Skip to content

Month: April 2018

Crippled America is great again and yet nothing has changed

Crippled America is great again

by digby


And yet nothing has changed:

The Republican National Committee spent more than $224,000 at President Donald Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago club in March, according to newly filed FEC reports. The expenditures, which were for rental and catering fees, were to cover the costs of an RNC fundraiser there early in the month. It was, far and away, the largest amount that the committee has spent at that specific Trump property (in January, the RNC spent $62,700 at Mar-a-Lago) and it is a reflection of how the president’s private business holdings continue to be intertwined with his political activities. Mar-a-Lago didn’t see every cent of the $224,857.68 spent by the RNC, since much of it was reimbursement for hosting the event. But it did certainly profit from the fundraiser, in addition to the added allure and promotional value that came with hosting. Outside of that expense, the RNC dropped nearly $30,000 for venue rental and catering at the Trump National Doral in Miami. It also spent $4,796.82 on “donor mementos” to Simon & Schuster.

What a sweet sweet scam. The idea that a president who won by calling his opponent “Crooked Hillary” and promising to put her in jail, is directly making a profit from the presidency is just too perfect.

The expense report does not detail which book the committee purchases in order to give to donors. But Simon & Schuster is the publishing house for Trump’s book, Crippled America, which was later retitled Great Again.

Can we all share a good laugh about the fact that Trump’s book called “Crippled America” has just been repackaged as “Great Again” with no changes to the content?

Time for a drink. You can’t make this stuff up.

.

Hello? Is this Donald?

Hello? Is this Donald?

by digby

Everybody wondered why Trump unilaterally decided not to issue the sanctions against Russia which Nikki Haley had publicly announced were coming. Too bad nobody can check his cell phone log. Who knows what it would reveal?

President Donald Trump is increasingly relying on his personal cell phone to contact outside advisers, multiple sources inside and outside the White House told CNN, as Trump returns to the free-wheeling mode of operation that characterized the earliest days of his administration.

“He uses it a lot more often more recently,” a senior White House official said of the President’s cell phone.

Sources cited Trump’s stepped-up cell phone use as an example of chief of staff John Kelly’s waning influence over who gets access to the President … one source close to the White House speculated that the President is ramping up the use of his personal device recently in part because “he doesn’t want Kelly to know who he’s talking to.”

The senior White House official said Trump “is talking to all sorts of people on it,” noting Trump’s barrage of private calls is a “recent development.”

Three sources familiar with the situation said Trump has also increased his direct outreach to GOP lawmakers over the past several weeks, sometimes employing his cell phone.

“Basically, at this point, he’s just sort of engaging on his own,” observed a source familiar with Trump’s calls to congressional allies.

“Kelly used to be more clearly the gatekeeper than he is now from a Hill standpoint,” that source added, noting members would typically call Kelly’s office if they wanted to set up a talk with Trump rather than dial the President directly.

“I don’t know that he even is running it by the chief of staff anymore,” the staff said.
[…]
Former President Barack Obama was permitted to use a Blackberry during his presidency. However, the White House said at the time that the device given to Obama was outfitted with enhanced security to protect potentially classified talks.

A security expert said the President’s increased cell phone use makes his calls more vulnerable to eavesdropping from foreign governments.

“All communications devices of all senior government officials are targeted by foreign governments. This is not new,” said Bryan Cunningham, executive director of the Cybersecurity Policy and Research Institute at the University of California-Irvine.

“What is new in the cell phone age is the ease of intercepting them and that at least our last two presidents … have chafed at not being able to use their personal cell phones,” Cunningham added. “Of course, calls are only secure if both parties use a secure device.”

Another implication of Trump’s private cell phone use, Cunningham noted, is the possibility that Trump’s conversations may not be “captured for the purposes of government accountability and history.”

All features not bugs.

Update: Not directly related but close:

The Treasury Department Monday eased sanctions on Russian aluminum producer Rusal and said it would consider lifting them altogether if the company severs ties with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.

Rusal was sanctioned earlier this month by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control because of Deripaska’s stake in the company. The Russian billionaire is alleged to have conducted a range of illegal activities, including money laundering, extortion and ordering the murder of a businessman, according to Treasury.

He is also reportedly part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election…Deripaska made headlines last year after it was reported that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort offered him “private briefings” on the 2016 election less than two weeks after Trump became the Republican nominee.

.

He could win again

He could win again

by digby

I’m sorry to throw this glass of ice cold water in your face on a Monday afternoon, but as I watch the Democrats preparing for a scorched earth presidential primary campaign, I think it’s probably a good idea to be aware of the very shocking reality that Donald Trump might very well win re-election:

The percentage of voters who say Trump deserves re-election is essentially identical to that of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at the time of the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections, respectively. More voters said George W. Bush deserved re-election at the time of the midterm elections in his first term, in 2002.

The latest results are based on an April 9-15 poll of U.S. registered voters. Trump’s re-elect number roughly matches his 39% job approval rating among all U.S. adults in the same week of Gallup tracking.

Trump’s approval ratings have been significantly worse than those of his predecessors at similar points in their presidencies. And his re-elect figures do not match those of Clinton (40% in April 1994) and Obama (46% in March 2010) in the spring of their first midterm election years. However, by the time voters cast ballots in those presidents’ first midterms that fall, the percentage of voters believing Clinton and Obama deserved to be re-elected had fallen to the same level Trump is at now.

Midterm election outcomes are often a referendum on the incumbent president. Clinton and Obama both saw their party suffer huge losses in their first midterm elections, when fewer than four in 10 voters thought they deserved re-election. In 1994, Democrats lost 53 seats in the House, and in 2010, they lost 63 seats. Those losses were large enough to make Republicans the majority party in the House of Representatives. In contrast, the Republican Party gained six seats in the 2002 midterms, when a majority of voters thought Bush deserved to be re-elected slightly more than a year after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Unless voters’ opinions of Trump improve significantly, the GOP could face a significant rebuke at the ballot box. Republicans currently enjoy a 44-seat majority in Congress — 237 to 193 — with five vacancies. A net shift of 23 seats in this year’s midterm elections would make the Democrats the majority party in the House.

U.S. voters’ opinions of whether members of Congress — including their own representative — deserve re-election are also more similar to what they were in 1994 and 2010 than in 2002, further supporting the idea of a difficult year for incumbents, particularly Republican incumbents.

As would be expected, Republican voters are much more likely than Democratic and independent voters to say Trump deserves to be re-elected. Currently, 78% of Republican voters think he should have a second term, compared with 32% of independents and 6% of Democrats.

According to the 2016 exit polls, 90% of Republican voters supported Trump, as did 48% of independents. Although that suggests Trump has lost a significant amount of support since 2016 among Republicans and independents, part of the gap could be accounted for by voter turnout, since many registered voters do not vote in a given election.

Trump’s standing with independents and supporters of the opposition party is similar to that of Clinton and Obama at the time of the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections. About one in three independents believed each deserved re-election, and fewer than one in 10 Republicans did. Trump’s numbers among Republicans are essentially the same as Obama’s among his fellow Democrats in 2010, but slightly better than those of Clinton among Democrats in 1994. Trump would need to see a recovery in his support over the next two years to successfully win re-election, as Clinton and Obama did.

Could it happen? I don’t know. But let’s not assume that it can’t. It has before.

Two Moscow nights …

Two Moscow nights …

by digby

Yes, he is a reflexive pathological liar but that doesn’t mean he never has a reason for lying:

Though Trump reportedly told Comey that he didn’t stay overnight in the Russian city, per the director’s contemporaneous memos of their private meeting, the flight records and social media posts show that Trump stayed overnight in the city at a hotel.

This development is significant because it undermines Trump’s denials that the Russian government has blackmail material on him as mentioned in the Steele dossier, in the form of a video recording of him with prostitutes. The dossier’s author, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, said sources told him that Trump had been videotaped with prostitutes at a hotel while he stayed overnight during the pageant.

Comey’s memos of his meetings with Trump in 2017 show that the president was preoccupied with proving these claims false. He claimed it couldnt’ be true because he didn’t spend the night in Moscow. He even suggested that he might ask Comey to investigate the claims to show that they were untrue, but he never officially made this request.

The records clearly show, Bloomberg reports, that Trump arrived in Moscow on a Friday and didn’t leave until Sunday morning.

It’s possible that Trump spent not just one but two nights in the hotel on that trip. They left pre-dawn on Sunday according to the Bloomberg report but it’s quite possible that he was in the room that night before he left for the airport.

As I said, he lies about everything but it’s a mistake to assume every lie is just something he says without any other motivation.

.

Little Donnie Trump, king of the world

Little Donnie Trump, king of the world

by digby





This story in the New Yorker about the former national security adviser H.R. McMaster illustrates why this president is something unique in our politics. He is a symptom of the Republican descent into madness but he is something different from them as well. He brings something to their toxic stew that actually transforms it in substantial ways. It’s not that they are better, per se, but the challenges they present fit into a paradigm we understand and can mitigate through our common understanding o politics. This is not that:

When Trump assumed office, N.S.C. staffers initially generated memos for him that resembled those produced for his predecessors: multi-page explications of policy and strategy. But “an edict came down,” a former staffer told me: “ ‘Thin it out.’ ” The staff dutifully trimmed the memos to a single page. “But then word comes back: ‘This is still too much.’ ” A senior Trump aide explained to the staffers that the President is “a visual person,” and asked them to express points “pictorially.” 

“By the time I left, we had these cards,” the former staffer said. They are long and narrow, made of heavy stock, and emblazoned with the words “the white house” at the top. Trump receives a thick briefing book every night, but nobody harbors the illusion that he reads it. Current and former officials told me that filling out a card is the best way to raise an issue with him in writing. Everything that needs to be conveyed to the President must be boiled down, the former staffer said, to “two or three points, with the syntactical complexity of ‘See Jane run.’ ” 

Given Trump’s avowed admiration for despots, and the curious deference that he has shown Putin, his staff was worried about the March 20th phone call. Putin had recently been elected to another six-year term, but American officials did not regard the election as legitimate. Staffers were concerned that Trump might nevertheless salute Putin on his sham victory. When briefers prepared a card for the call, one of the bullet points said, in capital letters: “do not congratulate.” 

Trump also received a five-minute oral briefing from his national-security adviser, Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster, who goes by H.R. Before McMaster delivered the briefing, one of his aides said to him, “The President is going to congratulate him no matter what you say.” 

“I know,” McMaster replied. 

Trump takes pride in being impervious to the advice of experts, and he had no personal affection for his national-security adviser. McMaster, who had learned to pick his battles, chose not to raise the matter of Putin’s election. The President took the call alone in the White House residence, but McMaster was listening in on a so-called drop line. Sure enough, Trump did not read or did not heed the briefing card, and congratulated Putin.

This is different.

 .

Oh God. They’re going to try to re-run the 2016 campaign

Oh God. They’re going to try to re-run the 2016 campaign


by digby

I wrote about the GOP’s 2018 strategery for 2018 for Salon this morning:

President Trump was forced to spend fewer hours on the Mar-a-lago golf course this past week-end due to the occasion of former First Lady Barbara Bush’s funeral which he had to pretend to watch on TV. (Protocol says that presidents don’t attend first lady funerals in person for some reason.) He must have stayed glued to the tube because his twitter feed was on fire. He once again insisted that Former FBI James Comey had committed a crime, even suggesting that he can retroactively make any government employee who writes down something embarrassing to the president into a criminal by making the document “confidential” months later:

He also claimed he had never heard of Mr Magoo and Mr Peepers so he couldn’t possibly have given those nicknames to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and said Sylvester Stallone had recently convinced him that he should pardon the famous African American boxer Jack Johnson who was unjustly convicted of taking his white girlfriend across state lines a hundred years ago. He wished the Republicans in congress “good luck” in trying to get Sessions to criminally investigate Comey and Hillary Clinton. In light of the NY Times story which revealed that Trump is known to insult his lawyer Michael Cohen and treat him like a lackey, he tweeted that he admires Cohen and doesn’t expect him to succumb to pressure and “flip” which doesn’t seem like something an innocent person would say. He also condemned some “drunk, drugged up loser” for saying that Cohen would turn states evidence causing millions of people to wonder to which drunk, drugged up loser in his orbit he was referring.

And there’s was this:

For the record, Kim Jong Un has not agreed to “denuclearization.”

And finally another of his now classic primal tweets:

These raging tweet storms have become so commonplace that it may be time to issue a warning for the kids in our country who are growing up thinking that this is normal presidential behavior. If he were the president of the 7th grade perhaps it might be but it’s unlikely most 7th grade class presidents would be quite this petulant and undignified. Kids, don’t try this at home.

In fact, it’s not the young people we have to worry about emulating this immature ranting. It’s the other Republicans running for office. According to Jeremy Peters of The New York Times, Trump has inspired GOP candidates all over the country to adopt his puerile political style for their campaigns. They’re all wearing MAGA hats and saying things like “Build the wall” and “Drain the swamp” and “Lock her up!” evidently believing that if they can get a little bit of that Trump fairy dust, they’ll be big winners just like him.

Peters (one hopes with tongue buried firmly in his cheek) writes that such Republicans “are channeling Mr. Trump’s belligerent and profane style of speaking, seeking to capture that essential but elusive quality that matters so much to voters these days — “authenticity.” Nothing says “authentic” better than aping the behavior of another person, a person whose main claim to authenticity is a total inability to tell the truth. But they are going for it:

In Indiana, Representative Todd Rokita, a Republican candidate for Senate, proudly slaps on a red “Make America Great Again” cap in a new ad as he promises to “proudly stand with our president and Mike Pence to drain the swamp.” 

Not to be outdone, one of Mr. Rokita’s opponents, Luke Messer, tarred Mr. Rokita as “Lyin’ Todd,” an echo of Mr. Trump’s epithet for Senator Ted Cruz, “Lyin’ Ted.” Mr. Messer’s gripe? Mr. Rokita falsely claimed to have received the president’s endorsement.

Even Republican women are rolling out female versions of Trumpism on the campaign trail. In Arizona, Rep. Martha McSally, running for the Senate seat being abandoned by Jeff Flake, keeps recounting how she tells those Washington swamp-dwellers to “grow a pair of ovaries” and quotes newspaper articles that bleep her using the f-word. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who is running for Bob Corker’s Senate seat in Tennessee, says she “stands up when President Trump walks in the room.” (It’s unknown if she curtsies as well.) And she wants that wall built now.

Tea Party-style candidate Chris McDaniel, who is staging a GOP primary challenge in Mississippi against newly-appointed Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (who replaced the retiring Thad Cochran), likes to say that he was Trump before Trump was Trump. But nobody channels the president better than West Virginia’s Don Blankenship, who is running to unseat Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin. Blankenship truly is the most authentic Trump candidate one can imagine, and he’s got a good chance to win the nomination, despite serious GOP establishment jitters. He was chairman of Massey Energy, the sixth-largest coal company in the U.S., at the time of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in 2010, in which 29 miners were killed. He was indicted for conspiracy to violate federal mine safety and health standards, lying to authorities and securities fraud. He ended up doing a year in federal prison and was released last May. By all accounts, Blankenship is an abusive boss, a rampant polluter and a generally nasty piece of work. One of his campaign ads puts it simply:

We don’t need to investigate our president. We need to arrest Hillary. Lock her up!

That’s right: Republicans are still running against Hillary Clinton, mainly so they can thrill their voters with the prospect of putting her in an orange jumpsuit and sending her to rot in jail. That vision appears to have an electric effect on the GOP base that’s even more exciting than “Build that wall!”

According to this AP article, Republican strategists are counting on the overwhelming loathing their voters still feel for Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the key to holding their congressional majority:

“I promise you that you’ll continue to see it — Hillary Clinton starring in our paid media. She’s a very powerful motivator,” said Corry Bliss, who leads the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super political action committee ready to spend tens of millions of dollars to shape House races this fall. “It’s about what she represents. What she represents, just like what Nancy Pelosi represents, is out-of-touch far-left liberal positions.”

Sure, it’s all about their “far-left” positions.

As horrifying as it sounds, it appears that the Republicans want to re-run 2016 to validate Trump’s victory and endorse his political style and reckless agenda. It could be an inflection point in American history if they pull that off. Let’s hope the voters prove to them once and for all that 2016 was a horrible fluke and not something that can ever be repeated.

.

The war against the press

The war  against the press

by digby

Professor Jay Rosen gave a speech this week called “The Campaign to Discredit the Press” which he shared on a long twitter thread. I thought those who don’t tweet might find it interesting:

There is alive in the land an organized campaign to discredit the American press. This campaign is succeeding.

Its roots are long. For decades the Republican coalition has tried to hang together by hating on elites who claim to know things, like “what is art?” Or: “what should college students be taught?” Or: “what counts as news?”

The media wing of this history extends back to Goldwater’s campaign in 1964. It passes through Agnew’s speeches for Nixon in 1969, and winds forward to our own time through William Rusher’s 1988 book, ‘The Coming Battle for the Media’…

… then through the growth of conservative talk radio, and in the spectacular success of Fox, which found a lucrative business model in resentment news, culture war, and the battle cry of liberal bias.

Donald Trump is both the apotheosis of this history and its accelerant. He has advanced the proposition dramatically. From undue influence — that was Agnew’s claim — to something closer to treason: “enemy of the people.”

Instead of criticizing The Media for unfair treatment, as Agnew did, Trump whips up hatred for it. Some of his most demagogic moments have been attacks on the press, often by singling out reporters and camera crews for abuse during rallies held in an atmosphere of menace.

Nixon seethed about the press in private. Trump seethes in public, a very different act. But his transformation of right wing media complaint goes beyond these lurid performances.

It starts at the top with the President’s almost daily attacks on “the fake news,” and his description of key institutions — the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC — as both failing AND corrupt. Contempt thus has two places to settle.

At the bottom of the pyramid is an army of online trolls and alt right activists who shout down stories critical of the President, and project hatred at the journalists who report them.

Between the President at the top and the base at the bottom are the mediating institutions: Breitbart, Drudge Report, Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh and especially Fox News.

The campaign to discredit the American press operates differently on the three major sections of the Trumpified electorate: supporters, opponents, and those who are not in either camp.

For core supporters, media hate helps frames the president as a fighter for them. “I will put these people down for you” was one of the most attractive promises Trump made during the campaign. He has delivered on that pledge.

They in turn deliver for him by categorically rejecting news reports that are critical of the President, in the belief that biased journalists are simply trying to bring their guy down.

On his committed opponents, the President’s political style “works” by inviting ridicule and attack. Their part in the script is simply to keep the culture war going via native responses to the awfulness of the Trump phenomenon.

The anger, despair and disbelief that Trump inspires in his most public doubters is felt as confirmation, and consumed as entertainment by his most committed supporters— and his trolls.

Notice how if Trump’s opponents defend the reporting of an elite institution like the New York Times — or simply make reference to it as revealed fact — that only supports his campaign to discredit the press as a merely ideological institution.

Then there’s the third group: Americans who are neither committed supporters nor determined critics of Donald Trump. On them, the campaign to discredit the press works by generating noise and confusion, raising what economists call search costs for good information.

If the neither/nors give up and are driven from the attention field, that is a win for Trump, the polarizer-in-chief. So that’s my short course in how the campaign to discredit the American press operates. Now let me turn to our subject: the risks that come with this pattern.

There is a risk that one third of the electorate — his core supporters — will be isolated in an information loop of their own, where Trump is the source of news about Trump, and independent sources are rejected on principle.

I described this as a risk, but in fact it has already happened. An authoritarian system is up and running for that portion of the polity. Another way to say it: Before journalists log on in the morning, one third of their public is already gone.

There is a risk that Republican elites will fail to push back against Trump’s attacks on democratic institutions, including the press, even though these same elites start their day by reading the New York Times and Washington Post. This too has already happened.

There is a risk that journalists could do their job brilliantly, and it won’t really matter, because Trump supporters categorically reject it, Trump opponents already believed it, and the neither-nors aren’t paying close enough attention.

In a different way, there is a risk that journalists could succeed at the production of great journalism and fail at its distribution, because the platforms created by the tech industry have overtaken the task of organizing public attention.

There is a risk that the press will lose touch with the country, fall out of contact with the culture. Newsroom diversity is supposed to prevent that, but the diversity project has been undermined by a longer and deeper project, which I have called the View from Nowhere.

The press is at risk of losing its institutional footing. For example: In the hands of Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders, the White House briefing has gone to ruin. It was always frustrating, now it’s useless and frequently counter-productive.

Many floors below the surface of journalism there are bedrock attitudes that make the practice possible— and thinkable. There is a risk of erosion there. One example is the shared belief that there exists a common world of fact that can be established through inquiry…

When the President of the United States forcefully rejects the premise of a common world of fact, and behaves like there is no such thing, any practice resting upon that premise is in political trouble. This has happened to journalism. No one knows what to do about it.

Used to be that when the American president went abroad, the press came with. There would be a joint press conference with the foreign head of state. Under authoritarian regimes this would often be the only time the host country’s press corps got to question their own leader.

In these moments, the American government and the American press came together to show the strongmen of the world what a real democracy was. All that is now at risk. What was once described — yes, with some hyperbole — as a beacon to the world is flickering…

When Donald Trump met the president Xi Jinping of China in November of 2017 there was no joint press conference. The Chinese didn’t want it. The State Department failed to press for it.

There is a risk that established forms of journalism will be unable to handle the strain that Trump’s behavior puts upon them. For example: the form we came to call fact checking has had zero effect in preventing him from repeating falsehoods.

There is a risk that journalists will hang onto these forms way past their sell-by date because it’s what they know. They want things to be normal. Access to confusion and disinformation serves no editorial goal, but “access journalism” remains basic to White House reporting.

I will close with something Steve Bannon put to the author Michael Lewis in February of this year. “The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon said. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

To this kind of provocation (“The real opposition is the media…”) Marty Baron, editor of the Washington Post, has a succinct reply: “We’re not at war, we’re at work.”

I think our leading journalists are correct that if they become the political opposition to Trump, they will lose. And yet they have to go to war against a political style in which power gets to write its own story. There’s a risk that journalists will fail to draw this distinction: between opposing Trump and opposing a political style that erodes their place in the public sphere. In my role as a critic, I have been trying to alert them to that danger. So far it is not working.

Good morning. That was uplifting wasn’t it?

He’s right. And none of this is to say that the media is immune to criticism or that people cannot complain about coverage. That’s as American as apple pie. But this ugly, extreme hostility we see under Trump along with the propaganda and “fake news” is something different.  Maybe it will peter out. Let’s hope so because if it doesn’t it’s going to escalate into something we don’t recognize.

.

‘Rapture to begin TODAY.’ Go back to bed. by @BloggersRUs

‘Rapture to begin TODAY.’ Or not.
by Tom Sullivan

All Donald Trump’s troubles are over. And you can go back to sleep. Pray to God they don’t talk it up this morning on “Fox and Friends.” The end is here:

The world will cease to exist on April 23 according to a prediction that has some preparing for the worst, some yawning and others laughing.

The warning about an upcoming rapture from numerologist David Meade is the latest prophecy about the arrival of the apocalypse.

According to Meade, codes in the Bible suggest the end of the world is imminent.

Or not:

The guy who said the world as we know it would come to an end on Monday says we still have some time.

Christian conspiracy theorist David Meade sent believers into a spiral recently when he declared that the rapture was coming on Monday, April 23, but now he’s calling those reports “fake news.” Meade, who has wrongfully predicted the end of time before, told The Guardian that Jesus is coming to take some of us back up to heaven with him somewhere between May and December.

But it will no longer be the end of the world when this happens, he said, just seven years “tribulation,” followed by 1,000 years of “peace and prosperity.” Then the world will cease to exist.

Just as long as Jesus returns and catches up Trump’s faithful into the air before early voting starts in October.

Fox News offers this: “Experts advise against selling all your belongings, going off your diet, ending training for that half-marathon next month, and quitting your job.”

If I recall, there is/was some controversy over the timing of Jesus’ return and the Rapture. There are those who say he comes back with the Rapture, followed by seven years of tribulation for those who remain. Others say he comes back in the middle of it. Still others say Jesus comes back to rescue Christians at the end of the seven years of tribulation, followed by a millennia of peace under his reign, then the end of the world.

Asked where he stood on the question of a pre-trib, mid-trib, or a post-trib Rapture, I once heard a sassy preacher declare himself a pan-millennialist because he figured it would all pan out in the end.

In evangelical circles that counts as wit.

* * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

A big scoop from Fake Business News:

A big scoop from Fake Business News:

by digby

They are ON it:

Investigators inside the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller reacted with a mixture of skepticism and laughter at Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he will negotiate a swift end to Mueller’s probe of President Donald Trump and his alleged involvement in possible Russian election meddling and obstruction of justice, FOX Business has learned.

Uuuuh, I’m going to take a wild guess and say that they just made that up. Or, if you prefer, “this is Fake News.”

Mueller’s office doesn’t leak and they certainly don’t leak this palace intrigue gossip. I think it’s becoming reflexive at this point.

.

The Deplorable 37%

The Deplorable 37%

by digby

You want to see evidence of Trumpism being normalized? Here it is.

Fifty-one percent of Missourians disapprove of embattled Gov. Eric Greitens’ job performance, according to a new poll, and he maintains a 37 percent approval rating.

The survey released Saturday by the Missouri Scout news service showed support for the governor riding along party lines: 57 percent of Republicans approve of the job Greitens is doing, while only 12 percent of Democrats approve.

The first-term governor received 31 percent approval among Missourians who did not cite a party preference.

The poll of 1,542 likely voters was taken Wednesday and Thursday.

On Friday, Greitens was charged with felony computer tampering after a state attorney general’s investigation into the Greitens 2016 campaign’s use of a donor list to a veterans charity he founded. Earlier this year, a St. Louis grand jury indicted Greitens on a felony charge stemming from a photo he allegedly took of a partially nude woman with whom he was having an affair.
[The woman also claims the photo was coerced and she was blackmailed into staying quiet.]

Maintaining his innocence on both matters, Greitens on Friday accused Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner of trying to smear him.

In a Pulse Opinion Research poll released in early March, 53 percent of Missourians said they had an “unfavorable opinion” of Greitens and 46 percent said he should resign.

Fifty percent of Missourians said they approved of President Donald Trump’s job performance, and 44 percent said they disapproved.

I’m sorry, there is a sizeable minority in this country who now openly prefer leaders who are racist, corrupt, sexual assaulting criminals. And it hasn’t got a goddamned thing to do with economics.

.