President Donald Trump publicly threatens James Comey

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Mr.Mattress:

erttheking:

Zontar:
The reason he won wasn't because this is true, it's because many Democrats who have never even seen a Republican in person think it's true.

Yes, hi, hello, I know three Republicans like this. I call them Mom, Dad and cunt little sister.

My entire immediate family voted for Trump; I'm the only one who didn't (I voted for Gary Johnson).

My mom is still overtly Trump, too, even though she's not as Racist as your mother appears to be.

While my family didn't vote for Trump, the family of my God son did. I understand the father. He's been a Sicilian life long republican. His wife? His wife has memories of crossing the river into America when she was three. She told us stories about how cold the water was.

She was accepted into our school system in upstate new york, given papers, and educated largely on other people's dime. She used minority scholarships to help pay for college. She married into the Republican party and into some money.

And she separates herself from other illegals.

It's very easy to say "Republicans are just Republicans and that's why we get trouble like this, they don't know what it's like to have to work".

But with the election we saw the numbers of poor republicans who might use food stamps or Obamacare from time to time, believing that they aren't being helped out. People have cognitive dissonance. Anything can be justified. Pair that with the allure of Victimhood, and anyone can rise to power slinging enough bullshit.

Lilani:

Oh yeah--and he's firing those who investigate him for stuff. Yeah, this is behavior that's totally not going to hurt us one bit.

You know, this part really bugs me because it shows how quickly the Democratic party (and US politics as a whole) can do a complete 180 because of a single action by one man demanding it be done as opposition for opposition's sake.

For months the Democrats called Comey incompetent, called for his resignation, and it's only now after Trump did just that for what seems to be the very reasons they complained about, now they oppose his removal because of an investigation that removing him won't stop.

And what makes it more laughable is that there are those comparing this to Watergate, despite the fact this year's literal Watergate scandal quote has already been met due to Obama pulling a Nixon already.

Zontar:

Lilani:

Oh yeah--and he's firing those who investigate him for stuff. Yeah, this is behavior that's totally not going to hurt us one bit.

You know, this part really bugs me because it shows how quickly the Democratic party (and US politics as a whole) can do a complete 180 because of a single action by one man demanding it be done as opposition for opposition's sake.

For months the Democrats called Comey incompetent, called for his resignation, and it's only now after Trump did just that for what seems to be the very reasons they complained about, now they oppose his removal because of an investigation that removing him won't stop.

And what makes it more laughable is that there are those comparing this to Watergate, despite the fact this year's literal Watergate scandal quote has already been met due to Obama pulling a Nixon already.

Oh I still think he's incompetent. I have very mixed feelings about Comey's firing specifically. And yeah, they called for his resignation not a sudden and abrupt axing from the top.

But it still works out very well for Trump's favor, as he may not stop it but he can certainly put someone in charge who will slow and obstruct it where they can. And his behavior after the firing has been beyond sketchy.

And when did Obama pull a Nixon this year? I assume it must have happened between January 1 and January 19, because that is the only time he spent as President this year. You've also expertly dodged my point about Trump making things worse.

Lilani:

Zontar:
One of the biggest reasons I'm happy Trump won is because of the 2020 election. Has Clinton won, there would realistically be a 0% chance of any of the problems even being addressed, and a 100% chance of them getting worst. She would be a one term president and whoever managed to sweep the GOP would likely have made Trump look moderate by comparison.

I'm not going to claim anything would have gotten better under Clinton, but the AHCA alone threatened to take health insurance away from millions of people, while drastically raising the cost of healthcare for the poor and elderly, all while giving the rich massive tax breaks. There's a reason lots of Republicans are pants-shitting scared of townhalls right now.

On top of that, Trump is such an enemy of the minimum wage he's actually said he thinks it should be lower. He's rolling back environmental protections, he wants to roll back the bank regulations put in place after the housing market crash to prevent subprime lending from putting us in a recession again, the GOP and his FCC head want to take Title II protection away from internet access, his daughter and son-in-law have been awarded high-ranking positions in the White House, he blocks unfavorable media outlets from covering him, he gets his information straight from FOX news, he baits and mocks the leaders of other countries on Twitter, tens of millions of extra tax dollars spent so his wife and kid can live in New York and he can visit his golf resort in Florida every other weekend, deals with China that directly benefit his business (which he has not put into a blind trust)...

Oh yeah--and he's firing those who investigate him for stuff. Yeah, this is behavior that's totally not going to hurt us one bit.

To me, the choice between Hillary and Donald was like the choice between having a firecracker shoved up your ass, or a C4 charge. Like neither is really a good choice, but one is clearly more dangerous and volatile than the other. At least with Hillary we could expect 4 years of run-of-the-mill American political shenanigans. No real progress, but also no cozying up to Russia or firing on Syria and North Korea out of the blue.

I am not sure how Clinton can be compared to Trump in regards to "how things would be better" when her first year's budget alone had paid sick leave, funding for better training and equipment for police departments, college grants for families earning under $125,000, increased Infrastructure funding and wasn't increasing the burden on small businesses or working families but instead paying for it by increasing the taxes on the top 5%. In addition, her plan for healthcare was to bring down co payments and deductibles, regulate pharma to bring down prescription costs, and expanding medicaid to cover those who are not currently covered. She was trying to pass the same regulations that have worked well in other nations to bring down their costs. Pharma price gouges Americans because we allow them to, while providing the same medications to other nations for much less.

The worrisome issue with Clinton was how she handles foreign policy in regards to hostile nations such as North Korea, but that is not lessened with Trump, if anything he is even more of a gamble in that department. Sanders would have been the best bet to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. Trump was most likely the highest risk for Nuclear war out of any of the candidates on either side due to his unethical, irrational and erratic disposition.

Trump is pretty much letting all his thugs in to loot the US coffers while firing or attempting to blackmail anyone who may be able to stop him from doing so. When you look at his actions to try and cloak what he is doing and who he appointed to various positions, who he fired and what they were doing at the time, he is trying to make sure no one can prosecute him by making sure he has his yes men in control of every avenue to do so. Republicans are not going to do anything about it because they are not going to risk him ruining their career and run them out of employment and power if they oppose him, as he did to numerous people during his campaign and throughout his career. Trump is extremely vindictive, manipulative and corrupt, as we have heard from the many people who had made the mistake of doing business with him only to be robbed blind, bullied and threatened. People have lost everything they had by thinking they could trust him only to have him not pay for what they had to pay for in advance to provide for him. That is just who he is as a person. Instead, our current elected Republicans are going to play along and let Trump do whatever he wants so they can do whatever they want as well, which sadly includes allowing basic necessities people need in order to survive go to the highest bidder and just increase their defenses against the desperate, sick, and poor by jailing them or just kill them when they lash out instead. Their end game here is to build the wealthy fortresses and guard them with police willing to keep the poor, sick, and starving people away from them. They do not want welfare, medicare, medicaid because that just keeps the poor alive longer and in their world, if you cannot afford to live, you should just die. The environment, national monuments, wildlife reserves do not matter in their world as long as they can get rich in the mean time. Their goal is to make themselves and their cronies richer and screw everything and everyone else.

Lilani:

Zontar:

Lilani:

Oh yeah--and he's firing those who investigate him for stuff. Yeah, this is behavior that's totally not going to hurt us one bit.

You know, this part really bugs me because it shows how quickly the Democratic party (and US politics as a whole) can do a complete 180 because of a single action by one man demanding it be done as opposition for opposition's sake.

For months the Democrats called Comey incompetent, called for his resignation, and it's only now after Trump did just that for what seems to be the very reasons they complained about, now they oppose his removal because of an investigation that removing him won't stop.

And what makes it more laughable is that there are those comparing this to Watergate, despite the fact this year's literal Watergate scandal quote has already been met due to Obama pulling a Nixon already.

Oh I still think he's incompetent. I have very mixed feelings about Comey's firing specifically. And yeah, they called for his resignation not a sudden and abrupt axing from the top.

But it still works out very well for Trump's favor, as he may not stop it but he can certainly put someone in charge who will slow and obstruct it where they can. And his behavior after the firing has been beyond sketchy.

And when did Obama pull a Nixon this year? I assume it must have happened between January 1 and January 19, because that is the only time he spent as President this year. You've also expertly dodged my point about Trump making things worse.

It's for his actions in 2016 regarding Trump. You don't spy on your political enemies and get away with it... unless the media is on your side, in which case they pretend it never happened.

I honestly wonder how things would be different today has Nixon been a Democrat but everything else remained equal.

ObsidianJones:

But with the election we saw the numbers of poor republicans who might use food stamps or Obamacare from time to time, believing that they aren't being helped out. People have cognitive dissonance.

Have you thought maybe it's because they want to get an escape from the trap that is the American welfare system, which incentivises those who are in it to remain within it?
I mean hell, most inner city African Americans vote Democrat yet that's given them a consistent track record of "poor and still can't get out of it" even in places where Republicans can't be blamed for obstructionism.

Anything can be justified. Pair that with the allure of Victimhood, and anyone can rise to power slinging enough bullshit.

That's basically the basis of Clinton's entire campaign given she claimed to be good for the poor and middle class yet openly supported the TPP, amongst other things we learned due to leaks.

It's actually quite funny how people still pretend she could have been at best anything other then a major step down from Obama, Bush and even her own husband, and then those same people think that those who gambled on a wild card over the shitty status quo continuing are somehow idiots.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Zontar:

Lilani:

Oh yeah--and he's firing those who investigate him for stuff. Yeah, this is behavior that's totally not going to hurt us one bit.

You know, this part really bugs me because it shows how quickly the Democratic party (and US politics as a whole) can do a complete 180 because of a single action by one man demanding it be done as opposition for opposition's sake.

For months the Democrats called Comey incompetent, called for his resignation, and it's only now after Trump did just that for what seems to be the very reasons they complained about, now they oppose his removal because of an investigation that removing him won't stop.

And what makes it more laughable is that there are those comparing this to Watergate, despite the fact this year's literal Watergate scandal quote has already been met due to Obama pulling a Nixon already.

The democrats haven't done a 180 at all, that is actually false. They are still pissed at Comey for how he handled Clinton. It is a misstatement to say they have changed their minds about him being fired. Them calling foul has nothing at all to do with how they feel about Comey. It has to do with them, as well as most of the world understanding that Trump fired Comey because he did not want him in charge of investigating him because he was not a yes man. Trump wants only people he can control to be able to investigate him. Comey refused to pledge loyalty to Trump so Trump fired him. It drives Trump batshit crazy to know that someone he could not control could be in a position to "one up" him, so he took it upon himself to take him out since he is the president and he can do what he wants. Firing Comey because he asked for More resources and issued subpoenas should be considered Illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-says-fbi-director-comey-told-him-three-times-he-wasnt-under-investigation-once-in-a-phone-call-initiated-by-the-president/2017/05/11/2b384c9a-3669-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.eeb66931ab87

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/comey-asked-more-prosecutor-resources-russia-probe-n758176
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?_r=0

A few things that have to be made clear here:
1) Trump praised Comey for the actions he supposedly fired him for. ( Mistreatment of Clinton)
2) Trump said he had already made up his mind about firing Comey before he got the recommendation from deputy attorney general.
3) Trump said the Russia investigation was part of why he fired Comey.
4)Trump repeatedly asked Comey about the investigation while discussing whether or not he will keep his job according to Trump.
5)Democrats still think COmey mishandled Clinton.
6) Democrats are calling foul due trump firing the person investigating him DUE to him not being able to control how Comey carried out that investigation and the vindictive manner in which Trump went about it.
7) Trump has repeatedly and recently commended Comey.
8) Comey just asked for additional resources and just issued multiple subpoenas including for the white house papers Trump already declined to turn over to the senate immediately prior to being fired.
9)Trump fired the guy investigating his campaign and said that russia investigation was on his mind when he did so. That may be considered Obstruction of justice.
10) Trump threatened Comey. That may be witness intimidation.
11.) Clapper has made it crystal clear repeatedly that he did not see evidence because it was not his job duty to see such evidence, not that the evidence does not exist.
12.)Trump met with the very Russian Spy that is being investigated by the FBI, CIA and Senate the day he fired Comey.

There was no "Watergate scandal" with Obama. Agencies were investigating Russians, if his aids were in contact with those Russians, then it would be justified for them to investigate every person who is in contact with the Russians they are investigating regardless of who they are affiliated with and that does not mean they are being unjustly targeted in any way. That is what would be expected, not some sinister "wiretapping Trump" or " targeting Trump campaign" nonsense. Unless Trumps aids were Russians, they were not the one's wiretapped. Now if those aids contacted the wiretapped Russians, that was their own fault, Not The investigators.

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/world/sergey-kislyak-russian-ambassador-us-profile/

Zontar:
Have you thought maybe it's because they want to get an escape from the trap that is the American welfare system, which incentivises those who are in it to remain within it?

I mean hell, most inner city African Americans vote Democrat yet that's given them a consistent track record of "poor and still can't get out of it" even in places where Republicans can't be blamed for obstructionism.

...

That's basically the basis of Clinton's entire campaign given she claimed to be good for the poor and middle class yet openly supported the TPP, amongst other things we learned due to leaks.

It's actually quite funny how people still pretend she could have been at best anything other then a major step down from Obama, Bush and even her own husband, and then those same people think that those who gambled on a wild card over the shitty status quo continuing are somehow idiots.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

The Trap of the American welfare system is set in place by property owners, CEOs who wish to pay their employees pennies on the dollar, lack of chances to find a blue collar job or factory work, and/or improper education to allow their children to find their way out of this mess.

The Trump vote won't fix that. Trump picked Andrew Puzder, a Labor pick who doesn't want the minimum wage to move one cent. And given that food, rent, and education only increases with time, that puts people on the back foot trying to find decent paying work if they don't have the education.

Betsy De Vos has gone on record to be completely ignorant about the actual plight of the education system in America, could not answer basic questions for the field she was tapped to head, and said that public school is a dead end and suggested Charter and Private schools... more money out of the demographic we already tapped as poor.

All I've seen is Nepotism mixed with egotism with Trump. Billionaires given more power than they had before, with little or no thought about the average citizen but definitively buddying up to Corporate America in a blatantly obvious way.

What you might not understand, Zontar, is that many people might not have thought Hillary was the perfect choice. But they realized that Trump wasn't any real choice at all to them. It's like if I have to choose what kind of Horror movie I want to be in. Do I want to be in "Get Out" or do I want to be in "Dawn of the Dead". Mildly upsetting that people don't agree with or like me, or beings sprinting their asses off trying to ruin what I consider to be flawed, but fixable.

Hillary was never my really choice. But she at least has time in government. Whatever you might think about how she actually governed, she held office. If I'm laying on the ground with a burst appendix, I'd rather have even a disgraced and disbarred doctor tend to me than a braggart who has money and thinks that means he's the smartest, most capable person around.

No Dissonance on my part.

~Edit: And more importantly, forget Clinton. She was the best choice in my mind for the election, but she obviously lost and we're here with Trump. I am talking about Trump. A lot of people are talking about Trump. And the second people question what the hell Trump is doing, all Trump Supporters do is talk about Clinton.

She's not a factor now. She lost. She's over. And the complaints I have about Trump has nothing to do with whether Clinton would have done the same if she was president, if Bernie would be the same if he made it, if Carson or Christie made it. Trump is doing what we consider questionable. We have an issue with Trump. Trump Supporters need to stop looking in the closet for the Boogeywoman that is Clinton every time we speak about our dislike of Trump.

If anyone fucks up, I will call them out on it. I had my issues with Obama and most of the democrats after Sandy Hook when they knee jerk placed more restrictions on guns. I hated it when it seemed like he was supporting SOPA. When ANYONE fucks up, I will talk about it.

But what I won't do is say "Would you have this problem if Romney was elected?". Because it is a diversion, unseemly to place in intelligent discourse.

Zontar:
It's for his actions in 2016 regarding Trump. You don't spy on your political enemies and get away with it... unless the media is on your side, in which case they pretend it never happened.

I honestly wonder how things would be different today has Nixon been a Democrat but everything else remained equal.

Okay, hold on.

When the DNC was leaking emails like a perforated postal balloon, you said you didn't care about the hacks or who was responsible, because it exposed corrupt behaviour inside the DNC, and that the benefit of transparency was more important than the threat of espionage. Now that the allegations of spying are on the other foot, you're saying the reverse; it doesn't matter what information the Obama administration may have picked up from listening in on the Trump campaign's communications with Russian officials, because the real crime was that the administartion was spying on a US political candidate.

So you're okay with Russia spying on US political candidates, but you're not okay with Obama allegedly spying on Trump's campaign?

Even if I was to take the Obama wiretap accusation credibly - and I sure as fucking well don't, because I know the grain of truth in the center of that big-ass lie, and it's not as damning as Breitbart makes it sound - it's still hypocritical of you to give one group of spies a pass for their illegal spying because they were spying on the party you don't like.

bastardofmelbourne:
When the DNC was leaking emails like a perforated postal balloon, you said you didn't care about the hacks or who was responsible, because it exposed corrupt behaviour inside the DNC, and that the benefit of transparency was more important than the threat of espionage. Now that the allegations of spying are on the other foot, you're saying the reverse; it doesn't matter what information the Obama administration may have picked up from listening in on the Trump campaign's communications with Russian officials, because the real crime was that the administartion was spying on a US political candidate.

Whoever leaked the information on the DNC didn't keep it for themselves to use as a political weapon, they revealed it to the world for all to see.

Obama, on the other hand, did what Nixon did, gathering information to use as a political weapon and not for the public interest. If the public interest was in any way at play then all the information would have been dumped onto the public without a second thought. Even now we don't know what that information is, and we quite possibly won't for 20 years or so.

It's not "spying on someone I don't like" that made it acceptable, it's that it was done in the public interest of having the truth be known instead of party interest of having a weapon to use against their opponents. I don't know who hacked the DNC (and frankly you and the media don't either, and unless Wikileaks is lying for the first time in their history it was a DNC insider anyway), I do know that to pretend there's an equivalence is simply ignoring what was being done, for what reason it was being done, and in who's interest it was being done. Trump's wiretap wasn't done in the public interest, the DNC leak was, it's as simple as that.

ObsidianJones:
She's not a factor now. She lost. She's over.

I have to disagree. While in an ideal world you'd be right in that she's over, this isn't an ideal world, she's still active in politics, and in fact Obama, unlike previous presidents, is also still active in politics (to the point he's not currently allowed to work in the government funded office he's entitled to because he hasn't left politics).

So long as she remains active, she's relevant in my mind, and so long as people pretend her corporatist plans such as the TPP, and her other ones revealed when she thought only her financial backers where listening, would have been 1) good, 2) better then Trump, and 3) that her official platform was anything but a lie, then I'll continue to point out the fact her entire political career would have to be viewed under the assumption that from its beginning all the way to the election, her actions where against her ultimate goals, her statements to her financial backers all a lie, just in the hope that she could become president and reverse all of it.

That, had it not been for her husband being president for two terms, would be hard to believe as anything other then a political drama plot. With that fact of her husband, it becomes completely unrealistic.

Zontar:

It's for his actions in 2016 regarding Trump. You don't spy on your political enemies and get away with it... unless the media is on your side, in which case they pretend it never happened.

I honestly wonder how things would be different today has Nixon been a Democrat but everything else remained equal.

Zontar, just humor me for a second, I'm not sure exactly what you believe when it comes to monitoring by the Obama administration, so going to provide two separate replies, divided by *s, one that assumes you're talking about legal stuff like FISA warrants and incidental collections, the second that assumes you're talking about outright illegal, regulation-flouting data collection. Feel free to address whichever sticks closest.

So, if you're talking about stuff like what Melbourne linked above, assuming you also know that the reason Melbourne keeps saying alleged is because Trump himself has provided no evidence. The man read a Breitbart article (or maybe it was on Fox News, I can't keep track at this point,) made an angry tweet, and when everyone said 'Um, Proof?' he said 'Uhhhhh.... Be Right Back, I'll Go Find- Er, GET Evidence!' He never actually did. The last reporter who pressed him on the accusations had a grumpy, irritable Trump shut down the interview early because he couldn't actually back his claims up. That was two weeks ago. Fun video, get to watch Trump say 'I don't stand by anything' iirc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqJQe36Aik

The one time Trump said he felt 'kind of vindicated' was still during a statement where Nunes reported that Trump transition members were recorded due to 'incidental' data gathering. i.e. when someone inside the U.S. Communicates with a surveillance target who lives outside the U.S. The problem? Even in that press conference, Nunes flatly denied that there was any evidence of what Trump had accused. And Devin Nunes is one of the guys that would definitely be on Team Trump.

The FBI was allegedly granted a FISA warrant to monitor one of his campaign people, Carter Page iirc. But Trump didn't seem to point to it, probably because said warrant was granted because the FBI was monitoring him for Russian contacts, for that investigation that Trump wants everyone to forget about. Then there's the broader article that Melbourne posted above which, as he himself said, deal with 'alleged' matters and, again, have to do with a lawful warrant pertaining to a Russia investigation that Trump is eager to make disappear.

Now, perhaps you dislike the fact that incidental monitoring or FISA warrants are even a thing. Fair enough. It's certainly a thorny issue, and I'm not even sure how I feel about it. But I hate to break it to you, this isn't an Obama thing, or a Democrat thing, and Trump being voted in won't stop it; the Trump administration has no intentions of changing those rules, and in fact have been in full support of renewing these laws as-is without reforming or reducing their reach. So all the shady legal spying under the Obama administration? Going to be shady legal spying under the Trump administration, without any improvement. No big Democrat scandal, just establishment business as usual. Shitty business, sure. But nothing particularly unusual.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/white-house-supports-renewal-of-surveillance-law-without-reforms-official/article34172722/

***

Now, Option 2 that I considered was maybe you're convinced that Obama spied illegally, above and beyond a FISA warrant or incidental data collection, maybe you think he ordered Trump Tower itself be wired personally, and are clinging to the idea that he did it cause 'HE MUSTA!' That's your prerogative. Heck, I'm personally convinced that Trump is in regular contact, even if indirectly, with his sons to fully coordinate his business empire in such a way that he can maximize the profits and get a leg-up on any and all competitors. But there's just no solid evidence on hand to support my personal belief, and there's none on hand to support yours, but hell, no doubt we both believe these actions fit our respective view of both men. We could both be right, we could both be wrong.

But nothing in that prior paragraph is a fact. It's not proven. As I said earlier, Trump had no evidence when he made the accusation, and at least thus far he hasn't been able to find any. Closest he got was Nunes' statement, which in actuality wasn't close at all. It's not 'a Watergate Scandal' because it's more accurate to compare it to 'The Moon Landing Was Faked' since right now there's roughly the same amount of evidence.

Heck, the Russia thing has more evidence, even if circumstantial, than Obama illegally wiretapping Trump Tower does. At least with Russia we have a string of people in Trump's campaign and government who had ties and points of contact with the country's state-sponsored organizations or government representatives, and at times even forgot (oops) to disclose pertinent details on the existence or content of said contact. If I recall correctly, Jared Kushner was the most recent one to forget, right? Just can't catch a break, can they? =P

Zontar:

Obama, on the other hand, did what Nixon did, gathering information to use as a political weapon and not for the public interest.

What? The? Fuck? How do you know this?

Zontar:
It's for his actions in 2016 regarding Trump. You don't spy on your political enemies and get away with it... unless the media is on your side, in which case they pretend it never happened.

...Are you really referring to the "wiretapping" Obama did which Trump himself claimed to have discovered, and then provided no evidence for? That not even his own people or party even tried to defend because Trump had pulled it from a crevasse far too deep in his ass? The media can't be blamed for "pretending it never happened" when we were never given any reason to believe it happened in the first place. Even FOX News, which has droves of commentators and correspondents ready to throw themselves at his feet to defend and legitimize everything he does, had to throw their hands up and say "We got nothing."

I honestly wonder how things would be different today has Nixon been a Democrat but everything else remained equal.

Nixon's problem wasn't that he was a Republican or a Democrat. He was an extremely paranoid individual whose delusions lead to his downfall. I don't know a lot of people who associate Nixon's paranoia with the Republican party. I do, however, know a lot of people who associate the blatant racism behind many of his policies before he resigned with the Republican party.

Zontar:
Obama, on the other hand, did what Nixon did, gathering information to use as a political weapon and not for the public interest.

Jesus Christ, you actually believe this shit? Trump brain farts on Twitter, provides absolutely zero evidence, and you take it seriously?

Oh, and here's a few things that Hillary would have done better: she wouldn't have continued the racist war on drugs and she wouldn't have tried to suppress minority voters under the guise of the "voter fraud" myth. She's also infinitely more qualified to deal with the North Korean problem, if only because she knows other more qualified people. But the world is stuck with Trump. Does anyone feel safe with that man being in charge of anything, let alone the greatest military force that the world has ever known?

And this is coming from someone who absolutely loathes Hillary and thinks she should be in prison for the rest of her life. That's how bad Trump is.

Zontar:
I honestly wonder how things would be different today has Nixon been a Democrat but everything else remained equal.

There's a reason why that would never happen. There's a reason why it continues to happen in the Republican party. Nixon, Bush Jr. and now Trump. There's a reason why there's no Democratic equivalent of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. There's a reason why that party is filled with racists, literally delusional people, sociopaths and on occasion borderline retarded politicians.

The GOP agenda attracts such politicians. It attracts racists, idiots, lunatics and sociopaths. This is not even an exaggeration. It's an observable psychological and social phenomenon that's become worse in the last couple of decades. There's obviously a place for those people in the American politics. And 9 times out of 10 they tend to be Republicans. There's only two parties in the US. It's not a fuckin' coincidence that it keeps happening in the Republican party. The GOP is practically designed to attract the worst kind of people that you can imagine. The anti-intellectuals who deny scientific facts, sociopaths interested in power for power's sake, and religious extremists. But since they're Christians that somehow makes it OK.

Noam Chomsky is right. The GOP right now is the most dangerous human organization on the planet.

Kwak:

PsychedelicDiamond:
There's a funny little compilation of scenes from movies which Trump has had cameos in. Trump hosted a television for a pretty long time. Even well after it was clear what kind of views he held. The media has normalized Trump and his ideology for decades and then they're surprised that noone listens to them when they suddenly come to their senses and say "This is not normal!"? Gimme a break.

You seem to be conflating entertainment media and news media as if they're a singular entity of deliberate ideological purpose.
And while a compelling argument for that could be made, I think it's a different one to what you seem to be saying here.
'Media' is a marketplace of tastes vying for attention, whereas actual journalistic criticism of the governing bodies as a function of a free and healthy civilisation is a bit different. I think the current situation has just put a fire under the arses of news media to realise this again, like any significant democratic crisis will.

I didn't mean to take news media and entertainment as a singular entity but I do believe that treating entertainment media as entirely apolitical is wrong. Especially when it's providing a platform to a person with a clear political agenda. For all that's worth you might as well give Anders Breivik his own show. It just doesn't work like that.

You give a known fascist his own television show you're helping him. Even when he doesn't use it to spread his ideology you're still making him a celebrity. You're still giving him exposure. You're still providing him with free publicity. I genuinely do believe the reason neofascism isn't quite as strong in Europe as it is in America is because it lacks a popular public figurehead like Trump. You don't have Marine Le Pen hosting a cooking show, you don't have Bj?rn H?cke as a guest on Sesame Street. Giving them positive exposure, even in an apolitical context, normalizes their views.

Of course I'm not blaming news media for Trump (Though, honestly, especially in America news media and entertainment media seem to overlap quite a bit) so perhaps it was cynical of me to call out "the media" as a whole but consider this: Is there really a place for actual critical journalism next to "entertainment" that's openly courting people with antidemocratic views?

Adam Jensen:
There's a reason why that would never happen. There's a reason why it continues to happen in the Republican party. Nixon, Bush Jr. and now Trump. There's a reason why there's no Democratic equivalent of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc. There's a reason why that party is filled with racists, literally delusional people, sociopaths and on occasion borderline retarded politicians.

I hate to rain on your parade, but historically speaking, the Republican/Democrat relationship c. 1968 was not the same as it is now. The dynamic used to be very different; before the 1960s, the Democrats had a large voter base of racist Southern conservative voters ("Dixiecrats") that dated back to the Reconstruction and Civil War grudges. The ideological rift between a Democrat-from-up-North and a Democrat-from-down-South got so bad that in 1964, a bunch of Democrat voters in southern states actually defected to the Republican candidate because of LBJ's support for the civil rights movement.

When Nixon took the presidency, he did it partly by appealing to the black voters. He did this out of pure pragmatism; it was politically advantageous to back the civil rights movement and politically risky to attack them. Because Nixon was a hypocritical asshole, he did this while simultaneously chasing after the votes of those same racist Dixiecrats that LBJ had alienated.

That was when the Republican party began the decade-long metamorphosis from "the party of Lincoln" to "fuck them all to death!" Trump simply represents the odious nadir of that downward spiral; a greedy racist so brazen and stupid that he barely conceals his greed and racism.

Zontar:
Trump's wiretap wasn't done in the public interest, the DNC leak was, it's as simple as that.

Firstly, the DNC hack wasn't done in the public interest. It was done in Putin's interests.

Secondly, you're still basically saying that spying on a US politician is okay if it's "in the public interest." Now, the public interest is a really vague standard. I mean, Obama probably thought it was in the public interest to continue expanding the NSA's surveillance program. If FBI agents were spying on Trump, it was because they believed the surveillance was in the public interest. And their spying would have to be authorised by a FISA court that also believed the surveillance was in the public interest.

You see what I mean? "Public interest" is way too ill-defined for your argument to stand up. Why do you think the release of Hillary Clinton's email logs was in the public interest, but that the collection of communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is not in the public interest? Can you even make that judgement without looking at whatever information the FBI hypothetically obtained from their alleged spying, or are you just guessing?

It really seems super hypocritical to me. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance, but I'm having a hard time pinning your stance down because it still looks to me like you're just saying "spying is okay if the spies are spying on people I don't like."

It's the exact same 180-degree flip that Trump did after taking office. Candidate Trump was crowing over the DNC leaks and directly encouraging the Russians to keep it up. President Trump thinks that leaking any information of any kind out of the White House is grave treason. I can't give your arguments any credibility if you can't apply consistent standards of criticism. If surveillance is always wrong, then it's always wrong. If it's sometimes justified, then it's sometimes justified. Which is your stance?

PsychedelicDiamond:
but consider this: Is there really a place for actual critical journalism next to "entertainment" that's openly courting people with antidemocratic views?

There is, but there's a reason NPR needs funding drives. Real news reporting isn't loud, flashy or sexy. That's why it's failing; because economic rationalism rules this world and profits off of our stupid, stupid appetites and preferences for quick and tasty empty calories. (*Mind* calories that is)

Gordon_4:

But sacking Comey means that isn't going to be the conversation, is it? It's forever going to be "Why did you fire this man 8 days after he asked for more investigation resources into a matter you insist will find nothing?".

Because Trump is a believer in efficient use of public money, so it stops it being wasted on a pointless investigation.

Agema:

Gordon_4:

But sacking Comey means that isn't going to be the conversation, is it? It's forever going to be "Why did you fire this man 8 days after he asked for more investigation resources into a matter you insist will find nothing?".

Because Trump is a believer in efficient use of public money, so it stops it being wasted on a pointless investigation.

Is this sarcasm, given the easily verifiable and well-known taxpayer funded choices he's persisted with? I really hope so.

BeetleManiac:

Pseudonym:
Trumps sheer incompetency is baffling. Why would he make such threaths in public? And does he really think Comey will be intimidated?

The intentions behind this are utterly vile and corrupt of course, but I am more struck by how transparent and stupid Trump is about this.

The short answer is that Trump is quite possibly the weakest man in America. He thinks acting like a blustery shithead will fix this, because it's worked for him in the past. And he'll keep doing it until his syphilitic neurons finally connect the dots that no amount of reality TV catch phrases and tweets will get him out of this.

Or Congress actually starts holding him accountable. The GOP can do it or they can wait till the anger builds to give congress back to the democrats. Their choice.

Dalisclock:

BeetleManiac:

Pseudonym:
Trumps sheer incompetency is baffling. Why would he make such threaths in public? And does he really think Comey will be intimidated?

The intentions behind this are utterly vile and corrupt of course, but I am more struck by how transparent and stupid Trump is about this.

The short answer is that Trump is quite possibly the weakest man in America. He thinks acting like a blustery shithead will fix this, because it's worked for him in the past. And he'll keep doing it until his syphilitic neurons finally connect the dots that no amount of reality TV catch phrases and tweets will get him out of this.

Or Congress actually starts holding him accountable. The GOP can do it or they can wait till the anger builds to give congress back to the democrats. Their choice.

This is actually the scary part for me. Democrats talk a big game, but then try playing Patty cake when given power. If they take control of Congress and act weak on Trump, I'm done with them. I'd rather burn the system down then support their complicity once again.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here