╌>

David Brooks and The Road to Fascism

  
Via:  John Russell  •  4 years ago  •  35 comments


 David Brooks and The Road to Fascism
the nominees of the Republican party accurately reflect the beliefs and values of the Republican electorate. Because the party base are election deniers, insurrections, force-birth fanatics, frauds, white supremacists, perverts, Putin fanboys, brain-damaged lumps, sadists and really, really credulous idiots, and so they nominated candidates that looked and sounded like them

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


This year the GOP has nominated election deniers, insurrections, force-birth fanatics, frauds, white supremacists, perverts, Putin stooges, idiots, brain-damaged lumps, sadists and really, really incompetent liars. And nationally that party is running close to dead-even with Democrats.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Sunday, November 06, 2022


David Brooks and The Road to Fascism


This week saw David Brooks of The New York Times once again firmly ensconced in his Orbital Pundit Platform high above the Earth, peering owlishly down at the confusing goings on way down here.

Bemused, as a passing alien might be, as to why those tiny humans far, far below him scurry around like red ants and black ants, fighting all the time.

So mysterious!

Also, as an alien might, Mr. Brooks has many theories. Many stupid theories.

But before proceeding with today's tale, I am charged by the Gods of Foreshadowing to read you a long list of terrible people and their educational credentials. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list: I just became exhausted writing it so I stopped where I stopped.


J.D. Vance graduated summa cum laude from Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and philosophy. After graduating from Ohio State, Vance earned a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School.

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton in 1992 with a Bachelor of Arts, then earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

John "Colonel Foghorn Cornpone" Kennedy graduated magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University with an interdepartmental major in political science, philosophy and economics. Earned a a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, and a Bachelor of Civil Law degree with first class honours from Magdalen College, Oxford.

Kevin McCarthy attended California State University, Bakersfield, where he managed to score a Bachelor of Science in marketing in 1989 and a Master of Business Administration in 1994.

Greg Abbott earned a Bachelor of Business Administration in finance from the University of Texas at Austin, where he was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity and the Young Republicans Club. He met his wife, Cecilia Phalen, while attending UT Austin. In 1984, he earned his Juris Doctor degree from the Vanderbilt University Law School.

Ann Coulter graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a BA in history and received her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988.

Louis Fucking Gohmert also has a J.D. Got it at Baylor Law School in 1977.

My soon-to-be-former congressperson, Rodney Davis, graduated from Millikin University in 1992 with a degree in political science.

Dinesh D'Souza graduated Dartmouth College with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1983. In 2010 he was appointed president of The King's College, a Christian liberal arts college, and was forced to resign two years later due to a "couldn't keep his dick out of the wrong person" scandal.

Kari "Hellbeast" Lake of Arizona has a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications and journalism from the University of Iowa.

Matt Gaetz has Bachelor of Science in interdisciplinary sciences from Florida State University and a J.D. from the William & Mary Law School.

Jim Jordan has a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a master's degree in education from Ohio State University and a J.D. from the Capital University Law School.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has a Bachelor of Business Administration in from the the University of Georgia.

Donald Trump has a B.S. in economics from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Laura "Eva Braun-Nose" Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Greta Van Susteren, formerly of Fox News and now of Newsmax, graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1976 and later earned a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Cente where she later worked as an adjunct faculty member in addition to her full-time legal career.

Sex pervert Eric Bolling, formerly of Fox News and now of NewsMax, graduated from Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida, with a BA degree in economics.

Sex pervert Bill O'Reilly, formerly of Fox News and now of "the internet", graduated from Chaminade college in 1967. Then went on to Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York. He spent his junior year of college abroad, attending Queen Mary College at the University of London, and received his BA in history in 1971. O'Reilly taught English and history at Monsignor Pace High School in Miami from 1970 to 1972, and later earned a Master of Arts degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University In 1995. After that he attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and received a master degree in public administration there.

Make a list of the most infamous, fascist-pandering Republican scumbags you know, and the infamous, lying, insurrection-inciting Conservative media creatures that you know, and I guarantee you that almost all of them have a college degree of some sort, and most of them have J.D.'s from law schools whose names you probably know.

And so, with that, back to Mr. David Brooks (University of Chicago degree in history) and his column:


Why Aren't the Democrats Trouncing These Guys?

First, I am obliged to mention that on next week's "No Fair Remembering Stuff" podcast we will -- spoiler! -- dare to remember that all the way back to 2008, when Mr. David Brooks was equally mystified as to why Barack Obama wasn't leading John McCain by 15 points:


I think there is no doubt that Barack Obama is much more specific than John McCain. If this were about issues, Obama would be winning by 15 points. The mystery is, why he's not.

Of course it was no mystery at all to anyone who hadn't built a career out of lying to themselves and their readers about what an absolute racist shitpile the GOP actually was. So it was no surprise that, just one year later, in the faces of the absolutely unhinged, racist backlash from the right to the election of Barack Obama, Mr. David Brooks said the following:


Well, I don't have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama's critics, so I can't measure how much racism there is in there. But my impression is that race is largely beside the point.

In a column entitled:


No, It's Not About Race

Similarly, in September of 2016, Brooks wondered why "Clinton wasn't 50 points ahead".

Once again, what Brooks presented as some deep and impenetrable puzzle was no puzzle at all. It was simply that like virtually every other Beltway pundit, after lying about the GOP for a living for so many decades Brooks had become wired to automatically avoid seeing anything about the actual state of his party that conflicted with the entirely imaginary GOP that he sold to his readers every week in the Times.

Because when the reality of the actual Republican party violently collides with Brooks' Fairy Tale Republican party, rather that looking at terrifying truth staring him straight in the eye, Brooks manufactures some other factor -- some other variable -- to explain why his political party isn't really racist and/or misogynist and/or fascism despite the fact that they sure as shit walk like a fascist duck, and talk like a fascist duck.

If you're interested, I wrote a whole long thing about it back in 2008 entitled "The Negrological Constant" and all these years later I wouldn't change a word.

Anyway, Brooks' big "takeaway" from our status quo is that:


We're about where we were. We entered this election season with a nearly evenly divided House and Senate in which the Democrats had a slight advantage. We'll probably leave it with a nearly evenly divided House and Senate in which the Republicans have a slight advantage. But we're about where we were.

So what's to account for the fact that after four years of out-an-proud, sneering racism and corruption and treason under Trump, and two years of stable leadership and steady improvement under Biden, nothing has changed? Except that the GOP has gotten exponentially more paranoid and more openly fascistic, following the same depravity curve they have been on for decades.

This year the GOP has nominated election deniers, insurrections, force-birth fanatics, frauds, white supremacists, perverts, Putin stooges, idiots, brain-damaged lumps, sadists and really, really incompetent liars. And nationally that party is running close to dead-even with Democrats.

So what explains that?

Well the most obvious reason and truest reason is the simplest.

The same reason William of Occam would use to get a nice, close shave in the morning .

The same reason these same meatheads nominated and elected Trump in 2016, and then re-nominated and came out in even greater numbers for Trump in 2020.

The same reason they ran Liz Cheney out of the party on a rail.

Because the nominees of the Republican party accurately reflect the beliefs and values of the Republican electorate. Because the party base are election deniers, insurrections, force-birth fanatics, frauds, white supremacists, perverts, Putin fanboys, brain-damaged lumps, sadists and really, really credulous idiots, and so they nominated candidates that looked and sounded like them

Duh.

But of course, Mr. Brooks has a different theory.

Would you like to hear it?


Americans are sorting themselves out by education into two roughly equal camps. As people without a college degree have flocked to the G.O.P., people with one have flocked to the Democrats.

Yeah.


Over the past few years, the Democrats have made heroic efforts to win back working-class voters and white as well as Black and Hispanic voters who have drifted rightward. Joe Biden's domestic agenda is largely about this: infrastructure jobs, expanded child tax credit, raising taxes on corporations. This year the Democrats nominated candidates designed to appeal to working-class voters, like the sweatshirt-wearing Fetterman in Pennsylvania and Tim Ryan in Ohio.
It doesn't seem to be working.

And then Mr. Brooks ascends to his orbit high above the Earth -- removed entirely from the causes and effects and his own deep complicity in the building of the GOP's propaganda and electoral doomsday machine -- and looks down at the dire threat facing our nation with same kind of reptilian detachment that an alien might have observing our species as if they were cells in a Petri dish.


America has riven itself into two different cultures. It's very hard for the party based in one culture to reach out and win voters in the other culture — or even to understand what people in the other culture are thinking.
As I've shuttled between red and blue America over decades of reporting on American politics, I've seen social, cultural, moral and ideological rifts widen from cracks to chasms.

Truly no one knows America's "social, cultural, moral and ideological rifts" better than the guy who has been [checks notes] completely wrong about all of it since forever.

Also note the passive voice: "America has riven itself" rather than "The Right have been on a mission to divide America and irreversibly poison the minds of its voters for over 40 years."

Brooks again:


But even that is not the real problem. America has always had vast cultural differences. Back in 2001, I wrote a long piece for The Atlantic...

2001? Back when you were writing one, screeching hit-piece after another in The Weekly Standard about us stupid, delusional, amoral, unAmerican Democrats? Are you 100% sure you want to relitigate 2001, Mr. Brooks? Because if you are, just name the time and place and I will be there with fucking tap shoes and tails on.

Meanwhile, back on Brooks' spacecraft:


Now people don't just see difference, they see menace. People have put up barricades and perceive the other class as a threat to what is beautiful, true and good.

"People" this and "people" that. No differentiation. No delineating why Republicans are berserk with rage, armed to the teeth and threatening democracy, and why Democrats have every good reason in the world to see that as a menace.

Just...people. Doing...things.

And then comes the sentence which should have gotten Brooks immediately and retroactively fired all the way back to 2001:


I don't completely understand why this animosity has risen over the past couple of decades...

Of course you don't understand it, Mr. Brooks. Because while it is theoretically your entire job to understand such things, we here all know perfectly well that deliberately pretending not to understand such things -- even as they are staring you right in the face and loudly announcing their presences and intentions -- has always been your real stock-in-trade.

Which brings us back around to the notion that, while Mr. Brooks finds the rivening of American society inexplicable, the only common factor he can conjure as to why is something morally and ideologically neutral: a college degree.


...people without a college degree have flocked to the G.O.P., people with one have flocked to the Democrats.

But if that were true, why is it that virtually every infamous, fascist-pandering Republican scumbag ---


Ron Johnson, University of Minnesota (BS)

Darren Bailey. Associate of Science degree in Agricultural Production from Lake Land College.

Michele Bachmann, Winona State University with a B.A. LL.M. degree in tax law from William & Mary Law School.

-- has a college degree?

And why is it that virtually every infamous, lying, insurrection-inciting Conservative media creature has a college degree.


Tucker Carlson Carlson was "briefly enrolled at College du Leman, a boarding school in Switzerland", then on to St. George's School, a boarding school in Middletown, Rhode Island and then on to Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut where he earned a BA in history.
Stephen Miller, Duke University, BA.

And why is it that so many of them don't just have a Bachelors degrees like you and I Mr. Brooks, but have advanced degrees --


Steve Bannon, Virginia Tech College of Architecture and Urban Studies, BA in urban planning. Master's degree in national security studies in 1983 from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Master of Business Administration degree with honors from Harvard Business School.


Newt Gingrich, Emory University (BA), Tulane University (MA, PhD)

-- and/or J.D.s from law schools --


Kash Patel, University of Richmond (BA), Pace University (JD)

-- whose names you probably know?


John Eastman, undergraduate degree from the University of Dallas. J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School, and a PhD of Philosophy in Government from the Claremont Graduate School.

Why? Because the GOP's now-open embrace of fascism has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a sheepskin. It has to do with fear. It has to do with a party whose base has been groomed for decades to be easily reprogrammed over and over again by the manipulation of their deepest fears, will follow any strongman who promises to take those fear away...and a leadership who are willing and eager willing to ruthlessly sow and exploit those fears over and over again for profit and political gain.

Here is John Dean back in 2006, warning in the starkest terms about the trajectory that the Republican party -- his Republican party -- was on.

And here's a snip of what I wrote back in 2006 -- 16 years ago -- even as Mr, Brooks and his colleagues were hastily building the Both Sides Do It fortress inside of which they have been barricaded ever since:


If you have the time, watch the whole thing, and to read the book, and realize that John Dean is, at heart, a lifelong and loyal old-school Conservative.
That his idol and friend was Barry Goldwater: Father of the Conservative Movement and a man who absolutely reviled the maggoty thing is had mutated into at the hands of the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
That what he is saying strongly parallels some of what founding Conservative Bill Buckley has already said.
And what Kevin Phillips (former Republican strategist and author of "The Emerging Republican Majority") said in his most recent treatise, "'American Theocracy".
Conservatives all, each practically screaming in their own way that Conservativism is dead, gone, hollowed out and is being worn as sheep's clothing by despicable men who hate and oppose everything the Original Conservatives ever stood for.
So not only do Modern Conservative have contempt for the Founders of our country, they have moved so far into the abyss that they actually dismiss, ignore and revile the Founders of their own ideology.
Consider the numbers Dean is citing: That 23% of the American population are "pure, rightwing Authoritarian followers". That a tiny fraction - perhaps 1% -- are Liberal, but the rest, the overwhelming majority, identify as Conservatives.
So right there you can kiss any precious pet theory of "balance" goodbye.
Then consider the shameful fact that only about half of the eligible public actually votes during Presidential elections anyway, and quite a bit less at the midterms. And given that it's a pretty good bet that the 23% who are aggressive, dogmatic followers of a Dear Leader will be much more likely to find their way to the polls, they will be far more represented in the voting half of Americans than in the non-voting half.
So, being conservative (pun intended), lets say 40% of the actually voting public are those "pure, rightwing Authoritarian followers"
And then consider that the numerical split between Dems and Republicans is about 50/50, and the "pure, rightwing Authoritarian followers" tend to overwhelmingly be Conservatives, you end up with damned near 70-80% of Republican voters fitting this profile.
Then, just for good measure, figure out from your own experience how many voters of any Party are actually agenda-driving "activists" -- the ones who pound the pavement, evangelize and make and enforce policy and discipline -- and what kind of Leaders, Policy Makers and Disciplinarians you are likely to grow in this Brownshirt Hothouse, and you begin to see what Liberals have seen and tried to warn this nation about for decades.
That the Grand Old Party has been taken over by monsters.
That based on their perverse theology and enraged-sheep psychological makeup, they have very deliberately driven the traditional democratic model of leadership out of their Party in favor of an aggressively Authoritarian paradigm that is clear in its direction, ideology and intent.
That the GOP has a fascist soul...


Mr. Brooks refuses to face the fact that his party has been racing down the road to fascism for decades, and at last arrived where it was going all along. Nor will Mr. Brooks face with the fact that the road to fascism his Republican party has been on for decades was wide and smooth and clearly marked.

And the way Mr. Brooks copes with the sheer scope of his failure, cowardice and duplicity is by floating dirigibley far above it all, pretending that there were no signs, that there was no road, but instead, something something diplomas.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years ago
Once again, what Brooks presented as some deep and impenetrable puzzle was no puzzle at all. It was simply that like virtually every other Beltway pundit, after lying about the GOP for a living for so many decades Brooks had become wired to automatically avoid seeing anything about the actual state of his party that conflicted with the entirely imaginary GOP that he sold to his readers every week in the Times.
-
Because when the reality of the actual Republican party violently collides with Brooks' Fairy Tale Republican party, rather that looking at terrifying truth staring him straight in the eye, Brooks manufactures some other factor -- some other variable -- to explain why his political party isn't really racist and/or misogynist and/or fascism despite the fact that they sure as shit walk like a fascist duck, and talk like a fascist duck.
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago

Everyday normal rational sane American citizens, for the most part, reject the Marxist propaganda and lies promulgated by brain dead leftist idiots. The destruction of the Dem mini dynasty gets kick started tomorrow

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 years ago
Marxist propaganda

What do you consider "Marxist propaganda"?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

Nobody is buying it.

BTW, as per tradition, Dixville Notch NH opens it's polls at midnight tonight. We are on the threshold of a great change.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 years ago

MAGA is not buying it. They dont want to look in the fricking mirror. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 years ago
This year the GOP has nominated election deniers, insurrectionists, force-birth fanatics, frauds, white supremacists, perverts, Putin stooges, idiots, brain-damaged lumps, sadists and really, really incompetent liars. And nationally that party is running close to dead-even with Democrats.

What part of that do you deny? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    4 years ago

Every bit of that. By the way have you seen this?



new-take-on-nyt-siena-poll-1.jpg?w=1024

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    4 years ago

the chart is essentially illegible.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.2.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    4 years ago

Yep, they defeated a sitting incumbent president with a 72% approval rating because  "It's the Economy Stupid"...

The same is about to happen to them in the biggest political bitchslap in American history.... and to quote Bill Clinton, "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID"

I'm gonna be laughing my ass off...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 years ago

Then let me help. The two top issues for likely voters are the Economy 26% and Inflation 18%. Everything else is in single numbers. 

That means people are voting on their experiences over the past two years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.3    4 years ago
I'm gonna be laughing my ass off...

Economic challenges are ugly and painful for the American people.   None of this is funny.   It does not help either when people view elections as a team sport.

For the party in power, the economy doing well will always be a big positive and an economy doing poorly will always be a big negative.   This is one of the most predictable dynamics in American politics.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    4 years ago

Tig, the economy could be booming and every last "MAGA" would be supporting right wing fanatics. We all know this is true, why do we pretend otherwise? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.2.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.7    4 years ago
Maybe when the autopsy is performed over Democratic losses tomorrow, the sane will prevail over the histrionics of the loons.

Exit polling is going to help with that, when the actual voters get to tell their intents and their concerns over them.... and of course the democrats are going to rationalize it beyond all reality...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    4 years ago
Tig, the economy could be booming and every last "MAGA" would be supporting right wing fanatics. We all know this is true, why do we pretend otherwise? 

Who is pretending?   The MAGA nuts will be nuts regardless of the circumstances, but that is not what I was talking about.

It is not possible to include every little angle of politics in every post.   In my recent post I was pointing out that the state of the economy is not a laughing matter and that the party out of power doing well in an election when the economy is bad is what one would expect.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.2.10  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.3    4 years ago
I'm gonna be laughing my ass off...

I won't be laughing at the citizens who are being destroyed by Democrat economic policies, I will be laughing at the democrats that used to understand this 25 years ago, but seems to have forgotten it now...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.10    4 years ago

Again, you react with laughter at that which is bad for our nation.   There is nothing funny about our situation, both economic and political.   It sucks in both cases — especially the absurdly divisive partisan politics at play.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.2.12  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.2.10    4 years ago

Laughing at Democrats, all their histrionics and lies? It's coming back to bite them in the ass...

The King County supervisor of elections made his first announcement on turnout, we are only a few hours away from the ballot collection being closed, King county turnout is 36%...

2018 it was 44% That is outstanding for Republicans... {chuckle}

Especially for Smiley and Larkin....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years ago
"People"this and "people"that. No differentiation. No delineating why Republicans are berserk with rage, armed to the teeth and threatening democracy, and why Democrats have every good reason in the world to see that as a menace. Just...people. Doing...things.

Excellent description of both-sides ism

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

Here’s a hint of the extreme left’s  reaction if things go as expected tomorrow.  No self reflection. No critique of tactics or messaging, just incoherent rage, tossing around the usuals isms and blaming voters for not understanding that nothing matters, like their pocketbooks, but only good (democrats) vs evil (republicans).  It’s like a window into a fringe cult attacking the non believers to keep the cult members in line.

democrats have royally screwed up their chance to dominate politics in the wake of trump and can’t handle their failure. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 years ago

Donald Trump was the most unqualified unfit presidential candidate in American history. Prior to the 2016 election it was very well known that he was a pathological liar, a crook, a bigot , a cheat and a moron. Not suspected, known. 

Yet, given all that, we have had to endure 7 years of unceasing "whataboutism" as the right tries to turn "liberals" into communists to grease their defenses of Trump. 

Its all about white grievance, which is exactly what the seeded article was getting at. Both sidesers like David Brooks cannot bring themselves to tell the truth. The truth is too terrible to contemplate for people like him. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 years ago
the most unqualified unfit presidential candidate in American history. Prior to the 2016 election it was very well known that he was a pathological liar, a crook, a bigot , a cheat and a moron

And the democrats rigged their primary for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and followed up with Joe Biden in 2020.  

That's the thing you ignore. The Democrats nominated someone just as unpopular and dishonest in 2016 and followed it up with a senile, pathologically lying  moron in 2020 as they ignored and minimized  inflation while celebrating nominating a justice who doesn't know what a woman is. It's amazing how immune to self awareness democrats are.  Even a hint of moderation from the democrats would have been enough. But they went full Maddow. 

ts all about white grievance

Sure. That's why Republicans keep gaining ground with minorities. The white grievance argument. . 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    4 years ago

Hillary Clinton is not as dishonest as Donald Trump is. The fact that you insist on claiming that is one of the reasons we are in so much trouble in this country. 

In lieu of doing the right thing , conservatives have mired this country in absurd whataboutism for 7 years and counting.  Dark days are coming. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
4.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 years ago
Hillary Clinton is not as dishonest as Donald Trump is.

Instead of, my candidate is best, we've gone to, your candidate is worse than mine - the state of our politics in the 21st Century.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
4.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    4 years ago
Sure. That's why Republicans keep gaining ground with minorities. The white grievance argument. . 

You bet, White rich liberals have a huge greivance against those people of any color that don't cave into their rationalization about keeping all the races at each others throats...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    4 years ago
Hillary Clinton is not as dishonest as Donald Trump is.

The only difference between the two is style. Trump lies off the top of head, Clinton is more considered.  It's like arguing  that Dahmer or Gacy is not as bad a person as the other.  It just doesn't matter. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    4 years ago

I do not see it conceivable that Hillary (or any historical mainstream nominee for PotUS) would engage as Trump did in his Big Lie.   I greatly dislike Hillary as a candidate for PotUS, but there is no way that she would come anywhere close to try to steal an election based solely on lies and coercion to the degree we saw with Trump.

The two are not comparable.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5  Greg Jones    4 years ago

 "Dark days are coming."

For hard core lefties, most likely true

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years ago

Fox News Host is SHOCKED that Oprah Endorsed Fetterman Over Oz for Pennsylvania Senate | News Corpse

The candidates on both sides are now making their closing arguments. For the Republicans that means booking some more spots on Fox News. On Monday morning Mehmet Oz visited with Fox’s Senior Trump-Fluffer, Maria Bartiromo. The slushball interview began with Bartiromo expressing her astonishment that Oprah Winfrey has a mind of her and dares to use it…

Bartiromo:   Dr. Oz, I want to get your reaction to what happened with Oprah Winfrey. I was totally struck that she is wading into Pennsylvania. She lives in Chicago, right? So why is she endorsing John Fetterman in Pennsylvania when she doesn’t even live in Pennsylvania?
Oz:   I love Oprah, but we have different politics. In Pennsylvania we appreciate that people are allowed to think different things because it’s a purple state. My neighbors have Fetterman signs. But people talk to each other, they work things out. That’s why leaders from Pennsylvania often bring a bipartisan approach in Washington. They move past all the small stuff and they deal with the big crises we face.
Dr Oz on Oprah endorsing Fetterman: "I love Oprah, but we have different politics."   pic.twitter.com/xFeMg8DZQy — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar)   November 7, 2022

Seriously? Bartiromo seems to have just discovered that Americans are allowed to offer their opinions on important political matters from wherever they happen to live. Although, Bartiromo never complained that Florida resident, Donald Trump, endorsed and campaigned Oz. She herself is openly supporting Oz, even though she lives in   {GASP}   New York City. And she never said a word when Oz was endorsed by her Fox comrade Sean Hannity, or Ted Nugent, Kimberly Guilfoyle, J.D Vance, Rick Perry, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, or any other of the non-Pennsylvanians in his camp.

But Oprah? For Bartiromo that crossed a line. Probably because she knows that Oprah is beloved and influential, and knows Oz well enough to recognize that he would be a terrible senator.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 years ago
The slushball interview began with Bartiromo expressing her astonishment that Oprah Winfrey has a mind of her and dares to use it…

I was astonished that Oprah waited so long to use her mind and allowed for so much early voting before giving her endorsement.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1    4 years ago

Thats funny, I was wondering why Maria Bartiromo thinks that Oprah should not be allowed to speak out on politics in Pennsylvania. Kid Rock did. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Guide
6.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    4 years ago
I was wondering why Maria Bartiromo thinks that Oprah should not be allowed to speak out on politics in Pennsylvania

No idea.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Masters Silent
6.1.3  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    4 years ago

“I was wondering why Maria Bartiromo thinks that Oprah should not be allowed to speak out on politics in Pennsylvania.”

i don’t think that’s the case. I think bartiromo is amazed that anyone would publicly voice support for that piece of shit. There is clearly something wrong with his brain, but even if he wasn’t having cognitive problems, look at his past. That’s the biggie right there. He is 53. He lived with mommy n daddy till he was 48. Mommy n daddy gave him an allowance he lived on all those years. He bought his house from his sister for one dollar. The fucker has never had a real job. He has no idea what it’s like to make it on his own. Fetterboy, yes, he’s more of a boy than a man, is a fucking joke. He’s sponged off his family his entire life. Now he wants to sponge off the taxpayers. Yeah, oprah can say whatever she wants but she just tattooed a big fat “i’m a flipping dumbass” right on her forehead with her public support for that loser.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @6.1.3    4 years ago
“I was wondering why Maria Bartiromo thinks that Oprah should not be allowed to speak out on politics in Pennsylvania.”
-
i don’t think that’s the case.

Thats odd on your part since Bartiromo says  "So why is she endorsing John Fetterman in Pennsylvania when she doesn’t even live in Pennsylvania?"

 
 

Who is online






Snuffy


272 visitors