Stannis is the man....nis

US Politics: Ask Fox News

314 posts in this topic

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

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes 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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note - what happened to Sally Yates' testimony, which was supposed to be part of today's hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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).

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

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. 

True. 

My wondering is more if it had been O'Malley or anyone other than those two.  I think it quite possible Russia wanted Bernie, but certainly not Clinton.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now he's rambling about the 2nd amendment and just said that 250 people would have shot [HIllary] if she'd won and made a speech about it.

16 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

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).

I'll no doubt do it at some point, but there's a lot to say (this is the craziest election campaign I've seen in my lifetime).

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

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

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. 

 

At least in the comments sections of the political articles I was reading, Sanders was vastly more popular than Clinton.  His supporters maintain that an utterly corrupt DNC sabotaged his campaign to promote Clinton.

 

That said, unless the Democratic Party finds a genuinely popular candidate, they WILL lose the 2020 campaign for POTUS. Hence, somebody like Oprah or Zuckerberg. Mondale. Gore. Hillary.  Qualified, dull as dirt candidates destined to lose. And the Democratic Party seems incapable of grasping this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Now he's rambling about the 2nd amendment and just said that 250 people would have shot [HIllary] if she'd won and made a speech about it.

I'll no doubt do it at some point, but there's a lot to say (this is the craziest election campaign I've seen in my lifetime).

Wait a sec.  The French are trying to outdo the unprecedented disaster that was the US presidential campaign...and succeeding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly, the closing moments of Trump's rally speech would probably have been scary if it hadn't been so weird.

"Now, with patriotism in our hearts, let us recite these words: 'We will make America strong again ..."

(Crowd goes along.)

"We will make America safe again ..."

(Crowd is excited. They know what's coming.)

"... and WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Microphone audio immediately cuts. The boy choir intro for "You Can't Always Get What You Want" starts playing.

Wtf? Kind of a mixed message going on.

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Wait a sec.  The French are trying to outdo the unprecedented disaster that was the US presidential campaign...and succeeding?

Considering there are four (or five?) presidential candidates as opposed to two, in the US, all with their own kind of baggage, with the top two going to the second round, and the outcome of said second round entirely dependent on who these top two candidates are... yes, it's madness. German election season is exciting too, for a German election in the 21st century so far (Merkel is in more trouble than she's ever been since becoming Chancellor), but it's a case of boring sanity compared to the French clusterfuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

 

 

At least in the comments sections of the political articles I was reading, Sanders was vastly more popular than Clinton.  His supporters maintain that an utterly corrupt DNC sabotaged his campaign to promote Clinton.

 

That said, unless the Democratic Party finds a genuinely popular candidate, they WILL lose the 2020 campaign for POTUS. Hence, somebody like Oprah or Zuckerberg. Mondale. Gore. Hillary.  Qualified, dull as dirt candidates destined to lose. And the Democratic Party seems incapable of grasping this.

I think a lot of unflattering words can be applied to Clinton, but I'm not sure dull is among them. She seemed to excite very strong opinions one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

 

 

At least in the comments sections of the political articles I was reading, Sanders was vastly more popular than Clinton.  His supporters maintain that an utterly corrupt DNC sabotaged his campaign to promote Clinton.

 

That said, unless the Democratic Party finds a genuinely popular candidate, they WILL lose the 2020 campaign for POTUS. Hence, somebody like Oprah or Zuckerberg. Mondale. Gore. Hillary.  Qualified, dull as dirt candidates destined to lose. And the Democratic Party seems incapable of grasping this.

Im a Bernie guy but this bs is part of the problem an why wikileaks was so successful the DNC didn't give him a fair playing field but he wasn't sabotaged 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the hearings today I became hopeful about some pigeons coming to roost on the White House occupants, but then Trump surrogate Jeffrey Lord came on and said he appeared on an Alabama radio show today. He was told by the host that no one is worried about 45's tweets about Obama spying on him because "we speak Americanese here, unlike the elites in Washington, and we all know exactly what the President was saying, he was saying he had been under surveillance."

Really, I despair for your country. :(

And Trump followers were interviewed at today's rally, and said, among other things, the media were making too much of a big deal over Russia and the President was doing a fine job, a mighty fine job, keeping his promises, like about immigrants, and it's not his fault the courts have blocked him, that's out of his control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now