Not quite done with the Trump era

Go to the 9:38 point in this Jimmy Kimmel monologue, where he calls out Rudy Giuliani for hypocrisy in voting with a provisional ballot.  Interesting, as I have heard the likes of Greg Palast through the Bush years — undoubtedly echoed by Stacey Abrams — disparage the integrity of “provisional ballots” — voter suppression tools that “ultimately, just won’t be counted” but give people (of color) the sense that it could be worked out after mysteriously falling off the voter rolls.  The travails of harping on Trump’s charade without some bits of threading.

Not incidentally, we see in this Kimmel monolougie a litany of the sins of the Trump administration — and there we see… Oh, his diplomacy with the dictator of North Korea.  Granted, this was almost certain to be a walking around in circles, and it followed off the heels of a Twitter war of words and name – calling — but it does seem to be me to be a legitimate highlight of the Trump administration — a bit of a “might as well” in it.  But I am stuck on the question… Had the dalliance with Kim Jong Un ended with the big WW3 “footage” games — sputter away from there — would the litany item on Trump from Kimmel be an equal charge from a direction 180 degrees away?

From the bottom half of the Internet, the comments section of the American Conservative magazine, various snatches of thoughts … (1) how absurd a cry for “Eisenhower’s Republican Party” actually is — on “culture issues” you would have to declare him and society in general… Er… “Reactionary”, right?  (2). The line on some liberals chastising on what Responsible Republican is m ought be… With a retort along the lines of… ” bring is back to 1996, weak complaisant “.  It is a new line in the sand of political experience, never mind that — wasn’t 1996 the point of high Republicanism?  Clinton having passed before the Gingrich — Dole Congress came in a Tough on Crime bill and NAFTA, then under Gingrich — Dole a Tough on Welfare bill, ” defense of marriage” barring gay marriage , and on to balanced budgets.  

Then again, recurring everything… I note something here with Fish Limbaugh on the weak added Bush and his comment to Clyburn — a “Savior” against Trump.  Something here inthe Rush Limbaugh litany.

I remember commenting on it. He called them out. It couldn’t to be their face because he was seated in front of them and they were behind him. But it was fearless. He accused them of being the stupid leaders that had given us rotten trade deals, that had permitted wanton illegal immigration. He just took it right to ’em. And when it was over, George W. Bush said, “Well, that was some weird [crap].” Almost as though it was the first time Bush had heard Trump say those things.

Rotten trade deals… A change of opinion from when he proudly chimed in in 1994 – 1995 that “I backed this administratiom , yes this one” on NAFTA.

As were in the list of Trump accomplishments I see made there… In the bottom half of the Internet… I see the retort to “repealed NAFTA” with a “and replaced it with something pretty much identical”.

Questions raised by this exchange in the bottom half of the Internet…

I am dying reading liberals comments here. BLM literally burned down entire city blocks and murdered dozens of innocent people, 2 billion in damages and estimated 30 people dead. But Qanon larpers in the Capitol dropping a deuce in the stairwell is one step away from the Fourth Reich. So yes, we need 26k troops to protect our “democracy”.

… dropping a deuce in the stairwell, beating a cop to death with a fire extinguisher, assaulting numerous others, erecting a gallows on the Capitol grounds and chanting “Hang (Vice President) Mike Pence,” all at the instigation of the President of the United States, is one step away from the Fourth Reich.FIFY.

Will you also condem the BLM riots? I condemn the riots on Jan 6

Yeah, … No you don’t.  Lest you just said the riots were “canon markers dropping a deuce in the capitol staircase”.

To be contradictory, of sorts… Strictly speaking, had Senators Hawley and Cruz not gone on to their objections after the riots in the Capital Building,..

The question the Senate must answer is not whether Sens. Hawley and Cruz had the right to the object to the electors, but whether the senators failed to ‘[p]ut loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department’ or engaged in ‘improper conduct reflecting on the Senate’ in connection with the violence on January 6,” the letter said. It noted that both voted to reject electoral votes even after the violence at the Capitol disrupted the counting process.”

… It would show their objections as not founded in personal belief, lest they be swayed by the violence… Theoretically, at least.

Leave a Reply