US Politics

[do or die]

Party unity, possible VP slot, bona fides, with progressives......Warren has a lot to think about

[johnzo]

yeah, my family was Warren first, Bernie second, and whoever else wins the dem nod third. 

I will always treasure Warren's singlehanded demolition of the Bloomberg campaign.  He looked like Red Light Racicot out there.  Biden better be sending her a thank-you card for clearing the billionaire no-hope vanity candidate out from the moderate lane.

Edited March 6, 2020 by johnzo

[johnzo]

I wonder about Stacey Abrams as the VP.  She's got the fire and could de-whiten and de-old the Democratic ticket.

[17to85]

37 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Because so much it is a mental state and not "science".   A person can decide later it was a mistake but he is either chemically castrated , biomchemsitry altered or permanently disfigured by surgery. 

Puberty blockers on children and pre teens is criminal , imo, and in general the epitome of "anti-science".

So if it's a mental state then let everyone be whatever they want to be, again, what's the difference? If someone makes that choice why are you trying to protect them from their own possible regret? Isn't it more harmful to deny the people who it would benefit that option? 

 

And I must have missed where we started talking about puberty blockers on children... sounds like patented regressive deflection bringing up scary sounding topics that aren't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

[JCon]

No way Warren is anyone's VP. You need a VP who can carry a demographic or key states. Unfortunately, she hasn't proven she can do that. 

[do or die]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

No way Warren is anyone's VP. You need a VP who can carry a demographic or key states. Unfortunately, she hasn't proven she can do that. 

HILLARY!!

Glug, glug, glug......

[JCon]

Banana Republic. 

 

[do or die]

New York attorney general sends letter to televangelist Jim Bakker amid Coronavirus concerns

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/486240-new-york-attorney-general-sends-letter-to-televangelist-jim

Whenever there is money to be made from the flock.... you know these fundamentalist shysters are willing and ready...to sell the snake oil and magic beans.

 

[Jacquie]

6 hours ago, JCon said:

Banana Republic. 

 

Should be noted that the District Judge who made the ruling is a Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush.

[do or die]

7 hours ago, Jacquie said:

Should be noted that the District Judge who made the ruling is a Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush.

Of course, (cruising round the web) that simply makes him a "swamp thing"

[Zontar]

Great journalizing, CBC

. Now do the part where  the slam dunk conspiracy evidence of the Trump Tower meeting was proven bogus by an independent witness yet Mueller team never corrected the media which got the story from an FBI leak. Mueller then used that fake evidence to get more search warrants.

Ever seen that in all your years in DC ?

[Zontar]

3 minutes ago, do or die said:

Of course, (cruising round the web) that simply makes him a "swamp thing"

Should be noted. Bush-ies and the rest of those neo con regimes hate Trump. All signed the Never Trump Manifesto.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

Great journalizing, CBC

. Now do the part where  the slam dunk conspiracy evidence of the Trump Tower meeting was proven bogus by an independent witness yet Mueller team never corrected the media which got the story from an FBI leak. Mueller then used that fake evidence to get more search warrants.

Ever seen that in all your years in DC ?

I am trying to understand your post here, but if you don't provide context- it looks a lot like tinfoil hat conspiracy diarrhea. 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by wanna-b-fanboy

[TrueBlue4ever]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I am tring to understand your post here, but if you don't provide context- it looks a lot like tinfoil hat conspiracy diarrhea. 

 

 

That's your first mistake in going down the rabbit hole...trying to find "context" in Zontar's posts. Your second mistake is then engaging in a conversation by asking for sources or context. Just accept that it simply is a troll effort designed to deflect, frustrate and obfuscate. Remember, never argue with an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. A simple guide to the methodology:

1. Avoid the issue - Circuit judge has called out Barr for "misleading". Read between the lines: "You at worst lied about or at best severely underplayed what was in the report to cover for Trump, and redacted material that did not need to be redacted to avoid the truth of the document. So I am going to review the whole unredacted thing to determine what should be made public, not what you decided was in your "sanitized" 4 page summary version, because I don't trust that you had America's interests at heart in seeking the truth." Zontar ignores this and spins the "whastaboutism" of the Tower meeting. Surprised we didn't get a basic "But her e-mails!" rant, an oldey but a goodey for the Trump base.

2. Float an alternative conspiracy to distract from the issue at hand - in this case the "fake" Tower meeting. But if you want to follow the "logic" of the Trump Tower meeting, the claim appears to be that the meeting never happened and is another lie of the liberal MSM, with an "independent witness" proving the hoax to add credibility to the claim. Funny, no mention of who this independent source is, or where Zontar is citing that source from (and don't waste your breath asking for one or hold it expecting an answer, Zontar is predictably silent when asked to back up claims - illegal immigrant voting claim the most obvious example).

3. Point fingers about how the other side is corrupt. "Oooh, they are attacking Barr, but don't forget about CIA leaks which are worse, and bad info upon which warrants were obtained. So none of what you hear matters because it was a house built on sand." Another classic version of this was the anonymous whistleblower about the Ukraine call. "Wait, if they don't testify, then they must be tainted, and their evidence is then phony! WITCH HUNT!!!!!!" Except that isn't how the law works. Tips are nothing more than that - tips. They aren't evidence. They are claims to initiate an investigation. If further investigation turns up something, then you compile that information and present it before a judge with a request to obtain a warrant on the basis that something criminal is afoot. If the judge doesn't see anything substantive to corroborate the original tip, then no warrant and the source is considered not good enough, or not backed up enough. If they do see something, then they grant the warrant. The source never need be identified because they are not giving evidence, they are simply offering something upon which an investigation commences. It is the investigation that gets presented as evidence. The material the source provides gets tested, not the source itself. So it ultimately doesn't even matter if the source was questionable, the judge found there was enough underlying evidence to overcome any deficiencies of the source and grant the warrant anyway. But since the evidence is damning and the GOP can't argue it isn't, you attack the process. Like a tip saying there is a marijuana grow-op at a certain house. Police will take that tip and weigh it with further evidence they gather (maybe they do a drive-by and confirm that the location given is what was described, maybe they smell marijuana around the target house, maybe they use infrared cameras and see high heat signatures, maybe they check hydro and see ridiculously large readings, maybe they do a title search and find the owner has been busted for past grow-ops. So they get a warrant and find a massive grow-op. Now, the court could chuck the warrant if they find that the evidence was obtained badly (we trespassed and looked in a window and saw the plants) and the case could be tossed, but we all still know the guy did it. And the whole Trump saga isn't a criminal case, so the same level of Charter scrutiny doesn't apply anyway. So remember when they attack the process, they want you believe it didn't happen, but they can't say that it didn't happen because it absolutely did and all they have left is to scream "Look! Something shiny! Please focus on that and not the actual crimes which totally happened."

If all that doesn't work to distract, then the next steps are:

4. This has been going on forever on both sides, so you are hypocritical for calling out the GOP and not the Dems before them

5. Yeah, so what, get over it (amazing that we now have a real life precedent for this exact phrase from Mick Mulvaney).

Edited March 6, 2020 by TrueBlue4ever

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I am trying to understand your post here, but if you don't provide context- it looks a lot like tinfoil hat conspiracy diarrhea. 

 

 

#3 on the list I believe is what he's referring, Lanny Davis

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

Many other examples on the Top 10 list as well. 

 

[Wideleft]

On 2020-02-14 at 3:20 PM, pigseye said:

Just to be clear, zontar and I are trolling, you do realize that don't you?

 

I'm just going to periodically drop this in threads from time to time to remind everyone.

[Zontar]

47 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I'm just going to periodically drop this in threads from time to time to remind everyone.

If trolling is pointing out the corruption of the people you think are the "good guys". They are just as as power hungry and evil as the people you condemn and think it's virtuous.

 

[Wideleft]

British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

MARCH 8, 2019 ~ MICHAEL STEVENSON

 

"Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:

 

A few things spring to mind.

 

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

 

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

 

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

 

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

 

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

 

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

 

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

 

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, **** Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

 

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

 

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

 

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

 

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

 

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of ****. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

 

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

 

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a **** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

https://thehobbledehoy.com/2019/03/08/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-ive-read/?fbclid=IwAR3T9wIeTbT-LM8pYW7lMFvke6Mg40PJie2fNJBJx3YpCbWwxIiD-7DzXsY

[Zontar]

Rubbish. As someone of immediate UK extraction I can tell you the only thing they expect from Americans is to be Americans,  good with the bad, and Trump fits the bill perfectly. 

When the writer says "we" he means leftists not British.

[johnzo]

yeah, the ideal response to the troll demonstrates the troll's bad faith to bystanders and doesn't engage the substance of the troll. They're there to reblog the current talking points, which is why they can't engage substantively; they're not capable of it.

those talking points are powerful and semi-truthy and they gain power every time they're repeated without challenge.  the people who make them are extremely clever and good at hitting people's buttons.  Creeps like Goebbels and Atwater and Karl Rove talk openly about this, these techniques are not secret. they're just effective.

"conspiracy diarrhea" is a great term, I'm stealing it.

Edited March 6, 2020 by johnzo

[pigseye]

35 minutes ago, johnzo said:

yeah, the ideal response to the troll demonstrates the troll's bad faith to bystanders and doesn't engage the substance of the troll. They're there to reblog the current talking points, which is why they can't engage substantively; they're not capable of it.

those talking points are powerful and semi-truthy and they gain power every time they're repeated without challenge.  the people who make them are extremely clever and good at hitting people's buttons.  Creeps like Goebbels and Atwater and Karl Rove talk openly about this, these techniques are not secret. they're just effective.

"conspiracy diarrhea" is a great term, I'm stealing it.

troll or devil's advocate? 

[17to85]

54 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Rubbish. As someone of immediate UK extraction I can tell you the only thing they expect from Americans is to be Americans,  good with the bad, and Trump fits the bill perfectly. 

When the writer says "we" he means leftists not British.

But is the writer wrong in his description of trump? Seems to nail it pretty much on the nose. 

[17to85]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

troll or devil's advocate? 

Devil's advocate is about presenting a different opinion as a way to get someone to think about their beliefs. This is not that. This is trying to steer the conversation into a different and unrelated direction. It's pretty text book right wing distraction technique.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

33 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

MARCH 8, 2019 ~ MICHAEL STEVENSON

 

"Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:

 

A few things spring to mind.

 

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

 

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

 

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

 

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

 

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

 

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

 

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

 

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, **** Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

 

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

 

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

 

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

 

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

 

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of ****. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

 

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

 

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

‘My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a **** was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

https://thehobbledehoy.com/2019/03/08/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-ive-read/?fbclid=IwAR3T9wIeTbT-LM8pYW7lMFvke6Mg40PJie2fNJBJx3YpCbWwxIiD-7DzXsY

Priceless- "A Jabba the Hutt of privilege."

24 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Rubbish. As someone of immediate UK extraction I can tell you the only thing they expect from Americans is to be Americans,  good with the bad, and Trump fits the bill perfectly. 

When the writer says "we" he means leftists not British.

Yeah... I am going to go with the British guy, living in the UK, that deals with British people all day than someone "of immediate UK extraction" on how British people view trump.

No- he quite clearly said British on several occasions, the title mentions British, hell- I think English was mentioned once too. No where though was leftist, pinko, commie, SJW, socialist, Bernie Sanders or  ... what you think, is not what he wrote.

I fail to see how pointing out trump's flaws makes someone a leftist... trump is a fundamentally shitty person to his core, you don't need to be a leftist know that.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

46 minutes ago, johnzo said:

"conspiracy diarrhea" is a great term, I'm stealing it.

Take it, go forth and use it wisely...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by wanna-b-fanboy