US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

I think recusing himself will take the pressure off him for now.  Unless something else comes to light, I just don't see him stepping down.

I think this is right.

His answers haven't been great. Originally he can't remember what happened but now he can give a play by play of the discussion including talk of Ukraine which turned testy? He originally mentioned in his prepared remarks he should have "slowed down" but in the off the cuff remarks, he didn't mention it because he was taken aback by the question (even though he didn't actually answer it)?

I don't know. Can't see much else coming from this as Swordfish said unless transcripts magically come out which won't happen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I think recusing himself will take the pressure off him for now.  Unless something else comes to light, I just don't see him stepping down.

I suppose, but recusing himself certainly improves the chances of something else coming to light. I think this Russian angle has teeth. Maybe sharp enough to tear this administration to shreds. I guess only time will tell.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I suppose, but recusing himself certainly improves the chances of something else coming to light. I think this Russian angle has teeth. Maybe sharp enough to tear this administration to shreds. I guess only time will tell.

Entirely possible.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Swordfish said:

Entirely possible.

Well shit, I've been wrong before. Lulz. You only have to go back about 4 posts. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Why was he meeting with the Russians in the first place? Even if he was talking to them only about Ukraine and getting testy (rather than cosy) with them, if he's not doing it with State being fully informed and briefed about what he's going to say then there is a good chance he'll be undermining current White House and State department efforts.

Since when is it OK for a senator of the party in opposition to the president to be swanning up to embassis for a serious chin wag on significant diplomatic issues? That's nuts.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Well shit, I've been wrong before. Lulz. You only have to go back about 4 posts. 

heh.  I'm with you though.  There's certainly a lot of smoke........

[denstorebog]

You know what really annoys me?

That conventional wisdom and countless examples tells us that even incompetent administrations are perfectly capable of establishing succesful fascist authocracies.

Because if that wasn't the case, I'd be eating popcorn and laughing my ass off right now, and probably all through the year.

[sToNED_CAT]

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Since when is it OK for a senator of the party in opposition to the president to be swanning up to embassis for a serious chin wag on significant diplomatic issues? That's nuts.

It is actually pretty normal and it is done all the time.

[Trebla]

I ALMOST feel sorry for Sean Spicer. 

Baghdad Bob is somewhere nodding his approval. 

[denstorebog]

And Fox immediately books a 1-on-1 interview with Sessions and Spicer, respectively, both this evening. Damage control squad is on the case!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Trebla said:

I ALMOST feel sorry for Sean Spicer. 

Baghdad Bob is somewhere nodding his approval. 

As many of us said before, he took the worst job in Washington. Maybe it's the worst ever.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

It is actually pretty normal and it is done all the time.

Yeah it's pretty normal. What's not though is what Sessions did.

[Altherion]

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Of course, the root cause of this is gun culture in the US, which is completely crazy.

I don't think it is crazy so much as it is deceptive. It is true that the publicly stated reasons for owning guns range from silly to not worth it when considering the drawbacks. However, if you read the text of the Second Amendment, the real reason (which is rarely mentioned nowadays) is effectively Mao's famous precept on guns and political power which the Founders understood long before Mao was born and is still valid today.

For example, what is there to stop the security agencies from ousting Trump by constructing a false narrative (complete with evidence) about Russia or about some other scandal? This manner of deception is their bread and butter; there is no technical reason they can't come up with a very plausible case and there's significant opposition to Trump within the intelligence community. However, it is highly unlikely that they will go this route because nobody wants a civil war and, in that situation, Trump can instigate one with a tweet or it might even happen without him trying.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Loves me some Franken...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/02/al-franken-reminds-jeff-sessions-the-ambassador-from-russia-is-a-russian/

[denstorebog]

So, on the topic of bets, what do you think is going to happen now?

Will Congress try to smoothe this over? Or will they go for a seemingly unpartisan special prosecutor who will presumably be good to them, and hope for that to be enough to calm the waters? Or will they finally grow a pair and go for someone who is actually demonstrably unpartisan?

And finally, what scope would the prosecutor be given? Just Sessions' testimonials, or the whole administration shitshow?

On one hand, a number of R-senators have come out against Sessions. But somehow I doubt they'll cede more than a step at a time. So the truly neutral investigation of Trump & co. may still be a ways off.

[Rippounet]

55 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think it is crazy so much as it is deceptive. It is true that the publicly stated reasons for owning guns range from silly to not worth it when considering the drawbacks. However, if you read the text of the Second Amendment, the real reason (which is rarely mentioned nowadays) is effectively Mao's famous precept on guns and political power which the Founders understood long before Mao was born and is still valid today.

For example, what is there to stop the security agencies from ousting Trump by constructing a false narrative (complete with evidence) about Russia or about some other scandal? This manner of deception is their bread and butter; there is no technical reason they can't come up with a very plausible case and there's significant opposition to Trump within the intelligence community. However, it is highly unlikely that they will go this route because nobody wants a civil war and, in that situation, Trump can instigate one with a tweet or it might even happen without him trying.

Interesting arguments, but I would strongly disagree on many levels.

About the idea that guns were originally meant as a kind of political power... Yes, this is correct (and actually is one of the oft publicly stated reasons for gun culture). Madison made this very clear in Federalist 46. But a bit of context matters. The way Madison saw it, a federal army would never be as strong as the states' (or citizens') militias, which made the 2nd amendment a possible check against excessive federal power. With a federal army being as powerful as it is today, the argument becomes highly dubious. I don't believe that anyone in DC ever really worries about a popular uprising.

Then there's the fact that what you're talking about is not what the framers had in mind. You're talking about the way a given faction would react to the impeachment of the president. You're technically not talking about federal overreach, you're talking about how some people could react violently to a crisis within the federal government, which is very different. While I can imagine local "militias" fighting federal abuses, I don't believe even the most extreme partisan politics could lead to serious uprisings.
Right-wing militias have never prevented federal actions or decisions. Most of them are under FBI surveillance and their leaders will be arrested in the blink of an eye if they start anything funny. There could be eruptions of violence across the country, but nothing close to a "civil war."
Or perhaps you're vastly overestimating Trump's popular support and the fanaticism of his supporters.
Then there's the problem that even diehard supporters might be perfectly willing to believe Trump has been colluding with Russia. Everything points in that direction. So far, none of the evidence about his appointees' involvement has been fabricated. Why would anyone take arms to protect Trump when most people may be willing to believe he is in fact working with Putin? Would you?

Of all the reasons to preserve the 2nd amendment, political power is imho one of the silliest. Guns don't give anyone any kind of meaningful political power or influence. Not in our world. This is the illusion that is sold to simple folks by the gun industry and the Republican Party, a kind of security blanket for the most vulnerable individuals. Every once in a while, the specter of a nefarious undemocratic government is used as a boogeyman so that people associate guns with democracy and liberty. That way they can be stripped of any actual power and keep dreaming of a zombie apocalypse.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I don't think it is crazy so much as it is deceptive. It is true that the publicly stated reasons for owning guns range from silly to not worth it when considering the drawbacks. However, if you read the text of the Second Amendment, the real reason (which is rarely mentioned nowadays) is effectively Mao's famous precept on guns and political power which the Founders understood long before Mao was born and is still valid today.

For example, what is there to stop the security agencies from ousting Trump by constructing a false narrative (complete with evidence) about Russia or about some other scandal? This manner of deception is their bread and butter; there is no technical reason they can't come up with a very plausible case and there's significant opposition to Trump within the intelligence community. However, it is highly unlikely that they will go this route because nobody wants a civil war and, in that situation, Trump can instigate one with a tweet or it might even happen without him trying.

If you think civilians armed with small arms totally untrained in warfare is the bulwark against that then I think you are more delluded than the people who put forward those silly arguments you allude to in the first paragraph.

Seriously, the thing that stops govt agencies from criminally riding roughshod over the constitution and democratic principles is a respect for the constitution and democratic principles (at least as they apply in the USA, when it comes to other countries their commitment is to the interests of the USA and not so much to democratic principles). That's the thing that's stopping them. Not the thought that there might be a civil war, that they would still win assuming the military is virtually down to the last soldier on board with the take over plan, but would cost a lot of American lives.

That's the real fallacy, that there is somehow any kind of mutually assured destruction deterrent between the govt military power and civilian militia capability.

 

[Zorral]

In the meantime, the enemy of the people, i.e the free press that attempts to report actual news based on facts. 

I am thinking about the media that they are demonizing in the best german, italian, spanish manner as "enemies of the people" -- their label, not ours -- and the destruction and / or take-over and / or shuttering of presses back in the 1930's.. 

The prime targets here are public radio and television, NYTimes and the WaPo.

The WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. Who owns amazilla. Which owns the vast array of servers etc. that host everything from from netflix to you name it. They also sell drones.

 

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Interesting arguments, but I would strongly disagree on many levels.

About the idea that guns were originally meant as a kind of political power... Yes, this is correct (and actually is one of the oft publicly stated reasons for gun culture). Madison made this very clear in Federalist 46. But a bit of context matters. The way Madison saw it, a federal army would never be as strong as the states' (or citizens') militias, which made the 2nd amendment a possible check against excessive federal power. With a federal army being as powerful as it is today, the argument becomes highly dubious. I don't believe that anyone in DC ever really worries about a popular uprising.

I strongly disagree with you about the value of guns in the presence of a federal army. It is true that if the armed citizens drew up in lines and faced the army in a formal battle like the ones of 19th century wars, they would be easily annihilated. However, it is extremely unlikely that they would do so. First, it is not obvious that the army would be willing to fire on its own citizens. In many revolutions, it is not necessary to overwhelm or suborn the army, but only the palace guard. Second, you drastically underestimate the power of a large number of armed individuals spread out across a populated area. For example, it is difficult to estimate the number of IS fighters, but most estimates are on the other of 50,000 or even less. These is not a very large number, but they've been able to keep fighting for several years now despite the fact that their only form of counterattack on the territory of their enemies amount to random acts of violence (whereas for an uprising, all of the violence would be taking place on territory at least nominally controlled by their enemies).

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Then there's the fact that what you're talking about is not what the framers had in mind. You're talking about the way a given faction would react to the impeachment of the president. You're technically not talking about federal overreach, you're talking about how some people could react violently to a crisis within the federal government, which is very different.

From their point of view, it's not that different. One of the main premises of the Trump campaign (and a fairly popular one) is that Washington DC is a swamp of corruption and special interests so an outsider like Trump (a stretch, but enough people believed it) needs to be sent there to clean it up (hence "Drain the swamp!"). To the people who believe that Trump is fighting against the entirety of the establishment on behalf of the forgotten man, an attempt to take him down would look like the swamp creatures fighting back -- not a crisis within the federal government, but the government destroying a man the people sent there to clean it up.

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Right-wing militias have never prevented federal actions or decisions. Most of them are under FBI surveillance and their leaders will be arrested in the blink of an eye if they start anything funny. There could be eruptions of violence across the country, but nothing close to a "civil war."
Or perhaps you're vastly overestimating Trump's popular support and the fanaticism of his supporters.
Then there's the problem that even diehard supporters might be perfectly willing to believe Trump has been colluding with Russia. Everything points in that direction. So far, none of the evidence about his appointees' involvement has been fabricated. Why would anyone take arms to protect Trump when most people may be willing to believe he is in fact working with Putin? Would you?

I would not, but whether there would be a substantial number of people who would is a really interesting question. I do not believe that there is anything the mainstream media or the government can say or do to make the most diehard of Trump's supporters believe that he has been colluding with Russia. In fact, I do not believe even his mainstream supporters can be convinced of this. Keep in mind that they're reading an entirely different narrative that is presented by CNN, NYT, etc. For example, consider this Breitbart article (which I selected simply because it was the top one on their main page right now) as well as the comments to it. Does that look like people who are open to the idea that Trump is a Russian plant or, really, that anything negative about Trump being promulgated by the Democrats and the mainstream media is true?

Now, whether there are enough of them who would actually do anything about it is a different question. There are a few million people who own AR-15s and similar weapons. It's a pretty safe bet that most of them are Trump supporters (or at least Republicans). Could a few percent of these and perhaps another few percent of the much larger number of handgun owners be convinced to act? I don't know the answer to that.

[Zorral]

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you think civilians armed with small arms totally untrained in warfare is the bulwark against that then I think you are more delluded than the people who put forward those silly arguments you allude to in the first paragraph.

Seriously, the thing that stops govt agencies from criminally riding roughshod over the constitution and democratic principles is a respect for the constitution and democratic principles (at least as they apply in the USA, when it comes to other countries their commitment is to the interests of the USA and not so much to democratic principles). That's the thing that's stopping them. Not the thought that there might be a civil war, that they would still win assuming the military is virtually down to the last soldier on board with the take over plan, but would cost a lot of American lives.

That's the real fallacy, that there is somehow any kind of mutually assured destruction deterrent between the govt military power and civilian militia capability.

 

The well-armed regulated militias in the Constitution were to keep the slaves from rising and rebelling.  It wasn't about any other enemy from within or without. It was about policing the enslaved populations.  Every white man was obligated to have a gun in the south -- before the war of independence -- and respond to the call to chase down runaway, rebels and whatever black person wasn't behaving the way s/he was supposed to.  This is historical fact, not made-up.