Guy near me has one of this on a very well traveled street, looks roughly the same size.
People keep vandalizing it, and he just keeps pasting a new one right on top.
It's like a game, at least everyone is having a good time.
He reminds me of one of my colleagues. Sad, really.
But if it was Bernie 2020 or Warren 2020 or Biden 2020 ....
I don't understand people's insistence with broadcasting their preferences in controversial venues. It's like moving next to a gay bar and having a sign that says god hates f*** then whining because people don't accept your bigotry. FORESEEABLE. CONSEQUENCES.
"Sounds like the guy is desperate for attention"
Herzog is sure to oblige if it involves painting the left as intolerant.
"And before you accuse Chambers of sexism or misogyny, he says his preferred candidate this time around is Tulsi Gabbard..."
Easy to say when there's a infinitesimal chance of Tulsi Gabbard getting the nomination. Its remarkable that some people are willing to talk about a woman president in the abstract but when confronted with an opportunity to vote for one, they'll use any excuse at hand to not do it - "a woman sure, just not this woman". I know a number of people like that. They've already decided that the only woman with a chance (Warren) is just not someone they could vote for. Oh well.
So, I don't know if this guy is sexist or misogynist or anything else. But somebody who would vote for Trump over Clinton because of Benghazi is certainly a dipshit.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
Lol. If this guy is voting for Gabbard, he doesn't hate Trump.
Riiiiight. Let’s see him go into rural Kentucky and put up an Obama sign and see what that gets him. Why is it the Left’s responsibility to uphold civility when the Right just spent eight years falsely accusing a black President of forging his birth certificate? Fuck them if they don’t enjoy the taste of their own medicine.
Ah you stupid liberals, you think I shit my pants? I did that on purpose to trigger you! I cant believe how stupid you are. How does that make you feel? Triggered much?
@12 yeah, just think how many of your neighbors now think you are a dipshit, drool
I don't think Katie Herzog knows the definition of "unique."
I'm sorry but if your reason for voting for Trump were vague delusions about Clinton Foundation corruption and Benghazi then you are an absolute fucking drooling moron.
Every time that sign is vandalized and replaced is another $n to the Trump campaign (where n = the amount to purchase a yard sign).
Trump is a showman, the PT Barnum of his age. His greatest skill is controlling where the spotlight goes. In some ways, that makes him more qualified for the Presidency- which has become as much of a celebrity role as a political one- than figures such as George HW Bush, who came across as a lifeless bore. Bush was so dull, Bill Clinton defeated him with a saxophone and a phone call from Bono.
Prior to his candidacy, the Republican Party was pretty much doomed. Had Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush been the nominee, President Hillary Clinton would be in Puerto Rico right now handing out MREs in front of the cameras. His appeal is only partially based in charisma- one could argue he has anti-charisma, in fact. It’s more based in the same phenomenon that prompts callers to vote for the worst contestants on TV talent shows. People like seeing the judges get outraged, or scratch their heads in bewilderment, at the people who keep getting voted to stay in while far more talented contestants are voted out. There’s something viscerally pleasing about watching a self appointed expert throw tantrums over not getting his way. It’s like being followed by security in a store, only to see the guard walk face first into a pole.
This sign is a perfect example of this. The guy who put it up really didn’t give a shit about Trump when he did it. He intended to take it down after he gots his laughs in for a few days. But after the Outrage Machine posted ads for a rally on Facebook, he became much more committed.
If we are to defeat Trump in November, we have to put a stop to the outrage machine. Much of the people voting for Trump are only doing so to piss the Outraged off. It’s like those kids at Evergreen back in 2017, who I’m sure in their minds saw themselves as heroes, and to the rest of the world looked like the movie Lord of the Flies. Trump’s hellspawn even named his book “Triggered”, which is a dead giveaway as to the secret sauce of the Trump political campaign. Even if there was no Cambridge Analytica, Trump might still have won just from the people who hate it when you get all self righteous and start pointing your finger in their face.
Want to beat Trump? Then calm the fuck down. Your anger is his weapon.
I feel the same way about people's politics as I do about their religion.
They are like your penis: it's great that you have them, it's great you like to play with them, just don't pull them out and thrust them in my face without asking.
@12, LOL. @13, ummm
@19 I wouldn't be sure but I'd love to be wrong.
@22 so sure
I saw a Dole/Kemp bumper sticker down here in Portland not too long ago.
Good for him for thumbing his nose at people who want to tell him what to do or not do, but woof, the difference between Tulsi Gabbard and Clinton on the "most likely to get caught up in some corruption shit" ain't much. And really, Benghazi, people give any shits about that?!?
Katie Herzog: Brave Defender of Dipshits
The obvious solution to this problem is COCAINE AND MALT LIQUOR. That is all...
I just did this joke where I pretend to be someone hateful to piss you off because you are so easily worked up. Now that I see the joke where I pretend to be someone hateful has pissed you off, I'm going to keep doing this joke where I pretend to be someone hateful. And the fact that other people who really are hateful do the same thing that I'm pretending to do doesn't mean I really am hateful because hey, look, I like this one particular woman of color.
(See also: ok sign)
Sporty, Rhizome & Alden,
Hillary is terrible and she and Obama should both be held accountable for Libya and there are a dozen reasons the Clintons should be in prison, but she did not have people murdered in Benghazi- you are right that that was ludicrous conspiracy theory, but you are also misunderstanding the situation if you think that's what people are referring to or if you don't understand the context.
What Clinton in Libya is what the US does around the Middle East and North Africa- destroy the enemies of Salafi jihadists and then support their allies and then act all surprised when they get hold of weapons and rise to fill a power vacuum. Which is exactly what happened in Benghazi.
It's a bipartisan supported byproduct of US foreign policy, and the Clintons are just as guilty as Regan, the Bushes, Obama and Trump in that regard. Reducing it to a personal beef and conspiracy theory allows the GOP to get mad about it without drawing attention to their own role in it, similar to the Democrats right now focusing on personal beefs in Ukraine and ignoring the bigger picture which would implicate them as well.
Anyway the reason I'm explaining this is that yes, there are large segments of the independent and conservative voter bloc that care a lot about the US foreign policy giving rise to Salafi jihadists around the world by destroying all their enemies while propping up Saudi Arabia. They are one base that supported Trump (also the most likely to crossover to the right Dem since they are not traditionally GOP) and after Trump started foreign policy just like any old GOP, some crazier of them have actually have come up with elaborate conspiracy theories to explain how he's actually taking on the deep state who is forcing him to behave that way.
And Tulsi Gabbard, a hindutva nationalist whose foreign policy is often misunderstood as antiwar, is actually smack in the middle of it- her entire stance is anti-salafist, hence her support for Modi and opposition to the attacks on Iran and Syria.
So yes, this is a type, something that lots of people give a lot of shits about, and it would be good for people who do political comment to educate themselves about the various constituencies before writing articles about it or expressing sweeping opinions.
And to be clear, the left also cares about this issue- but their response is different. In fact, it's only mainstream liberals and GOP types who don't care about it, the ones that instead fall for simplistic reductive bullshit like "Clinton had people killed in Benghazi" or "Trump is a puppet of Putin" because they either misunderstand or don't care about foreign policy.
Well done to Ms Herzog for avoiding the obvious trap.
Some of these comments seem to miss the point of Katie Herzog's story. It's not about political views. It's about tolerance which is sorely lacking in this time of defamation and polarized politics. Surely the condescension of the nation's highest leader is at least partly responsible for a deterioration in public discourse, but that illustrates why it's all the more important to rise to a higher standard, an "Obama standard," if you will, of grace, intelligence, class, and respect.
Great article, Katie! I'm an Old Dem Feminist, born and raised in Bremerton. I have also had the privilege of doing radio on public radio for about a decade. This article brings up a much larger issue - the infringement of Free Speech, applied mostly to conservative voices. I also voted for President Trump in 2016 - have been "red pilled" by a federal law enforcement friend. The Clinton Foundation corruption is real - ask the folks in Haiti who are still suffering the effects. But this was "across the aisle" corruption - plenty to go around with Rs and Ds. I will vote for him again in 2020 because for the first time in almost 70 years on earth, we have a president who fulfills his promises. Great economy. Increased employment (Bubba was right: it's the economy, stupid), renewed respect for those who protect us. No stupid wars. I turned off MSM when I realized they were ALL saying THE EXACT SAME WORDS as I flipped through the channels. I still consider myself a Democrat and Feminist. That hasn't changed. I have received nothing but respect and a fair hearing from my conservative friends. Bravo to Mr. Chambers for standing his ground. What I have learned, firsthand, is TDS is real. But few have asked the important question - WHY this hysterical response? A visceral hysteria that has no LOGICAL basis given actual reality. I now spend a lot more time researching issues for myself. I go to hear as many 'controversial' speakers as possible...in person. Curiosity and an open mind is still the hallmark of an intelligent human being. That and the "72 hour rule" have served me well. God bless you and keep up the good work!
The Marx Brothers films all feature the trope of some rich lady who grabs her pearls and gasps in horror at the antics of the comedians.
Why is Penis Man the hero of Tempe? Why is John Delaney’s shocked expression the most hilarious part of the debates he gets into? Because the Outrage Queen is shocked, and we all love seeing her lose her shit over something ridiculous.
I doubt anyone missed that point. It's just vapid.
I'd like there to be tolerance too, but the fact is that things like this- the sign, the neighbor's anger, etc- these are just symbols of deeper issues that actually affect people. It's fine if we could all be polite and friendly and accept one another's political beliefs, but that will have no consequences to the fact that the deeper issues, not the superficial expressions of them with tolerance or hatred as may be, will remain and continue to bother people. So let's say everyone suddenly becomes polite, grows some thicker skin, tolerates their neighbors, etc. Would anything actually change? Well, some people - mostly those who are not directly affected by any of it- will be able to feel better about their daily lives. This was the case during the Obama years for most urban liberals. But the shit is still going to go down.
I think the liberal fantasy is that we could get together with tolerance and reasonably discuss these things until we find a mutually acceptable conclusion, but honestly it's such a childish view of the world and a misunderstanding of what power and politics are that they will probably tolerate and compromise us right into fascism.
BTW I'm totally down for de-escalation and tolerance if it comes coupled with strategy- like nonviolent disruption or civil disobedience or something. But it almost always comes from people who consider nothing outside procedural change (impeachment is the best example- something that can never achieve anything but where liberals are putting all their energy) and scolding of the rest of us. Like, the manners aren't the important thing here. How are we going to win? And I think what happens is that liberals have no answer to this question and they likewise feel helpless so instead they fixate on stuff like this: some liberals are scolding someone for a sign, other liberals are scolding the first group for their intolerance, then this gets highlighted in the media (rather than the issues that created the situation) and the rest of us comment on it because we've become totally isolated from real politics. Meanwhile, look at what people are doing in the streets around the world.
So a local talk radio DJ is intentionally annoying his community? You don't say. This kind of bleeds into a conversation I had about bullying the other day—remember those kids that would intentionally annoy everyone around them until someone snapped? Some of those kids think they were bullied, but really... they were just a nightmare.
Either way, sounds like everyone is having a good time with it, too bad his neighbors aren't more creative. Maybe try escalating it, say, in the dark of night put a larger Bernie sign up in front of it. Replace it with one double the size each night until he's basically got a billboard covering his house. Now that's funny.
"I get enraged when I see Trump signs.
If you’re reading The Stranger,
you probably do, too."
I think the guy's planting the big trumpfy sign in his temporarily-outta-town buddy's yard is funny as fuck -- he even told him he was gonna do it. That takes balls.
The 'victim' getting a laugh out of it -- kudos.
The neighbor's "getting enraged upon seeing the sign" need to get down to the local Pot Store, imbibe, and see if that sign doesn't actually look more like a Hearty Endorsement of our very First Amendment.
Time for some counter protests, Bremerton -- BILLBOARD-size Bernie ROCKS! signs -- 'cause a 'war' with Free Speech as proxy is tonnes better than neighbor-on-neighbor, wielding blood-soaked pitchforks.
JINX, Dougsf! -- you owe me some Coke!
@30 For someone who writes so many words you have a rather wobbly grasp of global politics. I believe I have made a similar comment before in response to your fringey, vaguely conspiracy tinged remarks: the Libya intervention was far more driven by France and the UK than it was by the Obama Administration and it might seem tidily black and white from your armchair but it is pretty clear what their reasoning was. Just over there to the east what did we have? The open wound of Syria, driving mass migrant flows into Europe, empowering the far right. They were desperate to prevent another Syria. Was it a wise move? Perhaps not, but your conspiracy theories are just wacky. This idea that Hillary Clinton is some kind of bloodthirsty warmonger is cartoonish idiocy.
@39 anyone who voted for intervention in Iraq based on the justifications put forward, after years of sanctions with deadly consequences for the population, is a bloodthirsty warmonger
I don't think it has much to do with Hilary herself as I said. That's the conspiracy theory reading. It's about bipartisan decades-long US foreign policy. And the fact that our European allies are involved (or in the case of a NATO intervention, playing major roles) doesn't change that. You are simply saying, hey it's not Clinton's fault alone which was exactly my point.
Nonetheless, there are plenty of independents and conservatives who do blame Clinton for this personally. Just like there are loads of liberals who really believe that Trump is a puppet of Putin and that if you remove him, all will be fine in Ukraine or that Democrats were totally ethical actors there. This is what people do- they see individual actors rather than trends. The fact that this is bullshit does not mean they aren't correct about the fact that US foreign policy in the region (and excuse the fuck out of me if I didn't list all our allies- I assume most people know it wasn't the US alone) manages to remove all the enemies of salafists while supporting all their allies, which is exactly what happened in Benghazi with al sharia. Something that Hillary herself discusses on the floor of the senate during the investigation, in at least one televised interview, and in the leaked Goldman Sachs speeches.
And when liberals respond to these concerns by referring only to the conspiracy theory that Clinton personally killed people and not the greater concerns of how US foreign policy often works on the side of salafists for the purpose of enriching industry, then you are just going to push those people further right or to fringe candidates like Trump (first time around) or Gabbard (now). Likewise with the tired "but her emails" bullshit without bothering to respond to the non-fabricated damning content in them, the collection of things she really did say and write.
His excuses sound just like those of kids found marking up swastikas all over school. Just pwning the libs, right?
@40 which applies to Biden, of course.
Damn. Was it on a car that was still functioning?
What a bunch of dicks.
@40 Hmm. A 'triangulator', yes. A 'bloodthirsty warmonger'? No. And the Clinton's fondness for triangulation is why I regard them with antipathy. I would however argue that Mr. Clinton is even worse in this area than his wife. Over-capitulated/over-compensated time and time again to the frothy right when he was in the oval office.
@41 A good deal of conservatives seem to be people who spend all day huffing petrol. They believe all sorts of ludicrous shit. Clinton was indeed advocating for intervention in Libya. One of the more hawkish members of the Obama administration for sure. The whole episode is/was simply not BLACK AND WHITE. Like I said, there were perfectly obvious reasons for the ham-fisted intervention. No fringe left conspiracy theorizing required.
@43: Then vote for Trump over Biden next November. It's your preogative. Better than voting for impurity.
Ha ha, yup. And if memory serves, it was an appropriately era-specific junky old K-car, or some other such clunker. It made my day, even if it was likely being driven by some goofy 30 year old hipster.
@46 ignoring the dire consequences of war upon people because of perceived political necessity (or whatever it was) is warmongering by definition. It also doesn't help her that her vote and her hawkish rhetoric was a clear betrayal of the millions of protestors opposing the march to war (largest rallies since Vietnam).
"BTW I'm totally down for de-escalation and tolerance if it comes coupled with strategy- like nonviolent disruption or civil disobedience or something."
Something like a Movement, Emma Liz?
A fucking People's Revolution?
(get the Money outta politics!)
(Invest in US!)
A National Walkout?
Climate Strike / Equality?
I see one guy could (maybe) do that.
But not on his own.
Does it really follow that, lets imagine the Libya situation is precisely as you say it is - that one should vote from Trump over Clinton? Did Hillary commit some out-of-step action that Trump wouldn't have?
He’s not a sexist because he would vote for Gabard is like a bigot saying “I have a black friend”
Are you asking my personal opinion or how voters behave?
In my opinion, I thought both Hillary and Trump were likely to start wars but that GOP are more likely to do it outside of the context of the international community while Dems are more likely to do it through black sites, drones and NATO escalation. As such, I thought both was bad, but that GOP were more likely to start a massive world war so I voted for Hillary. Up until this week, Trump had proven me wrong about that. Now I'm not so sure.
But domestically, Democrats are better than Republicans, so even if they were the same internationally, I still would've voted for Hillary. That's the whole point of lesser evil.
If you are asking if it follows objectively that supporting Trump was rational, of course not. But that's not my point.
My point is that liberals have a habit of denying reality outside of what they consider to be official narratives or scolding people who point things out without addressing their point, just assuming everything they say is bullshit or bigotry (which also exists of course). So what happens is that you make those people ripe for right wing narratives which - though often false and full of bigotry- at least validate what people see as flaws in the mainstream narrative and give them an alternative explanation. I can understand why people fall for it.
Regardless, it seems lazy to me to notice that there are independents who are willing to switch between Dems and Reps as this man is and who say things like "Benghazi" and "Clinton Foundation Corruption" are part of the reason and who point to Gabbard as their preferred candidate and instead of trying to understand where he might be coming from and what you can learn about it, you just dismiss it as nonsense and bigotry because apparently Clinton (and our NATO allies) had reasons for overthrowing a government in yet another country and accidentally providing salafists with weapons and cash and creating a massive refugee crisis, oops. Like, how about acknowledging that not only is this important, but it's also a trend, and that some people give a shit and listen to the politicians who talk about it (like Gabbard) and that if you don't provide real explanations for what's going on (defense of Western capitalist hegemony against rising competitors, hence why it's important for Clinton to explain it all at Goldman Sachs meetings) then they will believe conspiracy theories (like Clintons murder people) and fall in line with politicians that acknowledge them. Because anyone who pays attention to foreign policy can't forever be satisfied with "well we had good intentions but it blew up in our faces AGAIN" unless they are bloodthirsty.
I have this fantasy in which Pelosi finally sends the impeachment papers to the Senate where of course it dies and liberals FINALLY fucking realize that there are no adults in the room to save them, no nice generals or FBI guys, no media pundits scolding with their mic drop moments, nothing has changed and they realize that it is us, the people, who must organize and take action and you can't do it with good manners and permited Saturday marches in the park.
Katie, if a Trump sign enrages you by its mere presence, then you have admitted to being part of the problem.
Why don't you seek out people who voted for him and listen -- truly listen -- to their reasons for doing so? There were good, bad, and stupid reasons to vote for Trump in 2016, and there will be all of those this year too.
@33 Exactly right. Millions of people out there all over the political spectrum need to relearn the art of disagreeing without becoming disagreeable.
@56 -- nobody's gonna Save us?
From one of the best anti-War movies made (from one of the least-likely to have made one): here's Josey on when the Chips are Down:
Oh, and why not a Theme Song to go with it --
Rush (no relation to the Oxymoron):
"You can surrender without a Prayer
but never really pray, pray without surrender.
You can fight, fight without ever winning
but never ever win, win without a Fight."
@55 little bit of both. I guess I can't wrap my head around the idea that voting Trump over Hillary was in any way an anti-war, anti-death vote, even if you'd lost a family member in Benghazi. I recall widespread worry at the time of election that Trump mightcould big-dick the nuclear suitcase and eradicate a nation-state just because he could. FWIW, I found Gabbard to be relatively straight talking and didn't hate her as a candidate, but it was clear she was out of her depth - but I'm a guy who ultimately prefers managerial excellence in a president rather than promoting a particular policy, so while I'll vote "Any Dem 2020" I'd kind of prefer if the final 3 DNC candidates were Bloomberg, Warren, and Yang (only Warren could conceivable be a VP candidate [holy fuck I forgot Clinton picked Tim 'Milk Carton' Kaine as her VP, what a goof-up] but that's essentially beneath her now).
Man, that is some serious vintage shit. Dole/Kemp might as well be Lincoln/Hamlin for all anyone who's still alive knows about them! Sweet find!
Herrbrahms - right on. Otherwise, righteousness is an excuse for the "ends justifying the means" by the sanctimonious on all sides of the political spectrum.
"Chambers, among the 12% of Obama voters who turned to Trump"--is basically so because he's too chickenshit to ever elect an infinitely more qualified woman President of the United States. That's it right there.
@11 schmacky: Agreed and seconded for the WIN!
@53: Why am I not surprised to see you crawled out of the dumpster to troll here, muffy? Run along for your flea bath. If you're going to nip at anything, go for your tail, as usual.
@57: Yeah, riiiiiiight. Keep on saying that, Herr Bonehead. Trumpists are BEYOND reason, idiot.
@64 Rube Montana: Jesus--don't be a sock puppet.
"Trump will be gone someday, as will be the sign in Chambers' front yard."
Yes, but how about the Earth and the rest of us of sound mind and body? MAGA rubes even after the Err of Trump will still unfortunately exist, hellbent on passing on their abnormal genes to their grandchildren and blindly voting for another RepubliKKKan just as evil.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.