“We’ve Got This Asshole in the Fucking White House”

Filed in National by on October 31, 2019

A reporter for the local Washington, D.C., affiliate was interviewing Nationals fans at a bar in the wake of their World Series win last night when she asked one guy for his thoughts. He explained that Washington needed the boost for the reason he cited in the headline.

Add that to the Washington fans watching the televised game on the Jumbotron at Nationals Park loudly booing the Trump campaign ad that aired during the game and I’d say D.C. baseball fans have given the nation a valuable reality check on Trump’s popularity.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mike Dinsmore says:

    Love that guy on Fox 5! Too bad the Democrats can’t use that clip in their advertising. I think that he echoes the sentiments of many (most) people in this country.

  2. Dana says:

    This is the part that you don’t seem to understand. Yes, Donald Trump is an [insert slang term for the rectum here], but Republicans want an [insert slang term for the rectum here] in the White House. GOP voters were tired of nice guys like George Bush, who had some conservative policies but didn’t fight as hard as his supporters thought he should have for some of them.

    Conservatives have felt, for a long time now, that Democrats had been fighting harder and dirtier than Republicans, Harry Reid being a strong example of that. You don’t like Mitch McConnell? He saw how Mr Reid ran the Senate, and has turned around to do things the same way.

    Heck, you guys want the same thing: look at Mr 330’s posts about Senator Coons not fighting hard enough against Republicans. He’s pissed off that Mr Coons is working with Joe Wilson on a bill, yet didn’t make any objection to the bill itself.

    • Alby says:

      “Conservatives have felt, for a long time now, that Democrats had been fighting harder and dirtier than Republicans, Harry Reid being a strong example of that.”

      There’s your problem right there. They feel instead of think.

  3. paul says:

    I’m glad Dana added his photo. It just seems right.

    • Dana says:

      Interesting reply; what “just seems right” about it?

      And yes, that really is me, though the photo is a few years old now. My beard is almost all white now, though the rest of my hair — such as it is — is more pepper than salt.

  4. Jason330 says:

    I love that Fox guy so much.

  5. jason330 says:

    Having lived and worked in DC, I can tell you that the Trump Presidency – painful for all of us – is excruciating for Washingtonians.

    In whatever agency you care to mention, you’ll find humble, hard working professionals that really believe in delivering value for Americans on a daily basis.

    In short, the typical Federal employee is the exact opposite of Trump.

    • Dana says:

      Yet, while you say that “you’ll find humble, hard working professionals that really believe in delivering value for Americans on a daily basis” as federal workers, other than people like the military or post office workers or parks department people, that’s generally not how federal workers are seen across the country. Federal bureaucrats, especially those in Washington, are generally seen as overpaid people with enhanced retirement and virtually immunity from being fired no matter how badly they f(ornicate) up.

      And Republicans have noted that the metastasis of federal bureaucrats into northern Virginia have changed the Commonwealth from red to blue, which simply emphasizes the different concerns federal workers have over other people.

      Oh, I know, I know: you believe that such perceptions are very, very wrong, but people vote based on their perceptions.

      The federal government is simply too big and intrusive. Why do we need a federal Department of Education, when education has always been a state and local responsibility? Why do we need a federal Department of Transportation when roads and traffic laws and the like are mostly state responsibilities? Federal law mandates that 92¢ out of every dollar collected in the federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes be spent in the states in which they were collected, so why not reduce the federal tax by 92%, leaving room for the states to increase theirs by that amount, and not impose federal regulations and strings, etc, on so many road projects?

      I have been a concrete supplier for jobs — not all of them road jobs; one was a dam — which actually had separate federal, state and local inspectors on the jobs, a total waste of money.

      One of the best things we could do would be disperse the federal bureaucracies. With modern communications, there’s really no need for any federal agencies other than State and Defense to be headquartered in Washington. Send Agriculture to Iowa, Homeland Security to Texas, Energy — if we really even need it — to Oklahoma, the VA to California, HUD to St Louis, National Parks to Wyoming, Labor to Kentucky, Education to Caracas, just get as much as possible out of the Washington area and out among the people.

      A decent argument could be made that we need federal standards for air travel, because most of that is interstate, but we don’t need a federal DOT nearly as large as what we have. Why does a congressman from Montana need to pass on a sidewalk project in Philadelphia?

      • Alby says:

        The result would be 50 separate duchies, an incredibly inefficient way to run a country, which is why the general trend across nearly two and a half centuries has emphasized federal power at the expense of the states.

        The problem of multiple layers of government is mostly unacknowledged, but it has the effect of making our total tax burden nearly as high as most countries is Western Europe.

        If you were designing a country, you wouldn’t purposely set up 50 separate entities with wide latitude for each to set its own laws. It’s horribly inefficient.

        The logical solution — and I’m not saying this is practical or would ever happen, but it’s logical — would be to formalize the two levels’ jurisdictions, so that we don’t have this constant battle between states and feds in courts. It’s a horrible waste of money, and if you don’t think so take a look at what America spends on elections.

        • Jason330 says:

          How can you read that nonsense, let alone reply to it?

          • Alby says:

            Because Dana has actually put some thought into his positions, as much as I disagree with them. Since he is capable of thought, he is not beyond hope of recovery.

            Almost all evil has, at its root, selfishness. Some people are born that way, but others have been affected by the American ethos Reagan introduced: Every man for himself. Since selfishness was redefined as a good thing, evil has increased exponentially.

            • jason330 says:

              I don’t read his comments as thoughtful in the least. It is all longwinded evasions trying to pass thoughtfulness to my ear. When has he answered even the simplest question with fewer than 30 sentences of obfuscation? He has two tools in his rhetorical tool bag, evasion and obfuscation, and they are both boring as shit to me.

              If his comments reveal any “thinking” it is laborious thinking revolving around trying to make his Trump support sound like something a reasonable person would say. Nobody gets credit for that from me.

        • Dana says:

          Most large countries have separate sub-jurisdictions: Canada has 10 provinces and territories, Germany has 16 states, France has 13 European regions, and so forth.

          We do just fine with each state setting its own laws, and most prosecutions are state, not federal. There are plenty of differences. For example, twenty states have abolished capital punishment, while thirty states retain it, though those which have it actually employ it at different levels. Different states set different highway speed limits, and, given different road construction and geography, this makes sense. Different states have set different minimum wage levels, which is reasonable when you take into account different costs of living.

          In Pennsylvania, with its 203 different state legislative districts, I knew, personally, my state representative. If I needed to talk to him, I could. If I wanted to talk to my congressman, well, good luck with that!

          Different states have different cultures; this is something which should be reflected in our government.

          • Alby says:

            Yes, I didn’t go into detail, but I think we’d operate better with one federal government and a country divided into 8 or 10 or 12 “departments,” as some countries call them. They could maintain the regional differences of the sort you cite. Keep in mind, though, that it’s possible to, for example, set speed limits based on traffic-volume metrics. Hell, it would be easy to have speed limits on limited-access highways that vary according to density at different times, but that’s another discussion.

            “We do just fine.”

            You mean the way we “do just fine” on health care? Limping along in money-wasting inefficiency is not my idea of “doing just fine.”

  6. Alby says:

    Dana’s responses are familiar to me because I know lots of people who share his belief in the myth of American rugged individualism.

    The truth is that those rugged individuals who settled the frontier — or, more accurately, violated treaties to steal land the government had set aside for natives — asked for government protection every step of the way.

    • jason330 says:

      In my experience, when you unpack the rugged individualist thinking is all comes down to the paralyzing fear that the “wrong people” might benefit from some government action. Racism is the common denominator. Maybe that’s why all the rationalizations and obfuscation are so boring to me?

  7. RE Vanella says:

    Reactionary talking points. Boring. Let’s not be fooled. Onanistic. Ok, sorry.

  8. Mouse says:

    Trump’s supporters like it that he fights for their bigotry, their misogyny, their belligerent ignorance and religious fanaticism while allowing polluters and Earth rapers to flourish in the name of jobs

    • Alby says:

      The irony being that there are more jobs in cleaning up than in polluting (which is why they pollute in the first place, they don’t want to pay to clean up their own mess), just as there are more jobs in green energy than extraction industries.

  9. mouse says:

    Felt a need to troll and debate Trump supporters on facebook. Seems the crux of their argument is “fck you libtard trump 2020 bla bla.

  10. RE Vanella says:

    A hungry mob is an angry mob