The Four Color Media Monitor: A comics writer and a comics movie star both attack Trump

Here's an interview with Tom King on the awful leftist Salon, where they talk about making art in the era of Trump's "absurdity". First:

Is all art autobiographical?

Writing is so bizarre. I'm sure it's different for every single person. For me, when I first started trying to write I was in my early 20s. I started writing vaguely, but I was obviously the main character. It was terrible. I realized my thoughts were incredibly boring to me because I was thinking them all the time. It was a repeating record. So putting it down on paper seemed very boring to me.

I started to be an interesting writer when I got away from my own thoughts. I started writing characters who weren't me. Eventually you start to realize that as far away as you got from yourself, you were just writing about yourself the whole time. You were just disguising it. It doesn't matter what I write, I try as hard as I can to get away from myself and then it ends up being about something inside me all along.

But that's why I write. No matter how much you philosophize about it, you won't get at the truth. And the only way to get there is through literature, poetry, music or other types of art that go beyond the language we use to balance ourselves in this reality.

So when you're writing, you're trying to create something that you can't just express and get that out through a story. Eventually you try to make a connection between yourself and someone reading your work.

The more I read about King, the more full of himself he sounds, and doesn't seem to know what he's doing or where he's going with the stories he's written, whether it's Heroes in Crisis or Mr. Miracle. What he told here is practically why the audience has come to find his work so awful. He exploits the creations and even writings of past writers far better than him to advance his downbeat, alienating viewpoints, all at the expense of the characters by getting rid of heroes like Wally West and Roy Harper for no good reason. And shows no shame or regrets about doing it.

Now, here's where he brings up the POTUS:

What type of art do you think will be produced by Donald Trump's presidency and this moment of trouble and tumult? How do we write something that's transcendent in such horrible times?

I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. I walk my dog around the Capitol everyday. Trump's inauguration was taking place and there were a bunch of porta-potties. The company that owned them was named "Don's Johns." I'm walking my dog by these toilets and someone had come by and crossed out the "Don's."

Apparently Trump had decided he did not want the bathrooms called "Don's Johns." It's was the literal censorship of a porta-potty. I'm walking around this inauguration and I was thinking to myself, how are we going to write about this time? How are we going to make art about this absurdity we're running into? And not just absurdity, but dangerous absurdity? This moment with Trump is like "Waiting for Godot" with guns.

There are two ways to do that. I think the first would be just to be open about it. To write about all the politics of this moment and the stupidity of it all. But somehow that just comes across as too obvious.

The second thought is just to write about the anxiety of this Trump moment. It seems like everyone is a little crazy, everyone's a little on edge. Watching how Twitter and your family has transformed and there is so much anger in the air and so much tension in all of us now. That is what I wanted to write about with "Mister Miracle."

I have a platform, I have illustrator Mitch Gerads, and the two of us can get together and write a story about this time. Not about the politics but about this fucking crazy moment.

Now this is bizarre. How does he know it was anybody even remotely associated with Trump crossed out the Don's part on the johns? This sounds like a cheap shot at Trump for the sake of it. And this is why he and Gerads decided to do the needless book starring Kirby's Bronze Age creation Scott Free? Oh, geez. All that aside, who is he to complain of censorship when even DC's not innocent of it themselves, any more than Marvel's been of recent, and for all the wrong reasons?

Where did your "Mister Miracle" come from? Was it an epiphany or instead an idea and a story that you had been thinking about for some time?

I had one of those nervous breakdowns, like in the TV show "The Sopranos," where you end up in the hospital and you ask the doctor if you were dying or crazy and you hope he says "crazy." For me it was the crazy, thank God, but then you still have to live with that forever as your life. I wanted to put that into Mister Miracle. He is the perfect character for it. I had already been assigned him. Here's the guy who's always trying to escape but can't. That's exactly what it feels like. That's what it feels like to have a panic attack. I had to run away but I can't run away.

How do we as a country and a people -- and as individuals -- escape Trump and his allies' assault on reality?

Mister Miracle is about him being stuck in this horrible reality and can he get out of it or not? We can't get out. We have to find our way to live with it and find a way to make it better.

Unfortunately, King's not making anything better by exploiting other peoples' creations for the sake of his muddled agendas. For somebody who fought in Afghanistan in the early 2000s in the US army, he sure doesn't seem to want to make things better following that. Otherwise, why would he attack Trump and declare him the villain, rather than any and all liberals who go out of their way to make this world a miserable place in real life? And why would he terminate any and all of the superheroes he did in the pages of Heroes in Crisis?

In writing Batman, how do you inhabit that character?

The biggest and best problem with Batman is that Frank Miller wrote him already. In many ways you are always dealing with the ghosts of his "Batman: Year One" and "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns." With Mister Miracle or Vision I have a shot. And you're never going to do a Joker better than Heath Ledger. It is never going to happen. That is the first challenge. "Batman" was hard for me. If you look back at my first six issues you see me struggling to find my voice. I hadn't yet found a central conflict that I could relate to. But then there is this battle between this vow Batman made to stop crime and how he is madly in love with Catwoman who is also madly in love with him. Those two things clash and come apart. Once I figured that emotional dimension out, I understood who Batman was.

It sounds more like he's jealous that Miller, for all his faults, at least wrote Batman better than he did. Besides, why does a "conflict" matter so much, instead of entertainment value? If that's not what he's in this business for, of course he couldn't find a "voice" to convey. Story merit must precede all politics and other agendas, and he failed to accomplish that.

Next up, we have Chris Evans, who's played Captain America in the solo films and in the Avengers films, who gave a politically charged interview to the Hollywood Reporter:

Ahead of 'Avengers: Endgame,' the progressive Captain America actor and Twitter firebrand says he's ready to retire his Marvel hero for directing gigs, a new Apple show and the fight against the "dumb s—" president: “I’d be disappointed in myself if I didn’t speak up.”

As he goes on to make clear, he may not be disappointed if he ends up angering as many Marvel moviegoers as Brie Larson did with her own political rhetoric.

When he's not working or camping by himself, you can find Evans camped out on Twitter. He is extremely online in a way that actors who headline ultra-mainstream movie franchises tend not to be; on any given day, you can find @ChrisEvans quoting Idiocracy to mock President Trump's McDonald's buffet for the Clemson Tigers, signal-boosting tweets about gay purges in Chechnya, or addressing Sen. Lindsey Graham as "Smithers."

He worries about doing too much of this sort of thing, about it seeming performative or becoming white noise — Chris Evans, back on his bullshit. He does not worry about saying something online that might inspire MAGA-minded fans to microwave their Captain America action figures. And for what it's worth, he says, "Marvel has never said anything. On the contrary — when I bump into Kevin Feige the first thing out of his mouth is 'Man, I love what you're doing [on Twitter].'"

"I don't see it as trash-talking," says Feige, Marvel's president. "I see it as very astute, very honorable, very noble, very Cap-like. Commentary and questioning. I've said to him, 'You're merging! You and the character are merging!'"

[...] "You don't want to alienate half your audience," says Evans. "But I'd be disappointed in myself if I didn't speak up. Especially for fear of some monetary repercussion or career damage — that just feels really gross to me."

His willingness to call bullshit on anyone abetting the disintegration of our republic extends to his home state's favorite sons. When we talk, Tom Brady is two days away from leading the New England Patriots to a sixth Super Bowl win; when I ask if the chance to play Brady in a biopic would bring him out of non-retirement retirement, he looks grim.

"I don't know," he says. "I really hope he's not a Trump supporter. I'm just hoping he's one of those guys that maybe supported him and now regrets it. Maybe he thought it was going to be different — and even that bothers me — but maybe there's a chance now he just thinks Trump's an absolute dumb shit, which he is. If he doesn't, if he's still on that Trump train, I might have to cut ties. It's really tough."

So he's willing to end a friendship over politics, doesn't care what the audience will think of the Marvel franchise any more than Samuel Jackson, and worse, producer Feige backs him up. Very disappointing indeed. It's also eyebrow-raising how Feige himself is becoming more noticeably political in a sense, to the point where he's exploiting Captain America as a creation for the sake of his own politics, and surely using the undeniable fact that Cap's past stories did involve politics in some way or other as the excuse. Except that most Cap stories up to the turn of the century weren't anywhere near as blatant as they've become since the time it went under the Marvel Knights imprint and became a total disaster after blame-America propaganda was injected. Those kind of monstrosities are exactly what destroyed the Star-Spangled Avenger in the long run.

Maybe the most bizarre oxymoron in all this is what such a leftist is willing to do when he speaks of conservatives, as seen above with Lindsay Graham:

For all the star’s woke posturing, he isn’t afraid to engage in a little homophobia to target his political rivals.

In January, he happily slandered Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) by insinuating he was being blackmailed, following the lead of other Hollywood stars and media figures who mocked Graham over rumors that he is a closeted gay man.

Isn't that bewildering how the same people who complain about homophobia have no issues doing it themselves when they're attacking conservatives? Well then they can't be surprised when they ultimately fail to eliminate the alleged problem altogether.

It'll remain to be seen what becomes of the Marvel movie franchise in the future as the leftism of these fools becomes more apparent. It is possible the box office intake will decline stateside, making them more dependent than ever on overseas grosses. Some people are getting increasingly fed up with how these actors and producers garble on and on about politics, and someday, it will finally have a negative effect on the moneymaking.

Labels: Avengers, Batman, Captain America, dc comics, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics

This comment has been removed by the author.

Posted by TC | 3:00 PM

With Obama, we had Muslim terrorist attack after Muslim terrorist attack, and each time, the administration responded by criticizing Christianity, and by threatening to prosecute anyone who criticized Islam. And we had record low labor force participation, and an increase in people on public assistance. And the Left insisted that it was a Golden Age.

Now, we have record low unemployment, economic recovery, tax relief, and common sense, reasonable enforcement of (already existing) immigration law. And the leftists whine about their "anxiety" and the "disintegration of our republic."

There is no basis for communication with people who are totally out of touch with reality. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a very real psychiatric disorder.

Posted by Anonymous | 3:15 PM

You lost me at "reasonable enforcement of (already existing) immigration law." The courts have repeatedly taken him to task because he is acting illegally and unconstitutionally on immigration law.

Obama is a Christian, while Trump is barely religious; I never heard Obama criticize Christianity. Nowadays of course, we have white nationalist terrorist attack after white nationalist terrorist attack, and all the administration does is criticize Islam. But that can't be blamed entirely on Trump; the Obama admin was also hesitant to name the problem for what it was.

Part of Trump's unpopularity is his style. For one, the guy comes across as a boor, which his fans see as bluntness and honesty but which turns every one else off. For another, the man steals from the style and phrase book of totalitarianism. When he calls news reporters the enemies of the people, that is a slogan straight out of Stalinism; and America First was the rallying cry of American fascist supporters. When he gets people to chant lock them up about his former friends (he used to play golf with Bill Clinton when he was still a democrat; the families used to socialize together) that sounds a lot like wannabe Stalinism. And of course medicalizing dissent as a psychiatric condition is straight out of the USSR playbook; trump derangement syndrome as a diagnosis means you don't have to think about what the other person is saying. At least the army has been able to punt that big military parade he wanted.

But it is not just style; there is a substance problem too. The economic recovery that began under Obama is starting to piddle out as economic growth is slowing down (trump blames the Fed reserve) and he has added 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit in two years because of his don't tax but spend spend spend policies. It pumps the economy and makes government contractors rich, but it is like a sugar high; it doesn't last and will get worse when interest rates go up. His foreign policy is scary; he is handing over america's prominence in the world to Russia and China while insulting and straining ties with all of America's allies.

Obama-times were no golden age. But Trump makes them seem that way now.

Posted by Anonymous | 11:53 AM

Activist judges, trying to legislate from the bench, block enforcement of existing laws.

Obama is now trying to take credit for 4% economic growth, after stating that even 2% economic growth was impossible.

After each terrorist attack, Obama said that "we" Christians can't get on our high horse and criticize the terrorists' ideology, because "terrible things were done in the name of Christ." Maybe Tommy Vietor could explain it to his former boss: Dude, the Crusades and Inquisition were, like, hundreds of years ago.

Obama pretends to be a Christian so he can criticize Christianity. "We" Christians can't condemn Islam, blah blah. The "we" is really "you." What C.S. Lewis called the vice of detraction masquerading as the virtue of contrition.

Trump is a boor. And Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk and a slob. In peacetime, Grant might have gotten court martialed for conduct unbecoming an officer. Fortunately, President Lincoln wisely realized that propriety and etiquette are low priorities in wartime. When some blue-nosed busybodies petitioned Lincoln to sack Grant, the president wisely replied, "I can't spare this man. He fights."

Posted by Anonymous | 12:52 PM

"Dude, the Crusades and Inquisition were, like, hundreds of years ago. "

On the other hand, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, bombings of abortion clinics in the States, the Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch Society, are all within living memory.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:08 AM

Guess that is why Grant never ran for president.

I would not say that Trump is a fighter. He is belligerent and bellicose, but towards people he thinks he can bully. And a president has to be able to inspire and lead as well as fight; he is too wrapped up in himself to know how to do that.

Posted by Anonymous | 6:12 PM

"Guess that is why Grant never ran for president.

I would not say that Trump is a fighter. He is belligerent and bellicose, but towards people he thinks he can bully. And a president has to be able to inspire and lead as well as fight; he is too wrapped up in himself to know how to do that."

Trump definitely is closer to an actual fighter than Obama was. And honestly, Obama's the one who is too wrapped up in himself to know how to lead, even Hillary is too wrapped up in herself to be able to do that. Same goes for her husband. And during Obama's years, we had job destruction and him blaming Christians over Islamic terrorists, and also making national emergencies over which bathrooms people want to use.

And as far as unpopularity, if he was unpopular, why did he win 2016 by a landslide?

Posted by eotness | 8:13 AM

He did not win 2016 by a landslide. Maybe a pebble fall. Remember how upset he has been over losing the popular vote, and all the wild explanations he came up with to make himself out to be a big winner? And his popularity dropped even further within a few weeks of the election. It has been very stable at between 38-42% approval rating ever since. He is overall the most unpopular president in the history of polling.

As far as being a fighter goes, Trump has the rage, but Obama has more stamina and toughness; he is more persistent than Trump. Obama was always trying to be conciliatory towards conservatives, though, taking the middle ground, while Trump is always trying to be insulting towards middle of the road people and liberals and takes extreme positions.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:34 PM

"He did not win 2016 by a landslide. Maybe a pebble fall. Remember how upset he has been over losing the popular vote, and all the wild explanations he came up with to make himself out to be a big winner? And his popularity dropped even further within a few weeks of the election. It has been very stable at between 38-42% approval rating ever since. He is overall the most unpopular president in the history of polling."

Yes, actually, Trump DID win by a landslide. The media was even breaking down on the air over the fact that the "inevitable" Hillary was being trounced easily in the votes by Trump, to the extent that it actually blew up the electoral map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/donald-trumps-path-to-victory-is-suddenly-looking-much-much-wider/ He even won states that Republicans hadn't won in decades.

And no, Obama was not persistent, and he was not conciliatory towards conservatives. Actually, if anything, he constantly went out of his way to push through hard left policies and even condemn the police and encourage BLM to cause a ruckus, among other things, while conservatives were constantly caving to his trashing the Constitution all because they were too afraid of being denounced as racists by the mainstream media due to Obama cynically using his own race as "qualifications" for the presidency. Even Obama himself ultimately acknowledged he was nothing more than an arrogant jerk: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/17/president-obamas-biggest-mistake-in-office-thinking-you-can-separate-politics-from-policy/?utm_term=.802d414c3589

Posted by eotness | 1:33 PM

It's easy and frustrating to see from these comments that Obama's failings and flailings were not seen by a majority of Americans, as they were not reported in mainstream media news sources. There was a recent statistic that showed that the media was 90% positive toward Obama while now being 90% negative toward Trump.

As for Trump's personality shortcomings, Obama acted boorishly many times, to many people and groups, to which the media and his supporters always shrugged off as it being justified, and it being his cool and suave nature.

Accept it or not, but Obama was only concerned with being the president to the left, and said so and showed it often.

Posted by Tonebone | 8:57 PM

Examples where Obama veered right include his decisions to work with rather than prosecute the executives and investment bankers who caused the financial crisis; his administration's decisions not to call out white nationalist terrorism as such; his continuation of the war in Afghanistan and the aggressive drone strike program; his compromises with the drug companies on the Affordable Care Act.

Trump ran as the most left-wing of the Republican candidates for the nomination, promising government health care and better regulation of the financial sector, for example. He backtracked on those things after he became the chosen Presidential candidate.

Obama may have acted boorishly on occasion (when?) but he did not boast about groping women, he did not lead chants of 'lock her up', he was not as publicly foul-mouthed as Trump, he did not coax women into having sex with him by promising to pull favors for them in the entertainment industry, he did not default on his financial obligations or refuse to pay bills that he owed, he did not make up crude insulting names for his opponents. Trump works hard at being boorish; it is part of the public persona that he tries to project. It works for him.

Posted by Anonymous | 10:32 AM

"Examples where Obama veered right include his decisions to work with rather than prosecute the executives and investment bankers who caused the financial crisis; his administration's decisions not to call out white nationalist terrorism as such; his continuation of the war in Afghanistan and the aggressive drone strike program; his compromises with the drug companies on the Affordable Care Act."

Obama never "veered right". Those "executives and investment bankers" were on his side. Or do I have to remind you that Warren Buffett and George Lucas are among those who demanded for tax increases to "have the rich pay their fair share", while conveniently exempting themselves from it. As far as white nationalist terrorism, that's more of a left-wing bit than a right wing bit (white nationalism originated with the Democrat party, not to mention the Nazis were a far left group). As far as Afghanistan, you are aware that the left protesting the war was more cheerleading for the enemy than actually wanting war to end, right? It was the same with Vietnam, where they used "peace" as an excuse to root for the Communists and against America. And as far as drug companies, pretty much the same thing with Warren Buffet.

"Trump ran as the most left-wing of the Republican candidates for the nomination, promising government health care and better regulation of the financial sector, for example. He backtracked on those things after he became the chosen Presidential candidate."

I watched the primaries for the 2016 elections, nowhere did he even MENTION the financial sector or government health care. Actually, if anything, he promised the wall and curbing illegal immigration, and if anything advocated cutting government waste. Probably the closest he got to mentioning any way on health care was his speaking in New York about not touching Roe v. Wade, and if I must be honest, that's what made me reluctant to back him in the first place (was gunning more for Ben Carson).

As far as Obama, here's a full list of his scandals and appalling behavior while in office, including annotated sources:

https://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama_Controversies

And that's just the short list.

Also, Trump never did that. That was Weinstein, as well as one of Clinton's lies. And Obama pretty much ran up the debt in America, that alone defaulted on his financial obligations. He also mentioned that Republicans were "bitter" and "clinged to their guns and religion", and also pretty much had Eric Holder denounce us as "a nation of cowards" for speaking out against the New Black Panthers. He also forced various Catholic charities to breach their doctrine to pay for abortions and allow homosexuals to adopt under the threat of removing their tax exempt status, and has passed bills illegally via pen and phone, beyond what the Executive Branch allowed for under checks and balances. Heck, if anything, "boorish" is too KIND of a word to use for the likes of Obama.

Posted by eotness | 6:05 PM

"As far as white nationalist terrorism, that's more of a left-wing bit than a right wing bit (white nationalism originated with the Democrat party, not to mention the Nazis were a far left group)."

No. That is a bit like saying Republicans originated capitalism.
White southerners voted against the party of Lincoln until the 1960s; Southern Democrats were a fixture in the House. But in the 60s the Democratic presidents realized that the existence of segregation in the South was handing a propaganda victory to the communists, so they enacted voting rights acts and other legislation to promote equality. they lost the South to the republicans; white southerners and white southern nationalists have been solidly republican since Nixon.

The Nazis purged the socialist and most of the gay elements from the party - execution style - in the early 1930s and were solidly right after that. They fought against socialism in Spain, and later against the Soviet Union. Hitler governed to benefit rich businesses, and railed against communism.

The modern fascists were solidly pro-Trump in the last elections. The Charlottesville people were pro Trump, the Daily Stormer was pro Trump until recently, the Klan was pro Trump; they are right wing as you can get.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:16 PM

"No. That is a bit like saying Republicans originated capitalism.
White southerners voted against the party of Lincoln until the 1960s; Southern Democrats were a fixture in the House. But in the 60s the Democratic presidents realized that the existence of segregation in the South was handing a propaganda victory to the communists, so they enacted voting rights acts and other legislation to promote equality. they lost the South to the republicans; white southerners and white southern nationalists have been solidly republican since Nixon."

Actually, most Democrats still sided with segregation by the time you alluded to, and even LBJ's voting to desegregate was solely out of a cynical attempt to, and I quote, "have those niggers vote Democrat for the next two centuries." (His words, not mine.).

"The Nazis purged the socialist and most of the gay elements from the party - execution style - in the early 1930s and were solidly right after that. They fought against socialism in Spain, and later against the Soviet Union. Hitler governed to benefit rich businesses, and railed against communism."

No, the Nazis just didn't like the idea of Russia having command over Socialism over Germany. They viewed them as rivals for control of the left. It's no different than when Stalin committed those purges against Trotsky and his views. It's like saying Stalin's right-wing just because he had Trotsky and the other Bolsheviks killed.

"The modern fascists were solidly pro-Trump in the last elections. The Charlottesville people were pro Trump, the Daily Stormer was pro Trump until recently, the Klan was pro Trump; they are right wing as you can get."

Actually, the Charlottesville people were anti-Trump. They only pretended to be right-wing in order to make Trump look bad. Same goes for the Klan (which, BTW, was the militant arm of the Democrat party, and if anything hated Republicans, so they were left-wing rather than right wing). In fact, Byrd's "promotion" of Trump was simply to make Trump look bad. And when he didn't take the bait, they turned right around and supported Hillary Clinton.

I suggest you watch Dinesh Dsouza and the Walk Away movement videos, some of which feature Blacks who made clear the Democrat Party was responsible for the stuff you claimed right-wingers were responsible for. One person I can also direct you to is Carol M. Swain, she made it very clear that it was in fact the Democrats who were responsible for those bits.

Posted by eotness | 2:28 PM

that "quote" of LBJ's has been floating around the Internet for a while, but the source is a pretty dubious book; he actually said that the civil rights bills would lose the south to the democrats for a generation, which was closer to what actually happened.

You should talk to saber mike, a right wing white nationalist who posts comments on this blog a lot. But maybe he is only pretending to be right wing to embarrass the right wingers and create controversy that will sell SJW books. The fascists and white nationalists were calling themselves the alt right last year, or sometimes the alt white. Never the alt left. And if the Charlottesville people were only trying to make Trump look bad, why did he treat them with kid gloves, say some of them were very fine people, and refrain from criticizing them with any force despite considerable pressure from both within and without his party? And why does he retweet so many of their memes? Why did he surround himself with white nationalist sympaticos, like Bannon and Gorka?

None of Hitler's policies were in any way socialist or communist. Providing slave labour to capitalist corporations so that they can make a profit for the owners by working the slaves to death is not generally what communism is all about.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:50 PM

"Also, Trump never did that. That was Weinstein, as well as one of Clinton's lies. And Obama pretty much ran up the debt in America, that alone defaulted on his financial obligations."

Trump bedded Stormy Daniels by saying he would talk to his film and television industry contacts about her. Same MO as Weinstein, although at least Weinstein would carry through on his promises.

The deficit has grown by 1.5 trillion dollars in the first two years of Trump's presidency. What can you expect when you reduce taxes and increase spending? He runs the country like he ran his businesses: borrow a lot, enrich yourself, and don't worry about repayment.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:57 PM

"that "quote" of LBJ's has been floating around the Internet for a while, but the source is a pretty dubious book; he actually said that the civil rights bills would lose the south to the democrats for a generation, which was closer to what actually happened."

That quote can be found in "Inside the White House" by Robert Kessler, and aside from that, a flight attendant on Air Force One can back up that claim. Heck, Colonel Allen West mentioned this, and last I checked, West is no White Supremacist: https://clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-west-lbj-ill-nggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/

"You should talk to saber mike, a right wing white nationalist who posts comments on this blog a lot. But maybe he is only pretending to be right wing to embarrass the right wingers and create controversy that will sell SJW books. The fascists and white nationalists were calling themselves the alt right last year, or sometimes the alt white. Never the alt left. And if the Charlottesville people were only trying to make Trump look bad, why did he treat them with kid gloves, say some of them were very fine people, and refrain from criticizing them with any force despite considerable pressure from both within and without his party? And why does he retweet so many of their memes? Why did he surround himself with white nationalist sympaticos, like Bannon and Gorka?"

Well, of COURSE they don't call themselves the "alt left", because they don't want to implicate the left. And no, Trump actually condemned them. If you're arguing he should have had tanks driven in and blow them up to pieces, that would have reflected badly on them. And he retweets them to make clear their bad views. I've retweeted a few things I disagree with to highlight how they are bad myself.

"None of Hitler's policies were in any way socialist or communist. Providing slave labour to capitalist corporations so that they can make a profit for the owners by working the slaves to death is not generally what communism is all about."

In case you haven't noticed, part of the reason why the USSR was successfully established was because of... wait for it... Capitalist CEOs such as Rockefeller funding the Bolsheviks in a misguided attempt at making a Jeffersonian democracy in Russia. And besides, Vladimir Lenin had advocated "selling the Capitalists the rope to hang themselves with". And yes, Hitler's policies WERE in fact socialistic. Maybe not communistic, but certainly socialistic, as this makes very clear: http://www.lksamuels.com/?cat=4

"Trump bedded Stormy Daniels by saying he would talk to his film and television industry contacts about her. Same MO as Weinstein, although at least Weinstein would carry through on his promises."

Wasn't Stormy Daniels already dismissed as a liar? If that's the best you can come up with, I suggest throwing in the towel.

"The deficit has grown by 1.5 trillion dollars in the first two years of Trump's presidency. What can you expect when you reduce taxes and increase spending? He runs the country like he ran his businesses: borrow a lot, enrich yourself, and don't worry about repayment."

Still beats what Obama's actions did which if anything increased the national debt to ludicrous levels, all because Obama tried to enact socialist policies. And still beats Obama, who wishes he were the next Stalin or Lenin.

Posted by eotness | 1:12 PM

Stormy Daniels has generally been truthful; no-one has ever been able to find falsity in any of her claims. Trump has already been dismissed as a liar; according to the Washington Post, he has gone up from aboiut five lies a day in the first months of his presidency to about 22 per day over the past few months. This is the guy who thinks his father was born in Germany and that windmills cause cancer.

Posted by Anonymous | 1:54 PM

"Stormy Daniels has generally been truthful; no-one has ever been able to find falsity in any of her claims. Trump has already been dismissed as a liar; according to the Washington Post, he has gone up from aboiut five lies a day in the first months of his presidency to about 22 per day over the past few months. This is the guy who thinks his father was born in Germany and that windmills cause cancer."

I suggest you read this and the annotated sources it lists, because her credibility was dubious at best.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Stormy_Daniels

As far as WaPo, considering it's about as biased towards left-wing politics as the New York Times, I wouldn't even trust it as far as I can throw it.

I've got no comment on the windmills, bit, however.

Posted by eotness | 2:50 PM

The conservapedia site does not flatter Ms Daniels, but neither does it say anything that would reflect badly on her credibility. It does assert that some evidence against Trump would not be admissable in a court of law due to criminal-friendly legal precedents imposed by liberal judges, but that is about it. Trump did sign a contract with her in which she was paid off in exchange for, among other things, the return of any love letters he sent her; there is not much doubt that he had some kind of liason with her.

Posted by Anonymous | 8:20 AM