What if Under All That Trump/Russia Smoke There's Just Smoke?

If the establishment cashiers the anti-establishment president based on ticky-tack violations, the political ramifications could get ugly

James Comey's testimony today on Capitol Hill was the ultimate Beltway Rorschach test: If you're a supporter of Donald Trump (or at least solidly anti-anti-Trump), it was vindication of the president's contention that he's not the target of an FBI investigation, and that Russia did not monkey with last December's vote. If you're in the #Resistance, the former FBI director's performance was a stinging reminder that Trump is a boorish liar who violates governing norms for breakfast.

But what if, I argue in Friday's L.A. Times, both sides are right?

What if under all that smoke there's just smoke? What if the president's misbehavior is due to incompetence and boorishness, not corruption and collusion? Are we really prepared to impeach a guy over a tweet?

My conclusion:

The institutions that Trump disdains are now watching his every move. He will lash back, fire people, write dumb tweets, attempt to influence things he should not. But if that is all he does, and there no secret corruption or financial ties exist underneath all that squirrelly behavior by administration incompetents, then seizing on those mistakes to prematurely end even the most distasteful of presidencies would come with real danger.

The country is in a kind of emotional state of hyper division that most Americans have never experienced. If people vote for a president to confront the establishment they despise, and then that establishment forces him out on ticky-tack fouls, we may look back on 2016 as a high-water mark in comity.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[WakaWaka]

So much this. One can believe that Trump is a boorish, unethical, ill prepared, unsuitable executive while still acknowledging that the Russia conspiracy is concocted nonsense pushed by partisans that are butt hurt that they lost the last election.

Matt, you're absolutely wrong that expanding NATO is good policy, but you're right on this analysis

[CatoTheChipper]

Matt Welch is right, of course, but the two-party indoctrination of Americans pressures most to ignore objective reality, and to choose between the Team Red narrative and the Team Blue narrative. The Team Blue narrative seems much easier to adopt, at least among the those in the society that I'm in, since all the cool kids and smart people are promoting it and Trump is objectively loathsome. The problem is that the Team Blue narrative is bullshit.

Team Blue's fantasy about Trump being a puppet of Putin (Hillary's words) is the TDS equivalent of the Team Red's ODS fantasy about Obama being born in Kenya (as promoted by Trump).

[WakaWaka]

Agreed. White collar professionals are basically ostracized if they don't jump on the Team Blue crazy train (with the exception of a few skilled occupations).

The difference between Team Red's delusional conspiracy and Team Blue's delusional conspiracy? Team Read didn't have the NYT, WaPo, CNN, and virtually every other major outlet continuing to pursue the issue even after no evidence was found (except for a certain media whore/ business man from New York City). To their benefit, Team Blue has formerly legitimate news publications, turned propaganda outlets, pursuing fevered dreams about a Russian conspiracy.

[Azathoth!!]

Team Blue's fantasy about Trump being a puppet of Putin (Hillary's words) is the TDS equivalent of the Team Red's ODS fantasy about Obama being born in Kenya (as promoted by the Clinton campaign).

FTFY

And it's an important fix. Know why?

Because we watched the left concoct these Russian 'collusions'. We commented on it. We derided it. But none of that gets into the MSM--and today we have Matt Welch saying 'IF" there's nothing there--'if'.

There is no 'if'. There was a point when the same people promoting this 'if' were screaming that, if Trump got elected, he'd start a war with Russia. But that's gone down the memory hole.

Stop accepting the word of the Ministry of Truth.

[Robert]

Matt Welch wants to expand NATO? How, by getting Russia in?

[ThadM]

But is there a greater risk if unethical and possibly illegal actions (even if a 'Ricky-tacky fouls') are given a pass simply because the offender is ignorant and incompetent? Seems there is as much danger in surrendering expectations of ethical behavior.

[Cyto]

Which things are unethical?

That he was not colluding with foreign governments?

Not obstructing justice?

Or was it just "Making Comey uncomfortable enough that he felt the need to make CYA memos after every conversation"?

So far we've only been playing a huge game of "watch the moving goalposts". And the only unethical behavior we've seen definitely documented with regard to this matter is the Obama administration taking classified material and scattering it around the government with the intention that it would be leaked after Trump's inauguration in order to undermine and destabilize the incoming administration. That part isn't conjecture. They bragged about it in the New York Times.

Everything else depends on holding up a blowhard's comments to the light and viewing them from just the right angle in order to bring imagined transgressions to life.

The previous administration was willfully and blatantly in violation of the war powers act on Libya. No "Ticky-tacky" foul there. And nobody even seriously considered challenging them on it.

No, politics ain't softball, kid. And the only reason anyone is pretending that this is a serious discussion and not a bunch of basement-dwelling nutcases ruminating on their naval lint is the belief in the popular support for the enemies of Trump. It clearly has nothing to do with the merits case against him.

[CatoTheChipper]

Speaking of "watch the moving goalposts", it's worth remembering that the original goalpost was defined by none other than Hillary herself: that Trump would be a puppet of Putin.

[DRM]

If people want to start removing Presidents over ethical and legal lapses with no significant policy or security implications, they're starting 20 years too late. How Mr. Perjury and Mr. 'No Controlling Legal Authority' were handled establishes that, unless you're from an alternate universe where we wound up with President Gingrich.

[Cyto]

I'm quite certain it goes back a lot further than that. Kennedy had some curvy skeletons in his closet, and his Veep is widely assumed to have rigged elections. There was quite a bit of discussion about the malfeasance of FDR sending the military to bring his dog to him - which he famously defended by crying that his detractors were attacking his dog. Of course, Reagan skirted congressional authority in the Iran-Contra deal, but that's actual policy and security implications.

No... Presidents hold power because of the will of the people. And their opponents grasp at any straw to oppose them because they have the will of another significant chunk of the people behind them. That is all. The silliness of the birther conspiracy theorists underlines this straw-grasping.

[pan fried wylie]

Kennedy had some curvy skeletons in his closet

If Kennedy were elected in this age, he'd have been impeached in his first 100days for sending dick pics.

[loveconstitution1789]

That and having secret service bring in hookers to the White House. JFK being addicted to pain meds probably would not have helped prevent his impeachment.

[DRM]

Iran-Contra was never definitively tied to Reagan, rather than lower-level officials. The rest is pre-Watergate, and Watergate caused a major shift in (nominal) standards and in ethics laws for politicians in this country. (When LBJ fixed elections, fixing elections was not particularly uncommon.)

[Longtobefree]

"and his Veep is widely assumed to have rigged elections"
Sorry, you are wrong on this one. Johnson is quoted thus "I stole that election fair and square" in reference to one of the Texas elections that sent him on his way up.

[CatoTheChipper]

LBJ was so popular in Texas that the dead rose from their graves to vote for him.

[Sevo]

"But is there a greater risk if unethical and possibly illegal actions (even if a 'Ricky-tacky fouls') are given a pass simply because the offender is ignorant and incompetent? Seems there is as much danger in surrendering expectations of ethical behavior."

Dunno, but those who hoped the hag would win were more than willing to give a pass to *demonstrably* illegal activities.
Are you one of them?

[Trigger Hippie]

'The institutions that Trump disdains are now watching his every move. He will lash back, fire people, write dumb tweets, attempt to influence things he should not. But if that is all he does, and there no secret corruption or financial ties exist underneath all that squirrelly behavior by administration incompetents, then seizing on those mistakes to prematurely end even the most distasteful of presidencies would come with real danger.'

I've repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, if the lasting legacy of a Trump administration is that we hold the Executive branch of our government to a standard far higher than what has been deemed acceptable in the recent past, then I'd consider it a successful one.

I'm a touch sceptical that such a firebrand against the ever expanding powers of the presidency would impassion congress criters to be consistent when their party is in power but, it may set a few legal precedents that couldn't be hand-waved away easily.

[Cyto]

Zero chance of this happening.

The lasting legacy of Watergate is that we no longer have investigative reporters, despite two generations of reporters growing up with a desire to be Woodward and Bernstein. Instead we have dueling partisans who view their mission in life as the furtherance of the party.

After watching the generation that cut their teeth protesting against the bombing of Cambodia not just cheer on Obama's drone attacks around the world, but actually be in power with him at the time, I have a hard time believing that there is any principle left anywhere anymore.

Hillary Clinton was proudly on the impeachment staff during Watergate. A scandal that centered on election activities and a coverup. Did that stop her from colluding with the DNC to rig the Democrat primary? Did it stop her attempts to cover up her transgressions by hiding from FOI requests? Did it stop her from deleting her version f 18 minutes of tape? Did it make her jump up and protest the surveillance of the Trump campaign by her allies in the White House, if for no other reason than just on principle?

No, nobody thinks that way. Everyone is steeped in "my team" mentality. It colors every thought they have and doesn't allow anyone to see clearly. Being on a third team allows you to see the transgressions of both major teams, but I'm quite certain that being human, we are all equally blind to the problems of our own team.

[Trigger Hippie]

Sadly, I believe you're assertion is correct. I'm just hoping that a few of Trump's inevitably more authoritarian executive decisions, which were perfectly acceptable by a plurality of the voting public prior to his term as POTUS for some damn reason(drink!), face Supreme Court scrutiny and get stuck down, thus leaving furure GodKings,...er, presidents hamstrung on a few issues. But as you said, not likely.

Which I find a bit disconcerting. It's my belief that the greatest threat to the individual liberties of the US citizen, and the NAP in general, isn't the SJW's, media, college professors regurgitating Marxist drivel, or a few deranged Muslims who believe that killing a few people randomly will topple the most successful model for civilization that humankind has produced so far, it's the insidious overreach of our own executive branch of government.

The staggering amount of redundant, overlapping layers of bureaucracy embedded into that branch has slowly, quietly, infected every aspect of our eveyday lives.

[Blargrifth]

Its fine to recognize that college professors are disproportionally Democratic, but to keep saying "lol they're all Marxist!!!!" is showing the same kind of emotional attachment to the 1950s as those people who think that Trump is going to bring back the steel factories. Its just not true anymore.

[Trigger Hippie]

Way to completely miss the the point of my comment. Impressive.

[Longtobefree]

He wasn't replying to your comment; he was simply posting at that location to feed his need to post.

[Blargrifth]

Sorry. It is kind of hard to take people seriously when they fill their posts with emotional tangents like that. Maybe you should save the hyperbole for when you really need it.

[Trigger Hippie]

Amd where exactly did I say ALL college professors are Marxists? Because all I see above is a short list this site's more popular boogeymen, which is beside the point. You're trying to accuse me of a myopic generalization when there is none.

While I appreciate you taking the time to make an attempt a playing 'gotcha', it doesn't really apply in this senario. Thanks, though.

[loveconstitution1789]

Its not just the Executive Branch. Its the entire federal government. The government is so bloated now and so many people are employed by it that little factions of bureaucrats exist to further their jobs at almost any cost.

I deal with the Veterans Affairs and they can be nice to your face but are lazy, do not want to reduce government and vote accordingly.

[Robert]

That's par for the course now. You needn't have a nose for news now once you're even a slightly-established journalist. The news (or a poor facsimile of it) finds you; people seek you as a mouthpiece.

[Robert]

All you need do is sift thru what comes to you?& it's not important that you take care even doing that. Whatever you write, whatever gets published, is by definition significant, since it's a mind conspiracy between the reader & publisher to believe they're not wasting their time.

[Robert]

Darn, these were supposed to be threaded as a response to DRM's remarks about Woodward & Bernstein!

[DRM]

Woodward & Bernstein weren't investigative reporters either, they were stenographers for an FBI agent pissed off that Nixon appointed someone from outside the FBI to run the agency.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Well we've mostly cut out the stenographers, so can we argue that this is a case of improved gov't productivity?

[Otis B. Driftwood]

What if Under All That Trump/Russia Smoke There's Just Smoke?

Tony will continue to insist that there is fire and call everyone a "GOWDAMMED RETHUGLIKKKAN" for disagreeing.

[Sevo]

You left out TREASON!!!!!!! and COUSIN-FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony's not real bright.

[Tony]

I'm comfortable letting this thing just play itself out.

Terribly sorry for the shock you're going to feel when the greaseballs and tits with heads you get your opinions from turn out to have been wrong about Trump.

[Liberty =>|<= Equality]

I'm comfortable letting this thing just play itself out.

It already has played out. No evidence of any crimes, any collusion, any interference.

Of course you Dems want to keep it in the news though -- you have no ideas, no solutions, and nothing to say but "Russia!", "Rape!", and "RACIST!"

[Otis B. Driftwood]

the greaseballs and tits with heads you get your opinions from

Matt Welch and Katherine Mangu-Ward? That's a pretty misogynistic term you used to describe Mangu-Ward, Tony. Man, you fucking progressives are about as intolerant as they come.

[ChipToBeSquare]

Tony's pretty hateful overall

[loveconstitution1789]

Tony, you won't let this thing play out because it will mean more and more of your "Great Society" is being dismantled.

Trump will now be able to continue to dismantle government agencies, destroy ObamaCare, reform taxes, have more conservative justice appointed to the SCOTUS, and much much more.

The real feathers in Trump's cap will be working with Russia to resolve the Syria mess and working with China to resolve the North Korea mess.

[Tony]

After all he's accomplished so much already. But then he does have majorities in both houses. Surely civilization is beautifully crumbling as we speak!

Oh, no? The Jesus freaks and future lobbyists can't get their shit together enough even to properly shit on poor people? What kind of Republican party is this?

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

"just play itself out", i.e. drag on until the mid-terms despite the lack of evidence, in the hopes that it will help the Democrats in mid-terms.

Don't get me wrong, it's a common political tactic for both teams and it doesn't particularly bother me (although I do find it boring). But don't try to cloak it as some sort of search for truth or justice.

[Tony]

Why defend Trump?

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Strawman. I'm not defending Trump. He's a politician (outsider my ass) and I despise politicians. I'm simply stating a fact: you have no evidence and you haven't made a coherent case.

It's time for you to be the pragmatist you so proudly claim to be. Understand that impeachment is not a judicial process: it's a political one. Congress critters will vote based on how their own political careers are affected, not on evidence or anything else. So: make a coherent case. Introduce articles of impeachment that clearly lay out the crimes Trump has supposedly committed. Yes, the Repubs won't vote for it as things stand now. But if you make a good case that the average citizen can understand instead of an incoherent cloud of innuendo the GOP may find it has no choice but to deep-six Trump to save their own asses.

You're not going to get there simply by having nutters like Maxine Waters spout nonsense to Rachel Maddow.

[Tony]

The president and his entourage likely committed many, many crimes. I appreciate your sudden onset of cynicism, and obviously I understand that impeachment is political. But it's just, like, why are you wasting your breath? You said "lack of evidence" as if you know something. Mueller wasn't put there by an empowered Democratic witch-hunt committee.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I agree that the president and his entourage likely committed crimes. But why is it so incomprehensible to you that I need to see evidence to confirm this? I don't say "lack of evidence" because I know something; exactly the opposite! I'm not in a fucking church here; I'm not going to claim that I know Trump is a traitor based on blind faith in MSNBC.

If Mueller turns up evidence it strengthens your case. Not too hard for you, is it?

[Tony]

That's all we're waiting for! "Where's the evidence?!" has become the talking point du jour for Trumpists. That's why it bugged me. As if they don't realize that finding evidence is the very process that's going on right now.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

So when does Lynch's trial begin?

I love the logic. There is tons of evidence to warrant a special counsel. Let's see the evidence. That's what the special counsel will find!

The self-licking ice cream cone incarnated yet again.

[Azathoth!!]

Tony, do you really not get it?

The Democrats hate Trump. Most of the media hates Trump. A good chunk of Republicans hate Trump. A good chunk of the government hates Trump--including the regulatory and intelligence services.

All of these people have been working non-stop since before Trump was elected to put forward that damning piece of info--that proof that he's unworthy--maybe even criminal.

The President of the United States got in on this.

And all we've gotten is that Comey 'feels' that Trump did something wrong. That's it.

If they had anything real, Trump would already be gone.

Just sit back and wait. The good news is that, in 2024, Pence probably isn't running.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

This is Tony you're talking to: for him, "feels" should be quite enough.

[Tony]

Really? Six months in, with Republicans in control of both houses, and you claim that he'd be outta there if he did anything wrong? The investigation is just getting started, dude.

[Warren]

Matt,
You've reached the limit on the use of the phrase "ticky-tack" with regards to improper actions by Trump. Find a new euphemism.

[Trigger Hippie]

Now I have the theme song to Weeds stuck in my head.

Goddamn you.

[Sevo]

And there is nothing there.
For Pete's sake, of COURSE the Russki gov't tried to influence the election, as 'our' gov't does in every election where the state department sees a gain on one side or the other. If this is a surprise to you, I'd suggest you're in the Tony-level of stupidity.
The question here is: Did it make one bit of difference?
Again, it takes Tony-level stupidity to presume so; that hag was such a pathetic candidate, she lost to Trump! All on her own.

[Tony]

No one here thinks you are a smart person with an opinion worth paying attention to. The partisan ballsack tickling is just extra sad.

[loveconstitution1789]

Tony, I think Sevo makes good points and destroys your nonsense on a continual basis.

[Tony]

I'm sure Sevo takes that as a compliment.

[Len Bias]

Tony in a nutshell: "It's not partisan if my side does it!"

[Liberty =>|<= Equality]

Add to that the fact that Russia's alleged attempt to influence the election amounted to shining a light on Clinton campaign and Democrat party corruption, which our red-blooded American media would rather not have allowed us to see.

You almost have to laugh at the commentators and Dem politicos fretting about the Russians "eroding trust in our political system," when that was only possible because the system was in fact unworthy of trust. They bear a striking resemblance to Scooby-Doo villains, do they not? "We would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling Russians!"

[Liberty =>|<= Equality]

If people vote for a president to confront the establishment they despise, and then that establishment forces him out on ticky-tack fouls, we may look back on 2016 as a high-water mark in comity.

Umm, Trump lost the popular vote by a greater margin than anyone ever elected president.

Not questioning the legitimacy of his election -- he won by the rules of the game that presidential candidates play by. But the reality is that he got into the presidency on a ticky-tack technicality.

[Sam Haysom]

Except that in this country the popular vote is the technicality.

[Rat on a train]

Since population increases it is better to compare percentages. John Quincy Adams was elected in 1824 with only 30.9% of the popular vote compared to Andrew Jackson's 41.4%. Trump was elected with 46.0% to Clinton's 48.1%.

[loveconstitution1789]

Popular vote is technically meaningless for a Presidential election. Its all about the electoral college.

This has been the rule for 241 years and everyone is aware of it or should be.

[Zeb]

I think a good way to put it is that there are no national elections in the US.

[Slocum]

"But the reality is that he got into the presidency on a ticky-tack technicality."

That would a little like claiming that the winner of the world series did it on a technicality if they didn't score more total runs than their opponent. Or, let me ask you -- which candidate got more total votes in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Obama or Clinton? Now I don't actually know the answer off the top of my head -- do you? And would it really matter if the answer was Clinton? In that case, would you say that Obama won the nomination on a 'ticky-tack technicality'?

[Ken Shultz]

"It was vindication of the president's contention that he's not the target of an FBI investigation, and that Russia did not monkey with last December's vote."

We need to add one vital fact: According to Comey, Donald Trump never asked him to stop the investigation.

It's a vital act that makes progressives furious the more it's said. Of course, it's also true.

According to Comey, Donald Trump never asked him to stop the investigation.

Feel it in your bones.

Donald Trump never asked him to stop the investigation.

How could that not make the top of the list of important things we learned today?

[Liberty =>|<= Equality]

Comey could have belched the Star Spangled Banner in response to every question, and the leftists would portray it as proof that Trump is a Russian traitor who needs to be impeached.

[Ken Shultz]

Well, they're missing an important fact--according to Comey, Trump never asked him to stop the investigation.

Comey's just talking about his feelings.

We all have feelings.

Who care what Comey feels? He wants an investigation launched based on his feelings? He leaked to the press because he wants an investigation based on his feelings?

Isn't this guy supposed to have had a career in law enforcement? Since when does someone's feelings count for evidence? In cases of self-defense, I suppose people argue that they were genuinely afraid for their lives. Other than that? Who gives a shit about Comey's feelings?

What did President Trump actually say to you, Comey? I thought you carefully kept records of all your conversations with the President--and you still can't say that Donald Trump told you to shut down the investigation?

I suspect that may be because Donald Trump never actually said any such thing.

[Rat on a train]

You can also add the vote was in November.

[Ken Shultz]

Here's the way the WSJ put it:

"Former FBI Director James Comey told senators he felt President Donald Trump had directed him to drop an investigation into a former adviser, and said that he leaked accounts of his conversations with the president in hopes of sparking the appointment of a special counsel."

http://tinyurl.com/yc56z2nt

Incidentally, I didn't feel like Comey publicly announced that there wouldn't be any charges filed against Hillary Clinton. That's what Comey actually did. And I didn't feel like deciding whether to bring charges isn't the job of the FBI director. It's actually the responsibility of the FBI director's boss--the Attorney General and the Justice Department.

There's a big difference between what people feel and what actually happens. If Trump had actually told Comey to end the investigation, Comey would have said so. So we're left with Comey's feelings.

Oh, I don't feel that the special counsel is Comey's former mentor at the FBI. The special counsel is actually Comey's former mentor at the FBI.

[Ken Shultz]

Oh, and while we're on the topic, Trump's plan to work with the Russians on defeating ISIS is still an excellent plan--far superior to targeting bombings, arming quasi-ISIS fighters, or, god forbid, invading Syria like we did in Iraq.

Milton Friedman didn't want a Fed, but if we were going to have one over his objections anyway, he still had an opinion about what they should do. And if we're not going to run foreign policy the way I like, over my objections, I've still got some ideas about what we should do, too--and Trump's idea of letting the Russians worry about Syria and us staying out of it--that's not a bad idea.

That's what really got all this rolling, by the way. Trump campaigned on working with Putin to fight ISIS, which is why John McCain and the neocons went all piss-gate dossier on Trump. It's a really sad case of the Democrats, on the one hand, wanting to hurt Trump--because he's un-PC, etc., and the neocons wanting to go after him over Russia to stop him from working with Putin. Both the SJWs and the neocons are doing this for their own independent reasons.

I supported Obama when I thought he was right (it happened once in eight years), and there's no reason not to support Trump when he's right, too.

[Liberty =>|<= Equality]

Kind of sad to see the conservative media pooches go running after the AG Lynch "matter vs. investigation" stick that Comey threw out there to distract them. Which Lynch immediately had an excuse for. Makes it kind of hard for them to simultaneously paint him as a slimy misleading weasel.

[Sam Haysom]

Either through ignorance of hackitude you are misunderstanding the conservatives argument. Yes Comey is a slimy greaseball company man that libertarians claim to despise- but conservatives are joyfullly pointing out that the only person who even approached obstruction of justice is a democrat hard leftist AG.

I'm happy to acknowledge that everything Comey said should be repudiated because he is a slime ball. But the left isn't so conservatives are gleefully pointing out that the biggest malfeasance per Comey's testimony was performed by a hard left democrat.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

This could get good. Even if Trump gets shit canned what would stop a Pence AG from going after the Hag, Holder, Lynch, Lois Lerner, Koskinnen, etc., etc. It'd probably raise hell with my IRA but it would be fun. Not to mention that the fedgov would be so consumed by inter party warfare they'd have a hard time further fucking things up..

[Rat on a train]

December? Is there late voting now?

[Robert]

Possibly that was about the direct electors of prez & VP balloting in their respective state capitals. Or maybe the USPS delivering the sealed ballots to Congress. You know, just takes a wise guy w a copy of the seal & some calligraphy skills, plus someone to pilfer the mail. Surprise!

[Longtobefree]

If Trump resurrected Mother Theresa and gave her the HHS post with a 50 trillion dollar budget, the left would still attack him.
Probably for violating separation of church and state, and for not getting advice and consent from congress. At the very least for lack of bi-partisanship.

[Rebel Scum]

He will lash back, fire people, write dumb tweets, attempt to influence things he should not.

And still manage to be the best president of my lifetime (90s kid) given the exceedingly low bar. I expect to be entertained.

[Rat on a train]

Trump is one of the three best presidents of the third millennium.

[OGREtheTroll]

Any belief that theres even a snowball's chance of Trump being removed from office based on what is known at this point is nothing more than a pipe dream. It takes a 2/3 vote in a Senate trial to have an impeached president removed from office; even with a bunch of R Senators hating him they have to weigh the benefits of removing him against the damage to their party from having a sitting president of their own party removed. The fallout would involve the lack of reelection for some of them; who is going to fall on their sword over this? The votes just aren't there in the Senate, not even close.

And the anger in the populace is real; step outside the beltway and the big cities and you see that the people in the heartland both love Trump and hate the establishment. The left should be glad all they got was Trump--hes a release valve at least; the next president the plebs send to Washington might be a Caesar.

[Robert]

Then why is Trump's approval poll so low?

[Robert]

The descriptor "boorish" bothered me, so I looked up the etymology of "boor" in Wiktionary. Comes from Dutch boer, apparently about equivalent to paysan, paisano (as I reckon it, that comparison not being in the Wiktionary entry). So I figure I'm a boor too: a regular guy. I'm not a hillbilly, I'm not "country" in that sense (though I do like much of country music), but "countryman" I guess you could say, even though I consider myself cosmopolitan as well. I like to cut the crap, I'm not much for formality, I barely have patience for it.

[Tony]

You're only boorish if you're unpleasant to be around.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

It's important that you understand the meaning of the word

[Robert]

Well, yeah, until I looked up its etymology I thought it meant just "unpleasant" or "ill-mannered" as applied to a person. Knowing the etymology of "boor", though, puts a different cast on it.