Home / General / How Much Derp Can a US Senator Fit into 140 Characters or Fewer?

How Much Derp Can a US Senator Fit into 140 Characters or Fewer?

Comments
/
/
/
143 Views

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • “…but no need to do that now as they have now managed to install their man in the White House”?

    • Cervantes

      Exactly. Putin would be trying to undermine USA if Hillary were president, but he wouldn’t be succeeding nearly as well.

      • JDM

        Cornyn is exactly who the mafia wants running that business. He’d never go to the FBI cause he was threatened; just do whatever they say.

        Red Dawn indeed.

      • The repugs would be undermining the USA if Hillary was president.

      • Alex King

        instead Putin is relaxing in his dacha on a Crimean beach, reflecting on the merits of outsourcing.

  • King Goat

    If you just keep appeasing them then they won’t be against you!

  • Lurking Canadian

    Instead, Trump is undermining the US for him, which is better because…I’ll come in again.

    • Llywelyn Jones

      It’s more efficient that way, markets are more efficient, therefore freedom. QED.

  • brad

    There needs to be a bot that auto-tweets the Big John video in response to him.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8

    • “Well, look, that nice feller’s just like us!” said square-dance grandmothers everywhere.

    • tsam100

      GOOD GOD THAT’S FUCKING NAUSEATING

    • the actual Bajmahal

      “… Kept Texas in Power… Made lesser states Squirm…” Priceless.

    • reattmore

      Drugstore cowboy.

    • Hogan
      • wjts

        And we’re proud to be Americans, until we can secede.

        The first European settlers in Texas, as every schoolchild knows, were the French. But living in Texas was too hard, so they quit. They were followed by the Spanish, but being part of Spain was too hard, so Texas quit and became part of Mexico. But it turned out that being part of Mexico was also too hard, so Texas quit again and became an independent country. But being an independent country was also too hard, so Texas quit again and joined the United States. But being part of the United States was also too hard, so Texas quit again and joined the Confederacy. But being part of the Confederacy was also too hard, so Texas quit and rejoined the United States.

        No one knows what challenges the future holds, but the past suggests one thing will forever be true: no matter how hard the struggle, no matter how long the odds, Texas will always – always – be happy to quit while others persevere.

  • Marduk Kur

    “Possibly by undertaking a campaign to subvert our democratic elections and install a Manchurian president in the White House….”

  • Thirtyish

    And yet…I thought conservatives such as Mr. Cornyn had boners about Putin’s Russia.

    • BiloSagdiyev

      It depends on what day it is.

      “See, you gotta make my bunk. See, we’re in Italy. The guy on the top bunk…has gotta make the guy on the bottom’s bed all the time. It’s in the regulations. If we were in Germany…I would have to make yours. But we’re in Italy, so you’ve gotta make mine. It’s regulations.”

  • DAS

    How much wood could a wood chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? How much derp could a Senator tweet if a Senator could tweet derp?

    Also, our Senators fit the most derp into their tweets. The yuuuugest and highest quality derp. It’s derp like you can’t imagine!

    • dnexon

      Alternate title was: “How much derp would a derp derp if a derp could derp derp.” :-)

      • tsam100

        How much derp would a derpchuck derp if a derpchuck would chuck derp?

        • DAS

          I think the verb would be herp, wouldn’t it?

          So … how much derp would a derpherp herp if a derpherp could herp derp?

          • tsam100

            Probably, but the word chuck makes me laugh. I’m not normal.

      • N__B

        Along the lines of “Buffalo” et al: Derp derp derp derp. The first derp is Cornyn, the second is the verb, the third is twitter, the fourth is the content. I’m sure that string can be extended by people less tired and inebriated than me.

    • Uncle_Ebeneezer

      The only way more derp could be squeezed in would be with the use of a little Santorum.

      • Drew

        Hork

  • DamnYankeesLGM

    John Cornyn would have gladly sat by and applauded as my grandparents were marched into camps. It’s been interesting to watch the Trump phenomenon so clearly reveal these people for what they are.

    • DAS

      And yet many Trump supporters in my nabe still don’t get it.

      • DamnYankeesLGM

        Them not “getting” is what makes them Trump supporters. They are those people.

        Actively not caring about people outside of your immediate tribe *is* what makes you this way. The vast, vast majority of people who support these sorts of regimes don’t actively hate other people. They just don’t care about them at all.

        • DAS

          The thing is that the Trump supporters in my nabe are the people who are the quickest to find anti-Semitism in every perceived slight and the most eager to jump on any evidence that liberals have insufficiently internalized the “lessons” of the Holocaust.

          • DamnYankeesLGM

            Because its all defensive – it’s all about how they are good people. They want the social position of virtue without having to do any of the work to deserve it. The easiest way to do that is just to be constantly defensive about how your opponents are worse than you even on issues where you stink. No matter how absurd the argument is.

    • sanjait

      “Interesting” is not untrue but not the word I would have chosen.

      • DamnYankeesLGM

        Fair.

  • Jon_H11
  • AlexSaltzberg

    Three separate thoughts–

    1. On the subject of Russia vs USA, which side is Trump on? He has certainly been more complimentary to Russia than to the majority of Americans.

    2. Republicans, again, demonstrate the concept of agency only applies to Democrats.

    3. We’re closing in on “Look, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she wasn’t so hostile to Russia, they wouldn’t have tried to meddle. And of course we had to accept the aid of a foreign government to get Trump into office — just look at how corrupt the Clintons are! Can’t you imagine that they would have accepted the aid of a foreign government to seize power? And once you think that, really it’s both sides at fault here.”

    • rm_rm_rm

      Male bosses are decisive, female bosses are bossy bitches
      Male Secretaries of State are tough, female Secretaries of State are provocative and confrontational.
      Therefore, Clinton obviously should have been weak and compliant in dealing with Russia as Secretary of State.
      But she had to act all manly, and now look what she made us do!</code?

    • Re: #3 – Victim blaming is, after all, the Republican way.

    • Domino

      Has anyone gone for the “Obama was such a weak leader for 8 years that lead Russia to feel it could flex it’s muscles internationally without fear or repercussion, and also Hilary’s hostile stance towards Russia made them look for any opening to undermine the US” line of argument? Because I would love to watch it.
      It wouldn’t shock me – nothing matters and almost nothing surprises me at this point, but I’d still like to see someone pull it off with a straight face.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Jimmy Carter’s not dead yet, you know!

  • Rob in CT

    There is no bottom.

    • rm_rm_rm

      I suppose joking that Donald is the bottom would have problematic homophobic implications that make the joke not worth using here.

      • Neither “bottom” nor “top” has any necessary gender/sex (nor should the terms be treated in any other kind of essentialst manner; cf., e.g., the term of art “pushy bottom”).

        On the other hand, the problematic quark implications may still be a show-stopper.

        • N__B

          OT. I once had several people in a drunken bar conversation convinced that recent research had uncovered a new type of quark: the cute quark.

  • reattmore

    If Hillary Clinton was president, Putin would be actively trying to undermine the USA. Because Trump is president, Putin doesn’t need to. We’ve become self-undermining.

    • Stella Barbone

      Putin has already succeeded.

    • DAS

      So Cornyn’s “argument” is really not too different than “we have to give up some of our freedoms to effectively fight against terrorists who hate us for our freedoms”?

  • SatanicPanic

    Trump is the guy who keeps bringing up Clinton.

  • NobodySpecial

    If it’s Russia vs. USA, then what’s he got to say about the President who wants to do everything jointly with Russia?

  • David Hunt

    For me, the saddest thing about that tweet is that I am still less embarrassed by John Cornyn as my Senator than I am by his cohort, Ted Cruz.

    • DamnYankeesLGM

      You should be way more embarrassed by Cornyn. Cruz is despicable. Cornyn is humiliating.

    • howard77

      you probably keep a closer eye than i do: my general attitude towards cornyn is that he’s yet another not-very-bright identikit rightwing blowhard, but it does seem lately that he has been trying to distinguish himself as the not-very-brightest blowhard-est. have i just missed it up to now?

    • benjoya

      i think cruz wins the evil competition, cornyn the stupid

      • Downpup E

        Cornyn seems to be going downhill. In 2004, when Ben Domenech wrote the infamous Box Turtle analogy into a speech for him, he still had enough sense to skip it.

  • I’m feeling like editing this: “If Clinton were President, Russia would still be actively trying to undermine the USA, but this isn’t about Clinton, because she is not President.”

    • BloodyGranuaile

      I know this is very anti-First Amendment, but if a genie appeared right now and gave me three wishes, the first one would be to put a moratorium on talking about Hillary Clinton in political speech, across the spectrum, for a full year. People would either have to find something else to say or sit there making undignified froglike noises. Goes for type, too.

  • DamnYankeesLGM

    John Cornyn, more than anyone elected (I think), really embodies the Sartre quote about anti-semites. Sartre wrote it about people who hate Jews, but it really applies more broadly to a lot of reactionary politics:

    Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

    • DAS

      A lot of what Sartre wrote about anti-Semites and anti-Semitism is becoming quite relevant again.

    • Rob in CT

      That sure looks bang-on, dunnit?

      In other words, trolling. Before the internet.

      ETA: this bit –

      They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.

      is close cousin to the current situation, in which the very concept of objective truth is being undermined.

      • tsam100

        Right, and if you finally get fed up and smash his teeth down his fucking throat like he deserves, you just played yourself. This is a lesson I’ve had a lifelong wrestling match with.

        • brad nailer

          Left-wing violence! It’s now a thing, you know.

      • DamnYankeesLGM

        I think its more than trolling. Trolling isn’t in and of itself a political act. I’ve occasionally trolled people on video game message boards or sports just because they were stupid and its fun to annoy people. But there’s ultimately nothing at stake, and when called on it I’m more than happy to fess up and admit I was just playing around.

        Trolling in politics is not normal. Well, I should say it’s not normal in recent US political history. Trolling with actual, serious consequences is psychotic. That’s why we look with such horror at trolls who knowingly drive people to suicide – like, who the fuck does that. I think most people conceive of trolling as just having a little fun. People don’t normally weaponize it, or actually use to bring about massive social change.

        I don’t think this sort of activity should be bundled in with “trolling”. It’s more than that, because I think its genuinely self-deceptive. When Cornyn responds to the CBO report with a tweet saying “Fake news!”, he’s not just trolling. He’s psychologically re-enveloping himself into his bubble. He’s fooling *himself*. That’s…weird.

        • sibusisodan

          Fair distinction. In sartre’s terms, a true troll still believes in words, I guess?

          Epic quote, btw. Thanks for finding.

          • DamnYankeesLGM

            I think in Sartre’s terms – at least in that quote – a true troll would believe in ideas, but not necessarily words. He doesn’t care about argumentation, he cares about winning. There are lots of people in the world who either consciously or unconsciously know that if they lay their beliefs bare, others won’t go along. So they need to come up with other, non-argumentative ways, to get what they want.

            But I’m far from an expert in Sartre so I probably know nothing.

            • Isn’t that one of the hallmarks of authoritarianism and (to use the term loosely), fascism? The rightness of the argument doesn’t lie in what is said, so much as in who is saying it, just like the morality of law does not depend on the laws themselves, but on the power of the authority that sets the laws.

            • bw

              They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

              This is an almost perfect description of someone who I’ve been thinking a lot about since the election: a dipshit troll who I used to spar with on a music board for the better part of a decade (from around 2002-2011; the board moderators finally banned all political discussion).

              This guy was a true-believing Islamophobic turd who lived (probably in his mom’s basement despite being middle-aged) somewhere near Atlanta. He had a well-worn shtick: he wouldn’t actually post opinions of his own, he’d just post article after article that he copied from Breitbart or – before Breitbart existed – whatever was linked on Little Green Footballs (yeah, remember that sewer?). About 75% of the articles were about horrifying things Some Muslim Somewhere Did and the other 25% was mostly dishonest garbage about how Democrats were the true corrupt ones.

              The whole idea of doing things this way was that he could straight-up function as a racist agitator, bombarding the nominally apolitical people on the board with anti-Muslim propaganda, while also preserving the fiction that he was “just posting articles.” He’d almost never respond to questions probing for what his actual opinion was or what should be done about the political issues he was posting about; he’d just move on and start another thread with new copypasta. Sort of like Phil here, except stupider and much more racist.

              The main outcome of my constantly telling him that I knew what he was up to and he could go fuck himself was that lots of people on the board started to hate me for destroying the board’s comity and their feelgood. As long as this guy made the occasional music post and traded CDs with other members, he was a valued member of the community no matter how he behaved. He’d win no matter what: if I ignored him, the result would be a forum full of unchallenged agitprop; if I went after him calmly with facts and snark, I was mostly wasting my time since he wasn’t interested in debate (and it took a lot more effort to rebut his crap than it did for him to CTRL-C and CTRL-V it); and if I went after him with angry invective, then I just looked like the asshole.

              • petesh

                On the positive side, Little Green Footballs is not like that anymore, I visit regularly and I’m OK with the current commentariat, while Johnson is as reformed as Cole.

                • bw

                  I suppose. I never bothered to even look at it after about 2007 or so. Cole at his worst was never as toxic an influence as Johnson, and as such I have a much harder time believing that Johnson’s conversion was sincere rather than performative. Cole is much funnier/more interesting than Johnson (at least, what I’ve seen of retweeted Johnson on Twitter) in any case, so I don’t have much use for the latter.

                • mattmcirvin

                  Johnson wasn’t raised conservative — rather he was one of these guys who was driven mad by 9/11. (I can sympathize to some degree, though at my worst I was never as bad as what he seemed to be OK with.) Before that he was a not – very – political tech guy who considered himself vaguely liberal, and even when LGF was hate central he insisted he was a liberal Democrat. I think he was basically a political naif who was slow on the uptake about having fallen in with an incredibly vicious crowd.

                • bw

                  Yep – and anyone who was truly that dumb and clueless as a middle-aged man is someone whose opinions I have no trouble surviving without.

      • sanjait

        Trump fans don’t just disregard objective truth, they delight in his disregard for it, because it serves to pisses off the libtards.

        They aren’t opposed directly to the notion of objective truth, but they find his torturing of it amusing, and have learned to disregard it when inconvenient.

        So basically, yes, it is undermined.

        • DamnYankeesLGM

          This is right. This is what happens when you have organized your sense of self, at least in the political arena, around hating your opposition. That’s why Trump won the primary and won the election, because the primary motivating force of a plurality of Republicans is literally nothing more than “we’re not liberals”. Like, that’s it. There’s genuinely nothing deeper. And so the person who showed the greatest commitment to hating liberals – regardless of any other quality, won the election.

          We’re really screwed.

          • Julia Grey

            >>because the primary motivating force of a plurality of Republicans is literally nothing more than “we’re not liberals”

            I thought it was, as in that iconic photograph of the two lovely conventioneers proudly showing off their Trump T-shirts: “Fuck Your Feelings.”

      • twbb

        Yes, Sartre apparently predicted reddit.

    • Lost Left Coaster

      Chilling. The truth of this statement is borne out every day.

    • brad

      Indeed. I think the alt right itself is largely aware of the fact that things like Holocaust denial are their real world precursors, not just as bigots but as trolls. Cornyn and older assholes like him strike me as dumb enough to fall for their own routine, but that’s not a significant difference, really.

    • Yestobesure

      I like Karl Popper on this: “Irrationalists will use reason too, but without any sense of obligation”

    • BiloSagdiyev

      “If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

      • … or they’ll say “oh, both parties are corrupt!”

  • Joe Paulson

    That guy’s Twitter feed is derp central.

    ETA: You can almost see a way to spin it — “this is about patriotism; so, the investigation hurting Trump be damned!” But, the guy is a troll, so that is a bit too cute.

  • drdick52

    Well, yes, Russia was trying to undermine America’s influence and power. That is why they worked so hard to get Trump elected.

  • tsam100

    That is an impressive level of DERP all packed into one tweet. The second sentence is a Derpsterpiece.

    • Jon_H11

      France, 1940:

      If we didn’t have the Vichy government, the Nazis would be invading us! Can’t you idiots see this! It’s about defeating the Nazis!

  • WinningerR

    Yes, it is all about USA vs Russia. Somebody needs to ask Cornyn to explain why the Russians wanted his party and his candidate in control of the American government. If Hillary would have been so weak/pliable/female, why weren’t the Russians actively working to get *her* elected?

    • Cheap Wino

      That’s the obvious question. Or put another way, Duh. Which is why you’ll never find a wingnut to understand it.

    • John F

      He can’t address that question, merely addressing it would create a lethal level of cognitive dissonance. It’s like the robots on Westworld looking at a photo depicting something that can’t exist in their programmed reality, “That looks like nothing to me”

      Righties are generally dealing with the fact that the Russians wanted the GOP and Trump in control of the American government, one of two ways- the predominant way is to decide, “hey Russia isn’t so bad, why aren’t we friends wit Russia, look they’re fighting ISIS…”

      The other is that they refuse to acknowledge or address it, they simply do not see it. It’s like colorblindness, it’s red and they simply don’t see red.

  • Crusty

    Trump, fancy pants business man that he is, is both corrupt and corruptible. That’s why Putin has been successful at handling him from day one. Trump faces financial ruin without the aid of Russians under Putin’ sway. Trump and his family are subject to blackmail based on flapping their stupid lips about anything and everything, including their willingness to conspire with Putin against the United States. Trump also suffers from certain personality defects that make him corruptible- greed, desire for approval, etc. It is often said that Putin hated Hillary because of things that happened while she was Sec’y of State. Maybe, sure. But that’s is nothing compared to the appeal of having a US president that is 100% corruptible. That’s is why Russia wanted Trump elected. Whatever other agendas they had- sanctions, etc, are secondary. Step one is to get a president who will put himself a position to owe you something. That’s what Trump had done and it seems to me to be as obvious as it is going to get.

    So yes, Russia would still be trying to undermine the us if Hillary were president. But Russia wouldn’t have the president under its thumb if Hillary were president.

    At this point, Putin can tell trump that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he’ll make sure incriminating info gets to muller. But vlad, I never did agreed to do anything for you. Well, that’s not what this audio tape created by the finest soviet engineers says.

  • MikeG

    So the fact that the President of the Electoral College of the United States is Putin’s cabana boy is a good thing…how?

    Under Hillary, Putin would be trying to undermine the US.
    Under Trump, Trump is doing the undermining himself.

  • DaftPunk
  • Justin Runia

    Every day I face temptation to sign up for a Twitter account in order to dunk on some fools, and every day I have to say “Not today, Satan. Not. Today.”

  • Mooser42001

    “It is not about Trump or Clinton but Russia vs USA”

    Why, yes it is, isn’t it.

  • thebewilderness

    Probably so, and the Republicans would likely assist the Russians under those circumstances as well.

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    Texas’s Senate delegation seems to punch well below its weight.

    • AlexSaltzberg

      The key thing —

      The second big difference, as conservative columnist Ed Morrissey pointed out this week, is that the Democrats appeared to take pains to keep all this business away from the Clinton campaign. “If nothing else, the Clinton machine understood the need for firewalls between negative-research efforts and the candidate,” Morrissey writes over at The Week.

      Of course, Clinton’s campaign manager’s emails were also stolen by a foreign government hostile to both Clinton and Ukraine — any evidence of wrongdoing probably would have shown up there and been released during the campaign.

  • I am trying to figure out a way to reconfigure the old “in America, you do X, in Russia,X does you” to fit this case but my mind doesn’t work that way. Perhaps because under Trump/Putin the difference between the two countries is narrowing so fast that the joke no longer makes sense.

    • Unemployed_Northeastern

      In Soviet Russia Twitter derps you!

      Yeah, pretty lame attempt. Time to recoffeeizerate myself.

    • Al Petterson

      in trump america, covfefe drinks you

  • koolhand21

    Holy shit. Cornyn and Cruz what a dynamic duo! Also dopes. And not in a good way.

    • MikeG

      Cornyn, Cruz, Louie Gohmert — the list of Toxic Texans in Congress goes on and on. That’s before you even get started on the trainwreck of scumbags in the statehouse.

  • gocart mozart
  • Putin didn’t get everything he wanted, just a weakened US. That’s no small thing.

  • hellslittlestangel

    If Hillary was President, Putin would be actively trying to undermine the USA.

    Thank goodness that with The Orange Better One in the white house, Putin doesn’t feel a need to do that!

  • MikeG

    If Hillary was President, Putin would be actively trying to undermine the USA.

    And congressional Republicans would be eagerly colluding with him.

    Under Hillary, Cornhole would be colluding with Putin to undermine the US.
    Under Trump, Cornhole is colluding with Trump to undermine the US.

    And in a very Texas way bragging about what a better “patriot” he is than us cosmopolitans.

  • Karen

    For Cornyn that’s like the 43rd dumbest thing he’s said today.

  • As expected, our friend Greenwald has taken the line that unless Trump’s campaign actually participated in the hacking they cannot be guilty of collusion, a legal argument that seems to be as convincing as saying that Richard Nixon was not guilty of a conspiracy to obstruct justice since he did not participate in or even specifically order the actual Watergate burglary https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/glenn_greenwald_donald_trump_jrs_emails.

  • Andy

    How well I remember the day when John Cornyn last had an original thought. It was a beautiful spring day in 1978…

It is main inner container footer text