4716 stories
·
12 followers

Dump Trump with Integrity: Part Two

1 Comment
[Content Note: Disablism; appearance and name mockery.]

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece in which I explained that I don't care what Donald Trump looks like and that I'm not interested in armchair diagnoses of his mental health. Noting that Trump is himself an inveterate bully, I argued: "We must fight in a way that does not simply replicate the very harm we're resisting."

Still, there remains an endless stream of lookism, fat hatred, disablism, and name mockery up and down my social media timelines.

Almost exactly a year ago, before Trump had even won his party's nomination, I wrote a piece about why that's a problem, on several counts:
If you care about not stigmatizing people with mental illness, or not tacitly condoning looks-based bullying, or allowing people to go by whatever name they choose (which has particular importance to trans people), then you will be keen to find other ways to talk about Donald Trump.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that calling him crazy, or making fun of his appearance, or mocking his name, doesn't convey even a little how heinous his policies are and what a dangerous person he is.

That's why it's important to say what you mean. If you mean Donald Trump is indecent, say that. If you mean that Donald Trump is a bully, say that. If you mean that Donald Trump is a vainglorious poseur who incessantly disgorges rank bigotry masquerading as policy, then say that.
I then acknowledged that it can be useful—and feels good—to have some creative shorthand to convey just how terrible Trump is, so I provided 50 ways to say that Trump is the fucking worst that don't rely on appearance or name mockery, nor entrench stigma around mental illness.

Since here we are, a year later, and Trump is now the president (shudder) and the shitty language used to talk about him is more prevalent than ever, below are 50 more creative ways to say that Trump is the fucking worst. Please feel welcome to borrow them as needed!

Or, you know, come up with your own. If I can come up with a hundred of them, everyone else should be able to come up with one, and avoid the lazy shorthand of calling him fat, orange, and crazy.

Enjoy!

1. Donald Trump is a diabolical scourge.

2. Donald Trump is a tyrannical goblin with a chronic case of the mouthshits.

3. Donald Trump is a nightmarish creepazoid with infinite apathy for people who aren't just like him.

4. Donald Trump is Russian nesting doll of character defects.

5. Donald Trump is a mendacious gasser.

6. Donald Trump is the unrivaled czar of the deplorables.

7. Donald Trump is the vomitous conductor of a chorus whose only tune is white aggrievement.

8. Donald Trump is a contemptible hope thief.

9. Donald Trump is Putin's favorite dolly.

10. Donald Trump is a despotic blunderbuss.

11. Donald Trump is a vengeful carbuncle who cares about "law" and "order" only insofar as he can wield them to harm marginalized people.

12. Donald Trump is a despicable flim-flam man.

13. Donald Trump is a galactic empathy-free zone.

14. Donald Trump is an insalubrious slop-monger.

15. Donald Trump is a rumbumptious conspiracy cowboy.

16. Donald Trump is a human assembly line of uncapped crap juice.

17. Donald Trump is a white rage wrangler.

18. Donald Trump is a repugnant specimen of predatory putrescence.

19. Donald Trump is a leering clawbaw.

20. Donald Trump is a scummy gremlin whose cup runneth over with rancid hate-bisque.

21. Donald Trump is a vainglorious gold toilet aficionado who believes wealth is an acceptable substitute for decency.

22. Donald Trump is the anthropomorphized sound of stomping.

23. Donald Trump is a mince-talking numpty.

24. Donald Trump is a torpid stooge.

25. Donald Trump is an ambulatory receptacle of humanity's worst instincts.

26. Donald Trump is an inexhaustible ruiner of dreams.

27. Donald Trump is a prodigious connoisseur of white resentment.

28. Donald Trump is an unbridled cad.

29. Donald Trump is a galloping roaster.

30. Donald Trump is an intemperate grumbletonian who thrives on invented negativity.

31. Donald Trump is the living embodiment of a steam engine whose tank has been filled with bile.

32. Donald Trump is a bigotry curator.

33. Donald Trump is a vaccine against citizen indifference.

34. Donald Trump is a picnic basket filled with dogshit sandwiches.

35. Donald Trump is a white supremacy cyclone.

36. Donald Trump is the human equivalent of a dumpster view out your hotel window.

37. Donald Trump is a noisome jackass.

38. Donald Trump is King Crumblebun of the Wilted Glade.

39. Donald Trump is a mighty fart.

40. Donald Trump is a conniving bandit.

41. Donald Trump is a reprehensible lout whose only joy is cruelty.

42. Donald Trump is an empty shell with a façade of intolerable pomposity.

43. Donald Trump is an enormous syringe of poison.

44. Donald Trump is a filthy soul-crusher.

45. Donald Trump is a self-propelling Rube Goldberg machine that always ends in catastrophe.

46. Donald Trump is a policy sewer.

47. Donald Trump is a towering edifice of malevolent rot.

48. Donald Trump is a stupendous shitlord.

49. Donald Trump is a skinbag filled with whiny entitlement and hideous malice.

50. Donald Trump is a breathing portrait of toxic masculinity.

You're welcome.
Read the whole story
skittone
5 hours ago
reply
Heh. #9
Share this story
Delete

Freedom Is

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Paul Ryan tweeted this on Tuesday:

My brief response:

This year at my workplace, I tried to opt-in to "extra" insurance that most of my co-workers don't use or buy. A special add-on option for "long-term disability insurance". The idea is that I opt-in for this extra special insurance and I pay the insurance company a little with each paycheck I earn. If anything happens to me and I have to go out on long-term disability leave, the insurance company sends me money; if I'm lucky and don't ever have an accident that sends me out on leave, then all the money I paid to the insurance company is their profit and my loss.

I am, as my economics professor in college described insurance, making a bet that I hope to lose. I'm putting $20 on red for the big pot and praying I don't win because "winning" here means a catastrophic health catastrophe. The money I'd "win" in that event would be a welcome safety net, but I wouldn't be celebrating with champagne truffles.

So I tried to do the Responsible Consumer thing like Paul Ryan wants and exercise my freedom to buy what I wanted to fit what I needed. And you know what happened? I was rejected by the insurance company for my preexisting condition of Scoliosis. They capitalized it in the rejection letter: capital-s Scoliosis. I have a condition that makes it slightly more likely I will need long-term disability insurance, so I can't buy long-term disability insurance because I might use it.

I don't feel very free. I feel hurt and angry and scared and upset and rejected.

My first scoliosis surgery was performed before I was legally old enough to enter the workforce. There has never been a time in which I could have opted into this "long-term disability insurance" early, pre-condition, and kept it through the development of said condition. Not that I suppose this matters, since I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan supports the right of insurance companies to drop patients once they become expensive. That's an odd kind of freedom.

The reality is that I'm not allowed to "buy what I want to fit what I need", and Paul Ryan isn't making steps to enable me to do so. Even if I agree with his definition of freedom—which, for the record, I don't—I'm not free in his vision for America. Not even close.
Read the whole story
skittone
5 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
duerig
5 hours ago
reply
Before 'Obamacare', the individual insurance market was a complete fraud. Sometimes they denied you up front for any of a host of pre-existing conditions. Other times they were willing to take your money and retroactively revoked your insurance if you actually tried to use it by searching for any mistake you made in the original deliberately-too-complicated-for-humans-to-comply-with application process. What Paul Ryan is really saying is that freedom was the ability to be defrauded.

This Is Very Concerning

1 Comment and 3 Shares
Last night, passengers on a domestic flight from San Francisco to New York disembarked, only to be greeted by customs agents demanding to see their "documents."


Anne Garrett, who is a video editor for Vice, further commented: "They had to explain what they meant by documents bc everyone was so confused."

This is not normal.
Read the whole story
skittone
5 hours ago
reply
Papers, please.
HarlandCorbin
3 hours ago
Isn't this proven to be unconstitutional?
JayM
3 hours ago
reply
Atlanta, GA
Share this story
Delete

Are Republican Investigations Hampered By Republican Collaboration?

1 Comment

We're barely into the second month of the Trump regime, and journalists continue to drop bombshells such as the Washington Post's reveal that Michael Flynn discussed dropping sanctions on Russia with their ambassador before the inauguration. On Friday, the New York Times reported that Trump's personal lawyer and other associates, including a Ukrainian politician, had hand-delivered to Flynn their "peace plan," a backdoor method for lifting sanctions against Russia. (As Business Insider reports, the stories about this "peace plan" keep changing.) Also on Friday, members of the Senate intelligence committee had a 3-hour meeting with James Comey, one from which they emerged remarkably tight-lipped. What is going on?

The Republican-controlled Congress, of course, has to power to investigate all of this—the summer email hacks, Flynn's Russia connections, Trump's Russia connections, or anything else it darn well pleases (*cough cough emails*). So what is the GOP response to the mounting impression that, yes, Trump's team had repeated contact with Russian intelligence during the election, as was alleged in the New York Times on February 14?

To put it charitably: not much. In the Senate, there are promises from a handful of Republican Senators that the Intelligence and/or Armed Services Committees will look into this. But any hope of an independent bipartisan investigation seems pretty far away at the moment. And in the House, GOP officials are even less interested in investigation. In fact, as described by NBC News, House intelligence committee chair Devin Nunes has turned his wrath on the leakers, very much following Trump's line that they are the problem.

One part of what's going on is obvious, as Rand Paul admitted the other day: the Republicans are very busy with their plans to roll back the 20th century. Investigating Trump will certainly not make that easier.

But before it goes down the memory hole, let's also remember:

It wasn't just the DNC that was hacked. Way back in July, there was a probe into whether Russian hackers had also penetrated the Democratic Congressional Committee. In December, the New York Times followed up that story with a look at Russian-linked hacks that had been aimed at specific Democratic House candidates…and only Democratic candidates.

After the first political advertisement appeared using the hacked material, Mr. Luján wrote a letter to his Republican counterpart at the National Republican Congressional Committee urging him to not use this stolen material in the 2016 campaign.

"The N.R.C.C.'s use of documents stolen by the Russians plays right into the hands of one of the United States' most dangerous adversaries," Mr. Luján's Aug. 29 letter said. "Put simply, if this action continues, the N.R.C.C. will be complicit in aiding the Russian government in its effort to influence American elections."

Ms. Pelosi sent a similar letter in early September to Mr. Ryan. Neither received a response. By October, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a "super PAC" tied to Mr. Ryan, had used the stolen material in another advertisement, attacking Mr. Garcia during the general election in Florida.

Some of the Democrats used that material as well, in their primary races, but it's striking that the hacks were intended to harm members of one party only. And that Ryan had nothing to say about it.

Mitch McConnell in the Senate had something to say about it: don't mention it. The Post reported in December that after leaders of both parties were briefed on suspected Russian meddling in the election, Mitch McConnell opposed any kind of bipartisan announcement, going so far as to threaten Obama with trying to throw the election if he came forward.

So of course Republicans don't want a full investigation that would reveal their own complicity in hushing up the problem. They have other things to do! Jason Chaffetz of the House Ethics Committee has the time to keep persecuting those tied to Hillary Clinton, and to complain about leaks. But not to investigate Russian hacking.

That's the same Jason Chaffetz, by the way, who inappropriately Tweeted about Comey's letter in late October, claiming the case against Clinton had been reopened, and publicly revealing the letter before Democratic leaders even saw it. Yet here he is very worried about people who leak material. (And Sid the Science Kid. And whether or not the National Parks somehow had advance knowledge of Obama's national monuments decisions. And Hillary Clinton!)

At this point, the generous interpretation of GOP stonewalling is that they're merely trying to ram their garbage agenda through Congress. Less charitably, there seems good reason to suspect that many of them don't want their fall 2016 foot-dragging on foreign interference in the election to gain greater scrutiny. It might not have been a criminal act for Mitch McConnell to threaten Obama if he went to the American people with this information, but it was a nakedly cynical, partisan, and anti-democratic one.

And on the House side—were there direct contacts between any House GOP campaigns and Guccifer 2.0?

The longer they wait to investigate the harder it will be. I'm sure they know that perfectly well. They are giving Trump and Co. time to destroy documents and silence witnesses.

But the longer they wait, the more complicit the GOP appear to be. What did Congressional Republicans know about Russian hacking, and when did they know it?

Read the whole story
skittone
5 hours ago
reply
Well, I guess we're a Russian satellite state now.
Share this story
Delete

Today in Republican Priorities

1 Comment and 2 Shares

index

These are nice people.

Under CEP, schools or school districts where 40 percent of the student body directly qualifies for free meals (via food stamps or other nutrition assistance or welfare programs) may offer those meals free to all students. The school is then reimbursed at a variable rate, according to the percentage of low-income students […]

Despite these successes, however, CEP is not universally beloved. The program has attracted particular ire from House Republicans, who attempted to reform the program in their version of last year’s Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill. They believe CEP unfairly subsidizes the meals of kids who could afford to pay full price, at enormous cost to taxpayers, and have advocated for a 60-percent threshold to determine a school or district’s eligibility. Although they were ultimately unable to raise the CEP threshold in the last Congress, they now have a Republican president, in addition to a congressional majority.

Can’t create dependency in those lazy 7 year olds! If they want to eat, they need to work! Sadly, this is not far from established conservative doctrine.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Read the whole story
skittone
1 day ago
reply
All school lunches (and breakfasts) should be free. Feed those little minds so they can learn.
acdha
19 hours ago
We can buy one less F-35 if that's what it takes!
Share this story
Delete

Two Giants

1 Share
5/2/1968 Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics, in his office. Credit: Chuck Painter / Stanford News Service

5/2/1968
Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics, in his office.
Credit: Chuck Painter / Stanford News Service

Two of the most important social scientists of the 20th century, whose work remains highly illuminating in the 21st, died this week. First, the Nobel-prize winning economist Ken Arrow, who was enormously and justly influential. Most relevant to contemporary American politics is his still-definitive explanation for why markets in health care don’t work.

Also dying this week was Ted Lowi, one of the true greats of political science. R.I.P.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Read the whole story
skittone
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories