Fez Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, Mexal said: "It was a coincidence". Actually I think Trump was played. A couple minutes before he tweeted, Fox News had a corner pop-up ad (I forgot what those are called) for the show, saying she had new information "proving Trump's wiretap claims." I think that's what got his interest. And after his tweet, Pirro decided to change her lead story to the Ryan thing; creating controversy that Trump supported it and leading to future higher ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 4 hours ago, Commodore said: so this entire thread bought the NATO invoice fake news It did pass the sniff-test for the neutral national news here in the Netherlands to report on it. Not good news for the USA with their trade partners and allies regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I think it's hilarious that the orange one is calling out HFC, The Club For Growth*, and the Heritage Foundation, aka, the conservative clown crew. I wish I could head down to DC and pull a Little Finger and stir up the shit between the Trumpsters and HFC, et al. Plus it makes the narrative of it's all the Democrats fault a bit harder to sell if he is going around saying this stuff. *although it would seem their preferred presidential candidates don't actually do a better job of promoting growth. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 50 minutes ago, dmc515 said: See, the problem I have is when you start describing our political system as an oligarchy, or frame things in a way that grants little hope for changing a state of affairs that is increasingly undemocratic, this only serves to bolster people's cynicism and apathy towards participation in government. I think I fall somewhere in the middle between the two of you. I absolutely agree with Kal's perception of where things can go from here. I don't think a prediction of the USA ceasing to be a democracy in anything but name within the next decade is overblown. It depends on a number of 'stopgap' events in the near future that need to take effect, and if they don't, there will be a tipping point that's very hard to come back from, barring the type of literal revolution that would need to take place in a country like today's Russia. The biggest of these stopgaps, obviously, is the 2020 election, which I see no reason to call at this point. It could be the biggest landslide in history as far as I'm concerned. Another stopgap is the FBI investigation and Russiagate, which could shake things up with unpredictable consequences. The eventual makeup of the Supreme Court and its willingness to put a brake on the administration's more heinous initiatives (like the war on sanctuary cities just announced today) is also important, doubly so for policies related to voter suppression and manipulation. Then we have the 2018 elections, the circumstances of which aren't clear yet. Obviously Congress is an uphill battle for the D's, but there's increased focus on gerrymandering and a desire to fight it, and the gubernatorial and legislative races which favor the D's heavily need to be considered as well. However, it is absolutely crucial that the Democrats start swapping out the old guard and realigning themselves with younger people and the lower/middle class. Otherwise, they're going nowhere. But I agree with Kal to the point that if we get to 2021 and the balance of power is basically the same, I have absolutely no faith in the system's ability to recover. You can only allow a faction of unscrupulous powergrabbers to sit alone at the table for so long before everything starts solidifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 2020 isn't much of a stop gap since the trump administration will repair its popularity and ensure reelection by allowing another 9/11 scale attack to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, Fez said: Actually I think Trump was played. A couple minutes before he tweeted, Fox News had a corner pop-up ad (I forgot what those are called) for the show, saying she had new information "proving Trump's wiretap claims." I think that's what got his interest. And after his tweet, Pirro decided to change her lead story to the Ryan thing; creating controversy that Trump supported it and leading to future higher ratings. Brian Seltzer brought this up and really does fit fine with Trump patterns. I wonder when Fox News will start to be heavily criticized for this sensationalist advertising since it is very well known how the President is an avid fan. Bill O'Reilly mention how President Trump should stick to facts. It will be good if Fox start by providing facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 How Right Wing Media Saved Obamacare... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-right-wing-media-helped-obamacare-in-spite-of-itself/520851/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Interesting angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, lokisnow said: 2020 isn't much of a stop gap since the trump administration will repair its popularity and ensure reelection by allowing another 9/11 scale attack to happen. I think an attack or incident involving the U.S. somewhere is inevitable, and either by using that or something else I'm pretty certain Trump pushes for a dog-wagging war. But I'm skeptical about how an administration could 'allow' a 9-11 to happen even if it wanted to. A false flag is actually more reasonable (by virtue of being a definable/controllable action requiring limited logistics) than an administration getting the Intel community to turn a blind eye at the right place/time that an outside factor chooses to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 52 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Well, I find describing your perspective - which is predicated on America's descent into authoritarianism - as pragmatic is laughable, but to each their own. It's pragmatic because I'm not relying on the past information about how resilient the US has been as my means of coping or hoping. I am looking at what is coming in as inputs - absurdly unusual elections, scandals, historically odd results, poll numbers - and taking them as they are. As an example, in the past we would have seen much stronger investigations into the Russian ties, instead of it being divided along party lines like it has been. In the past the POTUS being investigated for criminal offenses by the FBI would be a very big deal, and we know this because Iran/Contra was a fairly big deal. So was Lewinsky. It barely makes the front page and again is split among party lines. But note that I'm not saying things like what Seth Abramson said and pinning hopes on some huge trial, nor am I cynically suggesting another terrorist attack will be allowed. That's what I mean by pragmatic. Those things could happen, but they aren't that likely and aren't worth planning on. 52 minutes ago, dmc515 said: See, the problem I have is when you start describing our political system as an oligarchy, or frame things in a way that grants little hope for changing a state of affairs that is increasingly undemocratic, this only serves to bolster people's cynicism and apathy towards participation in government. I have found encouraging my students to have an appreciation for the institutions - if not the actors therein - and the republican design that has been resilient in this country for 220 years is the best way to foster participation and activism. But, hey, people are motivated differently. I think there's a lot of hope to change things, but relying on existing institutions and relying on bureaucratic inertia is not one of the places I have hopes. Focusing on the specific institutions is fine, but if you're then saying 'and that's why everything is going to be okay', that's where we differ. There are a few ways that I can see things going well, and only some of them are in voter's hands. Major scandal leads to impeachment/throwing out old guard. (not likely, not in my hands at all) Massive turnout and protest - this helps some, but only if it keeps going all the time. Democrats have a popular person and a popular plan - not in my hands, but this would help Involvement in local and state elections and encouraging fighting feds at this level - this is working at my state (WA) level, and I'll keep doing this more Judicial activism - not in my hands Of these, I have more hope in judicial events than most everything, but even that I'd say is about 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, lokisnow said: 2020 isn't much of a stop gap since the trump administration will repair its popularity and ensure reelection by allowing another 9/11 scale attack to happen. I'm not going to tell you that they are morally incapable of doing this, but that would be an incredibly risky move. 2020 is far away, but if something like that happened while Trump was as distrusted / disliked as he is now, an event like that could easily become fuel for the opposition, especially if the left-leaning media dug into the narrative that it was orchestrated / allowed. Bush got a big popularity boost (~30 percentage points) from 9/11, sure, but that was near the beginning of his term, at a time when people's opinion of him was more fluid. We're 2 months into Trump, and I think there's already a record-size portion of the population who will never, ever support Trump in the voting booth (just as there are those who will never abandon him). 3 years from now, that's probably even more the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I'm notoriously optimistic, but I don't see Trump getting re-elected. I didn't see him getting elected in the first place, so take that witha grain of salt, but in my opinion it really comes down to who the Dem's can find to stand against him for election. 2020 is going to be different than 2016 because in 2016 Trump had NO political record to stand on. The only things you could throw at him were things he did as a private citizen, while there were 2 decades of public service to use against Clinton. Absurdly, his lack of experience is a big part of why he won. He hit the right notes with the right people and also couldn't be blamed for any of the things that were currently pissing those people off, unlike every other Republican contender that he defeated (with the exception of Fiorina and Carson who are both kinda weirdos and far less known than Trump anyway) and ultimately HRC. They all provided plenty of ammo by the very nature of having a public service record. In 2020, whatever happens (or doesn't happen) between now and then are going to become Trump's record as a politician, and a record can be attacked. He'll be an 'outsider' no more. If things aren't markedly better in 4 years, I really think he gets tossed. His numbers are already terrible and we're only 3 months in. Dems need to be getting smart though and find the right person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 25 minutes ago, denstorebog said: *snip* Well, the funny thing is I actually somewhat agree on the electoral prospects - I think the Dems will likely gain some seats in the House in 2018, but retaking the Senate is an uphill battle and I think the GOP is likely to retain their majorities. Midterm electorates are trending increasingly right - which helps to offset the general disadvantage the president's party has in such contests. I also think it's quite possible Trump wins reelection, although like you I don't think we have any idea how 2020 will go right now. Further, I also agree with the general contention that Trump really only cares about his own brand, and "winning." The implications of such is where we diverge, and very much so. I think if the AHCA failure has taught Trump anything it's that legislating is hard. I don't anticipate him to be very active in that regard in the future (which it seems we still agree on). So, Trump is relegated to employ unilateral action to effect policy change. And in this respect, Trump's ability to control and "deconstruct" the bureaucracy is decidedly limited and constrained. Will he issue orders and reshape agencies in ways that I think will be detrimental to the country? Of course, but to suggest he will have the ability to influence the administrative state at anywhere near the levels necessary in order to actualize an truly authoritarian regime is ridiculous. Relatedly, and most importantly, I don't think the checks on his ability to control the government are going away anytime soon. From the media, to the courts, to the opposition party, to even his own members of Congress, there are plenty of competing interests - with their own independent sources of power - that will not allow an authoritarian Trump regime. And these checks have already clearly been demonstrated in the first two months of his presidency. 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It's pragmatic because I'm not relying on the past information about how resilient the US has been as my means of coping or hoping. I am looking at what is coming in as inputs - absurdly unusual elections, scandals, historically odd results, poll numbers - and taking them as they are. We've been through this before, but I do not agree with your characterization of those inputs - particularly poll numbers - as historically odd, other than I suppose the Russia investigation. And relying on past information to shape one's expectations on future events is not "a means of coping or hoping," it is how virtually everyone forms attitudes and, ultimately, makes decisions. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: in the past we would have seen much stronger investigations into the Russian ties, instead of it being divided along party lines like it has been. In the past the POTUS being investigated for criminal offenses by the FBI would be a very big deal, and we know this because Iran/Contra was a fairly big deal. So was Lewinsky. It barely makes the front page and again is split among party lines. I don't agree with this characterization either. Iran/Contra, and especially Lewinsky, were most certainly split among party lines. Maybe not completely, but we're talking about the difference between 80-90 percent of legislators and 100 percent partisanship here. 12 minutes ago, Kalbear said: But note that I'm not saying things like what Seth Abramson said and pinning hopes on some huge trial, nor am I cynically suggesting another terrorist attack will be allowed. I do appreciate that - and as I've said multiple times, a terrorist attack (although I think it's silly to suggest it will be "allowed") is something that scares the shit out of me. 13 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think there's a lot of hope to change things, but relying on existing institutions and relying on bureaucratic inertia is not one of the places I have hopes. Focusing on the specific institutions is fine, but if you're then saying 'and that's why everything is going to be okay', that's where we differ. Fuck no that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying (pretty much verbatim to my students) is these institutions provide you with the opportunity to get involved, make your voice heard, and ability to change things. And if you don't, then don't be surprised when things don't go your way. It's up to you (us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I personally think the EC is the biggest potential factor re: voter apathy. 2 of the last 3 Presidents won the election with a minority vote in a 2 party system. This is the kind of thing which, were it true in a smaller country, would be regarded by Americans as very sketchy and corrupt. At some level this has to register that way with many Americans regardless of their buying in to the superficial rationalizations. It could drive more voters to the ballot boxes, but IMO that's more likely following a 1 time deal. Now that it's the new normal I think it much more likely that people give up on the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 39 minutes ago, dmc515 said: I do appreciate that - and as I've said multiple times, a terrorist attack (although I think it's silly to suggest it will be "allowed") is something that scares the shit out of me. http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/218/674/6e7.jpg /Do you remember where you weren't when you didn't hear that nothing had happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 The sky is falling, or will fall, with the weakening/gutting of the EPA. The damage that can be done in a short period of time is very difficult to impossible to fix, and the effects aren't necessarily immediately observable. Our water and land are going to be poisoned on a greater scale than we've previously seen, and in the meantime water and other natural resources are going to be funneled into corporate possession. You can't unring that bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 5 hours ago, dmc515 said: Whether a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted is, constitutionally, an unsettled manner. However, since Watergate, the ability of other entities to investigate the administration and eventually bring articles of impeachment to Congress have been clarified. The FBI is probing potential Russia collusion and Sessions now has no ability to affect that process. Considering what has already been publicly reported by Comey, I see no reason to think Trump is more immune than any president since Nixon - at least any president that has copartisans controlling each chamber of Cong[/quote] Because I think this Republican Congress has demonstrated repeatedly that it is prepared, in a historically unprecedented way, to ignore his abuses? Is this somehow not obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Lets see if the pressure gets so much that he has to recuse himself like Sessions. If not, Nunes has effectively killed the House investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Speaking of Sessions, in today's press conference he once again threatened Sanctuary Cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 7 hours ago, Commodore said: so this entire thread bought the NATO invoice fake news congrats on having the acuity to address this when it was brought up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said: congrats on having the acuity to address this when it was brought up To be fair, though, my suspension of disbelief has been malfunctioning ever since the US elected an alligator to drain a swamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.