US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[headwalk]

i'm across the pond so forgive my ignorance, but have there been any protests over net neutrality? seems like it should be a pretty unified rallying call for anyone who gives a toss about the free exchange of information. it's going to effect young people a lot more than if some university professor doesn't watch his pronouns.

[benjipwns]

i've seen a number of warning messages on websites that i've closed so i can read the site

i'm sure there's a change.org petition, and probably a hashtag too, what more do you want?

[Mandark]

I think it's kind of intuitive that folks would be more upset over the FCC decision than the Disney/Fox acquisition.

Giving leeway to ISPs to choose how accessible certain sites/services/information will be to their customers is a prospect that's gonna freak out a lot of people, right? The Disney thing is more about vague corporate bigness.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

And it doesn't help that having horrible experiences dealing with the cable company is one of the last unifying aspects of American culture.

[close]

[Nola]

i'm across the pond so forgive my ignorance, but have there been any protests over net neutrality? seems like it should be a pretty unified rallying call for anyone who gives a toss about the free exchange of information. it's going to effect young people a lot more than if some university professor doesn't watch his pronouns.

Mass protests, no. Completely anecdotal, but of all the shit that has gone down in the Trump era this is the first time I’ve seen this level of anger and annoyance from people that often don’t even give a shit about politics.

Net Neutrality has something like 85% approval rating, including like 65% of Republicans. Democrats should be making this a centerpiece issue if they have an ounce of sense.

[Nola]

Other anecdote. It is also the only issue I have seen completely divide and fracture a good chunk of the core Trump base. Just looking at the places I glance at to get a sense of the Trumpkin bubble and my own social media. Seems to be that there really just is not a large constituency of people that really want their cable and internet companies to be able to extort them. Who knew 

[Steve Contra]

People that think anything could have been done about the net neutrality decision after Trump was elected 

You had your chance in Nov. 2016

[Tasty]

i'm across the pond so forgive my ignorance, but have there been any protests over net neutrality? seems like it should be a pretty unified rallying call for anyone who gives a toss about the free exchange of information. it's going to effect young people a lot more than if some university professor doesn't watch his pronouns.

Mass protests, no. Completely anecdotal, but of all the shit that has gone down in the Trump era this is the first time I’ve seen this level of anger and annoyance from people that often don’t even give a shit about politics.

Net Neutrality has something like 85% approval rating, including like 65% of Republicans. Democrats should be making this a centerpiece issue if they have an ounce of sense.

When Democrats start making it an issue for 2018, Fox will just paint it like Ajit Pai did. "Obummer era gubment overstepping its bounds and hurting small businesses and consumer choice." Then the support among Republicans will drop to <20%.

Mark my words.

[benjipwns]

But do the Democrats even have a position on anything specific? I don't think Obama even indicated what he wanted the rules to actually look like just that they be called net neutrality.

[CatsCatsCats]

The biggest mistake was letting those opposed to net neutrality coin it as internet freedom, that’s what NN shoulda been called

[Nola]

People that think anything could have been done about the net neutrality decision after Trump was elected 

You had your chance in Nov. 2016

Good thing is I hear rumors going around that there will be elections in 2018 and 2020.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Though my cynicism is such I am skeptical of both the sort of people coming out of their cocoons to be upset at this still giving a shit to vote a year from now or Democrats from playing their part and making this the potentially powerful wedge issue they should to keep attention going.

[close]

[benjipwns]

Good thing is I hear rumors going around that there will be elections in 2018 and 2020.

People probably thought that the last time literal Nazi's seized power with the help of the Russians.

[Nola]

i'm across the pond so forgive my ignorance, but have there been any protests over net neutrality? seems like it should be a pretty unified rallying call for anyone who gives a toss about the free exchange of information. it's going to effect young people a lot more than if some university professor doesn't watch his pronouns.

Mass protests, no. Completely anecdotal, but of all the shit that has gone down in the Trump era this is the first time I’ve seen this level of anger and annoyance from people that often don’t even give a shit about politics.

Net Neutrality has something like 85% approval rating, including like 65% of Republicans. Democrats should be making this a centerpiece issue if they have an ounce of sense.

When Democrats start making it an issue for 2018, Fox will just paint it like Ajit Pai did. "Obummer era gubment overstepping its bounds and hurting small businesses and consumer choice." Then the support among Republicans will drop to <20%.

Mark my words.

They’re trying right now and have since 2015 and it hasn’t really worked. No doubt they will keep trying if Democrats wise up over this issue and put more of a spotlight on it.

But at the end of the day cable companies and such are like the binding scorn of Americans. It seems like there is a limit, even amongst Trumpists, with how much they will eat the bullshit before spitting some back out. Hopefully.

[Tasty]

The biggest mistake was letting those opposed to net neutrality coin it as internet freedom, that’s what NN shoulda been called

Net Neutrality isn't that bad a term from a marketing standpoint, really.

[Tasty]

i'm across the pond so forgive my ignorance, but have there been any protests over net neutrality? seems like it should be a pretty unified rallying call for anyone who gives a toss about the free exchange of information. it's going to effect young people a lot more than if some university professor doesn't watch his pronouns.

Mass protests, no. Completely anecdotal, but of all the shit that has gone down in the Trump era this is the first time I’ve seen this level of anger and annoyance from people that often don’t even give a shit about politics.

Net Neutrality has something like 85% approval rating, including like 65% of Republicans. Democrats should be making this a centerpiece issue if they have an ounce of sense.

When Democrats start making it an issue for 2018, Fox will just paint it like Ajit Pai did. "Obummer era gubment overstepping its bounds and hurting small businesses and consumer choice." Then the support among Republicans will drop to <20%.

Mark my words.

They’re trying right now and have since 2015 and it hasn’t really worked. No doubt they will keep trying if Democrats wise up over this issue and put more of a spotlight on it.

But at the end of the day cable companies and such are like the binding scorn of Americans. It seems like there is a limit, even amongst Trumpists, with how much they will eat the bullshit before spitting some back out. Hopefully.

The problem is, that number that's being floated "65% or 75% of Republicans favor Net Neutrality when they're explained what it is" is key. Because that means they're informed on the issue.

Most Republicans are not informed on the issues, or if they are, get their information from Fox. Once this becomes an actual election issue and the misinformation campaign gets going, NN support among the GOP is going to drop like a stone. I just feel it in my bones. Republican voters choose what's worse for themselves every time, outside of possibly gun stuff.

[altright]

Net Neutrality has been plastered all over the web by technology companies. I don't think people realize how big Disney and Fox are and which companies they own. Media companies aren't going to badmouth this deal because they would be bringing attention to themselves. This is what happens when news companies are mostly owned by a few corporations.

If the merger happens, Hulu is dead. The other media corps would not be okay with Disney owning the majority of the platform.

[benjipwns]

you lieberals don't even know that you've already DEBUNKED YOUR OWN LIES ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY among Americans who pay attention to facts and think for themselves like Rush Limbaugh listeners:
https://twitter.com/SandraFluke/status/941140826876514306

[benjipwns]

[etiolate]

I was about to post that.

hello darkness my old friend...

[thehunter116]

https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/941715143150526465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rawgit.com%2Fs9e%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fmaster%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23941715143150526465

Too real. 

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

Oops

Please let the record show that none of the nominees have blogged in support of the KKK.

[recursivelyenumerable]

when the antitrust hipsters get into power I hope they just ban the MCU outright. 

[thisismyusername]

https://twitter.com/MattOswaltVA/status/941444005266460672

(Image removed from quote.)

I mean, she ain't wrong...?

[REDPILLALPH ABIGCOCK]

superhero films are a utility like water or the internet

[Nola]

The problem is, that number that's being floated "65% or 75% of Republicans favor Net Neutrality when they're explained what it is" is key. Because that means they're informed on the issue.

Most Republicans are not informed on the issues, or if they are, get their information from Fox. Once this becomes an actual election issue and the misinformation campaign gets going, NN support among the GOP is going to drop like a stone. I just feel it in my bones. Republican voters choose what's worse for themselves every time, outside of possibly gun stuff.

I think you are definitely right to an extent. I think with enough work the propaganda arms can swing those opinions some more. I just think it is ultimately not the sort of wedge issue they ever come up ahead on. Even with Republicans. There just is not a large constituency that is going to get really impassioned about protecting cable monopolies and their predatory practices. But it absolutely seems to impassion people on the other side.

It will certainly help that I suspect what will happen is that the toxicity of the moment is going to make ISP's hesitate for now from doing anything drastic, which of course will prompt the righties to point and call the outrage much ado about nothing. And that will honestly be a harder message to counter. Since if I had to guess, the initial sort of fuckery will be the stuff that on the surface appears consumer friendly. Like Comcast signing a deal with Netflix so that their apps don't count against your data. Which on the surface the Fox News blowhards will be able to whip up as evidence of the innovation of the free market. When it's really more of a stalking horse for the further erosion of the fair playing field the internet thrives on. But that is objectively a harder argument to make to the average laymen.

[Pwnz]

My internet went out for 2 minutes earlier today after months of uptime. I bet these cunts are already rolling out firmware updates to throttle.

[team filler]

conservatives will start caring once they can no longer stream porn for free. They'll lead the fight after that.

[Joe Molotov]

conservatives will start caring once they can no longer stream porn for free. They'll lead the fight after that.

Bipartisan “issue”

[benjipwns]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/12/15/black-conservatives-reel-after-manigault-resigns/Tt3kXLzan1BuwpCMroMzqM/story.html

Manigault, a fiery former reality television star, was often a divisive personal figure within the administration, and would get into personal spats with colleagues and reporters. But officials close to the White House have also said she used her personal relationship with the president to advocate for greater inclusion of minority voices and organizations.

That voice is now gone.

“She was the one bringing black folks to the table,” said Caldwell. “That was her great benefit.”

Caldwell said that Manigault had “great influence” with Trump from her long relationship with him well before he was involved with politics, and it began with Trump’s reality television show, “The Apprentice.” Manigault was “not barred by the traditional role that staffers have with any president,” Caldwell said.

Manigault had several signature issues during her time in the White House, including supporting historically black colleges and universities and protecting Haitian immigrants, according to people familiar with her role. It also included behind-the-scenes advocacy for more racial diversity among new hires in the administration.

One example is Earl Matthews, a black, Harvard-trained lawyer whom Manigault pushed to be the Army’s general counsel.

When Trump was criticized for not adequately condemning white supremacists in Charlottesville in August, it was Manigault who relayed the concerns of black staffers, officials said. She also advocated for Haitian immigrants to be spared deportation under the temporary protected status program.

“I appreciated the fact that she started and tried to be a voice for black organizations,” Caldwell said.

But Manigault’s rapid ascension to the senior levels of the White House was always a point of controversy, even in the country’s small, close-knit circle of black conservatives. Some felt she was emblematic of an administration that valued personal relationships over expertise and that her penchant for drama weighed the administration down.

Before becoming famous on “The Apprentice,” Manigault served in the Clinton administration and had publicly embraced liberal views. She left the Democratic Party when Trump announced his run for president, and was formally brought to the White House as the director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison.

On Thursday, the president wished her good luck in future endeavors.

“I like Omarosa,” Trump said. “I think Omarosa is a good person.”

[benjipwns]

 

[Pwnz]

My internet went out for 2 minutes earlier today after months of uptime. I bet these cunts are already rolling out firmware updates to throttle.

After this, my internet went out for good. Had to call AT&T and the fiber box in my house (not modem) glitched during an update. They reset it, but admitted rolling out updates to something so low level as a motherboard BIOS update. I'm 99% sure they're already rolling out long ago developed changes to throttle.

[HardcoreRetro]

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/12/15/black-conservatives-reel-after-manigault-resigns/Tt3kXLzan1BuwpCMroMzqM/story.html

Gee, now that she's gone I guess there's nothing to stop Donnie from being racist anymore. Oh noes.

[Makai]

NBC paid off producer who accused Chris Matthews of harassment, report says

hype

[Nola]

Soooo what is the over/under on Trump firing Mueller before January?

Between the allegations today, the slandering of the FBI, the ever escalating and now near exclusive strategy of leveling character attacks at Mueller's team by the Trump lawyers, and the rumblings around the echo chambers of "something big" coming soon and Mueller getting his comeuppance, it is feeling like Trump's people are priming the pump harder than they ever have to justify to the public taking the steps needed to remove Mueller.

[etiolate]

Man I don't want to hear about Chris Matthews sex life.

At a certain point, the pubic deserves not to hear about the crotch based blueprints of desk chair ferengi.

[Nola]

Completely impossible. It's just a nonsense escalation fantasy created by the histrionic types.

I mean its not, and it was a fairly light-hearted musing, but ok Mr. Passive Aggressive.

[Mandark]

Completely impossible. It's just a nonsense escalation fantasy created by the histrionic types.

I'd bet against it but dude already fired the head of the FBI over this, so.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'd bet against it happening this month, and perhaps next month as well. It's such a stupid move. Granted Trump has made nearly every stupid move available to him but this feels different. Firing Mueller runs the risk of mass protests, but more importantly runs the risk of him being appointed Special Prosecuter by the senate, at which point Trump and anyone who has done dirt with him in the last 20-30 years is fucked. We've seen this play out before (Whitewater to Lewinsky).

They have no legal argument, they aren't even complaining to a judge over this. The legality of Mueller'a actions are pretty fucking firm. These are .gov emails during the transition, not when Trump was president. They are public record and officials are warned about this. Where is the crime? The play here is basically to let Fox whip Republican constituents into a frenzy and hope this influences law makers. But I'm not sold that Ryan or McConnell just say meh whatever if Trump fires the 1-4 people required to fire Mueller. Or worse yet if he doesn't get his way and has federal agents remove Mueller from a building.

Assuming Trump's team lied because they assumed the emails were deleted, they would all be guilty of obstruction. Especially Kushner. Perhaps Mueller going after Kushner will be the last straw. We'll see.

[Mandark]

alright let's get a constitutional crisis up in this bitch

Now you're just trying to get in the newsfeed.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

newsfeed pls

[close]

[agrajag]

"Completely impossible"

[CatsCatsCats]

Clearly the ufo news is them priming us in case Donnie spills the beans

[archie4208]

Trump would have to be lobotomized to do something as astronomically stupid as firing the special prosecutor who was appointed specifically because he fired the director of the FBI. It is unfathomable, even given Trump's CV.

So what you're saying is that it will happen. 

[Nola]

Trump would have to be lobotomized to do something as astronomically stupid as firing the special prosecutor who was appointed specifically because he fired the director of the FBI. It is unfathomable, even given Trump's CV.

We are talking about the same Donald Trump right? The guy that not just fired the head of the FBI investigating his campaign, but went on NBC and essentially told America he did it to obstruct justice? Who get's his first daily briefings from Fox and Friends and his nightcap from his routine calls to Hannity?

......To be serious for a second, there comes a point where you back a dog into the corner and the only option left is to bite.

It was astronomically stupid for Nixon to go on a firing spree until he found someone willing to fire the special prosecutor. He did it anyways, because the other option was to allow an investigation increasingly closing in on him to continue. Nixon likely calculated it would be worse for him to allow the tapes to get into the prosecutors hands than taking the chance from the fallout from firing him.

 Is there shit in those emails or in the subsequent interviews where they assumed Mueller did not have those emails that is incriminating enough to make the president or his team draw a similar cost/benefit calculus? IDK, I suspect no, but if there is something that gets the president past that threshold, and confident enough in their smear campaign, I think Trump has shown the capacity to go to great lengths for self-preservation.

[kingv]

Trump would have to be lobotomized to do something as astronomically stupid as firing the special prosecutor who was appointed specifically because he fired the director of the FBI. It is unfathomable, even given Trump's CV.

You’re giving him far more credit than he deserves.

[agrajag]

Trump is so dumb he would incriminate himself with obstruction even if he committed no crime in the first place. He's already proven that. Of course he's dumb enough to fire Mueller.

[bluemax]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/942146451026608128

[Nola]

If there were such a calculation that would need to be made, I'd agree with you, but you already know how I feel about this investigation. I guess, as usual, this comes down to whether you believe in the existence of the conspiracy.

I don't think you have to believe one way or another TBH.

As it stands there is a lot of gaps in the public record and bizarre behavior that has followed or been married to those gaps. Not just about the campaign and potential collusion, but his financial entanglements just on the perimeter of the core investigation, which tea leaves point to having at least somewhat gotten swallowed up in Mueller's investigation.

Like I don't know what Trump's people said to Mueller when they thought he didn't have their transition emails. I don't know what the Flynn deal will bring to bear. I don't know what is in those emails. I don't know exactly what has prompted the Trump team to start drastically intensifying their defamation strategy toward Mueller's team. I have some suspicions, but I also have some doubts.

I'm not ready to throw my lot in on any belief yet, but I think there is more than enough public evidence around Trump and the issues he is potentially facing to keep open the possibility that the investigation could reach that precipice.

[bluemax]

plz dont post that conspiracy bullshit here

But it has instructions!

[agrajag]

Trump logic: "this investigation is bad for my image, I need to put an end to it." It's as simple as that. If you're still under the illusion that he is some brilliant tactician, I don't know what to tell you 

[kingv]

Trump logic: "this investigation is bad for my image, I need to put an end to it." It's as simple as that. If you're still under the illusion that he is some brilliant tactician, I don't know what to tell you 

If you believe he is completely innocent, The he tried to obstruct an investigation into a non-crime that he didn’t commit. This shouldn’t make you feel like he’s unlikely to try to fire Mueller.

[agrajag]

Trump logic: "this investigation is bad for my image, I need to put an end to it." It's as simple as that. If you're still under the illusion that he is some brilliant tactician, I don't know what to tell you 

If you believe he is completely innocent, The he tried to obstruct an investigation into a non-crime that he didn’t commit. This shouldn’t make you feel like he’s unlikely to try to fire Mueller.

That's exactly my point.

[MIMIC]

I don't think Trump will fire Mueller (or rather put things in motion to fire him), but Trump is really stupid and just doesn't give a fuck. So who knows. All I know is we have at least a little over two more years of this guy

(aka 3 years )

[etiolate]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/942517617369153538

I wouldn't put it past Trump to start those rumors just so he can deny them and mock the press once more.

[Phoenix Dark]

Dunno what's more laughable, people posting Seth Abramson threads of taking Trump's words at face value.

[curly]

Trump has probably brought up firing Mueller at some point but his aides talked him out of it. With how impulsive he is, I would be surprised if he hadn't at least considered it.

[bluemax]

Dunno what's more laughable, people posting Seth Abramson threads of taking Trump's words at face value.

I admit to being ignorant about Abramson, but I figured if I linked it you guys would tell me if it was total bunk or not. I generally roll my eyes at anyone who does a tweet thread to begin with.

[Trent Dole]

TIME FOR SOME GAME THEORY 1/420

[Nola]

Dunno what's more laughable, people posting Seth Abramson threads of taking Trump's words at face value.

I admit to being ignorant about Abramson, but I figured if I linked it you guys would tell me if it was total bunk or not. I generally roll my eyes at anyone who does a tweet thread to begin with.

I don't think he is incorrect on the process of how Trump could go about firing Mueller. That all seems to be knowledge that is readily available. The larger implications he mentions are things many people have spoken about if a situation arises where Trump does pull a Nixon and Republicans, well, act like Republicans. So I don't really see anything wrong with the substance of his argument here? With that said, I gave up somewhere around 18/32 or whatever.

I think Abramson is just a guy that plays amateur sleuth too recklessly and has barreled into conspiracy territory regularly. That plus the clickbait headline + Follow the thread 1/42.

[Phoenix Dark]

IIRC Abramson is one of those dudes involved in fictional journalism or whatever it's called. HA Goodman is another one. He presumably makes good points here or there but from what I've seen/read he goes too far and just makes shit up. Like embellishing various things about true stories, to the point it becomes more of his story than the real story.

[benjipwns]

someone decided to make a segment doing everything they could to encapsulate cable news in ten minutes or less:


*using video from alt right channel because only HD one with the full segment*

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tucker Carlson has been defeated for split screen smug face making, Robert McDowell new split screen champion

[close]