Skip to content

The lesser of two evils

Monday, February 3, 2025

One of the bloggers over at the Palmer Report has pleaded for an invocation of the 25th Amendment to get rid of Trump. Now, I agree that in a sane world it would be the right thing to do, but this is not a sane world, or at least a sane country.

First of all, there isn’t a person in a position to invoke the amendment who would invoke the amendment, and there’s not a single Republican, other than perhaps Murkowski and a concerned Susan Collins (don’t bet on the latter) that would go along with the invocation at this point.

I have speculated in previous posts that sooner or later Vance might in fact invoke the amendment at a time when Trump’s mental illness becomes even more advanced. But I certainly wouldn’t support it if he tried now, or later for that matter.

What the writer at the Palmer Report ignores is the fact that if the amendment were successfully invoked, we’d end up with JD Vance as president. There is no way that would be an improvement over Trump. He is, as are all those around the genius, a fascist. But he’s a far smarter fascist than Trump, which would make it all the more impossible for us to defeat them while there is still a chance that there might be fair elections. Trump is now in the process of blowing up the economy with his tariffs. While that will certainly inconvenience all of us, it will also help bring about a swing in the electorate, such that the Democrats, should they learn how to communicate with that electorate, can once again have majorities in both Houses. Were Vance in office he would no doubt reverse the harmful economic policies, while, of course, claiming they were the right thing to do at the time, and he would quite likely take a more active role in making sure that the results of future elections are fixed in advance.

The only advantage Vance offers is the fact that he doesn’t have Trump’s ability to scam so effectively. If he were to inherit the office in 2027 he’d likely be unable to reverse Trumps damage and he’d have no ability to attract voters like Trump could, although I have to admit I am still at a loss to understand how anyone other than self interested billionaires can be stupid enough to vote for Trump, but I do think a fair number of those people wouldn’t be stupid enough to vote for Vance, assuming he was unable to fix the results beforehand.

So it’s hard to believe that Trump could ever be the lesser of two evils, but I think between him and Vance, his penchant for screwing things up so badly gives him the right to that honorific.

UPDATE: I actually wrote this post yesterday, but delayed putting it up. It is now clear that Trump has chickened out on the tariffs, while declaring victory. The press will cover it that way, even though all Mexico agreed to do was to continue to do what it was already doing. In any event, I still maintain that we should prefer the mentally failing fascist to the intelligent one.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

A theory

Friday, January 31, 2025

The recent controversy about the Trump administration’s impoundment of federal funds, the quick judicial injunction against it, and the quick backtrack by the Trumpers is evidence for a theory of mine. Or maybe call it speculation.

First, a couple of axioms before I attempt my proof.

  • Trump does not care about policy. He only cares about himself.
  • He is motivated by a desire to strike at those who have failed to massage his ego by playing up to him.
  • He has surrounded himself with people who have a right wing agenda and are perfectly comfortable with kissing his ass if it helps them advance those agendas.
  • Trump is an essentially lazy person and is perfectly willing to let those ass kissers implement their agendas so long as he gets no blowback.
  • Trump is not a very intelligent person, except that he has an advanced ability to scam other people who also aren’t very intelligent. That has been his one talent his entire life.

So here’s my theory. As noted above the people who are now surrounding him are far right wing ideologues. You know, Nazis. During his first term he surrounded himself with more or less establishment figures, probably taking suggestions from other Republicans. About 99% of those people have now turned against him in one form or another. But, while they were doing Republican dirty work on his watch they knew to avoid doing things that would provoke a reaction such as occurred with the impoundment order. Better to do things, as we lawyers would say, sub silentio. That’s the Republican playbook because, as the Wicked Witch said “these things must be done delicately”, inch by inch, step by step. The people around Trump now don’t see it that way.

So the theory is that one of his lackeys had the idea to defund these programs. He or she may have run it by Trump, but in a way that would assure he’d have no idea of the reaction it would cause. After all, as I said, he’s not really very smart except for that one talent, so it’s unlikely he would have seen through whatever bullshit they ran by him, assuming they ran anything by him.

I think we can look forward to more of this kind of stuff. It is to be hoped that the Democrats will learn how to call it for what it is, and mount an endless and coordinated attack on the perpetrators and on Trump. I realize that’s unlikely, but you never know, they may learn.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

The madness continues

Sunday, January 26, 2025

It’s getting harder and harder to think up anything to write about that isn’t already obvious to anyone who might stumble across this blog. The madness continues, but has been entirely predictable. It hardly seems necessary to document the atrocities, since they are so obvious.

I do think I have to say a word about the recent vote on the confirmation of Pete Hegseth to be the Secretary of Defense. I should note that I was right that Lisa Murkowski was the likeliest person to vote against any of the nominees, but I was wrong about Susan Collins, who apparently couldn’t overcome her concern, and Mitch McConnell, who actually cast a vote against Hegseth. I wonder if either McConnell or Collins would have cast those votes if they would in fact have sunk the nominee.

In McConnell’s case, one must wonder if he ever loses any sleep at night over the fact that there are few people on this earth who are more responsible for the present state of our nation than he. We’ll never know if he could have convinced enough of his fellow Senators to vote to convict the insurrectionist, but we do know that he didn’t try, using the laughable excuse that the criminal process could take care of Trump, a possibility that the Supreme Court for which he is responsible flushed down the toilet with what is perhaps the most absurd opinion in its history.

In Collins case, it’s my understanding that she intends to run for re-election, continuing the process by which the Senate is increasingly looking like an old age home. She may figure that she has to prove to the people of Maine that she truly is an independent thinker. It is to be hoped that they will finally see through her and send her to a proper retirement home.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Biden reflect on his mistakes

Saturday, January 18, 2025

Joe Biden now realizes he made some mistakes during his time in office:

President Joe Biden — in an interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that aired Thursday and which was Biden’s last TV sit-down as POTUS ? reflected on his failure to hype up his and Democratic accomplishments when in office.

“The mistake we made was, I think I made, was not getting our allies to acknowledge that ‘the Democrats did this,‘” Biden said. “So, for example, build a new billion-dollar bridge over a river. Well, call it the ‘Democratic bridge,’ figuratively speaking. Talk about who put it together. Let people know that this is something the Democrats did. That it was done by the party.”

“I’m not a very good huckster,” Biden acknowledged.

Maybe Biden or his aides should have read any of the left wing blogs, where this point has been made again and again. I doubt that I could count the number of pieces I’ve posted (Yes, I know this blog is too obscure to expect them to read) complaining about the inability of Democrats to message. Biden got a lot accomplished during his presidency, but thanks to the Democrats’ failure to pound away at the press for failing to report it, very few people in this country were aware of it.

Sadly, it appears they still have not learned their lesson. What, for instance, has been their response to the Republicans’ claims that the California fires were caused by Democratic policies. The idea is absurd on its face, but heaven forbid that the Democrats should engage in any coordinated pushback. And how would the Republicans be reacting if Zuckerberg had abolished his fact checking policy in order to kiss the ass of a Democrat? Along these lines, bear in mind that the Democrats deprived AOC of a committee assignment that would have enabled her to more effectively message on their behalf, in deference to a geezer from whom we will hear nothing for the next four years.

UPDATE: Look for the Republicans to blame the Democrats for the demise of TikTok, even though Trump encouraged it and it was passed in a Congress controlled by Republicans. Look for the Democrats to have no response. (It was a stupid thing to do, but both parties are responsible.)

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

What about Connecticut!

Saturday, January 11, 2025

A Canadian MP has graciously offered to take several states off of Donald Trump’s hands, pointing out that it would relieve the Orange Felon of states that vote rationally. Well, she said states that vote Democratic, but it’s pretty much the same thing.

She offered to take California, Oregon, and Washington, and then upped the offer to include Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. It would be a good deal for those states, as she points out:

Because this is what you deal with. We’ve got a deal for you. This is what you get. Free health care. Universal free health care. No more one-year-olds who suddenly fall off the Medicaid list and their parents are in the news. news, because they’re trying to do a GoFundMe so they can get their daughter to a doctor. Universal, free healthcare.

Guess what? Those gun laws that your Congress is too afraid to pass because of the national gun lobby? We already got our strict gun laws. That’s why we have the safest streets around the world, or at least in the United States. By the way, the most recent stats, 5.9 out of every 100,000 people is killed in a fatal gun incident, versus 0.88 per 100,000 in Canada. That’s because we have strict gun laws. California, citizens, Oregon, Washington, safer streets, here we already have good gun laws.

And women have a right to an abortion under our universal healthcare system. But you know, we don’t have to stop there. Donald, think about it. You could get rid of all these states that always vote Democrat.

Okay, all well and good. But there’s a major problem with her offer.

WHAT ABOUT CONNECTICUT?

For that matter, what about the other states in Southern New England? Take us too!

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

A model for the future

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

For reasons I won’t go into, I recently had to deal with a number of books that have been in a bookshelf in our spare bedroom for years. Among them was a three volume history of Connecticut. I decided to read it, or re-read it, as I honestly can’t remember whether I read it when I got it. I’m in the first volume now, which covers the 17th century founding of the colony.

It turns out that at least for a period of time early Connecticut was even worse than early Massachusetts in applying the Puritan way of thinking to its society. It got me thinking that it could serve as a model for the type of state the “Christian Nationalists” would like to create today. Like the present day folks who call themselves Christians, the Puritans didn’t have much use for Christ’s actual teaching, you know, like “love your neighbor like yourself” and things of that sort.

A few of the highlights:

…With this justification for power, the saints aspired to tighter control than that exercised in any European state, and attempted to maintain their stringent standards long after Massachusetts had found some amelioration necessary. The governing group had the responsibility of restraining human depravity through regulation.”

Regulations detailed the terms of the covenant in all phases, including the enforcement of the moral dictates of the Church, and served to guide conduct. Enforcement to implement civil regulation and bind conduct was based on a close supervision of the population, in which church officials shared responsibility with civil magistrates. The tithingmen, for example, who, it has been said, kept all but
themselves attentive to the sermon on Sunday, were men of authority throughout the entire week. Each was supposed to watch several families, usually ten, during the week. Supervision ranged from an enforcement of learning the catechism to keeping “all persons from swimming in the water.” They could inspect the ordinaries, direct the keeper to sell no more liquor to anyone fancied to be drinking too heavily, and report the names of “idle tiplers and gamers.” They had a “spetial eye out” for all bachelors, who were also carefully watched by constables, deacons, elders, and heads of families. The tithingmen
helped collect ministerial rates, warned people out of town, watched to see that no young people walked abroad on the eve of the Sabbath. They reported all those “who lye at home,” as well as the “sons of Belial strutting about, setting on fences.”

The supervision of these small affairs was enforced by citation before court, admonition, fines, whipping, branding, confinement in stocks, or imprisonment. Oftentimes the imposition of a penalty was left to the discretion of the court, at other times the punishment was explicit. In addition there were fourteen capital crimes: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, “direct” murder, murder by such “guile” as poisoning, murder by false testimony, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, rape of a bethrothed or married woman, kidnaping, conspiracy and rebellion, unjustified cursing and striking of parents, and disobedient persistence in sin by children over sixteen.

The (self-proclaimed) saints, referred to in the opening sentence, were the hypocrites who controlled the church and government. You know, your Mike Johnsons.

Now, I’m not saying the Trumpers want to do all these things, but it serves as a model. I’m sure they won’t be interested in going after bachelors, especially the Charlie Kirks of the world, but controlling women is certainly a top priority.

Now, some might say that regulating a lot of this stuff would violate the constitution, but I’m sure the Supreme Court would disagree, since this only goes to show that this is the way the founders thought things should be, even though the guys who actually wrote the constitution (no girls allowed in Independence Hall) were mostly deists who actually believed in individual liberty but we can ignore all that if it suits our purposes.

It goes without saying that, probably like in those days of yore, the only folks that will get put in the stocks are those the rulers don’t like. If you’re a Trumper they’ll look the other way.

All of this brought to you by a “saint” who had committed most of the capital crimes outlined above and has never set foot in a church in his life, but that’s a minor matter as the Supreme Court would likely explain.

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

Trump’s picks: Only the Best!

Sunday, January 5, 2025

Back when she called herself a Democrat, and was running for President, a couple of folks I know actually supported Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy. One was a person close to me genetically but rather far off politically, but the other was a person whose politics had been perfectly reasonable. I could never understand either one’s rationale, because even then she seemed to be a bit of a nutjob.

Now she is about to be the person in charge of national intelligence, and make no mistake, she will be approved, though Susan Collins (and maybe others!) will be concerned.

I thought I’d pass this along to anyone who happens to read this, as it surprised even me. It seems that Tulsi is a member of a cult whose Charles Manson like leader, among other things, requires his followers to eat his toenails, and no I’m not making that up

Defectors tell stories of children discouraged by Butler from attending secular schools; of followers forbidden to speak publicly about the group; of returning travellers quarantined for days, lest they transmit a contagious disease to Butler; of devotees lying prostrate whenever he entered the room, or adding bits of his nail clippings to their food, or eating spoonfuls of sand that he had walked upon.

More at the link.

Now, she can’t be blamed for her original involvement in the cult, as apparently her parents joined and she was indoctrinated young. But she’s still a member.

Yet further proof that as little as 10 years ago you couldn’t have made this stuff up and convinced anyone that it was a real possibility.

Filed in Dysfunction, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Predictions for the coming year

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

I’ve done this before. Sometimes my predictions have come true, and sometimes I’ve been spectacularly wrong, such as when I predicted in 2020 that Republicans would consign Trump to the same memory hole into which they dumped George W. Here’s hoping I’m spectacularly wrong again.

First, some predictions about very recent events. Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the legislated demise of TikTok:

Although Congress passed legislation giving President Joe Biden the authority to ban TikTok on Jan. 19 before leaving office, Trump has told the high court to delay the law until he takes office a day later. The law requires the president to ban TikTok if its parent company does not break ties with the Chinese Government. Trump has suggested he would find a way around the law after crediting the TikTok platform with helping him win the 2024 election.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument prior to the inauguration. The “expert”, quoted at the linked article, a woman who formerly worked for Trump, says the court will rule against Trump. My guess is that she said the same thing before the immunity ruling. So, let’s be clear. There is no way that the court should rule for Trump. Congress passed a law and the law says what it says. Trump is not even president yet. He has no standing to bring the claim, and in any event, even if he did, he has no colorable legal argument to make. Nonetheless, I predict the court will rule in his favor, opening up an opportunity for him to take big bribes from TikTok for refusing to follow the dictates of the law. I express no opinion about whether Congress was colossally stupid when it passed the law in the first place.

Speaking of the court, should any of them retire, look to see Aileen Cannon getting a promotion.

Also speaking of the court, yesterday the Fedearl Appeals Court upheld the lower verdict in the Jeanne Carroll case. Again, this is a case that hardly merited an appeal, in which the arguments made by his attorneys were laughable on their face. Can’t find the link to another article I read, but they argued, among other things, that evidence from other victims of his sexual assaults, should not have been permitted, especially one who testified that the assault took place on a plane, the argument being that only land based assaults should be admissible. Again, the decision of the Appeals Court is entirely consistent with settled law. Look for the Supreme Court to overturn it by coming up with some bizarre rationale which, like all the other pro-Trump rulings, will carry the unwritten caveat that it only applies to Republican presidents, and possibly only to Donald Trump.

On to other subjects. If there is a single person Trump has nominated to any position that is actually qualified for the post, I haven’t heard about it. For the most part he has chosen people who are opposed to the statutory mission of the department they have been nominated to head, or, in the case of Tulsi Gabbard, are tools of the forces from whom her department is supposed to protect us. Many Republican senators have expressed reservations about many of these appointments. Each and every one of them will be voted into office. If any Republican opposes any of them it’s likely to be Lisa Murkowski. Susan Collins will be concerned, but will do as she has been told. Even McConnell will vote for RFK, Jr., even though he knows Kennedy will try to undermine the polio vaccine, something McConnell, who had polio himself, has said should not be done. RFK, Jr., will lie about his intentions. Everyone will know he is lying, but they will all pretend to believe him. In that he will be no different than all the other nominees. Each will lie about his or her intentions and every Republican voting for them will know they are lying.

When they lie, the mainstream media will sanewash it, like they sanewash everything Republican. There may be some reporting to the effect that the candidate has said something diametrically different in the past, but the fact that they are clearly lying will not be reported. Speaking of sanewashing, as Trump slides deeper and deeper into dementia, the media will find a way to simply not see it. That sort of stuff only matters if the person in question is a Democrat, in which case it is important to imply that a person who is not displaying any of the symptoms is slipping into dementia.

It hardly seems worth pointing out that the vast majority of the people who voted for him will be harmed by his policies. I’d like to believe the Democrats will get their act together and learn how to blame the Republicans for what Republicans do, but I’m certainly not predicting that. The Republicans will blame the Democrats for the harm Republicans cause, and the brainwashed majority in this country will believe them.

On the somewhat bright side, there’s maybe a 50-50 chance that we’ll have fair elections in 2026, though the Republicans will surely be test driving methods to assure that only they win elections.

Happy New Year.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (1)

All they are saying, is give fascism a chance

Thursday, December 19, 2024

I don’t write many blog posts anymore, but I can honestly say that I’ve written a number of them in which I’ve bemoaned the failure of the Democrats to message in a way that reaches people and provokes a favorable reaction.

We now face an incoming administration that by any measure must be labeled as fascist. Many of us on the ground realize that, but it would appear that many, make that most, of the folks we’ve sent to Washington as Democrats just don’t get it.

Two cases in point. The Democrats refused to make AOC ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, instead appointing an old geezer. Yes, he has more experience, but what he lacks is an understanding of how to articulate the Democratic position or to make sure the Democratic message is spread on social media. AOC understands how to use those things, and she would undoubtedly be better at getting opposition talking points out to a far wider audience than the old guy who got the appointment. The job of the Democratic members of Congress over the course of the coming years is to both oppose the fascist state and articulate the danger it poses in a way that reaches and convinces the greatest number of people.

There’s also a number of Democrats talking about working with the Republicans over the next two years. You have to wonder where these people have been for the past 20 years. Republicans relentlessly opposed everything the Democrats tried to do, and it worked, largely because (see above) besides being united they controlled the narrative. Democrats will get nowhere by working with the Republicans. They should oppose, oppose, oppose, and while doing so call the Republicans out for what they are: facists dedicated to making the rich richer.

It is beyond certain that when the economy tanks as a result of Republican policies, the Republicans will blame the Democrats. Once again, the Democrats will not be ready with a response. It’s more important than ever right now. There’s a small chance that we’ll have real elections two years from now, and that election may represent our only chance of avoiding the fascist state President-elect Musk Trump is looking to establish.

Another thought. A number of bloggers, and even Adam Kinzinger, are referring to Musk as “President Musk”. The Democrats should do that constantly. Nothing gets to Trump more than being laughed at, and the end result would probably be removing Musk from the picture. Moreover, the Democrats should constantly find ways to make fun of Trump.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Who ever said a (Democratic) president could pardon someone?

Saturday, December 7, 2024

There’s a lot of talk out there about Biden preemptively pardoning people like Jack Smith, Liz Cheney and Fauci, people who have committed no crimes but would still be on the hit list of the Department of Injustice once Trump gets in.

Biden should do it, without question. The only question is whether the pardons will survive the current judiciary. There’s no question that such pardons should be the last word. They always have been. However, it’s also highly likely that the Trump appointees in the lower courts, and the bought and paid for Supreme Court will find previously unseen hairs to split.

I mean, how can you pardon someone unless you specifically specify the crime of which they are or may be charged or of which they have been found guilty. Sure, it’s impossible for Biden to specify the criminal charges that are likely to be brought against people who have committed no crimes, but that’s just further proof that the pardons don’t pass constitutional muster. It means he wasn’t fully aware of exactly what crimes these folks had not committed. There’s surely a judge in Southern Texas who could explain why this constitutional conundrum renders the pardons void, as could Aileen Cannon, and even though neither of them would have had personal jurisdiction over these folks in the olden pre-2024 days, it will be completely different now. The government gets to judge shop all it wants, provided, of course, that it’s a Republican controlled government.

The guy prosecuting Hunter didn’t even want to let it go, though the presiding judge felt differently. It’s hard to see what crimes they’ll cook up to charge against these people, but they’ll come up with something and while the “Supreme” Court might uphold the pardons in the end, they may still be stuck with huge legal bills and emotional turmoil in the process. We may even find ourselves getting an opinion from the court as to why criminal charges against Joe Biden for something he did while president are not subject to the immunity ruling because we forgot to mention it only applied to Republicans.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)