Tonight, John laments the fact that families of former Hollywood A-Listers are expressing the departed’s abiding hatred for Trump — in their obituaries.
Hinderaker says he cannot understand ANY of that — and falls on his fainting couch — about how “dangerous” that is.
Gee… John… you might take a hard look at yourself, in the mirror. Would you have left your then teenage daughter unsupervised around him — and Epstein?
Consider that (or over 500 other deplorable FACTS, about him), in your faux “palpitations”.
And all of this comes after he cluck clucked (in his own words!) that the UFC 250 fights on the lawn at 1600 Penn… were “rude and crude”.
But he couldn’t find it in himself to debunk the MMA chucklehead who shouted that “Michelle Obama is a man.”
Seems John’s pleas for decency… are a one way only street. Huh. No surprise, there.
Out.
Powerline Lies... 
“Liberals are haters,” John concludes. Indeed, here are some more hateful remarks he could have highlighted:
“Despite the droning orthodoxy of his every thought and utterance, he possesses infinite belief in his capacities.”
“[His] enormous vanity comes packaged with vast ignorance. He has not hesitated to put his glaring ignorance of basic history on display before the public.”
“[His] lust for power and contempt for the Constitution have led to rule by unlawful administrative fiat. One day he admits that he can’t rewrite America’s immigration law because he’s not a dictator. The next day he rewrites American immigration law.”
“[He] has repudiated his most basic duty as chief executive, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
“Of all [his] unforgivable sins, his corruption and politicization of the Department of Justice ranks near the top.”
“How many days before this liar/ignoramus–take your pick–departs the stage? It can’t come too soon.”
“He has abandoned any pretense of being the president of all Americans….He has maligned [his opponents’] motives, lied about their actions, and wherever possible blocked them from any participation in the legislative process.”
“[His] mishmash of proposals, exhortations and orders are the ultimate in small ball.”
“When the history of the…administration is written, it will be condemned, more than anything else, for its lawlessness. Its many policy failures and betrayals of the American people are important, individually. But the overarching theme of the…administration has been its contempt for the rule of law. [The president], in seeking to govern illegally by executive decree, has taken us half-way down the path toward a tinpot dictatorship in the Mussolini/Peron/Chavez mold. This is unprecedented in American history, and the first task of [his] successor will be to restore the rule of law to the United States.”
“As is so often the case with the..administration, one is confronted with a policy of such towering stupidity that one wonders whether it can be accidental.”
“Does he even think about what he says, or does he just blurt out random BS?”
“To an unprecedented degree, the administration is staffed by scofflaws who flout their legal obligations.”
Strong words, yes? Although it may seem obvious whom all of the above quotes are about, they’re actually all John Hinderaker quotes, written during the last year of the presidency of Barack Obama.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Flawless!
LikeLiked by 1 person
On a different topic from my comment above, Paul does his part today for the ongoing jihad against Senate candidate Graham Platner. Referencing a Washington Post article, Paul comes to his usual erroneous conclusions. Let’s break them down.
What a wonderful analysis of something that hasn’t happened!
The mainstream media don’t like Platner any more than Paul does, jumping on each successive Platner “scandal” (many of them fed to the press by the DNC) with glee, while ignoring the far worse malfeasance of the current administration.
Shaky sentence structure aside (the veterans aren’t the ones with the Nazi tattoo), Paul is almost right here. Many Mainers will be voting for Platner because of his platform and his campaign promises, which include fighting President Trump. So, Trump is indeed a factor in the decision, but they’re mostly voting for the policies and goals Platner espouses (which Paul fails to mention or even examine).
Don’t you just love it when Republicans give Democrats advice on whom they should and shouldn’t be supporting? There is not much evidence to support Paul’s assertions here. Even throughout the various controversies, poll after poll showed/shows Platner leading Collins by 7 percentage points or more, while Mills never polled much above a toss-up against Collins. In other words, available evidence suggests the opposite of what Paul claims. Paul fails to mention Mills’ age (78) or Platner’s (41), but that played a part as well. Democrats are trying to build a power base, and an 84-year-old Janet Mills running for re-election in 2032 would never have been the way to do that. Paul also fails to mention the differences in Mills’s and Platner’s political viewpoints. Does he not consider that important? Does he even know what they are?
Well, no. That’s not the answer. Paul clearly didn’t find a quote or an editorial or anything else that supports his conclusion, or he surely would have included it here. You see, unlike Trump, Platner has renounced his past behavior, and presents himself as a deeply flawed person who has made plenty of mistakes, but also as a person who is striving to make changes, and to rid himself of previous toxic views and behaviors. That’s about as far away from Trump as someone can get.
The truth is, Platner is a flawed candidate, one with a lot of baggage and plenty of red flags. Whether or not that baggage weighs him down enough to lose to Collins, I sincerely doubt Mills would have fared much better. Collins was always going to be tough to beat.
Paul’s post, like many articles written about Platner these days, makes no attempt to engage with what Platner is doing and saying now, rather than what he has done or said in the past. Perhaps what Platner is doing and saying now is all political calculation, but it doesn’t come across that way. I see a candidate who’s deeply engaged with the citizens of Maine, and willing to listen and respond to any and all concerns people may have about him.
LikeLiked by 1 person