Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he's great too. But he stopped writing new music probably 30 years ago. But I can't really bitch since I haven't written any...ever.

Yes, but his classical work has been good (what I've heard) and I suspect he didn't want to fall into the caricature of the middle aged millionaire rockstar writing about being a poor (or angry) young man. I' d have liked an album or two more as well but...

eta: And you can always listen to the "Atilla" album!
 
This just in! Glorious Supreme Leader Trump, May He Reign Forever, has figured out what's causing all these wildfires!


It's that damn expensive Canadian Lumber!


I thought this was going to be a spoof of some sort.

I really hoped it would be.

I should have known better. It has reached the point where no one can even imagine a spoof more stupid than the crap Trump does casually every day.
 
Speaking of convincing the rubes, the following is from an New York Times article about the role Don McGahn, White House counsel, has played in the Mueller investigation:
In the following weeks [since Mueller was appointed], Mr. Trump assembled a personal legal team to defend him. He wanted to take on Mr. Mueller directly, attacking his credibility and impeding investigators. But two of his newly hired lawyers, John M. Dowd and Ty Cobb, have said they took Mr. Trump at his word that he did nothing wrong and sold him on an open-book strategy. As long as Mr. Trump and the White House cooperated with Mr. Mueller, they told him, they could bring an end to the investigation within months.
Wow. Even a couple of high-priced sharks got bamboozled.

According to the article McGahn has spent 30 HOURS testifying for the investigation. Since he says he represents the Presidency, not the President, he could well be a key player who brings down Dump.
 
It's very likely that the first thing Trump says to his lawyers is:"I've done nothing wrong."
At this point, it is wise for a lawyer not to investigate the truth of this statement, as they don't want to get into a situation where they would have to admit that their client is lying.
That is why lawyers hate clients like Trump who can't follow instructions and stay quiet or at least ambiguous.
 
It can happen here. It is happening here.

Regarding Guiliani's recent "truth isn't truth" remark:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/98kmjv/giuliani_truth_isnt_truth/e4gsqph

The gaslighting of America continues.

These absurd, self-incriminating, and contradictory statements aren't Giuliani making the same mistake over and over again. Imbuing the target audience with an expectation of deception and creating an environment of confusion is a central facet of authoritarian propaganda.

Hannah Arendt identified the same thing in the nazi movement almost 70 years ago in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism:

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”


That's why right-wing media and leadership go to such efforts to project corruption and deception onto Democrats and the institutional press. They need an environment where there's no expectation of virtue by any actors so they suffer no disadvantage for their obvious lies and criminal behavior.

"The biased liberal mainstream media" is repeated dozens of times everyday no matter what conservative source you're consuming. It's so central to right-wing messaging and it's no different than the gaslighting Giuliani, Trump, or Putin engage in; it's all a strategy to create an environment where truth and virtue are negated.
 
Last edited:
It can happen here. It is happening here.

Regarding Guiliani's recent "truth isn't truth" remark:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/98kmjv/giuliani_truth_isnt_truth/e4gsqph

The President is aided and abetted by Republicans who refuse to hold him accountable. The highest value in ones job can never be to keep your job. The highest task for a Congressperson is to help the country and defend democracy, and failure to do so, putting your job and party above that, is the worst.

We have to do everything we can to at least take back the House this Nov. Give as much money as you can to any Democrat who has a chance of winning a seat.
 
....
We have to do everything we can to at least take back the House this Nov. Give as much money as you can to any Democrat who has a chance of winning a seat.

Question: Would Democrats in contested districts generally be better advised to take the confrontational position that "A vote for the Republican is a vote for Trump!," or a more conciliatory "I will work with Trump whenever I can to protect and promote your interests."
 
Question: Would Democrats in contested districts generally be better advised to take the confrontational position that "A vote for the Republican is a vote for Trump!," or a more conciliatory "I will work with Trump whenever I can to protect and promote your interests."

I have no idea, and I suspect it might be different depending on which contested district is in question. Districts can be contested with different underlying situations. The Democratic candidate might have particulars in his/her situation that could lean things one way or the other.

Fortunately, no one is in any danger of taking my advice on this question.
 
I have no idea, and I suspect it might be different depending on which contested district is in question. Districts can be contested with different underlying situations. The Democratic candidate might have particulars in his/her situation that could lean things one way or the other.

Fortunately, no one is in any danger of taking my advice on this question.


The one thing Democrats must not do is take advice from Republicans. Yeah, I know; then how are we gonna change their minds? Well, we aren't likely to do that, whether we attack Trump or push a progressive agenda or compromise on just some issue. It's all or nothing with these guys. This election, like always, will be about turnout, so you're right; Democrats need to figure out what that takes on a case-by-case basis, depending on local politics.
 
I think the ""A vote for the Republican is a vote for Trump!" likely would be the wrong way to go. Anyone who hates Trump already is probably not going to vote GOP anyway because they know he needs to be checked by the House. It's the Indies who need to be swayed to vote Dem for the same reason.
 
We have to do everything we can to at least take back the House this Nov. Give as much money as you can to any Democrat who has a chance of winning a seat.
I'm not sure money is the critical aspect; motivation is. The blanket motivation is to restore checks and balances. There has to be a lot of education happening and although money can help get the message out it's not necessary the deciding factor, depending on the race.
 
CNN and MSNBC were frank—this is Hitlerish this morning. They included Fox News in the blame, said there is no Republican Party left and they hoped someone in the GOP would get a grip on how dangerous Trump is and do their 25th Amendment job.

They weren't holding anything back.
 
I'm not sure money is the critical aspect; motivation is. The blanket motivation is to restore checks and balances. There has to be a lot of education happening and although money can help get the message out it's not necessary the deciding factor, depending on the race.

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you - I'm not sure money is the critical aspect, but I don't see much else that a regular citizen can do, who already sees the danger, to help forestall the danger. I suppose I'd add in election organizing (phone banks, get out the vote work, etc.) to donating money.
 
Our President could not continue to act as he does without support from Republicans in Congress, and Repubs in Congress could not continue to take no action without support from their voters, especially the Republican base.

So this Presidency has exposed - and exploited - a horrible strain of the American citizenry - the base - and that strain is NOT going away anytime soon, and that is the foundation of the problem. We're going to be dealing with this for quite some time, regardless of what happens to the current President.

And how can we fix this? How can we change people's minds to understand how to properly view the press in a democracy? How can we change people's minds so that they don't accept what the Great Leader says in defiance of reality?

Taking back the House in November is child's play comparatively.
 
I think the ""A vote for the Republican is a vote for Trump!" likely would be the wrong way to go. Anyone who hates Trump already is probably not going to vote GOP anyway because they know he needs to be checked by the House. It's the Indies who need to be swayed to vote Dem for the same reason.

The way things are going, Democrats might not really need to do much at all.

But they will. Oh, yeah.
 
While I sincerely hope that we have enough of a functioning democracy left to prevent it, and even if we can, the only thing I'm really sure of is that this cannot end well. This is worlds in collision stuff.


I keep thinking about how a building collapses. Sometimes, you see that a structural member is failing, and if you act expeditiously, and correctly, you can replace or shore up that member, and save the building.

But sometimes the damage is too severe, or you catch it too late, and all you can do is stand back and let it collapse, and try to rebuild afterwards.

I often wonder if we'll be able to distinguish these options when it comes to the collapse of society. The Germans in the 1930s weren't able to, as a collective.

How badly will Trump et al. have to fail, to get his supporters to actually stop and say, "Man, we really screwed that up, didn't we?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom