US Politics: A Farewell to Arms

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Oh it gets even better, apparently DeVos wants to cut the Special Olympics.

Delightful! It's like a bunch of Disney villains.

DeVos has been a Disney villain for a long time now. She is definitely skinning puppies and likely posting it on social media. The Orca whales are dying out here in the Puget Sound right now. We will likely found she was behind it and skinning them to make coats.

She is also apparently strongly for women getting raped on campus, as long as it isn't her or anyone related to her.

[Martell Spy]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

DeVos has been a Disney villain for a long time now. She is definitely skinning puppies and likely posting it on social media.

 

22 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I was also thinking about that press conference where Trump asked Russia to find the missing emails, and I went back and examined exactly what was said.  It's close, but not quite.  I don't think there was any agreement between Trump and any particular person (or country).  If instead he had discussed the same with Putin (or some other Russian operative), and Putin agreed to hack the DNC's servers and then had his minions hack the DNC's servers, then yes, that would be a clear case of conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime.  Trump's actions were often deplorable, but just not quite criminal. 

There was so much shady behavior throughout the entire Trump campaign, that it's reasonable to assume that Trump was a bad actor.  The problem has been finding enough evidence to support such a claim beyond a reasonable doubt.  I want to see the full (or minimally redacted) Mueller report to see if he found a substantial amount of evidence, but just not enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard.  However, I think it's unlikely that Mueller found something really good, otherwise he wouldn't have cleared Trump on conspiracy.

Trump was never going to sit down for an interview, despite his claims to the public that he really wanted to do the interview, and I doubt that Mueller would have been able to compel it, not after Trump submitted written responses to their questions.  If they couldn't make the case without interviewing Trump in person, then it's likely that their case just wasn't that strong.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Trump was just going to admit to a crime in a sit down interview.  People like to claim that Trump is a moron, but if he's as dirty as people think, he's been able to avoid criminal prosecution despite having a very high public profile for many decades now.  And if you are still convinced that he's guilty of conspiracy with Russia, he's been smart enough to evade an indictment from Mueller, who was supposed to be one of the best investigators in the country.

That said, I wish Mueller did try and compel the sit down interview, even if he felt that he'd lose the court fight.  It would have been much better for the investigation to have stretched out to the 2020 elections, than come up empty.  But Mueller wasn't doing this to help one side or another, so no interview.

Well, obviously Trump will now immediately release his tax returns, and then win reelection in 2020. Because there is nothing to hide, he can only gain from doing this.

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Well, obviously Trump will now immediately release his tax returns, and then win reelection in 2020. Because there is nothing to hide, he can only gain from doing this.

Democrats in the House arguably have the power to get Trump's tax returns.  I'm not sure why they haven't done so yet.  That said, I think it's unlikely that there is anything criminal in his returns, and presumably, Mueller has looked at them.  Another reason why we need to see Mueller's report.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I feel like I missed something, somewhere, and Ihlan Omar kind of illustrates when I realized this happened. What's the deal with the anti-Israel state movement? I'm super left, but I don't get this. I have a friend who HATES Kamala Harris because she is an ally of Israel...and I'm not certain what the ideology beneath this is. The person in question is super liberal, but is this purely antisemitism? I feel like I missed a big (shitty) argument somewhere, but given that the friend in question is a pretty good Dem on most issues, I wonder how I can approach this conversation. What's fueling it?

[Lollygag]

I've been looking at the connection between the far left and anti-Semitism as it didn't make sense. Seems to be the case that populism and socialism have a certain susceptibility to it if it gets interwoven with the stereotype that Jews control a lot of a country's money and institutions. It leap-frogs from the elites/rich are the problem to Jews are the problem. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/populism-racism-anti-semitism.html

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rachelshabi/democrats-avoid-uk-antisemitism-crisis?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc

Quote

All of which leads to a difficult point: The radical left does have a specific problem with anti-Semitism, one that is rarely scrutinized and has existed for decades. It partly resides in the Israel–Palestine issue, where valid criticism of Israel can slide into something far worse. And it makes its way into legitimate critiques of financial elites, which can slip into the world’s oldest conspiracy theory of malign Jewish influence exerted through money and occult powers.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/

Hitler's The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi for short) exhibited this leap-frog thinking slipping from elites are the problem to Jews are the problem. 

Quote

When Adolf Hitler first came to power in 1933 thanks to the Enabling Act that gave him and his ministers all legislative control, the German economy was still reeling from the Great Depression. Hitler committed his government to two main economic policies: military armament and Autarky, or economic self-sufficiency. By promoting the use of German coal and putting taxes towards the military, Hitler steered his country towards a thriving economy. But even as the nation’s financial state recovered, he needed more money for the military, and so he created a fictional private enterprise to underwrite promissory notes, writes historian Aly. Somehow that fake money had to be made real so that various government entities, like the military, would actually have the capital to function without bringing down the economy, and that’s where Jewish wealth came to play.

Hitler espoused a virulent form of anti-Semitism that offered German citizens an enemy to rally around. He held Jews responsible for Germany’s military humiliation in World War I and also encouraged the belief that Jews grew wealthy through theft from Aryans. “The robbery part [of Hitler’s decree] is embedded in this ideology that these people are parasites who attach themselves to us, and they live by sucking our blood, and we are entitled to punish them and take it all back,” says Peter Hayes, professor emeritus of history and German at Northwestern University and the author of How Was It Possible? A Holocaust Reader.

 

[Ice Queen]

12 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Oh it gets even better, apparently DeVos wants to cut the Special Olympics.

Delightful! It's like a bunch of Disney villains.

She's Cruella De Vil. 

[aceluby]

9 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I feel like I missed something, somewhere, and Ihlan Omar kind of illustrates when I realized this happened. What's the deal with the anti-Israel state movement? I'm super left, but I don't get this. I have a friend who HATES Kamala Harris because she is an ally of Israel...and I'm not certain what the ideology beneath this is. The person in question is super liberal, but is this purely antisemitism? I feel like I missed a big (shitty) argument somewhere, but given that the friend in question is a pretty good Dem on most issues, I wonder how I can approach this conversation. What's fueling it?

Being critical of the current iteration of the Israeli govt, which is conservative and war-mongering with a large financial backing of the US, and also happens to be led by a corrupt leader who is under indictment, doesn't automatically make one an anti-semite.  There also seems to be a strong bi-partisan push to shut down any of these criticisms via anti-free speech laws that have been proposed and are actively being considered.  

I'd approach the conversation by first understanding the criticisms this person has with the Israeli govt and see if their critiques are based on actions and policies of that govt, or if they are truly rooted in anti-semitism.  Start by not coming in that whatever argument they have must be shitty and based on Jewish hatred would be probably be good as well.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Wait a f’ing minute, Stephen Moore is nominated to be a Fed governor????!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is Devos levels of awful…..

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wait a f’ing minute, Stephen Moore is nominated to be a Fed governor????!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yep. He's been more wrong with just about everything than even Larry Kudlow. If that is possible. Trump couldn't have picked a bigger clown.

Also, note he was the "Chief Economist" at the Heritage Clowndation. That says I think all we need to know about the Heritage Clowndation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yep. He's been more wrong with just about everything than even Larry Kudlow. If that is possible. Trump couldn't have picked a bigger clown.

Nominating the rotting corpse of Bozo the Clown would be more acceptable than this twit. I think all you need to do is cite Kansas.

Quote

Also, note he was the "Chief Economist" at the Heritage Clowndation. That says I think all we need to know about the Heritage Clowndation.

Show some respect. They gave us the ACA, after all.  

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 I think all you need to do is cite Kansas. 

Well that and his complete dipshittery on monetary policy (along with other conservative sorts of people) and fiscal policy during the greatest recession since the Great Depression and then him completely reversing his position once Trump got in office.

If the world were fair, Republicans would run away from this guy, if they wished to maintain any credibility. But, we know it isn't, and Republicans will back him, and still win elections.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well that and his complete dipshittery on monetary policy (along with other conservative sorts of people) and fiscal policy during the greatest recession since the Great Depression and then him completely reversing his position once Trump got in office.

If the world were fair, Republicans would run away from this guy, if they wished to maintain any credibility. But, we know it isn't, and Republicans will back him, and still win elections.

To be fair, that’s true of >90% of Republicans.

There’s one positive thing I can say about Trump. He made it unmistakably clear that Republicans and Conservatives really stand for nothing other than power.

[Larry of the Lawn]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To be fair, that’s true of >90% of Republicans.

There’s one positive thing I can say about Trump. He made it unmistakably clear that Republicans and Conservatives really stand for nothing other than power.

Hey now let's not fail to give credit where credit is due, they've been strong strong supporters of racism, greed, misogyny, hate, nihilism, and violence for $ as well!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Hey now let's not fail to give credit where credit is due, they've been strong strong supporters of racism, greed, misogyny, hate, nihilism, and violence for $ as well!

You’re clearly a bigot towards xenophobia for excluding it from your list!

[Fragile Bird]

Watching CNN. They just announced Lindsey Graham is showing up live to tell everything he knows about the Mueller report, after having had dinner with Barr last night.

And so the spin progresses.

[Maithanet]

My takeaway from the Mueller report is that we should assume that the Executive Summary is slanted to be favorable to Trump, and thus to give the first impression that the report is (almost) a total exoneration for Trump.  It remains to be seen whether the slanting from Barr was minor, but with only some minor points that look bad for Trump excluded, or whether there was significant shading of the overall tenor.  Until we get a more detailed look at the Mueller report, I'll just reserve judgement. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Watching CNN. They just announced Lindsey Graham is showing up live to tell everything he knows about the Mueller report, after having had dinner with Barr last night.

And so the spin progresses.

The only thing Graham should be asked is why did he privately encourage McCain to hand over the dossier and then publicly slam him. Graham’s literal existence confirms what everyone hates about politics.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yep. He's been more wrong with just about everything than even Larry Kudlow. If that is possible. Trump couldn't have picked a bigger clown.

Also, note he was the "Chief Economist" at the Heritage Clowndation. That says I think all we need to know about the Heritage Clowndation.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nominating the rotting corpse of Bozo the Clown would be more acceptable than this twit. I think all you need to do is cite Kansas.

Show some respect. They gave us the ACA, after all.  

I remember a while back he was on CNN trying to hype up the tax cuts that had been in effect for a while. I'm no economist, but when you're asked a question like "wages haven't increased at all, and these corps are shutting down plants not opening new ones. What do you say to that?"

Staring blankly at your hands for a few moments before stammering "it's not, this isn't the way it's supposed to go." Isn't a good look. 

I had great fun wondering if he had some moment of clarity there, understanding in a flash that he's been selling pig shit for years, but is too pathetic to course correct.

I trolled him on Twitter once.

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

My takeaway from the Mueller report is that we should assume that the Executive Summary is slanted to be favorable to Trump, and thus to give the first impression that the report is (almost) a total exoneration for Trump.  It remains to be seen whether the slanting from Barr was minor, but with only some minor points that look bad for Trump excluded, or whether there was significant shading of the overall tenor.  Until we get a more detailed look at the Mueller report, I'll just reserve judgement. 

Well, it seems like we're not going to get the report but a summary of it written by the DOJ. So who the hell knows what will be in there and what was left out. We still don't have any idea how long it is. The below point feels very relevant right now.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Erick Erickson demonstrates why he might even be a bigger dumb ass than Steve Moore: