US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[butterbumps!]

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

And 400 years of philosophy is great but I don't think that has led us to any current position of knowing for sure what is right and wrong in every or even most situations. If voting Hillary Clinton is the epitome of being moral then....I just refuse to believe that.

Ok, so you're a moral relativist.   You seem to be of the belief that because we don't all agree on everything, that we can't say anything is immoral/ moral for sure.    But it's been the evolution of liberal philosophy that we now widely recognize slavery is wrong, and that women should vote, that segregation is wrong.  Rational thought and compassion has led us to recognize the inherent truth and moral correctness of certain positions.  Similarly there is an ongoing discussion of moral correctness that is going on today.   It's a process.

Quote

 

I can't even comment on which party had the facts and which doesn't, I already know that's a hole that will lead nowhere fast.

 

it's really not.  Republicans didn't have the facts on their side for a number of issues, including, but not limited to, things like gay marriage.

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think I'm being shorted sighted. I think there is an ability get a major victory here.

Will it, bring us back control quickly? Nope, it won't.

My only question would be: Are our chances here poor? I don't think they are. And if they're not, I'm not inclined to let conservatives just go on thinking, along with some confused people who may not be biased, that Hillary did something criminal. And that's what an Obama pardon will do.

I realize several blows will need to be delivered here. This is just the first one. I'm only willing to make withdraw here if our chances are that poor. I don't think they are.

I have great respect for Hillary Rodham Clinton, she made it much easier for me and those like me to achieve modified and appropriate identification. And in fact I directly benefited from policies she championed as a child in the mid-late nineties. But she is a woman of means, and anything but incapable. The President does not need to pardon her, it is already been determined that there is insufficient evidence against her to prosecute. And if something should be Trumped up, I have every confidence in her ability to defeat the charges. But in light of her defeat last week it is no longer prudent to expend resources on a battle that is already over.

Is it far? No. And it frankly makes me uncomfortable to even say it, and I am not at all advocating abandoning her, but dedicated efforts in her defense can no longer achieve an outcome that advances our position. She must be allowed to win this on her own, with indirect Democrat support, and the humiliation for Trump and his ilk will be the same.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Sivin said:

snip

I too have a lot of respect for Hillary.

But, it seems both Trump and Giuliani are equivocating a bit here. And I'm like a shark smelling blood. And there are some other factors in our favor here.

If Trump and Giuliani don't prosecute Hillary, I think we can make the case the reason they didn't do it was because the whole conservative case against her was largely based on bullshit.

And if they are dumb enough to go after her, I think there is a significant chance here to draw blood and score a victory.

Is any of this guaranteed? No it is not. But, I think our chances are good here.

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Ok, so you're a moral relativist.   You seem to be of the belief that because we don't all agree on everything, that we can't say anything is immoral/ moral for sure.    But it's been the evolution of liberal philosophy that we now widely recognize slavery is wrong, and that women should vote, that segregation is wrong.  Rational thought and compassion has led us to recognize the inherent truth and moral correctness of certain positions.  Similarly there is an ongoing discussion of moral correctness that is going on today.   It's a process.

We say slavery is wrong but it's still perfectly legal for the government to practice slavery as long as they say you've commited a crime. I don't see Democrats trying to change that.

We say Democrats aim to help black people but I don't see Democrats using their positions to campaign for issues that truly help black people. Like a political union for example, or even something small like returning trade certification to high schools.

6 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

it's really not.  Republicans didn't have the facts on their side for a number of issues, including, but not limited to, things like gay marriage.

Like I said, nowhere fast 

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

It should have mattered back then. The second Hillary is accused of any crime the Bush administration committed (email mishandling by Powell, losing embassy personnel by Rumsfeld, leaking sensitive information by Cheney during the Plame affair, and I could go on and on and on), it should matter even more. The double standard that is being applied to the US left and right is staggering.

What I'm saying is that I'm utterly perplexed by an apparent narrative in the collective American psyche (or at least on the right, but considering liberals are currently accusing each other of not being accomodating enough of the other side, it seems to run both ways) that says that whatever conservatives do is to be sugarcoated and swallowed by the left while even the slightest impropriety by liberals will cost them their carreer. That Democrats lose elections because of email mishandling or being uninspiring while Republicans can win on the backs of (promised or actual) war crimes, torture, or displacing millions of people. That one side has to be near saintly to even have a chance at winning while the other side pushes morally bankrupt, scientifically unsupported, economically disproven bullshit  annd gets rewarded while winning when being called out on their bullshit.

Great post, I kind of prefer that tone and outlook, unfortunately it was usually Sanders, Mrs O or Liz Warren speaking whenever I would hear that sort of vigor from this campaign cycle. I remember being worried when Hillary walked back the "deplorables" statement that it might have been better to have planted her feet, drew the line and refused to back down an inch.....instead Hillary deferred that pitbull role to surrogates, like Warren. I still think Hillary should have personally got in the mud more instead of trying the "above that" route. Trump certainly wasnt hurt by going negative.

Hillary casting an image of being above fighting, was probably the last thing on Earth the undecideds were interested in, people seem to have interest in politicians that are willing to fight for what they stand for. They will often pick the charismatic fighter before the competent intellectual and that apparently was the case this cycle.

[Sivin]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I too have a lot of respect for Hillary.

But, it seems both Trump and Giuliani are equivocating a bit here. And I'm like a shark smelling blood. And there some other factors in our favor here.

If Trump and Giuliani don't prosecute Hillary, I think we can make the case the reason they didn't do it was because the whole conservative case against her was largely based on bullshit.

And if they are dumb enough to go after her, I think there is a significant chance here to draw blood and score victory.

Is any of this guaranteed? No it is not. But, I think our chances are good here.

I don't see the outcome though, perhaps I am wrong but what would be accomplished? Are the Fox News' and Bill O'Reilys and Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs going to admit defeat? Are their rabid followers going to care? A hit can be scored, but what value is it if nobody cares to acknowledge it.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

We say slavery is wrong but it's still perfectly legal for the government to practice slavery as long as they say you've commited a crime. I don't see Democrats trying to change that.

How so? 

Work for inmates incarcerated in state prisons is highly regulated and workers are paid for their work.  They must apply for jobs and they receive raises, breaks and their working conditions are subject to inspections and reviews.  Work provides needed activities to the incarcerated, lowers violence in the institution and helps to lower recidivism because the inmates can learn trades and gain valuable work experience.

Is everything rosey for the inmate worker, of course not, but inmate labor is not the 'slave' labor that many paint it to be.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Sivin said:

I don't see the outcome though, perhaps I am wrong but what would be accomplished? Are the Fox News' and Bill O'Reilys and Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs going to admit defeat? Are their rabid followers going to care? A hit can be scored, but what value is it if nobody cares to acknowledge it.

No the "true conservatives" will never change their minds come hell or high water.

But, what about the people that don't really follow politics regularly and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other? The thing is that this type of thing will likely be on TV all the time. It will be hard for anyone not to know about it.

Also, Trump and his goons will spend a lot of their time having to answer questions about this. Every press conference will involve questions about the Hillary investigation. I really don't think Trump and his goons want this thing to dominate Trump's administration. And it will, even if they are too dumb to realize it.

The credibility of Trump's administration will be on the line here. 

And surely, it would have to fire up the liberal base?

[butterbumps!]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

We say slavery is wrong but it's still perfectly legal for the government to practice slavery as long as they say you've commited a crime. I don't see Democrats trying to change that.

We say Democrats aim to help black people but I don't see Democrats using their positions to campaign for issues that truly help black people. Like a political union for example, or even something small like returning trade certification to high schools.

You're talking about how criminals in prison work?   You know they're paid for that work, right?

Why are you making this about Democrat policies?  You asked about how we can determine morality.   I explained it in nonpartisan terms.   I haven't claimed that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.   

Quote

Like I said, nowhere fast 

right.  The claims of the right that homosexuals are depraved sexual deviants looking to destroy family values, will turn your kids gay, and are prone to sex crimes is not a clear example of one side spreading a demonstrably false toxic narrative.  I'm not interested in continuing this further.   

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And surely, it would have to fire up the liberal base?

Good point.

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No the "true conservatives" will never change their minds come hell or high water.

But, what about the people that don't really follow politics regularly and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other? The thing is that this type of thing will likely be on TV all the time. It will be hard for anyone not to know about it.

Also, Trump and his goons will spend a lot of their time having to answer questions about this. Every press conference will involve questions about the Hillary investigation. I really don't think Trump and his goons want this thing to dominate Trump's administration. And it will, even if they are too dumb to realize it.

The credibility of Trump's administration will be on the line here. 

And surely, it would have to fire up the liberal base?

If you're telling me that the credibility of Trump's administration needs to be put on a line I will just slit my wrists right now and we can save Ran some of the data I am eating up in this conversation. I am saying that Trump's administration will eat itself, there is no need for Democrats to take risks too early. Republicans get to keep all three phases for four years, let them ruin themselves for two or three before delivering a conclusive blow.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Sivin said:

If you're telling me that the credibility of Trump's administration needs to be put on a line I will just slit my wrists right now and we can save Ran some of the data I am eating up in this conversation. I am saying that Trump's administration will eat itself, there is no need for Democrats to take risks too early. Republicans get to keep all three phases for four years, let them ruin themselves for two or three before delivering a conclusive blow.

Oh, I don't get me wrong. I think the Trump administration along with the Republicans will fuck up. I have faith in them.

But, this presents the first opportunity for them to fuck up. So let's help them, if they are that dumb.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Sivin said:

Republicans get to keep all three phases for four years, let them ruin themselves for two or three before delivering a conclusive blow.

Why though?  Why let them do damage here at home and internationally if they overreach early? 

[Sivin]

Just now, LongRider said:

Why though?  Why let them do damage here at home and internationally if they overreach early? 

What can be achieved by exposing them?

[DunderMifflin]

13 minutes ago, LongRider said:

How so? 

Work for inmates incarcerated in state prisons is highly regulated and workers are paid for their work.  They must apply for jobs and they receive raises, breaks and their working conditions are subject to inspections and reviews.  Work provides needed activities to the incarcerated, lowers violence in the institution and helps to lower recidivism because the inmates can learn trades and gain valuable work experience.

Is everything rosey for the inmate worker, of course not, but inmate labor is not the 'slave' labor that many paint it to be.

Yes you got me. $2 a day technically isn't chattel slavery.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Oh, I don't get me wrong. I think the Trump administration along with the Republicans will fuck up. I have faith in them.

But, this presents the first opportunity for them to fuck up. So let's help them, if they are that dumb.

Honestly, I don't trust them to even fuck up properly.  I'd rather not test it.  There are real people and real lives that are at real stakes right now.  It's a given that the Trump administration and Republicans in general will try their darndest to screw over as many lives as possible.  Let's allow the rest of Congress and the nation to work on mitigating the damage rather than having everyone's focus on another Hillary witch hunt.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Sivin said:

What can be achieved by exposing them?

Loss of credibility and public disdain. Not just for Trump, but for conservatives and Trump supporters in general.

Will it be a kill shot? Probably not. But, I'm for delivering a blow early.

[James Arryn]

I think it very likely to be a lot less black or white, but rather quite muddled.

We haven't even gotten into the personalities of the various mechanisms that would get involved. But, suppose an acquittal; what % of people who think she's guilty are likely to unthink that vs. thinking more shenanigans or elites looking after their own or w/e. And what % of people who think she's innocent will fail to see her as a railroaded martyr if she's found guilty? I don't think it will move much. I agree it might expend capital, but that might cut both ways, and I think Trump's agenda would be sufficiently upheld if the resulting waters are muddy enough or him to point and say that's what he's talking about.

All that said, I think there's a reasonably double edged blade here. If Obama doesn't move to support her it might be read as guilt or abandonment, but a pardon will be absolutely pointed out as corruption. 

[LongRider]

Just now, Sivin said:

What can be achieved by exposing them?

I think that there is much that is possible in exposing them, and letting the US and the world know what frauds they are.  Embarrass the shit out of them and let them be proven for the frauds they are.  Think there are protests now?  Have them arrest Hilary and the protests get turned up several notches.

 

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yes you got me. $2 a day technically isn't chattel slavery.

When you know what you are talking about, come see me.  Inmates don't make the prevailing wage but why should they?  Plus they can quit a job if they don't like it and go back to hanging out in the yards all day if they want to. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Honestly, I don't trust them to even fuck up properly.  I'd rather not test it.  There are real people and real lives that are at real stakes right now.  It's a given that the Trump administration and Republicans in general will try their darndest to screw over as many lives as possible.  Let's allow the rest of Congress and the nation to work on mitigating the damage rather than having everyone's focus on another Hillary witch hunt.  

I respect your opinion. And I know what's at stake here. And for that reason, I'm not willing to let conservatives continue with this fraud about Hillary.

They have become utterly nuts and I would like to have an opportunity to check one of their delusions publicly and perhaps decisively.

Maybe I'm being a bit hard nosed here, but I cringe at giving them an inch here, particularly when I don't think we have to.