U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Since old thread is over 20 pages and about to be closed, let's replace it something better, something fantastic, it's gonna be huge. Believe me folks.

Having that said.

 

To pick up on @Manhole Eunuchsbane 's last post.

You are wondering how apparent Trump voters can take it lightly? Simple answer their guy won, and it may or may not have benefitted from it. But it most certainly didn't do him any harm. The GOP politicians pivoting it as national service? Well, you couldn't make that one up, except for Trump openly inviting Russia to "look for Hillaries lost e-mails, too." That wasn't enough to withdraw their support on the campaign trail, so why would they care now about that stuff?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Notone said:

Since old thread is over 20 pages and about to be closed, let's replace it something better, something fantastic, it's gonna be huge. Believe me folks.

Having that said.

 

To pick up on @Manhole Eunuchsbane 's last post.

You are wondering how apparent Trump voters can take it lightly? Simple answer their guy won, and it may or may not have benefitted from it. But it most certainly didn't do him any harm. The GOP politicians pivoting it as national service? Well, you couldn't make that one up, except for Trump openly inviting Russia to "look for Hillaries lost e-mails, too." That wasn't enough to withdraw their support on the campaign trail, so why would they care now about that stuff?

Sure, but I doubt that Larry the Imp is a Trump supporter. I'd be pretty shocked if that were the case.

 

I get your point regarding the GOP pivot, but I don't think that practicality makes that congressman's statement any less bizarre. We have reached Bizarro World levels of irony here. This is the fucking Republican party we're talking about. They coined the term the Evil Empire for the Soviets. The statement that Russia did us a public service coming from a Republican congressman is as insane as it is stuffed with bullshit. 

[Altherion]

It looks like the British Prime Minister didn't like Kerry's speech:

Quote

The spokesman added: "We do not, therefore, believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.

"And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally."

The US state department said it was "surprised" by the UK's response.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Because today's Republican party is the poster child for sanity?

Remember this isn't the party of Lincoln anymore. This is the party of Bachman and Palin. 

I mean another inconsistency I have read/seen was Lindsey Graham suggesting that Ted "Lucifer in the Flesh" Cruz should get nominated for the supreme court. The same Lindsey Graham who compared the choice between Trump and Cruz to "getting shot or poisoned". Since the lethal Bullet hit the Oval Office, he now wants to poison the SCOTUS. 

Rick Perry becoming the secretary for the department of Energy? That was one of the departments he could remember he wanted to abolish. Didn't orange doofus describe him as following: "So he is wearing glasses now, and hopes that makes him look smart." 

I mean even Leon Festinger would be like WTF?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Notone said:

Because today's Republican party is the poster child for sanity?

Remember this isn't the party of Lincoln anymore. This is the party of Bachman and Palin. 

I mean another inconsistency I have read/seen was Lindsey Graham suggesting that Ted "Lucifer in the Flesh" Cruz should get nominated for the supreme court. The same Lindsey Graham who compared the choice between Trump and Cruz to "getting shot or poisoned". Since the lethal Bullet hit the Oval Office, he now wants to poison the SCOTUS. 

Rick Perry becoming the secretary for the department of Energy? That was one of the departments he could remember he wanted to abolish. Didn't orange doofus describe him as following: "So he is wearing glasses now, and hopes that makes him look smart." 

I mean even Leon Festinger would be like WTF?

Yeah, it's seemingly gotten considerably more insane though over this election cycle. Seems to me it's progressing into psychopathy at an alarming clip. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

So Putin just made Obama look like a petulant child. Once again checkmate by Vladimir.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/30/as-putin-retaliates-the-new-cold-war-heats-up.html

 

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, it's seemingly gotten considerably more insane though over this election cycle. Seems to me it's progressing into psychopathy at an alarming clip. 

Nah. This isn't psychopathic behavior at all. It's pretty easy to understand.

Again, the most important moral value for the Republican party is winning. This is also one of the more important members for many Republicans right now (though not all), but it is overwhelmingly the most important moral stand for them, period. Arguably this is more important to them than actually gaining power or money, and it's certainly more important than doing things like serving the public. 

This is why, for example, Republicans want to repeal the ACA - but do so after 2020, so that they don't hurt their election chances too much. This makes no sense at all from a policy perspective, especially if you consider the ACA really bad - but it makes tons of sense from a 'I need to win' perspective.

This is also a tribal value that is very important to them and justifies any number of actions. So a government stole from private and public citizens in order to influence an election? As long as they benefited there is nothing wrong with it. Someone horrible is running, who has done really horrible things and has horrible views? As long as he is winning, all of that is forgiven or forgotten or even glossed over. 

Again, think about how fans of sports teams get - this seems like a really silly analogy but is a perfect way to describe the tribalism they have. How many fans will genuinely gloss over their horrible player's behaviors while criticizing the shittiness of other players? Ray Rice's crime wasn't what he did - it was having videotape, and then simply not being that good of a player any more. Winning makes a lot of people forgive a whole lot of horrible things, but this is the defining characteristic of the morals of the Republican party. 

Frame it that way and things start making a whole lot of sense. 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So Putin just made Obama look like a petulant child. Once again checkmate by Vladimir.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/30/as-putin-retaliates-the-new-cold-war-heats-up.html

 

That's just like your opinion, man. Yours and Chris Christie's - good company.

[sToNED_CAT]

Quote

Obama expelling russian diplomats petty? I think there seems to be a huge lack of reaction to what Russia is doing. Lets be clear it went out of its way to interfere with the election of the biggest country on the planet. That is HUGE. Its borderline an act of war. Couple this with the constant propaganda pumped out by Russia that has infiltrated almost every discussion on the internet, and funding political parties throughout Europe and I'm simply amazed that more isn't done about this.

US did the same in last few years and not just to our enemies (Israel). The "funding of parties throughout" Europe is just leftist propaganda. Those parties are popular because of actions of european politicians, not because of Russian involvement. Putin never ordered Merkel to invite whole ME to Europe, he never ordered EU to force member countries to accept refugees against their will.

 

Quote

So how should the Ukraine have been handled?  Clear out the embassy?  Sanctions?  Nuke Moscow?  

The UKraine should have been handled by not starting the whole situation at all! People now think it was Putin who started this whole crisis. BS. It was started by EU, Obama and George Soros who overthrew (or helped) democratically elected prorussian government of Ukraine. Yanukovich wanted to bring Ukraine closer to Russia and was elected to do that. After he tried to sign economical treaty that would have tied Ukraine to East, the pro EU minority supported by Obama and EU revolted. How was Putin supposed to react? How would US react if Russian conspired to overthrow Canadian government and tried to replace it with pro Russian one?

If Obama wasn't prepared to defend new Ukraine government, he made a mistake to involve US. It also created pretty serious domino effect - the Russians pulling out of Iranian sanctions and their direct involvement in Syria postdate Ukrainian crisis. Somehow no one seems to make the obvious conclusion... Despite "reset" retorics Obama admin treated Russia like crap for the last 4 years at least.

[TheKitttenGuard]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It looks like the British Prime Minister didn't like Kerry's speech:

 

The UK does a have Veto in the Security Council.

The strongest criticism appear in the comment of what Kerry view of the make up of Israel's government.

There can be a fair point that there should not be a bias in the process. Though that this process has been unbiased is argued by both sides.

The government of Israel is the most right wing it has ever been.  They in the end will be the ones making the choice.  Which is what they wanted.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

To the Obama supporters, do any of you actually understand what Obama is trying to achieve with these last gasp  rolls of the dice? Why is he striking out so petulantly now, when it can all be undone by the next president in any case?

I don't recall Bush taking these types of actions in the lead up to Obama taking over.

What does he hope to achieve?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

US did the same in last few years and not just to our enemies (Israel). The "funding of parties throughout" Europe is just leftist propaganda. Those parties are popular because of actions of european politicians, not because of Russian involvement. Putin never ordered Merkel to invite whole ME to Europe, he never ordered EU to force member countries to accept refugees against their will.

 

The UKraine should have been handled by not starting the whole situation at all! People now think it was Putin who started this whole crisis. BS. It was started by EU, Obama and George Soros who overthrew (or helped) democratically elected prorussian government of Ukraine. Yanukovich wanted to bring Ukraine closer to Russia and was elected to do that. After he tried to sign economical treaty that would have tied Ukraine to East, the pro EU minority supported by Obama and EU revolted. How was Putin supposed to react? How would US react if Russian conspired to overthrow Canadian government and tried to replace it with pro Russian one?

If Obama wasn't prepared to defend new Ukraine government, he made a mistake to involve US. It also created pretty serious domino effect - the Russians pulling out of Iranian sanctions and their direct involvement in Syria postdate Ukrainian crisis. Somehow no one seems to make the obvious conclusion... Despite "reset" retorics Obama admin treated Russia like crap for the last 4 years at least.

Oh, I forgot about the super cookies.

[sToNED_CAT]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is why, for example, Republicans want to repeal the ACA - but do so after 2020, so that they don't hurt their election chances too much. This makes no sense at all from a policy perspective, especially if you consider the ACA really bad - but it makes tons of sense from a 'I need to win' perspective.

I fail to see how this is different from parts of ACA taking effect few years after the enactment and Obama himself illegally blocking some unpopular parts of it through executive actions...

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

That's just like your opinion, man. Yours and Chris Christie's - good company.

I agree with it too. 

Obama's action doesn't paint Trump in much of a corner so long as the rest of the Republican party follows suit. And they almost certainly will. It gives Putin even more ammo to show those Republicans that would already want an excuse to say 'see, he's a good guy, unlike Obama', and it gives Trump an easy out to repeal any and all of it, despite what this article wants to imply. Yes, Trump is going to have a harder time cozying up to Graham and McCain - both of which he hates, and both of which he doesn't need at all. He's not going to change tacks and never was. This doesn't box him in - because it was never 'hard' for him to be friendly with Putin. And it will continue to not be. What it does, oddly enough, is box in people like Ryan and Rubio, who have tried to play nice with Trump while keeping some vestigal bits of their own policy goals burning in the embers. 

Between this and not vetoing the UN resolution against Israel, Obama has gone out in a fairly bad and un-Obama way - being petulant, ineffective, and helping Republicans while hurting Democrats. 

Quote

 

To the Obama supporters, do any of you actually understand what Obama is trying to achieve with these last gasp  rolls of the dice? Why is he striking out so petulantly now, when it can all be undone by the next president in any case?

I don't recall Bush taking these types of actions in the lead up to Obama taking over.

What does he hope to achieve?

 

 I think Obama is very, very limited in what he can do right now, and is doing whatever he thinks might have even small effects to improve things or hurt Trump's policies. He's basically throwing hail marys out there and seeing what sticks. Again, very unlike his prior policies. I think Obama more than basically anyone out there understands precisely how deep Trump is in the shit, and is genuinely afraid for the world. 

Some of it can't easily be undone, either. The Russian thing, I think, he was hoping for an overreaction by Putin - and got the opposite. 

And no, Bush didn't do these things, nor did Clinton. That tells you more about the incoming PEOTUS, and not how parties had worked in the past.

[snake]

Matt Taibbi seems to be a voice of reason in the US these days.  Nice to read something that is not bent on feeding the hysteria that has seemingly enveloped the US political scene as of late. 

[sToNED_CAT]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To the Obama supporters, do any of you actually understand what Obama is trying to achieve with these last gasp  rolls of the dice? Why is he striking out so petulantly now, when it can all be undone by the next president in any case?

I don't recall Bush taking these types of actions in the lead up to Obama taking over.

What does he hope to achieve?

It is just purely political action aimed to restrict new presidents freedom of action in international affairs... If he was really concerned about hacking he would have retaliated long time ago.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

I fail to see how this is different from parts of ACA taking effect few years after the enactment and Obama himself illegally blocking some unpopular parts of it through executive actions...

I'm not remotely sure I follow this at all. How is saying "we want to repeal this" and  then...not...the same as "these things aren't working like we hoped, so we'll change them'? 

If you're implying that the reason Obama did change these things was because of electoral pressure - again, this means that the public said 'change this' and he did. This is precisely the opposite, where the public is saying 'don't change this' and they're saying that they will anyway, but not until we get another 4 years of a POTUS elected. 

[Kalbear]

50% of Clinton supporters think that the actual voting tallies were hacked?@snake - that was a good article. 50% of Clinton supporters think that the actual voting tallies were hacked? Bah.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nah. This isn't psychopathic behavior at all. It's pretty easy to understand.

Again, the most important moral value for the Republican party is winning. This is also one of the more important members for many Republicans right now (though not all), but it is overwhelmingly the most important moral stand for them, period. Arguably this is more important to them than actually gaining power or money, and it's certainly more important than doing things like serving the public. 

This is why, for example, Republicans want to repeal the ACA - but do so after 2020, so that they don't hurt their election chances too much. This makes no sense at all from a policy perspective, especially if you consider the ACA really bad - but it makes tons of sense from a 'I need to win' perspective.

This is also a tribal value that is very important to them and justifies any number of actions. So a government stole from private and public citizens in order to influence an election? As long as they benefited there is nothing wrong with it. Someone horrible is running, who has done really horrible things and has horrible views? As long as he is winning, all of that is forgiven or forgotten or even glossed over. 

Again, think about how fans of sports teams get - this seems like a really silly analogy but is a perfect way to describe the tribalism they have. How many fans will genuinely gloss over their horrible player's behaviors while criticizing the shittiness of other players? Ray Rice's crime wasn't what he did - it was having videotape, and then simply not being that good of a player any more. Winning makes a lot of people forgive a whole lot of horrible things, but this is the defining characteristic of the morals of the Republican party. 

Frame it that way and things start making a whole lot of sense. 

I get your point, but the degree to which that ideal (winning is the most important thing) can be taken can certainly be psychopathic. To extend your sports analogy, let's say Bill Belichick knew unequivocally that Aaron Hernandez was a murderer before he drafted him. That would be seen by anyone as a psychopathic dedication to the ideal.

 To get in bed with a dictator, the leader of a country that has long been held up as the antithesis of your country's ideals, in order to win an election is psychopathic in my estimation. It's not defensible. We have some clearly laid out rules even regarding taking campaign contributions from foreign powers. This is an order of magnitude greater than even that. To suggest that we owe the Russians a debt of gratitude for mucking with our election process is fucking outrageous. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

It is just purely political action aimed to restrict new presidents freedom of action in international affairs... If he was really concerned about hacking he would have retaliated long time ago.

I don't believe this is true - because what is the actual thing to do here? 

Do you actually go after Russia during an election, and give the appearance of a standing POTUS trying to use their actual power to manipulate the results?

Do you hack their information and publish it illegally as well? (And what would this actually matter to an autocratic regime?)

Do you sabotage their systems and escalate things in an actual act of hard espionage? 

I've been thinking about this a while and there's no real easy answers that can be done quickly. Democracies are vulnerable to this sort of thing in a way that autocracies are not.