The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Thanks John! I did read the article with the goal of finding the Chico State reference but still missed it. It is a long article but that is no excuse, I am supposed to be better than that

[John A Arkansawyer]

Thanks John! I did read the article with the goal of finding the Chico State reference but still missed it. It is a long article but that is no excuse, I am supposed to be better than that

I had to use Control-F to find it myself.

For those of you who do podcasts, my friend's group podcast had its second episode this week. It's recorded in his house, which is four blocks from where Atatiana Jefferson was murdered by a police officer as she played video games with her kid early Saturday morning. Of course, that was the episode that came out Sunday.

t's a solid episode, including Rick Perry, impeachment, and the Joker movie segueing into the vigil for Atatiana.

Although I did grow up in Oklahoma and then lived in Arkansas, and we of both states do cordially loathe our big neighbor to the south, I still present to you I'm From Texas.

[pearlbeer]

Trump is now trying to sanction Turkey for an invasion that he approved.
We have abandoned (another) key ally. This time we basically leave them to slaughter.
The US has now broken another promise. (Iraq, Paris Accord, Kurds, etc. etc.)
The Ukraine situation has become pretty damn clear and is being driven by a false narrative.

What WILL it take for Republicans to turn on this guy? I'm guessing nothing. Democracy is broken.

Fuck Trump.

[Cole Younger]

this was a good article... i'll be the first to admit that it's easy via interwebs discourse to just take easy potshots and not really engage in actively considering a different opinion. maybe i'll take a step back sometimes and not take the low road so easily.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 11?cid=apn

Excellent read. Thank you for posting.

[tinnitus photography]

this was a good article... i'll be the first to admit that it's easy via interwebs discourse to just take easy potshots and not really engage in actively considering a different opinion. maybe i'll take a step back sometimes and not take the low road so easily.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 11?cid=apn

Excellent read. Thank you for posting.

[Clams]

this was a good article... i'll be the first to admit that it's easy via interwebs discourse to just take easy potshots and not really engage in actively considering a different opinion. maybe i'll take a step back sometimes and not take the low road so easily.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 11?cid=apn

Excellent read. Thank you for posting.

Awww you two! This is so nice!

[beantownbubba]

Perhaps we need a new thread called something like "The Neverending Thread for Political WTF". This is completely insane, and as so often happens, it's this kind of "little" thing that hits me harder than the neverending stream of big things coming out of Washington. Presumably because this is more human scale than, say, wholesale slaughter of the allies we abandoned. Whatever the reason, the idea that "the presidency as a reality tv show" is no longer a metaphor but is an accurate description of how the White House runs just freaks me out. And, OMG, those poor parents!!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-saco ... 3L_GVpzApg

[John A Arkansawyer]

Perhaps we need a new thread called something like "The Neverending Thread for Political WTF". This is completely insane, and as so often happens, it's this kind of "little" thing that hits me harder than the neverending stream of big things coming out of Washington. Presumably because this is more human scale than, say, wholesale slaughter of the allies we abandoned. Whatever the reason, the idea that "the presidency as a reality tv show" is no longer a metaphor but is an accurate description of how the White House runs just freaks me out. And, OMG, those poor parents!!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-saco ... 3L_GVpzApg

Scumbags gonna scumbag.

Those particular Kurds were doomed because they're leftists strongly influenced by anarchism who believed in actual equality among human beings. Of course they got abandoned and then slaughtered. That's how power works.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Perhaps we need a new thread called something like "The Neverending Thread for Political WTF". This is completely insane, and as so often happens, it's this kind of "little" thing that hits me harder than the neverending stream of big things coming out of Washington. Presumably because this is more human scale than, say, wholesale slaughter of the allies we abandoned. Whatever the reason, the idea that "the presidency as a reality tv show" is no longer a metaphor but is an accurate description of how the White House runs just freaks me out. And, OMG, those poor parents!!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-saco ... 3L_GVpzApg

I am sure there are still Trump supporters here among us, despite their roaring silence, and to them I say that I hope you are proud of your Jerry Springer president. Own it

So much winning

[pearlbeer]

So much winning

Don't forget the Swamp Draining!

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

So much winning

Don't forget the Swamp Draining!

Nosferatu working with a guy named Igor:

you can’t make this shit up

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Perhaps we need a new thread called something like "The Neverending Thread for Political WTF". This is completely insane, and as so often happens, it's this kind of "little" thing that hits me harder than the neverending stream of big things coming out of Washington. Presumably because this is more human scale than, say, wholesale slaughter of the allies we abandoned. Whatever the reason, the idea that "the presidency as a reality tv show" is no longer a metaphor but is an accurate description of how the White House runs just freaks me out. And, OMG, those poor parents!!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-saco ... 3L_GVpzApg

The British didn’t help us in the Second World War. They didn’t help us with Normandy

[pearlbeer]

“The best way to predict your future is to create it.” - Lincoln
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." - FDR
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
"Don't be a tough guy! I'll call you later" - DJT


Fuck Trump.

[beantownbubba]

Anybody have a clue what Mulvaney's up to? My head is spinning. I don't know which is more confusing: His original comments about a quid pro quo, his attempt (I think) at a retraction (or whatever the heck that was) or the fact that he hasn't been fired yet.

For those of you who don't follow the op-ed pages of the major papers, the retired generals are in almost open revolt against Trump. It's extraordinary. I can't recall anything like it in my lifetime or in US history other than vague parallels to the pre-Civil War period which was of course a unique time I don't think we want to repeat.

Speaking of things I don't follow, how has Fox News covered the whole Syria-Turkey fiasco and all the offshoots from it?

[beantownbubba]

In another bit of coincidental timing, today's NYT Op-Ed pages have 2 must reads: David Brooks cogently lays out the case for why the next election truly is anybody but Trump and Paul Krugman explains why the obsession in certain quarters to blame all our economic ills on automation is misguided at best and ignores the real underlying problem (underinvestment caused in significant part by historic income inequality). His one sentence take down of Andrew Yang is classic; "As far as I can tell, he’s offering an inadequate solution to an imaginary problem, which is in a way kind of impressive."

Brooks on the real problem w/ Trump, which is that his impact has far less to do w/ policy and far more to do w/ attacks on the fabric of our society:

"Over the past month Donald Trump has given us fresh reminders of the unique and exceptional ways he corrupts American life. You’re either part of removing that corruption or you are not. When your nation’s political system is in danger, staying home and not voting is not a responsible option.

Politics is downstream from morality and culture. Warren represents a policy wrong turn, in my view, but policies can be argued about and reversed. Trump represents a much more important and fundamental threat — to the norms, values, standards and soul of this country."

[beantownbubba]

Not to be outdone, today's WaPo contains this excellent column from Michael Gerson which explains the important symbiosis between American values and American interests and how Trump is destroying both.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nes&wpmm=1

[pearlbeer]

Anybody have a clue what Mulvaney's up to? My head is spinning. I don't know which is more confusing: His original comments about a quid pro quo, his attempt (I think) at a retraction (or whatever the heck that was) or the fact that he hasn't been fired yet.

I was thinking about this last night. Here are my two theories:

1) You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and there is no way around it. Just admit it, and say "what are you gonna do about it?". The theory here being, if you admit to something it becomes normal.

2) **puts on tin foil hat** Ok, in this scenario, Mick admits to the crime and the media reports it. Mick then lashes out the media for reporting what he said. Therefore, there is no crime. The theory here being: If the media reports it, it must be fake. Say what you did, let the media repeat it back to you, then call it fake so it must have never happened.

[Zip City]

For those of you who don't follow the op-ed pages of the major papers, the retired generals are in almost open revolt against Trump. It's extraordinary. I can't recall anything like it in my lifetime or in US history other than vague parallels to the pre-Civil War period which was of course a unique time I don't think we want to repeat.

Key word being "almost".

This isn't close to "open revolt". This is people running the mouths in the op-ed pages. Are these retired generals actively helping to oust Trump? Are they running against him? Supporting a Democrat in the election? Providing information that will help impeachment?

What I see is the beginning of the Republicans systematically distancing themselves from Trump in the media so that when he is either impeached and/or voted out, they can frame his entire term as some sort of outlier. "Who, that guy? CRAZY right? No no no no...he's not a TRUE REPUBLICAN!! He was a blip! An error! Not at all the obvious result of 30 years of GOP strategy in the media and election cycles!!!"

I'm not calling anyone brave or revolutionary if all they are doing is bitching in the NY Times

/end rant

[beantownbubba]

For those of you who don't follow the op-ed pages of the major papers, the retired generals are in almost open revolt against Trump. It's extraordinary. I can't recall anything like it in my lifetime or in US history other than vague parallels to the pre-Civil War period which was of course a unique time I don't think we want to repeat.

Key word being "almost".

This isn't close to "open revolt". This is people running the mouths in the op-ed pages. Are these retired generals actively helping to oust Trump? Are they running against him? Supporting a Democrat in the election? Providing information that will help impeachment?

What I see is the beginning of the Republicans systematically distancing themselves from Trump in the media so that when he is either impeached and/or voted out, they can frame his entire term as some sort of outlier. "Who, that guy? CRAZY right? No no no no...he's not a TRUE REPUBLICAN!! He was a blip! An error! Not at all the obvious result of 30 years of GOP strategy in the media and election cycles!!!"

I'm not calling anyone brave or revolutionary if all they are doing is bitching in the NY Times

/end rant

I understand the words, zip, but I don't really understand your point. Of course the generals aren't actually engaging in revolutionary activity and that's obviously not what I meant. Compared to how the world was a few weeks ago, to say nothing of 3 years ago, what is happening is extraordinary. These are military lifers of the most committed "bought in" type, devotees of the chain of command and all it represents. To diss them because they're not doing something else or something more doesn't make much sense to me. If the point is to take the temperature of the body politic, which it was, this is an incredible uptick. And for this purpose I wouldn't lump all the generals in w/ your average Republican senator or congressperson. It's probably safe to assume that most generals lean to the "classic" Republican viewpoint, but they are not playing the same game as Republican politicians as described in your post and imho putting them in the same box oversimplifies and minimizes what's happening. This is also not an anonymous Administration official whining in an op-ed as happened a while back. It is notable (though I agree less than "courageous") for them to put their names out there in this way.

[beantownbubba]

Perfect timing. James Hohman of the WaPo on the cascade of criticism of Trump by ex-generals, including a brief discussion of whether they've gone far enough. Personally, I thought the excerpts from Mattis's speech that I've read were funny, pointed and effective.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox ... jPqkqjmNGd

[Tequila Cowboy]

Anybody have a clue what Mulvaney's up to? My head is spinning. I don't know which is more confusing: His original comments about a quid pro quo, his attempt (I think) at a retraction (or whatever the heck that was) or the fact that he hasn't been fired yet.

I was thinking about this last night. Here are my two theories:

1) You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and there is no way around it. Just admit it, and say "what are you gonna do about it?". The theory here being, if you admit to something it becomes normal.

2) **puts on tin foil hat** Ok, in this scenario, Mick admits to the crime and the media reports it. Mick then lashes out the media for reporting what he said. Therefore, there is no crime. The theory here being: If the media reports it, it must be fake. Say what you did, let the media repeat it back to you, then call it fake so it must have never happened.

I think it's simpler than all that. Mulvaney is a tool, but more importantly he isn't the type of chief of staff we're used to from past administrations. Most Chiefs are really the man in charge in the White House, sure they take the framework of the job from the President's agenda, but they make things go. Trump's first two tried to be that kind of Chief of Staff but Trump won't be managed in that way. Mulvaney is a toadie that does as he's told but the White House staff is fairly incompetent and did not properly brief him for what he would face in the presser. I think he was prepared to normalize the G7 baloney but was not prepared to properly answer the Ukraine questions. He literally said there was a quid pro quo, and god how much do we wish to never hear that phrase again, and no amount of silly walking back changes it. He undermined their entire defense and widened the Republican cracks in Congress. I do not believe the Senate will ever vote to convict but I'm beginning to believe that 10-12 Republicans will vote to convict. That will effectively lose them the Senate as Trump's base will defeat them, and frankly probably costs Trump the election.

[Zip City]

My point is that ANYONE coming out and saying Trump is dangerous/incompetent/unfit for the office should be the most basic level of outcry. Just because ex-generals have said it out loud doesn't make it more true or change the climate much. Trump will jump on Twitter and call them third-rate military men, his cult will lap it up, and on we'll go.

Show me some people willing to stand up to the guy in a way that matters

[Zip City]

I think it's simpler than all that. Mulvaney is a tool, but more importantly he isn't the type of chief of staff we're used to from past administrations. Most Chiefs are really the man in charge in the White House, sure they take the framework of the job from the President's agenda, but they make things go. Trump's first two tried to be that kind of Chief of Staff but Trump won't be managed in that way. Mulvaney is a toadie that does as he's told but the White House staff is fairly incompetent and did not properly brief him for what he would face in the presser. I think he was prepared to normalize the G7 baloney but was not prepared to properly answer the Ukraine questions. He literally said there was a quid pro quo, and god how much do we wish to never hear that phrase again, and no amount of silly walking back changes it. He undermined their entire defense and widened the Republican cracks in Congress. I do not believe the Senate will ever vote to convict but I'm beginning to believe that 10-12 Republicans will vote to convict. That will effectively lose them the Senate as Trump's base will defeat them, and frankly probably costs Trump the election.

The truth is that there absolutely ARE quid pro quo discussions happening all the time.....between countries. "Our country will do X for you if your country does Y for us." What makes this situation (obviously) different was that Trump was asking for a favor that benefited him personally, not the country as a whole.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I think it's simpler than all that. Mulvaney is a tool, but more importantly he isn't the type of chief of staff we're used to from past administrations. Most Chiefs are really the man in charge in the White House, sure they take the framework of the job from the President's agenda, but they make things go. Trump's first two tried to be that kind of Chief of Staff but Trump won't be managed in that way. Mulvaney is a toadie that does as he's told but the White House staff is fairly incompetent and did not properly brief him for what he would face in the presser. I think he was prepared to normalize the G7 baloney but was not prepared to properly answer the Ukraine questions. He literally said there was a quid pro quo, and god how much do we wish to never hear that phrase again, and no amount of silly walking back changes it. He undermined their entire defense and widened the Republican cracks in Congress. I do not believe the Senate will ever vote to convict but I'm beginning to believe that 10-12 Republicans will vote to convict. That will effectively lose them the Senate as Trump's base will defeat them, and frankly probably costs Trump the election.

The truth is that there absolutely ARE quid pro quo discussions happening all the time.....between countries. "Our country will do X for you if your country does Y for us." What makes this situation (obviously) different was that Trump was asking for a favor that benefited him personally, not the country as a whole.

Of course, that’s pretty much the definition of negotiation, but you’re correct it’s typically for the good of the country certainly not for personal gain. When Mulvaney said that politics was part of diplomacy he was also technically right, but not the way he supposes. The purpose of career diplomats is to ensure that party politics okay as little a part as possible. Trump hates that system and does everything he can to undermine it

[beantownbubba]

Anybody have a clue what Mulvaney's up to? My head is spinning. I don't know which is more confusing: His original comments about a quid pro quo, his attempt (I think) at a retraction (or whatever the heck that was) or the fact that he hasn't been fired yet.

I was thinking about this last night. Here are my two theories:

1) You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and there is no way around it. Just admit it, and say "what are you gonna do about it?". The theory here being, if you admit to something it becomes normal.

2) **puts on tin foil hat** Ok, in this scenario, Mick admits to the crime and the media reports it. Mick then lashes out the media for reporting what he said. Therefore, there is no crime. The theory here being: If the media reports it, it must be fake. Say what you did, let the media repeat it back to you, then call it fake so it must have never happened.

#1 has certainly been SOP at the White House for the entirety of Trump's term so I guess that must be at least part of it. And the second is part of Sarah Sanders' playbook so there's ample precedent. But given that Trump's apparent (and I stress "apparent" as in, who actually knows?) strategy has been to deny the quid pro quo, Mulvaney has increased the President's exposure and placed himself on the chopping block which seems an unlikely step for any power mad beltway bullshitter to take.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Given that he comes from SC, you’d think Lindsey would have a better understanding of lynchings

[beantownbubba]

Given that he comes from SC, you’d think Lindsey would have a better understanding of lynchings

Oy. Do I even want to know?

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Given that he comes from SC, you’d think Lindsey would have a better understanding of lynchings

Oy. Do I even want to know?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

President Trump’s comparison of the House impeachment inquiry to a “lynching” elicited immediate rebukes Tuesday from Democrats and several Republicans, who condemned Trump’s use of a term most associated with the barbaric hanging of African American men. Yet other GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), endorsed Trump’s characterization.


----------------

“This is a lynching in every sense. This is un-American,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters at the Capitol, calling the impeachment process “a sham” and a “joke.”

Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) retweeted Trump’s lynching tweet and wrote: “Democrats are still angry that their chosen one, Hillary Clinton, will never be president. They want to impeach @realDonaldTrump because they know they can’t beat him at the ballot box.”

[beantownbubba]

Not just a lynching but a lynching in every sense. Except the actual, literal and most common figurative senses, of course.

I'm starting to think that Roy Cohn was Trump's father, not merely his mentor. Trump executes the Cohn playbook in every respect at all times. Attack, attack, attack and when in doubt, attack some more. It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't have to be truthful, accurate, logical, consistent or anything else, just keep saying it, only louder each time. And the house specialty is to accuse your enemies of whatever it is they're accusing you of. It's exhausting.

I get that it's exhausting, but the Democrats ought to learn to play the game. They've had more than enough time to learn. They should offer cross examination of impeachment hearing witnesses in return for Trump's testimony under oath. This noise would go away real fast.

Also, notice what Trump, Graham, et al have done in this particular case: Democrats duly object to Trump's characerization immediately and forcefully, claiming (truthfully) that it is disrespectful & more towards those who were actually lynched, most of whom were African Americans. And voila... a claim that is essentially lack of due process is turned into the usual racial tropes w/ Democrats defending African Americans against claims of unfairness by white people. Amazing how that happens. Amazing how the Dems play into Trump's hands every single time.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Amazing how the Dems play into Trump's hands every single time.

They're playing to their strength: Losing. Just look at how Ms. Most Qualified thoughtfully gave Tulsi Gabbard a huge boost in fundraising this week.