Donald Trump will speak on behalf of Delta House

This was picked up from Steve Hayward at Powerline: TRUMP VERSUS DEAN WORMER. He writes:

Trump as head of Delta House is actually a lot more accurate than the people who did this parody may realize. And I expect his second inaugural parade might resemble the Animal House version, too, as he ramrods the Deep State lined up on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A bit too premature for me to be picking the result of the election in November, but why not be an optimist? And if you are not familiar with this scene from the greatest movie of my generation (well not quite, but definitely a movie that could not be made today), here it is.

This entry was posted in American politics, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Donald Trump will speak on behalf of Delta House

  1. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Senator Blutarski – Rep or Dem?

  2. Turnip

    Blutarski had to be (D) as he grabbed the girl.on the way out and would have been easily bought.

  3. Pickles

    Fat drunk & stupid is no way to go through life Pickles. So far so good.

  4. Entropy

    At our residential college us country kids were shown Animal House the first night of O week. It was also the first time I got drunk.

  5. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Aside from jokes, since I’ve heard nothing serious on Catallaxy about the impeachment after the 1st day of the trial, can I assume things aren’t going too well for the Donald?

    Hey, how about that secret recording of Trump talking to Lev Parnas – a guy Trump claims he doesn’t know anything about, doesn’t know where he comes from or “what he’s about”, doesn’t believe he’s ever spoken to, has “never met before”, and “never had a conversation with he remembers”.
    The President can dismiss Ambassadors, and set foreign policy, and if he has to fire an Ambassador to advance a chosen foreign policy then he can do that too. So the question has to be asked, why on earth did Trump lie about this conversation with Parnas? What *else* were those two doing in that conversation that makes the whole event worthy of the silent treatment?

  6. Tim Neilson

    Colonel Crispin Berka
    #3304826, posted on January 28, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    To my mind it’s all a big nothing even if everything the Dems say is true.
    Impeachment is supposed to be “high crimes and misdemeanours”. Hunter was getting $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company for what? No energy industry experience, not a Ukraine speaker, no track record with the Ukrainian economy, less than 5 years in (part time) legal practice, negligible business experience except a lot of lobbying and networking and fast-tracked sinecures on his father’s coat-tails, and an alcoholic and drug addict – try saying with a straight face that it was irrelevant that his father was VP with responsibility for the USA’s relations with the Ukraine.
    And then VP Joe decided to intervene in the corruption investigation involving Hunter’s paymasters. There seems to me no possible way of suggesting that Trump was committing “high crimes and misdemeanours” by seeking to invoke the US/Ukraine treaty to ask Ukraine to have a look at whether VP Joe and Hunter had overstepped the mark – and so what if Trump wanted that to be widely known? Is a politician supposed to say “no, please cover up anything that’s disadvantageous to my potential opponent!”?

Comments are closed.