KerleyQ

Oh, for fuck's sake. Come on, show. Really???

I'm still flabbergasted by the quote I saw from the editor-in-chief of the WSJ today. He believes that, if they were to report the stories (and headlines) as "Donald Trump lied and said (insert lie of the hour here)," that it would be unfair and they would be making a moral judgement to use the word "lie." No, asshat, you use the word lie when someone lies, and you let your readers make their own moral evaluation of the situation based on the facts. If your readers think Trump is an immoral assclown because he lied, then that's what they think. If he doesn't want them to see him as an immoral assclown, he can always, oh, I don't know, stop lying? I saw a list on Twitter today of some of the A-list entertainers Trump allegedly asked to perform who turned him down. Among them? John Legend and The Dixie Chicks. I don't know which one of those was a more arrogantly stupid ask on his part. Did he really think either would say "yes"?

It really makes you wonder how many of the current field of "journalists" got into the field from a real desire to be a journalist (and all of the integrity in delivering the truth, no matter how complicated that goes with that) vs. a desire to be famous. Of course, along with that goes the issue that so many of the corporations who run the media are more interested in ratings and page clicks than any integrity in their reporting. They're more interested in telling people what they want to hear than telling them the truth. That "I know stuff you don't know" plays right into his authoritarian thing. It's just like "only I can save you/fix things."

I swear, earlier today I was talking with my husband about that story, and we were joking around saying (in our best cheesy Putin imitations) "he fell...seventeen times." I should have known that it would actually be an excuse they'd try to float.

It's like we've moved past "post-truth" (and, God, I loathe that term, because, really??) to post-truth on steroids. Now it's not only perfectly acceptable to spout lies, but it's become a situation where the person trying to cut through the lies or asking for evidence to support the lies is the asshole, while the liar is the perfectly reasonable one. It's just so damn bizarre and scary. And his "off the record" meetings with the press. Has any other POTUS ever insisted on so much off the record interaction while simultaneously shunning any on the record gatherings? And have any hidden behind surrogates like this? I know every POTUS has his press secretary and all, but they all still get out there in front of the press and speak live and on the record. Could you imagine the outcry if President Obama had steadfastly refused to speak, on the record, to the press, but instead deployed various staffers to go carry his water on the cable networks? I know Trump hasn't officially taken office yet, but there is little to indicate that he has any intention of changing the way he does things. He's said more than once (most recently about the idea that he can't keep having his victory rallies after he's sworn in) things to the effect of "I've done everything else the opposite of how they say it should be, so why stop now?" I'm kind of amazed that it's actually OK for the wife of the Senate Majority Leader to be appointed to a position like this. A few years ago, a member of our school board resigned because the district was looking for a new superintendent, and her husband wanted to apply for the position. That made sense to me. Mitch being in a position where he not only has input into his wife's appointment, but also has a position where he has a certain level of "authority" over his colleagues who approve appointments is super shady. Exactly. What has been released to the public is enough for me to get that they have proof. When you add in that there is absolutely information that we can't see but that President Obama, Congress, and Trump can see that is likely definitive proof, it's definitely, to me, treasonous for Trump to sit there not only pretending that he hasn't been offered substantial proof, but also supporting the man responsible for the hacking. But, it goes right back to that whole post-truth thing. Trump can sit there and pretend that he hasn't been offered proof, that no such proof exists, and people buy it, hook, line, and sinker. I can't count how many people I've seen who are calling this a Dem conspiracy and swearing up and down that there is no proof. It's like people have no concept of the fact that our intelligence people can't just release everything they have to the public. Not to mention that, if, as they keep saying, this is just President Obama and there really is no proof, why are GOP members of Congress backing him up here? They've spent 8 years trying to undermine everything he does, and now, he's supposedly imposing sanctions on another country, including expelling their diplomats from our country, with "no evidence," and they're not only not fighting him, they're supporting him? Sure, that makes sense. And, of course, Assange is saying Putin had nothing to do with it. He's not an idiot. He's not going to turn on Putin unless his ultimate survival depends on it. But, as things stand right now, Putin and Trump are his best shot at getting the charges against him dropped, so he can get out of the Embassy and move around freely. Not to mention that if he sticks to his story that someone at the DNC sent him the files, it covers a few problems for him. First - if he simply had the information sent to him and had no role in the hacking itself or in soliciting the hacking, then he's not in the same kind of deep legal shit he'd be in if he had an active role in the hacking. Second, it's out there that the RNC was hacked, too. It serves Putin and Trump for that to not be believed. If it serves them, it serves him, so the lie that the DNC emails came to him via a source in the DNC gives him cover there to pretend that the RNC hack was just a rumor. On a Russian related note (and, hell, it may have something to do with this), there was a story I saw linked on Twitter last night that I do not remember seeing when it was originally reported in March. The founder of the Kremlin media RT was found dead in a hotel in DC last year. At the time, RT put out the word, pretty much as soon as his body was discovered, that he'd suffered a heart attack. However, the autopsy revealed that he'd been beaten to death, but that was kept quiet until some reporter got their hands on the information in March. Even more interesting? Nobody knew why he was in DC. Apparently he was under investigation by the FBI for some corruption and money laundering charges. Speculation is that he was in DC to cut a deal with the FBI, possibly turning over evidence on bigger fish. It's not a huge leap to believe that, as the guy who ran the state run media, it's possible that he knew something about the hacking. Because if he had that kind of information - evidence that Putin was hacking our system to actively influence the Presidential election - that's the kind of evidence that would have gotten him a good deal.

I had forgotten how bad of an actor RM was. Did he always rely on that pseudo-growl thing as his sole means of portraying anger/tension?

I said last night that it's time for me to make a list of my friends and family who have full home generators and the yard space to build a fallout shelter. Thankfully, my parents are at the top of that list with both. My Dad is always looking for a project to do with my son, so maybe when we go over there tomorrow, I should get the two of them working on that fallout shelter in the backyard. Stone was publicly calling Putin's shot for him more than once. I can remember at least two times where, within two days of him hinting something was coming, WL released more emails. It's mind boggling that it isn't getting more attention as this Russian hacking stuff becomes a bigger and bigger story. Cheetos may not have been directly involved in the planning, but he was surrounded by people who absolutely were. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC side of the hacking was his camp's idea, because there was always a question as to whether the party would fully support him as nominee. It certainly wouldn't hurt their cause if they had dirt on Ryan and other prominent GOP members who were hesitant to enthusiastically support him in public. I remember that, at some point after he got the nom, Ryan and some other prominent party members who hadn't endorsed yet met with Trump and his people. Right after that meeting, Ryan was suddenly praising Trump, talking about what a productive meeting it was. Makes you wonder if the products of the RNC hack were "discussed." I'm the same. I don't agree on every policy with him, but he's a good guy who's willing to speak out. There are some liberals and progressives giving him a hard time because they don't agree with his policy, so, therefore, they just lump him in as part of the problem. What they don't get is that we need all hands on deck if we are going to stop Trump. We can't do it if the GOP and conservative leaning independents don't join us.

At this point, I wouldn't even be mad if she and Jake teamed up to burn the whole damn town down.

I still think that at least part of the problem was that she would have been the first female POTUS following the first African-American POTUS. Two big changes like that back to back were just too much for those who fear that the poor white men are being marginalized or some such shit. I have asked this so many times of people who support the bakers in these cases - why is it only gay weddings? What about if a couple comes looking for a wedding cake and one or both of them has been married and divorced already? Or a couple who is planning on having an "open" marriage? A couple who has been living together "in sin" before marriage? Pregnant bride? An atheist couple? A couple of different faiths? There are so many engaged couples who could come looking for a wedding cake who are considered to be sinning based on how any one person interprets the Bible. So why is it solely the same sex couples who it would be a sin for the baker to "participate" in the wedding by providing a cake (that is consumed at a party, not at any marital ceremony, typically)? And the thing is, the couple almost certainly isn't receiving the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, unless they've found a progressive church. Most same sex marriages occur outside the church, and some may be spiritual, but are not a Priest bestowing the Sacrament. So, they're applying their beliefs about the Sacrament to a legal entity, which is not the same thing. (And that's also why churches are not legally required to bestow the Sacrament on any couple who comes calling if the church doesn't feel the couple aligns with the church's beliefs on Matrimony.) I remain amazed by how completely OK with Trump slobbering all over Putin his cult is. It's amazing. Before the election, a woman told me that she was voting for Trump because Putin said there would be war if Hillary won. I said "so you're comfortable with a hostile foreign leader attempting to influence our electoral process like that? And you think that it's in our country's best interests to deal with other nations from a position of fear?" What happened to the "patriots" believing that we're the alpha dog of nations? Now we have to kiss Putin's ass so he won't get mad at us? When did this happen? And when, in the name of all that is holy, did a dumpy orange 70 something year old man who rolls over for Putin and whose Daddy paid a doctor to get him excused from fighting for this country, become the alpha dog who is going to fight for our country? Have I just been running a 104 fever for the past year+, and this shit has all been a fever dream?

This. I want to see them being direct and honest. The lead in should be things like "Donald Trump lied today, saying..." Then go on and present the actual facts that show why it's a lie. Stop leaving it at "Donald Trump said..." When he lies, stop mincing words and go for it.

And this is why I don't get his pissy attitude towards the press and his belief that the First Amendment is too lenient on the press. They've been enabling his ass since day one of this campaign. And when it comes time for someone to report the real shit on him, most of them flake out and either half ass it or allow one of his various mouthpieces to grab the mic and justify, lie, and deflect so that anybody who is listening has zero idea what the hell is going on. This reminds me of one of the new things I saw from the more extreme Trump cult (the Alex Jones segment of the crowd) - apparently, in their minds, all of that overly touchy shit Cheetos was doing with young Ivanka was because he knew all about the existence of PizzaGate, and the "elite pedophiles," and he was making sure she was always in his grasp so they wouldn't get his Ivanka. (Apparently Don, Jr and Eric were meant to fend for themselves?)

Sun-In for his hair, and some circa early 80's QT self tanner on his skin.

Well, I mean, he hasn't murdered any of her friends since she last saw him.

And, I mean, we know that they all know that his win was not a landslide by any means, and it's only historic in terms of how badly he lost in winning. But, they keep telling him that because he's their useful idiot, and they need to pat him on the head and give him a cookie so that he'll keep listening to them. They can't let him be exposed to reality.

I think there are some who would be happy to perform for him, but they're not high profile enough for his tastes. I think he had visions of people like Beyonce, and that was just never going to happen. Now, to save face, he's going to go with this "small, low-key, intimate" angle, and pretend it was what he - the man who needs every single surface around him covered in gold - really wanted all along.

It's really kind of sickening to see the comments from the Trump cult on various articles about the Russia sanctions and Putin's vow to retaliate. They flat out refuse to believe the FBI, CIA, DHS, and every other agency. They swear up and down that we can't trust our intelligence agencies, and are very "the ends justify the means." They're even accusing President Obama of trying to start WW3 to make Trump look bad. Right now, at this moment in history, it is so easy to see how Hitler happened. And it's frightening and depressing to see it happening all over again here.

I've seen it speculated that Putin has some dirt on him outside of just business. Now, I'm not saying that he is on tape with, say, an underage Russian prostitute, but, well, some people are saying it. (That is how we do it these days, right?)

Geez, how much did he take? When I was a teenager, I had some serious issues with ovarian cysts, and it wasn't uncommon for me to just dump an indeterminate number of Nuprin in my hand and toss them all back when the pain got unbearable. I'm guessing BryDog weighs about twice what I weighed at that time. Did he take the whole damn bottle?

Now his official job description is, I believe, "Everyone's Buddy." I completely agree. There should be some acknowledgement from someone close to him that they had hoped to see him straighten things out, become the man they believed he could be. Jason would be ideal for this, because he's never really seen anyone with rose colored glasses. He may forgive and/or put up with a lot of shit, but he never really kids himself about who the people in his life are or sugarcoats it. If he wasn't so busy being Everyone's Buddy, he could have a conversation with Sam about how, when Morgan was a little kid, he seemed like he was going to grow up away from the business, get an education, be more like Jax (an acknowledgement that Jason would grudgingly make, because he's always been good at those regretful grudging acknowledgements after someone dies). It would be very in character for Jason to blame himself for not getting to Morgan quickly enough that night, not getting him away from the car fast enough, and he'd feel guilty that Morgan didn't get a chance to get a hold of his bipolar and straighten out his life.

Watching my local news a few minutes ago, and I wanted to throw things. There were two instances, in one little blurb on him, where they let him get away with complete bullshit. First, the clip they played happened to have him bragging about the "5,000 Sprint jobs that are coming just because of me." No comment from the news desk that the Sprint jobs were actually announced prior to his election. Then, they finished up with some bullshit about how Trump says he doesn't want his supporters sitting out in the cold for his inauguration. Oh, bullshit. He's pre-excusing the potentially historically tiny (like his hands) inauguration day crowd with that "I'm concerned for my supporters, please don't come out if it's too cold for you" bullshit. If the media is just going to roll over and let him lie every time he opens his mouth, what is their purpose? His cult members can breathlessly report his every word on Twitter for him. Why do we need a media if they're just going to function as his PR army?

I hope it's out when I go to the grocery store today, because I will absolutely buy that. Maybe I'll frame the cover. The media needs to hold his feet to the fire and follow up with "some citizens in this country don't know where you stand here, and they would like to know. So, please, explain it to them." Make him either try to explain his stance or do so much tap dancing that it's clear to anyone that he doesn't have a stance or ever know enough about the issue to begin to form a stance. His supporters pretend to be all about the military, but when he says stuff like this, they just decide that whoever he's aiming it at is a "cuck" who deserved it for wimping out instead of supporting our country's true messiah. If he says this, they'll tell themselves he doesn't mean all of the soldiers without limbs, he's just not being PC. So it's perfectly fine for him to use the soldier's disability, one he suffered in service for our country, as a means of slamming him. Something, something participation trophies. Oh, God, not that anus pucker. I don't know how his wives have done it. There's not enough cash in the world to make me OK with that anus pucker coming at me. And the word salad serves as evidence that he's not equipped to talk about serious matters. When he gets a question he either can't or doesn't want to answer, the blusters off in the word salad, and he expects everyone to treat it like a serious, intelligent answer. I know I'm not pointing out the word salads to point and laugh at the buffoon (he gives us plenty of other reasons to do that). I'm pointing it out because it puts a fine point on the fact that he's not up to the job, and that his ineptness can be dangerous. Like the current word salad - he is saying, in lieu of an intelligent, reasoned response to the idea of a hostile nation interfering in our system, that we should all just get over it. And he's putting it in word salad form because he can't just come right out and say "hey, fuck it, it helped me win. Why would I want to punish someone who helped me win? Besides, I owe a shit ton of money to his associates, so, he's got me by the short hairs, here."

There's also his habit of distracting himself mid-sentence/thought to wander off to something completely different. It's like one word in what he's in the middle of saying makes him think of something else, and he just wanders in to a completely different conversation. Sometimes he finds his way back to the original idea, sometimes it's gone for good unless someone tries to redirect him to the topic at hand. And then there's his complete lack of impulse control. He reminds me so much of my grandfather in his last 5 or so years. No thought entered his head that didn't spill right out of his mouth. And many of those thoughts were racist, sexist, etc. He treated women horribly (well he did for most of his life, but he reached a different degree when the dementia set in). He was demanding and petulant, and you could not tell him anything - he knew best about everything. My Mom and I have said more than once that Grandpa would have loved Trump. And that is not a compliment to either man.

My brother (a huge Trump fan) has taken to texting with the same use of one word interjections as some bizarre form of punctuation, too. He'll end texts with "Sad." "Terrible." or "Wrong." I've pointed it out to him a few times, saying that it's hard to take him seriously when he does it, but it continues on. I just went through my mental Rolodex, trying to figure out if I know anyone who I can hit up to get me one, and, sadly, I do not. I'm going to have to hit eBay every now and then and see if any are out there.

In that town, RSVPing no to any gathering is the smart call. When you know the chances are better than 50/50 that something will go down whenever more than a handful of PC residents gather to celebrate anything, why risk the gunshot/stabbing/poisoning/listening to Sonny rant about the unfairness of suffering for his shitty life choices/getting too close to Franco's shitastic hair/etc?

These two disappoint me. I would have thought for sure that, whenever they did break up, it would be a huge messy do, complete with angry passive aggressive social media posts. Just quietly going their separate ways? And we're not even getting the over the top wedding? Boo!!!