US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

[Swordfish]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

I wish is was just a flat out lie that he told, that would just make me mad. I felt like vomiting when I realised he used a fact that shows how trans people are victims to imply that trans people are offenders. But it made me madder still that all of Bill Maher's panellists and Bill himself didn't know enough to call him on it and catch him out in this bullshit deception.

Not to mention Bill now trying to take some of the glory for Milo's demise. Every day I have less and less regard for Bill Maher. Maybe he should just go back to stand up.

I think, in general, a lot of americans make the mistake of confusing satirists and comedians with news sources.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wish is was just a flat out lie that he told, that would just make me mad. I felt like vomiting when I realised he used a fact that shows how trans people are victims to imply that trans people are offenders. But it made me madder still that all of Bill Maher's panellists and Bill himself didn't know enough to call him on it and catch him out in this bullshit deception.

Not to mention Bill now trying to take some of the glory for Milo's demise. Every day I have less and less regard for Bill Maher. Maybe he should just go back to stand up.

Wilmore kind of did, but he wasn't sure about the why. He smelled bullshit, but couldn't put it together fast enough.

 

/Have to agree about Maher. He's gotten harder and harder to take seriously. He's kind of a parody of himself at this point. There are so many others at this point who do the same job but better. John Oliver for instance.

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

I think I see a trend here. You get what you pay for.  Intriguing concept. Maybe this should be tried in more places.

i don't get what i pay for in new jersey, not by a long shot.

[maarsen]

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

i don't get what i pay for in new jersey, not by a long shot.

And paying less will help get more? 

[Cas Stark]

10 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And paying less will help get more? 

If I'm paying a lot in taxes and fees and the state is rife with incompetence, neglect and corruption at every level, I'm not sure why I should feel pleased about it.  But, if I could pay less for the terrible government service that exists, yes, bring it on, please.  I specifically mentioned MA as a state that is expensive and heavily regulated but whose state government generally functions very well.  New Jersey, not so much.

[Trebla]

AG Jeff Sessions twice spoke to Russian Ambassador before the election but did not disclose this during confirmation hearings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1488423857&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.9970a3a37f57

Quote

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well Carter was president when disco was a big thing, along with bell bottom jeans and some really big oversized collars. So, it's understandable that people would have a bad taste in their mouth over all those years.

Damn, a digression into the pros and cons of the Carter administration.  Fun!

The problematic aspects of Carter's administration are somewhat timely.  He was an outsider that preferred to micromanage everything, particularly attempts to navigate the legislative arena.  This centralization of policy formulation proved unsuccessful in spite of Carter enjoying very large majorities in both chambers of Congress.  The general takeaway is his insulated strategy alienated even intraparty leaders on the Hill to the point that any proposal emanating from the White House was met with suspicion and ultimate dismissal.  

Moreover, his communications strategy did not capitalize on the bully pulpit, most infamously characterized by the "malaise" speech in which the message was of a crisis of confidence among the American polity, soon to be juxtaposed by Reagan's decidedly hopeful message that eventually culminated in "Morning in America" during the 84 re-election.

Alternatively, the foreign policy shepherded by Zbigniew Brzezinski was an overall success - Iran notwithstanding.  I say this in spite of his daughter annoying me during many mornings as well as a second-hand account of Zbigniew's Montana-sized ego from a colleague that interviewed him on multiple occasions.  

Anyway, Brzezinski was an operator of "smart" power in the best of ways - relaxing the detente policies put in place by Nixon and Kissinger in order to pressure the Soviet regime on human rights and galvanize dissent in Eastern Europe.  Further, as others have mentioned, his gambit of drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan paid off in spades, at least in the short term.

[Gertrude]

I'm hearing that the Trump admin has been ordered to preserve all emails relevant to a Russian probe. The interesting thing is that it's now being reported that Obama took steps to spread the intel relevant to Russian meddling and basically hide it away for safekeeping. Thanks Obama!

To me it looks like there is a lot of smoke. it's hard to say what exactly was going down, but I'm pretty sure something is up. There are a lot of juicy coincidences and connections, but I'm not sold on it being an involved conspiracy, blackmail, etc. I do think there is something. Most likely he was acting in ignorance or denial of the consequences it could have for him. Who knows what goes through his mind.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Wilmore kind of did, but he wasn't sure about the why. He smelled bullshit, but couldn't put it together fast enough.

 

/Have to agree about Maher. He's gotten harder and harder to take seriously. He's kind of a parody of himself at this point. There are so many others at this point who do the same job but better. John Oliver for instance.

Yes, the whole panel (apart from the token Republican who obviously lapped it up like the gullible schmo that he is) smelled bullshit. But all they ended up doing was feeding the troll by saying "Fuck You!" And we all know that the person who says "fuck you" first is the clear loser in an argument because they have no valid counterpoint so they just resort to insults. And the whole point of Milo is to engrage his opponents to the point that they resort to insults so he can look at his audience and say "See, they got nothing. They know I'm right but just can't admit it."

It's too bloody late to have fact checkers swing in after the event. Because the damage is done and the ignorant base feels righteously vindicated. Lucky for everyone Milo took himself out. But really a properly prepared opponent should have exposed him to his face and taken away his mojo some time ago.

11 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I'm hearing that the Trump admin has been ordered to preserve all emails relevant to a Russian probe. The interesting thing is that it's now being reported that Obama took steps to spread the intel relevant to Russian meddling and basically hide it away for safekeeping. Thanks Obama!

To me it looks like there is a lot of smoke. it's hard to say what exactly was going down, but I'm pretty sure something is up. There are a lot of juicy coincidences and connections, but I'm not sold on it being an involved conspiracy, blackmail, etc. I do think there is something. Most likely he was acting in ignorance or denial of the consequences it could have for him. Who knows what goes through his mind.

Not sure what advantage accrues to Obama or the Democrats in keeping damning intell squirrelled away for later use. Unless Obama secretly still hated Clinton for 2008 and actually wanted to see her lose, and only then reveal the Russia stuff to try to take Trump down to limit the damage from his Clinton vendetta and... hand us President Pence?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Have to agree about Maher. He's gotten harder and harder to take seriously. He's kind of a parody of himself at this point. There are so many others at this point who do the same job but better. John Oliver for instance.

I dunno, Maher hasn't changed much.  He's always been a shameless self-promoter that is manifestly stupid on certain issues (e.g. vaccinations) and ludicrously rigid on even his main issues - namely anti-religion.  Only a Sith deals in absolutes, and Maher's anti-religion message does more harm than good for promoters of rationalism.

I appreciate the work John Oliver does but am not an avid fan for two reasons.  One, his delivery is often convoluted.  Two, and more importantly, he presents every issue as if he and his staff just uncovered some systemic iniquity in America when in actuality everything they cover has been addressed ad nauseam by more qualified sources.  This is a petty grievance, I admit.

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Wilmore kind of did, but he wasn't sure about the why. He smelled bullshit, but couldn't put it together fast enough.

 

/Have to agree about Maher. He's gotten harder and harder to take seriously. He's kind of a parody of himself at this point. There are so many others at this point who do the same job but better. John Oliver for instance.

I don't really take him seriously, but I think the guy is still just funny, for all his bullshit. He knows how to deliver the pretty good one liners (that I'm sure someone else writes) on his shows, IMO. It's enough for me to overlook all the borderline (and not borderline) offensive things he says/does.   

[Gertrude]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not sure what advantage accrues to Obama or the Democrats in keeping damning intell squirrelled away for later use. Unless Obama secretly still hated Clinton for 2008 and actually wanted to see her lose, and only then reveal the Russia stuff to try to take Trump down to limit the damage from his Clinton vendetta and... hand us President Pence?

It seems that he perhaps wanted it preserved so that it wasn't forgotten about after the election. Or in the worst case scenario, that it would 'disappear'. I imagine it was more about Russia than really about either of the candidates. If I remember correctly, much of this information wasn't aired during the campaign because the administration didn't want to appear to be politicizing the intel.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Gertrude said:

If I remember correctly, much of this information wasn't aired during the campaign because the administration didn't want to appear to be politicizing the intel.

Yep.  Remember way back in the before-time when we had a responsible president?

[Stannis is the man....nis]

So is this what Watergate felt like?

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well Carter was president when disco was a big thing, along with bell bottom jeans and some really big oversized collars. So, it's understandable that people would have a bad taste in their mouth over all those years.

I must protest, bell bottoms were divine. Besides, it wasn't the bell bottoms that did Carter in, it was his trying to cover up the incident with the swamp rabbit.  He defended himself and his little boat from a giant crazed swamp rabbit that nearly capsized the boat and overran the shore. 

Without Carter's valiant efforts to keep America safe from crazed swimming swamp rabbits who knows what would have happened?  Egads, thanks to Carter the USA was safe for democracy until 20 Nov 2016.  But no, he had to play the martyr card and pretend it never happened. 

Good thing the press spent many hours finding out the truth!  So yay, no swamp rabbits have again threatened the US until this day, all thanks to Jimmy Carter.*

 

_{*and well, bell bottoms}

[The Anti-Targ]

My guess is there will be nothing linking back to Trump that is impeachable. So in that respect this will not be a Watergate. Some big names might fall, but probably not Trump. However it might do permanent damage and make him unelectable in 2020, and possibly the Party may not nominate him for a second term.

So, what's the game with Graham and McCain? Clearly they are strongly anti-Trump but are they going to achieve anything? They are 2 votes in a 54 seat majority, so the 50 vote + Pence majority seems pretty secure for all simple majority votes.

So are those old timers just being let off their leash because they are of no consequence, or is something actually going to happen?

[Dr. Pepper]

Trump would investigate leaks differently than Spicer did.

There are tons of stories on the leaks issue.  What none of these articles do is ask why the fuck the White House is admitting to investigating leaks when they are also calling the media lying liars with nothing but fake news.  So which is it?  Is the media nothing but lies or are these leaks real?  Obviously a rhetorical question, but is it never pointed out how fucking contradictory the admin is?  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

55 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yep.  Remember way back in the before-time when we had a responsible president?

I would settle for competent. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They are 2 votes in a 54 seat majority, so the 50 vote + Pence majority seems pretty secure for all simple majority votes.

Hold up - did the GOP gain 2 seats because Trump managed to stand in front of Congress for 90 minutes without majorly offending any constituency?

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I would settle for competent. 

Me too!

[Fragile Bird]

14 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

So is this what Watergate felt like?

Are you familiar with the saying, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme? Mark Twain said that.

Everything was so different then. There were no computers, there was no social media. People had to turn to Walter Cronkite and the NY Times and the WaPo to find out what was going on, and the WH denied, denied, denied.  People like LBJ and Nixon didn't want the truth about the Vietnam war to get out. LBJ asked the FBI to investigate that fucking Mike Wallace (an actual quote, I believe) to find out if he was a communist, but, disappointingly, he was only a Canadian.

And Nixon considered the Democrats The Enemy, and put into action a plan to spy on them. Ergo, the incompetent burglary at the Watergate offices of the party, which led to various covert and totally illegal actions plotted and carried out by the WH eventually being uncovered. Remember, 69 people were indicted. Many went to jail, lawyers got disbarred. All possible because of good reporting plus people willing to leak information. And the Republicans have forever hated the Democrats for it and vowed to get revenge.

Daniel Ellsberg leaked a secret report about Asia called The Pentagon Papers and Nixon launched a secret campaign to discredit him. Shades of Snowden!

In the meantime you had a divided America being torn up by the events going on in Viet Nam. There were demonstrations across America, there was resentment over the draft (and as was pointed out up thread, loyalty to Nixon for ending the draft). Soldiers who returned from Viet Nam were greeted on their return with resentment. Soldiers in uniform reported being spit upon. Half the homeless on the streets of the USA were apparently Viet Nam vets.

But Nixon had been president for four years and got reelected, even as stuff was coming out. It took two more years before events reached a point where Nixon had to resign, Aug. 8, 1974.

So here, today, we have a background of war, but no one is really protesting. Instead, administrations ramp up fears and talk about homeland security. Trust in the media has plunged, and the WH is not only denying, it's on the attack. The Democrats were attacked, by Russians, though, not Republicans, unless someone can tie the Trump campaign to some kind of secret deal with the Russians, in which case it really would be like Watergate. And since Viet Nam, rather than soldiers being resented there's now a cult of worshipping the military, far far different than 1972.

(I attribute that resentment to all the deaths. It seemed like everybody knew somebody who died or was badly injured in Viet Nam.)

Except it wouldn't, because Watergate revealed years of illegal activity by Nixon. Trump has been president for 5 weeks. It would be Watergate on steroids.