Toilet Politics

It is absolutely disgraceful, pathetic and ridiculous that for every 500 articles and blog posts on the subject of Hillary’s bathroom break and Trump’s schlonging there is maybe one that analyzes what was actually said in the debate.

Everybody dumps on Trump, yet the number of people who gleefully stoop to his level and wallow in schlonged bathroom breaks with him is enormous. They fake outrage at what he is saying but, in reality, they dig what he does because it frees them from the unwelcome obligation to think and analyze.

Trump did not come out of nowhere. We all have created – and are still studiously constructing – the political space that is dominated by bathroom humor and petty bickering over absolutely nothing whatsoever.

16 thoughts on “Toilet Politics”

  1. Everything comes back to the alimentary canal. Perhaps it’s a psychological issue everyone wants to work out in public?


  2. Breaking: Grand jury refuses to indict cops who shot Tamir Rice and left him for dead. Prosecutor suggests Rice looked older than 12 years old. Christ.


      1. It’s been studied.
        I know you detest IATs, but they’re set up to test exactly this kind of split second reaction.

        The more an argument falls in line with your own biases the less likely you are to pick it apart. Prosecutors have little interest in prosecuting cops for any reason, and the people who usually end up on juries have positive experiences with cops.


        1. I happen to love cops. Only ever had super positive experiences with cops. But there are situations that are so obvious, so egregious that one should think nobody can confuse with anything else.

          I’m shocked by this, just as I was shocked by the Mike Brown decision. And I don’t believe I’m biased. In the Sandra Bland case, for instance, I can’t blame anybody for not finding anything criminal behind her death.


          1. Neither of these were trials, even though the prosecutors tried to make it seem like they were trials. The standard of proof for a trial is probable cause not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.


          2. But there are situations that are so obvious, so egregious that one should think nobody can confuse with anything else.

            Prosecutor: Officers shooting of Rice fits "within active shooter policy" He's saying not only was this not a crime, but it followed policy— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) December 28, 2015


            Prosecutor says straight up: "We don't second guess police officers." "It's clear the officers were not criminal."— Juan M. Thompson (@JuanMThompson) December 28, 2015


            As I was explaining on air: Typically prosecutor argues to G. Jury for why to charge This prosecutor says he argued for why not to charge.— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) December 28, 2015



      2. If anyone had the stomach to watch the video, the cops did not look long enough to determine anything about the figure they shot at and killed.

        They drove up, jumped put of the car and aimed. It took seconds.


  3. Even if the shooting were justified (it wasn’t), wouldn’t the cop realize his mistake after seeing the toy gun and make an attempt to provide first aid? Call an ambulance?

    Nope. Just let him lie there, dying. Oh, but they did handcuff his sister and threatened to arrest his mother, preventing her from rushing to her son’s aid.

    This one’s brutal.


  4. We should also remember that my state, Ohio, is an open carry state. There is nothing illegal about walking around with a gun.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.