US Politics December 2018: ~very legal and very cool~

The thread title was a no brainer but the tildes add a little flair, kudos

you know i do what i can

The North Carolina stuff is *nuts*:

It seems a Republican campaign went to the houses of older Democrats, claimed to be officials, took their absentee ballots and got rid of them. The Republican “won” by 900 votes. It’s 2018. Every major newspaper should be on that story. #NC9

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) December 1, 2018

xp i’m a huge tilde-as-em dash fan, and through my ilx fandom, i incorporated (mis-incorporated?) it into my personal board correspondence style. first i’ve been aware of the fingerprints but i’m comforted by the idea that i swiped from the best.

i guess its less of a dash than an intensifier in many of my applications. still tho.

Per these observations, Trump resolved nothing with China aside from no immediate tariff escalation:

Again, unless there's more here than meets the eye, this is hardly the predicted "cave" by Xi begging for mercy for US trade pressure. Not even close. Buying farm goods for tariff time-out is basically status-quo-ante, which is what China wants.

— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) December 2, 2018

Cannot be emphasized enough: this is not a deal and it is not a resolution. This is an agreement to delay further escalation. Neither side really gave anything except some cotton candy sweeteners. Nothing fundamental. Maybe be happy escalation had been delayed

— Interpol CEO Balding (@BaldingsWorld) December 2, 2018

And now there's this

BREAKING: Trump says he'll be 'formally terminating NAFTA,' says Congress will have choice between replacement or nothing

— The Associated Press (@AP) December 2, 2018

his trademark negotiation style: take a hostage

"Russia is building up its land forces and weapons along the border, Ukraine’s president said Saturday"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://apnews.com/201537791dc8404496eb4d9f5bd4d387

very legal & very cool

Got to admit, of all the brazen dickheadedness Russia has been up to, I really don't understand what the endgame in Ukraine is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/seven-reasons-why-russia-wants-keep-ukraine-all-itself-n33391

ok, i understand this is not likely, but can we all agree that there is a NON-ZERO probability, maybe even as high as 0.001%, that one endgame for all of this is Trump being installed as the new President of Ukraine, with the pardoned Manafort as his Chief of Staff

he would probably love that.

xpost That article is 4 years old. Do its arguments still stand?

Speaking at a Ukrainian military event, President Petro Poroshenko said Russia has deployed “more than 80,000 troops, 1,400 artillery and multiple rocket launch systems, 900 tanks, 2,300 armored combat vehicles, 500 aircraft and 300 helicopters” along their common border.

These numbers, which have not been verified, would account for the vast majority of men and hardware assigned to Russia’s Western Military District.

Maybe Russia is worried Ukraine might invade?

I mean invading Russia in the winter what could go wrong?

Not if Ukraine brings the heat!

lock yulia tymoshenko up!

xpost That article is 4 years old. Do its arguments still stand?

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, December 2, 2018 11:35 AM (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

short version: yes
long version: yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

ok, so let's see where all the dumbass statements and stances vs actual policies and actions lead us, from the US side of things

- trump consistently attacks NATO. not just the amount of money NATO members spend on it, but also the idea of NATO itself. he sees it as a transactional thing, and doesn't think the US is getting enough out of its investment
- he also likes to refer to NATO members as "so-called allies", and to argue that they don't care about us, and that they rip us off, etc
- beyond all the bluster and the stupidity of his tweets, the US has actually increased funding and support for NATO
- he blames the last russian annexation of Crimea on Obama. not putin for doing it, but obama for "letting it happen"
- putin seems to own him

???

It sounds like our president is an idiot.

i think it's this mess of contradictions that leads me to the 0.003% scenario where putin fully invades ukraine, trump issues some weirdass tweet/ "press statement" saying that the US refuses to help NATO, the entire world yells at trump, confusion ensues, and then there's iconic CNN footage of trump trying taking off on a private plane toward russia and everyone's just like "fuck it, let him leave"

Trump's constant flak aimed at NATO is probably just playing to his know-nothing base, the same who lapped up the birther nonsense. Such people probably think of NATO countries as filled with uppity wine-drinking snobs who laugh at rural America and should be taken down several pegs, because we are the greatest nation on earth and they are a bunch of has-beens who be speaking Russian if we hadn't saved them.

It sounds like our president is an idiot.

― Newsted joins this band and quickly he’s subdued (Leee), Sunday, December 2, 2018 12:08 PM (seventeen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah otm have to admit I'm starting to have some concerns about Trump

of course it plays well the base, all you have to do is go "europeans are like THIS!" and do the 'hold your pinky up while you drink tea' gesture. but trump has been consistently attacking "allies" for decades now, since the mid-80s at least. whoever is a putative ally is also a competitor in his mind, because he sees international trade as a contest, and you trade with your allies

it's like

https://i.imgur.com/NtWm2lX.jpg
LET'S RUN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESS!

only if you didn't know how businesses are run

Having just returned from a trip to Oslo, I gotta say the absolute worst thing about traveling is having to come back to America when you're done.

yeah i just finished watching all of the swedish 'girl w/ dragon tattoo' and i feel the same way

we need to make america great again guys

are there any tax returns you'd suggest looking at in order to make that happen

Aimless otm; he wouldn't give a shit about NATO one way or the other if it weren't a MAGAnaut rally applause line.

Actually not sure. The Black Helicopter crowd is obviously part of his base. But obviously there's reason to believe something else is up too.

idk -- he does seem to resent money being spent on things, like nato, that don't immediately enrich him personally, and he clearly has no broader grasp of geopolitics or long-term strategy in general. i think he'd be against nato even if it weren't an applause line

any money not spent by the *job creators* (peace be unto them) is an affront to jesus

Got to admit, of all the brazen dickheadedness Russia has been up to, I really don't understand what the endgame in Ukraine is.

Not all of those reasons still hold up but the idea that Russia wants to maintain a sphere of influence and not be surrounded to the West by NATO does, as does the broader idea that they have an obligation to protect Russians and Russian-speakers within Ukraine. Another major factor is that it is a relatively popular distraction from domestic issues (primarily the increase in pension age, which has seen Putin’s approval rating dip significantly).

It’s worth noting that Poroshenko is playing the same game, though. There isn’t any evidence Russia is particularly up to anything new - over and above the incident in the Kerch Straight - and Poroshenko’s implementation of martial law, the ban on Russian nationals entering Ukraine, hyping up the threat of ground invasion, etc, has much more to do with the fact that an election campaign kicks off this month and he is currently polling 8%. The original martial law proposal would have run for twice as long and potentially delayed the election - but it was rejected by members of his own coalition.

8% is pretty rough

Remembering the murder of 4 US churchwomen in El Salvador, 12/2 1980. And what US officials said: UN Amb. Jean Kirkpatrick: “The nuns were not just nuns, [they] were also political activists on behalf of the Frente. We ought to be more clear-cut about this than we usually are.” pic.twitter.com/CCEWFmloKV

— Robert Ellsberg (@RobertEllsberg) December 2, 2018

“I think that there are a lot of reasons people became Trump voters,” said Springsteen to the Sunday Times Magazine of London. “You had severe blows to working people in the 1970s and 1980s as all the steel mills shut down. Then you had an explosion of information technology. These are life-changing, upsetting occurrences.”

So far, a second term for Trump looks likely to Springsteen. “I don’t see anyone out there at the moment,” said Springsteen of the 2020 election. “The man who can beat Trump, or the woman who can beat Trump. You need someone who can speak some of the same language (as Trump) and the Democrats don’t have an obvious, effective presidential candidate.”

https://www.app.com/story/entertainment/music/2018/12/03/bruce-springsteen-donald-trump-voters-feel-your-pain/2189165002/

he's running

prefer him to Harris or Booker

still feel like Hillary was the one person Trump could've conceivably beaten, given her sky-high negatives and the fact that she's been a GOP villain for over two decades. and even then he still got 3 million less votes.

i'd take president springsteen tbh, if only to watch chris christie's reaction

Max Weinberg

feelin' extremely not guilty this morning

“Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time.” You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2018

....his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2018

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2018

Bob Mueller (who is a much different man than people think) and his out of control band of Angry Democrats, don’t want the truth, they only want lies. The truth is very bad for their mission!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2018

(scrolls by without reading)

You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term?

man this cohen guy sure is shady, good thing he kept his nose meticulously clean when working for me, famously law-abiding friend of the mob donald j trump

I like that he's now using quotes like on a restaurant menu board.

Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”

Try Our Pies They're "Great!"

I like the paranthesis where he admits that his yearlong demonization of Mueller has basically not worked. Lol.

xpost lol, was thinking that exact thing.

hate to be that guy but there's a whole thread for this

There was some skepticism over “qualified” having objective value in 2016 that has since been field tested

rogermexico should be banned from this thread

if liberals back away from a candidate like warren because they are afraid of how easily she could be demonized by sexists, then they are making a decision based on cowardice.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong about that though! I would pour champagne!

cowardice is the american brand.

it shouldn't be though. she should run and do it her way without listening to the focus-group types.

An interesting Twitter thread (which will apparently be deleted tomorrow, so read now):

1. I would just add one thing to this very good thread. (Check out Greg's book!) The question regularly comes up: how conscious is this on Trump's part? To what extent is it a strategy, something he is choosing? Is he trying to deceive us or has he just deceived himself? https://t.co/oVAznNr55o

— David Roberts (@drvox) December 30, 2018

Yes, thread is good. We the people need to own the fact that we let this happen.

if there’s one thing america is good at, it’s honest self-reflection about national shortcomings and taking rational action to address those issues

There should be a national conversation about it. Preferably taking place entirely on social media.

We the people need to own the fact that we let this happen.

to repeat myself: having never watched presidential debates before, and watching every 2016 one live, I felt the bottom drop out of reality when there were "moderators" who just allowed him to spew nonsense and bullshit unchecked, not to mention float about the stage like a predatory, narcissistic balloon when the camera wasn't on him.

Jeremy Paxman should moderate all 2020 debates, with Daniel Dale in his earpiece.

Scare quotes very appropriately employed.

whoever the democratic candidate is should refuse to debate him unless some new, real-time fact-checking procedure is installed. not because i think it will make a difference to trump supporters, just because there is no real reason to repeat the farce of the 2016 debates.

he isn't actually debating

I actually agree. There is nothing to be gained in pretending to debate him. Refusing to acknowledge him at all is probably the best strategy a dem candidate could take.

debates are largely pointless anyway and they're always riddled with inaccuracies and spin, but there was something really degrading about that st. louis experience, not just to hillary but to the nation

sometimes i think presidential debates were always a bad idea

think where our country might be today if reagan hadn't impressed a lot of television viewers by saying "there you go again!"

idk I imagine refusing to debate him outright backfiring pretty badly. better to just use the debates as an opportunity to present your case and just engage w/ him as little as possible imho

Well if he's not going to debate anyway, the dem could just do their best to "fact check" (AKA prepared responses to any of his greatest hits) in real time and jim face at the camera. Maybe put on a lab coat and refer to him as "the subject" throughout.

I love y’all but refusing to debate would be the worst decision of all time

evan's idea is realistic

I felt the bottom drop out of reality when there were "moderators" who just allowed him to spew nonsense and bullshit unchecked, not to mention float about the stage like a predatory, narcissistic balloon when the camera wasn't on him.

this was pretty bad but tbh I thought the way they handled the Republican debates was worse, giving Trump 3x the time of anyone else, pausing for applause after all his dumb zingers, and then airing them nonstop as a means to get people to watch the next one

luckily I didn't have to deal with that, but after a year in America I can aver that television news here overall is absolutely and completely shitfucked

I felt the bottom drop out of reality when there were "moderators" who just allowed him to spew nonsense and bullshit unchecked, not to mention float about the stage like a predatory, narcissistic balloon when the camera wasn't on him.

imo the only reason debates feel important is that they are literally the only time during an american presidential campaign that a significant chunk of people sit down to listen to "the issues" being discussed outside their own personal facebook bubbles. if our fourth estate functioned properly they would feel much less essential - just another podium on which to bloviate

hai americans, just checking in from the future here... not even going to tell you who is president now or how bad climate change has got cause u'll think i'm doing some extremely heavy handed satire, but y'all enjoy new year

Good morning!

idk I imagine refusing to debate him outright backfiring pretty badly.

I think a blunt description of why it is impossible to "debate" Trump would resonate with a lot of voters who aren't guaranteed Trump devotees. To wit...

"I won't debate him, because, face it, our president lies. A lot. And when he doesn't lie he exaggerates. And when he isn't lying or exaggerating, he raises red herrings and then he lies or exaggerates some more. Listen, the only way properly 'debate' Trump is to completely ignore whatever he says. But it's way simpler to do that by not debating him at all, because a 'debate' just gives him gives him a big, free stage for his lying antics, but doesn't gain me anything in return. I refuse to do it. With Trump it's just stupid to even attempt it. Now, got it? Good. Because that's my answer every time you ask me about 'debates'."

Wait, do people think he won the debates against Hillary?

People seemed to think it at the time.
Won debates, beat her, handed her her relevant body part.
But it seemed to be on a more emotive level than factual. People still sit through his rallies for enjoyment despite all the lies.

Pretty sure you can find people who think just about anything.

"I won't debate him, because, face it, our president lies. A lot. And when he doesn't lie he exaggerates. And when he isn't lying or exaggerating, he raises red herrings and then he lies or exaggerates some more. Listen, the only way properly 'debate' Trump is to completely ignore whatever he says. But it's way simpler to do that by not debating him at all, because a 'debate' just gives him gives him a big, free stage for his lying antics, but doesn't gain me anything in return. I refuse to do it. With Trump it's just stupid to even attempt it. Now, got it? Good. Because that's my answer every time you ask me about 'debates'."

you're dreaming if you think this doesn't read like one long chickenshit waffle. (I'm not saying it's incorrect.)

Wait, do people think he won the debates against Hillary?

― Nerdstrom Poindexter,

Depends what you measure it in? If you measure it in 'did enough in them to secure an election victory" then yes

If you have to 'debate' Trump, you use the opportunity to just lay out your platform without ever directly acknowledging him or anything he says. Don't refute, don't respond, don't react. He doesn't fucking exist. Steamroll over every dumb fucking phoneme that burbles from his face anus and make yourself the adult in the room.

Every poll showed Hilary winning the debates, iirc?

Yes of course Trump people thought Trump won the debates. That’s not a thing I doubted.

Remembering that Kerry kind of made Bush look stupid in 3 debates. Feeling like 16 was a similar thing and it didn’t really matter

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ahead-times-square-ball-drop-u-s-strategic-command-jokes-n953416

If you have to 'debate' Trump, you use the opportunity to just lay out your platform without ever directly acknowledging him or anything

Absolutely! Make use of all airtime to lay out your platform and not get into nonsense

Every poll showed Hilary winning the debates, iirc?

― Frederik B,

All except the big one!

US Politics January 2019: we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger