|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On July 12 2017 11:54 Nevuk wrote:On July 12 2017 11:49 m4ini wrote:But if there was an attempt and it failed, then Hillary still lost for all the reasons that we knew, in summary, she sucked. I could honestly believe that Trump had no knowledge, because it seems like nothing came of the meeting, and everyone knows Trump doesn't care about details. At worst this is a scalp for Mueller, who at the moment seems like he still won't be getting anyone for any actual collusion.
This is very much debatable. Not that she sucked, that much we all agree to. The fact that she would've lost either way. Lets not act like Trump won this election by a landslide. He didn't. In fact, in many other countries, he wouldn't have won the presidency with this outcome at all. Trump knew. Do you actually think that a narcissist and control freak would not catch on to something that's going on behind his back? What came from this meeting btw is very much not clear and the next step of the investigation, i don't know where this stupid narrative by trumpets comes from that "nothing came from it". That narrative is literally Donald Jr.s excuse as to why it was no big deal I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change. "Russia didn't do shit, all fake" "Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated" "Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew" "Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows" "Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps" "Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR" "Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares" What's next? What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately? I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats.
You act like because I don't join the circle jerk every time something stupid comes out of the Trump administration that I don't dislike the Republican party policy far more than the Democratic party policy. I just don't see the point in caping for them here.
The Republican party policy is terrible, but that doesn't absolve Democrats of being terrible, or worse, losing to such an insanely terrible party.
You can give the Democrats all the participation, moral victory, and congeniality trophies you want, but until the party realizes how bad it is (losing 1000+ seats), and how/why it happened (Hillary/DWS/Donna leadership), they aren't going to fix it.
Pardon me if it's a bit troublesome that even the marginally less bad that Democrats would be isn't an option so long as they are so awful and keep losing to Republicans who are trying to take away people's access to life saving care among a long list of unbelievably bad ideas.
I'll expect posts of acknowledgement of how huge a waste of time and posts all this Russia gossip was, and there will be no lamenting how terrible Democrats do in 2018 because people here and throughout the party encouraged this nonsense and disdainfully ignored what even disaffected Republicans can see is why the Democrats are failing.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 12 2017 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 10:36 ChristianS wrote:
I think it's too early to know what this story means for something like impeachment. No it's not. It's not going to happen. Let's put it this way. Drop Trump's approval among Republicans ~37 points (put's him around 50%), which senators are voting to impeach Trump? ~13 of them is low-balling it btw.
You might be right, but pardon me if I have less faith in your savviness than you do. Think about when the Access Hollywood tape dropped, and Republicans were sure he was untouchable and all started disavowing him. Then the storm passed and they came back, but imagine if something like that dropped and the storm couldn't pass for some reason. Imagine if we got, say, Trump discussing with Russian intelligence about the viability of hacking voting machines to win that way. Remember, the burden of proof for a Republican isn't when he's so bad they don't think they can get away with defending him. It's when they think they're better off without him, which is a much easier balance to shift.
Ultimately I don't know that much about it, but there are much more knowledgeable political commentators than me who think it's a good possibility if the right evidence drops. The fact is this is pretty uncharted territory, and any analysis that doesn't include a fair amount of uncertainty automatically strikes me as overconfident.
|
On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On July 12 2017 11:54 Nevuk wrote:On July 12 2017 11:49 m4ini wrote:But if there was an attempt and it failed, then Hillary still lost for all the reasons that we knew, in summary, she sucked. I could honestly believe that Trump had no knowledge, because it seems like nothing came of the meeting, and everyone knows Trump doesn't care about details. At worst this is a scalp for Mueller, who at the moment seems like he still won't be getting anyone for any actual collusion.
This is very much debatable. Not that she sucked, that much we all agree to. The fact that she would've lost either way. Lets not act like Trump won this election by a landslide. He didn't. In fact, in many other countries, he wouldn't have won the presidency with this outcome at all. Trump knew. Do you actually think that a narcissist and control freak would not catch on to something that's going on behind his back? What came from this meeting btw is very much not clear and the next step of the investigation, i don't know where this stupid narrative by trumpets comes from that "nothing came from it". That narrative is literally Donald Jr.s excuse as to why it was no big deal I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change. "Russia didn't do shit, all fake" "Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated" "Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew" "Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows" "Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps" "Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR" "Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares" What's next? What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately? I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious.
@GreenHorizons: You didn't answer this question (about what you think is a better news source than the listed publications).
|
On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On July 12 2017 11:54 Nevuk wrote:On July 12 2017 11:49 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
This is very much debatable. Not that she sucked, that much we all agree to. The fact that she would've lost either way. Lets not act like Trump won this election by a landslide. He didn't. In fact, in many other countries, he wouldn't have won the presidency with this outcome at all.
Trump knew. Do you actually think that a narcissist and control freak would not catch on to something that's going on behind his back?
What came from this meeting btw is very much not clear and the next step of the investigation, i don't know where this stupid narrative by trumpets comes from that "nothing came from it". That narrative is literally Donald Jr.s excuse as to why it was no big deal I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change. "Russia didn't do shit, all fake" "Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated" "Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew" "Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows" "Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps" "Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR" "Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares" What's next? What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately? I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know
Indeed, which is why GH's constant and sweeping anti-Democratic Party spiel has an allure to those unconvinced by the establishment. The truth of the Party's stultified nature and need for change can easily distract from the many state-side campaigns being put together by grassroots Democrats. One would never guess that the Democrats are doing all sorts of things at the state and local level based on how much folks like GH want everyone to see nothing but Pelosi's mummified face when they think of Dems. This is not to say that party criticism should be decried, rather that it can come alongside a recognition that maybe, just maybe, all this Russia stuff has some meat to it.
So long as folks recognize such agitation for what it is, I have no problem admitting that truth can indeed be quite a distraction 
|
On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On July 12 2017 11:54 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
That narrative is literally Donald Jr.s excuse as to why it was no big deal I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change. "Russia didn't do shit, all fake" "Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated" "Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew" "Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows" "Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps" "Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR" "Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares" What's next? What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately? I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense.
The distraction argument works like this:
- The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime.
- Perhaps we ought to do something to change that?
- If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy.
- "Have you seen the other guys?"
There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad.
|
Help me understand what about what's happening is significantly worse than the slavery we use here and even Hillary enjoyed the house labor of?
On July 12 2017 22:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On July 12 2017 11:54 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
That narrative is literally Donald Jr.s excuse as to why it was no big deal I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change. "Russia didn't do shit, all fake" "Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated" "Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew" "Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows" "Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps" "Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR" "Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares" What's next? What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately? I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Indeed, which is why GH's constant and sweeping anti-Democratic Party spiel has an allure to those unconvinced by the establishment. The truth of the Party's stultified nature and need for change can easily distract from the many state-side campaigns being put together by grassroots Democrats. One would never guess that the Democrats are doing all sorts of things at the state and local level based on how much folks like GH want everyone to see nothing but Pelosi's mummified face when they think of Dems. This is not to say that party criticism should be decried, rather that it can come alongside a recognition that maybe, just maybe, all this Russia stuff has some meat to it. So long as folks recognize such agitation for what it is, I have no problem admitting that truth can indeed be quite a distraction
You're trying to be cute, but of course I'm talking about the national Democratic leadership being the main obstacle in even the best of those local campaigns, intentionally or not. Plenty of terribleness at the state and local level too (Rahm comes to mind) but that's not without the fingerprints of leadership in many cases as well.
As for media I consume a wide variety including the regular sources here. Frankly it's been so much damn noise I've mostly relied on twitter to help find important or interesting stories, and just looking around my community I see problems I'm positive aren't entirely unique to my surrounding communities.
In my not bitching at people on the internet life I've been doing a lot of work with local schools lately working on improving civics education, that I've decided is the most fundamental issue (seeing as how I've mostly lost hope on anyone of this demo or older).
I honestly don't see any real hope for Democrats for another 8-16 years. That's not to say they won't win anything ever, just that there are going to be mostly Pyrrhic victories with short term gains traded for long term loses.
So what we need most is a generation of folks who don't think they are trapped in a two party system, and if they are, they aren't going to keep letting them be trash. Not an easy task, and not a weekend project, but at this point I realize Democrats aren't just idle jerks, they are active inhibitors of such a movement and I'm read for them to follow or get out of the way.
|
|
|
I love that GH turned a story about North Korea state sponsored slave labor in Russia to “what about Hillary”. Way to exceed my wildest expectations.
|
Its not going to make this go away but he is right that people would be super impressed if he got the Middle East to accept peace.
He is also never going to manage it in a million years.
|
that's exactly how i feel. All of this, as illegal as it may sound seems like nothing but a passing PR thing. his base don't care, his supporters will still vote for him.
|
On July 12 2017 22:21 Plansix wrote:
I love that GH turned a story about North Korea state sponsored slave labor in Russia to “what about Hillary”. Way to exceed my wildest expectations.
Way to ignore America and your preferred candidates use of slave labor in context to some story meant to make Russia/North Korea look bad (they are). That's basically exactly what I expected.
On July 12 2017 22:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 22:21 Plansix wrote:
I love that GH turned a story about North Korea state sponsored slave labor in Russia to “what about Hillary”. Way to exceed my wildest expectations. Way to ignore America and your preferred candidates use of slave labor in context to some story meant to make Russia look bad. That's basically exactly what I expected. Lol
?
|
United States44194 Posts
On July 12 2017 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 22:21 Plansix wrote:
I love that GH turned a story about North Korea state sponsored slave labor in Russia to “what about Hillary”. Way to exceed my wildest expectations. Way to ignore America and your preferred candidates use of slave labor in context to some story meant to make Russia look bad. That's basically exactly what I expected.
Lol
|
I take back some of the mean things I said about Democrat legislatures last week:
Ten House Democrats will unveil a new plan to fix Obamacare, highlighting the parts of the law that have struggled to work and offering modest steps to improve them. The proposal includes more funding to help insurance plans cover the sickest patients, along with possibly changing the timing of the open enrollment season in hopes of attracting more Americans to sign up for insurance.
These Democrats are agitating for a new strategy, one where they speak openly about the health law’s weak spots — particularly the individual market — and how to shore them up. The party has so far been reticent to highlight Obamacare’s problems at a moment when Democrats are fighting against Republican efforts to repeal parts of the law.
“We need an alternative to the ‘just say no’ policy that has pervaded Democrats up until now,” says Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), who is involved with the new proposal. “Let’s have that conversation. Let’s fix the damn thing and get real.”
The plan notably does not come from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office, which has not put forward any similar proposal. An aide said Pelosi was aware of this effort and supportive of the discussion, although did not comment on the specific policies.
Still, it represents a shift from congressional Democrats’ Obamacare strategy thus far, which has largely focused on defending the law — alongside a mounting push for a single-payer-style health plan to replace it eventually.
“Some Democrats are fearful to talk about what is wrong with [Obamacare] for fear we’ll be seen as abandoning it,” says Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), a relatively progressive Democrat who supports Medicare-for-all. But he says now is a moment to talk about fixing Obamacare, and not single-payer. “There is the practical reality that we’ve got a Republican president and a Republican Congress,” he says. “That’s not the opportune moment for Medicare-for-all. We’ve got to defend what we have.”
Exclusive: House Democrats introduce new plan to fix Obamacare
Here are the plan bullet points:
- Creating a permanent fund to offset the costs of especially expensive patients
- Making permanent the health law’s cost-sharing reduction subsidies
- Enforcing the individual mandate and advertising open enrollment
- Possibly changing the open enrollment period to align with tax season
- A Medicare buy-in for older Americans
These are modest changes to the existing law, but they represent a step in the right direction. They are clearly designed to be palatable to moderate Republicans and represent a serious effort at bipartisanship. Stuff like this is important if McConnell makes good on his threat to work with Democrats on healthcare reform.
|
There are times when I think GH might be some amazing character actor who uses this thread as practice to hone his craft. But the performance is not that self aware.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change.
"Russia didn't do shit, all fake"
"Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated"
"Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew"
"Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows"
"Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps"
"Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR"
"Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares"
What's next?
What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately?
I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad.
We can talk about more than one thing at the same time no? I can assure you there has been plenty of discussions in the time about democratic defeat, Hillary and so on and so on. By your book, everything can be qualified as a distraction. If the Times was talking more about Hillary, it would be a distraction from the Russian investigation? These nonsense accusations lead absolutely nowhere.
It just happens that right now the president and his administration seem to have colluded with a foreign power to get elected and have been lying for months about it.
But hey HILLARY!!! and it's all gossip (GH, seriousfuckingly, you've been flooding for a year the forum with accusations against Clinton that are nothing compared to what we are talking about. Get real.)
|
On July 12 2017 19:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 10:36 ChristianS wrote:
I think it's too early to know what this story means for something like impeachment. But the significance is already potentially huge. The immediate significance is historical: our understanding of what happened in the 2016 election is still evolving. The faults of the Democrats in 2016 are many and have been amply chronicled here and elsewhere. A historically disliked candidate, a lack of a coherent positive message, repeated fumbling of political fiascos that shouldn't have happened in the first place, etc. etc. Of course the liberals are quick to point out there were other factors beyond the Dems' control, such as Wikileaks, Comey, the popular vote, etc. But if someone asked how Donald Trump became president, the short answer would likely be something like "An extremely mismanaged opposition, plus some very good luck for Trump." At least, that would have been the answer a week ago.
Think just how much it changes that story if even with all that going for him, he still had to cheat to win. And to be clear, if that's what happened that was cheating. Again, I'm not talking in terms of what he might or might not get convicted for. It's not really about the specific text of criminal statutes or whether the burden of proof has been met. Prior to this story dropping there seemed to be a prevailing understanding among Americans that it would be wrong for an American candidate for president to accept the illegally obtained aid of a foreign power in order to win the election. And prior to this story dropping, it seemed like that hadn't happened – Russia had intervened, sure, but there wasn't evidence that Trump's campaign had worked with the Russians to obtain the information, strategize about when/how to release it for maximum impact, etc. This time last week if someone answered "how did Trump get elected" with "A mismanaged campaign from the Dems, plus Trump worked with a rival power to swing the election," you would figure you were in a crazy left conspiracy corner of the internet. Now that seems like the most likely interpretation of the facts (albeit not yet totally proven).
The implications of this are potentially wide-reaching, too. If the collusion becomes very clear and explicit in the coming weeks, it could exonerate Hillary somewhat in 2020 (sorry GH sorry America), considering her main crime in most people's minds is losing to Donald Trump. If he cheated to win, she comes out looking a lot less bad. In terms of its impact on Trump, even if we take impeachment off the table it deeply undermines the legitimacy of his administration. Every time someone said "he won fair and square, let's give him a chance" or "like it or not, he's our President and we should stand by him" or "the Dems are just mad they lost an election they should have won" that argument was based on a certain sense of legitimacy from a free and fair election. Trump can avoid impeachment and pardon every underling implicated, but losing the perceived virtue associated with winning an election would still be a huge blow.
If the story stops with just this set of emails from Donald Trump Jr, I think it'll make Trump take a hit in popularity for a bit, Democrats will have more ammo to push the Russia narrative which will hurt him in a more prolonged way, but otherwise it will mostly be a historical footnote – it'll change the way historians answer the question "how did Trump get elected" but it won't have a massive impact on Trump's term. That said, it seems likely there will be more after this, if only because members of the Trump team would have had to leak this and an obvious motivation would be to get out ahead of something bigger. Another way to think of it: we've seen here that the Russians were eager to make contact with the Trump campaign, and we've also seen evidence that the Trump campaign was happy enough to do so as well. There's also been no evidence that the Trump campaign later had a change of heart and didn't want to work with the Russians (and if that evidence existed, they would likely have offered it to exonerate themselves). So even if we believe Don Jr. that this particular meeting didn't lead to actual collusion, why on earth would we think this was the last attempt?
I guess if there was one question I would have for xDaunt, it would be this: forget the legal question of whether a crime was committed, or whether there's enough evidence for a conviction. If the Trump campaign worked with Russia to disperse illegally obtained information in order to swing the election, do you think that's wrong? Do you think that's something American political candidates should do? Lets face it. This is pretty much the textbook definition of how the CIA installed puppet presidents all over South America in the 20th century. Extract promises from puppet. Find ways to collect dirt on opposition (fabricate if needed, but it's never needed). Create large propaganda campaign. Declare victory for "democratic process". They were called puppet presidents for a reason. They cowtowed to whatever the US told them to do, because what the CIA giveth, the CIA may taketh away. It's completely textbook. You'd think that the US populous would push back a bit harder against what is now unfolding. Basically the elections should be declared a sham, and redone. I have no idea how your constitution deals with this, but it seems like it should cause a constitutional crisis (just as it eventually did in most of South America).
our constitution has no mechanism for declaring an election false (at least not at this stage, it'd have been theoretically possible for congress to do something when the electoral votes are counted). so at this point it's basically impeachment or wait it out.
the high partisanship just limits the amount of pushback available: the opinions of trump voters toward russia had like a 40-50 point shift towards being more favorable/less fearful of russia iirc, and when changes like that are possible to rationalize a victory, it's gonna be really hard to get agreement.
|
Christopher Wray hearing is going on right now, and there is tons of questions surrounding Comey and Trump. It's getting intense at the very beginning.
Can watch on http://www.npr.org/
|
On July 12 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages.
Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy.
Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad. We can talk about more than one thing at the same time no? I can assure you there has been plenty of discussions in the time about democratic defeat, Hillary and so on and so on. By your book, everything can be qualified as a distraction. If the Times was talking more about Hillary, it would be a distraction from the Russian investigation? These nonsense accusations lead absolutely nowhere. It just happens that right now the president and his administration seem to have colluded with a foreign power to get elected and have been lying for months about it. But hey HILLARY!!! and it's all gossip (GH, seriousfuckingly, you've been flooding for a year the forum with accusations against Clinton that are nothing compared to what we are talking about. Get real.)
The last particular comment wasn't really about Hillary. It was to point out that slave labor wasn't the issue, it was trying to make NK and Russia look bad (they are).
That's only been made more clear since. I was literally talking about the same thing plansix was, I just wasn't talking about it to make a random point about Russia and NK, not to mention I didn't even touch that according to the article (only tangentially related to the state department in that they said it wasn't slavery) noted they actually get paid better than a lot of American slave labor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
