This happened today:
On Wednesday afternoon, President Trump gave a post-election press conference in the White House’s East Room, taking questions from reporters for an hour and a half, offering his thoughts about the incoming Democratic majority in the House, the results of various Senate and gubernatorial races, his war with the press, Oprah Winfrey, immigration, infrastructure. “Can you give us clarity, sir, on your thinking, currently, now, after the midterms, about your Attorney General and your Deputy Attorney General?” a reporter asked at one point. “Do they have long-term job security?” It had long been rumored that Trump would rid himself of his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, after the midterms—the two were once close political allies, but Trump has never forgiven Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the Russia probe. When faced with this point-blank question, though, Trump demurred. “I’d rather answer that at a little bit different time,” he said. “We’re looking at a lot of different things.”
A little bit different time turned out to be not three hours later. “We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well….,” Trump announced, on Twitter, later Wednesday afternoon. “….We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well! A permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date.” Sessions’s resignation letter soon became public, which made clear that he had resigned at Trump’s request—effectively, he’d been fired.
Yep. Babyman gave him the sock.
From the Rude Pundit:
We know the joint’s a mess, but it’s the place where we gotta live. You can try to build another place, which means you gotta buy the building material, hire the labor, and get all the permits. Or you can pick up a broom and help clean up this one right now.
Not voting when you are ready and able to vote is privilege taken to the hilt. The non-voters on the left have decided that their beliefs trump (goddamn him for taking that word from us) whatever good can be done through elections as the parties stand now. If you don’t vote and that causes Republicans to keep both houses of Congress, you have condemned yourself and all the people you think you’re taking a stand for to at least two more years and the lingering effects of gutted social programs, of a war on women and non-whites, of an openly racist immigration policy, of inaction on climate change, and so very much more. You will be deciding that you would rather that happen, you would rather fuck up real lives of real people, than you compromised.
That makes you an asshole. That makes anyone you know who’s doing the same an asshole. You are being a bunch of assholes. You have a choice here. You can choose to not be an asshole.
In case that wasn’t clear enough, don’t be an asshole. Vote!
What a douche. But isn’t this the kind of thing a baby would say?
Hell, I don’t know where to begin. This really happened.
It shouldn’t have happened. Because even when you parody it:
The parody isn’t as bizarre as the real thing.
As a great president once said:
In this case, he could have be referring to both of them.
But unlike the orange compost heap, he’s not a liar, right?
But, but conservatives will turn against him if the attempted rape charges are proved to be true, right?
[A] startling number of conservative figures have reacted as if they believe Ford, and have thus ended up in the peculiar position of defending the right of a Supreme Court Justice to have previously attempted to commit rape—a stance that at once faithfully corresponds to and defiantly refutes the current Zeitgeist. These defenders think that the seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh could easily, as Ford alleges, have gotten wasted at a party, pushed a younger girl into a bedroom, pinned her on a bed, and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth to keep her from screaming. They think this, they say, because they know that plenty of men and boys do things like this. On these points, they are in perfect agreement with the women who have defined the #MeToomovement. And yet their conclusion is so diametrically opposed to the moral lessons of the past year that it seems almost deliberately petulant. We now mostly accept that lots of men have committed sexual assault, but one part of the country is saying, “Yes, this is precisely the problem,” and the other part is saying, “Yes, that is why it would obviously be a non-issue to have one of these men on the Supreme Court.”
The people who appear willing to believe Ford include Rod Dreher, the American Conservative writer, who tweeted, “I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.” The former congressman Joe Walsh tweeted, “If stupid, bad, or drunken behavior as a minor back in high school were the standard, every male politician in Washington, DC would fail.” An anonymous lawyer close to the White House told Politico, “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” Bari Weiss, the Times opinion columnist, said, on MSNBC, that she believed Ford, and then asked, “What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here? Let’s say he did this exactly as she said. Should the fact that a seventeen-year-old presumably very drunk kid did this—should this be disqualifying?” On Fox News, Ari Fleischer said, “How much in society should any of us be held liable today when we lived a good life, an upstanding life by all accounts, and then something that maybe is an arguable issue took place in high school? Should that deny us chances later in life?” (Donald Trump, of course, called for the execution of the Central Park Five when they were teen-age rape suspects, and, as recently as 2016, continued to call them guilty, though they were exonerated by DNA evidence.)
What’s surfacing in these comments is something that has, up until now, mostly been dodged, or left unspoken: that it has traditionally been accepted for men to sexually assault women, particularly at parties, particularly when they’re young. But the fact that this behavior has been tacitly understood as permissible does not mean that people—even while young, even while drunk at parties—have understood it to be O.K. It’s true that our earliest sexual experiences tend to be messy and confusing, and that this is, to some degree, inevitable and natural. It’s also true that, even in the Reagan era, and even to a sloppy and inexperienced teen-ager, preventing someone from screaming in fear during a sexual encounter is a stunningly clear and universally recognized sign that something is wrong. (On Tuesday, a female high-school student tweeted, “the emergence of this whole ‘teenage boys should get a pass because they’re not mature enough to understand consent’ narrative is probably one of the most unsettling things I have ever witnessed.”) Kavanaugh’s defenders are putting plainly a previously euphemized message: white and wealthy teen-age boys have the right to engage in criminal sexual cruelty as long as they later get a good job, start a family, and “settle down.”