Jump to content
Jace, Basilissa

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

It's hard not to see it going something like this.  So while a part of me has enjoyed the train wreck of the last few weeks with the Cohen revelations, the new Russian cash revelations, and the Rudy shit show which would spell utter doom for anyone else, in this case it just feels like it will just ensure that we get to the point that Trump takes the testing the fences approach all the way.  They're already flirting with pushing the "President can fire anyone at any time for any reason and pardon anyone at any time for any reason" philosophy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DanteGabriel said:

The Pope seems okay. My mother was okay too.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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

Apologist! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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

GOD IS DEAD

:commie:

GOD IS DEAD

:commie:

Meh, this isn't nearly as much fun as I thought it might be. Maybe I should go back to drinking.

Sorry guys, I just don't have it right now RANT!!!!! HATE! RAG3E

I guess I'm feeling a lil' down. I'm gonna do some meditation, maybe take a bath, see where that gets me.

This is really embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mexal said:

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. 

 

the peice of shit just resigned

also, how fucking creepy is this statement 

Quote

 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.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, the pee tape is real said:

the peice of shit just resigned

also, how fucking creepy is this statement 

 

Hmm, did this night just pull a bitch?

Obviously it's good riddance to the filth, but what about that line you quoted is so 'fucking creepy'?

I've had the shit smacked out of me while fucking. But I didn't file charges because we was just playing. That seems like a pretty standard non denial denial. It's a lie, that doesn't make it creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, the fact that the best an experienced and high profile prosecutor could come up with in his own defense is ‘rape, that’s where it goes too far’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, the pee tape is real said:

uh, the fact that the best an experienced and high profile prosecutor could come up with in his own defense is ‘rape, that’s where it goes too far’

Yeah, that's fair. And actually, I've got CNN on and about ten seconds after I hit the 'submit' button someone said exactly that.

 

ETA: Sarah Sanders controls her brow and eyes well, but her jaw clenches whenever someone brings up Gulliani or porn stars. It's subtle. Check the Pterygoideus Internus (That rounded part at the base of your mandible right by your neck, about an inch above that on the inside of the bone, you can feel the muscles). You can see that she grinds her teeth while the reporters are asking the questions because when she clamps her molars down it pushes soft tissue away from the teeth making a little bulge right below her ears.

She's very uncomfortable on the podium these days is what I'm getting at.

Edited by Pony Empress Jace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shryke said:

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.

It also helped that the Democrats had about 242 seats (~52%) in the House and 56 in the Senate at the time, and Nixon's approval was in the 20s by the beginning of 1974 (he resigned in August.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Even if I don't really believe his excuse I don't think there's anything odd about it. His claim is that they were engaged in roleplay. It being consensual or not is literally the only sticking point there. Either he's telling the truth and the hitting and such was part of an agreed upon sexual fantasy or (more likely imo) he was getting off on the whole thing and the women in question didn't agree to jack shit. It being non-consensual would basically be where it goes too far.

Edited by Shryke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Even if I don't really believe his excuse I don't think there's anything odd about it. His claim is that they were engaged in roleplay. It being consensual or not is literally the only sticking point there. Either he's telling the truth and the hitting and such was part of an agreed upon sexual fantasy or (more likely imo) he was getting off on the whole thing and the women in question didn't agree to jack shit. It being non-consensual would basically be where it goes too far.

My first thought was that he might have mentioned that he likes to play rough or some shit and then just started swinging without waiting for actual affirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

My first thought was that he might have mentioned that he likes to play rough or some shit and then just started swinging without waiting for actual affirmation.

My first thought was he didn't even bother with that and just assumed consent when they didn't fight back or whatever. The more you read the story the more it sounds like he got drunk and then got violent and then threatened them to keep them quiet.

There's been some tweets and such saying that anyone who was in the whole New York state-level politics scene is completely unsurprised by this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×