Now that Trump has "clarified" his defense of Putin to suggest that Putin's smarts and savvy weren't the point, but rather how "our leaders" are "dumb, so dumb", let's take a break from mere outrage over a former President rooting for the bad guy. Because most of us, if we're being honest, would probably have to acknowledge feeling a bi…
Now that Trump has "clarified" his defense of Putin to suggest that Putin's smarts and savvy weren't the point, but rather how "our leaders" are "dumb, so dumb", let's take a break from mere outrage over a former President rooting for the bad guy. Because most of us, if we're being honest, would probably have to acknowledge feeling a bit pathetic expressing such angst if we thought he might actually be right. But for better or worse, one of the things that makes "TDS" such a chronic yet manageable condition is that you rarely have to worry about Trump being right.
And in this case, his analysis is another laughable example of how Trump struggles to comprehend the relevant parameters of real-world situations outside of his gilded fiefdom. Like how he clearly never understood that a President's power is not absolute like the owner of a private business. Or how, as a supposed expert negotiator, he comprehends little beyond the strong-arming and schmoozing he gets by on in the forgiving world of old money, and doesn't realize when he's surrendering leverage or getting played.
Now he hails Putin as a genius and calls Biden "dumb" because Putin concocted an alleged justification for an invasion that clearly nobody in the world actually believes. In fact, nobody can even pretend to believe it because Biden has kept the world informed of Russia's intentions with American intel for months, effectively countering Putin's narrative at every turn. Which Trump would know if he were paying attention to what was actually going on, which he probably wasn't. Instead, Putin's "peacekeeping" claim fooled nobody, and only further reinforced his mendacity (for anyone who still needed proof at this point).
But Trump apparently thinks this matters, as if Putin is somehow accountable to a legal body which would have to accept his alibi as reasonable doubt, rather than the judgement of world leaders who have no obligation to feign naivety for the sake of presuming innocence. He slobbers over Putin's pathetic manifesto as if it convinces anyone other than Candace Owens, and delights in Biden "not having a response", by which he probably means that Biden didn't take to Twitter and pop off with some infantile provocation.
Meanwhile, Biden has quietly but skillfully led virtually the entire democratic world in a united political and economic front, something Donnie Rotten couldn't have pulled off if his life depended on it. And so far, it's working. Time will tell if it ultimately succeeds, but it's hard to imagine how anything else could yield a better chance of a good outcome. And of course, Trump has nothing to say about what he would have done in Biden's position, not that it would bear any relation to reality or be anything more than convenient bluster if he did.
Sorry Donnie, but only *some* of our "leaders" are dumb. So dumb.
I agree with you. BUT it's not helping. Trumpy is still considered a "stable genius" and do believe his garbage. And the R's in Congress who could/should acknowledge that Biden is doing the right things refuse to say anything. It's still Trump, Trump, Trump! Go look at the articles and comments on The American Conservative, which supposedly the sane opposition. Van Buren saying Durham is right, and it's the Dems in Putin's pocket! And Dreher is still in the Putin's really a good guy for opposing WOKE, etc., but he's acting bad now. The stupidity, the blindness of the so-called sane right makes me want to strangle some of them. Or ship them off to Putin's Russia and see how long they last!
Yeah, the "National Review" is supposed to be sane opposition too, but they still host Trump fluffers like Conrad Black. "The American Conservative" leans isolationist as I understand, so I wouldn't expect them to be holding up a lighter at this display of global free world unity. Sure, AC might have gotten a reputation as being "sane" because of its origins in opposing the Iraq War. But one of its founders was Pat Buchanan, whose opposition to Iraq caused a lot of liberals at the time to forget that he's still Pat Buchanan - Mr. Culture War 1992. So as far as entirely "sane" right-leaning publications that don't tolerate wingnuts, for me it's pretty much the Bulwark and the Dispatch.
And as an aside, this Van Buren guy sounds like a moron. Durham has hardly said anything - he's charged some lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and a cybersecurity firm for alerting the FBI to suspicious contacts between Russian phones and Trump Tower (alleged representing the security firm in doing so). The security firm had access to Obama era White House data and was under a federal contract to examine it for evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which has morphed into the Right's made up claim that Clinton hired someone to infiltrate Trump's White House). Durham's claim is that the lawyer was lying to the FBI because he "didn't really believe what he was saying". Yeah. Seriously. I mean, set aside the fact that we're supposed to think there was a conflict of interest with the Clinton campaign even though the election was over and Trump was already in office, or that the FBI ignored the info anyway because they didn't think it was relevant. He's charging someone with lying over a matter of professional opinion. I'm no lawyer but I'm betting he's going to have a pretty hard time even getting a conviction out of this trifling charge. So this is the only bone that this heralded bloodhound has produced after years of digging up the FBI's backyard. That tells you a lot.
Now that Trump has "clarified" his defense of Putin to suggest that Putin's smarts and savvy weren't the point, but rather how "our leaders" are "dumb, so dumb", let's take a break from mere outrage over a former President rooting for the bad guy. Because most of us, if we're being honest, would probably have to acknowledge feeling a bit pathetic expressing such angst if we thought he might actually be right. But for better or worse, one of the things that makes "TDS" such a chronic yet manageable condition is that you rarely have to worry about Trump being right.
And in this case, his analysis is another laughable example of how Trump struggles to comprehend the relevant parameters of real-world situations outside of his gilded fiefdom. Like how he clearly never understood that a President's power is not absolute like the owner of a private business. Or how, as a supposed expert negotiator, he comprehends little beyond the strong-arming and schmoozing he gets by on in the forgiving world of old money, and doesn't realize when he's surrendering leverage or getting played.
Now he hails Putin as a genius and calls Biden "dumb" because Putin concocted an alleged justification for an invasion that clearly nobody in the world actually believes. In fact, nobody can even pretend to believe it because Biden has kept the world informed of Russia's intentions with American intel for months, effectively countering Putin's narrative at every turn. Which Trump would know if he were paying attention to what was actually going on, which he probably wasn't. Instead, Putin's "peacekeeping" claim fooled nobody, and only further reinforced his mendacity (for anyone who still needed proof at this point).
But Trump apparently thinks this matters, as if Putin is somehow accountable to a legal body which would have to accept his alibi as reasonable doubt, rather than the judgement of world leaders who have no obligation to feign naivety for the sake of presuming innocence. He slobbers over Putin's pathetic manifesto as if it convinces anyone other than Candace Owens, and delights in Biden "not having a response", by which he probably means that Biden didn't take to Twitter and pop off with some infantile provocation.
Meanwhile, Biden has quietly but skillfully led virtually the entire democratic world in a united political and economic front, something Donnie Rotten couldn't have pulled off if his life depended on it. And so far, it's working. Time will tell if it ultimately succeeds, but it's hard to imagine how anything else could yield a better chance of a good outcome. And of course, Trump has nothing to say about what he would have done in Biden's position, not that it would bear any relation to reality or be anything more than convenient bluster if he did.
Sorry Donnie, but only *some* of our "leaders" are dumb. So dumb.
I agree with you. BUT it's not helping. Trumpy is still considered a "stable genius" and do believe his garbage. And the R's in Congress who could/should acknowledge that Biden is doing the right things refuse to say anything. It's still Trump, Trump, Trump! Go look at the articles and comments on The American Conservative, which supposedly the sane opposition. Van Buren saying Durham is right, and it's the Dems in Putin's pocket! And Dreher is still in the Putin's really a good guy for opposing WOKE, etc., but he's acting bad now. The stupidity, the blindness of the so-called sane right makes me want to strangle some of them. Or ship them off to Putin's Russia and see how long they last!
Yeah, the "National Review" is supposed to be sane opposition too, but they still host Trump fluffers like Conrad Black. "The American Conservative" leans isolationist as I understand, so I wouldn't expect them to be holding up a lighter at this display of global free world unity. Sure, AC might have gotten a reputation as being "sane" because of its origins in opposing the Iraq War. But one of its founders was Pat Buchanan, whose opposition to Iraq caused a lot of liberals at the time to forget that he's still Pat Buchanan - Mr. Culture War 1992. So as far as entirely "sane" right-leaning publications that don't tolerate wingnuts, for me it's pretty much the Bulwark and the Dispatch.
And as an aside, this Van Buren guy sounds like a moron. Durham has hardly said anything - he's charged some lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and a cybersecurity firm for alerting the FBI to suspicious contacts between Russian phones and Trump Tower (alleged representing the security firm in doing so). The security firm had access to Obama era White House data and was under a federal contract to examine it for evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which has morphed into the Right's made up claim that Clinton hired someone to infiltrate Trump's White House). Durham's claim is that the lawyer was lying to the FBI because he "didn't really believe what he was saying". Yeah. Seriously. I mean, set aside the fact that we're supposed to think there was a conflict of interest with the Clinton campaign even though the election was over and Trump was already in office, or that the FBI ignored the info anyway because they didn't think it was relevant. He's charging someone with lying over a matter of professional opinion. I'm no lawyer but I'm betting he's going to have a pretty hard time even getting a conviction out of this trifling charge. So this is the only bone that this heralded bloodhound has produced after years of digging up the FBI's backyard. That tells you a lot.