U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please

[Week]

And Dad -- if you are reading this Song of Ice and Fire board political thread -- don't ever call me a "high quality person". Because, fuck, That seems almost like you've gone passed "I'm disappointed in you". It's more of a "god help you".

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Trump Continues to Milk Bizarro World Defense...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-team-blames-democrats-for-meeting-between-campaign-and-natalia-veselnitskaya-2017-7

So...

Quote

Veselnitskaya waged a harsh campaign against the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which blacklisted Russians suspected of human-rights abuses. Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the law “outrageous” and retaliated by blocking Americans from adopting Russian children.
 

The only Russian export Putin was willing to sacrifice in a righteous campaign to overturn an unjust, unjustified and discriminatory law (according to him / them) was the exporting of unwanted children.

1 hour ago, Week said:

And Dad -- if you are reading this Song of Ice and Fire board political thread -- don't ever call me a "high quality person". Because, fuck, That seems almost like you've gone passed "I'm disappointed in you". It's more of a "god help you".

It's rather beyond belief that Jr would have tweeted out this email tree without at least one other person being involved in the decision and possibly pushing Jr towards doing that. I can't for the life of me believe the person who is the focus of a scandal would freely and of their own volition without the influence of anyone choose to release communications that pretty much confirm the basis for the scandal.

Unless of course Jr wants to get off this train and only an act of self-sabotage, making him too toxic for any further political activity but difficult to prosecute for an actual crime, would do it. In which case, well played Jr.

Of course the calculated risk is that despite how bad it looks, there may not be anything prosecutable in this whole thing for any of the Trump players involved. Which helps feed the narrative of fake news. The liberal media blows something up into a shit storm, talks about prison, impeachment etc, but it ends up being nothing there, and the liberal media ends up with egg on their faces.

We'll see I guess.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I can't for the life of me believe the person who is the focus of a scandal would freely and of their own volition without the influence of anyone choose to release communications that pretty much confirm the basis for the scandal.

Nah.  You're right that it obviously wasn't of his own volition, but he didn't release them for transparency's sake.  He released them because the Gray Lady was about to release the most damaging parts anyway:

Quote

Trump Jr. tweeted that he was releasing the emails to be "totally transparent," but his release came moments before The New York Times published the content of the emails.

 

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Which helps feed the narrative of fake news.

That's why this is so significant.  It blows up the narrative of fake news, which was inextricably tied to the notion there was no fire to all the smoke the liberal media was puffing.  Only true diehards still don't concede there's at least some type of connection between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Granted, there's a lot of true diehards out there, but it's a significant change.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Nah.  You're right that it obviously wasn't of his own volition, but he didn't release them for transparency's sake.  He released them because the Gray Lady was about to release the most damaging parts anyway:

 

That's why this is so significant.  It blows up the narrative of fake news, which was inextricably tied to the notion there was no fire to all the smoke the liberal media was puffing.  Only true diehards still don't concede there's at least some type of connection between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Granted, there's a lot of true diehards out there, but it's a significant change.

It only blows up the narrative if something meaningful (and by meaningful I mean actual legal consequences for people in team Trump) comes of this. If it basically amounts to a media storm, and other than bruised reputations, and Trump remaining above the fray (at least in terms of having direct proven involvement), there's no major consequences then the narrative shifts back to fake news. If the liberal media and democrats are throwing shit they expect to stick, and the shit hits a fan pointing straight back at them, then it'll be Dems and the liberal media that come off second best.

So far, as bad as all this looks for Jr it's still largely smoke. You can start to believe there's fire once charges are laid.

The interesting thing is, if all Jr, Jared and Manafort did turns out to be legal, albeit shady, then consider how that potentially affects future campaigning. You can use foreign nationals and even agents of foreign govts, just as long as no money changes hands and there were no direct promises of favours in return.

I wonder if anyone is going to propose any amendments to the law to specifically cover information trading as a thing of value from which foreign nationals are prohibited.

[Inigima]

So, uh. If you think Trump is a traitor to the country, what does that make the Republicans in Congress who aren't doing anything about it?

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, denstorebog said:

On a funnier / scarier note, let's play "Real or The Onion?"

Kid Rock for Senate '18

Take your guess.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

AWWW HELL YEAH IT'S REAL, CUZ THIS IS 2017 AND THE WORLD IS GOING MAAAAD

 

not political, but friendly reminder

http://www.stereogum.com/1693871/kid-rock-subpoenaed-to-produce-glass-dildo-as-evidence-in-insane-clown-posse-lawsuit/news/

 

[DMC]

51 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It only blows up the narrative if something meaningful (and by meaningful I mean actual legal consequences for people in team Trump) comes of this.

The ultimate legal consequences for "team" Trump don't matter.  They're a means to an end - and that's important.  In terms of political scandals, I grew up during the Plame affair.  Every Democrat I knew, many of them quite prominent, was sure they'd get Rove.  They didn't, they got Scooter Libby instead; Cheney's lackey with all his strange literary endeavors.  Even if Fitzgerald got Rove, so what?  

White House advisors are eminently dispensable.  Other than Valerie Jarrett, whose purview was limited to being a good friend to the Obamas, the longest serving WHO employee truly in the president's inner circle was Andy Card.  Before that, you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a longer serving CoS, and Card served for a little over five years.  Political strategists, like Rove, or Axelrod, or Bannon, have even shorter shelf lives because they move on.  

You can take out those around the president, but odds are they were going to leave soon anyway.  The Plame affair had no impact on Dubya's presidency.  Iran-Contra was incredibly more successful in indicting and even convicting administration officials of crimes, but both Reagan and even VP Bush Sr. were insulated.  Reagan's approval took a hit, sure, but it leveled at about 50 percent, jumped up around his lame duck period, and he's the only one in the modern era that got his sitting VP elected after him.

The Gingrich Congress overplayed their hand pursuing impeachment because Bill Clinton lied about infidelity, but I'll give them one thing.  They knew there was absolutely one singular target in capitalizing on political scandals:  The President.  Junior doesn't matter, Kushner doesn't matter, Bannon doesn't matter, his cabinet doesn't matter.  What matters is either removing Trump from the Oval or crippling his presidency to the point one term is ensured.

Now, the latter is why the "media storm" does matter.  Is this going to result in substantial changes in approval among Republicans for Trump?  No.  But I'll bet all the money in my pocket a significant amount of his strong supporters move to a lower level on the Likert scale after this and if they can't pass health care.  And if the scandal continues to engulf them and they can't do anything on tax reform either, those supporters that went from strong to regular start going to 5 (lean R) or 4 (independent).  

And if Mueller has the chance to do his job and eventually produce some substantive findings, perhaps even leverage Trump to hand over certain things he'd otherwise try to claim EP on because he doesn't want his son and/or son in law prosecuted, maybe his Republican approval gets down to the 60s.  Then the GOP on the Hill, who generally despise him, aren't afraid of him any more and it all comes crashing down.  Or, Trump fires Mueller then we truly have Watergate on our hands.  Either way, we'll see.

[Kalbear]

56 minutes ago, Inigima said:

So, uh. If you think Trump is a traitor to the country, what does that make the Republicans in Congress who aren't doing anything about it?

pragmatic

[Durckad]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

So, uh. If you think Trump is a traitor to the country, what does that make the Republicans in Congress who aren't doing anything about it?

Cowards, hypocrites, entirely lacking in convictions? How much more would you like me to go on?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

pragmatic

But at what point does it become pragmatic to dump him? Even at this point, he seems like one hell of an albatross to hang about their necks.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But at what point does it become pragmatic to dump him? Even at this point, he seems like one hell of an albatross to hang about their necks.

Easy question!  When it becomes electorally viable to oppose him based on GOP approval.  Like I said, that usually means around 60 percent  overall, with under 40 that identify as strong supporters.  He's not an albatross until then, he's a threat.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But at what point does it become pragmatic to dump him? Even at this point, he seems like one hell of an albatross to hang about their necks.

When conservatives stop trusting him. 

Right now, it's still the case that 85-90% of conservative primary voters support him. Those are who decides. If those numbers drop, you'll see switching, because the primary fights will be bad for them. If those numbers stay up, Republicans will continue to ride that Trump train as long as Trump will allow them to. 

 

[DMC]

^^ Oh shit, looks like I 'd you @Kalbear, and was more specific.  That's right, I know all the smilies and such now.  Only took my 5 years.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

^^ Oh shit, looks like I 'd you @Kalbear, and was more specific.  That's right, I know all the smilies and such now.  Only took my 5 years.

YOU BASTARD

[DMC]

See, all about the smilies now.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Triskan said:

Can you guys imagine how incongruent it would be if a Dem was a Trump?  Dems in the Senate and House would have caved so much more quickly that it would have not even have looked patriotic.  

Ok, I'll actually pay attention to this now.  I know this is a common tripe, I'm just not sure I agree at this point.  I do respect the irony the the GOP Congress is defending their president despite his clear ties to Russia.  But, the Dems are ideologically aligned too.  Moreover, if they had unified government, they do everything they could to keep their president afloat no matter how stupid (let's say, John Edwards for comparison).  The difference is where in which they would have been attacked.  FNC is binary sure, but if something like this was going on with a Democrat, CNN may be just as vociferous, but would MSNBC?  IMO, yeah, probably.  

So, I guess actually I ultimately agree - in that liberal media (more so than just cable news, just simplifying) would have abandoned such an incompetent POTUS much quicker, which would likely dovetail into abandonment by the public and intraparty MCs as well.  But, if you had an otherwise competent Democratic president that happened to be especially cozy with the Kremlin?  Well, I'm not sure.  I've thought all my life that Democrats are way too feckless, but they've grown some balls as polarization has crystallized.  I suppose that's a side effect.

[Ice Queen]

13 hours ago, Mudguard said:

It doesn't seem that Russia was being very subtle this past election with all of their meddling.  Their fingerprints are everywhere.  Their actions seemed pretty blatant to me.  It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian lawyer was working in some capacity with the Russian government, that she was being used as an intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump.  Otherwise, the meeting would be pointless.  Why would Trump agree to do anything for her if she brought nothing of value?  Just doesn't make any sense.

Right now, my feeling is that they were colluding, in the sense that they had discussions with Russian and welcomed any assistance that they could provide, but they just didn't think that there was anything wrong with it.  I don't think that this type of collusion, if true, amounts to treason or aiding and abetting the enemy.  It just looks really, really bad.  They would have had to actively encourage or ask the Russians to do something illegal, such as hack the servers, to get in trouble.  Maybe they were that stupid, but I'd need to see some evidence.  

They did. 

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

~ DJT, July 27, 2016

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If you're driving drunk, it is.  

Two can play this game:

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

^^ Oh shit, looks like I 'd you @Kalbear, and was more specific.  That's right, I know all the smilies and such now.  Only took my 5 years.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I caught this last night. It's an interesting take on why Kushner and/or his lawyers are the ones who leaked the Don Jr emails:

 

Also, Kushner's father is an absolute scumbag. 

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, I'll actually pay attention to this now.  I know this is a common tripe, I'm just not sure I agree at this point.  I do respect the irony the the GOP Congress is defending their president despite his clear ties to Russia.  But, the Dems are ideologically aligned too.  Moreover, if they had unified government, they do everything they could to keep their president afloat no matter how stupid (let's say, John Edwards for comparison).  The difference is where in which they would have been attacked.  FNC is binary sure, but if something like this was going on with a Democrat, CNN may be just as vociferous, but would MSNBC?  IMO, yeah, probably.  

So, I guess actually I ultimately agree - in that liberal media (more so than just cable news, just simplifying) would have abandoned such an incompetent POTUS much quicker, which would likely dovetail into abandonment by the public and intraparty MCs as well.  But, if you had an otherwise competent Democratic president that happened to be especially cozy with the Kremlin?  Well, I'm not sure.  I've thought all my life that Democrats are way too feckless, but they've grown some balls as polarization has crystallized.  I suppose that's a side effect.

When it comes to the decades long Trump's bed-mating with Russia, read The New Republic's piece on Trump, Russian mobsters and their money, and how ultimately they got him not only the Apprentice but the presidency.  All those years he was bankrupt and couldn't get financing but got gobs of Russian mob money.

https://newrepublic.com/article/143842/new-republic-augustseptember-issue-trumps-russian-laundromat

Edwards was never POTUS.  He ran for the nom and his moral turpitude (or what was interpreted as such by the media) shot him down with Dems and women equally.

IOW, the progressive, liberal, left or however one labels these various ilks that are NOT rethugs, radical xtian warrior, non-reality based ilks, tend to be convinced more by reality based facts, not ideology.  At least until they begin to wonk-interpret stats and polls, etc., and then depend on this rather than what is really felt and thought by large groups of non-wonks.  Which in this case makes them as non-reality based as the Apprentice watchers.

Also, in the context, you probably mean 'trope' not "tripe'?