Trump Insults Immigrants in an Obscene Way in Oval Office Meeting

The Washington Post reports:

Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries in Oval Office meeting

"President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they floated restoring protections for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to two people briefed on the meeting.

'Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?' Trump said, according to these people, referring to African countries and Haiti. He then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries like Norway, whose prime minister he met Wednesday."

Does the fact that he thinks this way about those countries and the people who live there surprise me? No. It was already as clear as could be that he's a despicable bigot. Does the fact that he doesn't know any better than to talk that way in a bipartisan meeting surprise me? Actually, yes. But only a little bit. He's clearly coming unraveled. What really continues to surprise me is the way that top Republicans continue to act as if everything is just fine. But the longer they do that, the more we Democrats will gain in November. So, the human being in me is appalled, while at the same time the cold-blooded politician in me is delighted.

And both of me are curious about how Norway will react. (With more or less the same horror as normal decent people everywhere, I should imagine.)

Just Look at How Smart and Down To Earth I Am! Look, Everybody, Look!

POLITICO reports:

Enraged by widespread speculation about his mental state and fitness for office, President Donald Trump defended himself on Twitter Saturday morning as "very smart" and "a stable genius" amid allegations contained in an incendiary book about the Trump administration released this week.

“Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.....” the president tweeted at 7:19 a.m., hours before a scheduled meeting with congressional GOP leaders at Camp David.

Several minutes later, Trump added: “...Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....

....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!"

Yeah, that's what we mentally-stable geniuses do when someone implies that we're stupid or crazy: we become enraged and constantly tell everybody how smart and stable we are and how there's nothing wrong with our hands or anything else if you know what I mean!

I'm a million times smarter than Trump the Chump! I'm also amazingly good-looking, probably just the best-looking man there has ever been. I don't put a photo of myself on my icon because hetero women and gay men would be passing out left and right from mad desire when they're trying to get stuff done on Facebook. Look at these supposedly "sexiest men alive"! Johnny Depp?! Bradley Cooper?! Harold Bloom?! Sad! Next to me they all look like girls! UGLY girls you wouldn't even want to harrass! I'm also extraordinarily non-crazy. Completely sane. Amazingly so. Top-flight sanity experts are always saying so. Just yesterday, on one of my many private jets, the Chairman of the Vienna Psychoanalysis Association was running up and down the aisle, screaming and clutching his hair and cursing, because I was so sane, so intelligent and so sexy that it drove him mad with envy!

I can read and write and speak a thousand languages fluently! No -- a MILLION!!! No -- saying "fluently" implies that I read and write and speak as well as native speakers, when obviously I do it much gooder than them all!!! Everyone who is HONEST and not being paid off by Crooked Hillary and Sloppy Steve acknowledges this! It's so obvious that Crooked Hillary and Sloppy Steve have secretly been in this together right from the start! It's another "classic" Chinese hoax!

It's obvious that America is simply too intimidated by me to elect me President. That's pathetic. But of course my life is still the envy of ALL! That's why they're writing all of these bad things about me -- which are all completely untrue, obviously. It's obvious that they're all lying -- out of sheer envy! I'm so cool in every way that it makes them all want to scream!

Hopefully, "Objective Journalism" is On the Decline

A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush.

This isn’t about the policy differences we have with all presidents or our disappointment in some of their decisions. Obama and Bush both failed in many ways. They broke promises and told untruths, but the basic decency of each man was never in doubt.

Donald Trump, the man, on the other hand, is uniquely awful. His sickening behavior is corrosive to the enterprise of a shared governance based on common values and the consent of the governed. -- That's from a refreshingly direct and concise USA TODAY editorial.

Brian Williams discussed this editorial on his show last night with Robert Costa. Williams read some of the article aloud, and Costa said something about "wince-inducing." Williams didn't press Costa to expand on that point, which disappointed me, because it wasn't clear to me whether Costa was saying that is was Trump's behavior, or the editorial referring to it, was wince-inducing, and I'm actually afraid it may have been the latter. This would be an extreme example of "objective journalism" madness, saying that journalists can't call Trump a pig.

The USA TODAY editorial tells readers -- clearly and plainly -- what the President is like. I think that champions of "objective journalism" often forget that the vast majority of the public don't have all that much spare time to give to the politics which they, the reporters, study 24-7-365. Those reporters often seem to expect the public to read between the lines as well as they do.

I really like those skits by Jonathan Pie where he plays a political reporter for television, who says a lot of interesting and important things about politics as long as he's off the air, and the instant he goes back on the air he switches back to the typical "objective" zombie-journalist who is at great pains never to come right out and show what he actually thinks or feels about the politicians he reports about all day every day, feeling that he needs to put what he actually knows through the ridiculous filter of "objective journalism," so that only a tiny fraction of it reaches his viewers. Please, please, watch this:



Hunter S Thompson was explicitly opposed to the attempt on journalists' part to be objective, and stated that apart from things like box scores and stock-market results, there was no such thing as objective journalism. I completely agree, and I don't think I'm the only one who ever has -- for example, Jonathan Pie might agree. Still, 45 freakin years after Thompson wrote about it, laying out the case as reasonably, rationally and clearly as could be, it still appears that the number of political journalists who oppose the "objective journalism" policy are a tiny minority in their profession.

Why should political journalists give up "objective journalism"? Because it would be a tremendous help to the general public in understanding politics. That's all.

Of course, if I got it backwards last night, and what Costa was referring to as wince-inducing was not the USA TODAY editorial, but Trump's disgusting behavior, then I apologize to Costa.

Bush Sr and Jr's New Book

There's a new book out called The Last Republicans, by former Presidents Bush Sr and Jr and some people who interviewed them, and some people are all excited about it because in this book the former Presidents have gone further than they had so far in their public criticism of Trump.

I am not one of those people who is all excited about it.

So Bush Sr has now publicly called Trump a blowhard. Whoop-dee-freakin-do. Like there was someone somewhere on the face of the Earth who didn't already know that Trump was a blowhard. Get back to me when 38 Republican US Representatives and 12 Republican Senators -- current Reps and Senators, not counting the former ones who currently seem much more free to speak their minds -- are publicly calling Trump a lying, law-breaking sack of crap and are in favor of impeaching him and removing him from office. Because 38 GOP Reps and 12 GOP Senators plus 100% of the Democratic Party would be enough to impeach and remove him.

Of course, if Trump is actually still in office after the 2018 mid-term elections, and the Democrats pick up 38 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, then it won't matter what the remaining Republicans do or say, because the Democrats will then be able to impeach and remove Trump without any Republican support at all.

It makes me very grumpy to think that it might actually take until 2019 before Trump is an ex-President. (The winners of the 2018 mid-terms will be sworn in in January 2019.) 2017 would suit me much better.

The meaning of the title of the new book, the speculation on W's part that Trump might actually be the last Republican President, also doesn't thrill me. Because if that's true it would mean that Trump stayed it office all the way until Inauguration Day 2021. I want to see President Pence or Ryan or Hatch or Tillerson or Mnuchin or what have you, much sooner than 2021.

Unless Trump is still in office after the 2018 midterms, and both he and Pence are thrown out, and the Speaker of the House is a Democrat, then that would, indeed, make Trump the last Republican President, at least for the time being. That wouldn't completely suck.

But surely we can oust him before the midterms. According to Nate Silver, about 38% of the populace approves of Trump's performance as Prez, and 56% disapprove. 56% to 38% in a national election is a huge landslide. We (non-crazy people who want Trump out of our White House pronto) outnumber them (the coalition of the crazy, the stupid and the evil who back Trump) by a huge margin. We need to remind ourselves we greatly outnumber Trump's base, and stop whining about how his base is not shrinking.

That, and vote. We need to vote in every election, for President, Congress, Governor, Mayor, City Council, County Judge, Dog Catcher, etc, etc. That's all we need to do to end this nightmare and embarrassment.

American Political Prose

"As the weakness and wants of man naturally lead to an association of individuals, under a common authority whereby each may have the protection of the whole against danger from without, and enjoy in safety within, the advantages of social intercourse, and an exchange of the necessaries & comforts of life: in like manner feeble communities, independent of each other, have resorted to a Union, less intimate, but with common Councils, for the common safety against powerful neighbors, and for the preservation of justice and peace among themselves. Ancient history furnishes examples of these confederal associations, tho' with a very imperfect account, of their structure, and of the attributes and functions of the presiding Authority. There are examples of modern date also, some of them still existing, the modifications and transactions of which are sufficiently known." -- James Madison

"Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many fine specimens of eloquence do, of types and figures -- of antithesis, and elegant arrangement of words and sentences; but rather of that deeply earnest and impassioned tone, and manner, which can proceed only from great sincerity and a thorough conviction, in the speaker of the justice and importance of his cause. This it is, that truly touches the chords of sympathy; and those who heard Mr. Clay never failed to be moved by it, or ever afterwards, forgot the impression. All his efforts were made for practical effect. He never spoke merely to be heard. He never delivered a Fourth of July oration, or an eulogy on an occasion like this. As a politician or statesman, no one was so habitually careful to avoid all sectional ground. Whatever he did, he did for the whole country. In the construction of his measures he ever carefully surveyed every part of the field, and duly weighed every conflicting interest. Feeling, as he did, and as the truth surely is, that the world's best hope depended on the continued Union of these States, he was ever jealous of, and watchful for, whatever might have the slightest tendency to separate them.

"Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first to last, was a deep devotion to the cause of human liberty -- a strong sympathy with the oppressed everywhere, and an ardent wish for their elevation. With him, this was a primary and all controlling passion. Subsidiary to this was the conduct of his whole life. He loved his country partly because it was his own country, but mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity and glory, because he saw in such, the advancement, prosperity and glory, of human liberty, human right and human nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen partly because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that freemen could be prosperous.

"That his views and measures were always the wisest, needs not to be affirmed; nor should it be, on this occasion, where so many, thinking differently, join in doing honor to his memory. A free people, in times of peace and quiet -- when pressed by no common danger -- naturally divide into parties. At such times the man who is of neither party, is not -- cannot be, of any consequence. Mr. Clay, therefore, was of a party. Taking a prominent part, as he did, in all the great political questions of his country for the last half century, the wisdom of his course on many, is doubted and denied by a large portion of his countrymen; and of such it is not now proper to speak particularly. But there are many others, about his course upon which, there is little or no disagreement amongst intelligent and patriotic Americans. Of these last are the War of 1812, the Missouri question, Nullification, and the now recent compromise measures. In 1812 Mr. Clay, though not unknown, was still a young man. Whether we should go to war with Great Britain, being the question of the day, a minority opposed the declaration of war by Congress, while the majority, though apparently inclining to war, had, for years, wavered, and hesitated to act decisively. Meanwhile British aggressions multiplied, and grew more daring and aggravated. By Mr. Clay, more than any other man, the struggle was brought to a decision in Congress. The question, being now fully before congress, came up, in a variety of ways, in rapid succession, on most of which occasions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all the logic, of which the subject was susceptible, that noble inspiration, which came to him as it came to no other, he aroused, and nerved, and inspired his friends, and confounded and bore-down all opposition. Several of his speeches, on these occasions, were reported, and are still extant; but the best of these all never was. During its delivery the reporters forgot their vocations, dropped their pens, and sat enchanted from near the beginning to quite the close. The speech now lives only in the memory of a few old men; and the enthusiasm with which they cherish their recollection of it is absolutely astonishing. The precise language of this speech we shall never know; but we do know -- we cannot help knowing -- that, with deep pathos, it pleaded the cause of the injured sailor -- that it invoked the genius of the revolution -- that it apostrophised the names of Otis, of Henry and of Washington -- that it appealed to the interest, the pride, the honor and the glory of the nation -- that it shamed and taunted the timidity of friends -- that it scorned, and scouted, and withered the temerity of domestic foes -- that it bearded and defied the British Lion -- and rising, and swelling, and maddening in its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge, the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious victory, all passed in vivid review before the entranced hearers." -- Abraham Lincoln

"A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

"Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

"A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." -- Barack Obama

"Obama is, without question, the WORST EVER president. I predict he will now do something really bad and totally stupid to show manhood! [...] I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke. [...] Everyone knows I am right that Robert Pattinson should dump Kristen Stewart. In a couple of years, he will thank me. Be smart, Robert. [...] Wind turbines are ripping your country apart and killing tourism.Electric bills in Scotland are skyrocketing-stop the madness [...] Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! [...] Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus????? ...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!" -- Donald Trump

My Response to the NFL Players Who are Kneeling During the National Anthem

Let's join them. The NBA pre-season is just getting started, and to my surprise, the NBA actually has a rule requiring all players to stand during the national anthem.

I dislike that rule. I'm with the late Molly Ivins, who said,

"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag."

I didn't know the NBA had such a rule. I think it's a restriction of free expression which violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. I hope NBA players start taking a knee during the national anthem -- for all of the reasons for which NFL players are kneeling, but also to protest the league's violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

Another thing I'd like to see is singers who've been invited to sing the national anthem during sporting events taking a knee when the music starts (if there is backing music), and not singing.

There's no reason why fans can't kneel along with the players. For some reason, fans booing and complaining about the protest -- and burning team jerseys and spitting on players who kneel -- are getting most of the headlines about fan reaction, but the truth is that many fans have expressed support of the players' right to free expression, with many also expressing support of the protest. And some people have decided to watch football games for the first time in their lives! Where are all the headlines about them? Those who support the protest can express it even more clearly, if they happen to be at one of the games, by kneeling and being silent as well.

And sports journalists who respect everyone's 1st Amendment rights can give some air time to fans who aren't fascist yahoos.

And there's no reason why solidarity with the protesting athletes has to be confined to sporting events. Schoolchildren could kneel and be silent as the pledge is recited in their classrooms.

And Congresspeople and Senators could kneel and be silent when the pledge is recited on Capitol Hill.

And those who feel that the President of the United States should defend people's 1st Amendment rights, and not call for them to be fired for exercising them -- after all, he did take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- should add that to the long, long list of reasons why Trump should be removed from office as soon as possible, whether by impeachment and trial in Congress, or by implementing the 25th Amendment.

Trump’s Approval Rating Almost 30 Points Worse Than Bill Clinton’s During the Monica Lewinsky Scandal

-- That's a current headline at Newsweek.com.

The reason Bill's approval rating was 30 points higher is that the real scandal back in 1998 was that the Republicans were trying to remove the President from office over a private matter between consenting adults. How long will it take for journalists and historians to catch up with what over 60 percent of the public understood in 1998, and start referring to it as the Starr affair or the Starr failed coup or the Starr insanity or something like that, instead of the Lewinsky affair?

In the same way, the real scandal today is not Trump's sexual assaults or his encouragement of police brutality or his financial entanglements or his dealings with Putin or his clear mental illness and inability to do his job properly -- the real scandal is that the GOP-led Congress has not impeached him yet.

Think about it. Let it sink in: in 1998, they impeached Clinton, tried to remove him from office, for that. And during that attempt, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans' first choice to replace Newt both had to resign, because they had both been caught doing pretty much exactly the same thing they were using as the world's flimsiest excuse to oust a head of state. And now, they haven't impeached Trump or invoked the 25th Amendment.

"Amazing That W Seems Much More Presidential Than Trump"

No. Not amazing. Almost anyone would be a much better President than Trump. I mean that completely seriously and literally: human beings could have been picked completely at random for the office of President, almost all of the choices would have been better than Trump. W was and is wet-brained and sort of slow, but he grew up in a family of politicians, watching up-close how politics is done. It's unfortunate than Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales wielded so much power in W's White House, tending to drown out the better advice of people like Colin Powell and, if W ever listened to them, his parents.

People may be allowing the W of today, and the positive contrast he makes with Trump -- no difficult task, that -- to obscure their memories of President W. For the past 8 years, W has been hanging out with people, such as the Clintons and other philanthropists, who've clearly had a good influence on him.

It's true that W said, in the days following the 11th of September, 2001, that Muslim did not equal terrorist. I remember him saying that, I remember it very distinctly. But I also remember that he didn't say it nearly often or forcefully enough to prevent his party from descending into abysses of Islamophobia. I also remember the lie about the WMD's in Iraq, very conveniently used against the very personal enemy of W's family, Saddam Hussein.

I'll never forget the signs held in front of TV cameras by Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Baghdad in the spring of 2003, after Saddam's regime fell: "Thank you, Americans. Now please go home." Could Iraq possibly be more fucked-up than it is today if we had obeyed that request? The Patriot Act happened on W's watch, Gitmo became America's shame on his watch, children and mentally handicapped and demonstrably innocent people were executed on W's watch. I haven't forgotten any of it.

And it all pales compared to Trump.

So, yes, today, naturally, W is an ally against Trump. Lots of people are allies against Trump right now. Now, if the vast majority of the people in the world can just somehow convince the Republicans in the House and Senate to do the sane thing and fire Trump, soon, like, today...

Impeachment

The top 2 results when I searched google news for impeach:

Forget impeachment: Donald Trump can be driven from office, but probably not that way is the headline of a piece by Bob Cesca at Salon.

And The Inevitability of Impeachment is the title of a piece by Robert Kuttner on the Huffington Post.

Alright! Glad we got that sorted out.

So what do I think? I think that "inevitable" is a greatly-overused term. Perhaps even more in politics than in general. Remember how it was "inevitable" that Hillary was going to be elected President, and that the Republicans were going to get it together and nominate someone other than Trump?

The thrust of Cesca piece for Salon can be summed up in 5 words: the Republicans won't impeach Trump. Cesca insists they will put party loyalty above all else. He places a great emphasis on Democrats gaining ground in state and local elections this years, on the mid-terms in 2018, and in 2020. Trump can beejected as soon as the Democrats control Congress, he says.

Over at the Huffington Post, Kuttner insists that the Republicans will impeach Trump, because Trump is just that bad of a President.

I don't claim to know that anything is inevitable, but I tend to lean toward Kuttner when it comes to what is probable. I think Trump will be impeached, before the 2018 mid-terms. Keep 2 things in mind:

1) Assuming that the entire Democratic portions of both houses will be in favor impeachment, conviction and removal -- hardly a daring assumption on my part -- we won't need anywhere near the majority of the Republicans to join us to get it done.

2) Look at it from the Republicans' point of view: which is going to be better political advertising for the 2018 mid-terms: "We stood by the President" or "We helped get rid of that maniac, because we're not insane!" ? Republicans will not agree about which slogan will help them more. But with each passing day, the second one looks better.

Along with my belief that nothing is inevitable comes my belief that we have to keep working hard on removing Trump from office. We can't just lean back and say, "Oh, look, isn't that great? He's self-destructing!" as if it were inevitable that he's going to be removed from office, and that we can relax now. We need to help him with that self-destruction, as much as we possibly can. We can't let up with watching his administration, protesting his actions, and letting our other elected representatives know what we think of it all.

Republican Senators, Republican Congresspeople --

-- we're all waiting on you. The entire non-insane world is watching, listening, waiting for you to speak up against Trump. If just a few of you suddenly grow some backbones and/or moral scruples, we can impeach Trump and convict him of any of a wide variety of crimes -- or invoke the 25th Amendment and say right out loud in public that he's insane. That'll work just as well -- and get on with a non-insane Pence presidency. We Democrats won't like the Pence presidency at all, but most of us are non-insane enough to recognize that Pence is non-insane and non-totalitarian and has respect for the rule of law. Very few Democrats won't be able to see that Pence is a huge, huge improvement over Trump.

Robert Reich says he talked to an unnamed former Republican Congressperson who told him that the plan is for you to get what you want out of Trump, and then get rid of him. Is that right? And are you actually expecting to emerge from that smelling like roses? Do you actually expect people to forget that many of you assumed that Trump wouldn't be elected, and publicly denounced Trump's craziness right up until he was elected, surprising you as much as it surprised anyone? Do you actually expect people not to notice how suddenly your attitudes toward Trump once he was President-elect, and how suddenly they're going to change again once you've decided that the time has come to remove him from office?

Let me just point out the extremely-obvious to you: with every day of the Trump presidency, the more you stand by him and grin and applaud as if this were all perfectly sensible, as if Trump didn't constantly and obviously lie, and constantly contradict himself, and didn't show utter contempt for our country's laws -- the longer you wait until you stand up in opposition to him, the more of Trump's stink will attach to you. The longer you act as if you see nothing wrong with Trump's actions, the harder it will be to wash that stink off, the harder it will be ever again to convince anyone that you stand for anything. Not to mention that with each passing day it will be harder to remove him. Harder and more costly, above all, for you Republican office-holders.

I'm just trying to help, by reaching across the aisle and talking sense to you. Hey, if you don't want to listen, if you wait too long, if you ride the tiger for too long, we Democrats will ride this out, and, assuming Trump hasn't killed the entire human race with nukes, we'll be perfectly happy to see Democrats vs Greens, with an irrelevant Republican Party, replace Democrats vs Republicans, with an irrelevant Green Party.