do so? Because if your answer is truly "never," you would have been a Redcoat during the Revolutionary War, and quite likely we would still have slavery in this country. Some things can only be solved one way.
Where is that line for us today? Because I honestly dont know.
I also wonder about this, probably because last night I watched a movie starring Peter O'Toole called Rogue Male. He plays an Englishman who tries to assassinate Hitler too soon, while Chamberlain is still in office. This makes him a hunted outlaw by the British until they declare war, and then suddenly he isn't an outlaw for trying but a bungler for failing. You just can't win if you're right too early.
I think this is close to the truth of the matter.
and, Asimov whatever he was referring to in what manner is worth thinking about, Oh, I miss the older puzzles, even if someone else wrote them? what shall we do, contemplate or comprehend or both.
"(T)here is a line where violence is the answer." I think that Issac Asimov found the correct side of that line: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Is the police officer who uses violence against a criminal incompetent? The soldier who kills the enemy? The founding fathers? The Union army? The father protecting his children?
Violence isn't the refuge of the incompetent; it's the last resort of people who've exhausted every other option and still face an existential threat. The question isn't whether violence is ever justified. It's whether we're honest enough to ask when.
Mmm how about the soldiers of the Ukrainian army? Are they incompetent?
Not being Issac Asimov, I can not give you his answer. However, if one can not convince the opponent by rational non-violent means, then is that one "incompetent" in making that argument which may be what Asimov thought to counter you mixing up "just=legal" and "unjust=illegal" violence. That could also be why most law enforcement agencies deserving the name are trained and training in de-escalation tactics and methods, to use non-violent means to "win" the argument or stop the illegal actions of those who think violence is the answer.
David, you quoted Asimov as a rebuttal; you don't get to retreat behind 'I'm not Asimov' when the quote doesn't hold up.
And you've actually made my point for me: you're now distinguishing between legal and illegal violence, which means you've conceded that violence itself isn't the problem. The question was never legal vs. illegal; it's justified vs. unjustified.
The founding fathers' violence was illegal. The Underground Railroad was illegal. Sometimes the law is the thing that's wrong.
That's the entire point of the post.
Marshall you asked five specific questions, directed at the one quoted. Is that your form of "gotcha" when the originator of the quote has been dead for moe than three decades? Or how else did you mean the perjorative phrase "retreat"?
So you believe that violence, without further differentiation is the answer? OK, if that is your position, take it and run with it. And the real problem between you trying to distinguish between "legal vs. illegal" and "justified and unjustified" without addressing who determines "justified and unjustified". Legal versus illegal is a matter of law as passed by the society and enforced by the courts versus everyone for himself. Who will you have deciding what is and is not justified? One man's meat is another man's poison, or one man's ceiling is another man's floor, are two phrases that expose the problem of "justified" according to whose definition?
David, I wasn't playing 'gotcha' with a dead man; I was responding to you, who chose to use his words as a rebuttal. If the quote can't survive scrutiny, that's not my problem.
As for who decides what's justified; we all do. Again, that's the entire point of the post.
Every society eventually faces that question and history judges the answer.
The colonists decided. The abolitionists decided. The French Resistance decided. You're framing 'who decides' as if it's an unanswerable gotcha, but people answer it all the time.
Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong.
The question is whether we're willing to engage with it honestly or just hide behind clichés about one man's meat
There are plenty of times where violence is done by someone who can't get their way by any other means. Look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and our current fiasco in Iran.
I look at Asimov's line as a caution against glorifying violence, not a blanket prohibition against self-defense.
Agreed. I think Asimov was referring to people, governments, etc. who initiate the violence, not those trying to protect themselves from or end said violence.
The entirety of the Trump movement is creating new legal reasons to hurt people in many ways, including state sponsored violence.
Shield of the Republic is a great point because apparently we abhor political violence but if a war breaks out due to incompetence and malice allegedly on our behalf, shut up and keep the bombs flowing because "we're all in this together."
Violence for political gain is acceptable as a nation moving as one, but not political violence between us, apparently.
It's a hypocrisy.
I don't condone assassination attempts.
But I'll gleefully celebrate when a thrombosis shows up for him.
Great comment, no notes.
you simply cheered me by using the word resistance. I had to stop with the shield, found myself getting too steamed up. have to take a break from that/them. But, it is complicated, they have knowledge, some experience, some wisdom but my views are so different on specific side issue(s) !
I feel your pain.
How about changing the name to LICE?
Lawless Immigration and Customs Enforcement
No DICE (Dirty/Demon ICE).
“I take the Department of Justice at its word: the investigation is closed. . . . With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh’s confirmation.” -- Thom Tillis
How has taking this administration at it's word worked out for anyone?
Tillis is a fool .
Timid Tillis is retiring after his current term. His real goal is not to stand up to trump, it's to try to polish his turd of an image/history so hopefully he can parley a rehabilitated reputation into speaking fees, a book, and maybe a corporate lobbying gig. That way he can say "I wasn't a trump bootlicker, I stood up to him until the end", as he's wiping Kiwi polish off his chin.
Richard - ☑️ no errors detected