U.S. Politics: The Flood Shall Wash Away The Cobbs

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, mormont said:

- But this is completely everyday business for celebrities anyway.

What shocks me, and has shocked me for a very long time, is how little his Evangelical base cares about his transgressions. I think his support from that group is still in the mid 80's despite Trump being a giant amalgamation of everything they preach against. But then again the Republican Platform is basically one big giant soup of cognitive dissonance, so maybe I shouldn't really be shocked. 

[Fragile Bird]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What shocks me, and has shocked me for a very long time, is how little his Evangelical base cares about his transgressions. I think his support from that group is still in the mid 80's despite Trump being a giant amalgamation of everything they preach against. But then again the Republican Platform is basically one big giant soup of cognitive dissonance, so maybe I shouldn't really be shocked. 

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Also Mueller won't subpoena him. But when he does, the President can't be subpoenaed anyway. Crooked Hillary wouldn't have been interviewed under oath. And anyone who says differently is part of the liberal fake news mainstream media.

People keep throwing around the term "constitutional crisis" when discussing Trump's bad behavior, but this is the real constitutional "crisis. What happens if (and probably when)"

(a) Trump refuses to sit down for an interview with Mueller

(b) Mueller subpoenas Trump

(c) Trump sues arguing that he can't be subpoenaed 

(d) A Judge sides with Mueller )I think more likely than not if we reach this point)

(e) Trump tells Mueller to try to come down to the WH and get him

I think this chain of events is entirely possible, and it could be incredibly dangerous. Normally at this point you'd just impeach the President, but we all know he won't get impeached by this Congress. Many of us have speculated how and why Trump might subvert the rule of law, and this could be an important fulcrum point.

[Morpheus]

As long as they think Trump, in pandering to them, can still put us on the path to becoming Gilead, they will excuse anything.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Oliver North is the new NRA prez. Now there is a man who was always responsible with guns.

Just closing the circle for all to see. The NRA is just an arm of the Republican party.

[DMC]

So this Gina Haspel nomination is kind of interesting.  On the one hand, it seems as if maybe she is worried about the confirmation hearing dredging up torture, which will look bad for CIA (and, obviously, her).  To that extent, well, yeah, that's what confirmation hearings are for.  Take your licks.  But on the other hand, I'd be surprised if she wasn't confirmed.  She presents an issue for many Democrats.  She's been endorsed by basically the nucleus of Obama's national security team (Panetta, Brennan, Clapper) and other previous directors (Tenet, Hayden).  If the many (many) Democratic Senators that voted for those guys' confirmations voted against her, the GOP would scream hypocrisy.  And, for once, they'd be right.

To be clear, I'm not looking to get into an argument on torture, or even Haspel's role therein, but merely how this is one of the few intriguing conundrums to arise for the Dems during the Trump era from a political perspective.

[Shryke]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

People keep throwing around the term "constitutional crisis" when discussing Trump's bad behavior, but this is the real constitutional "crisis. What happens if (and probably when)"

(a) Trump refuses to sit down for an interview with Mueller

(b) Mueller subpoenas Trump

(c) Trump sues arguing that he can't be subpoenaed 

(d) A Judge sides with Mueller )I think more likely than not if we reach this point)

(e) Trump tells Mueller to try to come down to the WH and get him

I think this chain of events is entirely possible, and it could be incredibly dangerous. Normally at this point you'd just impeach the President, but we all know he won't get impeached by this Congress. Many of us have speculated how and why Trump might subvert the rule of law, and this could be an important fulcrum point.

Eh. I mean, it's bad but it's not really much worse then anything that's already happening. I guess it would be more public.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So this Gina Haspel nomination is kind of interesting.  On the one hand, it seems as if maybe she is worried about the confirmation hearing dredging up torture, which will look bad for CIA (and, obviously, her).  To that extent, well, yeah, that's what confirmation hearings are for.  Take your licks.  But on the other hand, I'd be surprised if she wasn't confirmed.  She presents an issue for many Democrats.  She's been endorsed by basically the nucleus of Obama's national security team (Panetta, Brennan, Clapper) and other previous directors (Tenet, Hayden).  If the many (many) Democratic Senators that voted for those guys' confirmations voted against her, the GOP would scream hypocrisy.  And, for once, they'd be right.

To be clear, I'm not looking to get into an argument on torture, or even Haspel's role therein, but merely how this is one of the few intriguing conundrums to arise for the Dems during the Trump era from a political perspective.

I heard this morning that Trump is actually suspicious of how little Dem pushback she's gotten. They were joking on Inside Politics that Trump might pull her nomination because the Democrats aren't unhappy with it (relatively speaking, of course).

 

[Mexal]

So this isn't good. One of Trump's most outspoken critics and one that Dems are relying on if people get pardoned is now facing his own issues because it turns out, he's a piece of shit too. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer just wrote an article for the New Yorker about Eric Schneiderman physically assaulting at least 4 women, 2 of which are on the record. 

Quote

ric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women’s rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. As New York State’s highest-ranking law-enforcement officer, Schneiderman, who is sixty-three, has used his authority to take legal action against the disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein, and to demand greater compensation for the victims of Weinstein’s alleged sexual crimes. Last month, when the Times and this magazine were awarded a joint Pulitzer Prize for coverage of sexual harassment, Schneiderman issued a congratulatory tweet, praising “the brave women and men who spoke up about the sexual harassment they had endured at the hands of powerful men.” Without these women, he noted, “there would not be the critical national reckoning under way.”

Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence. All have been reluctant to speak out, fearing reprisal. But two of the women, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to The New Yorker on the record, because they feel that doing so could protect other women. They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as “assault.” They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say that they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked. Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him. (Schneiderman’s spokesperson said that he “never made any of these threats.”)

A third former romantic partner of Schneiderman’s told Manning Barish and Selvaratnam that he also repeatedly subjected her to nonconsensual physical violence, but she told them that she is too frightened of him to come forward. (The New Yorker has independently vetted the accounts that they gave of her allegations.) A fourth woman, an attorney who has held prominent positions in the New York legal community, says that Schneiderman made an advance toward her; when she rebuffed him, he slapped her across the face with such force that it left a mark that lingered the next day. She recalls screaming in surprise and pain, and beginning to cry, and says that she felt frightened. She has asked to remain unidentified, but shared a photograph of the injury with The New Yorker.

In a statement, Schneiderman said, “In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

 

[Jace, Extat]

 

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I heard this morning that Trump is actually suspicious of how little Dem pushback she's gotten. They were joking on Inside Politics that Trump might pull her nomination because the Democrats aren't unhappy with it (relatively speaking, of course).

That seems counter-intuitive to the general reporting, which is she felt like withdrawing then the white house (Sanders and Short) encouraged/convinced her not to.

[Jace, Extat]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That seems counter-intuitive to the general reporting, which is she felt like withdrawing then the white house (Sanders and Short) encouraged/convinced her not to.

I'm just passing along the word. I didn't catch what exactly started the conversation but I heard quite clearly from John King that there were reports that Trump was suspicious of the noncommittal Dems regarding her nomination. They then shared a few jokes about Trump doing Trump stuff.

I got the impression that it was just a little inside sources type thing, like Trump probably mentioned something about Dems wanting her to deep state him or something and someone passed that along to a journalist. It was like a sixty-second bit where they were talking about it, I don't think he's actively plotting to rescind her nomination or anything.

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What shocks me, and has shocked me for a very long time, is how little his Evangelical base cares about his transgressions. I think his support from that group is still in the mid 80's despite Trump being a giant amalgamation of everything they preach against. But then again the Republican Platform is basically one big giant soup of cognitive dissonance, so maybe I shouldn't really be shocked. 

It would be shocking, if white Evangelical Christianity were actually about the teachings of a pacifist redistributionist Jewish radical. But for them, it's about power and control and revenge for cultural grievance.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It would be shocking, if white Evangelical Christianity were actually about the teachings of a pacifist redistributionist Jewish radical. But for them, it's about power and control and revenge for cultural grievance.

I just chalk it up to a blanket rule that if you believe a magic man on a cloud talks to you then you're a piece of shit.

[DanteGabriel]

25 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I just chalk it up to a blanket rule that if you believe a magic man on a cloud talks to you then you're a piece of shit.

The Pope seems okay. My mother was okay too.

[Shryke]

It's easy to see going like that because that's basically exactly what happened with Watergate. Except that back then, eventually the Republican party caved under public outrage.

In the intervening years, they worked hard building a closed propaganda bubble to prevent it from ever happening again. I suspect they've succeeded.

[Shryke]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

The Pope seems okay. My mother was okay too.

Sorry DG, but your mother was apparently a piece of shit.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

The Pope seems okay. My mother was okay too.

I'll fuck the pope with a crushed pepsi can.

I will leave your mother out of this response.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

Please forgive my Pony Empress.  She watched True Detective S1 a few too many times.  

Apologist! 

[The Anti-Targ]

38 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I just chalk it up to a blanket rule that if you believe a magic man on a cloud talks to you then you're a piece of shit.

Hmmm, intolerant fundamentalist atheism. I'm sure that will end well.