Hell-bent or just Hell bound? I am betting on the latter.
I don’t love using this person’s quote as iconic of anything. The person being quoted in that article isn’t a PR person or a professional communicator, they are just some person who got asked a person-on-the-street question. To me this looks like confirmation bias - we already know that some of Trump’s followers actually do get off on thinking of people being hurt. The article picks a statement as emblematic of that when I don’t think we should take much meaning from it other than “I’m unhappy with what’s going on.”
Now this, on the other hand. Like, Shapiro asked him if he worked for Russia as a softball, and he doesn’t even understand he should put the word “no” in his answer somewhere?
This is “I am not addicted to crack cocaine” from Rob Ford when asked if he had smoked crack.
So you did it, right?
Just a little sample of what Family Guy did
I feel like the fact that it isn’t coming from a PR professional gives it extra weight. It’s not polished to within an inch of its life to say nothing at all; it’s someone’s off-the-cuff heartfelt response. Treating “he’s not hurting the right people” as yet another “economic anxiety” quote is to willfully ignore the intent behind it. This absolutely fits into the “when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time” puzzle right alongside all of the “they’re not American babies” clap-backs when Trump supporters were implored to give a single shit about the people seeking asylum on the southern border.
The cruelty is the point.
I read “they’re not American babies” really differently. That one the intent is unavoidable. With this one I really could see that just being a garbled (garbled to me anyway) “he’s hurting good people”. Even in that very kind reading of it, it still implies that there are good people and bad people and bad people deserve what’s coming to them; but I find that to be an extremely common moral sentiment that goes way further than Trump voters.
Anyway, I’m just waxing philosophic, I guess. I might cut the specific individual so slack in how they expressed themselves, but in the best case scenario I still think that: 1) the person in question is probably willing to discount people’s humanity based on whether Trump says they are enemies or not; and 2) there are many people who follow Trump whose beliefs fit the least uncharitable reading of those words.
And finally, the article doesn’t even go on at length about the specific individual.
So basically, what I guess I was saying was, “Hold your horses, there. There is a moderate chance that a specific, named individual is someone you’d disagree with over a slightly different issue than the one implied by that article.”
Totally worth saying!
It would be nice if they would censure Trump for a few things too, but I’ll take what I can get.
Seriously, junk food for professional (or soon to be at least) athletes? Makes sense
Dershowitz predictably suggests that nothing Mueller has found is illegal, and that the FBI probe news that dropped on Friday was actually illegal.
Dershowitz is tied to Jeff Epstein, more definitively than either Trump or Clinton.
If we see a bunch of people go to jail from the Mueller investigation, either directly or new investigations spawned from it, I think Dershowitz is going down with the rest of them.
“We’re going to allow the GOP Senate to choose which agencies are funded and which are left to starve, presenting them with an unprecedented opportunity to reshape the Federal government to their whims”.
Pelosi’s “expertise” at work.
Might not be so bad if the Pentagon sees some cuts.
But I think we all know it will be anything but that.
Speaking of “The Wonderful Company”, see here:
Corruption, imperialism, war, exploitation, environmental destruction. There’s a bit of everything in this one.
I remember seeing a list of what Michael Phelps ate on a typical day. It turns out that when you need 12,000 calories a day for your training regimen, you can eat quite a bit of garbage and empty calories.
I think that does show her expertise, it’s just that her expertise is political, not policy related. That strategy has nothing to do with serving the people or the country and everything to do with shaping public opinion. They are just creating more and more ammunition for the “this is their shutdown” argument.
Yes, paying out of pocket is not “socialized medicine” but heading to Canada is proof* that Rand Paul believes “socialized medicine” produces the best outcomes at the best price. That’s actually the argument I want to win. Once we all agree that publicly funded medicine produces the best outcomes at the best price, then it’s up to democratic countries to decide for themselves if that’s what they want.
* Libertarian standard of proof
Without OHIP or another equivalent provincial plan, he’d be billed at any Ontario hospital.
That’s a load of bafflegab from his Chief Strategist to cover the embarrassment.
Yeah, I think the real point is that he is choosing to get something done in Ontario that he could get done in the US. If private care produces better results, why not use it? He’s admitting that single-payer produces high quality results that people outside of single-payer systems would be willing to pay for.