Nasty man

It appears that both far right Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump, by virtue of his retweet, are admitting that they are products of Charles Manson ideology. That's the way this reads to me. The NYT tweet's point is that Manson was an early indicator of what followed. They say the far right, and Ingraham calls it right so far, but appears to be talking about the same progression: Manson to today. The Most Notable Loser may not be smart enough to realize that's what she's saying. But that's what she's saying.

He woke up this morning still steaming about not being sufficiently praised by LaVar Ball.  I'm guessing he recently saw this.

Nasty, nasty, petty little juvenile.  I guess his parents never said to him, "Be the bigger person."

The pettiness of The Most Notable Loser is breathtaking.

Actually, it's not. No matter how many times he says it, the NFL is not losing fan support. And it's not a "new idea".

Tom E. Curran of Comcast Sportsnet New England reported in a story published on 29 August 2016 that teams standing together on the field during the playing of the national anthem was a relatively recent development in NFL history: “NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed this the practice began in 2009, adding, ‘As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.'”

What actually changed in 2009, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, was that (due to network timing issues) players had previously remained in their locker rooms during the playing of the national anthem for primetime games. After 2009, players appeared in the sidelines for the anthem during primetime games, just as they had been doing all along for Sunday afternoon games. (The distinction often went unnoticed by viewers, as network telecasts frequently didn’t air the pre-game anthem ceremonies.)

[...]

The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard [paid] $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies as part of military recruitment budget-line items.

Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts — 72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed — clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches͕ and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the “opportunity” to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the “opportunity” to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors. While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism.

  Snopes

Now The Most Notable Loser wants enforced "patriotism".  And personal praise.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  I'm not the only one who read that tweet that way.

FURTHER UPDATE:

Trump will be counting on Ball to seize upon every opportunity to engage the president in televised battle. Sadly, the two men have remarkably similar media instincts, the difference being that Ball is mostly trying to sell sneakers, whereas Trump is trying to sell race-hatred.

  Matt Taibbi