US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Mandark]

Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media “bias” and “fake news,” some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally. But the site’s footer gives away the Babylon Bee’s nature by describing it as “Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire,” and the site has been responsible for a number of other (usually religious-themed) spoofs that have been mistaken for real news articles.

yeah not sure what the problem is?

[etiolate]

Here's the thing.

1. You don't fact check for the stupidest people. If its open parody then you don't waste time on it. If you let in the idea that you have to account for the dumbest possible take then you're essentially fucked. It's an impossible standard.

2. Because Snopes is part of Facebook's fact check network, the parody site gets a strike on its account for this nonsense.

[etiolate]

Also, an important third

3. Your fact check becomes unreliable to the populace when you do this.

[Mandark]

nah

[seagrams hotsauce]

Snopes started out debunking forwards from grandma. They're not gonna stop doing it cuz you think they should be more highbrow. This is dumb even by your standards

[Brehvolution]

Here's the thing.

1. You don't fact check for the stupidest people.

And since we don't, you can see the damage faux news has done to our country.

[kingv]

Now the President is arguing on Twitter with “Alex” Baldwin.

What a time to be alive.

[agrajag]

Alex is the long lost fifth brother

[agrajag]

So allegedly Trump's billionaire buddy dumped millions in steel stocks a week ago

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-ichan-steel-imports-cf7deb8beaf0/

[I'm a Puppy!]

I don't get it. Is Seth Rich in the washer?

[agrajag]

I don't get it. Is Seth Rich in the washer?

Seth Rich sold Uranium to the Russians on behalf of Killary. He had to go.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969529668234829825

 


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969558431802806272

 

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/969593981469413376

 

[Brehvolution]

It's a new golden age for corporate corruption, brehs.

[Brehvolution]

Another thing that caught my ear was a theory that the main reason trump and the gop don't really care about russian meddling is because they are in on it. They know their days are numbered demographically and they don't think they can win anything without the outside help.
So their main mission is to gut and destroy as much as they can before it's too late.

[Broseidon]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969558431802806272

 

fixed

[Mandark]

Another thing that caught my ear was a theory that the main reason trump and the gop don't really care about russian meddling is because they are in on it. They know their days are numbered demographically and they don't think they can win anything without the outside help.
So their main mission is to gut and destroy as much as they can before it's too late.

Even in a case where it turns out Trump was complicit, I don't see a scenario where the larger GOP was "in on it."

I do think demographics have them spooked in a way they weren't 15 years ago, and that's probably a factor in how aggressively they're going after election rules (de-fanging the VRA, restricting poll access, gerrymandering, etc), no to mention immigration. It's roughly the thesis of the batshit Flight 93 Election.

[Nintex]

Another thing that caught my ear was a theory that the main reason trump and the gop don't really care about russian meddling is because they are in on it. They know their days are numbered demographically and they don't think they can win anything without the outside help.
So their main mission is to gut and destroy as much as they can before it's too late.

Wasn't that always the goal of modern day GOP presidencies?

- Clinton 'fixes' the economy, reforms welfare
- GOP: "But Monica, constitution, corruption, fiscal conservative, middle class!"
- Bush (s)elected
- Bungles 9/11, starts war, takes away privacy, tanks the economy, starts another war, further tanks the economy, torture, lame duck lol
- Obama elected
- GOP: "But literally Satan, muh guns, muh rights, no experience, fiscal conservative, big spender! middle class!"
- Trump elected
- *air horn* Golfs, hands-out tax cuts, spends everything, starts trade wars, plays truth or dare with North Korea
-


The biggest problem the GOP faces now I think is that they would have to admit that Hillary Clinton was mostly right.
That there was no other Donald Trump, that he's a loose canon and that he better not be in control of the law.

I think they figured that they could control him like they could easily control Bush. If the tariffs thing is the start of Trump not listening to his advisers anymore we're in for a wild ride.

[Phoenix Dark]

 


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969558431802806272

 

The riddle of steel

[kingv]

Another thing that caught my ear was a theory that the main reason trump and the gop don't really care about russian meddling is because they are in on it. They know their days are numbered demographically and they don't think they can win anything without the outside help.
So their main mission is to gut and destroy as much as they can before it's too late.

Even in a case where it turns out Trump was complicit, I don't see a scenario where the larger GOP was "in on it."

I do think demographics have them spooked in a way they weren't 15 years ago, and that's probably a factor in how aggressively they're going after election rules (de-fanging the VRA, restricting poll access, gerrymandering, etc), no to mention immigration. It's roughly the thesis of the batshit Flight 93 Election.

I don’t know if I would call the “in on in it” but it has surprised me how much the GOP has been complicit in covering it up after the fact. It seems to be political suicide as well.

Like how long will it take to recover? 10 years? 20? They may be a permanent minority party until they remake themselves into something else entirely.

[Mandark]

I've lived through too many "permanent majorities" which flipped a few years later.

[etiolate]

Here's the thing.

1. You don't fact check for the stupidest people.

And since we don't, you can see the damage faux news has done to our country.

It's all fake news, son. To actually have a hint of how the world works you need a gajillion types of news sources and a good filtering device. Most read one or two news sources due to time restraint, and almost all have a failed filtering device. (No critical thinking.)

The whole aim of the fact-check thing is to create class lines and dividing lines between major media corps and smaller or independent news outlets. It's a way of eliminating competition in the information whoring market.

[Mandark]

lol

[Brehvolution]

Here's the thing.

1. You don't fact check for the stupidest people.

And since we don't, you can see the damage faux news has done to our country.

It's all fake news, son.

Don't call me son, kid.

[etiolate]

I'm old. 

[Brehvolution]

Not like it's a competition, but I'm pretty sure I have 10 years on you.

For better or worse. 

[etiolate]

That would make you 48.

[Nintex]

[Brehvolution]

That would make you 48.

OK, so only 5 years. 

[Tasty]

Here's the thing.

Loooooooollllllllllll

[etiolate]

That would make you 48.

OK, so only 5 years. 

 

[chronovore]

Not like it's a competition, but I'm pretty sure I have 10 years on you.

For better or worse. 

You're still young. Don't worry about it. I'm in the middle of my 2nd midlife crisis.

[benjipwns]

 

okay, whose turn is it to have a talk with 18-29 year olds?

What the Democrats completely missed because Bernie managed to persuade a few commies is that most young people are more conservative, individualistic and right wing than their parents.
The Democrats think that old people dying will make them bigger than the GOP but it will be the opposite.

okay, so, these amusing crosstabs, they're for jokes and laughs, not for launching pads of extended arguments re: political trends across mass cohorts, for many reasons given, while others have given their own reasons i'm going to give my primary reason through simple illustration by using the same exact poll for the same exact cohorts but with different questions...







   

[benjipwns]

also, most of the polls that show that millennials are the most relatively socially conservative young generation in ages, also show that they aren't as interested in the government enacting these views, even on something as hot as abortion...and those who consider homosexuality or what have you as a sin, still often show pluralities for civil unions/marriage recognition versus bans, especially post Supreme Court rulings

they're being much smarter in squaring the circle of personal social conservative views, public socially progressive views in a form that results in politically socially libertarian positions than past generations, in part I assume because they grew up during one of the stupidest eras of the Culture Wars

recent smaller scale surveying of college students i assisted on found this result yet again much to the consternation of the person who was trying to find the "millenials are secret conservatives" result after the addition of a question regarding government action tanked the correlations much less the regressions, the cohort was much more religious and/or spiritual, pro-life and some other thing i forgot than the same college age cohort of a decade earlier, but on the state action question "not sure" ran through the results like LeBron suddenly reading a not back defense and going 90% full speed to the basket...the spread on gay adoptions was particularly epic when asked if the government should support their view and outlaw it

that's an anecdote for something that won't be published except maybe as part of a thesis, so should only hold the weight of your trust in my anecdotes, but i mention it because i was able to add that (to me) control question to it and totally fucked up somebody's six months of stupid work through it

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[bluemax]

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/969297182049361920

Also the idea of the GOP becoming a minor political party in this country feels just incredibly farfetched. Religious white people aren't going away.

[benjipwns]

Mnuchin asked UCLA not to post it.

Well, as long as UCLA doesn't...

It's sorta worth it though to see the cop pull her out of that seat like that, I was kinda impressed. It's hard enough to get smoothly out of those types of seats when you intend to. And also disappointed in the protester, she surrendered so quickly to physical contact.

[benjipwns]

Reassign Mueller immediately: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/scaramucci-white-house-banned/

 

[benjipwns]

Reassign Mueller immediately: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/376012-pbs-planning-conservative-talk-show

The weekly half-hour show, set to premiere on April 13, will be hosted by the columnist and frequent "PBS NewsHour" contributor Michael Gerson and political news commentator Amy Holmes.

The hosts will talk with guests “from across the ideological spectrum in the worlds of politics, policy, the arts and academia” about the “larger discussions taking place in the country today,” PBS said in a statement.

“This is a time when big, fundamental issues — about identity, about citizenship, about how we define our country — are being debated in American life,” Gerson said. “We need serious dialogue that stands in contrast to the degraded discourse so common in American politics right now.”

Gerson added that the show will explore the “beliefs and motivations” of “newsmakers and culture shapers” in a way that might not be available on other shows.

“We need a place where we can have thoughtful, reasonable, in-depth conversations about politics, policy, culture — you name it — where we’re really talking to each other instead of shouting at each other,” Holmes said.

The hosts will talk with two guests on each show, and the show will be similar to William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,”

[VomKriege]

A full covering of the political spectrum from slightly to the left of center to mildy center-right.

[etiolate]

so they want the long form back




too late, you lost it to YT

[benjipwns]

A full covering of the political spectrum from slightly to the left of center to mildy center-right.

It's funny that all the stories on this endeavor refer to Firing Line when I can't imagine they'd even give full hour long uncensored airtime to any modern day people like Buckley did in the mid-1960's, just to pick examples from some of the more extreme wing of the black civil rights activists he had on versus just TV friendly moderates like Jesse Jackson:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

"The Republic of New Africa" is not a new name for, say, South Africa: it refers instead to a proposal by a group of American blacks who "don't believe," as Mr. Henry puts it, "there's ever been any historical example of a successful bi-racial society," and who therefore want to carve out a legally separate nation-formed, probably, from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Agree with him or not, Mr. Henry is well spoken and well traveled (he draws illustrations from, e.g., Kenya, Tanzania, and Cuba, all of which he has visited): "We are a nation, a distinctly separate nation with a different set of humor, myths, way of looking at history, a totally different view of ourselves in this country from I would imagine a view which most white people have, and we are separated ... from most of the good things of American life."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Ten years earlier, Mr. Cleaver had been convicted of assault with intent to rape. While out on parole, he had been involved in a shootout in which one Black Panther was killed and two policemen were wounded. This violated the terms of his parole, and he was about to be returned to jail. Just a few days after this show was filmed, he fled the United States for Havana and then Algiers. On the show itself, Mr. Cleaver is surprisingly low-key in manner, though relentless in his rhetorical style--e.g., about whether encouraging the assassination of Richard Nixon would be consistent with the Panther ideology: "Mr. Nixon is at this moment the pig waiting in the wings to take the place of the other pig that is on his way out. I would say that if Richard Nixon was assassinated it would only result in having another pig in line who possibly would need to be assassinated. I don't see any reason for having Richard Nixon alive today."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Mr. Innis, a dazzling speaker in the West Indian style, had been urging separate development as the only way to allow the Negro community to shoulder its own burdens. He had recently had an acrimonious exchange with Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who had called this a return to segregation. RI: "My style is, and that of my organization is, that, we feel that our ideology is so sound that we can persuade any brother that it is in his best interest." WFB: "And if you fail to?" RI: "We will try, try again." WFB: "How do you try-forcefully?" RI: "With the most exquisite and persuasive rhetoric." WFB: "Rhetoric. Refine the rhetoric. So that if Roy Wilkins Jr. matriculated at a college like this and said, 'I don't want to join a black student union committed to separatism,' he would not be molested, as far as you're concerned?" RI: "No, not by my troops." WFB: "And are you in control of your troops?" RI: "Oh yes, I have full control of my troops at all times."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Mr. Newton, WFB reminds us, was "tried and convicted of killing a policeman ... The slogan 'Free Huey Newton' was to the late Sixties what the slogan 'Who promoted Peress?" was to the early Fifties." In due course an appeals court reversed the verdict, and the juries thereafter were hung, so that Mr. Newton eventually was freed. This show has many surprises, starting with the first exchange. WFB: "... imminently he will publish his autobiography, which is called Revolutionary Suicide, a concept I shall now ask Mr. Newton, please, to explain." HN: "I'll explain it, but if I may impose upon you, I have a friend who's almost dying for me to ask this question, if you will. The question is: During the Revolution of 1776, when the United States of America broke away from England, my friend would like to know which side would you have been on during that time?" WFB: "I think probably I would have been on the side of George Washington. I'm not absolutely sure, because it remains to be established historically whether what we sought to prove at that point might not have been proved by more peaceful means. On the whole, I'm against revolutions, though I think, as revolutions go, that was a pretty humane one." HN: "Yes, you're not such a bad guy after all. My friend will be surprised to hear that. I hope he's listening."

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Mr. Hentoff had, Mr. Buckley tells us, written that "We must have black power to overcome white power." What exactly is meant by black power? Does it matter whether the person talking about it is the Harlem teacher who is the subject of Mr. Hentoff's book, or Elijah Muhammad? And why are the New York Times and the New York Post so chary of it? NH: "I suppose they think of the doctrine as a racist doctrine and the corollary concern seems to be that thereby the Negroes will alienate their good white friends and make things much more difficult for the coalition--that luminous coalition of labor, the Church, and civil-rights groups and the like which is apparently about to end the final verse of 'We Shall Overcome'." In fact, suggests Mr. Hentoff, what black power is properly about is the power of blacks to have some say in the running of their own neighborhoods and their own children's schools.

also obligatory

spoiler (click to show/hide)

versus

[close]

[benjipwns]

At least the new show can tackle topics that the original series never got a chance to explore like...

"Police Power"

Guests: Heffernan, John J. : Chevigny, Paul, 1935-

26 February 1969

To most Americans, Mr. Buckley suggests, "the main concern in matters of law enforcement is the ability of the police, or more accurately the entire court system, to keep down the rate of crime, or to prevent it from growing." To civil-libertarians like Mr. Chevigny, a far greater concern is police going too far, and specifically bending new rules intended to check their power, such as the exclusionary rule. In this discussion rich with anecdote, Mr. Heffernan stoutly defends his colleagues: "I think ... they're doing everything in their power to comply with the laws of the land, as much as we do it sometimes with a frown on our face ..."

"Wiretapping--Electronic Bugging"

Guests: Long, Edward V., 1908-

24 January 1968

Senator Long, as WFB introduces him, "is regarded as the principal custodian of individual privacy in Washington.... Hardly a week goes by that Senator Long doesn't rise from his seat to demonstrate the latest use of American ingenuity against American privacy." But he proves not to be totalist in his objections, and from the discussion emerges a clear picture of the points at issue. As Mr. Buckley phrases it, "As a practical matter, I would like to know how much more certain it is that you and I can finish our lives peacefully, rather than at the business end of a mugging ... assuming that certain characteristically inclined criminals are bugged." Senator Long makes the point that many police chiefs "don't use it; they say that it's a dirty business"; his answer: only for"national security," and then "only under court order."

well, i'm sure the new 15 minute interviews will fix the problems that these hour long ones didn't solve

[benjipwns]

since he just died, Billy Graham in 1969

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

references to Firing Line always get tossed in with Crossfire, but early Firing Line was a different show, it wasn't a debate usually, it was a discussion or a conversation, WFB does far less of the talking than he does set up the guests to explain their own views, then he questions them and they let the conversation go where it may

a pair of 15 minute interviews, from conservatives or not, isn't going to be able to reconstruct that format...it being announced and focused on being conservative hosted/focused even misses that WFB's style was far more important to the show than his conservatism, and for most of its run he's well aware that the show is at its least effective when he's giving his own views on the subject versus playing off the guest

in the one press release it talks about how they're going to cover "issues like race, gun control and whether conservatism is the right message for the working class" in 15 minute interviews

so even there they're going about it in a poor manner, they're going to (unlike the rest of the media) set about to have a gun control episode, so they go out and find regular talking heads on one side or the other, probably one of each and...

plus you know like David Frum, David Brooks and other PBS/CNN stars are going to show up immediately with their thoughtful intellectual takes, rather than say ex-socialist Cindi and her black militia gun club or any really non-mainstream views that is arguably what the legacy of Firing Line should be invoked for

edit: found the Politico article i was looking for, which goes a bit far in trying to make WFB into ahead of his time, but more importantly for my argument illustrates why the show, and not necessarily WFB, was and continues to be different: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/william-buckley-feminism-intellectuals-firing-line-women-214301

William F. Buckley Was No Feminist, But He Was an (Unintentional) Ally
By inviting female intellectuals onto his TV show and taking their arguments seriously, Buckley showed that their ideas were worth listening to—giving feminists a platform to reach an influential audience.

...

In this climate, the fact that Buckley invited accomplished female lawyers, professors, and activists onto his TV show to debate political issues seems rather enlightened. To put it rather conventionally, in attacking feminism on Firing Line in the 1970s, Buckley attempted— with uneven success—to be a perfect gentleman. He opposed the women’s lib movement, but was respectful of feminist intellectuals and eager to hear and debate their ideas. By inviting them on his show and treating their arguments seriously, he gave them legitimacy—proving by example that theirs were ideas worth listening to, and giving feminism a coveted platform to reach an influential audience.

...

Elsewhere on TV, feminists were given much less time for thoughtful self-expression. Take Not for Women Only, a patently misnamed morning talk show hosted by Barbara Walters. In 1973, NOW cofounder Betty Friedan and her daughter appeared on the program to answer hard-hitting questions like, “Are you ever embarrassed by your mother?” It was utter pabulum. Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique had been a major force in kicking off second-wave feminism in the United States in 1963. Ten years later, change had happened, but the goals of that movement were still very much a work in progress, and mainstream media discussion of feminism was typically slim, hostile, or dismissive.

In this context, Firing Line stood out for Buckley’s genuine attempts to engage with, decipher, and debunk feminist goals, while allowing his feminist guests to have their say.

[Nintex]

 

okay, whose turn is it to have a talk with 18-29 year olds?

What the Democrats completely missed because Bernie managed to persuade a few commies is that most young people are more conservative, individualistic and right wing than their parents.
The Democrats think that old people dying will make them bigger than the GOP but it will be the opposite.

okay, so, these amusing crosstabs, they're for jokes and laughs, not for launching pads of extended arguments re: political trends across mass cohorts, for many reasons given, while others have given their own reasons i'm going to give my primary reason through simple illustration by using the same exact poll for the same exact cohorts but with different questions...

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)    (Image removed from quote.)

My theory is quite simple.
You can't be undecided on Donald Trump, you just don't dare to say you're voting for that lunatic, or know deep down inside that once you walk into that voting booth you'll see the name and can't resist voting for him.

Warren/Trump, how can you be 'undecided'. That's +12% for Trump. And see who's undecided the most: 42% of 18 - 29 year olds.

It's like having a poll: "Do you want to get shot with an AR-15" or "Get slapped with a towel by a 4 year old"


If that's how things stand for the Democrats, they're completely fucked. You could poll some republican leaning demographic of 60 year olds and say:
"Who would you vote for? Warren or a distinguished mentally-challenged monkey" and they'd go with the monkey if he has the Magic R.

By voting for Trump and handing the party over to him the GOP has proven that they don't care about anything but winning.
The other side is still on the level of political debates, policy and compromise. Yet the only question that lingers in 2020 is: Do you want to renew the series for another season of "The President"?

Campaign video: "Will Mexico pay for the wall? Will Don Jr. take-over as AG? Are the journalists going to GITMO? Who is going to be Trump's 5th White House Communications Director?"
"You're fired.." "We are going to make America Great Again!..." "Alex... I got a job for you" "My daddy would never shoot a CNN reporter and throw him out of his helicopter, how can you ask a daughter questions like this!"
Tune it after the election, for another season of: "The President".

[Mandark]

plus you know like David Frum, David Brooks and other PBS/CNN stars are going to show up immediately with their thoughtful intellectual takes

well brooks is basically wfb but not as racist so that works

[Joe Molotov]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/white-house-shots-fired/index.html

I wonder which member of the cabinet this was.

[kingv]

She can stop pretending now.

[Trent Dole]

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/970071393990832129

[bluemax]

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/969744158897459201

[thehunter116]

The though of Pence jerking off is repulsive.

He would never be caught dead with an imaginary women instead of his wife.

[BlueTsunami]

He's probably the type of dude that jerks with just his thumb and pointer finger

[etiolate]

I appreciate how Blue made it all extra visualized for us.

[Nintex]

President Trump on Saturday praised a move by China's Communist Party to abolish presidential term limits, and suggested that maybe the United States would "give that a shot some day."

"He's now president for life. President for life. And he's great," Trump told Republican donors during a closed-door even in Florida. A recording of Trump's remarks was obtained by CNN.

"And look, he was able to do that," he added. "I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot some day."

http://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/970156690673938432

http://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/970150517040144384

http://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/970147998259871744

 

[D3RANG3D]

[warcock]

Why is nobody on big papa cigarillo forum or here discussing the fact that there is a possibility that looming next week is a trade war with our largest trade partner which would endanger approximately 50% of the world economy.

[Nintex]

Why is nobody on big papa cigarillo forum or here discussing the fact that there is a possibility that looming next week is a trade war with our largest trade partner which would endanger approximately 50% of the world economy.

[agrajag]

we already dead

[TakingBackSunday]

if these new tariffs are going to go into effect, our economy is fucked

[agrajag]

Remember guys, Trump ran on the message of economy

 

[Nintex]