Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ocelot II

Ocelot II's Journal
Ocelot II's Journal
July 14, 2024

He's a narcissist to whom the illusion of strength, even invincibility,

is essential to his image - both the image he presents to the public and the one he presents to himself. He's just had to face the reality that he came within inches of getting his head blown off. That would freak out even a normal person, but what would it do to someone who wouldn't want to be seen as an ordinary mortal guy who nearly got shot in the head, and probably would have if the shooter had been even slightly more accurate, or if the Secret Service agents hadn't protected him? He was powerless in that moment, and just as vulnerable as all the other people who he regards as his inferiors. I bet that caused him to pucker bigly. He'll overcompensate with some sort of bravado performance, exaggeration of the scratch on his ear, and, of course, attributing it all to liberals, Democrats, immigrants, BLM, uppity women and Joe Biden. But I have no doubt that he soiled his Underoos, mentally if not literally.

May 30, 2024

This reminds me a whole lot of the George Floyd case

in the sense that both cases were extremely controversial. In the Floyd case lot of people didn't think a jury would convict a cop, because historically that hasn't happened often (and still doesn't, sadly). Many right here on DU predicted a hung jury, or deliberations that would go on for a very long time, or even an acquittal. In both cases the judges handled the cases fairly, calmly and competently, and the prosecutors in both tried excellent cases (the defense, not so much - but neither defense lawyer had much to work with). In both cases the juries came back with unanimous verdicts in about the same amount of time. The cases are very different, of course, in that one involved a rogue cop and the other involved a rogue ex-president. The rogue cop behaved himself throughout the trial and didn't threaten anybody. The rogue ex-president, not so much.

But the system worked in both cases, and that makes me very happy.

May 29, 2024

I do not understand people who share every aspect of their lives on Facebook

or other social media. Even on DU there's a certain amount of what for me, at least, would be over-sharing, but at least we have the relative safety and anonymity of screen names. On Facebook, though, you're just out there, telling everybody what you, Jane P. Bingleford of Bilgewater, OH, had for dinner while letting burglars know you're out of town on a marvelous vacation in the Bahamas; that your hemorrhoids are acting up again; and worst of all, that your son Fred still wets his bed and you're SO worried because he's going to summer camp next week, and your daughter Zelda just got her first bra and isn't that wonderful? The mother of the woman in the linked article must be some kind of fucked up to have exposed her children the way she did. If you, an adult, want to tell the whole world about the rash on your butt, go ahead (not that most other people actually want to know), but the harm done by narcissistic, attention-seeking parents who broadcast every minute of their children's lives is incalculable. We have become so used to not having privacy that we don't even respect our own.

January 14, 2024

Nixon resigned because he knew he was going to be impeached,

and he accepted Ford's pardon because he knew he was likely to be prosecuted. There was never any question about immunity at the time. Sometime later, in 1977, he said in an interview that when a president does something it's legal. Nobody ever actually believed that, though; and Nixon certainly didn't either. In fact, that statement was qualified as referring to acts taken for purposes of national security. Here's a transcript of that part of the interview:

Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition –

Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.

Frost: So that the black-bag jobs that were authorized in the Huston plan … if they’d gone ahead, would have been made legal by your action?

Nixon: Well … I think that we would … I think that we’re splitting hairs here. Burglaries per se are illegal. Let’s begin with that proposition. Second, when a burglary, as you have described a black-bag job, ah … when a burglary, ah … is one that is undertaken because of an expressed policy decided by the president, ah … in the interests of the national security … or in the interests of domestic tranquility … ah … when those interests are very, very high … and when the device will be used in a very limited and cautious manner and responsible manner … when it is undertaken, then, then that means that what would otherwise be technically illegal does not subject those who engage in such activity to criminal prosecution. That’s the way I would put it. Now, that isn’t trying to split hairs … but I do not mean to suggest the president is above the law … what I am suggesting, however, what we have to understand, is, in wartime particularly, war abroad, and virtually revolution in certain concentrated areas at home, that a president does have under the Constitution extraordinary powers and must exert them with … as little as possible. . . .

So what Nixon was saying was that if actions that are ordinarily against the law are taken in the interests of national security or other national concerns, those actions should not result in prosecution. He added that he did "not mean to suggest the president is above the law," only that a president has "extraordinary powers" that can be used under certain circumstances to protect the national interest. This is not what Trump is claiming at all. Trump's argument is that a president can't be prosecuted at all for any crimes committed as president - including the murder of political opponents - unless he is first impeached and removed from office, which is ridiculous. Even Nixon didn't suggest anything like that.
September 19, 2023


AP - Former president Donald Trump was dragged by a large alligator into a water hazard near the 10th hole of one of the Doral Golf Resort's four courses, and apparently was mostly eaten. His partner, Senator Lindsey Graham, did not directly witness the attack, having obediently turned his back while Mr. Trump moved his ball, but he reported having seen a golf shoe disappear into the water along with the alligator's snout. Senator Graham stood by the edge of the water and squealed while a caddy poked ineffectually at the alligator with a nine-iron; subsequent rescue attempts recovered only a belt buckle, a red MAGA hat and shreds of a badly-soiled XXX pair of boxer shorts.

July 1, 2023

Lots of people got to exercise their middle fingers.

Loved the LOSER sign!

June 30, 2023

Things aren't just bad; they're *weird.*

I'm old. I've lived through - and remember well - Nixon, Reagan and Bush. They were bad presidents and many members of their administrations were bad; some even went to prison. These administrations were bad because they were dishonest, dumb and dangerous. At various times they lied to the public, implemented domestic and foreign policies that were harmful; some benefited corruptly and personally. But they were regular, normal bad, not weird bad. I couldn't stand Nixon, Reagan and Bush and their various loathsome minions because they were nasty, corrupt, dishonest and harmful, as politicians sometimes are and always have been, from time to time. But I never thought any of them were actually crazy. I never thought what was going on then was weird, the sort of weird that makes you go, How the fuck can this actually be happening?

And none of those administrations and presidents, as bad as they were, caused millions of people to go completely nuts, join a personality cult and start believing demonstrably mad things. Some believed stupid, unprovable things, like Saddam Hussein had WMDs, because they were lied to. But believing that thing was nothing like believing the government puts chemicals in the water that makes people turn gay or that Hillary Clinton was running a child abuse ring from the basement of a pizza parlor. There have always been goofy conspiracy theories but not ones that millions and millions of people actually believed. And TFG himself is a very weird guy, just apart from also being a very bad guy. Maybe it's the effect of social media, but I don't remember a time when bad was also really, really weird. Where did all this pathology come from?

June 30, 2023

Yup. There's not a damn thing we can do about the Supreme Court right now,

so all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing about their revanchist decisions is for naught. None of them will be impeached and it's doubtful that their ethical transgressions will be adequately dealt with. Elect Democrats at all levels and be sure there's one occupying the White House when the two oldest and worst of the not-so-Supremes finally go to their eternal reward. Elect Democratic dogcatchers, park board members, state representatives and senators; some of the most heinous fuckery arises at the local level, where any numpty wearing a beanie with a propeller can get elected to a school board or a city council by claiming that chemtrails and fluoride are polluting their precious bodily fluids and causing children to grow up to be communist drag queens. Best to spray for them while they are still larvae.

June 12, 2023

Pretty much. It's a lot harder to get away with really obvious racial bigotry any more;

you can't say "N-----" in public and you can't admit to hating Black people or Jews or members of non-white/non-Christian groups in polite company. So they had to find a new, more powerless minority to pick on, and why not LGBTQ people? They're "different" (just being different makes a person a potential target for hate no matter what the difference might be), and there's a sexual component that makes the haters uncomfortable. We can't have that, can we? And just think of the children! If a child reads a book about two boy penguins taking care of a chick, the child might turn out to be gay! If a child figures out that they are more comfortable living as the gender that they weren't born with and dressing accordingly, that's weird and it really means they are pretending to be girls so they can do icky things to the "real" girls in their school's bathrooms. Have I got that right?

What I think is really going on wrt trans-phobia is that RWingers, especially the fake Christians, have a very rigid view of gender (and everything else). You are either male or female, and between the two genders there's a vast chasm of behavior and appearance and roles. But gender is actually pretty fluid, and the hairy he-men of the GOP are horrified to think it might be possible for a person to consider themselves to be different from the God-created gender they were born with. For some reason this is terribly threatening. And drag is really scary because there are people who are actually men with actual penises who are dressing up as women, which is bad because women are weak and inferior and why would a man pretend to be one, even as a night club act? And if they read to children, those children will immediately start wearing false eyelashes and feather boas, and then what?

We're all performing our own drag, aren't we? We dress and behave in the way society expects us to. As a straight cis woman I don't have to wear makeup or earrings but I do because that's what we do. Drag bends expectations and that scares some people.

May 24, 2023

I have a theory about that letter, FWIW.

No lawyer, even one of TFG's sketchy mouthpieces, would write such a puerile, belligerent letter to the guy who's overseeing the prosecution of his client. What I suspect happened is something like this: TFG calls up the lawyer and says he wants a meeting with Garland. Lawyer says Garland probably won't do it because Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, is managing the case. TFG says he doesn't care, he wants the lawyer to send Garland a letter demanding a meeting, and he dictates the letter to the lawyer, insisting on the wording. And TFG wants a copy of the letter immediately, on the lawyer's letterhead. Lawyer rolls his eyes and has a secretary type it up as dictated and send a copy to TFG. Lawyer then either writes a polite, professional letter to Garland and/or Smith, requesting a conference to discuss the status of the case and does not send TFG a copy of this letter, or else he makes the request by phone so he can truthfully tell his client that he has contacted Garland. He suspects or knows that the letter TFG dictated will be posted on fake Twitter for the purpose of outraging and grifting the MAGAts but he's already sold his soul by agreeing to represent TFG in the first place, so he accepts the resulting humiliation as the cost of doing business. But the letter on TFG's fake Twitter was never sent to Garland at all.

So that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Minnesota
Member since: Mon Oct 27, 2003, 12:54 AM
Number of posts: 117,499
Latest Discussions»Ocelot II's Journal