US Politics: A Farewell to Arms

[Larry of the Lawn]

Quote

Yet when I broached the question of if Democrats;specifically left-leaning media outlets;  were over covering this you stated; This is a bunch of pedantic mealy-mouthed nothing.  So your point is that some Democrats and left-leaning media outlets talk about Russia a lot?  Big fucking deal.  

I bet in 2003-4 you were saying "jeez would you guys talk about something other than the Iraq War?".  There's plenty of room for all sorts of political discussion.  

@Varysblackfyre321 : that's you in the last thread quoting me from somewhere I can't find.  

When I said that I genuinely believed you were concern trolling.  It's not like Dems were campaigning in 2018 on Russian interference - it was "protect the Mueller investigation", not "Impeach Trump for stuff we aren't sure happened".  So it bugged me that you attributed the press coverage of the investigation to "the Left" in general, just lumping everyone in with the media.  And I legitimately thought you were a troll.  

We still don't have the full report, the post you responded to was me expressing frustration at how the narrative looks so beneficial to Trump after the media ran it through the cash machine.  Essentially I was admitting that Taibbi, Greenwald, etc. look they were right the entire time - and that the coverage of the Russia investigation you were complaining about was pretty terrible as far as it being sensationalized.  

So, apologies: you were right to question the coverage, and I shouldn't have given you shit for it.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@OldGimletEye

I know the general stat, but I have no idea what the accurate number is. I’ve heard anywhere from 40% to 76% can’t afford to cover an unexpected $500 bill.

Anyways, those are the plebs. Not real Americans. Real Americans are self-made super rich people. Sometimes we need a small loan of $1,000,000.00 from our fathers though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Mudguard

Quote

A big question right now is why did Mueller punt on obstruction?  It's a very unusual move, and it's not clear why Mueller would have thought that Barr would be in a better position to make this decision, especially since Barr's view on the obstruction case was already well known by the public.  The only reason that might make sense to me is if Mueller felt that he was conflicted out of making the decision due to Trumps repeated personal attacks on Mueller, which Mueller may have felt was evidence of obstruction, but would put Mueller in a difficult position as a witness in an investigation that he was leading.

Maybe, but I have another theory. I think Mueller found enough to consider an indictment on obstruction, but it wasn’t a slam dunk case. It’s well known that prosecutors don’t like to bring charges that they could lose on, so instead he punted to Barr knowing how he’d act and Mueller wrote a report that was a road map for Congressional Democrats to determine if they want to impeach Trump or not.

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Stego said:

 

@Relic Travel (and particularly world travel) are absurd luxuries to most human beings on the planet. One cross Atlantic flight burns more fossil fuels than running a car for 12 weeks straight. It's shameful to fly too often, once you know the facts. People can (and reasonably do) refuse travel because it is the ultimate extravagance. 

I understand that people should meet others from disparate cultures, but world travel isn't the answer -- the internet is.

A - The internet is a sorry replacement for first hand experience. And we have seen that it drives people apart as much as it brings them together. 

B - America is the richest country in the history of the world. Travel is more available to most Americans than it ever has been in history. One does NOT have to travel in order to gain world perspective, but it certainly helps, ergo would be bette if more Americans traveled. 

ps - thanks to the awesome person leaving anonymous comments on that post. A donation in your anonymous name will be made to Swing Left. Have a great day =) 

[Ice Queen]

Republican congressman quotes Hitler on the House floor and no one bats an eyelash. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-adolf-hitler-democrats-press-big-lie_n_5c994c91e4b0743555497620

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I don’t know if that’s necessarily true.   Even just given what we know out in the open (things like Kushner wanting a private direct line to Russia, the Trump Tower deal, Fredo Jr.’s clear acceptance of a meeting for dirt on Hillary, how Trump keeps meeting with Putin without anyone but translators present, telling a foreign power to hack an opponent’s private account during a debate, etc), it’s pretty clear there’s a lot there that we should find unacceptable and probably subject to some kind of legal consequence.   The problem isn’t that these assholes are “innocent” or that there’s nothing to see here.   I think it’s that our laws are woefully insufficient to deal with the kind of abject venality of this family of syphillitic ulcers- this presidency seems to be exposing all the weaknesses in our laws.  And not just with this Russia business, but also with all these ridiculous things that aren’t technically illegal but remarkably corrupt like self-dealing, nepotism, not presenting tax returns, cheating on taxes, and so forth.   Maybe Dems should pursue that report relentlessly and start turning some of this “norm” business into law.

This is the part I still can’t get past. Jr. clearly knew he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government with the intent to receive something of value to influence an election. How does that get a pass?

And what makes it worse is he repeatedly lied about it. He changed his story four or five times. How is that not a cover up?

More broadly, if all these people were innocent, why did they all behave like the guiltiest people on the planet?

It doesn’t make sense unless you accept that they’re really just the dumbest people on the planet, and being an idiot is a justifiable excuse for unintentionally committing serious crimes.

[mormont]

There was a fair bit of discussion in this thread - most of it rather disapproving - when Jussie Smollett was charged with faking an assault on himself.

Interesting, then, to note that all charges against him have been dropped.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Stego said:

And to think, 6 more years of Trump all because @Kalbear didn't release his insider info to Mueller. What a shame.

 

@Relic Travel (and particularly world travel) are absurd luxuries to most human beings on the planet. One cross Atlantic flight burns more fossil fuels than running a car for 12 weeks straight. It's shameful to fly too often, once you know the facts. People can (and reasonably do) refuse travel because it is the ultimate extravagance. 

I understand that people should meet others from disparate cultures, but world travel isn't the answer -- the internet is.

That -- that is -- that's just -- well, not true.

Looking at the internet won't teach you a damned thing about the reality of what Puerto Rico is going through or who Puerto Ricans really are.  For just one godded instance.  Nor will getting off a very expensive, environmentally toxic and destructive cruise ship with 800 fellow cruisers and galloping up the docks to the cruise ship 7 blocks where everybody goes and it's Popeyes and every fast food US franchise, and cheap trinkets and lots of expensive really bad Budweiser Lite and everybody speaks American English, teach one anything about Puerto Rico or Puerto Ricans.

Are we seeing in this 'discussion'  the insurmountable divide between people who do real travel -- including within the US -- and engage with the people who live there beyond the service capacity of restaurants, etc. -- maybe even speak another language or two, engage in the culture(s) -- and those who don't and never have, yet have all sorts of opinions about who those 'others' -- that they've never met --are?

[Fragile Bird]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

There was a fair bit of discussion in this thread - most of it rather disapproving - when Jussie Smollett was charged with faking an assault on himself.

Interesting, then, to note that all charges against him have been dropped.

Now that is interesting.

Defenders of Smollett said what the Chicago police actually had was a really good case against the two brothers. They also talked about how all the leaks came from the Chicago police, and noted the incredible detail they laid out in that press conference, the kind of detail they would normally refuse to provide.

Something fishy going on?

[Gertrude]

While I don't have a dog in this fight, the charges were dropped, but they didn't say it was because the charges had no merit.

Quote

The Cook County State's Attorney's Office said Tuesday that after reviewing the case, Smollett's volunteer service and his willingness to turn his bond over to the city, "we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case."

This story was wierd from every angle and I think they are probably just glad to wash their hands of the whole thing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

While I don't have a dog in this fight, the charges were dropped, but they didn't say it was because the charges had no merit.

This story was wierd from every angle and I think they are probably just glad to wash their hands of the whole thing.

Black or white, gay or straight, left or right, money talks.

[Gertrude]

Yeah, I'd love to know how this plays out without the celebrity or political factor being a thing. I think money was the smallest factor in this mess.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is the part I still can’t get past. Jr. clearly knew he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government with the intent to receive something of value to influence an election. How does that get a pass?

And what makes it worse is he repeatedly lied about it. He changed his story four or five times. How is that not a cover up?

More broadly, if all these people were innocent, why did they all behave like the guiltiest people on the planet?

It doesn’t make sense unless you accept that they’re really just the dumbest people on the planet, and being an idiot is a justifiable excuse for unintentionally committing serious crimes.

Answering the questions:

1: he is incredibly rich, ergo, it gets a pass

2: he is incredibly rich, ergo lying is okay, changing your story is understandable and a cover up is literally not a possible thing that can occur (according to how our legal system equates wealth with proof of innocence)

3: all of these people are incredibly rich, ergo it is not possible they can be guilty of any crime, the legal system is designed to make them always, already innocent.

[mormont]

17 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

While I don't have a dog in this fight, the charges were dropped, but they didn't say it was because the charges had no merit.

Mr Smollet's lawyers certainly say so, with some emphasis, and the explanation from the state attorney's office given above sounds very much like 'we don't think we can win in court so we struck a deal'. Not a very good deal, from the state's point of view.

So I think we can reasonably conclude that at the very least, the evidence against him was nowhere near as good as the authorities, the media and some commentators were suggesting. IANAL but it seems to me that if all of the things that were alleged a few weeks ago were true, the case would certainly be proceeding.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Yeah, I'd love to know how this plays out without the celebrity or political factor being a thing. I think money was the smallest factor in this mess.

Money, power and fame all influence things. 

[Gertrude]

54 minutes ago, mormont said:

So I think we can reasonably conclude that at the very least, the evidence against him was nowhere near as good as the authorities, the media and some commentators were suggesting. 

I agree with this. That he and his lawyers are proclaiming his innocence is pretty irrelevant, that's a given. We're never going to know what really happened, so I just don't think either 'side' of this story can claim to be in the right and use it as an example of whatever they want to get riled up about .. and both will. I'm just willing to let it fade into the background as a footnote to the shitshow of the Trump years.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Come on, by today's standards, this is complete and total exoneration of Smollet.

[Maithanet]

I'm seeing more Re-Elect Trump internet ads than I would have expected twenty months out.  Sites like WaPo and Politico are running them pretty consistently.  I guess internet ads are cheap, but still, it just goes to show that ever since Citizen's United, every election is bigger, earlier and more expensive than the previous one. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm seeing more Re-Elect Trump internet ads than I would have expected twenty months out.  Sites like WaPo and Politico are running them pretty consistently.  I guess internet ads are cheap, but still, it just goes to show that ever since Citizen's United, every election is bigger, earlier and more expensive than the previous one. 

What is Trump’s best skills? Branding, marketing and sales. That’s all this is. There’s going to be a hard push to change his image post-Mueller report after he got cleared of collusion.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What is Trump’s best skills? Branding, marketing and sales. That’s all this is. There’s going to be a hard push to change his image post-Mueller report after he got cleared of collusion.

I've been seeing these for more than just the past couple of days.