How to Break Up with Donald Trump

    How to Break Up with Donald Trump: The psychology of why you can’t look away — and how to do it anyway

    Even if her how-to advice doesn't work out for everyone, it is absolutely the best analysis of the TrumpTroll topic I have read, bar none. Such clarity is a rare skill.

    By Catherine Price @, Aug. 2


    The advice sounds kind of Nancy Reagan-ish to me. How is this better than "just say no"? 

    That aside, I'm addicted to a lot of things, but Trump is weirdly not one of them. Partly because you can extrapolate nothing from anything he says or does today. The unpredictability makes him uninteresting to me: nothing he says or does today has any high likelihood of applying tomorrow. It's all pretty random mayhem within the bounds of what can get a cheer out of the crowds at his rallies. The show feels a bit tired. 

    I'm simply interested in anything that leads to his impeachment or his cabinet cronies' resignation or implication of the GOP in massive crimes (don't care about their peccadilloes).
    Any flareup is likely contrived to distract from the above, such as this trade war, et al.

    Maybe I'm too cynical about it, but I have a hard time getting excited about the process of the investigation and the legal ramifications. At the end of the day there won't be any court coming to a verdict, there will just be Congress having a vote and it's hard to see many there taking their deliberations beyond considerations having to do with their own political advancement. Nixon got chucked because outside factors tanked his approval numbers. The one thing I do check up on every now and then is Trump's numbers. Nothing interesting has happened there for a while,

    Lessee: Cummins, Gates, Papadopoulos, Manafort 2x trials, Flynn, Pruitt, Michael Cohen - all guilty or indicted.
    Tom Price, Scott Pruitt - resigned in scandal after multiple wrongdoings
    Wilbur Ross - on the ropes
    Hope Hicks, Roger Stone - soon.
    Carter Page - unindicted co-conspirator, the FISA chump that keeps on giving
    Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump - damaged, near (indictment but likely too big to charge (as yet)
    Jeff Sessions - already pleaded or cooperating?

    More questions from Congress (political and/or legal)


    I do wonder how republican voters look at the cases pile up and just shrug it off...

    It's truly bewildering, though Fox has had a couple surprise revolts of late, the party line being a bit untenable even for them.

    The importance of the legal ramifications is mostly about preserving the culture of legal ramifications. As ugly as the largest elephant in the room may be, the festival of the present kleptocracy is using the party atmosphere to network and find out what can be gotten away with.
    The approval numbers won't change much during the process because a certain portion of the electorate knew they had hired a thief and are waiting for their take.
    In the context of the linked article, if this is a relationship gone bad, it might be time for a protection order.

    Trump is a liar. You dismiss much of what he says. You do become angry when he kidnaps children. You notice that Congress does nothing. That is not Trump obsession. That is facing reality.

    [psychononsense removed - please write real comments addressing real issues -PP]

    Two things to think about in this context

    THE point

    — Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) August 10, 2018


    We are wasting our time, and we don't have that much of it.

    — Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) August 11, 2018

    I myself have often enjoyed political Infotainment and gossip, and in the past even felt that it gave me insights to more important things going on. But things are different right now, there's this troll/manipulation thing going on. It's hard being choosier but I'm going to try.

    Susan Glasser playing with the meme:

    Letter from Trump's Washington,

    The Most Blissfully Trump-Twitter-Free Place in America

    Welcome to the money-laundering trial of Paul Manafort, where facts still matter.

    By  @, Aug. 10, 5:00 A.M.

    Only need these two photos to catch up on what's new with him in nearly two years: nothing except, just keeping on micro-managing Trump brand, day after day:

    Bikers in a Bedminster ballroom, via Tom Brenner

    — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 11, 2018



    The Art of the Donald: Alison Jackson Pictures Trump’s “Me Time” for Vanity Fair, Sept. 2016

    Nice two-tweet summary of the whole Omaroso dog-and-pony show, feel like I don't have to read anything else on it:

    Well yeah, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have any inside information that might be interesting. I certainly don't like her or trust her but will follow the story to see where it goes.

    Well, to each his own; the thread is really about making wise choices when picking one's poison, isn't it? laugh


    The nice thing about this job is I rarely work. I just have to be in the office in case someone shows up. I have a lot of time to fill up and I fill up much of it with news. I have time to taste a lot of poison. That doesn't mean I have to swallow it whole.

    The ‘Trump bump’ in the New York Times’ digital news subscription growth is over

    Almost 40 percent of new digital subscriptions are for crosswords and cooking.

    By Rani Molla@ranimolla  @, Aug 9, 2018, 4:30pm EDT

    has lots of graphs, interesting if you are a marketing nerd like me

    It's always been my contention that there are only two effective ways to handle trolls. 1) Don't feed OR 2) Ridicule: Kasich Responds to Trump Attack With Laughing Putin GIF

    As you know since we've discussed it frequently I believe there's only one effective way to handle trolls. Good control from moderators.

    And for that you need to pay the moderators well, and bring them gifts for important holidays & family events, and otherwise grease the skids.

    Wait, what??  You mean nobody else does it??  (see ya Tuesday, stop bugging me)

    Wait what? You mean ass kissing and sucking up isn't enough?

    Really? Like w Jerry McGuire, show me the money. *Show Me The Money*. Or at least comp tickets or sumptin.

    On it! Donald Trump has been suspended from dagblog for ad-hominem attacks, racist language, and other sundry ToS violations.

    All that said, I don't think there's anything wrong with objectively going over the history of a relationship and analyzing it, it can actually be a very healthy thing to do. I recommend this very good piece along those lines:

    The Archeology of Trumpism

    By   @ Editor's blog @,  August 13, 2018

    As Josh concludes

    Understanding how this happened is well worth our time.

    And I like Frank Bruni's insights here 

    The Revenge of the Lesser Trumps

    Imitators are turning their teacher’s lessons against him.

    [....] Manafort’s ongoing trial provides daily reminders that Robert Mueller’s investigation is no “witch hunt.” And it’s a peek into the vanity and chicanery that earn too many people entry into Trump’s world, crowded with hucksters in whom he sees himself or through whom he replicates himself.

    The genre usually invoked to describe his presidency is reality television. Science fiction is more apt. He’s an entity whose components split off to form independent existences that now threaten to undo him. His hunger for attention became Rudy Giuliani; his thirst for pomp, Scott Pruitt; his taste for provocation, Avenatti; his talent for duplicity, Manigault Newman. They’re an army of emulators, adding up to Trump. And they’re on the march.

    I object to Avenatti's inclusion - he provokes with facts to break up the too-careful-by-far both-sides-do-it logjam, including Bruni's media. A few months ago, it looked like they'd slutshame Stormy Daniels and tut-tut her breaking an NDA with Cohen lording over her. Avenatti changed that dynamic behind and in front of the scenes, brilliant lawyering. But now there's an oh'-my-gosh movement to play the "he's gone too far" card. I imagine his legal smarts will help the immigration/child removal issue as well - *NOT* that there aren't other people working on it, but sometimes it's a bunch of tweets rather than a legal brief for discovery, habeas corpus, search warrant, or subpoena, not to mention so many newscasters and politicians suck at TV speaking or cutting through the lies. Franken was good at it, which is why they targeted him.

    Really good points and I am sort of reserving judgment on him even though I have seen his very own self argue that he does Trump better than Trump. I'm just so tired of what the reality show faux narrative/drama queen thing is doing to the world. But then I never liked the whole "where's the outrage?" way of running things, I want less stress from government, not more. I prefer more of a Mueller type.

    Not sure what I prefer matters. Avenatti feeds the machine in a well-executed hard-hitting *informed* way, while Mueller does the plodding thorough work in the relative darkness. Together it covers most of the bases, except for a needed Cohen or Omarosa or Broidy or Manafort or Papadopolous other *relevant* news of the day (i.e. *not* including Trump's parade and other make-do scandals)

    Good sermon about Trump derangement syndrome when one gets too carried away with The Troll's distractions:

    As Trump keeps raging at Mueller, another poll shows his lies are failing

    By Greg Sargent @, Aug. 14

    Because so many of us got it wrong in 2016, we often tend to reflexively tell ourselves that President Trump must be working some kind of hidden magic over public opinion that we’re all missing. One place this constantly manifests itself is with special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s III’s investigation: If Mueller’s approval falls a few points, a throng of pundits and hand-wringing liberals rushes forth to tell us that Trump is “winning” his battle with Mueller.

    But what if public opinion about Trump and the Russia probe is a lot simpler than we think? What if the story is that large majorities think Trump is probably guilty of some sort of wrongdoing; believe that Mueller’s investigation is legitimately in keeping with the rule of law and is pursuing matters that are important to the public interest; want Trump to face questioning over these matters; don’t like Trump’s constant attacks on the investigation; and believe Trump has been trying to interfere with the probe and has been steadily lying about it all along?

    This morning, Trump is once again raging at Mueller on Twitter, calling for his probe to be shut down. Uh-oh. His base will march in lockstep with him on this, and that’s all that matters! He’s flooding the media zone!! We are doomed to helplessness while his mighty social media presence mesmerizes the electorate!!! He’s winning!!!!

    Except … no, he isn’t. A new CNN poll finds:

    • Only 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation, vs. 55 percent who disapprove.
    • 58 percent say this is a serious matter that should be investigated, vs. only 37 percent who think it’s mainly an effort to discredit Trump.
    • 56 percent say Trump has interfered with the investigation, vs. only 38 percent who say he has not.
    • Only 37 percent say the things Trump has said publicly about the investigation are true, vs. 56 percent who say they are false.
    • 70 percent say Trump should testify to Mueller, vs. only 25 percent who say he should not.
    • 57 percent say Trump knew about contacts between his campaign operatives and Russians, vs. only 36 percent who say he did not.

    Trump is losing every single public argument about the Mueller probe. His latest, in a tweet citing Judicial Watch, is that the firing of former FBI agent Peter Strzok [....]

    I would add that probably inherent in enough poll answerers on these issues that make results a little confusing is a cynicism along the lines of "they all do it": The Clinton campaign sought dirt on Trump from Russian officials. Where’s the outrage? rather than wholehearted support for Trump's spin.

    Latest Comments