Home / General / Some Humpday Links You Can Punch in the Face

Some Humpday Links You Can Punch in the Face


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • ΧΤΠΔ

    Also punch this link in the face.

  • humanoid.panda

    The deadspin dude is totally wrong. What Graham said is that don’t let buffoonery distract you from fact that Trump has the leverages of power, and is not shy about using them. Making him into a Halperin-clone is a shitty move.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      Cosign. I followed Graham’s writing for the Atlantic regularly during the primary and semi-regularly during the general, and while his work was primarily focused on the horserace, I got the impression thaton some level he knows and cares about actual policy. (The piece Burneko is criticizing is typical “voice from nowhere” school but not itself nihilistic).

      I do think that Burneko’s correct that savvy “journos” are on the whole more deleterious to the media experiment than merely total dumbasses. Total idiots (e.g., my nigga Chuck Todd*, most of the “Fuck the Fucking” NYT politics front desk) are at least capable of feeling remorse — however brief — or can be made to back down in the face of overwhelming evidence (even Cillizza said that Comey’s actions were unjustified earlier this month). Savvy hacks, on the other hand (e.g., Halperin, Allen/VandeHei & Shafer), operate under the dual ethea of “nothing matters anyway” and “nothing is ever my fault,” and deserve to have their heads boiled in their assholes.

      *’Cause TJ seems to have fallen off the face of the Earth.

      • humanoid.panda

        Right. Race horse journalism has an important function, when it is done right. It’s just most of the practitioners are terrible. (Weigel and Graham are important exceptions).

      • Origami Isopod

        The racial slur is very uncool, and baiting TJ doesn’t justify its use. You’re better than that.

        • ΧΤΠΔ

          Noted; any further emulation of TJ will be restricted to obscure hip-hop references.

          • Origami Isopod


    • petesh

      Yes, the Atlantic headline (and consequent URL) seems to be an egregious error of sub-editing: The text never uses the word “successful” though it does say “But what if the Trump presidency is actually off to a surprisingly effective start?” which has quite a different tone to it. And the executive orders are breathtaking in their scope (with more to come) and likely to be extremely effective. In a horrible way.

      • so-in-so

        Pearl Harbor was a highly effective start to the Japanese war in the Pacific.

        I know, not much else comparable, but things that start much better than the admin’s first week often go really bad.

  • NewishLawyer

    Okay, Trump’s aides might be leaking stuff to the press but the DI article also notes that they quake in fear of him and can’t say no to him. The latest exhibit of this is the “federal investigation” into voting fraud.

    So we are in for a shit show but will get lots of juicy gossip about palace intrigue that we can entertain ourselves with when the United States civilization collapses and we exist in caves.

    • El Guapo

      But why would you think that Trump aides (the ones that have an agenda anyway – Bannon, Kushner, etc.) want to say no to this? This is perfect cover for them. Trump is obsessed with the idea, he will tweetgasm the shit out of it, and distract everyone from the putsch going on. And it will fit nicely with the new aim of the Sessions DOJ – prosecuting all that dadgum voter fraud.

  • keta

    Note the Atlantic hed in the Deadspin link is “Trump’s Presidency is Off to Successful Start,” and then when you click through to the piece the hed reads, “Is Trump’s Presidency Off to Successful Start?

    And yeah, the whole Graham piece is a steaming turd.

    ETA: At least the original iteration of the hed won the coveted “Tug and Rub Subhed of Trump’s Official Strokeathon Press Gush.”

    Bog fucking weeps.

    • keta
    • Roger Ailes

      The Atlantic url currently includes “trumps-very-successful-start-to-a-presidency” The questions are who stealth edited the hed, and why?

      I’m leaning toward Graham is the new Phony-A, or the new new Sully.

      • humanoid.panda

        As I said above, I think you guys are misreading what Graham actually said, based on the bad headline.

        • keta

          Graham’s perspective in the piece is that Trump (with a Republican majority in the House) is advancing his stated agenda and this is a “success.” Granted, Graham notes the “pyrrhic” nature of some of this “success” but it’s the overall slant that makes it a steamer.

          Water is in fact, fucking wet! Water is a surprisingly effective!

          • Roger Ailes

            Dump is issuing executive orders which haven’t been challenged yet and getting his cabinet noms through a Republican-controlled Senate. I’m not going to call it a success if he makes boom-boom without Melania’s help either.

      • ΧΤΠΔ

        That piece sucks, but given his past work calling him a new new Sully is just plain insulting (as well as wrong on the specifics; the “new new Sully would be an emotionally impulsive, Dem-“allied” concern troll).

  • anonymous

    I don’t know that the Trump supporters are answering the questions about crowd size due to being “dum-dum”. Rather I think it’s more that they are trolling.

    It’s like all those answers about Obama birtherism. They don’t really believe it but they know it’s the answer to give for trolling purposes.

    IOW I don’t think these answers are intellectually honest. Most Repugs know their answer is rubbish in their hearts but just want to troll.

    • John not McCain

      It’s practice for when they have to deny the photos proving the existence of the camps and the emaciated people in them.

    • Rob in CT

      It’s a mix. There are things that Republicans believe that are patently untrue that they probably sincerely believe because they’ve been spoonfed nonsense by their “thought leaders.” But there is other shit like this that isn’t like that.

      We are now ruled by internet trolls. Fuck everything.

    • CP

      It’s like all those answers about Obama birtherism. They don’t really believe it but they know it’s the answer to give for trolling purposes.

      Krugman linked to a couple articles about this halfway through the administration – suggesting that birtherism was 1) a shibboleth, one of the many things people of the right wing tribe say to identify each other, and 2) a general and incoherent slur on Obama, saying that whether or not he’d done it, it’s the sort of thing he would do, because he’s just that kind of sleazebag.

      • so-in-so

        Exactly, which is why fact checking is meaningless to them. It doesn’t matter it’s not true, it’s FAITH. The fact that they are unmoved by your proving them wrong means their faith is strong!

        Maybe we need to start discussing “radical GOP terrorism” or the like. It’s as much a religious war as the fight against extremist Islam. It’s a matter of time before the beheadings start.

    • delazeur

      I don’t know that the Trump supporters are answering the questions about crowd size due to being “dum-dum”. Rather I think it’s more that they are trolling.

      That was exactly the point that the study’s authors were making (read the article, people!). They asked a question with an obvious answer (“Which photo has more people in it?”, without explicitly identifying which inauguration each photo was from) in order to see how many Trump voters would give the wrong answer — the assumption being that anyone who answered such a question incorrectly had to be doing so deliberately.

  • econoclast

    Was Burnenko one of the precious flowers who wouldn’t vote for Clinton? I’ve lost track.

    • El Guapo

      I don’t think so. Could be wrong, but thought he and Magary were the sane ones.

      • ΧΤΠΔ

        Nolan, Magary, Burke, Sargent, Ley, Petchesky and Scocca were the sane men. Burneko & Marchman also voted for her, but engaged in obnoxious purity posturing.

      • Aaron Morrow

        Magary maybe, but Burnenko whined and whined while giving Clinton his sacred vote. Of the actual sane voices here, at least one of them was a guy.

        (H/T, Jezebel)

        • ΧΤΠΔ

          Seven men, to be exact (six-and-a-half if you’re disinclined towards Nolan).

        • j_doc

          Sweet Christmas that Deadspin list is depressing reading. Almost makes you feel like we deserve everything that’s about to happening.

          • Aaron Morrow

            Take a look at that Jezebel link again if you want to feel better about the future. So much awesome.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      He voted for Clinton while sounding pretty much like [erections] in his explanation (as did Marchman). Draper, Redford, Haisley, and Kurupt Pareene* were the ones who abstained from voting.

      *Nickname a reference to how quickly he went from great to terrible, not to any potentially shared viewpoints.

  • Warren Terra

    A couple of truly appalling things spotted on Twitter within minutes of each other (not otherwise connected, except of course by Trump):

    Julia Ioffe ‏@juliaioffe 15 minutes ago
    Friend who works on refugees for USG texts, “It’s over. All trips [to interview refugees] canceled. The rest of the briefings canceled.”

    (see also Ioffe’s follow-up tweets)

    The Associated Press ‏@AP 19 minutes ago
    BREAKING: Trump administration mandating EPA scientific studies, data undergo review by political staff before public release.

It is main inner container footer text