
Offline

Of course I have thoughts on this week's further unravelling of Trump's Russia Russia Russia issues, but little time, and, frankly, do I have anything to add which can't be seen by two eyes? Thankfully Jon Stewart is here of brevity.
Offline

We’ve had McNamara and Rumsfeld, but unfortunately we won’t get to see Errol Morris gaze down the brain-gullet of JD Vance, who never seems completely comfortable lying in the most casual, confident but also glaringly incoherent ways. His verbal molestations stand ready for the history books of portentious historical prevarication. Let’s take one quote from a recent CBS primetime interview:
JD Vance wrote:
Well,Tony, I would say that in some ways we have won decisively [the war on Iran], but the Iranians, the enemy gets a vote here. And they’ve responded in certain ways.
“Certain ways”, such as …. not losing decisively, exactly. Oh, who knew that “the enemy” in a given war has some kind of say in its outcome? The noive. It’s only NOT a total victory if you bother to ask the savages we attacked, who haven’t the manners to surrender when properly slapped. “Decisively” is not a word that I believe Jimmy Dave does not understand. There are no “some ways” in decisive outcomes.
The problem, of course, is that there is a reason why Vance is so comfortable being transparently untrustworthy on prime time broadcast TV. No one that Vance has any concern about whatsoever, either calling out his bullshit or calling out the more sincere malice he represents, is watching prime time broadcast TV anymore, and he suspects that among those who still do are a lot dumber than anyone who can figure out a VPN or else they simply don’t care anymore about any pretense of integrity.
For the rest of us, well Tony, there it is in simple language. JD Vance is a fraud, and a dangerous one if anyone were to start taking him seriously. (Not a minor point - much of our problems today stem from too many people refusing to take Trump seriously, until it was too late.) Those using Vance as a punchline for his dithering chances to run in ‘28 are missing the very current crimes which no one seems to be holding Vance, or anyone, accountable for.
Offline

There's been worse weeks recently.
As of this morning though, Trump appears to be dampening some of the excitement about watching Hegseth get kicked out on his ass like he's in some small town Colorado police department. Obviously, it is not ultimately Hegseth's fault for the Iran war - he was following orders - and since he's too stupid to realize how out of depths he is at running any government agency, much less the largest and most lethal department, then it reasons that the true fault must lie with those who put him in that position in the first place. (More on that in a sec.) Likewise, I see where it's being reported that Trump has been privately blaming Stephen Miller (now being openly described in the press as the "architect" of Trump's mass deportation policy) of having "gone too far". Again, whether any of this results in Miller stepping away from the White House, it does at least show the cowardly inclination of Trump to start blaming everyone else for his failures, and possibly further exposes the vulnerable Republican party (those stalwarts who have supported both ICE and Hegseth) for running interference. At least that's a large piece of my interpretation of Tuesday's vote, not simply a rejection of Trump but a rejection of the dissembling dishonesty in the party which chose to support Trump over conscience and principle. (Needless to say, I still have not exactly recovered my sympathies for those '24 Trump voters who are pretending that anything we've seen in the past two years wasn't completely predictable by what Trump said we was going to do in '24. Oh, did he start a war? After renaming it the Department of War? After all of the "Crusades" rhetoric of the Christian Nationalists, from whose support Hegseth was recruited?
The mainstream media failed to cover these Christian Nationalist movements or their integral position within MAGA because race/religion has become a third rail of criticism against conservatives. Unless you're James Talarico, then you're just kind of weird, right? Another issue which has been ignored at least in American domestic news coverage concerns the other recent elections, in Israel, and a major defeat against Netanyahu's coalition. This would (it seems!) be a pretty major factor on any settlements either in Gaza or Iran, right? I was under the impression that American attitudes about these conflicts weighed pretty heavily on Tuesday's election? Like a story we should keep in context on whether Israelis (like Americans!) still have the ability to shape the direction of their country away from these authoritarian tendencies? It certainly provides some interesting leverage in terms of conditioning military aid, if'n when that's something Trump intends to actually implement.
Trump seems strangely conciliatory this morning. Is he starting to get an inkling? Is this Don playing possum? Or, worse thought, could Trump simply be responding to what appears to be a pre-emptively conciliatory Democrat leadership? There appears to be some media effort to discourage talk of a "mandate" (despite being collectively the biggest Democrat gains in over 50 years, since 1974), and coddling towards "cooperation". I see. You billionaires should be scared. I see where even Reed Hoffman is now for overturning Citizens United. You're welcome. We'll get to see how effective this emergent Democrat party can be if we embrace the fact that Bernie is still the most popular Democrat in office, and his anti-oligarchy platform can easily be said to have influenced voters in this election far more than either Chuck or Hakeem. But Sanders is mostly missing from the after-parties.
Anyone worried about the incipient Sharia communism represented by this new crop of candidates should look to Mamdani, and the evaporation of controversy he's overseen. Even the DSA turned against him (after turning against AOC and Nithya Raman, before coming right back to both), just as the far left is likely to turn against El-Sayed eventually. He's probably not actually evil, folks.