The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. - Page 249 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

...

Page 249 of 5382

First

49 149 199 229 239 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 259 269 299 349 449 749 1249

Last

Page 249 of 5382

First

49 149 199 229 239 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 259 269 299 349 449 749 1249

Last

02-06-2017 , 01:28 PM

#6201

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Mike Huckabee suggests that the Executive Branch shouldn't follow court orders.

02-06-2017 , 01:29 PM

#6202

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,092

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

What is really at stake in this post though?

It's basically just about controlling a narrative.

Bannon can't be ingenious or special or clever for you, he has to be dime a dozen, stupid, lucky, incompetent.

Can I ask why that is?

Smart people can usually achieve success without being such bastards and they often don't measure success in terms of money or power anyway. A bitter violent drunk who couldn't achieve his ambition in honest endeavors because he wasn't smart or talented enough and then turned to a life of slime is just much more likely than him being ingenious.

02-06-2017 , 01:31 PM

#6203

DeroDeniro

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,273

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

Mike Huckabee suggests that the Executive Branch shouldn't follow court orders.

Funny that he asks "did you guys pass ninth grade civics" and then go on to claim that courts can't make law.

02-06-2017 , 01:32 PM

#6204

LordJvK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 13,489

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Why would he waste time publishing things in low prestige journals that nobody is going to read? There isn't any reason to think he's THAT dumb.

I think the point is that people trust sources more if they sound kind of official.

Someone pointed out the other day that the Institute of Syrian studies (I cannot recall exact name) is just one man in Coventry. But if the news cites him it sounds feasible. Like 98% of people are not going to follow up on the BBC naming that source.

That's the basic logic.

02-06-2017 , 01:35 PM

#6205

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

My understanding is that it was strongly implied. Did he not say journals?

But besides that knowing academia do you doubt for a single second that he could?

This is one of those things that Autocratic is getting at. Your entire theory makes no ****ing sense.

Yes, if Bannon wanted, he could drop a $50k grant on a local college and get them to do a publishable study on fruit fly mating habits or whatever. But why would he do that? What would it prove?

It appears that you literally do not know what the words you are using mean. "peer review", "journal", and so forth.

02-06-2017 , 01:35 PM

#6206

Kukraprout

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 11,231

That guy is arguing that liberals should use the same tactics that Bannon (allegedly) uses and try to convince Trumpkins with peer-reviewed articles. Yeah, let's keep arguing with him like he's serious!

02-06-2017 , 01:35 PM

#6207

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

Because of exactly what I said. 503s or whatever are literally a dime a dozen. Publishing white papers is what they give failsons to do at the Federalist so then they can get a cushy job at a lobbying firm. It reminds me of when someone kept telling Matt Bruenig that CEOs knew better than him so Matt went out, incorporated a company for something like 300 dollars, and called himself CEO. From then on he was a small business owner.

02-06-2017 , 01:35 PM

#6208

LordJvK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 13,489

Quote:

Originally Posted by 57 On Red

It does mean that, but in a specific way. An academic book or paper is normally submitted by the editors to an 'anonymous reviewer' (anonymous as far as the author is concerned) for comment before publication. The reviewer is supposed to be an expert in the same field, so it's probably someone the author knows or knows of, but they aren't told who.

This is exactly how it works.

02-06-2017 , 01:37 PM

#6209

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

Also I don't see why peer review is being held up so highly here.

I do peer review all the time.

I have had five books through peer review.

I've acted as a reader or reviewer many times.

Bannon could easily get stuff through peer review if he wanted to. He probably has if you look at his publication history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cut

Do you feel you succeeded in sneaking some disinformation through peer review? Do you feel some disinformation slipped through in the reviews you did?

Sorry, if I missed your answer, could you please repost it. It's an essential piece of your argument here.

02-06-2017 , 01:38 PM

#6210

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,092

Huckabee answer there is horrifying. Describing it as "emasculating" and "surrendering"; it's not just the meaning, but the vocabulary of fascism. WAAF.

02-06-2017 , 01:38 PM

#6211

Autocratic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 11,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeroDeniro

Funny that he asks "did you guys pass ninth grade civics" and then go on to claim that courts can't make law.

This is a common conservative refrain, because the primary role of courts is to interpret law, not create it. Conservatism has taken serious hits because of the judicial branch, and they want to reel it in.

It's correct to a degree, but irrelevant here, because the judge was interpreting law.

02-06-2017 , 01:39 PM

#6212

ecriture d'adulte

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 6,580

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

That's different from your claim. Nobody is doubting that Bannon and others just make stuff up and dumb people will believe it. You are saying he's "funding" "peer reviewed" "research" but its not clear you know what any of those words mean tbh. Peer review isn't some cure all that eliminates all nonsense, its just a much higher standard than what Bannon peddles, that's all. He's simply doesn't seem dumb enough to waste all the effort sneaking by peer review for no reason when his audience will accept non peer reviewed nonsense uncritically.

02-06-2017 , 01:41 PM

#6213

LordJvK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 13,489

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kukraprout

I did not say this would work. In fact, it didn't, Obama kind of went that way and it did not work. It was the area in which he was least effective.

Bannon was effective at the gradual effects of his strategy: steady erosion of trust in politicians and government, and of Hilary in particular.

What should the counter Trump tactics be now?

That's s tricky question. I think you have to turn his base against him somehow, or just hope normal people get so fed up that blue will have majority again.

I think current tactics will have the exact opposite of that effect.

02-06-2017 , 01:43 PM

#6214

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

I did not say this would work. In fact, it didn't, Obama kind of went that way and it did not work. It was the area in which he was least effective.

Bannon was effective at the gradual effects of his strategy: steady erosion of trust in politicians and government, and of Hilary in particular.

What should the counter Trump tactics be now?

That's s tricky question. I think you have to turn his base against him somehow, or just hope normal people get so fed up that blue will have majority again.

I think current tactics will have the exact opposite of that effect.

That's been happening for more than 40 years. It wasn't Bannon's idea.

02-06-2017 , 01:44 PM

#6215

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

I think you have to turn his base against him somehow, or just hope normal people get so fed up that blue will have majority again.

Can everyone just not? Seriously.

02-06-2017 , 01:46 PM

#6216

LordJvK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 13,489

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Literally all it was is me thinking the Jacob guy said journal when apparently he didn't.

Very few people read journals anyway.

From my understanding the core principle is (in Bannon's head): "what do libtards read?" That's where really wanted to strike.

I think what sets Bannon apart from your common a garden republican doing this are his extreme and radical aims.

This isn't a normal spin doctor, it's someone with some clear goals. He wasn't to bring the establishment down.

02-06-2017 , 01:49 PM

#6217

LordJvK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 13,489

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-In Flynn

Can everyone just not? Seriously.

Are you suggesting that you can beat him purely by galvanising liberal outrage?

In all seriousness why do you think that will work?

You understand I hope that this is a conversation going on between progressives and centrists in the Dems all over the place right now?

I don't see why you want to shut that convo down here.

02-06-2017 , 01:51 PM

#6218

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

Huckabee answer there is horrifying. Describing it as "emasculating" and "surrendering"; it's not just the meaning, but the vocabulary of fascism. WAAF.

Quote:

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Edit: The bolded describes Trump so well it's scary.

Last edited by einbert; 02-06-2017 at 01:59 PM.

02-06-2017 , 01:52 PM

#6219

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-In Flynn

Can everyone just not? Seriously.

02-06-2017 , 01:54 PM

#6220

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,092

Over 40% of eligible voters didn't vote. They're the number one target and considering how awful Trump is, they should be a little motivated to stop him if it's not too late in 2018/2020. The 15% of people who are normally Republicans, but aren't fascists or idiots will have some defections. The 25% of people who think Trump and Bannon are wonderful geniuses aren't high on the list of prospects.

02-06-2017 , 01:55 PM

#6221

TheNewT50

adept

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,009

I mean maybe the Bloomberg guy who has been pushing this theory for a couple years is just dramatizing, and maybe he duped the On The Media podcast into taking his narrative too seriously. That's entirely possible.

02-06-2017 , 01:57 PM

#6222

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordJvK

I don't see why you want to shut that convo down here.

They don't want to shut down the convo. They want to shut you down, and there appear to be some valid reasons.

02-06-2017 , 01:59 PM

#6223

JacktheDumb

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,427

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

Mike Huckabee suggests that the Executive Branch shouldn't follow court orders.

I did learn that the US legal system is called common law. Common law means that the law of the land is what courts rule. So this guy is a ****ing idiot.

On a side note. Three of the current supreme courts judges are over 80 years old. This seems odd, isnt there such a thing as retirement for judges in the USA?

Those guys were born BEFORE World War II and they are the ones shaping the law of the US.