An emblematic boat parade

45 loves ’em, so of course there’s another boat parade going on right now in Texas. Amusingly, though, the boats are sinking.

Multiple 911 calls have been made regarding boats being in distress, some sinking at the ‘Trump Boat Parade’ scheduled for Saturday afternoon on Lake Travis, according to the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.

TCSO confirmed with CBS Austin that multiple boats have been sinking and are in distress.

I hope no one gets hurt, but…heh. Heh heh heh.


  1. birgerjohansson says

    Since DT has hired Scott Atlas as epidemiologi expert we can dismiss the concept of “safety” as something that was ever mentioned in planning…

  2. pocketnerd says

    At least three boats sank today. And since Trump’s followers can’t accept it’s people being reckless, stupid, and drunk in rented boats they don’t know how to use safely, the Trumpist conspiracy crackpottery du jour is “stealth terrorism from antifa scuba ninjas.”

  3. robro says

    NYT is reporting “at least” 4 boats sank, but no injuries. No numbers on how many people were pulled out of the water, or how many boats were in the parade. Winds were a mild 10-15 mph, so the likely cause was just the sheer number of boats moving in the same direction creating big waves. Nature wins again.

    There’s another boat parade planned for Sunday on the Potomac, the Capital Trumptilla Boat Parade and Rally.

    I may have to start using “Trumptilla” for Donny boy.

  4. larpar says

    robo @ #10
    There is a picture at the link that shows the kind of wake people were dealing with.

  5. Rich Woods says

    @Robert Westbrook #8:

    I really hope the Orange One doesn’t see that. You just know that once someone has explained the reference to him he’ll denounce all the soldiers rescued, killed or captured at Dunkirk as ‘losers’ and then his imminent demise will become a matter of personal preference to tens of millions of their relatives and descendants.

  6. Rich Woods says

    @me #14:

    Oops, I managed to leave ‘countrymen’ out of that list. There were Dutch, Belgian and French soldiers fighting at Dunkirk as well as what was left of the British Expeditionary Force.

  7. magistramarla says

    Yeah, Bubbas in boats happens every holiday weekend in Texas.
    Man, I’m glad that I live in California now.

  8. dorght says

    I never understood the US’s attitude towards France. The French held off the Nazi’s long enough for the Brits to flee back home.
    Maybe the flotillas are practice for escorting trump to Melba and St. Helena come January.

  9. microraptor says

    dorght @17: America’s attitude toward France is basically revisionist history that came into being some time in the 80s or 90s, but became popular after France voted against invading Iraq. And the basic version of World War 2 that most Americans who don’t actually make a point of studying the war in depth hear about is extremely self-serving and makes it sound like the US did all the heavy lifting while all the other Allies were either support or mere spectators and also tends to ignore the war prior to December 7th, 1941.

  10. says

    @#18, microraptor:

    And also deliberately ignoring the huge role the USSR played — mainly because if you accept that more commies died than anybody else, and that the population of the USSR was higher in 1970 than it was in 1930, you have to start doubting the figures given by right-wingers for the numbers of people killed by the communist government, because they just don’t add up.

  11. gijoel says

    @9 You don’t even have to do that. Just start a facistbook page with a few pics of loaded, safety-off, shot guns pointed at the bottom of their boats. They’ll be swimming for ‘Murica in no time.

  12. blf says

    @6, “the Trumpist conspiracy crackpottery du jour is ‘stealth terrorism from antifa scuba ninjas’.”

    At least one eejit is reported to have just about conspiremongered that, MAGA blogger: Boats that sunk at Trump Boat Parade were probably hit by terrorists:

    [… I]it’s clear that the boats were likely overtaken by the wake of other boats speeding along the lake, that’s not stopping some from floating their own conspiracy theories about what happened, namely pro-Trump writer and Christian conservative Carmine Sabia.

    The likelihood of all of these boats sinking at the Trump Boat Parade by accident is microscopic, he tweeted. We are dealing with terrorists.

    Luckily for civil society, Sabia’s conspiracy theory didn’t get legs and was met mostly with mockery. […]

  13. komarov says

    To be fair, the USS Pride has been slowly sinking for a while now. Probably all that’s been keeping that old thing afloat is very loud denial.

    Re: gijoel (#21):

    Real patriots hole their ship right at the start so they can fight the sea all the way.

    I would add that there is no dishonour in defeat if the battle was well-fought but not only does that not apply here, but the POTUS and Supreme Commander would disagree. He’s going to be very upset with himself at his own funeral.

  14. blf says

    Apparently, at another covidiots für hair furor floundering event in Arizona, one boat caught on fire.

    (No idea of the cause — albeit I presume the antifa’s invisible navy is responsible — or if anyone was hurt.)

  15. KG says

    And the basic version of World War 2 that most Americans who don’t actually make a point of studying the war in depth hear about is extremely self-serving and makes it sound like the US did all the heavy lifting while all the other Allies were either support or mere spectators and also tends to ignore the war prior to December 7th, 1941. – microraptor@18

    The basic British version is at least as self-serving and inaccurate. It says that the Germans had an overwhelming advantage in troops and equipment when they invaded France (they had none at all – their victory was down to superior strategy and surprise); that Britain then held out alone in a quixotic stand against almost certain defeat (the decision not to seek peace was based on a sound appreciation of the balance of forces, and realistic hopes of American intervention at some point), and it had immediate and important help from the Dominions, the Empire – particularly Indian troops – and European forces that escaped to Britain – admittedly the role of Polish and Czech pilots is sometimes acknowledged); that everyone was united behind Churchill (there were significant movements both to replace him and to seek peace with Germany); and that there was a serious threat of invasion in 1940-41 (there wasn’t – neither the German Navy, nor the Luftwaffe, had anything like the forces needed to support an invasion, even if troops had succeeded in landing; you can tell there wasn’t because most of the Royal Navy remained in the Mediterranean and elswhere, not in the Channel to prevent invasion). While the British Army was capable of beating Italian and Vichy French troops (the fact that Britian and France were effectively at war after the French armistice with Germany also tends to be edited out), they never inflicted a defeat on German troops until El Alamein in October 1942 – and then it was done with overwhelming numbers, American tanks, and after most of the German army had gone to invade the USSR.

  16. blf says

    KG@28, And, except for a certain bridge built by POWs on the Burma Railway (and the largely false movie about it (which even got the name of the river wrong)), the common UK WW ][ narrative totally ignores the war in the Pacific.

  17. PaulBC says

    microraptor@18 It always seemed to me that the British get a lot of credit. First off for enduring the London bombing attacks without capitulating, for serving as a base for bombing missions by RAF as well as US forces, for major advances in radar, and (though wasn’t known till decades later) cracking the Enigma cipher. (And D-Day and Winston Churchill and all the rest.) Arthur C. Clarke’s only non-science-fiction novel that I know of is Glide Path, more or less autobiographical fiction about his work on radar during the war. I think it’s at least worth reading for historical perspective, though pretty obscure among his works.

    I guess the real question is what’s the perspective of an American who spent the late 90s glued to The History Channel. That’s probably what has determined the current mythology. I couldn’t tell you. Again, though, I always thought Britain at least received due credit.

  18. PaulBC says

    Actually, if any credit was written out glaringly in the decades after the war, it was Russia. They endured the most civilian death and fought a much harder ground war than any other allies. (Note: I am not a military historian or even a “buff” so please correct me if I’m wrong here.)

  19. KG says


    Well after the Prince of Walesand Repulse were sunk, and Singapore was captured, there wasn’t a lot of British participation in the Pacific War! Burma (a complete sideshow) does get quite a bit of coverage.

    Personal reminiscence:I once asked my father (who served in the Royal Navy in WW2) what was the worst moment for him. He said “When I saw the headline ‘Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk’, because then I knew we’d lost the Far East”. IOW, nothing to do with defeat in France, or the supposed threat of invasion. I regret not following this up; it may have been partly because he had a brother in Singapore (who died of disease shortly after being captured), but I think it was more the blow to the Empire (my father was somethnig of an old-fashioned British conservative (and Conservative) – he’d have loathed Johnson and Trump.

  20. numerobis says

    KG@28: the Germans had an overwhelming advantage in troop numbers since much of the military leadership of France was more focused on the threat of revolutionary socialists running around and were pretty chummy with the Nazis, and so they were OK with surrendering.