Thread: Saturday Night Massacre Redux Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020181
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Back in 1973 Richard Nixon was under investigation for the Watergate break-in. Attorney General Elliot Richardson had appointed Special Investigator Archibald Cox to handle it. Cox subpoenaed the taped conversations from the Oval Office. Nixon refused and, ultimately, ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered Assistant Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, but Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned Ultimately Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox and the rest is history.
Now the pattern is being repeated. First, Sally Yates is fired, then Preet Bharara (US Attorney, New York District) and now James Comey (FBI Director) have all been fired for investigating Trumpwold.
The deal of it is, Comey found out about his firing from television.
And then he is fired ostensibly for bungling the Clinton investigation--when Trump praised him during the 2016 campaign. Talk about hiding behind Clinton's skirts! The real reason, it appears, is that the FBI was about to name people in the administration who had been compromised Russia.
Mr. Trump, this is not the Apprentice You cannot fire people looking into your affairs.
When Yates testified at the Senate hearing this week, she was asked why people would want to cover up. She replied it suggests someone is guilty. This certainly looks like a cover up.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"White House claims Comey’s firing was due to handling of Clinton email case" (PBS Newshour--video, audio, and transcript). "In an abrupt and stunning development, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey Tuesday, after receiving recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Judy Woodruff explores what we know so far with John Yang and gets reaction from John Dean, former White House counsel for President Nixon."
I heard the audio part on the radio. Judy Woodruff said, at the beginning, that they'd found out only 15 minutes before they went on air! I'm impressed that they managed to get John Dean on such short notice! (Though, given this presidency, maybe they have him on speed dial.) Anyway, good coverage on short notice.
I don't remember if this was on the Newshour or NPR's special coverage, but people are thinking that Comey may have been fired to forestall the Russia-connection investigation.
Strange times, indeed.
Oh, and I'm watching Colbert right now. He's doing a tribute to the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon "I'm just a bill". Someone--a politician, I think--mentioned that passing a bill is like that. (SR was and is a big deal, for those of us who grew up with it. When I was growing up, it was shown during breaks from Saturday morning TV cartoons. Lots of info and samples online.)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I - and most people - will conclude from this that Trump is guilty of serious wrongdoing.
So when the investigations continue, eventually it will bring down his presidency. And possibly his business too.
I look forward to the situation - maybe ten years from now - when everyone looks back on this period in American history and wonders how the most corrupt man in history was ever allowed near the White House. Not that he is often near it anyway.
(Hindsight will be wonderful. In the UK, we let Jimmy Savile on a childrens ward so I am not suggesting we have the best record).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... Mr. Trump, this is not the Apprentice You cannot fire people looking into your affairs. ...
O, but he can. He's Mr President.
Besides, Kellyanne Conway says he can. And she's blonde and has manicured teeth.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
No good deed goes unpunished.
But .....
This looks like a really stupid move. Comey probably knows where all the bodies are buried. The Russian dimension probably wasn't enough to kill the Trump Presidency but a botched cover up might do the trick.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I sometimes hope T will just quit. He can't cope with not winning the popular vote, or living alone, or not being in the world he constructed for himself, or the job, or not understanding even the basics of the world or politics.
The best place for him (and the best place for the world to have him) is not in gov't. Maybe he can buy an uninhabited island somewhere.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Republican lawmakers have not reached the tipping point beyond which Trump's behaviour hurts their political ambitions.
Moral feelings do not seem to matter anymore.
The real danger is the precedent set for somebody in the future who is competent and wants to abuse the system.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Stupid Watergate takes another turn.
I just hope Trump's body can take the stress. I know he has a proven track record of handling stress well, I just think that him dying in office would be a bad thing for the USA.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Stupid Watergate takes another turn.
I just hope Trump's body can take the stress. I know he has a proven track record of handling stress well, I just think that him dying in office would be a bad thing for the USA.
Although short of Jesus' dramatic return with full- on white horse, I'm hard pressed to think of any possible scenario where this does end well.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Stupid Watergate takes another turn.
I just hope Trump's body can take the stress. I know he has a proven track record of handling stress well, I just think that him dying in office would be a bad thing for the USA.
His "good way of handling stress" is to get others to take the strain.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Coney should just fly off to somewhere that doesn't want to extradite anybody to the USA, and blow the whistle on everything he knows....
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm wondering if Congress will still go through with his scheduled testimony--this week, I think.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Coney should just fly off to somewhere that doesn't want to extradite anybody to the USA, and blow the whistle on everything he knows....
Russia?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Coney should just fly off to somewhere that doesn't want to extradite anybody to the USA, and blow the whistle on everything he knows....
Russia?
Well it worked for Snowden of course - I'm just not quite as sure that Putin will be happy to have Comey telling all in quite the same way...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It were a joke lad. Layered and multi-target for all that is was one word.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
But it isn't like Trump woke up yesterday morning and suddenly decided.
The report says quite clearly:
quote:
President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey Tuesday, after receiving recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions .
If he was acting on the advice of the AG and the deputy AG should we not give him credit?
What would have happened had he refused that advice and then subsequently been shown that he should have listened to the advice of the two men after all? He'd have been criticised for ignoring his advisors.
And the AG is quite a powerful figure I guess?
So, not one to be ignored.
If the AG and the Deputy told Trump to sack Comey, they must have something on him.
Surely.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It were a joke lad. Layered and multi-target for all that is was one word.
Don't worry, I got it...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The larger and more real worry is that Sessions, certainly, and the deputy AG possibly, are in Lyin' Don's back pocket. If the DoJ is colluding with the president to hide his crimes, then we are indeed in the soup. Who shall guard the guardians?
The only real hope is November 2018. If we can flip the Congress, then a cleanup can occur. Only subpoenas, compelling sworn testimony, is going to get us to the bottom of this. We must pray that the polity (and indeed the world) can survive until then.
My great fear is that, as the pressure builds and indictments (already inevitable) become real to his mind, Li'l Donny will resort to his favorite tactic. Massive distraction, and what could be more massively distracting than a nuclear war?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the AG and the Deputy told Trump to sack Comey, they must have something on him.
Surely.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Looking more like he may have something on all of them.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Scott Lemieux has some interesting thoughts on the Comey firing. The whole thing is worth a read and not overly long, but the main points boil down to:
- Comey's actions during the 2016 election as accurately described in the Rosenstein memo justify his firing from the FBI.
- - This justification is a purely a pretext being used to shut down the investigation into ties between the Trump campaingn/administration and the Russian government.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If he was acting on the advice of the AG and the deputy AG should we not give him credit?
The attorney-general who is also:
- a hand-picked Trump loyalist?
- - implicated in the Russia scandal to a degree he was forced to recuse himself from the investigation?
- - someone who claimed last October that Comey had "an absolute duty" to send the letter to Congress that is now the ostensible reason Sessions recommended Comey's firing?
That Attorney-General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III? That's the guy you're saying we should take seriously about the Russia investigation? Just on point #2 alone, what kind of "recusal" allows the recused to recommend the firing of the head of the organization investigating their actions?
There doesn't seem to be any corruption or abuse of power so bad that someone won't take the side of the powerful and say they should be given "credit" for their self-serving actions.
[ 10. May 2017, 14:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
what kind of "recusal" allows the recused to recommend the firing of the head of the organization investigating their actions?
My head hurts.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is from the POST: conservative pundit Jennifer Rubin issues a call to arms.
The headline says it all: "If Trump Fired Comey Over Russia He Must Go."
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Mudfrog
quote:
If he was acting on the advice of the AG and the deputy AG should we not give him credit?
Politico, which is a liberal leaning news source--granted, has a back story on this.
I think it is interesling that Trump's letter thanked Comey for telling him three he was not under investigation. In poker, this comment is considered a "tell," which telegraphs what is in your hand or mind.
Yet Comey, last week told the Senate his administration was under investigation. Trump fumed over this for a week. It appears that Trump ordered both the AG and the Assistant AG to give him justification for the firing. In October both Sessions and Trump praised Comey for his handling of the Clinton emails! This all smacks of the FBI investigation of Trump was getting too close for comfort.
[ 10. May 2017, 15:19: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is a free click from New York magazine, explaining Tiny Fingers' thinking on these issues. If you believe that the US government is your personal property then it all follows naturally.
This, from the POST, is an enormous and very thorough summary of the state of play to this point. All the comments and statements of importance in one handy article.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I'm glad I'm British.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm glad I'm British.
Really? What that bellend does affects the world. Oh, and Brexit.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm glad I'm British.
Then why the unshakeable confidence in the ironclad integrity of Jeff Sessions? Is Sessions that well known in the UK, or just a subject of particular interest to you personally?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Hey, what an amazing coincidence*!
quote:
Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three congressional officials who were briefed on his request.
Mr. Comey asked for the resources last week from Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who also wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.
<snip>
The F.B.I. declined to comment. But Sarah Isgur Flores, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said “the idea that he asked for more funding” for the Russia investigation was “totally false.” She did not elaborate.
"Please don't fire me" Ms. Isgur Flores was heard to mutter at the end of the press conference. Yes, I'm speculating here, but I'm sure it occurred to everyone else, too.
And there's this little tidbit on timing:
quote:
Until two weeks ago, when Mr. Rosenstein took over as deputy attorney general, the [Russia] investigation was being overseen by Dana Boente, who was acting as the deputy and is now the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
So apparently one of the first things Mr. Rosenstein decided to take care of after his appointment as deputy attorney general was firing the head of the FBI. Interesting priorities.
--------------------
*The New York Times has a paywall which will let non-subscribers read ten (10) articles for free per calendar month. Only click through if you're a NYT subscriber or you want to use one of your ten monthly NYT passes reading this article.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Trump is clearly more clever than Nixon. His lackeys have carried out his wishes. A friendly politburo is not going to challenge him - and even 2018 is not a foregone conclusion, for the influential right wing media are slamming liberals for whinging about the axing of Comey after they had called for it themselves - using, of course, words of no more than one syllable.
Sorry to say, to this outsider, Trump is living in a world where his shit don't stink; until enough people realize it does he is going to continue unchecked on a swathe of evil, emulating the Vladdies, Kimmies and Roddies whose naughty bits he adores.
Don't want to be sensationalist, but these are dark times. Possibly not apocalyptic-dark, but very oh shit left hand where's my right hand dark.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Trump is clearly more clever than Nixon.
But he still does his best to foist the equivalency into our minds.
Seriously, if you're in the middle of accusations of a Watergate-like cover-up, who thinks it's a good idea to stage a photo-op with Henry Kissenger?!? I think Trump is just trolling us now.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Mudfrog, I've seen it that the firing was under discussion between Trump and certain very high ups for a week. Easy enough with a nod and a wink for Trump to secure a couple of letters recommending him to do exactly what he'd already decided to do. This is a very common strategy, and at use even in lowly church conflicts occasionally, God forgive us.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Trump is clearly more clever than Nixon.
But he still does his best to foist the equivalency into our minds.
Seriously, if you're in the middle of accusations of a Watergate-like cover-up, who thinks it's a good idea to stage a photo-op with Henry Kissenger?!? I think Trump is just trolling us now.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But he doesn't seem to have the intelligence or self-restraint for a troll...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Mudfrog, I've seen it that the firing was under discussion between Trump and certain very high ups for a week. Easy enough with a nod and a wink for Trump to secure a couple of letters recommending him to do exactly what he'd already decided to do. This is a very common strategy, and at use even in lowly church conflicts occasionally, God forgive us.
Quite the tradition, in fact.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent FBI director? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The fact that Sessions wrote a follow-up letter to the one written by Rosenstein strongly suggests collusion. Sessions had supposedly recused himself from the investigation into Russian involvement. Comey asks for more funds from Rosenstein to continue the investigation. Sessions should not have been involved in anyway.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The fact that Sessions wrote a follow-up letter to the one written by Rosenstein strongly suggests collusion. Sessions had supposedly recused himself from the investigation into Russian involvement. Comey asks for more funds from Rosenstein to continue the investigation. Sessions should not have been involved in anyway.
Sessions may not have had a choice: his Russian Controller may have insisted on it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is actually irrelevant as to the reality of collusion with Russia in the campaign.
Comey had the audacity to investigate Cheeto. That makes the Trump angry, you won't like him when he is angry.
Trump SMASH!
with tiny fists of rage.
Ooh, a fantastic idea for a fancy dress/Halloween costume. An orange Hulk with bad hair and tiny fists!
ETA: Trump hands could be a massive money maker for a novelty company. Much less material than Hulk hands.
[ 10. May 2017, 21:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is a report now the US Attorney's office of Virginia was about to issue subpoenas on Monday for aids to Mike Flynn. I am thinking this is getting too close for comfort for the Orange One.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That makes the Trump angry, you won't like him when he is angry.
Trump SMASH!
with tiny fists of rage.
Ooh, a fantastic idea for a fancy dress/Halloween costume. An orange Hulk with bad hair and tiny fists!
ETA: Trump hands could be a massive money maker for a novelty company. Much less material than Hulk hands.
No, that's not good enough. Trump has done much worthy of criticism, much that can be attacked. His haircut and clothing is his choice, the size of his fists no more so than his the colour of his eyes, even his sexual preferences. Let's limit the attacks to what he says and does, not things beyond the control of any of us.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
--Re T & Nixon:
Someone said, on NPR today, that T makes Nixon look like an amateur.
--Re Mudfrog's "surely" (but not poking at him):
It's a losing bet to *assume* that powerful people in (Washington,) DC are attempting to do the right thing, for the right reasons, in the right way. Sometimes, at least some of them are. But with party allegiance, corruption by money and influence, other priorities...and maybe simply being overwhelmed by the whole thing, and losing touch with The Real Life Of The Average American.
That last bit is a symptom of "Inside The Beltway Syndrome"--the Beltway being a road that goes around DC.
--Re pic with Kissinger:
Whoa. Wow. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--And a Russian delegation is paying T a visit today. If I correctly understood the mention I just heard on the news, one among them is suspected in the Russia mess.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
GeeD:
It isn't that his hands are tiny, it is that a journalist said they were and this seems to have preturbed him.
It is the reaction, something which he is in control of, that is being prodded.
[ 10. May 2017, 22:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No, that's not good enough. Trump has done much worthy of criticism, much that can be attacked. His haircut and clothing is his choice, the size of his fists no more so than his the colour of his eyes, even his sexual preferences. Let's limit the attacks to what he says and does, not things beyond the control of any of us.
Yup.
ETA:
lilBuddha--Do you really think T has control of his reactions??? And, AFAICS, there's no reason to keep repeating the reporter's comment about T's tiny hands. It gets in the way of seeing and discussing things clearly--and gives fodder to supporters who think he's being bullied.
[ 10. May 2017, 22:27: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Rudy Giuliani as a possible replacement for Comey?
I just checked my e-mail, and had a note from the Democrat mailing list. (Their site is Democrats.org, but I couldn't find the info there, so I'm pasting in the e-mail from Tom Perez.) {H/As--Hope this is ok!}
quote:
Friend --
Now that Donald Trump has fired James Comey, he gets to appoint the next FBI Director to a 10-year term.
He could pick anyone -- even, for example, a former campaign surrogate like Rudy Giuliani, who spent last night praising Trump's decision from (where else?) the lobby of Trump's new Washington hotel.
And the only check on Donald Trump's appointment would be the Senate GOP -- the same senators who rushed through the confirmations of Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, and Neil Gorsuch.
That's why we MUST have an independent investigation into Trump and Russia led by a special prosecutor -- someone whose loyalties will be to the American people, not Donald Trump.
This investigation isn't about politics. It's about our national security, the integrity of our elections, and the future of our democracy. We cannot allow it to be buried by a corrupt administration and complicit Republican leaders in Congress.
Senator Ron Wyden said it best last night: "in America, the truth always comes out." This independent investigation is how we make that happen.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It would be inappropriate to make fun of the physical attributes of almost any other human being. Crooked Donald has however made a consistent practice of doing just that, for so very many years (too many examples to link to) that it seems only fair to give him some of his own back. Bullying him, hello? We are talking about the President of the United States here, not a fourth grader. What next, will you tell us that the inflatable chickens with his hairdo are unfair to him? No, it is the privilege of the less powerful to mock him. Every insult he has heaped upon the weak and the helpless shall be returned to him. And if you want a pussy hat, pm me and I'll knit you one.
In the meantime, some of these are amusing --- the Twitter reaction to Comey's firing. My favorite is: "This is the part of the movie where Comey continues the investigation as a depressed alcoholic private investigator trying to clear his name."
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Roughly, the difference is that Thump still holds all the aces?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Z--
FYI: No actual URL in that link.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Something is wrong when Trump meets the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador and the only press that gets to cover the meeting is the Russian Press.
Some are wondering if the Kremlin was presenting Trump with the Employee of the Month.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Two things made me laugh in this thread. The first was the Henry II bit from Croesus and the second the Angry Trump email from lil Buddha, which I read in the voice of English comedian Jeremy Hardy. He's doing a great line in Theresa May as super hero at the moment: "MAKE ME STRONGER". As for the lil critics of personal attacks I say, what universe do you live in, because I live in an imperfect one where personal attacks are FUNNY. Screw the strategy, lets have a laugh before we all BURN.
I'm pretty sure I've had a go at people using personal attacks on Trump before, but that's OK because I know I'm a hypocrite. Also, and by way of contradiction, all's fair when you are funny.
Lisa Desjardins from PBS Newshour reported on my telly that Comey had started telling the relevant people around Congress that he was expanding the Russia investigation last week. This prompted me to say to my television: "Trump is a liar and a thief" in my best Gollum voice. Well, that's not strictly true. I've edited what I said to remove an ambiguity.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be inappropriate to make fun of the physical attributes of almost any other human being. Crooked Donald has however made a consistent practice of doing just that, for so very many years (too many examples to link to) that it seems only fair to give him some of his own back. Bullying him, hello?
You're getting into the gutter argument with that. There's more than enough to tackle him over without taking that step. It's really no better than attacking Obama because his father was Kenyan and thus Obama's skin was not of the purest white. It's a simple personal (and to me offensive) approach. Let's just look at his corruption, lets point out his gutter arguments, let's set out the lack of any coherence in what he says - in short, let's direct our attack on his incompetence as US President.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's really no better than attacking Obama because his father was Kenyan and thus Obama's skin was not of the purest white.
Whoa, slow your roll there. These things are not the same.
You have a point that it is personal and unnecessary, but we have been attacking his behaviour and choices, not things over which he has no control, not things historically used to oppress.
quote:
in short, let's direct our attack on his incompetence as US President.
We've been doing this as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--Do you really think T has control of his reactions???
I have a history of having little control over my temper. It is not an excuse for me, why should it be for him?
quote:
and gives fodder to supporters who think he's being bullied.
When they begin reading, SOF, then it might be worth considering.
However, it is childish and there is plenty of real ammo. Still not certain I am going to stop, though.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, it is childish and there is plenty of real ammo.
This is my position. Playground taunts just diminish the seriousness of actual events. They make Trump critics look petty, mean, and petulant - little different to how they portray their opponent, in fact. They suggest a primary motivation of party before country and personal hatred rather than a thirst for justice and a decently governed nation. They are on the level of "Killary" and "Illary". They give ammo to the other side.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I agree with Eutychus on this. It looks childish, and detracts from the proper attack. It gives easy grounds for all comments made to be dismissed. And I can't see any real distinction between attacking someone skin colour and the size of their hands (even given what was said earlier).
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
So your case is that 'Tiny Fingers' or 'Mango Mussolini' (that one is questionable, since I believe the skin tone is a fake tan either applied with makeup or achieved by tanning beds and therefore a volitional decision) is not his fault.
However, it is clear that his indisputable treachery, lying, and misogyny are fully in his power. And therefore Pussygrabber, Lyin' Don, and Crooked Donald are entirely appropriate. These epithets also have the virtue of being terms that have emerged from his own pursed lips in denigrating other persons.
We need a new epithet however, to take in all the ramifications of the fresh Russian complications. There's a march at the White House in June, I need to make a sign.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I don't see any evidence that Trump is smarter than Nixon. Nixon, for instance, did actually write his own books. Nixon survived in American politics for many years while Trump is fizzling out in a few months. If Trump actually had any brains, he would be much more dangerous.
I don't think the meeting with Kissinger was an instance of Trump trolling us; I think he is utterly oblivious to how his actions will be perceived.
On an irrelevant note, I wonder if Trump actually is a competent golfer.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So your case is that 'Tiny Fingers' or 'Mango Mussolini' (that one is questionable, since I believe the skin tone is a fake tan either applied with makeup or achieved by tanning beds and therefore a volitional decision) is not his fault.
My case is not about what is whose fault but above all that using these epithets weakens your arguments.
It suggests the use of insults to make up what is lacking in cogency.
Using epithets repeatedly has all the class of a playground bully. It's certainly not going to heal any partisan divides, and as far as I'm concerned, my natural disposition to be persuaded by an argument is in inverse proportion to the amount of invective involved.
Trump's America is looking increasingly like, say, Erdogan's Turkey to me, but if your endless stream of links to almost exclusively left-leaning sources seasoned with insults is the alternative, to be honest it doesn't look all that rosy.
And demonstrations? They're not going to bother the guy in the White House and they are not going to bother GOP Congress members whose constituencies don't depend on your vote. They are more likely to reinforce a misplaced sense of self-satisfaction at having "done" something that actually achieves very little. The only way I can see this thing getting turned around is more investigative journalism and/or grassroots political activism.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So your case is that 'Tiny Fingers' or 'Mango Mussolini' (that one is questionable, since I believe the skin tone is a fake tan either applied with makeup or achieved by tanning beds and therefore a volitional decision) is not his fault.
However, it is clear that his indisputable treachery, lying, and misogyny are fully in his power. And therefore Pussygrabber, Lyin' Don, and Crooked Donald are entirely appropriate. These epithets also have the virtue of being terms that have emerged from his own pursed lips in denigrating other persons.
My case is not about what is whose fault but above all that using these epithets weakens your arguments.
It suggests the use of insults to make up what is lacking in cogency.
Using epithets repeatedly has all the class of a playground bully. It's certainly not going to heal any partisan divides, and as far as I'm concerned, my natural disposition to be persuaded by an argument is in inverse proportion to the amount of invective involved.
Trump's America is looking increasingly like, say, Erdogan's Turkey to me, but if your endless stream of links to almost exclusively left-leaning sources seasoned with insults is the alternative, to be honest it doesn't look all that rosy.
I've always thought this kind of civility policing is more intended to shut down criticism than to accomplish anything else. The argument seems to be premised on the idea that pointing out police state tactics or being horrifically offended by police state tactics is actually worse than using police state tactics (to work from your Erdoğan example). I mean yeah, maybe the government rounding up dissidents is a bad thing, but describing it as a "clusterfuck" is just beyond the pale! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The problem with "healing partisan divisions" is that people disagree about politics, and it doesn't matter how nicely you phrase your counter-arguments. There is still going to be disagreement. I've also noticed that calls for fake "civility" are almost always directed at people who are angry about injustice, rarely at anyone actually perpetrating injustice.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I don't see any evidence that Trump is smarter than Nixon. Nixon, for instance, did actually write his own books. Nixon survived in American politics for many years while Trump is fizzling out in a few months. If Trump actually had any brains, he would be much more dangerous.
I don't think anyone argued that Trump is smarter than Nixon was, just that they seem to be playing from the same playbook:
quote:
Once again, the fiery wreck of President Stupid's administration parallels the fall of Richard Nixon in eerie ways. Today, specifically, I am reminded of that day in April of 1973 when Nixon -- who knew damn good and well exactly what Watergate was about because he was ass-deep in the cover-up from the very beginning -- dispatched White House Counsel John Dean to Camp David to "write him a report about everything he knew about the Watergate matter."
So why would Nixon do that? Why send Dean off to prepare a report on a subject with which Dean knew Nixon was already intimately familiar.
Deniability.
Nixon wanted to be able to wave that report around and claim that "This is the first I ever hear of Watergate!" and then scapegoat Dean for withholding this vital information from his august self. And then, more in sorrow than in anger, blame Dean for everything and sack him for betraying Nixon.
And now, 44 years later...
quote:
...
At his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was “strange,” and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.
Back at work Monday morning in Washington, Trump told Vice President Pence and several senior aides — Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon and Donald McGahn, among others — that he was ready to move on Comey. First, though, he wanted to talk with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his trusted confidant, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey reported directly. Trump summoned the two of them to the White House for a meeting, according to a person close to the White House.
The president already had decided to fire Comey, according to this person. But in the meeting, several White House officials said Trump gave Sessions and Rosenstein a directive: to explain in writing the case against Comey...
There is no way to look at the nearly-identical scheme that President Stupid and his minions hatched -- get some trusted stooge to reverse-engineer his hare-brained plan to fire Comey and cauterize the accelerating FBI investigation into the incompetence and treason of his administration into some publicity-friendly rationalization and then blame that trusted stooge for precipitating Comey's firing -- without seeing the spirit Republican president Richard Nixon...
Of course that's just some filthy blogger who probably uses the word "fuck" when he's angry and refers to Trump as "President Stupid" just because Trump does a bunch of really stupid stuff. So I guess the obvious Nixonian strategy should be ignored until presented in the form of a dry academic dissertation.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It was Zappa who asserted that Trump is more clever than Nixon (May 10).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've always thought this kind of civility policing is more intended to shut down criticism than to accomplish anything else.
Bring the arguments on. I have no problem with criticism. I have a problem with criticism that struggles to express itself without calling its target names every single time. quote:
The argument seems to be premised on the idea that pointing out police state tactics or being horrifically offended by police state tactics is actually worse than using police state tactics
I have no idea whose argument you are referring to but it certainly isn't mine. Of course police state tactics are worse, I am appalled at Trump's decision to fire Comey, which is why I mentioned Turkey, and I have no quarrel with people pointing them out. quote:
I mean yeah, maybe the government rounding up dissidents is a bad thing, but describing it as a "clusterfuck" is just beyond the pale!
That depends on which company you keep and what you're trying to achieve (there is of course a school of thought that says that profanity is actually a good distraction from the real issues).
In Ship terms, Hell is there for people to use (almost) any language they like to express their sense of injustice. But that's not the same as a compelling argument. One of the things I respect about you (which does not always equal agreeing...) is precisely that you can make an argument without resorting to epithets.
And there's a difference between the words used to describe a situation and epithets directed at a person (cf Killary, Illary, etc...).
quote:
The problem with "healing partisan divisions" is that people disagree about politics, and it doesn't matter how nicely you phrase your counter-arguments.
Sure. But it's more convincing the less insulting they are. Or would you like to simply fast-track to politics by other means, i.e. physical violence?
Besides, permanently insulting Trump is hardly very edgy on the Ship. I wonder how the usual collection of epithets directed at Trump here would go down on, say, Free Republic.
[ 11. May 2017, 18:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Speaking of nitpicking the semantics used to describe a situation that's both ridiculous and horrifying, there's this Washington Post correction:
quote:
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to more precisely describe White House press secretary Sean Spicer's location late Tuesday night minutes before he briefed reporters. Spicer huddled with his staff among bushes near television sets on the White House grounds, not "in the bushes," as the story originally stated.
Emphasis added. If there's a Hall of Fame for snarky newspaper corrections this is a worthy entry.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Nixon survived in American politics for many years while Trump is fizzling out in a few months. If Trump actually had any brains, he would be much more dangerous.
This is the bit that I'm not convinced by, as many analyses are still indicating that Trump has vast support amongst the right wing that elected him, and he continues to have very clever minders around him like Mnuchin who have babel fish in their ears and turn the President's brain farts into English. He still has a friendly-ish Congress and a not yet rancid Senate and as far as I can see his strong men still adore his faecal flakes.
Therefore I fear he won't be going anywhere for a good while yet, and he is just intelligent enough, in a bear-with-a-fencepost-up-its-arse kind of way, to screw us all yet.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I quote you your own sig line, Eutychus. "One must take part." One must resist, any way we can. Because to do nothing is impossible to contemplate.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
On an irrelevant note, I wonder if Trump actually is a competent golfer.
The Guardian has wondered that too.
[ 11. May 2017, 20:41: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I quote you your own sig line, Eutychus. "One must take part." One must resist, any way we can. Because to do nothing is impossible to contemplate.
Resist? Definitely. Any way we can? Not sure: some options are better and more effective than others.
The challenge is to find the most effective way to resist - and also to engage.
Persistent name-calling isn't it, in my view - at least not when we're in a "serious discussion space", which is what it says up there ^^
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The way it is going, it looks like the only effective way to bring down the apparently rapidly approaching dictatorship will be general strikes and non-cooperation.
It doesn't feel like we're there yet... although one might think that removing senior law officials investigating the Presidency wasn't so far from Turkey-style power grabs of the constitution.
If/when it does get to that stage, I guess it'll come down to whether those "calling names" at the moment are going to be prepared to walk the long and hard road.
I hope it isn't going to come to that, but I fear it will.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I quote you your own sig line, Eutychus. "One must take part." One must resist, any way we can. Because to do nothing is impossible to contemplate.
Someone shared this quote with me today (I might have to change my sig line):
quote:
Don't keep calm. Go change the world.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It has taken me sixty years to recognize the calls to be quiet, the earnest counsel to only speak soft words to evil because otherwise its feelings will be hurt, to only use nice words, to be a good well-behaved non-offending girl, for what they are.
Sorry, you had that. Now we're done.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And demonstrations? They're not going to bother the guy in the White House and they are not going to bother GOP Congress members whose constituencies don't depend on your vote. They are more likely to reinforce a misplaced sense of self-satisfaction at having "done" something that actually achieves very little. The only way I can see this thing getting turned around is more investigative journalism and/or grassroots political activism.
I would agree with your overall point that we need to pay attention to tone and methodology if we're going to be effective in our resistance. And I would certainly agree that now, more than ever, investigative journalism is desperately needed. It is probably not coincidental that this arose at a time when investigative journalism and the funding to hire such is at an all-time low. otoh, there is hope that this vocation, less than a year ago on it's deathbed, is now experiencing a renaissance (the silver lining of the Trumpestry is how so many long overlooked public servants-- reporters, egghead scientists, forest rangers, middling career bureaucrats of all sorts-- are emerging as people of courage and dedication).
But circling back to your post-- how exactly do you suggest the critical mass for "grassroots political activism" arises? It seems to me it begins with things like demonstrations-- things that, yes, in and of themselves have very little impact. But they gather a community, give it voice, and, most of all, create mailing lists, facebook groups, etc. that can be rallied to the cause by community organizers as more concrete activiism begins to emerge.
The very well regarded Indivisible document/movement-- written and led by seasoned political operatives-- outlines precisely that. I'm a part of my local indivisible group which focuses on both larger public demonstrations and smaller, more focused political activism.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Someone shared this quote with me today (I might have to change my sig line):
quote:
Don't keep calm. Go change the world.
I'm guessing that's a variation on "Keep calm, and carry on". IIRC, KCACO is from a British royal, during one of the world wars. Over here, we mostly know it as a meme that appears on tote bags, mugs, etc.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
cliffdweller--
Thanks for the reminder about Indivisible. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hadn't been to the site in a long time. Just now went there, and found "Demand Your Senators Support an Independent Law Enforcement Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election".
It's got good summaries of the Russia-gate mess, and how Congressional Republicans are compromised. And there's a great graphic, from a member of Congress, outlining connections between the current administration and Russia.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, KCACO is from a British royal, during one of the world wars. Over here, we mostly know it as a meme that appears on tote bags, mugs, etc.
Over everywhere that is how it is known. It was rarely used until 2000.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
1) Reference Obama's skin color: and I thought he was Irish.
2) The resistance: Congressional Representatives have been getting an ear full about their vote on the ACHA (The republican version of health care) and there certainly have been people protesting outside of the White House.
3) Have you noticed how the White House has been changing its story about the firing of Comey? First, it was because of Clinton's Emails--to which the Assistant Attorney General has said, "Don't blame me" Then it was because Trump thought Comey was grandstanding--huh? Now it was because the FBI was demoralized--yet the majority of the FBI supported Comey. Even White House Staffers cannot keep up with the current excuse!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Cheeto spoke of thinking about the Russia investigation when deciding, all by himself, to fire Comey. Donald J. Nixon indeed.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
The arguments against Brenda's insults about Trump suggest that we who post here and read the threads will actually be persuaded by what she posts. My experience is that we are all, with a few exceptions, broadly of the same mind. What we post and link here is more along the lines of saying "look what this idiot has done now", or "did you pick up on this angle", rather than "look, all you shipmates who support Trump could not possibly support Trump after this travesty".
The point of posting and linking here for me is to let off steam about the Trump Presidency, share another angle that I thought of or read about, or crack another joke that I find hilarious.
I reckon the letting off steam thing might be particularly important for those of us who are living at the cutting edge of Trump's America. My feeling from the posts is that Brenda and Cliffdweller are particularly close to that edge. They need to be supported, to be held up, by those of us who share their views of Trump but who are a bit further away.
So, post what you feel. Insult away. Thanks for what you do.
As for the futility of protests, are you kidding me? The labour movement, the womens movement, the gay liberation movement and the civil rights movement are all great examples of the long term success of sustained protest action and civil disobedience. Raising consciousness in these ways are both legitimate and powerful actions for change.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But circling back to your post-- how exactly do you suggest the critical mass for "grassroots political activism" arises? It seems to me it begins with things like demonstrations
I was reacting, specifically, to this by Brenda: quote:
We need a new epithet however, to take in all the ramifications of the fresh Russian complications. There's a march at the White House in June, I need to make a sign.
I somehow don't see Kurdish people in Turkey reacting to mayors being arbitrarily dismissed and locked up by musing about the worst epithet to put on a sign several months down the line.
If there was a time to go into the street and protest about Comey's firing (and to my mind that, not the Russian allegations themselves, is the pressingly serious issue), it was that very day (cf the travel ban) - and to bite, the focus shouldn't have been on dreaming up new epithets, it should have been on the blatant political interference in other branches of government.
quote:
I'm a part of my local indivisible group which focuses on both larger public demonstrations and smaller, more focused political activism.
The first three things on that site are "Town Halls", "Local Public Events" and "District Office Visits". No mention of demonstrations that I can immediately see.
The former all look pretty grassroots to me. Of course that doesn't rule out demonstrations, but right now those little cogs of democracy look more likely (to me) to be the best place to effect any changes, rather than dreaming up fresh insults for the other side.
[ 12. May 2017, 05:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
My experience is that we are all, with a few exceptions, broadly of the same mind.
Which is a shame. That's known as an "Echo Chamber". quote:
What we post and link here is more along the lines of saying "look what this idiot has done now", or "did you pick up on this angle", rather than "look, all you shipmates who support Trump could not possibly support Trump after this travesty".
None of which requires insults and epithets.
Are you really here because it's a nice little circle in which you can sit with like-minded individuals comiserating with each other about the bad stuff happening in the world by dreaming up new names to call those you disagree with? If so, you disappoint me.
quote:
I reckon the letting off steam thing might be particularly important for those of us who are living at the cutting edge of Trump's America.
There's a perfectly good thread for that, here. quote:
My feeling from the posts is that Brenda and Cliffdweller are particularly close to that edge. They need to be supported, to be held up, by those of us who share their views of Trump but who are a bit further away.
It may have escaped your notice but I live in a country which has just narrowly escaped the far-right presidency of someone who makes Trump look like a rank amateur in many ways, and which may yet be ungovernable if the legislative elections don't pan out well.
I can assure you that if Macron won, it was precisely because unlike the opposition, he refused consistently to resort to a constant stream of epithets and repeatedly put his own personal security at risk by physically going to engage with people hurling epithets at him.
The far-right threat has receded here - a little, for now. But don't think it hasn't kept me awake at night. Like cliffdweller, I have to think about my responsibilities as an individual and the leader of a congregation. I'm taking notes here.
If people want support, there's All Saints. If people want to vent, there's Hell. Purgatory is supposed to be a "space for serious discussion".
If people's only form of engagement even in Purgatory is epithets, I have a hard time distinguishing them from the people who insisted in calling Hillary Killary or Illary and declining interest in listening to what they have to say.
quote:
As for the futility of protests, are you kidding me? The labour movement, the womens movement, the gay liberation movement and the civil rights movement are all great examples of the long term success of sustained protest action and civil disobedience. Raising consciousness in these ways are both legitimate and powerful actions for change.
See my response to cliffdweller. The only example of anything remotely close to that against Trump's actions I've seen was the day the travel ban was announced.
I've seen nothing else reflecting a similar, sustained groundswell. Until the Democrat base comes to terms with the fact that close to half the country apparently disagrees with them (and perhaps a larger number simply don't care) and starts working on how to overcome that, I think they are doomed to (noisy) irrelevancy.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Recent noteworthy examples of epithets and insults in demonstrations versus actual engagement:
here and here.
Guess which side is spouting the epithets.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Meanwhile, in the issue at hand, while the GOP are in lust with power and Trumpite pseudo-Evangelicals have replaced Jesus with Satan it is going to be very hard to shift this man and his sycophants.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And the Girl Scout in the second picture, calmly standing up to the angry Neo-Nazi, is being held up as an example of strength and bravery.
ETA: Cross-posted. Am referring to the 2nd pic link in Eutychus' post, just above Zappa's.
[ 12. May 2017, 06:54: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Yeah, this is absolutely an echo chamber. I'm surprised people don't realise this. The only time we have an actual dispute is over stuff like this, not policy. The one regularly posting crazily conservative American on the US election thread knew this, and basically spent his time trolling the rest of us.
Gotta go, psych appt.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And the Girl Scout in the second picture, calmly standing up to the angry Neo-Nazi, is being held up as an example of strength and bravery
Precisely. She's not hurling insults.
To come back to simontoad's point on history-changing demonstrations, I think the most effective ones have been all about non-violence, and that includes non-violent language (which is not the same as firm language).
To Zappa, those evangelicals will not be induced to change their minds by epithets, they'll just point to them as examples of how pagan the other side is.
To write them off as a lost cause is to see this as a zero-sum game. Christians can't disown them and simultaneously call on Muslims to own ISIS.
(My own tiny piece of activism in this respect is to attempt a dialogue with a US evangelical who was a missionary for many years in my city and is now back in the US and firmly in the Trump camp).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Yeah, this is absolutely an echo chamber.
Even if it is, do you think its purpose is best served by dreaming up new epithets? If that were to become a majority view, don't expect me to hang around here much longer.
[ 12. May 2017, 07:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To write them off as a lost cause is to see this as a zero-sum game. Christians can't disown them and simultaneously call on Muslims to own ISIS.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't call on Muslims to own IS and I never expect individual Muslims to continue apologising for despicable acts conducted in their name.
Evangelicals who support Trump have nothing to do with me. They're using words I recognise in ways that have nothing to do with the way that I use them - rather like some words in Welsh (of which I'm a very basic dysgwr/learner) sound the same as English words but have completely different meanings. Trying to parse Welsh if one only knows English is impossible.
IMO the only thing to do with individuals who seem set on heading towards support for fascism and totalitarianism is to disown them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
IMO the only thing to do with individuals who seem set on heading towards support for fascism and totalitarianism is to disown them.
And resort to insulting them?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And resort to insulting them?
It seems to me that you're rather too focussed on the name calling and rather less focussed on the fact that some people are heading towards fascism.
But that's your lookout, I suppose.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re epithets, etc.--
A bit of backstory:
That's something I struggle with, somewhat chaotically. I've been bullied, abused, gossiped about, threatened, and attacked, throughout my life. So I try hard to think about everything I say, before I say it, and filter it accordingly. I know how much words can hurt.
Plus, in my background, goodness and manners were sometimes scrambled together.
Plus, as Brenda mentioned, there's the whole thing of girls being polite and speaking softly.
Plus I've spent many, many years working on my own baggage; trying to understand why people do things, when/if they're responsible, what should be done about them; figuring how I want to and should behave; and trying to learn compassion. Etc.
Current story:
I try to deal with all the above in a balanced way. I do *not* always make it. And I judge people (though I'm working on that); but I'm quite clear that God, if She exists, is the only one who can truly judge anyone, because She knows all the factors (childhood, biology, culture, etc.).
I also have a hard time sorting out comedy, especially the late-night talk shows. Some of their jokes are way too harsh or crude. OTOH, I love comedy. So I wind up sorting through the jokes as I hear them.
My problem with joking about Trump's hands is that he can't help that. It's like bullying someone for having one leg shorter than the other, or needing glasses. (And, honestly, I couldn't even see that he had small hands, until long after the meme started. They just didn't register.)
Plus he's obviously extremely damaged, unbalanced, mentally ill; has severe learning disabilities (per Pres. Obama); doesn't know much about the world; and can't really cope with it at all.
(ETA: And I question whether he's at all capable of doing much better than he actually is doing.)
I HATE what he's doing to my country, the world, and individuals. Haven't figured out if I hate him. Would be easier to sort that out if he weren't so damaged.
FWIW.
[ 12. May 2017, 07:49: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
See, it bothers me more when people think they can diagnose mental illness from a distance than when they make fun of the man's hands.
If we accept the trope that he is mentally ill, then it isn't many steps before we are associating other people who have <insert mental illness> with Trumpite characteristics - and that might be quite wrong.
On the other hand, claiming something about his hands is very unlikely to be something which affects people with similar sized hands.
The fact is that one has few ways to attack a tyrant. They pick on individuals, they close down dissent, they arrest or shut down journalists, they then often go on to then attack the constitution and the liberal values that the nation stands for - and at that point you're screwed. See Turkey.
About the only thing that the normal person in the street has left is mockery. And, as Charlie Chaplin showed, those Nazis really really don't like being laughed at.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And resort to insulting them?
It seems to me that you're rather too focussed on the name calling and rather less focussed on the fact that some people are heading towards fascism.
That's because the name-calling detracts from the warnings about heading towards fascism. It suggests you don't have any better ammunition.
I read the occasional barrage of US conservative website comments. It seems to me that almost all they can do is post endless, incoherent, unsourced comments, and insults.
Can the opposition really do no better?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
If I may ask, how much coverage of Trump, himself, have you watched, over the last couple of years?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
as Charlie Chaplin showed, those Nazis really really don't like being laughed at.
Satire is not the same as coming up with a workable and compelling alternative, and as has been pointed out to you before, it took a bit more than Charlie Chaplin to defeat the Nazis.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--
If I may ask, how much coverage of Trump, himself, have you watched, over the last couple of years?
I know what I don't know about mental illness. And I'm fairly sure that even professionals wouldn't try to diagnose from TV coverage.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Satire is not the same as coming up with a workable and compelling alternative, and as has been pointed out to you before, it took a bit more than Charlie Chaplin to defeat the Nazis.
And as has been pointed out to you before, refusing to take the Nazis seriously - even whilst they were doing the most disgusting and degrading things - was not insignificant in reducing the legitimacy of Hitler and other tyrants.
By the way, simply stating things in the past does not mean that you've proved anything at all.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think you are making a big mistake if you think Trump and his followers are going to be defeated by refusing to take them seriously.
So far, I think their strategy for distracting and wearing out the opposition is working just fine.
To repeat: dreaming up new epithets for your opponent and serving them up for the appreciation of one's Echo Chamber (sic) is a distraction from practical action to combat creeping totalitarianism and from serious discussion about how best to engage in it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's because the name-calling detracts from the warnings about heading towards fascism. It suggests you don't have any better ammunition.
Nope. It suggests that the opposition is keeping its powder dry until an opportune moment when other tactics will come into play.
quote:
I read the occasional barrage of US conservative website comments. It seems to me that almost all they can do is post endless, incoherent, unsourced comments, and insults.
Well, maybe you shouldn't read those comments on those boards. To suggest that this is exactly the same as the liberal insults in late night tv shows suggests that you're not actually watching the late night tv shows - because they're far more coherent and sourced than simply throwing random insults.
quote:
Can the opposition really do no better?
Oh yes. But now isn't the time.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think you are making a big mistake if you think Trump and his followers are going to be defeated by refusing to take them seriously.
Think whatever you like. There is a constant pattern of how non-violent resistance and popular uprisings progress, and part of that at the beginning is de-legitimisation of the power.
If the power demands loyalty and politeness, you refuse to give it to him.
quote:
So far, I think their strategy for distracting and wearing out the opposition is working just fine.
To repeat: dreaming up new epithets for your opponent and serving them up for the appreciation of one's Echo Chamber (sic) is a distraction from practical action to combat creeping totalitarianism and from serious discussion about how best to engage in it.
I don't think it is a distraction at all. It is acting to highlight the absurdity of the situation, it is highlighting the inanity of the Power, it is buying time.
All of those things are worthwhile.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
When Trump was elected I saw a link to a blog by an Italian writer, who said they spent years mocking Berlusconi to no effect. Then they changed tactics and concentrated on his policies and they did kick him out.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
Actually, "Mental Health Professionals Sign Petition Declaring Trump Is 'Mentally Unfit'" (Townhall). The petition is at Change.org, and currently has 55,155 signatures. The reporter who wrote that article is probably a Trump supporter, given her comments. There's a link to the petition in the article.
And this link covers both sides:
"Trump's mental health debate: What is it about?" (BBC).
The reason I asked how much coverage of Trump you've seen is because watching a couple of years worth of coverage makes it clear that something is severely wrong with him.
I'm not saying he's mentally ill as an insult. I have severe depression, and anxiety. And it's not "he's crazy!" in the general, everyday sense of someone who's just really different. And it isn't politics. He really, truly is too damaged to do the job.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--
Actually, "Mental Health Professionals Sign Petition Declaring Trump Is 'Mentally Unfit'" (Townhall). The petition is at Change.org, and currently has 55,155 signatures. The reporter who wrote that article is probably a Trump supporter, given her comments. There's a link to the petition in the article.
As it says in this article
quote:
Not so fast. None of these health professionals have indicated how they define mental illness. Instead, they follow the unfortunate tendency of modern psychiatry, exacerbated by the profit motive of the medical industry, to confuse symptoms with illnesses and to offer criteria for diagnosis so broad that they would apply to most people. And, in fact, they do. According to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using current DSM-V criteria, an astonishing 25 percent of Americans can be considered to have a mental illness in any given year, and 50 percent can be diagnosed with a mental illness sometime in their lives.
This goes for presidents as well. A recent study in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of presidents in American history met the criteria for a psychiatric disorder, and 27 percent exhibited the disorder while in office.
quote:
The reason I asked how much coverage of Trump you've seen is because watching a couple of years worth of coverage makes it clear that something is severely wrong with him.
Right, it means he's a complete arse. It doesn't mean that he has a recognisable mental illness which can be obviously be diagnosed via TV. Or that he is mentally ill and impaired from being the POTUS.
It's a stupid point and I wish people would stop saying it.
quote:
I'm not saying he's mentally ill as an insult. I have severe depression, and anxiety. And it's not "he's crazy!" in the general, everyday sense of someone who's just really different. And it isn't politics. He really, truly is too damaged to do the job.
And I'm saying without proper interventions by a trained professional mental health worker, it is not possible to make the statement about his suitability for the role.
It is beyond doubt that he's an egoist and an arse. That doesn't mean that he is too mentally ill to do the job, no matter how many people sign an online petition.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
maybe you shouldn't read those comments on those boards. To suggest that this is exactly the same as the liberal insults in late night tv shows
I never said anything about them being the same. I expressed my disappointment at the prospect of the Ship, and especially Purgatory, not being able to do any better than parade and repeat new epithets. quote:
quote:
Can the opposition really do no better?
Oh yes. But now isn't the time.
Why not? You've got good, compelling arguments as to why Trumpism is bad and how it can effectively be combated but you're keeping them a secret in favour of nurturing ridicule? How does that work exactly?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a constant pattern of how non-violent resistance and popular uprisings progress, and part of that at the beginning is de-legitimisation of the power.
I'd like you to point to where the civil rights movement, for instance, spent its time productively thinking up new insults as part of its non-violent resistance strategy.
It strikes me they delegitimised power most effectively by going out and doing things that demonstrated just how ridiculous it was. Like by sitting in the "wrong" area of the bus. quote:
If the power demands loyalty and politeness, you refuse to give it to him.
Loyalty and politeness are two very different things. And there's a difference between mannered politeness and consistently referring to your hated opponent by an epithet.
It's the difference between attacking the person and attacking the issue.
Here in France Macron has earned respect from me, and I suspect won the election, by persistently attacking the issue and not the person, in stark contrast to his (far-right) opponent. He didn't win by having better insults; he won by exposing her vapidity.
quote:
I don't think it is a distraction at all. It is acting to highlight the absurdity of the situation, it is highlighting the inanity of the Power, it is buying time.
Just how is dreaming up new epithets buying time?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
I don't know Eutychus, there seems to be quite a strong biblical principles of "Laughing to scorn". Paul certainly seems to have indulged in it, in the moments between his "look what I've endured for the gospel (and he had) schtick, but surely the scriptural tour de force is Elijah and the prophets of Baal; where is Baal, perhaps he's had to go to the loo.
How much is just invective and how much is ridicule? And is there really that much difference? I think as a prime strategy it can be overrated, but it seems to me that there is some traction in using it as part of the mix.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Actually one doesn't even have to call Trump names, one just needs to repeat back what he says.
Today's example from an upgoing Economist interview:
Trump: We have to prime the pump
Economist: It's very Keynesian
Trump: Have you heard that expression before for this type of event?
Economist: Priming the pump?
Trump: Yeah, have you heard it?
Economist: Yes
Trump: Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard of it. I mean.. I just came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.
---
He literally thinks he invented an expression which has been in use for at least 80 years.
That's hilarious.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Ecoonomist transcript
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't know Eutychus, there seems to be quite a strong biblical principles of "Laughing to scorn". Paul certainly seems to have indulged in it, in the moments between his "look what I've endured for the gospel (and he had) schtick, but surely the scriptural tour de force is Elijah and the prophets of Baal; where is Baal, perhaps he's had to go to the loo.
How much is just invective and how much is ridicule? And is there really that much difference? I think as a prime strategy it can be overrated, but it seems to me that there is some traction in using it as part of the mix.
There's an enormous difference between constant ad hominem name-calling and judiciously applied ridicule/irony to make a particular point in a particular context.
Don't you think it would rather detract from, say, Paul's teaching on grace if he had referred to the Judaisers, consistently and throughout the epistles, as "dick-cutters"?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually one doesn't even have to call Trump names, one just needs to repeat back what he says.
Thank you for making my point for me.
[ 12. May 2017, 11:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see it as either/or. If a satirical journalist calls Mrs May May-bot or Kim Jong May, I find that amusing, however, on its own, inadequate. Generally, such journalists do add some actual information and criticism.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I was just going to point out that Elijah was qualified to mock the prophets of Baal - by having gone out and actually confronted them. And I don't think the irony had that much traction until he'd dragged a few boulders into position to build an altar, prepared a sacrifice, added the wood, and drenched it with water before fire from heaven came down.
Irony may be an entertaining complement to doing stuff, but it's no substitute for going out and actually doing things.
And one-note epithets used permanently devalue really fast.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Let's move past my point about the error in picking on a physical point beyond the power of Trump to alter. There are some features - that cheap haircut, his skin colour (if from a bottle) and so forth that are in one sense legitimate matters for comment. The first trouble is that all too often the comments after then do not go into the detail of why the steps Trump's now taking are wrong, how they will damage the US internally and the impact they have on traditionally friendly nations. Then there is the problem that the repetition dulls the impact - someone will see that and the reader will then say that it's another anti-Trump article and switch off.
Our last Prime MInister rejoiced in the surname Abbott (not helped by having a parliamentary supporter called Bishop) and he quickly became the Mad Monk. How boring to keep hearing that name as if its use were a complete demolition of the PM's latest lunacy. It wasn't.
Otherwise all that Eutychus has been saying.
[ 12. May 2017, 12:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It depends a lot on context also. If a journalist called Mrs May, Kim Jong May, I find that funny. If Corbyn did it, it would be inappropriate. I suppose if a bunch of Labour supporters did it in the pub, fair play. No doubt Tories have the equivalent for Corbyn. Always kick a man when he's down, can't remember who said that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends a lot on context also. If a journalist called Mrs May, Kim Jong May, I find that funny.
Once or twice; you'd soon stop finding it funny if it was incessant.
During Sarkozy's time in power, the Economist referred to him almost every single time as France's "mercurial and hyperactive" president. It quickly got wearing (even if it was largely accurate).
They also constantly referred to his home base as the "swanky" Paris suburb of Neuilly. This is useful and a quick way of explaining to a non-local what kind of a place Neuilly is (so much so I have stolen it on occasion), but it quickly got wearing too.
And at least the Economist has some actual content to accompany the swipes.
quote:
If Corbyn did it, it would be inappropriate. I suppose if a bunch of Labour supporters did it in the pub, fair play. No doubt Tories have the equivalent for Corbyn.
I agree with this. In this medium I think the equivalent of the pub is Hell, and the bar in question is, as already pointed out, here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Oh, I could hear 'Kim Jong May' a bit more than once or twice. But yes, it has a finite appeal.
A case in point is 'Bliar', which at first seemed amusing and pointed, however it became hackneyed and practically meaningless.
But as I said above, it's not either/or. I don't mind insults, as long as I get some good copy.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't mind insults, as long as I get some good copy.
Whereas I don't mind some insults, as long as I get good copy.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They also constantly referred to his home base as the "swanky" Paris suburb of Neuilly. This is useful and a quick way of explaining to a non-local what kind of a place Neuilly is (so much so I have stolen it on occasion), but it quickly got wearing too.
Is Neuilly a Parisian Hampstead then?
quote:
quote:
If Corbyn did it, it would be inappropriate. I suppose if a bunch of Labour supporters did it in the pub, fair play. No doubt Tories have the equivalent for Corbyn.
I agree with this. In this medium I think the equivalent of the pub is Hell, and the bar in question is, as already pointed out, here.
I suppose Boris Johnson might be the Conservative equivalent: popular but a liability as a leader.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is strikingly wise and substantive: Sen Sasse (R-Nebraska) discusses why the Comey firing is so troubling. A free click. He is on the Judiciary Committee; if he is so solid in committee then I have hope.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
RE: prime the pump
The term first appeared in literature in the 1880's. Probably used before much longer. Meaning of phrase changed in late 1920's. This is according to Ngram.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They also constantly referred to his home base as the "swanky" Paris suburb of Neuilly. This is useful and a quick way of explaining to a non-local what kind of a place Neuilly is (so much so I have stolen it on occasion), but it quickly got wearing too.
Is Neuilly a Parisian Hampstead then?
[cut out and saved for future use]
Meanwhile, Trump's doing that Watergate trolling again.
I'm increasingly inclined to follow Julie Ebenstien's advice to watch what he does, not what he says.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The story has changed again. In an interview with NBC, Trump says he had dinner with Comey at Comey's request. (7 days into the administration). Trump says he asked Comey if he was under investigation. Comey said no.
Comey's aides say it was Trump who requested the dinner. At the dinner, Trump asked Comey for his loyalty. Comey demured. Trump can't stand having people who are not loyal.
There appear to be 10 Republican Senators that could change their support of Trump. If that happens, look for a Senate-led investigation dealing with Trump's mental health.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's an enormous difference between constant ad hominem name-calling and judiciously applied ridicule/irony to make a particular point in a particular context.
Don't you think it would rather detract from, say, Paul's teaching on grace if he had referred to the Judaisers, consistently and throughout the epistles, as "dick-cutters"?
fwiw, he comes very close to that exact thing in Gal. 5:12. If anything, he's a tad more... um, personal... in what he's suggesting.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, he comes very close to that exact thing in Gal. 5:12. If anything, he's a tad more... um, personal... in what he's suggesting.
My point exactly. He does it exactly once. Which it gives it that much more force.
[ 12. May 2017, 14:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm a part of my local indivisible group which focuses on both larger public demonstrations and smaller, more focused political activism.
The first three things on that site are "Town Halls", "Local Public Events" and "District Office Visits". No mention of demonstrations that I can immediately see.
The former all look pretty grassroots to me. Of course that doesn't rule out demonstrations, but right now those little cogs of democracy look more likely (to me) to be the best place to effect any changes, rather than dreaming up fresh insults for the other side.
Again, I'm part of my local indivisible group, which has focused on both. We are close to L.A. so have participated in pretty much all of the demonstrations here-- Women's March, Immigration Ban protest at LAX, science march. All were heavily promoted in our (closed) facebook group. But we have also been a part of the more focused grassroots activism you're citing-- identifying specific local congressional Republicans that can be challenged in upcoming elections, showing up en masse at town halls, etc. All of this, again, guided by the Indivisible playbook/ advice from the experts.
Again, the value of the demonstrations/protests is consciousness-raising and community building. It was thru the Women's Protest that we gained a large number of names in our one small community to be a part of our indivisible group. Getting a mailing list of people who were committed enough to wait 4 -6 hours on a crowded train platform before jamming into an even more crowded train to get downtown was invaluable when we started going thru the slog of small-scale, grassroots activism.
As Simon wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
As for the futility of protests, are you kidding me? The labour movement, the womens movement, the gay liberation movement and the civil rights movement are all great examples of the long term success of sustained protest action and civil disobedience. Raising consciousness in these ways are both legitimate and powerful actions for change.
I'd add to Simon's examples the Vietnam War, where the sustained protests did eventually lead to the American withdrawl. The wisdom from the seasoned political operatives who wrote Indivisible is that the demonstrations are valuable when they are sustained. While Trump will surely ignore any demonstration note devoted to praising his bigliness, the GOP as a whole will listen as they see the tide turning-- and all that implies for their own future electability. And, God help us, our future right now is in the hands of the GOP Congress
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Noted and more power to you. Is any of your engagement liable to compromise your church's tax-free status? And/or how do you decide at what point you publicly commit to partisan politics? Asking for a friend... (possibly a tangent)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, he comes very close to that exact thing in Gal. 5:12. If anything, he's a tad more... um, personal... in what he's suggesting.
My point exactly. He does it exactly once. Which it gives it that much more force.
Agreed.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Noted and more power to you. Is any of your engagement liable to compromise your church's tax-free status? And/or how do you decide at what point you publicly commit to partisan politics? Asking for a friend... (possibly a tangent)
Not an issue now; Crooked Don has changed that regulation so churches can indulge freely in political activities. Go for it!
Today he has revealed the existence of tapes of his conversations with Comey. Jennifer Rubin's column today calls for subpoena-ing them. I am oppressed by a terrible feeling of deja vu. There has to be a 21st century update to this old story; perhaps the files are digital and can be uploaded to the Cloud?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Noted and more power to you. Is any of your engagement liable to compromise your church's tax-free status? And/or how do you decide at what point you publicly commit to partisan politics? Asking for a friend... (possibly a tangent)
The church as a whole is not a part of indivisible, nor have I advocated any political involvement from the pulpit. Those things could, yes, endanger our tax-exempt status (see prior link to a local church that experienced that for a sermon that, without naming names, simply pointed out that the NT is not particularly friendly to the notion of pre-empterory first-strike wars). We are a pretty lefty congregation-- more openly so since the election-- so I'm able to say a few soft-level things, but more often one-on-one with friends rather than in my pastoral role. Our church will host forums helping our many undocumented neighbors understand their rights/ how to protect themselves in the now-frequent ICE raids, but at this point have not taken the further step of declaring ourselves to be a "sanctuary church" (although we are in a sanctuary city, so we might as well...) nor have we gotten involved in too many other political issues. Our efforts on refugee resettlement were scuttled by the ban-- I had to address that honestly as there was no way to hide that we were not doing what we had been doing and that needed explanation.
It's hard these days to know what will/will not spark an investigation/ retaliation for political protest-- so much of what we're seeing is completely unprecedented-- so I wouldn't just blithely say "we're fine". But we have been fairly careful (and, I think, thoughtful) about what we are saying/doing as a church. For myself as a pastor, I try to be cautious about using the prophetic role. I want to be courageous in speaking out as directly and explicitly as possible when I can be very very sure I'm speaking for the Lord. But that's a high bar I take very very seriously. As pastors we need to be careful about how we use the weight of our power to influence-- we can easily squander it on lesser things. These are obviously significant times-- times when we DO need to speak out and oppose some tremendous evil-- but because we are spread so many different directions-- health care, immigration, Russian ties, women, minorities, LGBT-- the risk of squandering is also a very real threat. So I try to be careful. So far my public statements have been mostly related to the immigration ban and refugee resettlement because it so closely impacts our immediate neighbors.
ymmv. It is a very fraught decision and not sure I'm a model for anyone-- I'm finding my way along with everyone else.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There was a lovely tweet from AP a little while ago. It reads:
quote:
BREAKING: Trump lawyer: Tax returns from past 10 years show no "income of any type from Russian sources," with few exceptions.
No extra comment needed.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Now Trump is threatening Comey by saying Comey better hope there were no tapes of the dinner.
Ah, Mr. Trump, you don't know your history. Nixon was impeached because of some tapes, especially a 13-minute gap in a certain tape.
And he is also threatening to cancel all future press briefings and release only written responses to questions.
This is siege mentality--Nixon repeating.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Today he has revealed the existence of tapes of his conversations with Comey.
Do you have a source for that? His tweet doesn't say so and neither does the article. It's just more chaff for people to chase after as a distraction.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ymmv. It is a very fraught decision and not sure I'm a model for anyone-- I'm finding my way along with everyone else.
I never thought I'd need a ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for reasons like this for a church leader in the USA. How times have changed.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you have a source for that? His tweet doesn't say so and neither does the article. It's just more chaff for people to chase after as a distraction.
Rubin's piece in the WP
I'm still of the opinion that Trump just repeats back to people what he hears them say to or about him.
I doubt there are tapes. But then I doubt whether Trump really knows if there are or aren't any.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is a tweet and, therefore, entirely suspect. After the declarations of just the past 24 hours (did you know that Trump invented the term 'priming the pump'? He assured the Economist this was so, and there is a transcript) I would go outside and check if he said the sky was blue.
It is this complete disregard for fact and truth that is the most disturbing, and that will inflict long-term damage. (Is this what Jesus was referring to, the Sin against the Holy Spirit? If you lose the sense of what is true, discourse becomes impossible.) It is as if he is completely unmoored from reality, extremely worrying in a person who has a nuclear button.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ymmv. It is a very fraught decision and not sure I'm a model for anyone-- I'm finding my way along with everyone else.
I never thought I'd need a for reasons like this for a church leader in the USA. How times have changed.
Thank you. I find my heart "strangely warmed" (or not so strangely). I have struggled with fear my whole life and now that I'm at a ripe old age, I'm finding it's time to put my fears on the line and be bold. Pray for courage for us all!
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
From the (Trump)'s mouth:
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
From the (Trump)'s mouth:
Ahem.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you have a source for that? His tweet doesn't say so and neither does the article. It's just more chaff for people to chase after as a distraction.
Rubin's piece in the WP
Brenda Clough claimed Trump quote:
has revealed the existence of tapes of his conversations with Comey
This he has not done, and neither has the article. Which is what I was requesting a source for. Like I say, it's just chaff, a distraction, and boy are people here falling for it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a tweet and, therefore, entirely suspect.
The.Tweet.Does.Not.Claim.The.Existence.Of.Tapes.
It says Comey quote:
better hope there are no tapes
It makes you speculate that there are, and waste your time and energy speculating that. Do you enjoy being trolled by Trump?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Obviously there's a tape. I mean Obama had the audacity to personally demand that Trump's wires be tapped, right? So what's to say that such a sick individual wasn't also bugging his transition meetings? You find that tape, and it will clearly back up Trump. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(We sometimes meet with potential clients who have lost lots of money to someone who is filing for bankruptcy. They will tell us that this guy is a liar, that you shouldn't trust a thing he says, and that thay know that he's got a million stashed away. "How do you know that?" we ask. Well, the liar told me that he did!)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And it doesn't matter. Because tomorrow there'll be a totally different story. A constantly moving target, blowing smoke all the way.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So why did you bother to report it here as fact and not as distracting speculation?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 12. May 2017, 17:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Drat, hit the key too fast. This explicates the fantabulous contradictions of the situation as it now stands.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
And why was Spicer hiding in (or is it among) the bushes?
Seth Meyers' A Closer Look
[ 12. May 2017, 20:30: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a tweet and, therefore, entirely suspect.
The.Tweet.Does.Not.Claim.The.Existence.Of.Tapes.
It says Comey
quote:
better hope there are no tapes
Actually Trump's tweet says:
quote:
better hope that there are no "tapes"
You forgot the scare quotes around "tapes". Which is interesting because Trump used scare quotes around "wires tapped" in his most infamous tweet to date. His spokesminion later used that fact to try to spin the somewhat straightforward accusation of the tweet.
On the other hand Trump has a well known love of surveilling those around him so it would not surprise me if there actually were recordings of his conversations with James Comey (and likely others). Trump and his followers also have a history of tipping their hands about their various dirty tricks, so this also fits the pattern.
I don't claim any special knowledge or inside information, but given Trump's past behavior and the circumstantial evidence I'd give it slightly better than even odds that some kind of audio recording exists of a lot of his conversations.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There was a lovely tweet from AP a little while ago. It reads:
quote:
BREAKING: Trump lawyer: Tax returns from past 10 years show no "income of any type from Russian sources," with few exceptions.
No extra comment needed.
Oh, I think one extra comment is needed. The law firm making the claim won an interesting award recently:
quote:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, the law firm advising President-elect Donald Trump on handling his business conflicts, won the Russia Law Firm of the Year award in 2016.
The law firm announced the award in a press release last May, noting it was recognized in the Chambers & Partners' 2016 Chambers Europe guide. According to Morgan Lewis' website, the firm's Moscow office staffs more than 40 lawyers who are well known in the Russian market and "have deep familiarity with the local legislation, practices and key players."
There's always some factoid that just makes everything associated with Trump that much more surreal.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You forgot the scare quotes around "tapes". Which is interesting because Trump used scare quotes around "wires tapped" in his most infamous tweet to date.
To my mind the evidence that Trump is deliberately mimicking the Watergate scandal is becoming overwhelming.
That in turn suggests those tweets and photo-ops are maximised for trolling purposes, which in turn suggests intent. I find what that says about Trump's character scary, especially for someone in his position.
You may well be right about tipping his hand, but either way I think the whole process reveals his utter hubris. He is sure he can troll his audience and get away with it. This is consistent with my own experience of con artists.
I would love to be able to assert that this hubris is sure to bring about his downfall, but it's also my experience with con artists that they can do this - and tip their hands - and still get away with it; and so far Trump has done. The initiative in each of these mini-scandals has been on his side. Whatever brings him down will be something for which he is not prepared and in which he does not have the initiative.
Another big and worrying misconception to my mind (fuelled by those epithets...) is that Trump is incompetent; he may not be a competent president, but he is clearly a highly competent con artist or he would have been in jail long before now.
In his current role Trump is under so much scrutiny that it will be harder for him to wriggle than most con artists (although on the other hand he clearly has more power at his disposal). I should think he will eventually get nailed by criminal proceedings, probably for something trivially minor, but I think it will take far far longer than many of his opponents hope. His cunning, and ability to survive, should not be underestimated.
[ 13. May 2017, 07:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I should think he will eventually get nailed by criminal proceedings, probably for something trivially minor, but I think it will take far far longer than many of his opponents hope. His cunning, and ability to survive, should not be underestimated.
I think you overestimate his "cunning". But what shouldn't be underestimated is how far the Republicans will go to defend their own decision to back him. They will keep him in office as long as they can.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think you overestimate his "cunning". But what shouldn't be underestimated is how far the Republicans will go to defend their own decision to back him. They will keep him in office as long as they can.
I agree that shouldn't be underestimated either. I'm assessing his cunning on how far he's got in his career without being arrested, and my experience with con artists.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
He's a very rich man, who can afford expensive lawyers to keep/get him out of trouble. That makes a huge difference, IMHO.
I don't remember details, but IIRC there've been lawsuits and investigations. A web search would probably pull up a list.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You forgot the scare quotes around "tapes". Which is interesting because Trump used scare quotes around "wires tapped" in his most infamous tweet to date.
To my mind the evidence that Trump is deliberately mimicking the Watergate scandal is becoming overwhelming.
That in turn suggests those tweets and photo-ops are maximised for trolling purposes, which in turn suggests intent. I find what that says about Trump's character scary, especially for someone in his position.
You may well be right about tipping his hand, but either way I think the whole process reveals his utter hubris. He is sure he can troll his audience and get away with it. This is consistent with my own experience of con artists.
I would love to be able to assert that this hubris is sure to bring about his downfall, but it's also my experience with con artists that they can do this - and tip their hands - and still get away with it; and so far Trump has done. The initiative in each of these mini-scandals has been on his side. Whatever brings him down will be something for which he is not prepared and in which he does not have the initiative.
Another big and worrying misconception to my mind (fuelled by those epithets...) is that Trump is incompetent; he may not be a competent president, but he is clearly a highly competent con artist or he would have been in jail long before now.
In his current role Trump is under so much scrutiny that it will be harder for him to wriggle than most con artists (although on the other hand he clearly has more power at his disposal). I should think he will eventually get nailed by criminal proceedings, probably for something trivially minor, but I think it will take far far longer than many of his opponents hope. His cunning, and ability to survive, should not be underestimated.
This is my take on what's happening as well-- the parallels seem too striking to be anything but deliberate. The hubris is astonishing-- but so far he seems to be able to survive and even thrive above it all, which yes, seems a lot like trolling. In a man with so much power it is indeed chilling.
not-all-that-tangental: does anyone know if Jeff Sessions is related to former FBI director Wm Sessions? Google does not appear to have the answer for me. If there is a relationship it would seem to fit this same pattern of interwoven relationships and deliberate "undoings"-- Wm Sessions being the first (and until last week only) FBI director dismissed from office (by Pres. Clinton-- for ethics violations) before completing his term; Jeff Sessions apparently being closely involved in Comey's firing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
not-all-that-tangental: does anyone know if Jeff Sessions is related to former FBI director Wm Sessions? Google does not appear to have the answer for me. If there is a relationship it would seem to fit this same pattern of interwoven relationships and deliberate "undoings"-- Wm Sessions being the first (and until last week only) FBI director dismissed from office (by Pres. Clinton-- for ethics violations) before completing his term; Jeff Sessions apparently being closely involved in Comey's firing.
According to several major news networks, they're not related.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
not-all-that-tangental: does anyone know if Jeff Sessions is related to former FBI director Wm Sessions? Google does not appear to have the answer for me. If there is a relationship it would seem to fit this same pattern of interwoven relationships and deliberate "undoings"-- Wm Sessions being the first (and until last week only) FBI director dismissed from office (by Pres. Clinton-- for ethics violations) before completing his term; Jeff Sessions apparently being closely involved in Comey's firing.
According to several major news networks, they're not related.
Ah, thanks. I tried google but could only find enough to show me that Wm. isn't Jeff's father (only 16 years older) but not enough to show they weren't related in some way.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I tried google but could only find enough to show me that Wm. isn't Jeff's father (only 16 years older).
That's certainly old enough to father a child.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think you overestimate his "cunning". But what shouldn't be underestimated is how far the Republicans will go to defend their own decision to back him. They will keep him in office as long as they can.
I agree that shouldn't be underestimated either. I'm assessing his cunning on how far he's got in his career without being arrested, and my experience with con artists.
His father, the source of his wealth to begin with, was very connected.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I tried google but could only find enough to show me that Wm. isn't Jeff's father (only 16 years older).
That's certainly old enough to father a child.
Indeed. But Jeff Sessions is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, suggesting hs father isn't/wasn't named William
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I tried google but could only find enough to show me that Wm. isn't Jeff's father (only 16 years older).
That's certainly old enough to father a child.
Indeed. But Jeff Sessions is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, suggesting hs father isn't/wasn't named William
Sorry-- got us off on tangent. My google search did reveal the fathers of both Jeff and Wm, so that I knew Wm wasn't his father, but the 16 year gap did leave open the possibility Wm was an older brother or uncle. But it appears that is not the case so we can let this particular conspiracy theory drop. No worries-- there are more than enough other nefarious coincidental connections to keep us occupied.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Always kick a man when he's down, can't remember who said that.
Me. It's a beautiful saying. Have you heard it used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just … I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Z--
LOL. Nice imitation. Now, if T would just claim to have come up with things from the Bible, maybe his evangelical supporters might look at him more critically.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
wow. So much more stuff added.
Did anyone mention that the whole small hands thing isn't about laughing at the size of Trump's hands, but laughing at the fact that he responds like he cares when someone suggests his hands are small?
It's like pulling a cord on a doll.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Hilarious.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
yeah, hilarious with an edge.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Meanwhile, is the tide turning, are the hordes of sycophants faltering? Or is this still we libruls being hopelessly out of touch with the feelings of the persons ion the supermarket car park?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
How many millions of people out there would like to be in a large crowd chanting "Lock him up. Lock him up."?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Meanwhile, is the tide turning, are the hordes of sycophants faltering? Or is this still we libruls being hopelessly out of touch with the feelings of the persons ion the supermarket car park?
Mitch McConnell explains things:
quote:
I read the Washington Post story and I read General McMasters response, which tends to refute the story, rebut the story. I think we could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things so that we can focus on our agenda, which is deregulations, tax reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare.
During the campaign Trump famously said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." McConnell just confirmed the Congressional Republican version of this. As long as Trump is willing to sign upper income tax cuts funded by taking healthcare away from millions of Americans and gut the regulatory state, the Republicans in Congress are willing to let anything else slide.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Elsewhere we are debating: what could the Faux President do, to get the GOP to abandon him? Clearly this isn't it. Secrets to the Russians, pooh. Mitch McConnell doesn't think that makes the grade. The man who would trash the country to deny Barack Obama legislation would know.
So what would this bridge too far be? Treason, nah. Kleptocracy? Everybody's doing it. Nepotism? Oh please. Using government systems to enrich family and friends? Happening every day. Locker room levels of odiousness? He has confessed on tape to grabbing women by the genitals and ogling pre-teens in dressing rooms.
At this point I think it indeed calls for blood. A lamb must be sacrificed, a scapegoat to carry the sin of the nation. Somebody innocent has to die, as a result of his tweet or flapping lips or vicious temper. It has to be an American (not a foreigner), probably a white male. A woman or a person of ethnicity simply won't create enough outrage. (Like foreigners, we aren't really real to the GOP.) And, this is crucial: it has to be visible. On tape, so that it can be replayed over and over again.
Only then will they abandon him.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Lord help me (literally) I immediately responded to your post by mentally composing a list of folks that could be consigned to that role.
I really, really, need to engage in some self-reflection. Things are dark in here. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Somebody innocent has to die, as a result of his tweet or flapping lips or vicious temper. It has to be an American (not a foreigner), probably a white male.
Not to name names, but the senator who looks like a deer caught in the headlights?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
And, now, there is a leaked memo that Comey wrote after a White House intelligence briefing where Trump asked everyone but Comey to leave the room. When the two of them were alone Trump then asks Comey to drop the Flynn investigation because "[Flynn] is a good guy."
The question seems to be whether this was just a suggestion or a direct obstruction of justice.
If it is the former, then it was the mistake of a novice leader. If it is the latter, then it isan impeachable offense.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And, now, there is a leaked memo that Comey wrote after a White House intelligence briefing where Trump asked everyone but Comey to leave the room. When the two of them were alone Trump then asks Comey to drop the Flynn investigation because "[Flynn] is a good guy."
The question seems to be whether this was just a suggestion or a direct obstruction of justice.
If it is the former, then it was the mistake of a novice leader. If it is the latter, then it is an impeachable offense.
quote:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Assuming the New York Times has the language of the memo correct, I don't think it admits to the level of ambiguity you're suggesting. Besides, isn't a "suggestion" from the president* to the FBI director kind of like your boss "suggesting" you need to come in to the office over the weekend?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Things moving rather faster on this one.
Republicans talking about a subpoena for these memos, which may lead to a subpoena about any possible tapes of these events.
More ominously, there are now rumours that Republicans are seeing polling has turned dramatically in the districts with the special elections for Congress.
If the polls turn against Trump, the Republicans will ditch him. President Pence will do whatever they want with less drama.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I've been chuckling to myself. Some of this is like the film "Pelican Brief", a political suspense film with Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, and other stars. It's one of my faves, and a local station ran it over the weekend. Among other things, the president asks the FBI director to make a problem go away...
It's really well done, and includes some beautiful (IMHO) nature photography.
From last night's "60 Minutes" (CBS; transcript), and what I've been hearing on the news, Comey is made of sterner stuff than T thought. And people who like him tend to *really* like him. At that link, read the section, about 1/3 of the way down, about when he was Att'y. Gen. Ashcroft's deputy, in 2004, and Ashcroft was in the hospital. I knew the story, but not that Comey was the one who warned and protected Ashcroft from nefarious White House creeps.
Will be interesting to see how Comey's part of this story develops.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Things moving rather faster on this one.
Republicans talking about a subpoena for these memos, which may lead to a subpoena about any possible tapes of these events.
More ominously, there are now rumours that Republicans are seeing polling has turned dramatically in the districts with the special elections for Congress.
If the polls turn against Trump, the Republicans will ditch him. President Pence will do whatever they want with less drama.
If American politics is anything like Australian politics, then its all about the polls, baby.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Apparently, Trump is coming to the conclusion that his problem is his staff. From the New York Times article "At a Besieged White House, Tempers Flare and Confusion Swirls":
quote:
And his own mood, according to two advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity, has become sour and dark, and he has turned against most of his aides — even his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — describing them in a fury as “incompetent,” according to one of those advisers.
As the maelstrom raged around the staff, reports swirled inside the White House that the president was about to embark on a major shake-up, probably starting with the dismissal or reassignment of Sean Spicer, the press secretary.
Yeah, that'll fix everything.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
We the hosts can't stand seeing the top three threads on the board all being about Trump.
I'm closing this one, at least temporarily, and invite you to continue discussion on the "Oops" thread, which seems to the the most appropriately titled catch-all.
/hosting
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0