|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 13 2018 06:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2018 06:41 bo1b wrote:
As an outsider looking in, is there a reason investigations like these aren't done for pretty much every president? Outside of cost? I have asked this same question, and if I am remembering the responses correctly, there was once a time where "investigations" were used as a partisan tool to generally throw a wrench in the opposition's governing. I'm still not entirely satisfied by that answer. I still believe it should be possible to establish some sort of non-partisan office that has all the same teeth Mueller's investigation has, but is an ongoing, constantly researching branch. Instead of being told "go look into ____", they would be in a constant state of investigating all the major branches of government. You have it, it is call the White House/Congressional ethics office. Both branches have one. But if congress doesn't care about people breaking the rules, there isn't a lot that is going to change. If you are saying the existing solution is a fucked up mess, I am saying we should establish something with my description being the entire and only purpose of whatever it is that is made.
I just caution against putting to much faith in systems. Look at how the political parties and undermined the Justice Department and FBI. Or IRS for just doing its job. Those systems only work if people have faith in their findings and we have an entire industry of media working to undermine those systems. An office of government compliance will not save us if voters are convinced that office is a tool of the "other side."
On April 13 2018 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 06:54 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:On April 13 2018 06:41 bo1b wrote:
As an outsider looking in, is there a reason investigations like these aren't done for pretty much every president? Outside of cost? I have asked this same question, and if I am remembering the responses correctly, there was once a time where "investigations" were used as a partisan tool to generally throw a wrench in the opposition's governing. I'm still not entirely satisfied by that answer. I still believe it should be possible to establish some sort of non-partisan office that has all the same teeth Mueller's investigation has, but is an ongoing, constantly researching branch. Instead of being told "go look into ____", they would be in a constant state of investigating all the major branches of government. You have it, it is call the White House/Congressional ethics office. Both branches have one. But if congress doesn't care about people breaking the rules, there isn't a lot that is going to change. Do the ethics offices have any actual authority? Can they do a thorough investigation? issue subpoena's and seize records in the way a special council can? Because I thought they were entirely toothless.
They are completely toothless, but they can make complaints to Congress. In theory congress used to listen to them and have an inspector general look into the claims. Our congress sucks. There is no cure for electing garbage people.
|
The owner of the National Enquirer paid $30,000 in late 2015 to a onetime Trump Tower doorman who was offering an embarrassing story about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, but the tabloid never published it, according to a person familiar with the payment.
A spokesman for the Trump Organization on Thursday denied the story that doorman Dino Sajudin told the tabloid: that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock in the late 1980s and that top executives of the Trump Organization, including longtime security chief Matt Calamari, knew about it.
“Mr. Sajudin’s claims are completely false,” the Trump Organization said in a statement. A spokesman added that Calamari never made such a statement and accused Sajudin of having a history of peddling false stories.
In an interview Thursday with The Washington Post, Sajudin dismissed claims that he had made anything up.
“You know I took a polygraph test,” he said, adding that he believes his story was buried as part of a larger strategy by the tabloid to quash negative articles about Trump.
“It seems like the writing is on the wall about that, it’s pretty clear,” Sajudin said. He said the story “had to come out,” and he referred further questions to his attorney.
Sajudin’s contract with American Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company, was first reported by the New Yorker and the Associated Press.
The news about the payment he received comes as federal investigators in New York are examining efforts by Trump’s personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, to tamp down negative stories about the real estate mogul as he ran for president....
Source
This is the third story of hush money being used to silence people willing to talk about Trump's past. All of it paid off the record and through Cohen or sometimes through tabloids
An FBI raid executed Monday on Cohen’s office and residences sought all of the lawyer’s records of communications with AMI, Pecker and National Enquirer executive Dylan Howard regarding two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump while he was married, according to three people familiar with the investigation.
One woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, reportedly received $150,000 from AMI in 2016 for her story alleging a 10-month affair with Trump. The Enquirer did not publish the story....
The money seems to be the focus of what the FBI is looking into, which makes me wonder where it is coming from. Because it is clearly not Trump's money that is being used to do this.
|
My best guess is that Trump doesn't pay his bills, so Cohen got creative in how he got money. For himself and whatever issues he fixed.
|
On April 13 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +The owner of the National Enquirer paid $30,000 in late 2015 to a onetime Trump Tower doorman who was offering an embarrassing story about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, but the tabloid never published it, according to a person familiar with the payment.
A spokesman for the Trump Organization on Thursday denied the story that doorman Dino Sajudin told the tabloid: that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock in the late 1980s and that top executives of the Trump Organization, including longtime security chief Matt Calamari, knew about it.
“Mr. Sajudin’s claims are completely false,” the Trump Organization said in a statement. A spokesman added that Calamari never made such a statement and accused Sajudin of having a history of peddling false stories.
In an interview Thursday with The Washington Post, Sajudin dismissed claims that he had made anything up.
“You know I took a polygraph test,” he said, adding that he believes his story was buried as part of a larger strategy by the tabloid to quash negative articles about Trump.
“It seems like the writing is on the wall about that, it’s pretty clear,” Sajudin said. He said the story “had to come out,” and he referred further questions to his attorney.
Sajudin’s contract with American Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company, was first reported by the New Yorker and the Associated Press.
The news about the payment he received comes as federal investigators in New York are examining efforts by Trump’s personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, to tamp down negative stories about the real estate mogul as he ran for president.... SourceThis is the third story of hush money being used to silence people willing to talk about Trump's past. All of it paid off the record and through Cohen or sometimes through tabloids Show nested quote +An FBI raid executed Monday on Cohen’s office and residences sought all of the lawyer’s records of communications with AMI, Pecker and National Enquirer executive Dylan Howard regarding two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump while he was married, according to three people familiar with the investigation.
One woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, reportedly received $150,000 from AMI in 2016 for her story alleging a 10-month affair with Trump. The Enquirer did not publish the story.... The money seems to be the focus of what the FBI is looking into, which makes me wonder where it is coming from. Because it is clearly not Trump's money that is being used to do this.
But, I'm sure, it was all done without Trump's knowledge.
There's a truly remarkable amount of things that happen around Trump about which he has no knowledge.
|
On April 13 2018 07:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:
My best guess is that Trump doesn't pay his bills, so Cohen got creative in how he got money. For himself and whatever issues he fixed.
Like how many people did they pay off and why finding the money trail the weirdest Easter egg hunt in history?
Edit:
Interesting part of the article for those wondering what happens to the stuff found in the search:
Such recordings “would be considered a gold mine,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who specializes in legal ethics.
“The significance is 9.5 to 10 on a 10-point scale,” he added, noting that investigators know “that when people speak on the phone, they are not guarded. They don’t imagine that the conversation will surface.”
Federal investigators would not automatically get access to any tapes that might have been seized in the raids. First, the recordings would be reviewed by a separate Justice Department team and possibly by a federal judge. The review is designed to protect lawyer-client privilege and to be sure that the conversations turned over are within the terms of the search warrant, legal experts said.
They noted that the privilege accorded to attorney-client communications does not apply if the conversation was conducted to further commission of a crime or fraud.
When there are searches of this nature in an investigation, the FBI often has a separate office do the search to create a barrier between privileged evidence and the investigation. I am sure everything they turn over the Mueller's team will be approved by a Federal Judge, likely a Republican Federal Judge.
|
Cohen's public response to the raid was also remarkably submissive. I've got to imagine that he knows that he is in some pretty deep shit.
|
On April 13 2018 08:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 07:14 Plansix wrote:The owner of the National Enquirer paid $30,000 in late 2015 to a onetime Trump Tower doorman who was offering an embarrassing story about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, but the tabloid never published it, according to a person familiar with the payment.
A spokesman for the Trump Organization on Thursday denied the story that doorman Dino Sajudin told the tabloid: that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock in the late 1980s and that top executives of the Trump Organization, including longtime security chief Matt Calamari, knew about it.
“Mr. Sajudin’s claims are completely false,” the Trump Organization said in a statement. A spokesman added that Calamari never made such a statement and accused Sajudin of having a history of peddling false stories.
In an interview Thursday with The Washington Post, Sajudin dismissed claims that he had made anything up.
“You know I took a polygraph test,” he said, adding that he believes his story was buried as part of a larger strategy by the tabloid to quash negative articles about Trump.
“It seems like the writing is on the wall about that, it’s pretty clear,” Sajudin said. He said the story “had to come out,” and he referred further questions to his attorney.
Sajudin’s contract with American Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company, was first reported by the New Yorker and the Associated Press.
The news about the payment he received comes as federal investigators in New York are examining efforts by Trump’s personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, to tamp down negative stories about the real estate mogul as he ran for president.... SourceThis is the third story of hush money being used to silence people willing to talk about Trump's past. All of it paid off the record and through Cohen or sometimes through tabloids An FBI raid executed Monday on Cohen’s office and residences sought all of the lawyer’s records of communications with AMI, Pecker and National Enquirer executive Dylan Howard regarding two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump while he was married, according to three people familiar with the investigation.
One woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, reportedly received $150,000 from AMI in 2016 for her story alleging a 10-month affair with Trump. The Enquirer did not publish the story.... The money seems to be the focus of what the FBI is looking into, which makes me wonder where it is coming from. Because it is clearly not Trump's money that is being used to do this. But, I'm sure, it was all done without Trump's knowledge. There's a truly remarkable amount of things that happen around Trump about which he has no knowledge.
I wouldn't actually be surprised if a lot of things did go around Trump. He certainly seems like the kind of boss where people just end up saying "fuck it, it's faster if I do everything myself". And maybe just get him to sign things without taking the time to make sure he understands it (because that in itself seems like a nightmare).
|
wheres the Russian collusion? is it all in Cohen's filing cabinet ? feels like this is " investigation " is out of control but I am interested to see what the warrant was for.
|
On April 13 2018 13:27 Taelshin wrote:
wheres the Russian collusion? is it all in Cohen's filing cabinet ? feels like this is " investigation " is out of control but I am interested to see what the warrant was for.
The raid on Cohen's office was not connected to the Russia investigation. If there is pertinent information there, it will be handed over to Mueller's team, but there is now a separate investigation into Cohen.
|
On April 13 2018 13:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 13:27 Taelshin wrote:
wheres the Russian collusion? is it all in Cohen's filing cabinet ? feels like this is " investigation " is out of control but I am interested to see what the warrant was for.
The raid on Cohen's office was not connected to the Russia investigation. If there is pertinent information there, it will be handed over to Mueller's team, but there is now a separate investigation into Cohen.
Also worth noting the raid was not conducted by Mueller or his team.
|
United States41983 Posts
On April 13 2018 00:11 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 23:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 12 2018 23:37 iamthedave wrote:On April 12 2018 23:26 Doodsmack wrote:
Full court press against the law enforcement agencies right now. All it really does is ensures that trump won’t get impeached by a Republican House.
Not exactly news though, is it? We've known this for a good while. Unless Trump turns out to be literally guilty of murder, with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the body in a bloodstained shirt and shouting 'I shot the bastard and I'm glad I did it', they're not impeaching him. And even then there'll be people praising him for 'telling it the way it is'. They've spent a huge amount of energy depicting the law enforcement agency doing the investigation as literal criminals and traitors for doing the thing they asked him to do. If they turn around and impeach now, they'll never live it down in front of the base. They might be on top of the world, but the Republicans - which is to say, not the far right but the normal right wing politicians in America - are in severe danger. Like it or loath it, they're the Trump show now. And if they feel the Clintons have stuck around too long... I suspect we'll be saying the same about Trump once he's gone. He's going to be a political force until he dies, I fear. Hyperbolic for sure. World leaders won't listen to a word he says once he's gone. They only do so now (which is weird), because of the office. They know once someone more competent is in office once again, things will shift, hopefully for the better. He might stick around in national politics because of the rabid, delusional fan base he's built (those who view rich, white males as beings above the rest), but other than that, he will be largely ignored by more intellectually informed voters. I wish anyway. I'm not being hyperbolic in the least. If Trump's popularity translates into long-term support from the base, he will be a Republican Kingmaker until the day he dies. Such people are immensely powerful in politics. Margaret Thatcher held incredible power over the Conservative Party, and British politics as a whole, until the day she died. I don't suspect Trump will have that level of sway (I doubt we'll have Democrats ever going to him for advice, like we had with Tony Blair talking to her regularly, for example), but I think a Kingmaker Trump, with Republicans aggressively seeking out his support, is entirely feasible. And bear in mind also that a lot of Republican mainstay figures are seemingly retiring, so his voice has even more of a chance to last.
Not only did Maggie not play kingmaker, she couldn’t dress herself. She got hit with dementia pretty hard in the late 90s and it only got worse. Honestly I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Obviously she was a titan in her time and left a legacy but she wasn’t politically active, and certainly not in the last years. She didn’t know who Margaret Thatcher was.
|
On April 13 2018 14:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 00:11 iamthedave wrote:On April 12 2018 23:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 12 2018 23:37 iamthedave wrote:Not exactly news though, is it? We've known this for a good while. Unless Trump turns out to be literally guilty of murder, with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the body in a bloodstained shirt and shouting 'I shot the bastard and I'm glad I did it', they're not impeaching him. And even then there'll be people praising him for 'telling it the way it is'. They've spent a huge amount of energy depicting the law enforcement agency doing the investigation as literal criminals and traitors for doing the thing they asked him to do. If they turn around and impeach now, they'll never live it down in front of the base. They might be on top of the world, but the Republicans - which is to say, not the far right but the normal right wing politicians in America - are in severe danger. Like it or loath it, they're the Trump show now. And if they feel the Clintons have stuck around too long... I suspect we'll be saying the same about Trump once he's gone. He's going to be a political force until he dies, I fear. Hyperbolic for sure. World leaders won't listen to a word he says once he's gone. They only do so now (which is weird), because of the office. They know once someone more competent is in office once again, things will shift, hopefully for the better. He might stick around in national politics because of the rabid, delusional fan base he's built (those who view rich, white males as beings above the rest), but other than that, he will be largely ignored by more intellectually informed voters. I wish anyway. I'm not being hyperbolic in the least. If Trump's popularity translates into long-term support from the base, he will be a Republican Kingmaker until the day he dies. Such people are immensely powerful in politics. Margaret Thatcher held incredible power over the Conservative Party, and British politics as a whole, until the day she died. I don't suspect Trump will have that level of sway (I doubt we'll have Democrats ever going to him for advice, like we had with Tony Blair talking to her regularly, for example), but I think a Kingmaker Trump, with Republicans aggressively seeking out his support, is entirely feasible. And bear in mind also that a lot of Republican mainstay figures are seemingly retiring, so his voice has even more of a chance to last. Not only did Maggie not play kingmaker, she couldn’t dress herself. She got hit with dementia pretty hard in the late 90s and it only got worse. Honestly I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Obviously she was a titan in her time and left a legacy but she wasn’t politically active, and certainly not in the last years. She didn’t know who Margaret Thatcher was.
Alright, 'until her death' was a bit too far. But you're vastly underestimating the influence she had in the 2000s. In 2007 she was still a little active. Yes she had dementia, but she wasn't a complete invalid.
While she wasn't taking public speaking roles, you're not factoring in how often politicians visited her privately to get her perspective on matters, and having her ear or approval was generally seen as a positive inside political circles, especially in the Conservative Party (obviously).
It isn't a coincidence that every Prime Minister since her, up to David Cameron when she'd properly retired, was on regular speaking terms with her. And I think even David visited her a few times.
|
On April 13 2018 18:52 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2018 00:11 iamthedave wrote:On April 12 2018 23:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 12 2018 23:37 iamthedave wrote:Not exactly news though, is it? We've known this for a good while. Unless Trump turns out to be literally guilty of murder, with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the body in a bloodstained shirt and shouting 'I shot the bastard and I'm glad I did it', they're not impeaching him. And even then there'll be people praising him for 'telling it the way it is'. They've spent a huge amount of energy depicting the law enforcement agency doing the investigation as literal criminals and traitors for doing the thing they asked him to do. If they turn around and impeach now, they'll never live it down in front of the base. They might be on top of the world, but the Republicans - which is to say, not the far right but the normal right wing politicians in America - are in severe danger. Like it or loath it, they're the Trump show now. And if they feel the Clintons have stuck around too long... I suspect we'll be saying the same about Trump once he's gone. He's going to be a political force until he dies, I fear. Hyperbolic for sure. World leaders won't listen to a word he says once he's gone. They only do so now (which is weird), because of the office. They know once someone more competent is in office once again, things will shift, hopefully for the better. He might stick around in national politics because of the rabid, delusional fan base he's built (those who view rich, white males as beings above the rest), but other than that, he will be largely ignored by more intellectually informed voters. I wish anyway. I'm not being hyperbolic in the least. If Trump's popularity translates into long-term support from the base, he will be a Republican Kingmaker until the day he dies. Such people are immensely powerful in politics. Margaret Thatcher held incredible power over the Conservative Party, and British politics as a whole, until the day she died. I don't suspect Trump will have that level of sway (I doubt we'll have Democrats ever going to him for advice, like we had with Tony Blair talking to her regularly, for example), but I think a Kingmaker Trump, with Republicans aggressively seeking out his support, is entirely feasible. And bear in mind also that a lot of Republican mainstay figures are seemingly retiring, so his voice has even more of a chance to last. Not only did Maggie not play kingmaker, she couldn’t dress herself. She got hit with dementia pretty hard in the late 90s and it only got worse. Honestly I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Obviously she was a titan in her time and left a legacy but she wasn’t politically active, and certainly not in the last years. She didn’t know who Margaret Thatcher was. Alright, 'until her death' was a bit too far. But you're vastly underestimating the influence she had in the 2000s. In 2007 she was still a little active. Yes she had dementia, but she wasn't a complete invalid. While she wasn't taking public speaking roles, you're not factoring in how often politicians visited her privately to get her perspective on matters, and having her ear or approval was generally seen as a positive inside political circles, especially in the Conservative Party (obviously). It isn't a coincidence that every Prime Minister since her, up to David Cameron when she'd properly retired, was on regular speaking terms with her. And I think even David visited her a few times.
That's hardly the same. In one scenario a retired politician commands great respect to the point that up and coming politicians have to gain their approval before being able to attain any power. In the other scenario, a powerful politician visits a sick old woman who is out of her mind, purely as a public relations stunt.
|
On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html
The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war.
Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure.
|
On April 13 2018 06:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Let it be known that Christopher Steele is the greatest British spy since James Bond. Anything that could be confirmed int the Steele dossier has been confirmed. None of his predictions have been knocked down. The pee tape is real. Comey has revealed that DJT asked Comey to investigate the pee tape to reassure Melania. This is the darkest timeline. + Show Spoiler +
Oh my God....
A quote from the article.
Comey recalls privately wondering why Melania might think there was even a 1 percent chance the allegation was true, noting there was “zero chance” his own wife would believe such a claim.
“In what kind of marriage, to what kind of man, does a spouse conclude there is only a 99 percent chance her husband didn’t do that?” Comey writes.
...
It wasn’t their only uncomfortable conversation about the “golden showers thing.”
It has to be real. It has to be. If you had never done X, you wouldn't ask the FBI Director to investigate whether there is a tape of you doing X to "reassure your wife" that you had never done X. Trump sure seemed to be scared the tape was real.
|
Trump doesn't seem like the type to care about rumors and stuff unless it's true. But that's speculation, still.
|
The NPR politics podcast is out and touches on some of the business going on in New York.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast
They get into how the 150K would be considered a campaign finance violation and how the payment relates to the access Hollywood video. The short version, the access Hollywood video made the stories of that had an affair with Trump way more marketable, so they could ask for a bunch of money to keep quite.
|
On April 13 2018 20:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 18:52 iamthedave wrote:On April 13 2018 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 13 2018 00:11 iamthedave wrote:On April 12 2018 23:57 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 12 2018 23:37 iamthedave wrote:Not exactly news though, is it? We've known this for a good while. Unless Trump turns out to be literally guilty of murder, with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the body in a bloodstained shirt and shouting 'I shot the bastard and I'm glad I did it', they're not impeaching him. And even then there'll be people praising him for 'telling it the way it is'. They've spent a huge amount of energy depicting the law enforcement agency doing the investigation as literal criminals and traitors for doing the thing they asked him to do. If they turn around and impeach now, they'll never live it down in front of the base. They might be on top of the world, but the Republicans - which is to say, not the far right but the normal right wing politicians in America - are in severe danger. Like it or loath it, they're the Trump show now. And if they feel the Clintons have stuck around too long... I suspect we'll be saying the same about Trump once he's gone. He's going to be a political force until he dies, I fear. Hyperbolic for sure. World leaders won't listen to a word he says once he's gone. They only do so now (which is weird), because of the office. They know once someone more competent is in office once again, things will shift, hopefully for the better. He might stick around in national politics because of the rabid, delusional fan base he's built (those who view rich, white males as beings above the rest), but other than that, he will be largely ignored by more intellectually informed voters. I wish anyway. I'm not being hyperbolic in the least. If Trump's popularity translates into long-term support from the base, he will be a Republican Kingmaker until the day he dies. Such people are immensely powerful in politics. Margaret Thatcher held incredible power over the Conservative Party, and British politics as a whole, until the day she died. I don't suspect Trump will have that level of sway (I doubt we'll have Democrats ever going to him for advice, like we had with Tony Blair talking to her regularly, for example), but I think a Kingmaker Trump, with Republicans aggressively seeking out his support, is entirely feasible. And bear in mind also that a lot of Republican mainstay figures are seemingly retiring, so his voice has even more of a chance to last. Not only did Maggie not play kingmaker, she couldn’t dress herself. She got hit with dementia pretty hard in the late 90s and it only got worse. Honestly I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Obviously she was a titan in her time and left a legacy but she wasn’t politically active, and certainly not in the last years. She didn’t know who Margaret Thatcher was. Alright, 'until her death' was a bit too far. But you're vastly underestimating the influence she had in the 2000s. In 2007 she was still a little active. Yes she had dementia, but she wasn't a complete invalid. While she wasn't taking public speaking roles, you're not factoring in how often politicians visited her privately to get her perspective on matters, and having her ear or approval was generally seen as a positive inside political circles, especially in the Conservative Party (obviously). It isn't a coincidence that every Prime Minister since her, up to David Cameron when she'd properly retired, was on regular speaking terms with her. And I think even David visited her a few times. That's hardly the same. In one scenario a retired politician commands great respect to the point that up and coming politicians have to gain their approval before being able to attain any power. In the other scenario, a powerful politician visits a sick old woman who is out of her mind, purely as a public relations stunt.
It's closer to the first scenario than the second. They weren't just popping in to listen to a crazy old woman talk about the old times. We're talking private calls to discuss policy, not 'how are you doing, Maggie? Are your biscuits soft enough to chew?'
It's known for a fact Blair and Major both regularly discussed policy with her, and her approval was extremely important in the Conservative Party selection process for the party leader.
My mistake was saying up until her death, not stating she wielded immense power in retirement.
Even if we say she had no more influence after 2003 (she did, but I'm fine with that as it's when her mental problems became well known), she still held major political influence for ten years after her retirement, and helped shape the politics that came after her because her approval and support meant a great deal behind the scenes. .I can very easily see Trump wielding the same kind of power if his health holds up and his popularity among the base doesn't wane.
|
On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure.
The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero.
Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing off his massive ego.
But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline."
Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong.
|
On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero. Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing his massive ego. But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline." Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong.
I will make no bones that folks on the left did a lot to attack Comey at the time of the letter. Even the minority leadership in congress made public statements. But in this case it in the RNC buying ads to attack a former FBI director that is telling his story through a book he wrote. He is a fellow Republican that the Republican National Committee, and the leadership by extension, is trying to try to discredit. And they are spending money and buying ads. There is an escalation here that I cannot remember happening before. Maybe the DNC bought ads to discredit Ken Star, but I don’t remember if that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
