Running from an inferno

Articles have appeared talking about Republicans who privately say they are “disgusted” with the nasty guy and regret supporting him. That prompted a response from Melissa McEwan of Shakesville. She notes:

* The nasty guy is doing now exactly what he’s always promised he would do.

* The nasty guy isn’t an anomaly of the GOP but its inevitable endgame.

* This game of “oh we’re secretly so horrified!” isn’t new. It has been out there for the last two years. McEwan wrote about it 21 months ago.

* Those that regret supporting the nasty guy say they still support the vice nasty guy. The methods may be different but the depth of malice is the same.

* Those speaking their regret are lying.



Saturday Night Live did a segment critical of the nasty guy. He, of course, tweeted about it and included the phrase, “Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal?” McEwan responds:

The distinction between satire and news is *irrelevant* to Trump. The only thing that matters to him is that they are both critical of him, which he is suggesting *should be a crime*.
…
The president is threatening to wage war on us for criticizing him.

This is not a joke. It can happen here.



Twitter user Juleyka has a few things to say about the men who did crimes and are now helping the special prosecutor and expect to be praised or are leaving the administration on principle:

So here's something I don't get: why are we admiring men who are just now abandoning the radioactive center of a toxic government after they willingly signed up to make it so? There's nothing brave or inspiring about running for cover when the roof is caving in during an inferno you brought matches to. Nothing redemptive about saying enough when you're nose-deep in the toxicity you contributed to. These men do not deserve any redemptive narrative.

David Drucker of the Washington Examiner reports that the South Carolina GOP is considering scrapping next year’s GOP primary to prevent challengers to the nasty guy. Other states are considering it. Since SC taxpayers pay for the primary they may be pleased to not pick up the tab. But it is a blow to democracy. The article doesn’t talk about the possibility that no one wants to run against the nasty guy. If I remember right Obama didn’t have any challengers in 2012.



In a Twitter thread Olga Lautman notes that the nasty guy’s past (as well as present) operations are under investigation. He was a “Kremlin mob satellite for almost 4 decades.” Why has no one looked into it? Why was he not stopped? He would never pass a background check for any type of employment. Why did we let him into the White House and why did these investigations happen only after he got there?



Christopher Ingraham, in a Twitter thread, discusses the wealth inequality in America. The top 10% owns 73% of the nation’s wealth. The middle 40% own 27%. And yes, those two figures add up to 100%. The bottom half owns -0.1% – they’re in debt to the top half.

That reminds me again of the many government policies that appear to make the rich richer, but their real goal is to make the poor poorer. It’s a way to enforce the social hierarchy.