US Politics: Paradise Lost

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

im stating point blank that he would obstruct Obama at every single turn was before the Tea Party, after all.

Um, that's still within the last decade man.  Feel like we're arguing about scraps at this point.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

1.  I disagree with the premise it "didn't stop" Clinton.  We don't have data to prove it yet, but I'll bet quite a bit that that Clinton was much less effective in 2018 than she was in 2016.

I bet that's the case for Pelosi as well. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

2.  Pelosi is not Clinton.  Trump doesn't want to lock her up.  Hell, he just offered her help. 

Sarcastically, sure. Didn't he also just say how nice Gillum was? It'll last all of, oh, a week until after the House Intel committee starts coming down on him. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

But this is bullshit.  That leadership has been together for wayyy too long.  Look at the GOP leadership in 2006 and compare.  There's nothing wrong with challenging Pelosi, or Hoyer, or Clyburn, simply based on the fact they've been there way too long.  And, again, nobody is going to care about this except political junkies, so it doesn't matter.

And I'm fine with challenging Pelosi. Who said otherwise? I'm MORE fine challenging Hoyer, or Clyburn, or Schumer. That they want to get Pelosi out but aren't challenging any of them is really telling to me. That most of the people who signed against her are actually more centrist and not progressive is also telling. They're not wanting to get more progressive or inject 'new blood'; they just want power. 

But I don't think it's a good idea to support getting rid of her without a) having an actual idea who you're replacing her with and b ) saying why you want to get rid of her that actually makes sense. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Um, that's still within the last decade man.  Feel like we're arguing about scraps at this point.

Barely, but my point was that it isn't like he changed with the highly partisan tea party election. He was going that way and going full steam on that well before they were an inkling, and in a lot of ways he set the tone for that being successful. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That most of the people who signed against her are actually more centrist and not progressive is also telling. They're not wanting to get more progressive or inject 'new blood'; they just want power. 

 

Ok, here I'll agree with you.  If we get a bunch of old fuck moderates I'll be pissed too.  Can get on board with that one.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But I don't think it's a good idea to support getting rid of her without a) having an actual idea who you're replacing her with and b ) saying why you want to get rid of her that actually makes sense. 

Of course it's not.  Which is why it won't happen.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Barely, but my point was that it isn't like he changed with the highly partisan tea party election. He was going that way and going full steam on that well before they were an inkling, and in a lot of ways he set the tone for that being successful. 

K

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 11/19/2018 at 7:37 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That partisan polarization scares the crap out of me.

Agreed. I have no great love for the Republican Party, but I really don't think it's healthy for the country to basically sort itself into a collection of "Democrat Free Zones" or "Republican Free Zones".

I remember thinking at the time that this midterm wasn't one country swinging in a particular direction, but rather two countries swinging in opposite directions. That's mitigated somewhat as the count has continued, but it's still an uneasy situation. 

[Rippounet]

No one on this yet?

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ivanka-trump-used-a-personal-email-account-to-send-hundreds-of-emails-about-government-business-last-year/2018/11/19/6515d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.4cfdd2a2a11f&noredirect=on

Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year

Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.

White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.

[...]

Her husband’s use of personal email for government work drew intense scrutiny when it was first reported by Politico last fall. The revelation prompted demands from congressional investigators that Kushner preserve his records, which his attorney said he had. At the time, administration officials acknowledged to news organizations, including the New York Times and Politico, that Ivanka Trump had occasionally used a private account when she joined the White House.

But Trump had used her personal email for official business far more frequently than known, according to people familiar with the administration’s review — a fact that remained a closely held secret inside the White House.

“She was the worst offender in the White House,” said a former senior U.S. government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal dynamics.

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

This is also funny

Quote

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cnn-lawsuit-support/index.html

Fox News and other outlets join CNN fight over press access to White House

(CNN)More than a dozen news outlets -- from the Associated Press to USA Today, The Washington Post and Politico -- are filing friend-of-the-court briefs to support CNN and Jim Acosta's lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides.

The list represents most of the biggest news organizations in the United States.

The most notable name on the list is Fox News. In fact, Fox went further than most other media companies on Wednesday, issuing a statement that said "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized."

The statement came from Jay Wallace, the president of Fox News, hours after Fox commentators like Sean Hannity publicly criticized Acosta and CNN.

 

The two networks have been rivals for two decades -- but Wallace said this case is about the free press.

 

 

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

No one on this yet?

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

Without a doubt, absolutely not.   The sort of Trump supporter who chants that does not actually care about the emails.   They never cared about the emails.   They especially don’t care about emails when someone on their team is doing the email malfeasance.   In fact, they don’t care about any sort of malfeasance from their team at all.    The email chants were only ever about having something not explicitly sexist and racist to invoke in their asinine 5- minute-hates- mouthbreather support groups.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Could end the "lock her up" chant, mayhaps?

As butterbumps said, the chants have nothing to do with Hillary's emails anymore.  It's a clarion call to supporters that does not need an origin.  Like the term hoosier.

[Morpheus]

Lock her up is the Trumpers’ Free Bird, the shitpeople will not stand for its retirement. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Agreed. I have no great love for the Republican Party, but I really don't think it's healthy for the country to basically sort itself into a collection of "Democrat Free Zones" or "Republican Free Zones".

I remember thinking at the time that this midterm wasn't one country swinging in a particular direction, but rather two countries swinging in opposite directions. That's mitigated somewhat as the count has continued, but it's still an uneasy situation. 

I think that is an accurate description.  I also agree that I don’t care for the modern Republican Party but if the US does go for a hard partisan divide that continues to solidify very bad things will follow and people from both extremes will believe their actions are justified.  I say that not to imply that they are or are not justified but that violence is never isolated to those who “deserve” to be hurt.  Everyone will suffer if it comes to blows.

Further, how many nuclear weapons are currently under the control of the US Government?  What happens to those if the US falls into civil war?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

41 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Without a doubt, absolutely not.   The sort of Trump supporter who chants that does not actually care about the emails.   They never cared about the emails.   They especially don’t care about emails when someone on their team is doing the email malfeasance.   In fact, they don’t care about any sort of malfeasance from their team at all.    The email chants were only ever about having something not explicitly sexist and racist to invoke in their asinine 5- minute-hates- mouthbreather support groups.

Agreed.  Nor do they care about their blatent hypocrisy.  They care about their “team winning” by any means available.  They bitch and moan about “leftist” believing “the ends justify the means” while arguing “the ends justify the means”.

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think that is an accurate description.  I also agree that I don’t care for the modern Republican Party but if the US does go for a hard partisan divide that continues to solidify very bad things will follow and people from both extremes will believe their actions are justified.  I say that not to imply that they are or are not justified but that violence is never isolated to those who “deserve” to be hurt.  Everyone will suffer if it comes to blows.

Further, how many nuclear weapons are currently under the control of the US Government?  What happens to those if the US falls into civil war?

How realistic is a civil war in a country this big, where even in very polarized areas you still have something 65/35 split of people, and with the military as basically a separate entity?  I just can't even picture how it would work.  

It's not like there aren't Republicans and conservatives in California.  There just aren't a lot of palces where they are the majority.  Same goes for hard red States and Dems / Liberals.   

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I just can't even picture how it would work.

Me neither.  There'd have to be some weird split in the military for there to be an actual war, rather than an annihilation.

52 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Lock her up is the Trumpers’ Free Bird, the shitpeople will not stand for its retirement. 

Heh.  Isn't Free Bird compared to Lock Her Up oxymoronic?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

How realistic is a civil war in a country this big, where even in very polarized areas you still have something 65/35 split of people, and with the military as basically a separate entity?  I just can't even picture how it would work.  

It's not like there aren't Republicans and conservatives in California.  There just aren't a lot of palces where they are the majority.  Same goes for hard red States and Dems / Liberals.   

Actually, if it comes to blows the facts you cite would make things much worse.  It wouldn’t be armies in the field maneuvering for position in pitched battle. It would be neighbor against neighbor as the majority in an area seeks to purge the area of the disfavored belief.  

Lord only knows what the US military would do.  I suspect it would be divided as well.  Hence my question about our Nukes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

No one on this yet?

How dare you besmirch the princess!!!!

No cake for you!!!!!!

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Actually, if it comes to blows the facts you cite would make things much worse.  It wouldn’t be armies in the field maneuvering for position in pitched battle. It would be neighbor against neighbor as the majority in an area seeks to purge the area of the disfavored belief.  

I think what you're describing is more like the SA and later the SS acting like gangs in the street.  I don't mean to denigrate the impact that would have nor how possible it is, but that's not really civil war.  Got many friends that are conflict scholars and that doesn't meet their criteria.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

Further, how many nuclear weapons are currently under the control of the US Government?  What happens to those if the US falls into civil war?

How does the US "fall into civil war" when the political divide is not sectional like it was in 1860, but basically urban vs. rural? The big metro areas in Texas are all now Democratic. There were certainly a few pro-Union parts of the South back in the 1860s (mostly in Appalachia) and of course pro-Confederate areas of the border states like Missouri and Kentucky, but it still seems to me that the divide was way more geographical back then than it actually is now. How would a Civil War work even in South Carolina when Charleston now has a Democratic U.S. House representative?

Sorry, wrote that before I read the thread further but I agree with DMZ -- I don't think the kind of civil unrest that is possible would really rise to the definition of "war."

[S John]

I think the rhetoric is approaching unhealthy levels, but we can’t even get half the adults in this country to vote over politics let alone pick up a rifle and engage in actual politically motivated fighting.  

I don’t think the situation is desperate enough.  We’d have to add 1930’s level (or worse) economic strife to the current toxic mixture before I’d really start to be concerned about Civil War part deux.  I think far too many Americans lead generally comfortable lives and therefore have too much to lose for it to get out of hand on a large scale.  It isn’t impossible, I just don’t think we are anywhere near that point just yet.  Might be getting started on the road, but there are still plenty of opportunities for course correction.

[Kalbear]

I think you won't see the high level of unrest for 10 to 20 years. 

By that time climate change will have really kicked in both in the US and the rest of the world, and either the US will be changing climate deniers from lampposts or securing its borders quite violently from massive waves of ecological migrants. Or maybe both!

In either case, chances are good that the unrest will result in oddly uniting the US. It will also likely unite the US into something bad. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, Ormond said:

How does the US "fall into civil war" when the political divide is not sectional like it was in 1860, but basically urban vs. rural? The big metro areas in Texas are all now Democratic. There were certainly a few pro-Union parts of the South back in the 1860s (mostly in Appalachia) and of course pro-Confederate areas of the border states like Missouri and Kentucky, but it still seems to me that the divide was way more geographical back then than it actually is now. How would a Civil War work even in South Carolina when Charleston now has a Democratic U.S. House representative?

Sorry, wrote that before I read the thread further but I agree with DMZ -- I don't think the kind of civil unrest that is possible would really rise to the definition of "war."

It depends on how widespread such unrest and fighting would be.  If it ends with people pushing out those with minority viewpoints it could, then, break down on geographic lines.