Jump to content

US Politics: Ask Fox News


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

DunderMifflin's Law

If Churchill didn't say it then it was Mark Twain. If it was neither of them then Thatcher said it.

If it wasn't Churchill or Twain, it was generally Wilde, Coward, Mencken or Birkenhead. Thatcher never said anything knowingly amusing in her entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Triskan said:

This article by Frank Rich argues that the Dems are fools if they focus too much on going after the rural white vote that they lost.  Whether one agrees with his assessment or not the article is a great summary of the recent cottage industry of pieces on this demographic.

Personally I think that Rich is largely right in that a huge portion of this demographic is never going to stop voting GOP.  That said, Obama was able to thread the needle and turn out big numbers of Dems but also get a bit of this rural demographic as well.  There really was such a thing as the rural white guy that voted Obama over Romney but Trump over Clinton.  Maybe Rich's point is simply that expectations should be limited in terms of how much of the Dems should pursue this demographic.

How about pursuing the "not giving us a shit candidate who is extremely unpopular" demographic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Sean Spicer has just said 45 is ....I don't know what to call it. Trump doubled down on Obama spying on him, then tripled down, then ...quadrupled down?  He's quintupling down, sextupling down?  He was just asked if Trump would now apologize for his comments, and Spicer said Comey said "There is no evidence of surveillance on Trump at the moment".

I don't recall he said 'at the moment'? Did he say 'at the moment'?

And Trump is attacking Comey for refusing to say what his discussions with Obama were, the suggestion being, I think, that Obama himself was the leaker of the Flynn information.

And the disgusting thing is, Spicer than continues on to say every single person involved in investigating Russian contacts have found nothing and it's time to stop talking about it because it's untrue. This after 16 or 17 US security services have said Trump was not 'wiretapped'.

CNN has replayed that section of testimony and I can confirm Comey did NOT use the words "at the moment'. He definitively said the FBI found no evidence and said he was authorized on behalf of the Justice Department to say they had found no evidence either.

The "at the moment" is a complete invention of the WH, and they suggested it was a continuing investigation. Looking at Russian links is a continuing investigation, not Obama spying on 45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MerenthaClone said:

Oh good, lets re-litigate the fucking primary again

Yeah, cause it turned out so well the first time, didn't it?

 

Look, I'm not pointing just to the Bernie thing. This woman had an insane amount of baggage. Granted, a fair percentage of it was bullshit, but I understand why people don't like her. I think many of them sorely misunderstood the lesser of two evils argument, but I get why they couldn't vote for her. She was not a good candidate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Triskan said:

True, but given that there was supposed to be this deeply-entrenched norm that you don't mention any of this stuff in the final months of the election it makes the decision to announce the Clinton investigation even more weird.  But also, this...doesn't quite right.  When Comey announced the new inquiries due to the Weiner stuff that had appeared that was necessarily an ongoing investigation.

Comey's problem was that he testified under oath to Congress that his investigation of Clinton's email was closed.  With the discovery of the new Wiener emails, he felt obligated to update his testimony to Congress.  I can see why he did what he did.  I can also see why others feel that he should have found out if there was anything new in the emails before deciding whether to send out his letter.  But I don't think Comey was acting maliciously against Clinton.  In hindsight, yeah, I think sending the letter was a mistake because ultimately they were able to review the emails before the election, but it was not clear when he sent the letter that they would be able to do so.

Also, people like to blame Comey, but Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton deserve much of the blame in this particular matter as well.  Had Bill Clinton and Lynch not had their tarmac meeting, Lynch would have been in charge of the Clinton email investigation, and Comey would not have had to be the public face of the investigation.  Both Clinton and Lynch knew better than to meet in the middle of an active investigation.  I couldn't believe the stupidity when it happened.  In addition, apparently Lynch and other DOJ officials were aware of Comey's letter before he sent it out, but Lynch chose not to order him to not send the letter.  If Lynch felt strongly about the letter, she should have ordered him not to send the letter.  Did she refrain because she felt her hands were tied after meeting with Clinton?  Probably, but she never officially recused herself from the investigation, so she could have given the order.

Here's a Washington Post article that goes into all of this in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I must be slow, but I just realized that today is the 2 month anniversary of Trump's presidency.

In one way, that is one devastating realization. It absolutely feels like a year or so. The intensity so far is staggering.

In another, weirder way, there's something encouraging about it. Because it seems like this level of ridiculousness is something that cannot go on. The political environment is simply too absurd, too hostile and too full of bullshit on a daily basis. Four years of this would wear everybody down on every side of every spectrum. Something's gotta give at some point, whether it's a smoking gun scandal finally showing up somewhere, or Congress getting exhausted from defending Trump, or his soft supporters finally tiring of his schtick (which would lead to Congress dumping him in any case).

Of course, I guess it could also end up being the media giving in or coming under legislative restrictions at some point, or dissenters growing apathetic like Bannon is counting on. But I choose to believe the bullshitters will get their due at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, cause it turned out so well the first time, didn't it?

 

Look, I'm not pointing just to the Bernie thing. This woman had an insane amount of baggage. Granted, a fair percentage of it was bullshit, but I understand why people don't like her. I think many of them sorely misunderstood the lesser of two evils argument, but I get why they couldn't vote for her. She was not a good candidate.  

Here's the frightening problem though, the Dems arguably didn't have anyone better. Clinton certainly had more negative baggage than just about anyone else, but if you examine the top elected Democrats you quickly realize that there aren't many good prospects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the frightening problem though, the Dems arguably didn't have anyone better. Clinton certainly had more negative baggage than just about anyone else, but if you examine the top elected Democrats you quickly realize that there aren't many good prospects. 

Yeah, that's a fair point as well. I just think you have to be pretty goddamn bad to lose to this chump. I suppose I'm just looking for someone to blame here. Probably not very rational on my part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Wow, I must be slow, but I just realized that today is the 2 month anniversary of Trump's presidency.

In one way, that is one devastating realization. It absolutely feels like a year or so. The intensity so far is staggering.

In another, weirder way, there's something encouraging about it. Because it seems like this level of ridiculousness is something that cannot go on. The political environment is simply too absurd, too hostile and too full of bullshit on a daily basis. Four years of this would wear everybody down on every side of every spectrum. Something's gotta give at some point, whether it's a smoking gun scandal finally showing up somewhere, or Congress getting exhausted from defending Trump, or his soft supporters finally tiring of his schtick (which would lead to Congress dumping him in any case).

From my perspective in Germany, sitting in a Europe with insane populists on the rise on all sides and watching the current meltdown of Erdogan into a namecalling manchild drunk on power, I believe I can safely say: Nah. The insanity won't stop. I may be an idealist, but I'm not an optimist. Something bad, really, really bad is about to happen, I'm afraid. I just hope there is still some way to steer the rudder around in a way that it won't get apocalyptic.

On the other hand, it has become a great time for comedy: http://68.media.tumblr.com/6751e9d49676cb4d2997643a351fc9d7/tumblr_on4od9nZMR1tk9cflo1_1280.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, cause it turned out so well the first time, didn't it?

 

Look, I'm not pointing just to the Bernie thing. This woman had an insane amount of baggage. Granted, a fair percentage of it was bullshit, but I understand why people don't like her. I think many of them sorely misunderstood the lesser of two evils argument, but I get why they couldn't vote for her. She was not a good candidate.  

No, I'm saying who fucking cares right now?  The primary and general both happened and unless it is somehow directly related to what we should do in the future (like the discussion is about, say, who the next Dem nominee should be) then its more of the same circular arguing that happened for months.  And its a topic a ton of people feel very strongly about, so has a tendency to grab USPolitics threads and derail it for days.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MerenthaClone said:

No, I'm saying who fucking cares right now?  The primary and general both happened and unless it is somehow directly related to what we should do in the future (like the discussion is about, say, who the next Dem nominee should be) then its more of the same circular arguing that happened for months.  And its a topic a ton of people feel very strongly about, so has a tendency to grab USPolitics threads and derail it for days.  

Agreed. I'm just bitching and moaning here to no productive purpose. You're absolutely right. What's done is done. There's no turning back the clock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I'm still a bit surprised that O'Malley received so little backing in the polls.  I realize that the party establishment heavily backed Hillary, but I'd have thought that O'Malley would have done better in getting some of the support that didn't go to Bernie.  

Mudguard - Thanks for the reminder on the "update the testimony' thing.  That does help explain.  Psychology is a funny thing.  As many horrified by Trump have been, I've been lamenting Comey at times, but now that I'm hopeful he's going to harm Trump I'm seeing his actions in the Fall in a more favorable light.  So the horrible conclusion for me is that like the literature states even those aware of the cognitive biases are still victim to them, lol.

As someone who sent money to O'Malley before he withdrew, I think a lot of that was because there were many, many people out there who backed Clinton who were NOT "the party establishment" in the sense of being designated leaders, nationally or locally, but who were the loyal footsoldiers of the party over the last several decades. It wasn't just the people working for the DNCC in Washington who were adamant about Clinton being the only possible candidate for the party to nominate in 2016 -- it was hundreds of thousands if not millions of feminist and minority voters who really felt that Hillary Clinton was "owed" the nomination because she was so qualified and had paid so many dues. Baby boomer age feminists (not all of them women themselves) just identified with her so strongly that they were not able to see how unenthused other large parts of the Democratic voting base were about her. If one spoke up questioning whether or not she was really the best candidate for 2016, especially if you weren't far enough left to be comfortable as a Sanders cheerleader, you were seen as being a traitor to the inevitable triumph of the first woman president. I will admit that I very seldom brought up my doubts about Clinton and my hopes that O'Malley would do well with any of my politically active friends because I didn't want the derisive blowback I was sure I would get.

On this board people who are tempted to still bring up these issues are usually critical of Hillary Clinton -- but in other parts of my personal life, where I interact with lots of left-leaning people over the age of 45, they are still posting on Facebook arguments about how Clinton was really a wonderful candidate and blaming everything on Comey and the Russians. They are much more likely to bring up the topic than those who were skeptical of Hillary Clinton are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toth said:

From my perspective in Germany, sitting in a Europe with insane populists on the rise on all sides and watching the current meltdown of Erdogan into a namecalling manchild drunk on power, I believe I can safely say: Nah. The insanity won't stop. I may be an idealist, but I'm not an optimist. Something bad, really, really bad is about to happen, I'm afraid. I just hope there is still some way to steer the rudder around in a way that it won't get apocalyptic.

If the French can keep their shit together it should be all right. If they don't... All bets are off the table. I've been toying with the idea of opening a thread about the French elections but the insanity of it is such that I can't bring myself to explain to other people how terrifying it has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm someone who had no serious issues with Clinton the Candidate.  I think she was solid, yet had flaws like any decent politician.  Take how you will how serious you believe those flaws to be.

That being said, what kind of speculative alternate history fiction will we see one day about all of this if Clinton hadn't been the Democratic nominee? What would have been the scenarios of Russian hacking if the Democratic nominee hadn't had the baggage...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I'm someone who had no serious issues with Clinton the Candidate.  I think she was solid, yet had flaws like any decent politician.  Take how you will how serious you believe those flaws to be.

That being said, what kind of speculative alternate history fiction will we see one day about all of this if Clinton hadn't been the Democratic nominee? What would have been the scenarios of Russian hacking if the Democratic nominee hadn't had the baggage...?

I suppose it might have been playing into Russian hands to have nominated Bernie over Hillary. Seems like that might have been one of the things they were angling for, given the nature of the DNC leaks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holly crap, just stumbled upon a live of Trump's rally in Louisville and he seems to have a problem making the difference between a 100$ and a 100% import tax (he's just used those interchangeably twice).

And the crowd is cheering.

Now he's talking about changing NAFTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If the French can keep their shit together it should be all right. If they don't... All bets are off the table. I've been toying with the idea of opening a thread about the French elections but the insanity of it is such that I can't bring myself to explain to other people how terrifying it has become.

Can you please do it? I figure this is *the* pivotal event for the West in 2017, but I have no idea about the nuances except what everyone says: That Macron will probably tie with Le Pen in first round, then win the second (provided there aren't too many instances of people pulling guns in airports and screaming shit involving Allah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...