US Politics: A small step from going viral to going postal

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Yeah, saw that too.  Trumpworld is getting ready. 

Also wonder what Barr is cooking up for the final stretch here.  No way that the answer is nothing.  

So IIRC the justice department cannot interfere or do anything that might influence an election directly 6 weeks before an election. So based on that math, expect something about the Bidens and China on September 22nd or so.

 

ETA, I misremembered, it's 60 days - so we're past that - but it's also not a hard and fast rule, so Barr will do whatever.

[Gaston de Foix]

41 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Yeah, saw that too.  Trumpworld is getting ready. 

Also wonder what Barr is cooking up for the final stretch here.  No way that the answer is nothing.  

"Results" from the Durham investigation:  https://www.justsecurity.org/72414/dannehy-resignation-confirms-barrs-intent-to-use-durham-probe-for-political-ends/

[Guest]

19 hours ago, DMC said:

I've participated in at least a dozen of these arguments - all of which far more based on reality than your depiction.

In what reality do Republicans keep the filibuster when they're already well on their way to fascism for the rest of us? 

They're currently in the middle of fucking up government so badly that it'll take years just to unfuck it. How exactly is a Biden administration supposed to get anything done if Senate Democrats stupidly hang on to an outdated, undemocratic relic? Especially when it happens because Democrats managed to delude themselves that Republicans aren't going to pull the plug on it first chance they get. 

And *I* get called naive. What, Republicans are suddenly going to come to their senses after they happily embraced fascism? That's the real nonsense.

ETA: This next congressional term especially, I think advocates of retaining the filibuster need to explain how anything is supposed to get done if it's kept, since things will be even more broken than in 2009, the margin in the Senate (if Dems even manage to retake it) will be far narrower than in 2009, the judicial landscape will be far more heavily tilted against Democrats, and Republicans even more intransigent. Just Trump's and McConnell's packing of the courts alone may be enough to prevent Democrats from ever getting anything meaningful accomplished for a generation. Why worry about how things might be 10/15/20 years from now, when, even if we win this year, we might have federal troops enforcing martial law in every Democratic state in the union under President Cotton in 2025?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

So IIRC the justice department cannot interfere or do anything that might influence an election directly 6 weeks before an election. So based on that math, expect something about the Bidens and China on September 22nd or so.

 

ETA, I misremembered, it's 60 days - so we're past that - but it's also not a hard and fast rule, so Barr will do whatever.

You're cute Kal. You think those same rules apply here?

[HoodedCrow]

William Barr is quite evil. Did you know Trump has hired John “ the Torture Lawyer” Yoo? What I heard also is that there is a rape case against Trump and Mary Trump could provide DNA for the sample? Genetic proof. Also there are paternity cases. If they can prove a corpse is Richard the third, they can prove Trump stuff with a lot of confidence. 

[Mindwalker]

Regarding the rape case... which is actually just a defamation case if I understnd it correctly:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-defamation-lawsuit-e-jean-carroll-departmen-of-justice-what-it-means/

 

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

William Barr is quite evil. Did you know Trump has hired John “ the Torture Lawyer” Yoo? What I heard also is that there is a rape case against Trump and Mary Trump could provide DNA for the sample? Genetic proof. Also there are paternity cases. If they can prove a corpse is Richard the third, they can prove Trump stuff with a lot of confidence. 

The shocking stuff is what is already out there.  His ex-wife Ivana testified, under oath, that he had raped her after she mocked him for his bald patch in a narrative that is all too believable:  

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The shocking stuff is what is already out there.  His ex-wife Ivana testified, under oath, that he had raped her after she mocked him for his bald patch in a narrative that is all too believable:  

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women.  

He just raped her emotionally.....after she got that sweet, sweet hush money. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, Horza said:

No I didn’t: you and Kal were in an argument about whether the terrible Trump voters or the terrible political system were to blame and I said relax, they both are and they work together. I used the metaphor of an eternal court of world history assigning blame but as that doesn’t exist and I’m not empaneled on it you can rest easy about being condemned.

I wasn't arguing with Kal. I have him on ignore. Your metaphor sucked.

[Varysblackfyre321]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/09/11/netflix-cuties-film-controversy-watch-movie/3466923001/
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., sent a letter requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate whether Netflix, its filmmakers or executives have violated federal law against the production and distribution of child pornography. 
 

Curious if anything will come from this. 

[Gaston de Foix]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

He just raped her emotionally.....after she got that sweet, sweet hush money. 

In fact he also cheated her on her divorce settlement. $14 million was a puny amount even then.   Ivana, after all, gave Trump his three eldest kids and also played a widely under-recognized contribution to his business.  

[Gaston de Foix]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/09/11/netflix-cuties-film-controversy-watch-movie/3466923001/
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., sent a letter requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate whether Netflix, its filmmakers or executives have violated federal law against the production and distribution of child pornography. 
 

Curious if anything will come from this. 

It's just a publicity hit-job on Netflix. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

In fact he also cheated her on her divorce settlement. $14 million was a puny amount even then.   Ivana, after all, gave Trump his three eldest kids and also played a widely under-recognized contribution to his business.  

He tried to cheat his entire family out of their inheritance. Donald secretly changed his father's will, but despite his cognitive decline, Fred Trump's penny pinching ass noticed something didn't seem right and had his lawyers straighten things out. 

To be fair though his father may have at one point been proud of such a dickish move. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It's just a publicity hit-job on Netflix. 

Eh possibly. Though I am still curious if Trump decides to take it up.

He’s embraced QAnon, and this movie currently is the thing being pointed as the rock solid evidence of their claims.

I think it’s not exactly worse than the countless examples of media sexualizing underage girls. 
 

Not because QAnon is right about the world being run by satanists.

 

Its just capitalism, people desiring to  profit from such depictions because there’s an audience for it.

 

[Maithanet]

Mike Bloomberg commits to at least 100 million in spending in Florida (wapo limited clicks).

Quote

Bloomberg’s advisers described the spending plan as “nine figures” and declined to say how much higher than $100 million Bloomberg might be willing to go, if at all. 

Florida is an expensive state, and that could make a big difference.  Biden has been polling well with FL seniors, but poorly with Latino and african american voters in the state.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Mike Bloomberg commits to at least 100 million in spending in Florida (wapo limited clicks).

Florida is an expensive state, and that could make a big difference.  Biden has been polling well with FL seniors, but poorly with Latino and african american voters in the state.  

Seems a little late in the game.

Would’ve been great he spent this along with the hundreds of millions he spent campaigning to help Democrats a lot sooner. 
 

Like I pretty sure this along with all the money he spent campaigning would’ve paid up at least a significant portion of the ex-felons ineligible to vote because of dedts.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Soooooo......

Exactly as I've suspected and continue to suspect, the administration has been tampering with CDC reports. 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-officials-interfered-cdc-reports-232114037.html

It's patently obvious we cannot trust the government's public announcements around the pandemic. They are interested in whitewashing the numbers as much as possible before the Nov. election and now they've been caught at it.

As the last line in the article states, we deserve so much better.

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Soooooo......

Exactly as I've suspected and continue to suspect, the administration has been tampering with CDC reports. 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-officials-interfered-cdc-reports-232114037.html

It's patently obvious we cannot trust the government's public announcements around the pandemic. They are interested in whitewashing the numbers as much as possible before the Nov. election and now they've been caught at it.

As the last line in the article states, we deserve so much better.

And, it won’t really matter. 
 

Trump’s approval rating as of now is effectively in the same range it’s been in for most of his presidency.

[Gaston de Foix]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And, it won’t really matter. 
 

Trump’s approval rating as of now is effectively in the same range it’s been in for most of his presidency.

I really struggle to understand this.  So we have low information voters who:  

• get most of theirs news from conservative news sources like talk radio and Fox. 
• love the cut of Trump's gib (his political incorrectness, his anti-immigration stance, his "fearlessness" and willingness to attack anyone and anything, his status as a billionaire playboy). 
• are very conservative and genuinely believe that the Dems will take away their guns and religion. 
• love low taxes. 
• are horrified by the existence of abortion. 
• believe COVID is a hoax and Trump didn't do anything wrong. 
• Don't care whether the President engages in law-breaking or lacks character. 
• Are triggered by negative partisanship. 
• Are racist and hated the fact Obama became president. 

Which (or which combination) of these is true and to what extent?

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh possibly. Though I am still curious if Trump decides to take it up.

He’s embraced QAnon, and this movie currently is the thing being pointed as the rock solid evidence of their claims.

I think it’s not exactly worse than the countless examples of media sexualizing underage girls. 
 

Not because QAnon is right about the world being run by satanists.

 

Its just capitalism, people desiring to  profit from such depictions because there’s an audience for it.

 

I can see Trump signing a deal with Netflix in his post-presidency (if he doesn't decide to start his own tv channel or online platform).  On the other hand he is desperate to change the topic from coronavirus/Woodward. 

Although - striking how much things have changed -  he was probably desperate to talk to Woodward about coronavirus to distract/change the subject from impeachment and Ukraine.