subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

Gays and Jews: trump tries to stir up trouble


I saw a spokesman from the Log Cabin Republicans on T.V. yesterday explaining why his group of gay Republicans continues to support trump’s re-election.

His words (I paraphrase) were, “Well, the president promised us he would tone down the rhetoric on the right against the LGBTQ community, and he’s done that, so we support him.”

Think about that statement. It’s like saying, “Well, the Republican-evangelical party is still punching and kicking us, but at least they’re not shoving pins under our fingernails anymore, so progress is being made.”

Hey you Log Cabin self-haters, how about moving over to a party that doesn’t insult and oppress you—the Democratic Party, where you’d be welcome with dignity and respect?

How any self-respecting gay person can be a Republican is beyond my comprehension. It’s like a Jew belonging to the nazi party, or a Black person joining the KKK. How does that work? The nazis wish to obliterate Jews from the face of the earth; the KKK wants to crush Blacks out of existence. And the Republican Party has been trying for decades to ostracize, marginalize and badger gay people back into the closet.

And while we’re on the subject of the culture wars Republicans are always trying to incite, here’s my reply to trump’s insane suggestion that Jews who vote for Democrats are “disloyal.” I’m Jewish, born, raised and bar mitzvah’ed. I’m 73 years old, and have experienced a lot of history. And I can proudly inform trump that Jews always have been Democrats and will remain so. That is because Jews are idealistic, hopeful, and inclusive people who root for the underdog. Jews have been maligned for millennia. We know what it’s like to be despised by majority populations, hounded from our homes, hunted down like animals and murdered. This is why Jews have traditionally been so humanitarian and welcoming. The Democratic Party, too, embraces humanism. There’s a natural “fit” between Jews and Democrats, and nothing this evil, pompous and vulgar man, trump, says will break that bond.

All that trump is trying to do, obviously, is stir up trouble and divisiveness. It’s what he does every day. But his act is getting thin; even people who supported him are seeing through his hypocrisy and rank self-promotion. If he thinks he’s going to pry Jews apart, he’s crazy. Jews understood all too well where trump is coming from: his pals on the far right are the “proud boys,” the American nazi party, the KKK, the anti-semites in the alt.right, the David Dukes of this country. trump pals around with them, thereby implicitly defending their anti-semitism, and then he postures as some great friend of the Jews. Well, we didn’t let Hitler fool us, and trump can’t fool us either.

Some people say, “How can trump be anti-semitic when his own son-in-law and daughter are Jewish?” Easy. Jared Kushner is a Chasidic Jew and so is his wife, Ivanka. These are not real Jews; they’re a bizarre cult of Jews who broke away from mainstream Judaism centuries ago to form their own close-minded, fundamentalist movement—a movement that has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Jews. Jared Kushner’s brand of Judaism is like the Taliban’s brand of Islam: ignorant, violent and highly bigoted. Frankly, I’d trust the future of Israel and the Jews to Rep. Tlaib before I’d let Chasidic Jews run it. Sadly, these same Chasidic Jews have an outsized power in Israel because the arch-reactionary, Netanyahu, formed the same kind of unholy alliance with ignorant Russian immigrants as the Republican Party formed with far-right evangelicals in this country. Criticizing Israel for its racist policies towards the Palestinians isn’t “disloyal” to Judaism. In fact, it’s in keeping with the highest moral principles of my religion.

So, trump, once again you’re just lying and provoking. It hasn’t been working for you lately, and it won’t work for you now. #Impeachment!

Two new wine reviews


Here are two new reviews. Both wines are from the Marlborough, New Zealand winery, Duck Hunter, that’s been getting good reviews in the American wine press. The prices listed are the official ones from the importer, but I’ve seen both wines online for sale at considerably lower cost. Both the Sauvignon Blanc and the Pinot Noir are what you could call “food wines.” They’re super-easy to drink, with good varietal flavor, and versatile at the table.

Duck Hunter 2018 Sauvignon Blanc (Marlborough): $20. What a lovely wine: crisp and low in alcohol (12.7%), with plenty of flavors: passionfruit, papaya, gooseberry and citrusy limes, although the spectrum is so broad, different tasters will find all kinds of different things to rave about. However you describe it, the wine is elegant, refined and simply delicious. There’s a little residual sugar in the finish, not enough to make it overtly sweet, but rich and mellow. With no oak, what you get are ripely succulent grapes. The wine has none of those infamous “cat pee” aromas sometimes associated with Marlborough Sauv Blanc. I’d happily drink this as a house white wine. Score: 88 points.

Duck Hunter 2018 Pinot Noir (Marlborough); $30. The word I immediately came up with, tasting this Pinot, is “pleasant.” It’s on the light side, color-wise, with a pretty garnet-golden color that’s clear enough to see through. The texture is silky, and the tannins are fine and gentle; with alcohol of only 13.3%, it has something of the crystalline purity of mountain water. There’s nothing light about the flavor, though. The raspberry newton, cola, cranberry, orange zest and baking spices are tangy and delicious. The tech notes say only “limited oak” has been applied. I can barely perceive any wood—maybe that slight smokiness is the only clue. There’s a nice bite of acidity to balance the fruit, and the finish is totally dry, if a bit short. On the whole, a very nice wine, drinkable immediately and for the next few years. Try with roast duck, mushroom risotto, pork, chicken or beef tacos. Score: 89 points.

Both the Right and the Left need to clean up their acts


Mine is an anti-trump blog but in all fairness there are things the Left needs to work on. Both The LEFT and the RIGHT have their faults. Here are six issues both sides need to own up to and correct.


CLIMATE CHANGE: Conservatives really have to move beyond their blind resistance to the reality of climate change, and in particular, man’s role in it. I know that Republicans mistrust “science” and love to poke “experts” in the eye, and they get a cheap, schoolyard thrill when trump calls climate change a hoax. But they’re wrong, and until they admit it, they hurt their own cause.

RACISM: With their ranks stuffed with neo-nazis, proud boys, the alt.right, Steve King and David Duke, the Right really is rampant with racists and white supremacists who hate people of color. trump can’t or won’t admit it; the Right hates to admit it. But it’s true, and until the Republican Party kicks out the racists, they don’t deserve to govern.

HOMOPHOBIA: One would think that anti-LGBTQ feeling has gone away, but it remains dominant in the Republican Party, fed by so-called “Christian” fundamentalism. They truly mark themselves as the party of hatred. They need to acknowledge this and make amends to the millions of Americans against whom they stir up resentment and provoke violence.

RELIGIOUS FANATICISM: The Republican Party has made an unholy alliance with some of the most unsavory religious bigots in America, people like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr. and the evangelical/Pentecostal cult. Republicanism has, in fact, become synonymous with religious madness. The Right needs to part ways with this reactionary movement, and to remember that America is a secular nation. We will never become the “Christian” country so many of them want.

ECONOMIC DISPARITY-TAXES: You’d think that, with so many red state trump supporters being poor and lower middle class, they’d want a president who levels the playing field and raises taxes on billionaires to make income disparity less blatant. Sadly, the Right stubbornly and stupidly supports a president who sells out their interests—and who, let’s be honest, wouldn’t allow most of them into his home, except as maids or servants.

TRUMP’S FUNDAMENTAL DISGUSTINGNESS: The Right can’t even admit that their leader is a foul, vulgar, potty-mouthed and sexually-perverted pathological liar and creep. It would be nice to see, for once, Breitbart or Fox “News” come out and say it.

The LEFT has its work cut out for them, too:

DYSFUNCTIONALITY IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY: There’s too much crime, out-of-wedlock babies, substance abuse, disregard for the law and an aversion to the norms and morés of society in segments of the Black community, and Democrats almost never call it out. The Left needs to recognize this and deal with it.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: This really has become an issue that annoys large segments of the American people. The Left needs to stop being so afraid of offending particular interest groups.

DISDAIN FOR RED STATES: I admit to being part of this problem. We tend to treat “flyover states” as trailer parks populated by low-IQ morons and bible thumpers. We need to recognize these people as our American brothers and sisters.

DISRESPECT FOR THE UNIFORM, INCLUDING COPS: Cops are called pigs; people give them the finger; our military troops are seen as exploiters and murderers. This view is too often tolerated by the Left; at least, they don’t actively criticize it. I’d like to see the Left defend cops who are forced to stop criminals who resist arrest and/or threaten them, instead of always crying “police brutality.” And I’d like to see the far Left salute the men and women in uniform, who protect our country.

TENDENCY TO SIDE WITH CRIMINALS, NOT VICTIMS: The Left is too focused on the “rights” of criminals, and not concerned enough with the suffering of victims. Most Americans are acutely aware of this: it feeds the perception that the Left doesn’t care about victims. This needs to change.

TENDENCY TO SEE ABERRANT BEHAVIOR AS “ILLNESS,” NOT CRIME: The Left needs to get serious about punishing crime. Instead, all too often the Left blames criminal behavior on poverty or racism or some other social ill, or else treats it as a disease, like diabetes. Crime is crime; adult criminals must be held accountable. But too often, they’re let off with a slap on the wrist, only to repeat their crimes again and again. This was a big part of the reason people voted for trump.

I realize I’m going to get slammed from both sides for this essay, but this is an important conversation. Until BOTH sides acknowledge their mistaken ways and move beyond their talking points, nothing will change.

All in all, and weighing everything, I continue to believe that the Right is far, far guiltier of horrendous, stupid behavior, which is why I remain a Democrat. But my party—humanistic and inclusive as it is–needs to take a close look at itself.

Thank you.

Why it would have been easy for Trump to order Epstein’s death


The dumbest remark I’ve heard all week—and I’ve heard a lot of dumb stuff from Republicans—was on Breitbart or, as I like to call it, BiteFart. It was from a woman (obviously not well-educated), who wrote, concerning the Epstein death, “Trump is no murder.” She meant “murderer,” of course, but many if not most of these Republican Trump supporters are sadly lacking in basic writing skills, as a read-through of comments on BiteFart shows every day. (The possibility also exists that the woman is some kind of Russian bot or troll.)

How does this woman know that “Trump is no murder”? He sanctions murder, that’s for sure. A couple of years ago, in an interview in which he was criticized for supporting murderous dictators, he said (I paraphrase), “What, you think America doesn’t kill people?” Coming from the President of the United States, that is a pretty clear indication that Trump has ordered deaths. Given what we know of his personality—sociopathic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, paranoid—there’s no reason not to believe that he’s comfortable with taking out his enemies. I would not kill—you would not kill—most decent people would not kill—but Donald Trump would, if he could; and he can. He’s the most powerful person in the world.

Look, if he wanted to “arrange” the death of Epstein in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, he could do it with a wink and a nod. Arrange for someone to be off-duty at a crucial moment. Pay someone to “not see” something. Have an important document mysteriously disappear. Epstein supposedly hanged himself (with what, we don’t know). Do you not think someone could have entered his cell, overpowered him, and strangled him, then made the scene look as though Epstein had done the deed himself?

Over at the afore-mentioned BiteFart the running meme is that Bill Clinton (or, in some cases, Hillary) arranged for Epstein’s murder. Just how either of the Clintons retains enough power to pull off a stunt like that is not explained by BiteFarters, who never need evidence for their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Former Presidents have absolutely no extrajudicial power, beyond the power of the pulpit. Sitting Presidents do. I doubt if there’s a person in the entire world whom Trump could not have killed, if he wanted. And surely Trump had ample motive to kill Epstein.

Let’s not forget this telling quote from Trump, given during a New York magazine interview back in 2002: Epstein “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” That’s what he said: I didn’t make it up, Democrats didn’t invent it, it’s what the serial pussy-grabber said. His remarkable understatement that both he and his good friend Epstein like their women “on the younger side” can have only one meaning: both predators enjoyed girls under the legal age of consent. In this age of #MeToo this is a shocking admission. There may or may not exist objective proof that Epstein supplied Trump with girls “on the younger side,” but clearly, had Epstein lived, he would have been in a position to so testify.

But Epstein did not live. His life ended abruptly. Cui bono, the law asks in Latin: Who benefits from Epstein’s death? Obviously his co-conspirators do. We don’t know whom they are, yet. But there’s plenty of smoke emerging from the crime scene, and anyone who doesn’t, at the very least, entertain the possibility that Trump had illegal sex with girls “on the younger side” supplied to him by Epstein, and then ordered Epstein eliminated, is living in a fool’s paradise.

New Wine Reviews: Pinotage


As a California wine critic I came across very little Pinotage wine. Over the decades I drank maybe a few dozen, always from South Africa. I formed a generic impression of it, through both my own tastings and from reading other writers, as a dark red wine, dry and high in alcohol, that could be a little rustic—sort of the Zinfandel of South Africa.

But I didn’t really know. Wine critics can’t be expected to be experts on every one of the thousands of vitis vinifera varieties grown around the world! So it was nice when a P.R. rep from Vineyard Brands asked if I wanted to taste four South African Pinotages. Of course, I said yes.

Pinotage is a cross between Pinot Noir and Cinsault, created in South Africa in 1925. The name apparently was coined to suggest a red wine similar to Hermitage, which of course is made from Syrah. In theory, the developers of Pinotage wanted create a wine as delicious as Pinot Noir (thought at the time to be difficult to grow in South Africa), but as easy to farm as Cinsault.

I looked up the Pinotage ratings and reviews from my old magazine, Wine Enthusiast, and was surprised at the consistency of the scores: mainly between 85 points and 92 points, the former range dominated by less-expensive bottlings. Prices are nowhere near those of, say, Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon or the better California Pinot Noirs.

Ashbourne 2016 Pinotage (Hemel-En-Aared); $58. “Hemel-En-Aared” means “heaven and earth” in Afrikaans. Close to the coast, it has a cool maritime climate. In red wines, the region is famous for Pinot Noir, and this Pinotage has a Burgundian delicacy, while keeping the proper varietal size and weight. It’s easily the best of the four Pinotages I was asked to review. The acidity, which is so fierce in the other wines, has been tamed by letting the wine go through complete malolactic fermentation. Meanwhile, the tannins seem softer, allowing the full range of flavors to reveal themselves: succulent ripe blackberries, with suggestions of spicy cloves, oak-inspired vanilla, and a meaty-beefy teriyaki sweetness. The wine shows the classic proportions of finesse: balance, integrity, cleanliness, power, and complexity. The alcohol is a modest 14.1%. It’s a joy to drink now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it aged well over the next six years. Score: 93 points.

Southern Right Pinotage (Walker Bay); $33. Walker Bay, being on the South Africa’s southeast Atlantic coast, is a cool-climate region, where Chardonnay and Pinot Noir thrive. Although Pinotage also does well in warmer locales, it shows a liveliness in Walker Bay that makes this wine especially attractive. (The name is an homage to the right whales which swim along the coast.) It shows bright, almost searing acidity and thick, furry tannins, with a dense, hugely-concentrated core of black cherry and black raspberry fruit, super-rich due to long hangtime. The oak notes of vanilla are subtle, while an intense spiciness thrives throughout. The finish is totally dry. An alcohol level of only 13.5% lends delicacy despite the hugeness of the fruit. This Pinotage really made me sit up and think. The fruit is sensational, but it’s the structure that strikes me—so much more complicated and architectural than anything in California. The wine defines itself in the mouth: you can feel its edges and corners. I suppose it will age, but there’s no reason not to drink it now with, say, beef, game or even Indian food. Score: 92 points.

Lievland 2017 Bushvine” Pinotage (Paarl). $19. The Paarl, in the Western Cape, is a warm region, little benefitting from the Atlantic, more than 100 miles away. The term “bush vine” is commonly used in South Africa to denote grapevines grown in the “goblet” or untrellised style, like they used to be. The wine is quite dry and austere, with lots of acidity. There are blackberry and coffee flavors, with plenty of black spices, especially pepper; the oak influence is subtle. Tannins are thick to the point of astringent. If you’re used to, say, Napa Cabernet, this is the complete opposite: not opulent, but rather bitter, more intellectual. For that reason I find it attractive. The winemaker blended in a little Cinsault and Shiraz, which adds to the complexity. All in all, a sophisticated wine which will nicely accompany—and needs–beef. Score: 89 points.

MAN Family Wines 2017 “Bosstok” Pinotage (Coastal Region); $12. “Bosstok” is a word referring to what South Africans call “bush vines”—“goblet,” or untrellised vines, generally used in warmer climates; the leafy canopy shelters the grape bunches from the sun. The “Coastal Region” appellation is a large one, accounting for nearly 50% of all the vines in South Africa. Bottled in a screwtop, with alcohol of 14.0%, it’s a pleasant wine, the kind I’d call an everyday sipper, especially given the price. It’s very dark in color; the flavors are somewhat bitter, with cherry skin, espresso and dark spice notes; there’s some unripeness that gives a green streak. The oak influence is low, lending a touch of vanilla bean. Acidity is pronounced, while the finish is thoroughly dry. The winery suggests slightly cooling it before drinking; this is a good idea, to tame the acids and tannins. Score: 86 points.

Oakland’s housing woes: a classic bind


Monday’s report, in the San Francisco Chronicle, that the city of Oakland has surpassed San Francisco in new apartment construction came as no surprise to those of us who, like me, live at the epicenter of the new development, in the so-called “Broadway-Valdez Corridor.”

In the last two years or so, Oakland, with less than half the population of San Francisco, has built, or is building, more than twice as many apartments (both rental and condos). That’s never happened before; the Chronicle’s reporters attribute it to Oakland’s laxer development costs (including the price of land) and lower taxes, contrasted with San Francisco’s very high taxes and fees on construction and a super-cumbersome approval process that can stall projects for years.

But there’s more to it than that. Geographically, Oakland sits at the bullseye center of the Bay Area. Surrounded by major freeways, with BART running right through the heart of the city, Oakland is a perfect place for young Millennials who work here, or in San Francisco, or in Silicon Valley, or out in the Tri-Valley area: together, those regions account for close to 100% of all the new tech and tech-related jobs. While it’s true that new office construction in Oakland is just a tiny fraction of what it is in San Francisco, it almost doesn’t matter; with the buses, subway, car pools and driving amenities like Uber and Lyft, younger workers don’t have to live close to their jobs.

As a result of the new influx, Oakland’s profile is changing, fast. When I moved here, in 1987, Oakland was a rather sleepy city. It always played second fiddle to San Francisco. There wasn’t a lot going on. My neighborhood—the Broadway-Valdez Corridor—was considered part of downtown Oakland. It consisted of older apartment housing stock (most of it dating back to the 1960s and 1970s), with a few fine, old single-family houses, many of them by such renowned designers as Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan, in various states of disrepair. Broadway itself, which from the 1920s through the 1960s was a lively stretch of department stores and office buildings, had begun slowing down. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake finalized that process: downtown Oakland was heavily hit, and building after building shut down. The department stores closed; the retail shops became nail parlors, second-hand clothing stores, dive bars.

All that began to change when Jerry Brown became Mayor. His two terms (1999-2007) saw a concerted outreach to developers. Up sprouted Oakand’s first condo and rental developments in decades. By the early 2000s, real estate interests redubbed my neighborhood “Uptown,” to distinguish it from “Downtown” and to make it sound hipper. The process continued under all subsequent Mayors, up to and including our present one, Libby Schaaf.

With the new housing came increasingly fierce criticism from affordable housing advocates, who pointed out, correctly, that the new apartments and condos were too expensive for lower-paid workers to afford. This criticism was entirely true. The newest apartments, some of which haven’t yet come online, average more than $3,000 a month for a small one-bedroom unit, while condos can cost upwards of $750,000. This is part of Oakland’s changing demographic. The city benefited from San Francisco’s own housing crisis in the 1990s, which forced out thousands of artists, musicians, dancers, writers and entrepreneurs; many of them found their way across the Bay Bridge to Oakland. Now, those artists and musicians are being forced out yet again.

Where do they go? North, South or East, inland, to places like Redding, or Tracy, or Sacramento—or they leave the Bay Area altogether. This is probably the toughest challenge Oakland faces: the displacement of all those people. African-Americans, too, are caught up in this vicious cycle of upward-spiraling apartment prices.

It’s very easy for affordable housing advocates to demand that the city build more units. They argue that Oakland owns lots of buildings, or acreage where existing buildings can be torn down and replaced with inexpensive apartment complexes. What they consistently fail to realize is that cities aren’t in the business of being real estate developers. They don’t have the money or expertise to do so. What cities can do is encourage private developers to come in and build; and this is what Oakland has been doing. Unfortunately, for those on limited incomes, the process isn’t happening fast enough, and the new apartments and condos, as I said, are far from affordable.

But you can’t force a developer to build something if he can’t make a profit on it, and let’s face it, affordable housing, while desirable, doesn’t turn a profit for the people who build it. This is precisely where Oakland, and so many other cities, finds itself: caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. When and how the process resolves itself, if it ever does, can’t be foreseen.

Trump’s Bitch


I’ve said and written for years that Lindsay Graham—“Auntie Lindsay”–is gay but is afraid to come out of the closet because he represents one of the most Christian and conservative states in the country—South Carolina—where people hate homosexuals. (Note: in this post, I refer to Graham both as “he” and “she.”)

My thesis has long been that Auntie Lindsay’s bizarre defense of Trump, which seems so illogical on the surface, can be explained psychologically. Because Auntie Lindsay is ashamed and frightened by her own queerness, she is “identifying with the aggressor.” This is a well-known defense mechanism, explored by Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalyst daughter Anna. It describes a mechanism by which people who are ashamed of what they are (such as Auntie Lindsay) develop “psychological strategies that are unconsciously used to protect a person from anxiety arising from unacceptable thoughts or feelings.”

According to the theory, Graham represses his awareness of his own sexual orientation, a defense that is unsuccessful since it is based on untruth. This heightens Graham’s sense of anxiety: not only is he “evil” by virtue of being gay, his response to the outer world is twisted and distorted. This creates extreme unrest in Auntie Lindsay; she cannot be comfortable in her own skin, and so she seeks to take shelter in the presence of someone else—someone strong, who projects the image of that which Auntie Lindsay cannot be: straight. In Auntie Lindsay’s case, this strong, straight presence is Donald Trump. Graham not only “identifies” with him, but draws sustenance from the fact that straight men such as trump are the historic aggressors of gay men. By identifying with trump, Graham “borrows” some of his strength; and because trump himself is homophobic, Graham is able to convince himself that by protecting trump, he is in fact protecting himself. It’s all very strange, but there it is: and it explains why Graham goes out of her way to excuse trump’s racism, lies and bullying. 

Recently, the Broadway actress, Patti Lupone, found herself in trouble on social media for a tweet in which she said: “Lindsey Graham you are a disgrace. On a personal note, why don’t you just bite the bullet and come out. You might just come to your senses.”

The rightwing criticisms on Twitter followed fast. Some accused Lupone of having a “double standard…Imagine a conservative tweeting this at Anderson Cooper. It would be national news.” (Never mind that (a) Anderson Cooper came out of the closet voluntarily years ago, and (b) Lupone wasn’t criticizing Graham for being gay, but for lying about it.) Other Graham/Trump supporters called Lupone “a snowflake,” screamed “YOU are the disgrace,” and insisted, “We love Senator Graham! And his lifestyle is nobody’s business. Focus on helping all the loons on the left. That’ll keep you busy to infinity.”

Others defended Lupone. “Everyone knows that Lindsey Graham is gay, he even has a code name on Capitol Hill. I have no beef with that. What I do have a problem with, is his bad policies that hurt Americans. DRAG HIM PATTI! DRAG HIM!”

It’s fine for Auntie Lindsay’s supporters to “love” him even though he’s gay. I have no problem with that. What I, and many others, have a problem with is Graham’s homophobia (as exemplified in his anti-gay stance, including being against gay marriage), and his support of, and connections with, the most extreme homophobes of the so-called “Christian” right. Poor Auntie Lindsay suffers from a mental imbalance that he doesn’t even know he has. Most people with the self-loathing of Lindsay Graham would seek out psychotherapy (if they could afford it, and Graham can), in order to heal themselves and be better human beings. But in order to seek help, you have to be aware that you have a problem—and Auntie Lindsay apparently isn’t.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the biggest problem with trump isn’t his policies (as cruel and stupid as they are). It’s the content of his character: trump suffers from numerous mental illnesses, ranging from narcissism and megalomania to a sociopathic personality that is unable to empathize with human suffering; there’s also, to judge from his behavior, a streak of sadism. It’s a huge problem for America (and for the world) when the President of the United States is mentally ill. Other mentally ill people gravitate to trump because he helps them feel better. They’re not the losers they think they are: how can they be, when the most powerful, successful man in the world is just as sick as they are? This is why the El Paso shooter revered trump. It’s why Auntie Lindsay reveres trump. Graham has been called “trump’s greatest supporter in the Senate.” I call her something else: trump’s Bitch.

« Previous Entries

Recent Comments

Recent Posts