Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-04-2017 , 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
So we have a President that watched Fox and Friends and takes their word as gospel and retweets Drudge.

thisisfinedog.jpg
Related:


https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...92408725966850
04-04-2017 , 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Susan Rice triggers the right-wing lizard brain something fierce.
Black lady who did Benghazi Youtubes to America is like the perfect symbol of the vast conspiracy against Daddy Trump. I assume we're two weeks away from the grand unifying theory of how Susan Rice molested and then castrated white boys in the back of a KB Toys after Spirit Cooking with Podesta.
04-04-2017 , 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
1. Don't talk about policy. Talk about outcomes. See above. I never said talk about policy.
2. There's no actual 'plan' AFAIK, so the idea that it's teed up and ready to blast into the upper deck sounds suspect. Set a line on Trump being President on Jan 1 2019 if you think it's a sure bet this is ready for liftoff. I'll take action. If Democrats have a coherent plan I'd love to hear it.
3. RE: Benghazi emailz. Different messages for different audiences. It's not clear what the dispositive impacts of EMAILZ BENGHAZI since Trump merely turned out the GOP base at a rate they normally turn out at. It may very well have just been a lot of noise rather than truly motivating. The GOP's batting averages on pretend scandals permeating the wide electorate isn't actually that high. Mostly they're just talking amongst themselves in their epistemic closure loop. In any event, stuff like THE BENGHAZI is specifically crafted to appeal to paranoid angry mouthbreathers suspicious about the dark nexus between Clinton, Democrats, Arab rioters, terrorists and dead Americans so the story was pre-written by generations of myth-makers and story-tellers on the right who have been peddling these sort of theories forever.

Democrats can't just pick up the ball and run with "old white rich guy selling out America to the Soviets!" like they've been telling those stories for decades too. Voters have no pre-existing frames for this (e.g., voters inherently can't contextualize the wrong-doing and crimes versus their pre-existing perceptions of what motivates guys like Trump). Which is why the broad outlines of most of this was known prior to Nov. 2016 and Trump won anyway: because most voters don't get it, don't care, and you can't become America First Super Patriots Wholly Concerned with Ukrainian Sovereignty and the Sanctity of Elections Without Foreign Influence Peddling because it's too much virtue, too many impracticalities, too principled. Politics doesn't work like that.

Go do the simple heuristic and talk to 5 ~average informed voters about what the Trump Russia scandal actually *is.* What's the crime? What did he do wrong? What motivated him to do the wrong thing he did? See what kind of answers you get. Judge that against how much then you think Democrats have a coherent 'plan' and whether this is a sound political narrative.
Here is one of our fundamental disagreements on this issue. And it's not that I think you're wrong about "specifically crafted to appeal to paranoid angry mouthbreathers suspicious about the dark nexus" but that you seem to believe only that audience (or only Republicans) bought into it. They'e too busy dropping and picking the kids up from school, work, sports, etc etc to know anything other than what they hear is a political scandal and that's how we end up there, most ppl in general are extremely poorly informed when it comes to politics.

Views on #BENGHAZIII and #EMAILZZ on this forum are indeed very polarized because the posters are in general very polarized with strong political opinions on either end of the sprecturm and a higher than avg interest in politics. So here you have posters like me and you & the lib gang et al. that are like LOLbenghazi LOLemailscandal and on the other side you have the mouth breathers (no need to single them out by username but we all know who) who actually believed they were legit things. BUT, most of America is way more apathetic to politics and so opinions will often be much more merged and those scandals ended up doing collateral damage on how independents and even some not-too-politically active/interested liberals viewed Hillary. I live in LA and personally know over a dozen liberals who felt she was indeed a liar and kind of corrupt in large part because of those storylines. When half the country is shouting this nonsense, it's not as easy for everybody else to just wave it away. Like I said, the very political types like me or you will do the research and know it's nonsense but millions of other non hyper Republicans who don't have time to do much investigation into politics it has an effect.

And to one of your big counterarguments, "well what if nothing officially/legally comes out of this Russia bizness?" I say, again, nothing officially/legally came out of #Behngazi #emailzz but both still proved v damaging to Hillary w public perception at large. Which reminds me of more evidence that it wasn't just R's who bought into that stuff - you don't get a net unfavorable in 10-20 range in a country where Dems won popular vote past 5/6 elections by having just crazy Rs believing it. So if nothing officially ever comes out of Russia/Trump then fine, whatever. Perception is reality. Republicans love to play this game let's ****ing play back for once and stop lying down like wet blankets. For now, there's way more smoke to this fire than any of the other 2 so we gotta keep driving this **** home until it's burned into people's psyche just like they did.

And that's where we reach the key goal, which is that we want to turn a lot of R's against Dumpty and we are kind of seeing that already wrt 35% approval rating 2 months in! That's incredible, Dvaut. And definitely due in large part to the Russia ****, because sure as hell wasn't the Muslim ban attempt (this polled well with majority of Americans iirc) and those #'s were low before the highly embarassing AHCA failure. So sure, probably 25%ish of the country will support him no matter what but there's still a middle zone of a lot of independents, moderate Republicans who this **** is really sinking in and having an effect on, the same way millions of liberals came to hate our own candidate. We have an actual LEGIT #bengazzzzi and #emailzzztho here to beat the **** out of and goddamn it Dvaut dont try to take that away from us

Last edited by Lilu7; 04-04-2017 at 09:54 AM.
04-04-2017 , 09:36 AM
How amazing is it that the sell your info bill was signed while screaming about Rice and invasion of privacy.
04-04-2017 , 09:38 AM
Third Black Employee Sues Fox News for Racial Discrimination
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...imination.html
Quote:
Fox News’ legal woes just keep getting bigger. This morning, another black female employee in Fox News’ payroll department is joining a racial discrimination lawsuit filed last week by two of her black colleagues.

The employee, Monica Douglas, Fox News’ manager for credit collections, alleges that she was subjected to years of racist slurs by Fox’s longtime comptroller, Judy Slater. Among the allegations, Douglas asserts that Slater complained she had “black eyes” as opposed to the “Aryan race” who have blue eyes and blond hair; called her Brooklyn neighborhood “the murder capital of the world”; and expressed “an unwillingness to even be near black people.”

Last month, Fox fired Slater, saying in a statement: “We take any complaint of this nature very seriously and took the appropriate action in investigating and firing Ms. Slater within two weeks of this being brought to our attention.”
04-04-2017 , 09:41 AM
I'm not sure why so many people are disagreeing with DVaut. The greatest Trump-specific risk of a Trump presidency is that the country will face an acute crisis with a highly erratic and arrogant president at the helm.

DVaut essentially is saying, if you could magically take that acute risk off the table, then Trump will do more damage to the GOP brand as president than any other GOP replacement could. That sounds right to me.

It's worth remembering that most of Trump's horrific policy plans and appointments are straight out of the GOP orthodoxy. There are a few exceptions, such as the wall that will never be built, but Gorsuch, health care "reform", tax "reform", indifference to the environment, etc., were virtually guaranteed to be part of the platform of any GOP president. These are not Trump-specific risks.
04-04-2017 , 09:41 AM
I do think that BEHNGAZHI and E-MAILS worked to depress moderate turnout and perhaps liberal turnout and convince some liberals to vote for Jill Stein or even, in some cases Bernie Sanders. I'm not kidding. In talking to voters in the months leading up to Nov 2016, quite a few told me they were voting for Bernie because they just couldn't trust Hillary over the scandals. Some of the scandals I was told about: Hillary sold uranium to Russia. Hillary wants to start WW3. PizzaGate. BEHNGAZHI. EMAILS. All that stupid bull**** added up, and mainstream reporters gave some of it credence as well. And let's not forget the new Savior of American Democracy, James Comey, had a role to play in blowing those scandals out of proportion as well.
04-04-2017 , 09:46 AM
And this is the guy whose story is now getting amplified by none other than 45* himself, as well as Fox News and a million other Black, White, and Grey outlets.


https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/849248490995712004
04-04-2017 , 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
It's worth remembering that most of Trump's horrific policy plans and appointments are straight out of the GOP orthodoxy. There are a few exceptions, such as the wall that will never be built, but Gorsuch, health care "reform", tax "reform", indifference to the environment, etc., were virtually guaranteed to be part of the platform of any GOP president. These are not Trump-specific risks.
Even the wall wasn't totally out of the blue: fringe Republicans like Palin were feeling about double-layered, razor-topped border walls since at least 2012.
04-04-2017 , 09:58 AM
Warning: Disturbing content on the first tweet.

https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/stat...91535796711426

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/s...40401974308864
04-04-2017 , 10:16 AM
Rand Paul always puts me on tilt.
04-04-2017 , 10:16 AM
Seems like there are/were several respected posters up in here who lament the path of The New Democrats and presently seem to be wanting some lefty populism but were either MIA or hostile to Bernie during the primaries.

Just not that into Bernie or wanted to remain a serious person in front of guys like bobman and dessin? I guess that's me being a bitter jerk, but the Brooks brothers, If you didn't go to Harvard why am I listening to you, you better not get called moonbeam part of the Dems is wrapped up in the centrism (really conservatism).
04-04-2017 , 10:20 AM
Anyway, some very real news this morning. These are some changes that the CRIMINAL and LIAR Sessions is working on. Thread:

https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/sta...70767648256000
04-04-2017 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
And woah woah woah. Hold on here. As maybe the most vocal dude saying this, I want to be clear Democrats should not try to win a wonk contest. It ain't about policy. Democrats need vision. Stark contrasts. Not details. A clear moral and practical frame for what they want to do ("rich people should pay more in taxes so we can expand Medicare.")

As a for instance, don't do this:





Provide equity with Kindergarten teachers? Evidenced-based home visiting initiatives? Clinton will build on HIPPY to inspire MIECHV? The **** this lady talking about? Do I get something here?

Oy. Like don't ever do that anymore. I realize I am scouring the bowels of HRC's website to prove the point and she didn't actually sound like this. I just want to be clear policy is decidedly not what I'm talking about. The Democrats of course should have policies and good ones but I am not calling for a policy-based approach. More like a nakedly selfish class warfare approach where the Democrats take their built-in advantages of having ideas that benefits more people than not and actually leverage them to democratic advantage instead of burying them in pointless techno policy jargon mumbo jumbo. I mean just consider the incredible, amazing, utterly dismaying fact that Democrats got out-populisted by a man who lives in a skyscrapper in Manhattan with his name on it. I'm not suggest we all become racist idiots too but Democrats don't have to sound like eggheads, that's a stylistic choice and probably a bad one, much as I like intellectuals.
How about first caring, and then actually becoming more involved at the local levels where the GOP has absolutely destroyed liberals for years? This is how things like Gerrymandering and Citizens united come about. It's more important than people realize. Most, just get involved when there's a presidential election. Maybe the mid-terms if they're really vigilant. But it's all these local elections that people need to care about and EVEN RUN themselves if they can. I'm talking right down to the local school boards.

If people like Fly really care about racism and equality I'd expect them to at least be trying to run for some local office where he might do some good, instead of patting himself on the back for going online and calling people names so he can feel "holier than thou" and absolve himself of his white guilt.
04-04-2017 , 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Yeah, well, I am not the voice of the coalition or anyone by myself, but speaking for myself: I don't trust you. Not you personally. The royal you -- all the centrist and NeverTrumpers and New Left Democrats. I found a lot about the old order lacking but it was a good bit better than our current situation. The policy outcomes were often bad but not your principle failing as coalition partners.

The primary failing was that the current situation was very predictable; my tiny voice on 2p2 counts for nothing but I have like 10 years of posts that speak to the growing alarm about how the right AND centrists were flattering if not wholly welcoming of Trumpian style. Obviously I am just cribbing from the rest of the left, so take my voice as representative of many people who warned of the same. So I feel confident to speak to this point: The right has been descending into paranoid, angry madness for a generation and longer and still right-wing radio hosts were allowed to be part of our respectable polity. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly ostensibly ran a sexual harassment shop in their spare time, but their full-time gigs were giving voice to racist idiots and conspiracies and anger and treachery of the liberal order you cherish. And respectable centrists and Republicans gave them access and interviews and the veneer of approval. Ever unhinged lunatics like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones and the rest showed up and no one bothered to check their influence. When the left did, they were taunted.

You -- the royal you -- did nothing but embrace it. Told whiny liberals to pipe down, shut-up, this isn't a problem, it's all under control. These people are fine, it's your noisy alarmism that really is the big problem here. NOW at the moment of their increasing political inconvenience and risk to the things you cherish -- because black people, immigrants, women, the poor, and the old welfare schemes now dismantled were ephemeral and part of the collateral damage costs of doing business with the angry white hordes who signed up for Yacht Club Republicanism free trade and deregulation -- NOW you agree, come to think of it, this is all really heinous. A big problem. Let's join together and impeach the orange menace.

As you constitute probable bad-faith actors just looking for a critical mass of people to leach off of, I see no reason to enter into any sort of long-term coalition again. One of the things Trump really laid bare is that the emperor has no clothes. The Bernie-style left has the actual people and votes and energy; what do the centrists have to offer again? It ain't votes. It ain't political capital. It's mostly just actual capital. That's important but you get the sense the owners of capital are as cowardly and feckless as Trump proved them to be, and can be cowed. And the political utility of capital can be overcome with dynamic personalities and new mediums. Capital will eventually genuflect to wherever the power is and will take deals to protect some of their hordes at the risk of losing more of it. Roman elites bargained with barbarians for like 300 years after the Crisis of the 2nd Century. The early Anglo Saxon and French elites paid the Danegeld for generations. The Business Plot against FDR never really rose to much beyond a wild scheme. Capital interests are powerful but they aren't stupid. They'll play ball with the left for concessions.

So I don't see why the left should really entertain this long-term. Maybe as a last-gasp temporary kludge to impeach Trump and avoid nuclear holocaust but that's it. The center is dead and dying. Impeachment would be a godsend but I think the left has to think strategically for the days beyond if that scheme doesn't work, and there's really no much more for the centrist to offer anyone, and I think the left has been fooled for far too long by ultimately powerless centrists offering a lifeboat against encroaching and creeping strident reactionary right-winger idiots. The worst fears have been realized, the inmates took over the asylum, the whole leftist Faustian bargain with the centrists is that you got your trade and deregulation and tax cuts in exchange for keeping the inmates in straight jackets so we could keep some statutory protections for blacks and immigrants and women. Instead you loosened the locks and gave them ever-more freedom and told us to quiet down when even our minimalist goals were threatened. "Hey, uhh, it's nice that public schools are desegregated, but come to think of it your school-choice schemes are re-segregating them, cops are still throwing tons of black guys in prison for drug offenses, also we noticed you seem to be passing ever more de facto burdens against their right to vote?" we would meekly ask. We would get some measure of polite head-nods, maybe a hand-waving gesture of sympathy, then the measured centrist opinion elites would head back to Fox News to gab with Sean Hannity about the Muslim Brotherhood and BLM alliance that threatens white child blood vitality while the capital would mostly be used to fund Republicans.

Not sure why we'd fall for that again.
The main problem with this is that the Bernie-style left does not actually have the people and the votes and the energy like you claim. Bernie lost, decisively, to one of the least popular presidential candidates on record. Bernie-would-have-won fanfic is a self-indulgent delusion. If you'll permit a historical analogy, he's basically Celestine V. Celestine V was an extremely holy hermit in the 13th century who lived in a cave and prayed all the time. He was so holy that he inspired a whole order of holy hermits to live in desolate monasteries and pray all the time. Very nice. Meanwhile, there was a bitterly contested papal election, where two deeply corrupt Roman factions kept throwing up competing candidates, but they couldn't come to a consensus. Meanwhile, Rome was spiraling into chaos, riots in the streets, Christendom without a leader. Eventually, someone came up with the brilliant idea of nominating the holy hermit, Celestine V, and everyone thought it was great. Forget all these corrupt money-grubbing big-city folks and go with the man of principle, and he was duly elected pope. Needless to say, he was an awful pope, resigned or was forced to resign before the end of the year, and turned things over to Boniface VIII, who was terrible and led directly into the Avignon Papacy and the Great Schism and all that.

You can tell yourself all you like that centrists somehow betrayed the left by failing to stop voter suppression bills, but the actual fact is that voter suppression laws were enabled by left voters who couldn't be bothered to turn out for down-ballot elections for the state legislatures that enacted them. The Tea Party lunatics won because Democrats couldn't get elected to congressional seats no matter how crazy their opponents were because the voters let them down. I agree with you that the right should have been punished for the Tea Party movement and it's unfathomable that they weren't punished for Trump. It would be nice if we lived in a country where they were punished for tacitly courting the support of racists too. But where we part ways is that you think that they should have been punished by centrist voices scolding them. I don't ascribe as much influence to the disapproval of George Will or some hypothetical #NeverTeaParty movement. Rather, I think they should have been punished by losing elections, but it didn't happen. The moderates have been taking the band of psychopaths that the electorate gave them and trying to keep them from doing something insane like defaulting on the national debt.

I'm in favor of anything that will get a more moderate, less RWNJ legislative and executive branch. If talking about socialized medicine and 60% tax rates on labor income is what it takes, I'll deal with that. I don't even have much of an opinion on whether it's true or not. That's just electioneering, and I'm not a political consultant. However, I do think it's a dangerous fantasy and a reversal of causation to believe that our current political crisis is a product of centrists betraying a powerful leftist movement to serve the interests of capital. The compromises that you resent were necessitated by the failure of the electorate to deliver wins for the left, especially downballot.
04-04-2017 , 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Seems like there are/were several respected posters up in here who lament the path of The New Democrats and presently seem to be wanting some lefty populism but were either MIA or hostile to Bernie during the primaries.
I'm not sure that I see any HRC supporters in this thread who are now wishing for left wing populism.
04-04-2017 , 10:28 AM
That guy is so alpha.
04-04-2017 , 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I'm not sure that I see any HRC supporters in this thread who are now wishing for left wing populism.
If you're talking about the primaries, I didn't say HRC supporters, just MIA or hostile to Bernie. Since he's not here anymore, I'll talk behind his back. Dids voted for Bernie, but you sure wouldn't have known it from anything he posted during the primaries.
04-04-2017 , 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
How about first caring, and then actually becoming more involved at the local levels where the GOP has absolutely destroyed liberals for years? This is how things like Gerrymandering and Citizens united come about. It's more important than people realize. Most, just get involved when there's a presidential election. Maybe the mid-terms if they're really vigilant. But it's all these local elections that people need to care about and EVEN RUN themselves if they can. I'm talking right down to the local school boards.

If people like Fly really care about racism and equality I'd expect them to at least be trying to run for some local office where he might do some good, instead of patting himself on the back for going online and calling people names so he can feel "holier than thou" and absolve himself of his white guilt.
This is obvious concern trolling, but Dems do need to get more energized about midterms and local politics.
04-04-2017 , 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib
alt-right is TERRIFIED their browsing history can let them be identified as the neo-nazis they truly are
not to mention their hentai child porn collections
04-04-2017 , 10:37 AM
The Republicans won midterms because the Koch Network spent billions on that in direct contributions, lobbying, buying media (not just ads, but direct payments to media personalities), think tanks, university economics departments, fake grass roots groups, etc.
04-04-2017 , 10:42 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.


04-04-2017 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Seems like there are/were several respected posters up in here who lament the path of The New Democrats and presently seem to be wanting some lefty populism but were either MIA or hostile to Bernie during the primaries.

Just not that into Bernie or wanted to remain a serious person in front of guys like bobman and dessin? I guess that's me being a bitter jerk, but the Brooks brothers, If you didn't go to Harvard why am I listening to you, you better not get called moonbeam part of the Dems is wrapped up in the centrism (really conservatism).
I'm guilty here. Mistakes were made. Sorry. Having said that, two things:

1. strategically, I assumed HRC was > Bernie and the risks of Bernie getting red-baited/New York Jew-baited were way too large and HRC was the right play. The alternative world of Bernie versus Trump remains a counter-factual so we'll never know but obviously the estimations that HRC would be a lock were way too high, and I was guilty of critically overestimating HRC's chances
2. I do hold plenty of Bernie (not Bernie) supporters in disdain. Many of them sound like Trumpkins on the style and in many cases almost the merits as well. I have no patience for entertaining some of that, but understand that allies and coalitions in politics requires compromise and perhaps a more accommodating stance is required. I ain't gonna name names or cite posts but there are some truly insufferable Bernie supporters.
04-04-2017 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I'm not sure why so many people are disagreeing with DVaut. The greatest Trump-specific risk of a Trump presidency is that the country will face an acute crisis with a highly erratic and arrogant president at the helm.

DVaut essentially is saying, if you could magically take that acute risk off the table, then Trump will do more damage to the GOP brand as president than any other GOP replacement could. That sounds right to me.
It's not that you magically take the risk off of the table, it's that you can't operate in a manner that assumes it.
04-04-2017 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Me too; I agree the risk of Trump is bad. Trump is uniquely dangerous in ways Pence and the rest of the GOP aren't, co-signed. If we can impeach him we should. But the left has to tread carefully with Russia. If it fails, it's a wasted opportunity. So I am saying that if you're going to invest a lot of political capital in impeachment, you should be confident it will work. If it's a long-shot, it's wasted investment of time and attention that serves no greater purpose beyond damaging Trump.
Don't agree with this. The R's went hog wild on each and every perceived Obama 'scandal' that they could for eight years. Remember Fast and Furious, or the IRS thing, or any of a dozen other things the right harped on that culminated in Benghazi and then the emails? I mean, there were so many '(blank)gates' on FOX over the Obama years it's hard to keep track of them all. Plus you had the War on Christmas thrown in for fun.

In the modern era it's apparently not about whether those things necessarily bring down the President, it's about continuing to press the narrative that the other side is the true enemy of real American values. This is something I think the center left struggled to do over years past, but with Trump being essentially a cartoon villain it should be easier to do this time around.

      
m