The Political Thread - Browncoat edition... down with the Alliance!

[smjjames]

@GD: I don't remember anything about that speculation. I was definetly aware of the scandal happening, but I didn't pay much attention to politics stuff at the time.

 

As for where Trump lands in comparison to Taylor* Harding, and others, theres those who were good people (YES, I know some of them were slaveholders and had views that would be profoundly racist today) and just handled it poorly or got shafted through no fault of their own (Hoover particularily, ouch) and others who were terrible POSs, you have to look at all facets.

 

*IMO, the terrible rating of Taylor is somewhat unfair because he died in office after barely more than a year. Whether he handled things well during his time is something that can be debated, but he doesn't have as much as most Presidents

Edited February 27, 2019 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

@GD: I don't remember anything about that speculation. I was definetly aware of the scandal happening, but I didn't pay much attention to politics stuff at the time.

 

As for where Trump lands in comparison to Taylor* Harding, and others, theres those who were good people (YES, I know some of them were slaveholders and had views that would be profoundly racist today) and just handled it poorly or got shafted through no fault of their own (Hoover particularily, ouch) and others who were terrible POSs, you have to look at all facets.

 

*IMO, the terrible rating of Taylor is somewhat unfair because he died in office after barely more than a year. Whether he handled things well during his time is something that can be debated, but he doesn't have as much as most Presidents

OK, there is a little bit to unpack here so bear with me. That was not a short list of bad Presidents, it was a short list of bad people who were President. Taylor is not there because he was a bad executive. He was a drunk, opium addict, and was physically abusive of his wife and staff. Franklin Pierce was a drunk and a womanizer. Harding... well... Trump may even be his spiritual successor.  

 

When you start making moral judgments on people from the past it's not productive to apply modern mores to them. Being slave owners during a time when slavery was legal and commonplace (although not moral you could certainly argue) does not make them bad people necessarily. Just people of the time they were living in. That some people rose above those times and fought against immorality like slavery is more a credit to them than a detriment to the ones who did not. That we find that kind of thing reprehensible now says more about us than about them. 100 years from now people might look back on us as evil savages because we eat meat or something. That doesn't make us bad people, that's just how we rolled in the early 21st century. 

 

Being a drunk, or corrupt, or physically abusive of those who can't fight back has never been OK. So you CAN take those facts and form a judgement about people doing wrong, knowing it was wrong, and doing it anyway. 

 

To take your example Hoover was a very intelligent, religious, and morally upright man. He was just unlucky to have been in office when a crisis happened he did not know how to deal with. You could argue he was a bad President but not a bad person. We've had more than a few like that. In fact I'd say that kind outnumbers the rest.

 

Oh hey Jimmy Carter! When did you get here?  

Edited February 27, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Chilloutman]

they are doing it live!

 

[smjjames]

 

@GD: I don't remember anything about that speculation. I was definetly aware of the scandal happening, but I didn't pay much attention to politics stuff at the time.

 

As for where Trump lands in comparison to Taylor* Harding, and others, theres those who were good people (YES, I know some of them were slaveholders and had views that would be profoundly racist today) and just handled it poorly or got shafted through no fault of their own (Hoover particularily, ouch) and others who were terrible POSs, you have to look at all facets.

 

*IMO, the terrible rating of Taylor is somewhat unfair because he died in office after barely more than a year. Whether he handled things well during his time is something that can be debated, but he doesn't have as much as most Presidents

OK, there is a little bit to unpack here so bear with me. That was not a short list of bad Presidents, it was a short list of bad people who were President. Taylor is not there because he was a bad executive. He was a drunk, opium addict, and was physically abusive of his wife and staff. Franklin Pierce was a drunk and a womanizer. Harding... well... Trump may even be his spiritual successor.  

 

When you start making moral judgments on people from the past it's not productive to apply modern mores to them. Being slave owners during a time when slavery was legal and commonplace (although not moral you could certainly argue) does not make them bad people necessarily. Just people of the time they were living in. That some people rose above those times and fought against immorality like slavery is more a credit to them than a detriment to the ones who did not. That we find that kind of thing reprehensible now says more about us than about them. 100 years from now people might look back on us as evil savages because we eat meat or something. That doesn't make us bad people, that's just how we rolled in the early 21st century. 

 

Being a drunk, or corrupt, or physically abusive of those who can't fight back has never been OK. So you CAN take those facts and form a judgement about people doing wrong, knowing it was wrong, and doing it anyway. 

 

To take your example Hoover was a very intelligent, religious, and morally upright man. He was just unlucky to have been in office when a crisis happened he did not know how to deal with. You could argue he was a bad President but not a bad person. We've had more than a few like that. In fact I'd say that kind outnumbers the rest.

 

Oh hey Jimmy Carter! When did you get here?  

 

 

I didn't know that about Taylor, which reinforces my point actually in looking at all the facets. I may also have misunderstood (as you seem to have figured out) it as being a list of bad Presidents rather than bad people who were Presidents.

 

LBJ might go on that list, he was a notoriously mean guy and a mean prankster or something, not sure where that ranks among the rest.

[Gromnir]

of the new info provided by cohen, am thinking the following is most signifficant, if less sexy than what some hoped.

 

 

Trump's Shifting Net Worth May Bear Clues for Investigators

as noted 'bove, subject matter o' sdny and mueller were not actual discussed by cohen, so there is possibility for new fraud investigations to arise from today's testimony.  given we weren't genuine expecting anything new, this sorta thing is significant.

 

keep in mind, trump lying 'bout worth is not only believable, but there is a pattern o' such behaviors by trump which is not matter o' opinion but fact from record.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/?utm_term=.e116beeb1b40

 

a large % o' trump lies from the linked depositions is related to his creative valuing o' worth and investments. today cohen provided enough info to see a new investigation started since it don't seem as if sdny or mueller would be looking into such. even provided names and locations o' relevant info for investigators.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps biggest actual surprise o' the day were how our opinion o' ocasio-cortez shifted. honest, we have been kinda dismissive o' her.  she frequent spouts nonsense and assumes we should believe her simple 'cause o' her commitment or verve... or something.  am not thinking she is lying when she says stuff demonstrably wrong, but like trump, am thinking she is not particular concerned with facts. stuff sounds right in her head, and she cannot seem to stop from talking. have been dismissing her as a cartoon character, a kinda silly pastiche o' far-left clichés. 

 

however, the ocasio-cortez facing cohen today, unlike in most interviews we has seen, were deliberate and restrained and... smart? am not gonna complete change our opinion o' ocasio-cortez, but am gonna stop channeling our inner al swearengen every time she speaks.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

 

ps biggest actual surprise o' the day were how our opinion o' ocasio-cortez shifted. honest, we have been kinda dismissive o' her.  she frequent spouts nonsense and assumes we should believe her simple 'cause o' her commitment or verve... or something.  am not thinking she is lying when she says stuff demonstrably wrong, but like trump, am thinking she is not particular concerned with facts. stuff sounds right in her head, and she cannot seem to stop from talking. have been dismissing her as a cartoon character, a kinda silly pastiche o' far-left clichés. 

 

however, the ocasio-cortez facing cohen today, unlike in most interviews we has seen, were deliberate and restrained and... smart? am not gonna complete change our opinion o' ocasio-cortez, but am gonna stop channeling our inner al swearengen every time she speaks.

 

 

After all she is the one who gave us this little gem: It's more important to be morally right than factually correct

[Hurlshort]

They call them freshmen for a reason. Best thing for all parties involved would be for them to get less of the spotlight while they grow into the job.

[injurai]

They call them freshmen for a reason. Best thing for all parties involved would be for them to get less of the spotlight while they grow into the job.

 

Ehh, any representative should be in the spotlight. I think a lot of career politicians need to be more visible.

[Guard Dog]

They call them freshmen for a reason. Best thing for all parties involved would be for them to get less of the spotlight while they grow into the job.

Best thing for all parties involved is for people who stumble into positions of power and say such inexcusably vacuous things to be exposed nationally. If they can't removed in the next election cycle at the very least everyone will know the person speaking is a fool. The only thing worse than a diabolical genius in power is the ideological idiot. 

 

Don't make me break out that C.S. Lewis quote.... you know I'll do it! 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

This.... this just... there is so much to laugh at here beyond the seriousness of the subject: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6752221/Gambino-mob-heir-predicts-Michael-Cohen-WHACKED-prison.html

 

[Gfted1]

Cohen will probably wind up in "club fed" anyway, no?

[Malcador]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-kim-summit-ends-early-with-no-deal

 

Seems like something should have been ironed out with lower ranks, I guess.

[Lexx]

It's funny because I didn't expected anything else to happen.

[ShadySands]

I actually expected a deal, a bad deal to be sure, but a deal nonetheless. I just figured he'd be so eager for a win that he'd make some meaningless or lopsided deal but I guess I'm impressed that we just got nothing instead.

[Gromnir]

It's funny because I didn't expected anything else to happen.

 

well, kim jong un were able to embarrass the US while the world watched, so we wouldn't say the summit were a complete waste.  in pyongyang, beijing and moscow, am thinking the summit were viewed as a success. 

 

am suspecting things went same with kim as with "enrique."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-mexican-president-stop-pay-wall/story?id=49009884

 

am doubting trump cares 'bout making a real deal, but he no doubt wanted something with which to go the press and declare victory.  kim wouldn't budge, so...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Like Shady said, better no deal than a bad deal. If it's any consolation Kim does not look like he'll be with us much longer. Between his eating habits, smoking, and other... recreational pastimes... I'm expecting an early check out from him. I'd be curious to see what comes after.

[Gromnir]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/us/sonoma-county-russian-river-cresting-flood/index.html

 

am posting here 'cause a significant source o' department o' defense construction money trump is trying to reallocate to border wall/fence projects is current tasked for army corps o' engineers work on CA (and other states) deteriorating levee system.  

 

arguable ugliest moment from summit

 

'I Take Him at His Word.' Trump Defends Kim Over Otto Warmbier's Mistreatment and Death

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 28, 2019 by Gromnir

[Chilloutman]

Its just a game, but if Kim start doing stopid things he will be quickly squashed by all interested sides. China is playing nice to him just to keep presence in region, but if Kim piss of Russians they will not wait for UN approval to make short work with him, they are on the edge with China occupying slowly their teritory anyway. So Trump just need some cheap points to make it look like its his success to keeping him in check. One crazy Kims firework get missfired (and its probable that i will with that tech level they got) on russina territory and he is toast and he know it.

[Gorth]

Trump should just put up a wall with lots of "gaps", where people can pay with Visa or Mastercard to pass through. It will be as effective as a solid wall, yet result in "Mexico" paying for it. Win/win

 

Sorry, it's Friday and it's been a long week.

[Gromnir]

House will call Trump Org. financial exec Weisselberg to testify

 

 

will be interesting to see if weisselberg takes fifth and perhaps more important, on which questions he takes fifth.  already has an immunity deal, so smarty congressmen, if they work together, should be able to figure out what exact is scope o' sdny investigation insofar as weisselberg is concerned.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

[Leferd]

Well, I’m sure not holding on to a promise during a town hall and having the plan change four years later after it was enacted is on the same level as committing perjury to the special prosecutor, or starting a war under false premises, or...fibbing everyday to the public?

[Malcador]

One of those out of context photos that just works

 

[Guard Dog]

Well, I’m sure not holding on to a promise during a town hall and having the plan change four years later after it was enacted is on the same level as committing perjury to the special prosecutor, or starting a war under false premises, or...fibbing everyday to the public?

Of course you are assuming Bush knew in advance the was was being started under false pretenses. And didn't believe he was right and found out otherwise later. Or that Obama didn't know all along his plan was going to do a lot of damage to private health insurance. 

 

I'm not sure Bush was anywhere near so competent. And I figure Obama is trying to sell a wheel barrow full of donkey s--t and was willing to say whatever would get people to buy it. 

 

The point of the meme other than to get a chuckle, is they are all goddamned liars. Anyone who actually WANTS to be President is likely someone who should not be. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

image

have seen it before.  hate it.

 

only two overt liars, based on statements in the image, is clinton and trump.

 

when obama made his claims, (were actual something like +30 times he public insisted folks could keep their doctors and/or plans) he likely believed 'em to be true.  legislation evolved, as it often does, and promised feature ended up being exorcised. that said, obama made what appeared to be a pretty bold promise to the American people. failing to make certain such a promise were kept is "on him,"-- no doubt 'bout it.  but liar? nope.

 

when bush made his claims, he too were believing what he said.  keep in mind, there is multiple quotes from bill clinton, late in his administration, claiming saddam had a wmd program and that US efforts had not expunged saddam's wmd capacity.  is all kinda post war reports which explain how intelligence were wrong concerning wmds, but such reports appear uniform in agreeing that the bush admin did not utilize any kinda coercion to make reports more favorable to a particular conclusion.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/opinions/russian-hacking-is-not-another-cia-fiasco-like-iraq-wmd-bergen/index.html

 

now, as to whether the wmd threat presented by intelligence were sufficient to go to war, well, that is a murkier issue.  we would tend to agree the rationale for going to war seems mighty suspect in light o' released documents and reports, and bush deserves blame for such.  weren't the lie 'bout wmds which should offend, 'cause it weren't a lie based on intelligence.  nevertheless, bush and cheney appeared to willful leave out intelligence regarding the scope o' the iraqi wmd program. we would argue there were lies o' omission but such stuff ain't the sorta fodder which makes for an enduring internet meme. 

 

clinton and trump? 

 

those two guys could be part o' the following kids n' the hall skit.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22n8ZqXavDY

 

HA! Good Fun!