I get confused with the old picture up there.
I started not to scroll down to see the new date.
Good morning Aj, et. al.
I have a busy day.
Youngest great-grandson turns one today. They are having a party for him. First ever party for a one year old that I’ve attended.
And, SS teacher called yesterday. Asked if I would teach tomorrow. Of course I said yes.
Lesson’ on Paul’s sermon in Antioch, Acts 13.
I think I told you that his wife fell last week. Broke her hip. He says she is recovering well.
And our church has the “living-singing Christmas tree’ at the mall today. I need to take Elvera to see that.
No football today that I care about.
Lawyers on Twitter are howling with laughter about this Trump Tweet from this morning:
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
Trump is admitting he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI immediately before he (Trump) pressured Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. In other words, Twitter Trump is doing a fine job of proving Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
The truly hilarious thing is that I’m really not sure Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he fired him. Acting AG Sally Yates told Trump that Flynn has lied to Pence and was subject to blackmail by the Russians. Trump waited two weeks and only after the Washington Post broke the story did he fire Flynn.
Trump may have invented the story about knowing Flynn had lied to the FBI to try to make Flynn look bad now that Flynn is cooperating with Mueller. If that is the case President Inspector Clouseau has framed himself again.
1. The tax bill is the biggest tax overhaul in 31 years.
2. The Flynn deal has opened Pandora’s box in the Russia Investigation. The Post and the Times have the bits in their mouths and are starting to run with the story.
Flynn clearly was not just a rogue actor. Was Flynn getting his orders from Kushner or Bannon? I don’t think so. This thing is breaking wide open with Trump helping it along with his foolish Tweets.
I have decided to be positive about the tax cut/tax reform. It isn’t perfect, but with the Democrats taking over Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020, it is probably the last tax cut I will ever see. A number of my clients will benefit.
“Chris Christie opposed Flynn as NSA Director. He was dropped from the transition.
Obama warned Trump about only one person, Michael Flynn, he said not to hire him. He was ignored.
Sally Yates said Flynn was compromised and subject to blackmail. She was fired.
Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. Comey refused. Comey was fired.
There are only 3 people Trump has never said anything bad about, Putin, Flynn [until that tweet] , and Ivanka.
Ivanka is his daughter. What does Flynn have on Trump? We’re about to find out.
What does Putin have on him. Will we ever find out? Does Flynn know?”
What do you all think of this? Does he have a point?
Ricky – Your comments about Trumps tweets reminds me of something I read today on one of our town’s Facebook pages. People were writing about how bad the town’s McDonald’s is, & one guy said it was only good for eating there while drunk. Then he said he’d gone through the drive thru drunk a few times.
Kizzie, Your friend asked good questions. It is extremely interesting that Trump has never criticized Putin. At this point it is pretty obvious that Putin has something on Trump as our CIA told Israel’s Mossad right before Trump took office.
I think Trump supported Flynn for a several reasons:
1. He was a retired General who became one of Trump’s most loyal toadies, even being willing to lead the chants of “Lock Her Up” at the Trump Cult rallies.
2. As we have seen, Flynn was directed by someone (probably someone large and orange) to do the dirty work of dealing directly with high level Russians. Trump Jr. and Kushner met with other Russians who promised dirt on Hillary, Trump Jr. communicated with Russian agent Assange and low level Trumpkins Papadopoulos and Page also met with Russians.
3. Once Trump learned that the FBI was investigating his campaign and transition team for links to Russia, Trump knew that Flynn could reveal the most. He tried to keep Flynn from spilling the beans to Comey and Mueller by praising him, asking that he be “let off” and telling Flynn to “stay strong” This plan worked for a while.
Trump is as criminally inclined as any other big business exec. But I think it’s clear we don’t prosecut those—unless it’s politically advantageous. Our leaders rarely find that it is. :–\
And Trump is right, and not the only one starting to question this sham which has moved well beyond it’s stated scope. while the Obama holdovers at the FBI stonewall on the mattee.. Rosenstein should have been fired with Comey, and Mueller should be.
“House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.
Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI’s human resources office — an obvious demotion — in July.
The Post reported that Strzok and Page exchanged text messages that “expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”
Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and DOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.
On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.
In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.”
————————–
“Comey’s reference to a “counterintelligence investigation” clearly was in the context of the preceding sentence of interference in the election. So to the extent the Order governs Mueller’s authority, that authority is limited to the election-related matters, including counterintelligence investigations related to the election.
Mueller cannot successfully argue that the political discussions during the transition fall under his power, under the Order, to investigate under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which concerns “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” There was no Special Counsel investigation during the transition, so there was nothing with which the Trump transition team could interfere.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein takes the position that Mueller can prosecute any crimes he finds:
Rosenstein said special counsel Robert S. Mueller III can investigate any crimes that he might discover within the scope of his probe, but the deputy attorney general would not discuss which individuals are the subject of their inquiry. The interview comes days after Trump said he believes it would be inappropriate for Mueller to dig into Trump family finances.
“The special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice, and we don’t engage in fishing expeditions,” Rosenstein said when asked about the probe in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
Could Mueller start investigating street crimes, acting as a roving District Attorney across the land? Just because he found a crime, could he prosecute it, even if not within the proper scope of his investigation?
Rosenstein acknowledged the limits of Mueller’s powers:
“If he finds evidence of a crime that is within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can,” Rosenstein said. “If it’s something outside that scope he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation.”
Has Rosenstein given Mueller the authority to investigate the political strategies of the incoming administration during the transition? If so, that would be news.
The danger the Mueller investigation’s apparent overreach poses goes beyond the potential harm to individuals under investigation or prosecution.
To the extent Mueller’s team is investigating the political decisions and strategies of the incoming Trump administration during the transition period, it amounts to an interference in the post-election political process and is beyond Mueller’s authority.”
“Until now, Nunes said, the FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena — including by refusing repeated demands “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.”
“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said.
“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said.
Nunes, in the statement, said the committee will move on a resolution by the end of the month unless it demands are “fully met” by the close of business Dec. 4.
He cited “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not be a target of any contempt action by the committee, Nunes has said, because he recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the election.”
AJ, Come on now. The IQ of poor Nunes is 10 points lower than Trump’s. Nunes will be gone after the next election. He has completely humiliated his constituents. That is why the #2 Republican on the Intelligence Committeee had to take over his job after he humiliated himself covering up for Trump earlier this year.
We really need to have reruns of prior episodes of The Trump Show. Otherwise, it is too easy to forget prior idiotic behavior as we are engulfed by the torrent of current lies and stupid statements from Trump and his cult.
Max Boot makes a good point and I like his use of “Trumpistan”.
POTUS, who must take care that the “laws be faithfully executed,” is cynically besmirching the reputation of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency so as to discredit the investigation of his ties to a hostile foreign power. Just business as usual in Trumpistan! https://t.co/3P7bBxWNmO
Debra – You’ve been mentioning the overuse, or improper use, of the word “consumers” lately. I noticed that, too, after you pointed it out.
I think this is a case of the definition of a word being in the process of changing. It seems that the definition, or at least the current connotation, has shifted from strictly meaning “one who consumes” to being almost a synonym of “customer” or “client”, or just “person” in general.
Ricky – A few of my Facebook friends are die-hard Trump supporters. One of them is an intelligent, generally independent-thinking woman who often laments the “sheeple” in our nation. She recently referred to anti-Trumpers as “the cult”. Made me laugh, thinking of your use of the term for people like her.
RedState is not part of The Cult. This article raises a good question for Pence. Christians need to be careful associating people like Trump as well as preachers like Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland with their faith.
Kizzie, That is funny. I know a few intelligent Trumpers myself. When Never-Trumpers start inventing facts and following a deranged leader, then the Trumpers can rightfully call us a (competing) cult.
Speaking of RedState, here is a good article about Joe Scarborough. He is an example of a Never-Trumper who was once somewhat conservative, but is now supporting liberal causes. I got the impression that some Never-Trumpers opposed the tax bill because Trump was for it.
Joe Scarborough Lies About Orrin Hatch and Children's' Health Insurance https://t.co/9eHJZziLiO
Kizzie @ 5:00, I think you are right that we are in the process of redefining some words. But I think the idea of ‘consumer’ is not so much being redefined as expanded to include things it ought not. And at the same time, the idea of citizen and even human being is in the process of being diminished. As the corporatization of the country (and the world) has spread, people have been more and more viewed as ‘homo economicus’ or economic man—a very utilitarian view that supposedly transcends nations, geography, political persuasions, or religions. Personally, I think it represents the theories of almost a new religion—-a very materialistic and evil one.
Ricky @5:19 If ever there was a cult of personality it was around Reagan. Members of a cult don’t usually self-identify in that way regardless of the evidence against them, and in spite of the way poor Reagan is held up as a standard for just about anything the GOP elite want to accomplish, it’s doubtful that he would approve half the things done in his name. ;–)
Debra, On the contrary, Reaganites (who were principled conservatives and not members of a personality cult) liked Reagan because he was consistently (but not perfectly) conservative. When he selected Big Bush we were very disappointed with him and never really got over it because that was such an important decision. We were also mildly disappointed with the SC choices of O’Connor and Kennedy as we believed (correctly) that they were insufficiently conservative.
We have seen Trump cultists on this blog defend Trump lies when no one on his own White House staff defended them. That is a cult of personality.
Speaking of principled conservatives, Arnold Weaver is running for Senate in Alabama. He figures the pedophile and the Democrat are about as bad as Hillary and Trump.
Debra @ 6:07, Reagan base of support was the taxpayers. Unfortunately, that is a shrinking group. This is a very biased NYT article. I really don’t expect the Republicans in Congress to try to make cuts to entitlements or other health care spending, given that the vast majority of the public consists of Democrats and Trumpkins who are addicted to that spending. However, Reagan did go after Medicare and Medicaid with some success, and he made major (and necessary) modifications to Social Security.
Wandering Views 
I get confused with the old picture up there.
I started not to scroll down to see the new date.
Good morning Aj, et. al.
I have a busy day.
Youngest great-grandson turns one today. They are having a party for him. First ever party for a one year old that I’ve attended.
And, SS teacher called yesterday. Asked if I would teach tomorrow. Of course I said yes.
Lesson’ on Paul’s sermon in Antioch, Acts 13.
I think I told you that his wife fell last week. Broke her hip. He says she is recovering well.
And our church has the “living-singing Christmas tree’ at the mall today. I need to take Elvera to see that.
No football today that I care about.
Up and at ’em everyone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nice to see Chas’ news on here, much better than the usual news.
LikeLike
The latest on the tax bill:
LikeLiked by 1 person
An analysis of the significance of Flynn’s deal with Mueller:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/02/what-does-michael-flynns-plea-deal-mean-for-trump-here-are-4-big-questions/?utm_term=.4722b064f67f
LikeLike
The latest on Canadian/Chinese trade:
LikeLike
Lawyers on Twitter are howling with laughter about this Trump Tweet from this morning:
Trump is admitting he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI immediately before he (Trump) pressured Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. In other words, Twitter Trump is doing a fine job of proving Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
LikeLike
The truly hilarious thing is that I’m really not sure Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he fired him. Acting AG Sally Yates told Trump that Flynn has lied to Pence and was subject to blackmail by the Russians. Trump waited two weeks and only after the Washington Post broke the story did he fire Flynn.
Trump may have invented the story about knowing Flynn had lied to the FBI to try to make Flynn look bad now that Flynn is cooperating with Mueller. If that is the case President Inspector Clouseau has framed himself again.
LikeLike
Will you think less of me if I say I don’t care anymore? I pay almost no attention to the DC circus and I’m perfectly happy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
It has been an amazing two days:
1. The tax bill is the biggest tax overhaul in 31 years.
2. The Flynn deal has opened Pandora’s box in the Russia Investigation. The Post and the Times have the bits in their mouths and are starting to run with the story.
Flynn clearly was not just a rogue actor. Was Flynn getting his orders from Kushner or Bannon? I don’t think so. This thing is breaking wide open with Trump helping it along with his foolish Tweets.
LikeLike
Yawn…….. 🙄
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have decided to be positive about the tax cut/tax reform. It isn’t perfect, but with the Democrats taking over Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020, it is probably the last tax cut I will ever see. A number of my clients will benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Facebook friend writes:
“Chris Christie opposed Flynn as NSA Director. He was dropped from the transition.
Obama warned Trump about only one person, Michael Flynn, he said not to hire him. He was ignored.
Sally Yates said Flynn was compromised and subject to blackmail. She was fired.
Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. Comey refused. Comey was fired.
There are only 3 people Trump has never said anything bad about, Putin, Flynn [until that tweet] , and Ivanka.
Ivanka is his daughter. What does Flynn have on Trump? We’re about to find out.
What does Putin have on him. Will we ever find out? Does Flynn know?”
What do you all think of this? Does he have a point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky – Your comments about Trumps tweets reminds me of something I read today on one of our town’s Facebook pages. People were writing about how bad the town’s McDonald’s is, & one guy said it was only good for eating there while drunk. Then he said he’d gone through the drive thru drunk a few times.
I replied, “You just admitted to driving drunk.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or maybe that should be “drunk driving”. I keep getting words turned around lately.
LikeLike
Although, either one works.
LikeLike
Kizzie, Your friend asked good questions. It is extremely interesting that Trump has never criticized Putin. At this point it is pretty obvious that Putin has something on Trump as our CIA told Israel’s Mossad right before Trump took office.
I think Trump supported Flynn for a several reasons:
1. He was a retired General who became one of Trump’s most loyal toadies, even being willing to lead the chants of “Lock Her Up” at the Trump Cult rallies.
2. As we have seen, Flynn was directed by someone (probably someone large and orange) to do the dirty work of dealing directly with high level Russians. Trump Jr. and Kushner met with other Russians who promised dirt on Hillary, Trump Jr. communicated with Russian agent Assange and low level Trumpkins Papadopoulos and Page also met with Russians.
3. Once Trump learned that the FBI was investigating his campaign and transition team for links to Russia, Trump knew that Flynn could reveal the most. He tried to keep Flynn from spilling the beans to Comey and Mueller by praising him, asking that he be “let off” and telling Flynn to “stay strong” This plan worked for a while.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Trump is as criminally inclined as any other big business exec. But I think it’s clear we don’t prosecut those—unless it’s politically advantageous. Our leaders rarely find that it is. :–\
LikeLike
I think I will just let the lunatic speak for himself:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/splinternews.com/trump-unleashes-a-fury-of-tweets-attacking-the-fbi-1820955967/amp
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone may easily see his own words—without the filter of Google or news agencies with their own agendas and perspectives. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
oops. :–D
LikeLike
Thanks, Debra. They were just as funny the second time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Ricky,
And Trump is right, and not the only one starting to question this sham which has moved well beyond it’s stated scope. while the Obama holdovers at the FBI stonewall on the mattee.. Rosenstein should have been fired with Comey, and Mueller should be.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nunes-blows-up-threatens-contempt-after-fbi-stonewalls-house-on-russia-investigator-demoted-for-anti-trump-bias/article/2642387
“House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.
Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI’s human resources office — an obvious demotion — in July.
The Post reported that Strzok and Page exchanged text messages that “expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”
Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and DOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.
On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.
In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.”
————————–
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/why-is-robert-mueller-even-investigating-the-presidential-transition/
“Comey’s reference to a “counterintelligence investigation” clearly was in the context of the preceding sentence of interference in the election. So to the extent the Order governs Mueller’s authority, that authority is limited to the election-related matters, including counterintelligence investigations related to the election.
Mueller cannot successfully argue that the political discussions during the transition fall under his power, under the Order, to investigate under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which concerns “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” There was no Special Counsel investigation during the transition, so there was nothing with which the Trump transition team could interfere.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein takes the position that Mueller can prosecute any crimes he finds:
Rosenstein said special counsel Robert S. Mueller III can investigate any crimes that he might discover within the scope of his probe, but the deputy attorney general would not discuss which individuals are the subject of their inquiry. The interview comes days after Trump said he believes it would be inappropriate for Mueller to dig into Trump family finances.
“The special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice, and we don’t engage in fishing expeditions,” Rosenstein said when asked about the probe in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
Could Mueller start investigating street crimes, acting as a roving District Attorney across the land? Just because he found a crime, could he prosecute it, even if not within the proper scope of his investigation?
Rosenstein acknowledged the limits of Mueller’s powers:
“If he finds evidence of a crime that is within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can,” Rosenstein said. “If it’s something outside that scope he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation.”
Has Rosenstein given Mueller the authority to investigate the political strategies of the incoming administration during the transition? If so, that would be news.
The danger the Mueller investigation’s apparent overreach poses goes beyond the potential harm to individuals under investigation or prosecution.
To the extent Mueller’s team is investigating the political decisions and strategies of the incoming Trump administration during the transition period, it amounts to an interference in the post-election political process and is beyond Mueller’s authority.”
LikeLike
More…..
And Session’s hands are clean in this debacle.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-03/u-s-house-republicans-prepare-contempt-action-against-fbi-doj-jaqegooo
“Until now, Nunes said, the FBI and Department of Justice have failed to sufficiently comply with an Aug. 24 committee subpoena — including by refusing repeated demands “for an explanation of Peter Strzok’s dismissal from the Mueller probe.”
“In light of today’s press reports, we now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make Deputy Director McCabe available to the Committee for an interview,” Nunes said.
“By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibility,” he said.
Nunes, in the statement, said the committee will move on a resolution by the end of the month unless it demands are “fully met” by the close of business Dec. 4.
He cited “a months-long pattern by the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and obstructing this Committee’s oversight work,” including also withholding subpoenaed information about their use of an opposition research dossier that targeted Trump in the 2016 election.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not be a target of any contempt action by the committee, Nunes has said, because he recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the election.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ, Come on now. The IQ of poor Nunes is 10 points lower than Trump’s. Nunes will be gone after the next election. He has completely humiliated his constituents. That is why the #2 Republican on the Intelligence Committeee had to take over his job after he humiliated himself covering up for Trump earlier this year.
LikeLike
We really need to have reruns of prior episodes of The Trump Show. Otherwise, it is too easy to forget prior idiotic behavior as we are engulfed by the torrent of current lies and stupid statements from Trump and his cult.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39515098
LikeLike
I really hate to give money to Trumpkins, but the book by Lewandowski and Bossie could certainly provide a few laughs:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-campaign-big-macs-screaming-fits-and-constant-rivalries/2017/12/02/18bcfa30-d6bd-11e7-b62d-d9345ced896d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_lewandowskibook-410pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0fe7de51e4c9
LikeLike
Max Boot makes a good point and I like his use of “Trumpistan”.
LikeLike
Debra – You’ve been mentioning the overuse, or improper use, of the word “consumers” lately. I noticed that, too, after you pointed it out.
I think this is a case of the definition of a word being in the process of changing. It seems that the definition, or at least the current connotation, has shifted from strictly meaning “one who consumes” to being almost a synonym of “customer” or “client”, or just “person” in general.
LikeLike
Ricky – A few of my Facebook friends are die-hard Trump supporters. One of them is an intelligent, generally independent-thinking woman who often laments the “sheeple” in our nation. She recently referred to anti-Trumpers as “the cult”. Made me laugh, thinking of your use of the term for people like her.
LikeLike
RedState is not part of The Cult. This article raises a good question for Pence. Christians need to be careful associating people like Trump as well as preachers like Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland with their faith.
LikeLike
Kizzie, That is funny. I know a few intelligent Trumpers myself. When Never-Trumpers start inventing facts and following a deranged leader, then the Trumpers can rightfully call us a (competing) cult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of RedState, here is a good article about Joe Scarborough. He is an example of a Never-Trumper who was once somewhat conservative, but is now supporting liberal causes. I got the impression that some Never-Trumpers opposed the tax bill because Trump was for it.
LikeLike
Kizzie @ 5:00, I think you are right that we are in the process of redefining some words. But I think the idea of ‘consumer’ is not so much being redefined as expanded to include things it ought not. And at the same time, the idea of citizen and even human being is in the process of being diminished. As the corporatization of the country (and the world) has spread, people have been more and more viewed as ‘homo economicus’ or economic man—a very utilitarian view that supposedly transcends nations, geography, political persuasions, or religions. Personally, I think it represents the theories of almost a new religion—-a very materialistic and evil one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky @5:19 If ever there was a cult of personality it was around Reagan. Members of a cult don’t usually self-identify in that way regardless of the evidence against them, and in spite of the way poor Reagan is held up as a standard for just about anything the GOP elite want to accomplish, it’s doubtful that he would approve half the things done in his name. ;–)
LikeLike
Debra, On the contrary, Reaganites (who were principled conservatives and not members of a personality cult) liked Reagan because he was consistently (but not perfectly) conservative. When he selected Big Bush we were very disappointed with him and never really got over it because that was such an important decision. We were also mildly disappointed with the SC choices of O’Connor and Kennedy as we believed (correctly) that they were insufficiently conservative.
We have seen Trump cultists on this blog defend Trump lies when no one on his own White House staff defended them. That is a cult of personality.
LikeLike
Speaking of principled conservatives, Arnold Weaver is running for Senate in Alabama. He figures the pedophile and the Democrat are about as bad as Hillary and Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra @ 6:07, Reagan base of support was the taxpayers. Unfortunately, that is a shrinking group. This is a very biased NYT article. I really don’t expect the Republicans in Congress to try to make cuts to entitlements or other health care spending, given that the vast majority of the public consists of Democrats and Trumpkins who are addicted to that spending. However, Reagan did go after Medicare and Medicaid with some success, and he made major (and necessary) modifications to Social Security.
LikeLike