Pure and Simple Disgust

 

RAMAPHOSA: I am sorry I don't have a plane to give you

TRUMP: I wish you did. I'd take it. If your country offered the US Air Force a plane, I would take it

RAMAPHOSA: Okay pic.twitter.com/TgvODTok9P

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 21, 2025

I took a bit of a vacation from political blogging because every time I look at Trump and company, all I can feel is pure and simple disgust. I can barely scrape it together to rhetorically fluff the corruption and assholery into something mildly amusing, anymore. In the clip above, the president of South Africa has been subjected to an ambush of white genocide claptrap by a senile racist lunatic, and levels Trump with a quip about his obvious corruption--and Trump, unknowingly sells it: of course he would take a plane from anyone. He's a taker, a crook. 

And everyone knows it. 

Of course, this is about the "free plane" from Qatar, which has now been accepted by the Department of Defense. There is no such thing as a free plane. It will need to be hardened for use as a base f operations for the US C-i-C, and it should be inspected minutely for any surveillance devices.  And the funny old thing is--Trump asked for it. 

Why Yes, It Does Look Like a Lot of Crimes

 

Now that we have the messages, please go compare what it's in it to the CENTCOM classification guide provisions below. This all very clearly classified at at least the SECRET level.

There was quite a bit of perjury yesterday. https://t.co/ohpct4dDRV pic.twitter.com/HAAB6RtIlV

— Secrets and Laws (@secretsandlaws) March 26, 2025

Jeffrey Goldberg followed up on yesterday's bombshell with more receipts, and well, yes, The chat itself is sketchy, Mike Waltz added Goldberg to the chat himself, the information Pete Hegseth shared with the group is what you might call "born classified" secret or top secret-level intelligence because it includes what weapons and what times, and yes, they were probably avoiding presidential record-keeping by having the chat set to disappear after a week and yes, cabinet member lied under oath about what happened, and while we are at it, a whole apartment building seems to have been leveled to get to one guy, which feel very war-crime-y. 

White House officials want to play semantic games but this is just what we're looking at--what they actually said, what statues and policy actually say. And who the journalist was or his political affiliation does not change those bare facts. 

Pobody's Nerfect!

 

Salazar: Remember, they're just starting in the job… Let's see how they do the next two years. And then we can judge them. But not because of one mistake that they put a reporter. Maybe they made a mistake and they put that. I mean, listen, those who do not have any sins, they… pic.twitter.com/aZrldiTswL

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 25, 2025

I think there's nothing more off-putting for me than the idea that you can actually brush off a national security breach with "But they're new!"   Like, this is an argument for if the waitress gives you a burger with pickles and you definitely said, "Hold the pickles," but it is not an argument for cabinet-level officials who have an insecure chat on their personal phones (because those work phones shouldn't even have Signal on them) and have others on the line who have no business accessing that information.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard literally evaded questions today in a way that implied she was not familiar with classification as a process or policy regarding secure comms. You'd think, wouldn't you, that sort of thing would be part of the basic job requirements, wouldn't you? Cabinet positions aren't entry-level--some competency is required. 

Playing a Weak Hand of Trump Cards

 

Trump has been saying that Ukraine "doesn't have any cards" but I've noticed that Trump kept publicly sweetening the deal (no NATO for Ukraine? cede territory?) just to get Putin to this point--a phone call, as if suspecting Putin is the actual harder person to bring to the table and hoping he could do it with an "all carrot, no stick" approach. 

People sometimes ask what Lincoln or Reagan would have made of the peculiar character who leads their party. Today I'm thinking of Theodore Roosevelt, who said, "Talk softly and carry a large stick." Trump might talk loudly, but who knows what "big stick" he would ever use on the one man he never criticizes? 

 He got his phone call, though--after being made to wait and being cut up by Putin amongst his real homies. His 30-day ceasefire was pretty much rejected, as Putin heaped thoroughly unacceptable conditions into the mix. Trump seems unfazed that he has been disrespected, again. 

Trump, the irascible, the petty, the critic of or his critics--he doesn't feel any need at all to respond to Putin? What gives? 

Trump's Ukraine/Russia Delusions Do Not Go Unnoticed

 

Ukraine: *exists*

Ukrainians: literally just sleeping in their beds at 4 AM.

Russia: invades, bombs,kills, destroys, rapes, lots, kidnaps

Trump: "You don't want to pick on somebody that's a lot larger than you."pic.twitter.com/R9uDjR487G

— Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) March 14, 2025

Trump's kiss-up, punch down bully philosophy really shows in this nugget from Friday--but it's pure Kremlin propaganda. A few years ago, we were hearing from Tucker Carlson that Russia just wanted some space because they were feeling threatened by their neighbor, whom they already been at war with. In what way is Ukraine "picking on" Russia? By defending itself? By having done so successfully? 

But this is just a little bit of this week's weird double-speak--here's part of Trump's social media stupidity:

It's not actually true. At a point when, if there were about to be honest negotiations, it would be extremely important for this Administration to be clear on the intelligence regarding Ukraine's actual military situation--Trump has, essentially, got the matter fucked up. 

For obvious reasons (I think Russia has owned Trump for years and he made Tulsi flipping Gabbard his DNI) I think this is a horrible sign.

The Lie Trump is Servicing

 

While people are wondering whether Ukrainian President Zelenskyy needs to do some backtracking to make proper amends and all that and get back to the table with the US, Russian foreign minister Lavrov is out here calling this man a traitor to the Jewish people and basically a "Nazi". This has been a big part of Russian propaganda. It is, for so many reasons, especially disgusting to project this made-up bullshit to this man, who comes from a heroic family that fought against the Nazis, for the very obvious reasons. 

If the reasons aren't obvious to you--get off the internet, read books, touch grass. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why would you believe stupid made-up shit just because it matches the thing you want to believe? Shouldn't what is actually true matter? 

Trump has proposed that Zelenskyy is somehow the reason, being elected to the presidency of Ukraine in 2019, for the invasion that started in 2014 and which his own good buddy Manafort knows a whole lot about. (I get why Trump faithful try to step around all that. It's messy for them, no?) 

What is Intelligence, Anyway?

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard was confirmed for Director of National Intelligence and sworn in and we're just going to see about that, aren't we? 

Does it sound like I have issues with this? Well, yeah. I was a little surprised that Sen. McConnell was the only Republican who voted against her, but it seems that the Senate GOP have decided that they aren't picking these fights with Trump and are just going to let him have what he wants. I do not think they are being honest with themselves about what he wants or what the results will be of giving it to him. 

The position of DNI was created in response to intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. The point of the office was to coordinate our various intelligence agencies and correlate the information into more cohesive overviews. But intelligence is only as useful as the people looking at the products. 

And I simply don't have faith in Tulsi Gabbard's judgment. 

The Kennedy Hearing was Ugly

 

When your own family thinks you are a weird conspiracy freak who is uniquely unqualified and literally call you a grifting predator, well, that's probably bad news, right? 

But when quizzing by US Senators demonstrates you don't know Medicare from Medicaid and have not just trimmed your public pronouncements to suit your audience but are a legal grifter profiting off of your own BS (as Sen. Warren demonstrated), well, that hurts to be aired publicly, in so many words, doesn't it? 

Or maybe it doesn't.

This guy gave himself a brainworm from consuming roadkill, admits to dumping a bear corpse in a public park, seems sketchy about how germ theory works, has no medical or scientific background whatsoever, has opinions about the AIDS virus and vaccines that would have been shameful and out of date 25 years ago, let alone today, and yet?

He's got influence in his corner. Why they want him, I don't know. You might think people would want someone who isn't a whole fucking flake in an important position like Secretary of Health and Human Services--

Unless you just aren't that interested in health and will be goddamned if you see it as a basic human service. 

We're Gonna Nuke a Hurricane This Time, Aren't We?

 

So, last night I posted, then pulled, a blogpost about Rep. Andy Ogles' proposed Amendment to have Trump serve a second term.

That man's brains are going to be banana pudding with no vanilla wafers by then, but ok. https://t.co/XzTnGe2lts

— Vixen Strangely (@VixenStrangely) January 24, 2025

I was expanding a little on the idea that Trump is very old, actually, and manifestly not as competent as he was even during his incompetent first term. So, what the hell would be left to re-elect?  When I got up the next morning, I realized how ill-conceived that idea might be. Trumpism is juche. It is revolutionary and divorced from typical Republicanism and seeks independence from reliance on other nations by just like, taking whatever it is they have we rely on. You know, capitalist juche. No allies, just a little bit of taking hints from Russia and China. And constant propaganda. 

It wouldn't matter if Trump's mentis was compost.  The GOP has gotten used to ignoring that Trump is, in fact an idiot. Only a really bad fuck up might save us. 

The problem is--how bad? And tonight, the GOP confirmed Pete Hegseth, a white knuckle black out drunk and possible rapist and spousal abuser, with nowhere near the experience he ought to have, for Secretary of Defense. 

Because what could go wrong? What have we got to lose? 

Lab-Created Bullshit

Some western observers don't quite understand why General Igor Kirillov was a legitimate military target (see: what is a "general"?)  or understand that lying war criminals are actually bad. Kirillov was behind the dumb propaganda that there were US/Ukrainian biolabs about to threaten the RU/UKR border. I always thought this was a little bit of a backhand at the US for claiming mobile biolabs in Iraq before 2003. But it is totally not the case and never was. And the fuckers who play games with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant have no business talking up Ukrainian "dirty" nuclear bomb threats anyway.

Which brings me to Elon Musk, incoming US president in fact if not in name, who is goofing with a government shutdown even before his old-age addled proxy is sworn in, threatening the GOP Speaker (presumptive) of the next Congress and also lying his dumb goofy pale face off. He says this on his dumb loss-leader propaganda site:

TrumpWorld Kakistocracy 2: Trolling?

 

In a timeline where Fox News personality Pete Hegseth could be SecDef, sure, why not float former Democratic Rep. Tulsi "Russia's Girlfriend" Gabbard for DNI and now-former GOP Rep. Matt "Hookers'n'blow" Gaetz to be Attorney General.

Senator John Fetterman suggests that the choice of Gaetz as "god-tier kind of trolling" on Trump's part, and while this is not wrong, I regretfully have to confess that I think just because it's trolling doesn't mean that he can't get in. I mean, my first thought was "stalking horse". That's the art of the deal, right? You throw out a name like Matt Gaetz, and then when he's cast aside, literally every other choice seems more sane. 

But that's assuming Trump is playing by regular rules, and I don't. I think the idea that he's considering wild stuff like adjourning congress and recess-appointing people is not really out of the question if he really does see Trump 2.0 as his revenge tour. 

The Russia Campaign Reminds Me--

 

This is what Tenet Media was broadcasting for Putin in the U.S. They support Elon Musk, Trump, RFK Jr, and violent protests. 1/ pic.twitter.com/s3C2BPCZl6

— Karen Piper (@PiperK) September 8, 2024

If you take a look at the topics above, you'll note among other things--misogyny.  This was a key part of the 2014 "Gamergate" dry run and a big part of the attacks on Hillary Clinton. It's why my ears perked up at the allegation that gamers were part of the Russian disinfo targeting for the 2024 election. (And minorities--that voter suppression technique that was used pretty well in 2016, both by Brad Parscale for Trump as he admitted and by the Internet Research Agency on "parallel tracks".) 

Flashforward to 2024, and we have Tucker Carlson, whose Putin interview and Moscow supermarket adulation were both deemed surprisingly cringey even to producers of Kremlim-inspired sludge, calling women in the US military: feces. 

Tucker Carlson is revolted by our war wounded.

He compares them to literal shit.

He will almost certainly have a position in the second Trump Administration.pic.twitter.com/5QSoyVvHjH

— Veterans For Responsible Leadership (@VetsForRL) September 8, 2024

Seems Weird to Me

 

There's something that strikes me as a little ghastly about Trump using Gold Star families and the graves of heroic dead as a prop for a photo-op with his trademark "thumbs-up" pose. It's out of place in a "Happy Memorial Day" sort of way. He was there ostensibly for the wreath-laying ceremony, but actually to rip the Biden Administration for the Afghanistan withdrawal as part of his campaign.

His criticisms are not surprising, but they do serve to remind us who he is.

In other unsurprising news, Trump was endorsed by former Democratic Rep. and Tucker Carlson fill-in host Tulsi Gabbard. For what her opinion is worth. 

Her opinion. for example, is about the same and certainly no better than RFK Jr.'s on Trump and, well, NATO, and she cites Pro-Putin propaganda. 

They’re country over party. Just don’t ask which country. pic.twitter.com/8SBnAu1NK8

— Frank Lesser (@sadmonsters) August 26, 2024

Although unlike RFK Jr. she has, to my knowledge, never severed a whale's head with a chainsaw and driven around with it strapped to her car. Which is a real thing, apparently. 

Just potential Trump 2.0 cabinet members, is all. But it just seems weird to me. I used to think I knew the GOP. 

But they are something of a happy family, no? Just a little weird, right?

A Republic--If You Can Keep It

 

This is what the New York Times chose to publish on Independence Day just one week after the Supreme Court ruled that Republican presidents are above the law. pic.twitter.com/URoJg6ohru

— @StephenWolf.bsky.social (@PoliticsWolf) July 4, 2024

The New York Times, which has been going out of their way to promote "Biden is too old and must drop out" editorials this week, decided the way to follow up on that terrible trend was to platform some mook who wants to pretend voting is a bit of hogwash. Well...not just some mook. Matthew Walther is a Catholic conservative (although it's hard to say if he just sort of is a hater in general--he calls the Constitution a "231-year old piece of toilet paper" in this screed against the Tea Party libertarians) --just like Leonard Leo and Steve Bannon and the derpsticks who ruled Trump is kind of/sort of a monarch.

Encouraging people not to vote (especially if one does, in fact, vote--possibly for Tulsi Gabbard which feels like fuckery) is a kind of voter suppression. Which is weirdly in line with Russian active measures to undermine confidence in voting. 

Democracy depends upon an engaged, informed population. The press can be a valuable part of that process of informing and engaging citizens--or it can do whatever this is. The chattering classes who write about politics are, when not encouraging apathy, so stuck on horserace politics that in the discussion of possibly replacing President Biden on the ticket have invented a fantasy horserace to write about. 

Is there nothing else to write about? Maybe how often Trump was mentioned in Epstein court documents? His new Saudi project? What Ivanka and Jared are up to in Albania and with whom? Anything to do about Project 2025--but especially how it would permit foreign nasties to interfere in our elections? (I remember when Trump wanted to cooperate with Russia on "the cyber"--do you?)

Does the RNC Situation Look Bad?

 

Here's a fun thing we learned today--the RNC seems to have an agreement with the TrumpWorld Powers That Be to the effect that Trump legal fees get paid first, and then I guess the RNC biscuits just get whatever gravy slops over the plate. That's just beautiful. To put it in perspective, Save America PAC, the slush fund out of which Trump's legal fees are getting paid, has a burn rate that is way crazy--$230K a day on legal fees. And in the meanwhile, Trump's struggle-campaign can't afford campaign stops in probably not-crucial states like (checks notes) Arizona. (Was that a big deal in 2020? Let me think back....)

To put this all further in perspective, Nikki Haley, though out of the race, has more cash on hand as of the end of February than the RNC did. She didn't have the same issues with raising money or overspending because her campaign as a challenge to Trump in part rested on being a choice, without annihilating him via negative campaigning. 

You'd think this might make Haley a great option for VP, yes? After Trump decided she's a birdbrain and she decided he's probably senile, I kind of doubt it. She didn't endorse and I don't think it's likely he'll ask--but what if--?

Which One, Sweetie?

 

Tulsi Gabbard was everywhere today, and it turns out, she isn't just on the short list for Trump's running mate, she's got a book! With Regnery! What is fun to me is, her Tweet about the book has the above title, and the Amazon picture has a different title:

The difference between "Why I Left the Democratic Party" and "Leave the Democrat Party Behind" is actually pretty unsubtle. The first suggests a personal decision and calls the party the preferred name: Democratic Party. The second version uses "Leave the Democrat Party". This is phrased like a command and a slight--Hey, you! Leave those Democrats. 

I do believe, and have believed, that Gabbard is a mess. But her "For Love of Country" so stimulates me: Which one? Syria? Russia? She says she left the Democratic party behind--and I am assuming it was because someone made a better offer. A better person than her once quipped that he didn't leave the Democratic Party behind, it left him. But has the Democratic Party changed at all--with respects to civil rights, to diversity and equality and LGBT rights--since she tried to run for the presidential nomination in 2020? 

Tulsi Gabbard was On Fox and Said a Thing

 

Tulsi on Diversity in The Biden Administration: They’re proud to be selecting people based on race.. It’s based on genetics.. Where do we see that connection? These are the very same core principles embodied by Nazism and Hitler. pic.twitter.com/bI2HoumYaw

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 25, 2023

I get that the Fox Mushroom Farm infotainment network has no respect whatsoever for the clickers that they mutant cordycep-pilled over the years, but having mule-faced Jesse nod while obvious op Tulsi lays the line on his viewers that the eliminationism of Hitler and the inclusivity of the Biden Administration are the exact same thing should insult the fuck out of even someone whose brain is 75% taken over by fungal rot.

But even if the fan club don't feel like what's left of their basic intelligence has been insulted, those of us who can still appreciate what's in front of us know that's straight-up Orwellian doublethink. Inclusivity and elimination are opposite things. Gathering in people so they can contribute and prosper and cutting people out in the hopes they are destroyed are obviously not the same thing. To say that--to say what she said, isn't a mistake. It's seeding the ground for resentment. What she's doing is telling straight white cis males that the inclusion of other people is their exclusion. That if people who deviate from their default humanity are featured, it's the exact same thing as one of them being annihilated. 

Competition for roles in a society is not annihilation but regular order: may the best person win. If the assumption is some people are by identity simply better suited--what are the deets on their CV? What is the real-life contribution they are making? Saying something that stupid out loud and so obviously biased would have been seen for exactly what it is if Watters said it by himself. Why Tulsi Gabbard is so willing to say it is justified by her getting to be on Fox. 

This is why exactly nothing she ever says has any value to me. Nor should it to anyone else. 

When Anti-War is Pro-Aggressor

 

The “Rage Against The War Machine” rally if it had occurred in 1941: pic.twitter.com/HIBMMvxurX

— emilio “#StandWithUkraine” vigil 🇺🇦 (@emiliovigil5) February 19, 2023

I genuinely don't think war is great, I don't. It's a brutal, stupid waste of resources and life. It is never the best solution to human difficulties, and only serves to create more problems and misery than whatever unfortunate situation supposedly brought it about. That said, every person at the "Rage Against the War Machine" rally except for journalists and counter-protesters are goddamn dumbfucks, grifters, clueless babies and Russian operatives, and they can go get fucked. And I mean that with all the love and sincerity I can muster.

If anyone purports to be from the so-called left and rallies with a backdrop of Russian flags and shares a venue with pretend-reformed neo-Nazis, wow. Sucks to be you. It's sad that back when a lot of us who were whole adults 20 years ago and were against the US invasion of Iraq we were also looking up to Dennis Kucinich and Scott Ritter, but we know a whole lot more now that we did then. Ditto Madea Benjamin. (I've got no dirt on her background, she's just a clueless peacenik who thinks Putin is a reasonable person who can be negotiated with and that people who tell her differently are warmongers for thinking sovereign nations should be able to defend themselves. In short, she should also get fucked for not using the brain she was gifted with.)

Anyway, it's hard to say folks are anti-war when they seem to have picked a side:

And by picked a side, I mean support absolutely everything Vladimir Putin could possibly want:

A Person of Her Word

Important announcement.
From Oahu, Hawaiʻi. #StandWithTulsi pic.twitter.com/XcHshtgVYA

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 19, 2020

I have talked my share of smack about Rep. Gabbard with respects to her penchant for going on Fox News to run down fellow Democrats (I have kept my opinions of her "present" vote regarding the Trump impeachment to myself), but I have to give her credit for doing as she said she would--throwing her support to the probable nominee at the end of her race. I see the endorsement as also being a measure of saying she isn't planning a third party run, and I think she can certainly try to run for congress again. She's leaving on an honorable note, and I respect that. I'll go so far as to say I'm pleasantly surprised.

Her endorsement may piss off people who saw her as aligned with Sen. Sanders, but being aligned on some policies or political views doesn't always mean automatic support. Her support can't do Sanders any major favors and it isn't owed (as I've said about Senator Warren as well). It's entirely her choice to make as an independent person. She using her endorsement to say something about the status of the primary.

Are We Sure About This?

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard comments on defamation lawsuit she filed against Hillary Clinton: “I will not stand quietly by as Hillary Clinton or anyone else tries to smear my character.” https://t.co/oHeO6D8pKa pic.twitter.com/2b008y04bp

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 23, 2020

I don't want to give Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's defamation suit against Hillary Clinton more space than it deserves (although I think I just have) but if what Clinton said against Gabbard was way out of bounds, then oh lordy, let me tell you about all the other politicians out there since....history? I'm just saying, it feels overwrought to be intended as a real legal case, and would have a really messed-up effect on political speech if it somehow was treated as one. Also--"damages estimated to exceed $50 million" seems hard to establish. It doesn't seem to reflect future fundraising based on prior campaign figures, does it? Does it reflect potential earnings in other endeavors outside of political office? (I don't know that having a beef with Hillary Clinton has necessarily lost anyone money. It would be as bassackwards as bankrupting a series of casinos. Indeed, many people seem to have profited from hating the Clintons.)

Now, I may be wrong about this, but I noticed grumblings on Twitter about who is even paying for such a lawsuit (after the fashion of: "Who is paying for Rep. Devin Nunes to sue an internet cow and others?"). I think FEC allows for legal costs to be paid for with campaign funds if they relate to the campaign itself so maybe she's going to fundraise on sticking it to the establishment via Hillary Clinton?

Do you support Tulsi Gabbard's decision to sue Hillary Clinton for defamation over her 'Russian asset' comments? Please retweet and share.

— StandwithTulsi (@StandwithTulsi) January 22, 2020

I guess we'll see if any fundraising emails mentioning the lawsuit are put out.

Anyhow, just as an aside--while I like tea just as much as the next person, Hillary Unbound, even if she is a private figure now, so to speak, is never going to be, strictly speaking, a private figure. I think she skirts the line on this one, because she's saying something I don't think other people didn't previously think or even say out loud. But there is still a timing issue here--we're in the middle of a serious election! And even if talking at liberty is her way of demonstrating she is 100% not running for office, nope, not even one little bit, the things she says have weight. Tons.

So, I guess what I'm saying is--are we sure about all this? Because we need a smart election, and I'm just seeing the stupid flying around. It is like a haboob. It gets everywhere.