Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP  (Read 6912251 times)

0 Members and 48 Guests are viewing this topic.

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
i fucking love how kavanaugh has this constant (Image removed from quote.) look on his face during the hearing

:lol

It's because he knows he's going to hell.
©ZH

studyguy

  • Senior Member
I can't believe all these fucks out here acting like this chick behind Kavanaugh resting her hands in some weird way is the proof of the downfall of modern society jfc get a grip  :doge
pause

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Remember when Michael Cohen pleaded guilty ten years ago?  :thinking
🤴

kingv

  • Senior Member
The chick behind Kavanaugh is pretty fucking hot though even if she has smallish eyes.

I can’t wait to read (I.e. listen to) that Woodward book. It sounds fucking nuts.

I’m listening to Rick Wilson’s book now and it’s somewhat good at showing Republican hypocrisy around trump and laying out a case for why Trump is so unfit, but he never really comes to grips with his role in the creation of Trumps base and also uses Obama too liberally as a comparison point to Trump. Like “oh trump does this JUST LIKE OBAMA DID!” Or “Trumps followers have a glassy-eyed hero worship like Obama’s did”

I get what he is getting at, and I think there is room to disagree with Obama, but comparing him to Trump as if there is any real comparison in any way is just silly.  Anything Obama did “wrong” or norms he violated Trump is doing wrong^2 so it’s just deeply dishonest to even start with that benchmark.

I find this a lot in the Anti-trump right like Wilson, Tom Nichols, or a few others. Like they seem to think that the GOP just had a bout of temporary insanity and in reality their biases and focus groups means that they actually understand that these old people running around in tricorns festooned with Lipton’s Finest carrying MORAN signs have some kind of deeply held conservative value system instead of just being old white trash with early onset dementia. They can’t quite come to grips that they were never really conservative thought leaders and were actually just the so-called “lipstick on a pig” that Sarah Palin loved to talk about so much.

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Another upset in a Dem primary--ten-term incumbent Mike Capuano loses to Ayanna Pressley. In this case though the policies of the two candidates were both pretty similarly progressive.

Mandark

  • Icon
Also unlike AOC, she's an established (though still relatively young) local politician and was endorsed by both the major daily newspapers in Boston. This is a pretty good piece for context.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
And nobody tell Optimus, but issues of race and gender representation seem to go fine with progressive economic politics.
[close]

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member


How the hell did 16.5k people think Wu was a good candidate?

Source is here btw: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/04/us/elections/results-massachusetts-primary-elections.html

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
why is ted cruz trying to score points on twitter

It's the least possible amount of work to do. Right above thoughts and prayers.
©ZH

kingv

  • Senior Member
I’d rather have trump as my congressman than Brianna Wu.

Tasty

  • Senior Member
(Image removed from quote.)

How the hell did 16.5k people think Wu was a good candidate?

Source is here btw: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/04/us/elections/results-massachusetts-primary-elections.html

She had a good message, said the right things, and kept most of her previous drama (which would likely be general election sinkers) under lock and key. Also, this is crazy times, where being active in politics is somehow considered a detriment if you're a newcomer, so maybe the opposite held true here.

That race in particular is a good sign of two things IMO: 1. that career politicians still have a place in MA if they do their jobs right, and 2. that progressivism is still thriving, maybe not in this race itself, but Wu locked up a good chunk of the vote by pretty much just saying (what I believe are) the right things and doing not much else.

Pair that message with an actually good candidate and baby, you got a stew going.

For the record, I voted for Lynch, but it wasn't a strong endorsement.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1036940918337798144

This dick seriously gonna drop a phrase that hiring managers tell you NOT to fucking drop in a resume
püp

kingv

  • Senior Member
I’d rather have trump as my congressman than Brianna Wu.

But would you rather have Wu as your president than Trump?

I’m not sure. She’d be pretty bad too.

BlueTsunami

  • The Muffin Man
  • Senior Member
I saw her soapbox on The View where she trotted out the usual dumb "name one socialist country that works" talking point and between that and the constant rhetorical "I'm sorry, but...", it's safe to ignore her completely. Like Joe Kennedy III.

spoiler (click to show/hide)


"This guy is totally a rising star in the dem party. We're going to give him a shot." :lol
[close]

Its like the Kennedy genes fell onto an unvacuumed shaggy red carpet
:9

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
I’d rather have trump as my congressman than Brianna Wu.

But would you rather have Wu as your president than Trump?

She is also a pretty big nutso liar. So probably not...

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
The Nike stuff is kind of brillant.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran
« Reply #23058 on: September 05, 2018, 02:44:54 PM »
The New Yorker fucked up and invited Steve Bannon to its ideas festival. They'll probably have to disinvite him as a bunch of the other (actually popular) attendees are dropping out as a result.

This is going to end with the same five or six people writing iterations of the same "free speech" pieces they always do in the NYT op-ed, Quillette, etc.


edit: they disinvited him two minutes after this post.

Now Twitter Edits The New Yorker by Bret Stephens and it's even dumber than you could hope for. In a piece defending "free speech" he says a reporter should be fired for criticizing their boss.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Even with my ego it's hard to take a victory lap on this one, was way too predictable.
[close]

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
You could stop associating this with "free Speech". Bannon is not interested on that and al righters only leech on it because is a "defense" that leftist are to happy to give it to them.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/marco-rubio-alex-jones/index.html

Quote
After talking over Rubio a few times, Jones tapped the senator on the shoulder, as seen in video live-streamed and promoted by Cassandra Fairbanks, a right-wing blogger and an activist.

"Hey, don't touch me again, man," Rubio said to Jones. "I'm asking you not to touch me again."

"Sure, I just patted you nicely," said Jones, who was standing to Rubio's right in the swarm of reporters, Rubio's staff and security in the Senate hallway.

Rubio replied, "But I don't want to be touched. I don't know who you are."

"You want me to get arrested," Jones claimed.

Rubio then said, "You're not going to get arrested. I'll take care of you myself."

:nothot
©@©™




Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

“He’s calling from inside the house!!!!”
What I don't get is after how Trump fired aide after aide all these 'anonymous' officials somehow believe they'll be the once to stick around and 'save' the Republic.
What if he continues fires them, who's going to stop his worst impulses then?

 :confused
🤴

Mandark

  • Icon
"They might think it's important to restrain Trump, but maybe he'll fire them."

I don't even like the editorial, but you're being very dumb.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
How can anyone restrain Trump once he goes into Beast Mode for the mid-term elections?
©@©™

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
that op-ed is such horseshit

"trust us, we're only trying to fuck up the country a LITTLE bit"
püp


Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
The Nike stuff is kind of brillant.

Sign a former QB to trigger the cons.
©ZH

Steve Contra

  • Bought a lemon tree straight cash
  • Senior Member
Imagine the shame of going to the capitol to start some shit and Marco Rubio threatens to fuck you up  :lol
vin

recursivelyenumerable

  • you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment
  • Senior Member
sorry for asking the question, but why the fuck would you get your secret insubordination conspiracy published as an NYT op-ed?
QED

Trurl

  • Member
Shame?

Who do you think wrote the piece?  My money is on Bolton.


Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
First Ivanka and Jared were to restrain Trump. They couldn't so they brought in Paul Manafort to restrain Trump.
After all Manafort had done so with an actual criminal mob boss turned President in Ukraine. Prior to the White House Ann Coulter had to restrain Trump for not just putting his kids in the cabinet.
Moving into the White House it was Priebus' job to restrain Trump. Then Trump had the Mooch get rid of him so it was up to Hope Hicks to restrain Trump.
Until Kelly showed up to restrain Trump but found himself cast aside. Finally his 12 or so lawyers had to restrain Trump.

Now the only lawyer left is Rudy and the defense is: "Sure we colluded with Russia but that isn't really a crime and even if it is. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY you can't indict the President ho ho ho".

But sure this strategy of restraining Trump is going to work. After all he hasn't Tweeted ever since they told him to stop doing that.

That op-ed is probably is written by someone who thinks they're doing the right thing, has been around for a while now and who thinks he or she is part of it but also that it is smart to write about that in a newspaper and it won't have any consequences.
So... Conway?
🤴

Mandark

  • Icon
sorry for asking the question, but why the fuck would you get your secret insubordination conspiracy published as an NYT op-ed?

Presumably someone who wants respectability outside of #MAGA circles when this is all over. The way Jared and Ivanka had all those stories planted in the first year of the administration (where they were behind-the-scenes heroes working against Bannon et al).

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 05:56:44 PM by Nintex »
🤴


kingv

  • Senior Member
It’s Sanders that wrote that.

She’s the only person in the WH that can see everyone coming and going. How else is she going to pull papers off of his desk?

What’s humorous about Trump is the degree that he isn’t REALLY the President. To the point where the People around him essentially just openly ignore the shit he says. It’s kind of interesting on a lot of levels, really.

It makes me think that the crazy shot he says on Twitter, that’s actually what he would be dp My if he could find people to follow all of his orders, but he can’t. Like he tries to fire Sessions and then McGahn just won’t do it, or he tries to withdraw from NAFTA but no one will draw up the paperwork.

Theoretically, I can think that the could hire sycophants that will just follow orders, but practically, I’m not sure that these people actually exist in the pool of applicants to a WH job.

I think there aren’t many, if any true-blue trumpets in the WH. They are either misguided into thinking they are saving America, or have their own agenda which might sometimes be his agenda, but is not necessarily his agenda.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™


kingv

  • Senior Member
I’d believe it was Pence.

He is very clearly there for his own reasons

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
It's also someone who'd rather stand-up publicly than plot behind the scenes.
So that kinda rules out say Mike Pompeo or John Bolton.
🤴


Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
It's clearly Benji, folks. Funny how he's posted here for years yet no one knows his last name.

also
https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1037443443142868996
010

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member
Kellyanne wouldn't surprise me, but, at this point, no one really would. I suspect we'll know with the next ouster.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

team filler

  • filler
  • filler
*****

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
It's clearly Benji, folks. Funny how he's posted here for years yet no one knows his last name.


if it was benji he would have gone off-topic two sentences in and ended with a detailed history of the 1848 election

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member
Quote
I think the odds a cabinet-level official wrote the op-ed are pretty slim, and the likelihood Pence wrote it are basically zero.

On sheer numbers alone, there are just too many deputy assistant secretaries who are plausible candidates and could be described as senior officials.

https://twitter.com/MattGlassman312/status/1037448170664615936

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html

Quote
Don McGahn
We know the White House counsel is a short-timer -- planning to leave in the fall. We also know that McGahn has clashed with Trump repeatedly in the past -- refusing Trump's order to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. And McGahn has already shown a willingness to look out for the broader public good, sitting down for more than 30 hours with special counsel Robert Mueller's team to aid their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Dan Coats
The Director of National Intelligence is very much a part of the long-term Washington establishment, having spent not one but two stints in the nation's capital as a senator from Indiana. Coats has also shown a tendency to veer from the Trump songbook. Informed of Trump's plans to invite Russian president Vladimir Putin for a summit in the United States this fall, Coats said "That is going to be special" -- a line that drew the ire of the President.

Kellyanne Conway
I think it is uniquely possible that someone willing to pen an op-ed this bold and critical of Trump -- and in the paper he hate-loves more than any other -- might take significant measures to cover their tracks. And Conway is someone who has survived for a very long time in the political game. And not by being dumb or not understanding which way the wind blows. Plus, there is the X-factor of her husband -- George -- whose Twitter feed regularly trolls Trump.

John Kelly
The chief of staff has clashed repeatedly with the President and seems to be on borrowed time. Kelly sees his time in the job as serving his country in the only way left to him. Might he view exposing Trump in this way as a last way to be of service?

Jeff Sessions
Sessions sticks out as a possibility for a simple reason: He's got motive. No one has been more publicly maligned by Trump than his attorney general. Trump has repeatedly urged Sessions to use the Justice Department for his own pet political concerns. And this week, Sessions found out that Trump has referred to him as "mentally distinguished mentally-challenged" and mocked his southern accent, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. Sessions is also someone who spent two decades in the Senate prior to being named attorney general by Trump after the 2016 election.

James Mattis
The defense secretary has been Trump's favorite Cabinet member. But the quotes attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book are VERY rough on Trump, though Mattis quickly denied that he ever said them. And if anyone has less to lose than Mattis -- he is a decorated military man serving his country again -- it's hard to figure out who that would be. Plus, Mattis is an ally of John Kelly (see above) and Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state that Trump ran out on a rail.

Fiona Hill
Hill, a Russian expert who joined the Trump administration from the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank, might have reason to so publicly clash with Trump. She is far more skeptical about Russia's motives than Trump -- and was notably left out when Trump and Putin huddled on the sides of the G20 meeting in Germany in 2017. She was a close adviser to national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who was removed from the White House. And, she was also reportedly mistaken for a clerk by Trump in one of her earliest meetings with him on Russia.

Mike Pence
The vice president is all smiles, nods and quiet, deferential loyalty in public. Which of course means that he has the perfect cover to write something like this in The New York Times. Pence is also ambitious -- and there's no question he wants to be president. But would taking such a risk as writing this scathing op-ed be a better path to the White House than just waiting Trump out?

Nikki Haley
The United Nations ambassador is, like Pence, one of Trump's favorites. She is also, however, someone deeply engaged on the world stage and a voice of concern when it comes to how the President views Russia and Putin. Haley, again like Pence, is ambitious and has her eye on national office. Would this service that goal?

Javanka
The combination of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump -- Javanka! -- writing this op-ed would be right out of a soap opera. But that is sort of a perfect way to describe the Trump administration, right? Ivanka Trump said she would work to make her voice heard to her father, but there's little evidence he's listened much to her or her husband. Might this be a bit of revenge?

Melania Trump
To be clear, I don't think the first lady did this. But her willingness to send messages when she is unhappy with her husband or his administration is unmistakable. ("I really don't care. Do U?") And, if you believe this administration and Trump are governed by reality shows rules, then Melania writing the op-ed is the most reality TV thing EVER.

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member
The majority of that list is utter horseshit, btw.

Maiden Voyage

  • Junior
  • Member
https://www.weeklystandard.com/michael-warren/these-are-the-four-people-most-likely-to-be-behind-the-anonymous-new-york-times-op-ed-from-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration

Quote
(1) Larry Kudlow
Trump’s relatively new chairman of the National Economic Council, Kudlow took over for Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who couldn’t abide the president’s affinity for tariffs. Since coming to the White House, Kudlow has struggled to fit his free-market views on trade and a few other issues into the administration’s more active approach to economics.

As a way of establishing his credentials as a more traditionally Republican critic of Trump, the NYT author cites several positive developments of the administration, including “effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military, and more.” Kudlow, who served in the Reagan administration and has been around movement conservatism for decades, would conceivably find these Reagan-era policy goals the most worthy of praise.

Plus, there are some similarities between the piece’s language and Kudlow’s own writings. “The root of the problem is the president’s amorality,” writes the anonymous official. “Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.” Here’s what Kudlow wrote in his 1998 book: “If we stick with what I call first principles, which is morality and ethics, some spiritual guideline which was present at the creation with the founders . . . then this country is unstoppable.”

(2) Kevin Hassett
The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Hassett, like Kudlow, comes from the conservative media-policy world. He worked at the American Enterprise Institute for two decades, where he focused on fiscal policy, before coming to the White House last year. Another likely person to focus on the more traditional areas of deregulation, tax reform, and a strong military, Hassett also has a record of being pro-immigration. It’s notable that among the administration's "accomplishments" the op-ed does not mention is anything regarding immigration, a signature issue for the president.

Hassett is also a prolific op-ed writer who once wrote regularly for National Review Online and has written for several other publications, including the Times. And this mysterious essay, as Carlos Lozada notes, has the markings of a seasoned op-ed writer.

There’s also the interesting ending of the op-ed, which puts the focus on the late senator John McCain and “his example— a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.” Hassett was once an adviser to both of McCain’s presidential campaign, including the role of chief economic adviser on his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination.

(3) Dan Coats
The elder Hoosier statesman who serves as director of National Intelligence is at the end of a career in politics and government service. Coats would have little to lose professionally if he wrote the op-ed and was outed. And he might be motivated to speak out given the way President Trump spoke dismissively of him and the intelligence community after the summit with Vladimir Putin.

Coats was a conservative Republican in Congress who also has diplomatic experience as the ambassador to Germany. The op-ed writer’s focus on foreign policy suggests he may be someone with an interest in, and involvement with, the subject in the Trump White House. The more specific focus on the administration’s Russia policy suggests Coats, a critic of Putin while in the Senate, could be frustrated enough with moments like what the op-ed describes as Trump’s reluctance to expel Russian spies.

There are enough folksy word choices (“Don’t get me wrong,” for one) to recall the writing style of politicians, and particularly politicians of Midwest stock, such as Coats.

(4) Mike Pompeo
Could the secretary of state, who is currently traveling in Pakistan, really write such a harsh assessment of the president he serves? Pompeo has been closer to Trump than most Cabinet officials, starting from his days as CIA director. And the former Kansas congressman is in the midst of guiding the president’s most important diplomatic efforts in North Korea and elsewhere.

As someone fond of, and thought fondly of, by CIA agents, Pompeo could be particularly irked by the suggestion by Trump and his supporters that a “deep state” is at work against the president. The correction of the internal resistance to Trump, the op-ed writer protests, is no “deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”

And in Congress, Pompeo compiled a straightforward conservative record on military spending, trade, and taxes—although there’s little in his public profile to suggest he’s particular to the op-ed’s libertarianish “free minds, free markets” worldview.


kingv

  • Senior Member
It's clearly Benji, folks. Funny how he's posted here for years yet no one knows his last name.

also
https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1037443443142868996

That is his 10 commandment chess move.

Slob on Trumps knob in public while being the shadow president of the Deep States of America in secret.

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
I think its probably someone that doesn't really have a big name.
püp

Pwnz

  • Member
Kudlow fits. He's not completely insane and he can't help but rant in public.


FStop7

  • Senior Member
This op-ed is a trip.  “Yo guys, we can totally keep this nut job in check.  We got this.”

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
"Our boss is a murderer that broke into your house but we managed to distract him after he only killed your pets, you're welcome"
yar

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
(Image removed from quote.)

How the hell did 16.5k people think Wu was a good candidate?

Source is here btw: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/04/us/elections/results-massachusetts-primary-elections.html

She had a good message, said the right things, and kept most of her previous drama (which would likely be general election sinkers) under lock and key. Also, this is crazy times, where being active in politics is somehow considered a detriment if you're a newcomer, so maybe the opposite held true here.

That race in particular is a good sign of two things IMO: 1. that career politicians still have a place in MA if they do their jobs right, and 2. that progressivism is still thriving, maybe not in this race itself, but Wu locked up a good chunk of the vote by pretty much just saying (what I believe are) the right things and doing not much else.
We often like to pretend otherwise, but she also was the only female name on the ballot. Or more accurately maybe because of her last name, the only non white-male name on the ballot.

I can't imagine more than half of her voters know who she is or even what she was campaigning on (being a "cyber security expert", no, really) outside of maybe some third hand info that she was the "progressive" challenger. And that might be pushing it considering she didn't get around to "Medicare For All" until like last week or so. Her Boston area news coverage was pretty limited to last year when she announced, and then her fight with the Boston Globe last week.

She spent almost $200,000, $100,000 of which was self-financing. The other challenger guy basically self-financed everything. For what it's worth it caused Lynch to spend almost $400,000, though he still has $1.4 million in cash on hand.

I hope she runs for governor or something, although she promised 2020. Directly challenging Trump and the DNC outside of Twitter might be a bit too difficult I think. I guess that leaves challenging Ed Markey for his Senate seat? Maybe she can become the new Lyndon LaRouche?