I wonder from time to timecwhat method the Trumpists are going to adopt for killing their opponents.

Defenestration is self-evidently effective, but it’s already Putin’s schtick. And while it might appeal to Trump to essentially pay tribute to his idol, I think it’s more likely that he’d want his own brand.

The US being what it is, some sort of handgun “suicide” would be on-brand, and courts have already shown that they’re willing to let things like “suicide” by gunshot to the back of the head or “suicide” by multiple gunshot slide.

I almost expect them to use concentration camps and gas chambers, counting on the media to refuse to cover it at all for fear that somebody might make a Nazi comparison.

We’ll see…

Ah… that makes sense.

Even with my fascination with character analysis and the rich vein of freakishness Trump provides, I generally can’t watch him - he’s just too creepy and unsettling.

Ooh… nicely spotted.

That’s a thing with his spoiled toddler emotional dysfunction that I’ve recognized but never really given a lot of thought to. He self-evidently has some seriously warped ideas regarding sex, but they don’t fit neatly into a toddler worldview, since toddlers are ignorant of sex. So I knew there was some way that he’d essentially adapted sexual desire to that extreme degree of emotional immaturity, but hadn’t sorted out exactly what it is.

And everything clicked with the idea of objectification. I have no doubt that that’s the link I hadn’t sussed out.

And it’s undoubtedly been recursive - like he started out objectifying women and thus treating their refusal to have sex with him the same way that another toddler would treat mom’s refusal to buy him a candy bar at the supermarket - but then over time developed a set of more specific ideas to better frame things - like “nasty” as a descriptor of someone who refuses his advances - which then melded back into his broader worldview.

When I wrote that last one, I had a hard time fitting “nasty” in. He’s obviously using it to represent bad/mean/awful, but the word has a specific spin that I couldn’t quite get a grip on, since it doesn’t seem to quite match up with any of the common usages I was considering.

And I have zero doubt that you’re right - that inside his own head, it’s playing the same role it would in the phrase “nasty whore.” And for the same reason - from his cripplingly self-absorbed viewpoint, he’s already recited the incantations about how beautiful she is and how cherished she’ll be, so it’s time for her to lie back and submit. And the nasty whore refuses…

Alternately:

“We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Nasty little Canadianses.”

This is a great example of what is, to me, the most bizarre part of this bizarre timeline - this stinky-assed overgrown toddler actually believes this.

The way it works in his warped mind:

• He wants to annex Canada, therefore annexing Canada is just and right and proper and smart and best, because everything he wants automatically is. (And a side note - his Kremlin handlers almost certainly planted the idea of annexing Canada in his mind in the first place, though it’s an open question whether he knows that or not).
• Canada unsurprisingly opposes annexation.
• But it’s his idea (not really, but that’s a distinction he’s not equipped to make), therefore it’s the bestest and beautifulest and perfectest idea ever in the history of ever, and Canada’s just being nasty and disagreeable about it.

And that’s it. That’s the extent of the thinking in his overgrown toddler mind - "I want and you won’t give so you’re mean.

It sucks to even be in partial agreement with the broligarchs, but as a rural American, I have zero sympathy for this fuckhead or anyone else involved in the broadband fund.

The government has been pouring money into broadband expansion for decades, and for decades, internet providers have been sopping up that money while doing exactly nothing to actually earn it.