@107: Right back at ya tensi.

Dan, you sound triggered. Do you feel safe?

@105: Wooooooooow
Just how many of those candies did you eat?

@109: I'm sorry, I know you're trying, but you're game is still pretty weak.
Try harder.

@105: To be clear, I'm with you as to the delusional nature of @40. His is a dark internal life and always has been. :)

Dear MXATX:
What is it you want ?
Anarchy?
Apocalypse?
Revenge?
Just curious…

@106 kristofarian: Yes, but I'd still want to take a yuuuuuuuuuuge dump on it if a monstrosity was ever constructed. It wouldn't inspire me to visit South Dakota anytime soon.
@110 & @111 Lissa: Thank you, too, for calming down Punkin (a.k.a. certetisSeattleBlues).
He certainly sounded in dire need of a tranquilizer.

@28 and @36 - These can both be true.

Though DC insiders may have heard rumors for years fostered by Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial opponent, the general public didn't know anything about Juanita Broaddrick for 75% of Clinton's presidency. Broaddrick herself refused to talk about it through most of Clinton's presidency. In late 1997, Paula Jones' investigators interviewed her, which they secretly taped, and while there were vague references (to the effect of not wanting to revisit "it"), she still refused to discuss it with investigators or the press. In 1997 she also filed a sworn affidavit in Jones' case denying that Clinton had ever done anything. Jones' attorneys nevertheless mentioned her in court filings in 1998. That was the first time her name was publicly mentioned and she still refused to talk about it. It wasn't until later in 1998 when (a) she was counseled that it was a crime to lie to FBI investigators, and (b) Ken Starr granted her immunity for perjury in her sworn affidavit in Paula Jones' case that she finally spoke with investigators about it.

That was 1998. Meanwhile, conservatives had been attacking Clinton about all sorts of shit since 1992. Newt Gingrich rose to power promising to obstruct Clinton, and did more to polarize our country and widen partisan divides than any person in American history. Republicans in Congress took 140 hours of testimony over whether the Clintons abused the White House Christmas card list. (Even the Republicans were forced to conclude that they did not.) They demanded hearings on whether taxpayer funds were being misused in responding to children's letters to Socks, the Clintons' cat.

So you can believe Juanita Broaddrick and also acknowledge that the Republicans had been fabricating all sorts of stupid attacks against Clinton for 75% of his presidency before her allegations were ever made public.

@115: That's interesting that you had such vivid dreams. I have the exact opposite reaction from them. I sleep like a rock and don't dream at all.

@114: Thank you for helping my point @28. As both Joe Conason and you have recounted, it was the relentless pursuit of Clinton throughout his entire presidency which still has people, even here today, calling Clinton a rapist and demanding to know why we don’t believe someone whose public statements contradict her own sworn testimony.

@108: Predictably lame. As to your claim that electing a chronically overprivileged white guy in 2012 would have avoided the current situation, well, why did that not work when we tried it in 2016?

Put another way, why does electing a chronically overprivileged white guy lead to stronger feelings of entitlement by other white guys?

It truly is a mystery.

To you.

@117 tensor: Again I thank you for nailing it spot on in response to raindrop @108.
I agree so damned much I will repeat your question in hopes that enough blindsided GOP supporters marching in lockstep finally absorb it:
"As to your claim that electing a chronically privileged white guy in 2012 would have avoided the current situation, why did that not work when we tried it in 2016?"
Here's hoping enough idiots dumb enough to hail Mein Trumpfy in 2016 will vote infinitely more wisely in 2020. How many West Virginians are striking it rich mining for coal?

Q. "How many West Virginians are striking it rich mining for coal?"
[Great fucking question, Aunty Griz]

A. I'll give it a shot:
Two: David and the other filthily-wealthy Koch Bro* (Leroy?)
* Approx. net worth: (not counting the 80 fucking Billion these TWO money hoarders OWN)
To the human race: less than Zilch

@61 that's the dumbest explanation of how Hitler was driven to suicide that I've ever read. Meanwhile, you also claim that Nazi's are back. 0/2 please try again

@94 you write as if liberalism (I'll specific: Progressives) are inherently above critique. I 'became' a liberal in my young years because they appealed to ethical fairness and a science-first policy view. I believe modern Progressives have abandoned both those ideals and I dislike being associated with that amount of ideological conservatism. Put me in the Katie Herzog boat.

@119 kristofarian: Ohh--SO close!!--you're half right on the exact--and ONLY--two. The other neo-fascist billionaire Koch brother is Charles. Nonetheless, I name you winner of this thread.
Dave and Chuckles own Mike Pence, too. Scary, huh?

The average social conservative has been backed into an ideological corner by loss after loss against, essentially, the whole of the modern world. A cornered animal doesn't know friend from foe, it just knows fight-or-flight. American social conservatism, then, only knows how to attack and be attacked, to do everything possible to victimize a perceived other, and then to victimize itself when that doesn't work.

In a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy, this only serves to alienate them from the public perception of the mainstream. Capitalist forces have done what they always do and have folded once revolutionary forces into marketable narratives of overcoming oppression. Whether or not these are true is not the point, the point is that they can be used to sell products. Conservatism has long tied itself to capitalism, but capitalism for its part "cares" only to the extent that it can turn a profit. It will just as easily support whatever it must in order to sustain itself.

When social conservatism divorces from capitalism, it becomes essentially an argument for fascism or traditionalism, and when it does that, it gives up so much social and economic capital that it may as well be dead already. Even the biggest of these movements in the last hundred years--nazism itself--was a spectacular failure, and since then, no socially conservative movements have seen any major successes.

As always, it'll splinter and then regroup under the banner of whatever liberalism from a decade ago was promoting, and the process starts anew. But in the meantime, be wary. A cornered animal is liable to do as much damage as possible before it's through.

@123: It's a shame that cornered, frothy-mouthed conservatives can't just destroy themselves without taking down the Earth and the rest of us with them.