I agree with you. BUT it's not helping. Trumpy is still considered a "stable genius" and do believe his garbage. And the R's in Congress who could/should acknowledge that Biden is doing the right things refuse to say anything. It's still Trump, Trump, Trump! Go look at the articles and comments on The American Conservative, which suppose…
I agree with you. BUT it's not helping. Trumpy is still considered a "stable genius" and do believe his garbage. And the R's in Congress who could/should acknowledge that Biden is doing the right things refuse to say anything. It's still Trump, Trump, Trump! Go look at the articles and comments on The American Conservative, which supposedly the sane opposition. Van Buren saying Durham is right, and it's the Dems in Putin's pocket! And Dreher is still in the Putin's really a good guy for opposing WOKE, etc., but he's acting bad now. The stupidity, the blindness of the so-called sane right makes me want to strangle some of them. Or ship them off to Putin's Russia and see how long they last!
Yeah, the "National Review" is supposed to be sane opposition too, but they still host Trump fluffers like Conrad Black. "The American Conservative" leans isolationist as I understand, so I wouldn't expect them to be holding up a lighter at this display of global free world unity. Sure, AC might have gotten a reputation as being "sane" because of its origins in opposing the Iraq War. But one of its founders was Pat Buchanan, whose opposition to Iraq caused a lot of liberals at the time to forget that he's still Pat Buchanan - Mr. Culture War 1992. So as far as entirely "sane" right-leaning publications that don't tolerate wingnuts, for me it's pretty much the Bulwark and the Dispatch.
And as an aside, this Van Buren guy sounds like a moron. Durham has hardly said anything - he's charged some lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and a cybersecurity firm for alerting the FBI to suspicious contacts between Russian phones and Trump Tower (alleged representing the security firm in doing so). The security firm had access to Obama era White House data and was under a federal contract to examine it for evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which has morphed into the Right's made up claim that Clinton hired someone to infiltrate Trump's White House). Durham's claim is that the lawyer was lying to the FBI because he "didn't really believe what he was saying". Yeah. Seriously. I mean, set aside the fact that we're supposed to think there was a conflict of interest with the Clinton campaign even though the election was over and Trump was already in office, or that the FBI ignored the info anyway because they didn't think it was relevant. He's charging someone with lying over a matter of professional opinion. I'm no lawyer but I'm betting he's going to have a pretty hard time even getting a conviction out of this trifling charge. So this is the only bone that this heralded bloodhound has produced after years of digging up the FBI's backyard. That tells you a lot.
I agree with you. BUT it's not helping. Trumpy is still considered a "stable genius" and do believe his garbage. And the R's in Congress who could/should acknowledge that Biden is doing the right things refuse to say anything. It's still Trump, Trump, Trump! Go look at the articles and comments on The American Conservative, which supposedly the sane opposition. Van Buren saying Durham is right, and it's the Dems in Putin's pocket! And Dreher is still in the Putin's really a good guy for opposing WOKE, etc., but he's acting bad now. The stupidity, the blindness of the so-called sane right makes me want to strangle some of them. Or ship them off to Putin's Russia and see how long they last!
Yeah, the "National Review" is supposed to be sane opposition too, but they still host Trump fluffers like Conrad Black. "The American Conservative" leans isolationist as I understand, so I wouldn't expect them to be holding up a lighter at this display of global free world unity. Sure, AC might have gotten a reputation as being "sane" because of its origins in opposing the Iraq War. But one of its founders was Pat Buchanan, whose opposition to Iraq caused a lot of liberals at the time to forget that he's still Pat Buchanan - Mr. Culture War 1992. So as far as entirely "sane" right-leaning publications that don't tolerate wingnuts, for me it's pretty much the Bulwark and the Dispatch.
And as an aside, this Van Buren guy sounds like a moron. Durham has hardly said anything - he's charged some lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and a cybersecurity firm for alerting the FBI to suspicious contacts between Russian phones and Trump Tower (alleged representing the security firm in doing so). The security firm had access to Obama era White House data and was under a federal contract to examine it for evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which has morphed into the Right's made up claim that Clinton hired someone to infiltrate Trump's White House). Durham's claim is that the lawyer was lying to the FBI because he "didn't really believe what he was saying". Yeah. Seriously. I mean, set aside the fact that we're supposed to think there was a conflict of interest with the Clinton campaign even though the election was over and Trump was already in office, or that the FBI ignored the info anyway because they didn't think it was relevant. He's charging someone with lying over a matter of professional opinion. I'm no lawyer but I'm betting he's going to have a pretty hard time even getting a conviction out of this trifling charge. So this is the only bone that this heralded bloodhound has produced after years of digging up the FBI's backyard. That tells you a lot.