US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7910

On June 22 2017 02:08 LegalLord wrote:

Chill out for a moment and realize that I was simply noting that this is one in a series of similar encounters. No need to fume and start venting about unrelated events.

On June 22 2017 02:34 LegalLord wrote:

What substance? All I saw was venting from your end. Chill - there's no "substance" to discuss when your perception is so skewed that all you're really looking to do is to find a way to complain more about Russia.

That said, I don't particularly care about this event. When something more consequential happens than a couple of symbolic provocative gestures, that might be newsworthy. As it stands, I mostly just see you throwing out complaints without much purpose beyond venting.

On June 22 2017 02:34 LegalLord wrote:

What substance? All I saw was venting from your end. Chill - there's no "substance" to discuss when your perception is so skewed that all you're really looking to do is to find a way to complain more about Russia.

That said, I don't particularly care about this event. When something more consequential happens than a couple of symbolic provocative gestures, that might be newsworthy. As it stands, I mostly just see you throwing out complaints without much purpose beyond venting.

On June 22 2017 02:39 opisska wrote:
I like the stability here. I went back skipping some 2000 posts and the first thing I see is LL using the "Russia mean to us" strategy to dismiss any criticism of his beloved motherland.

On June 21 2017 22:25 KwarK wrote:

I definitely recall you attacking the Democratic Party for not dumping money into races due to tactical considerations a month or two ago.

On June 22 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:

It is worth mentioning that you were the one who started offering commentary and opinions - all I said was that more such incidents existed.

But given that this is now merely a bait train, we're evidently done here. Any real potential for discussion went out the window a while back.

On June 22 2017 04:06 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/sarahcwestwood/status/877552152406880256

Postcard from the other side of the argument.

On June 22 2017 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:


It is really weird how the left is generally lot less flexible than the right when it comes to representation. The right seems fine to take what they can get whereas people from the left have a really hard time managing the ego impacts of voting for the lesser of two evils. People I have discussed this topic with always seem to feel like their vote is some sort of part of their soul and that there is a great deal of preservation of ego what occurs when someone chooses not to vote. In many ways, it feels like the left see themselves as much more individually important than the right. Not sure what I would attribute it to, but overall, I feel the left is generally much more protective of their identity and see a non-ideal vote as a form of losing a part of who they are. I'd be interested in reading work done on this topic, but I'm not sure what to search for.

On June 22 2017 04:55 Introvert wrote:


I'm a little late to this, but I thought I'd chime in quickly here. I hate to dump everyone into a left or right basket, but go with it for now. Also, pardon the for-ease combination of left=democrat, right=GOP.

The way I see it, there are a few factors:

First, virtue signaling. Despite sounding like kind of a strange phrase, is a real thing. A virtuous "act" without any real action. You want to signal how strong of a person you are by not voting for someone. Now, I live in CA, so I didn't vote for either, but I didn't have to. So I don't want to trash everyone who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, because I think some people really couldn't do it. But that probably wasn't everyone.

Second, the right feels like it's been on defense for decades. Outside of a one small reprieve in the 80s (and maybe a few small policy victories throughout), government size and culture have been walking leftwards for the better part of 100 years. Even under Republican presidents (see Medicare part D, for instance). Right-leaning voters have a feeling of "anything to slow the tide." We know this also because on the right, almost every election is the last chance the save the Republic. The Flight 93 essay we discussed here last year was the 2016 version (succinctly summarized in the "BUT HILLARY!" line of argument). Conservative voters will do anything if it means the government at least grows more slowly, even if it can't be reversed.

I get the sense (although Trump's election may have changed this) that the left thought/thinks they are inevitably walking towards victory (even if they don't have an end goal in mind). They dominate media, win lots of elections (normally, lol), facilitate a growing immigrant population that they feel will secure them majorities till kingdom come, and look around the world to see more leftwing governments that we will eventually be like. All conservatives see are things disappearing. Free speech on campus, religious liberty, restrictions on abortions, gun rights, the rule of law, etc. In that sense, I think the right feels like they have more to lose and, crucially, are losing.

Trump didn't win many religious voters because he was such a good man, as an example. He won them (and even almost won them in the primary) because people thought he'd fight.

It was 16 months before Mr. Nixon topped that initial obstruction by firing the special prosecutor and the two senior Justice Department officers. And then, a few months later, it was disclosed that Mr. Nixon had underpaid his taxes for years, and he was forced to pay hundreds of thousands in restitution. All the while, Mr. Nixon’s defenders claimed the investigations were a partisan payback for his 1972 election victory.

As the last living member of the Senate committee that investigated the Watergate affair, I am often asked about what similarities I see between the criminality of the Nixon operation and this hash of a presidency that is the Trump White House. My answer is that there is no comparison. Yet.

Watergate was a multimillion-dollar enterprise of political spying, bribery, burglary, fraud and other criminal and unconstitutional activities run out of the White House over several years. As a result, some two dozen close associates of the president went to prison, and the president resigned to avoid impeachment proceedings.

...

President Trump’s reflexive use of official statements to lie about facts large and small, and his directing of his staff to do the same through the media, are redolent of the Nixon White House, even as Washington shakes almost daily to the sonic booms of revelations.

There is evidence of meetings about stopping F.B.I. investigations, and there are allegations of attempts to influence the nation’s top intelligence officers. The attorney general has a conflict of interest and can’t credibly pursue shocking evidence of attempts to fix the presidential election. A special counsel has been named as committees in Congress issue subpoenas and reporters file stories from sources that apparently include people with access to the Oval Office.

Whether or not the account of the fired F.B.I. director, James Comey, of Mr. Trump’s ask for “loyalty” is confirmed by any White House recording system, this idea of allegiance to the man or the party, rather than to the office or the Constitution, is the strongest echo from that murky period of our past. The Constitution was framed to protect us from criminality and abuse of power by government officials, but it requires men and women with grit and ability to withstand political and personal vilification. There are no guarantees.

...

While we depend upon women and men like Sally Yates and Robert Mueller, and our members of Congress, to do their jobs without fear or favor, public interest and support are critical. Constitution and courage — both are needed to get to the bottom of crimes and abuses of power, but ultimately it is up to Americans to hold their government to account.

When the committee released its final report on Watergate on June 27, 1974, I offered a few additional recommendations. “This won’t be the Watergate to end all Watergates,” I wrote. “Other men will tape the doors of America in other times. Whether they succeed will be a matter of spirit. For then as now, the state of our spirit will determine the state of this Union.”