US Politics, June 2020 — You have to dominate.

Right, and other countries want to take advantage of American weakness for their own interests. Leaking would not help with that.

Oh yes, absolutely, having some absolute clown in the White House can be used to their advantage and, at the end of the day, he's the USA's problem not theirs.

The biggest barrier against Trump-related leaks would seem to be potential leakers asking themselves this question: who is likely to suffer greater consequences from this bombshell, Donald Trump or myself?

It would reflect pretty badly on the security services/ civil services of the countries in question if anything leaked.

The same thing holds true domestically, and yet, it happens!

My point is that you'd think inevitably *someone* would want to leak them, because that is human nature. Clearly plenty of people have leaked plenty of things about Trump (and not been caught). Why? To make him look bad. Why? For power? Not necessarily. We're on an internet forum right now. People shitpost and trash talk on the internet because they can. I'm not saying (for example) Scott Morrison would hold some press conference and play a tape, but there are lots of people on all of these calls, and lots of readouts. Just as the leaks that have come out haven't exactly lead their targets back to their respective sources (except when Trump stupidly does it himself), it would be relatively easy to leak damaging or embarrassing material about Trump without revealing its specific source. Why? Because even if he's not necessarily their problem, he's a huge asshole that trash talks everyone else and deserves it.

But of course, at the same time he is everyone's problem, and the notion that a significant number of nations would want Trump in office to be used to their advantage seems unlikely. Israel, maybe, or Brazil, certainly Russia and China, but not, like Canada, or Mexico, or France or Germany or lots of other countries who are hurt, set back or threatened by his ineptitude. But then, I suppose there's a good chance he doesn't talk to those countries anymore.

(I mean, I get it, I get why this doesn't happen, but I'm still surprised it doesn't happen. Mark Burnett can't be the only one sitting on shit from the set of "The Apprentice," and yet I guess that stuff is locked down tight.")

Yeah I’d be tempted to leak just to try and help lessen the possibility that I’d have to spend four more years listening to this moron on the phone

I keep thinking that it's in the public interest for me to release this video of Trump strangling a maître d' but then I'm like, is it worth suffering death threats for the rest of my life for the half day of outrage it generates before something more outrageous supplants it in the news cycle?

Maybe sign it "anonymous."

Because even if he's not necessarily their problem, he's a huge asshole that trash talks everyone else and deserves it.

Let Americans do it then, the rest of the world has its own issues to deal with.

But of course, at the same time he is everyone's problem, and the notion that a significant number of nations would want Trump in office to be used to their advantage seems unlikely. Israel, maybe, or Brazil, certainly Russia and China, but not, like Canada, or Mexico, or France or Germany or lots of other countries who are hurt, set back or threatened by his ineptitude. But then, I suppose there's a good chance he doesn't talk to those countries anymore.

It's not a case of wanting Trump in office, it's up to the USA to get rid of Trump. He's not going to be there forever and it's to no-one's advantage to have the next US president wondering whether his communications with other world leaders is subject to be leaked because some civil servant in another country doesn't like him.

Yeah, I mean, the USA is everyone's problem, but I just checked a few French newspapers & the only stories about the USA are about the rona, the Golden State killer, & the Russian-funded bounties on American soldiers. The US president is not a major focus of our media attention.

Maybe if people leaked the good stuff.

Anyway.

On Fox News, Club for Growth ran an ad targeting the never-Trump PAC, The Lincoln Project.

Not sure I remember another instance of a PAC targeting another PAC like that before.

— Jared Holt (@jaredlholt) June 30, 2020

Also I saw that CNN story that Macron has been the national leader who has called the US president the most. He doesn't want the US president to stay in office, but he knows a mark & wants to get what he can for France out of him. While that's overtly true of Putin & Erdogan, it's also true of other world powers, even "allies".

It seems very weird to expect the rest of the world to fix the United States

Nothing new. The UK establishment considered Reagan an abject moron and you can be sure Thatcher tried her best to use that to the UK's advantage.

Pulling out of the Paris climate accord, pulling out of the Iran deal, that kind of stuff is (afaict) detrimental to every signatory's best interests. But who said anything about other countries fixing the US, or solving our problems? We all know releasing embarrassing information about Trump won't do that, it would just be releasing embarrassing stuff for the sake of it. Or sometimes for even more inscrutable reasons. Like, domestically, it's now being reported that intelligence services knew the Russian bounty story as far back as early 2019. So why does it leak out now? Who knows.

Anyway, this is silly, there's no lack of leaks from this administration. I just like anything that makes him look bad. (Worse.)

Wow, look at this squeaker:

In about 40m, KY has tabulated another approx 40% of the vote, and McGrath’s lead over Boooker has almost entirely vanished. h/t @fka_tabs pic.twitter.com/Np5cANOnuf

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 30, 2020

Yes, that's the other thing, what's the point in any other country damaging their own long term interests by leaking stuff about Trump when the opposition to Trump in the USA has proved itself woefuly incapable of inflicting any damage on him or hodling him to acocunt in any way whatsoever?

Went a bit covfefe there, sorry.

covfefe tales iv: the hodl to acocunt

tweeting THE LONE WARRIOR absent any context is objectively funny, sorry.

yes, it is.

it would make more sense as a 3:20am tweet, like he suddenly woke up from a terrible dream and tweeted that immediately, not knowing why.

but instead it was almost 11am, eastern

Funniest possible things to say during moment of climax.

xpost booker/mcgrath, i don't know wasserman's reasoning, but:

Ok, I've finally seen enough: Amy McGrath (D) has defeated Charles Booker (D) in the #KYSEN primary.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) June 30, 2020

here's the WashPo tally, which i think has more up-to-date data:

https://i.imgur.com/ztm4e1i.png

i think the reasoning behind calling it for mcgrath is that the remaining votes are now in rural districts.

tbh, either one of them is going to lose to mcconnell. but booker would have inspired a lot more people along the way than fucking amy mcgrath will

I disagree, but we will never know.

you disagree that they'd both lose to mcconnell? i'd say mcgrath has a 99.9999999999999% chance of losing to mcconnell, but booker had a 95% chance of losing to him.

then again, i probably don't have a good feel for the political motivations of the totally non-racist people of kentucky who have re-elected a comic supervillain as their senator every 6 years since 1984

Booker would have awakened the sleeping progressive giant in...Kentucky.

McGrath polls better against McConnell right now, but doesn't mean Booker couldn't get people more fired up by November.

not leaking stuff about trump is the right strategic move for pretty much any foreign country.

but saying it hasn't happened because it wouldn't be strategically wise requires you to believe all those foreign countries are strategically wise, which seems like a stretch.

2007 census has KY as the second most white state in the south, after west virginia and #45 in per capita income overall (WV is #49); mitch is both symptom and cause of a lot of that.

i believe these to be true:

mcgrath is going to win.

neither of them would come within five points of mcconnell.

booker would have run a better campaign and raised more money which would have forced mcconnell to spend more time and money at home, and been better for down ballot races in kentucky.

(mcgrath is going to win the primary)

xp booker can be a better candidate for democrats, and still lose. both of those of things can happen.

i can tell you, when you grow up in a place like rural kentucky, and you're a young person that cares about things, it is incredibly depressing when the democrats in all their wisdom prop up centrist military vets as the candidate year after year, if they bother to try at all.

a true progressive candidate may not win, but they give a whole bunch of people of conscience something to fight for. fighting a losing campaign for booker would be very different than fighting a losing campaign for mcgrath, in terms of working toward a future where people don't roll their eyes at the likelihood of a progressive winning in KY

yeah once you realize that electoral success in this race on this occasion is unlikely you can and should choose a candidate that has other strengths, which booker has. unfortunately mcgrath had too much time and money and there were enough spoiler candidates.

xxpost No, I disagree that Booker would do much or any better than McGrath. They are both doomed to lose to Mitch, though you never know, it could be closer than past elections.

Dems really going to take every single wrong lesson from this election huh

josh, just curious, what do you think about my point about booker being more inspiring to democrats in KY than mcgrath, that it's about more than this single election, it's about showing democrats in KY that they could actually be involved in something inspiring and important, etc

McGrath, by winning (assuming she won), proves she better reflects the party atm, but only barely. Booker had the potential to move and to change the party, to a point where he became the better reflection. But elections are a snapshot of where things stand on election day. McGrath.

just ftr my comment isn’t to dunk on KY democrats per se;

just that these kinda of wins will only serve to embolden the absolute worst ppl outside of MAGAland

McGrath, by winning (assuming she won), proves she better reflects the party atm, but only barely.

i think it only proves that she was the outsized benefit of early voting (booker didn't pick up steam til late) and that she had a ton of money from outside actors, and at an early stage of her campiagn, while booker did not

We need tipsy mothra in here.

McGrath is a good candidate, and in the South, characters like her or my current governor (West Point/airborne CPT Jon Bel Edwards) are the best chance of preventing the very worst of the ignoramuses from winning. It's a big tent. I don't like it, but squeaking out wins for non-monsters means moderates painted in the flag.

McGrath will do very well in out of state funding, as she did in the primary.

so I have a confession

Jon Ossoff's hot.

Was at a red light and thought that said Stossel

yumz

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/74/c5/1774c538167f2c371ec5b9f7dbf4bde5.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfyA5whMGAw

Dems really going to take every single wrong lesson from this election huh

evergreen post