Politics Generations

[Malcador]

They should take Trump's phone away for a bit.

[ManifestedISO]

take away his phone and the nuclear codes

hard to forget 'civil war' was one of Russia's disinfo points ...

 

looks like Rudy's been served

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Malcador said:

They should take Trump's phone away for a bit.

john kelly kinda tried something like that. it were only during the hour of the wolf when trump were complete alone with his phone, which were why so many o' his bizarre tweets went out at ridiculous early hours in a day.

then again,

“This is the worst [expletive] job I’ve ever had. People apparently think that I care when they write that I might be fired. If that ever happened, it would be the best day I’ve had since I walked into this place.”

@ManifestedISO

rudy will claim attorney-client privilege... in spite of fact he will be asked about conversations he had with people who weren't his client. he isn't a member o' wh staff, so he can't use executive privilege.

is gonna get ugly.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

6 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

“This is the worst [expletive] job I’ve ever had. People apparently think that I care when they write that I might be fired. If that ever happened, it would be the best day I’ve had since I walked into this place.”

Might have been quoting me.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Might have been quoting me.

am jealous o' the folks who never had such a job. had a couple such employment periods during which we would look back rueful/fondly on our previous worst jobs. 

we nevertheless sympathized with kelly.

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

holy crap, now it's Australia

Quote

President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call. -- NYT

 

[smjjames]

5 minutes ago, ManifestedISO said:

holy crap, now it's Australia

 

Now, the question is whether Australia gave in like the Ukranian President did.

Got a editwhiletyping: Was gonna ask for a non paywalled/private view blocked NYT link, but now The Guardian liveblog has it up: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/sep/30/donald-trump-news-today-live-impeachment-ukraine-whistleblower-latest-updates?page=with:block-5d92651a8f084ab84173014f#block-5d92651a8f084ab84173014f

It's not quite the same thing as the Ukraine stuff, but it still shows the trend towards using diplomacy for personal interests.

I wonder if AG Barr knew about this one as well because he didn't know about his being involved in the Ukraine one.

Edited September 30, 2019 by smjjames

[ManifestedISO]

not only did Barr know, he was the impetus for the call

Quote

President Trump initiated the discussion in recent weeks with Mr. Morrison explicitly for the purpose of requesting Australia’s help in the Justice Department review of the Russia investigation, according to the two people with knowledge of the discussion. Mr. Barr requested that Mr. Trump speak to Mr. Morrison, one of the people said. It came only weeks after Mr. Trump seemed to make military aid to Ukraine contingent on Mr. Zelensky doing him the “favor” of helping Mr. Barr with his work.

 

[smjjames]

Well, initiated by AG Barr is a little different, but it's still just as troubling. I know the DoJ works with other countries on legal stuff all the time, so, it's not entirely out of the ordinary (though I have no idea how 'normal' such asks are. I could see maybe national security related stuff, but not outside of that), but the troubling part is how partisan it is and in the context of the Ukraine one.

edit: Though I wonder what AG Barr thinks he could get out of Morrison that he couldn't get out of working with the Australian counterparts.

Edited September 30, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

real question is why... or why now?  why try and get the australians to undermine their own reporting efforts now that trump managed to survive the mueller findings?  trump and co were successful in selling conspiracies 'bout obama and the steele dossier to his core voters, so reality that the trump campaign were being investigated 'cause o' manafort's known efforts to get paid by russians and ukrainians as well as papadopoulos sharing with australians his belief that the russians were gonna provide dirt on clinton to the trump campaign is kinda yesterday's news. 

six or eight months ago and we get why trump does this push o' the australians. now? 

even if is no bribery attempt or implied/actual leverage, trump efforts does show pattern, which tends to make evidence more trustworthy. 

'course as a few may be aware, fact the wh knowing attempted to prevent communication o' the ig findings o' a credible and urgent whistleblower complaint to Congress bothers us a little. gonna need find something monstrous and unconscionable for us shift our focus.

...

this is where we typical add a joke, but no. complete serious 'bout how concerned we is 'bout the ig thing. am daily shocked by how alone we is in this.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, smjjames said:

If you want to be like the GOP and ignore the evidence, yes.

Is there any evidence at all that any voter changed their mind due to 'Russian disinformation' though? Or that it changed the result of the election? And I mean actual evidence, not wishful thinking and conjecture.

Russia running a 'disinformation campaign' and divisive content, sure. It having any actual  and concrete effects on the electoral results... that's not so sure at all. The vast majority of such content is never seen by the undecided but by those who have already made up their minds.

(History suggests it's actually rather hard to influence elections using social media and the like. Probably the best example is Yeltsin in 1996, his campaign overspent the legal limit with estimates starting at an overspend factor of around 100- not 100 percent overspend, 100 times overspend and that's minimum amount, upper estimates are in the 1000s of times overspend- but his unpopularity was such that he still required massive electoral fraud to 'actually' win, and that against a literal communist)

[ShadySands]

That's why I was curious about what part of the Russia thing Gfted1 meant and thanks to him for clarifying.

Did they actually change any votes themselves? Nope. Did they try to heavily influence the outcome of the election? Yes. Can we measure how successful that effort was? Not really, no. Did the Trump campaign "collude" with Russia? Insufficient evidence to bring conspiracy charges. Did they try to? Yes.

Is that nothing? In my mind no, it's not nothing. 

PS I refuse to type nothing before the last name of the 15th chief justice of the US

[Volourn]

"Why would she make that choice? "

 

She's a piece of garbage. There. Simple.

 

No different than anyone  cold blooded murderer.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So if that cop who shot a guy in his own apartment gets off, does that set precedent that off duty cops can kill you on spurious grounds, like getting their apartment confused with yours, and not go to jail?

[smjjames]

4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Is there any evidence at all that any voter changed their mind due to 'Russian disinformation' though? Or that it changed the result of the election? And I mean actual evidence, not wishful thinking and conjecture.

Russia running a 'disinformation campaign' and divisive content, sure. It having any actual  and concrete effects on the electoral results... that's not so sure at all. The vast majority of such content is never seen by the undecided but by those who have already made up their minds.

(History suggests it's actually rather hard to influence elections using social media and the like. Probably the best example is Yeltsin in 1996, his campaign overspent the legal limit with estimates starting at an overspend factor of around 100- not 100 percent overspend, 100 times overspend and that's minimum amount, upper estimates are in the 1000s of times overspend- but his unpopularity was such that he still required massive electoral fraud to 'actually' win, and that against a literal communist)

I was kind of referring to the whole Mueller findings stuff and the general attitude of the GOP.

Still, I agree that it'd be impossible (might be slightly easier if you did it while the election is happening) to quantify whether the disinformation changed any votes because any one single ad is unlikely to be the one that changes someones mind.

[ManifestedISO]

wasn't me ... never had FB or twitter* accounts

 

appears Pompeo has his own Giuliani ... Gorka is literally flying to Europe with the Secretary, on the same plane, with no security clearance

*had a profile for one day to say hi to Wil Wheaton but then a swarm of bots descended and it was deleted

 

 

[Zoraptor]

56 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I was kind of referring to the whole Mueller findings stuff and the general attitude of the GOP.

Still, I agree that it'd be impossible (might be slightly easier if you did it while the election is happening) to quantify whether the disinformation changed any votes because any one single ad is unlikely to be the one that changes someones mind.

I'd imagine the GOP's- and presumably Gfted's, though I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth- position is that while it's impossible to prove any actual voting change with the influence campaign someone voting who shouldn't intrinsically alters the result since, at its most inherent level it's an actual and real vote which shouldn't be there. And that is more important than some purely theoretical mind changing. There would also be the question of how atypical Trump's behaviour is. Hence why they've spent a lot of time suggesting Biden and Hillary did similar things. 'But everyone was doing it' is not the most convincing of defences though of course. But if you accept that narrative then you view things like  Mueller's report as part of a partisan witch hunt.

In terms of foreign intervention there are other potential examples from prior elections too, they just haven't really been investigated as such- eg Netanyahu favouring Romney in 2012.

[redneckdevil]

Tbh I can understand the GOP (or democrats if position was switched) because before day 1, the media has had such a huge raging hate boner for Trump that ANY suggestion that Trump has done wrong, they’ve ran with it and blown **** up so much than it was and so often.   It like the media is having huge anxiety problems and is blowing up and u just gotta step back ignore it because it so often without any real results in the sense they are blowing it up to be.   The media who cried wolf and once they do have something if not already, they’ve shot themselves in the foot for most people who isn’t in the tribe mentality to listen.  Or like me, simply not care.

 

Also so I did find out WHY news was actually more “reliable” or unbiased when we was younger and for the older people because it wasn’t til I think the 90s that the news wasn’t allowed to be one sided “opinionated”.  Like actually legally.  I’ll try to look it up what it was called.

edit-the fairness doctrine being repealed in 1987.

Edited October 1, 2019 by redneckdevil

[Gromnir]

am curious as to what counts as "day 1"? 

was day 1 when he had spicer go out and lie about crowd size? technical the lies 'bout crowd size started day two o' the Presidency, so you can feel good 'bout that, eh?

maybe day 1 were earlier, before he became President, back when he were talking 'bout a muslim ban and making his pu$$y grab comments? can't imagine why the media would go after such stuff. blatant unconstitutional on the one hand and moral repugnant on the other. take your pick. 

earlier? back when he had already designated the mainstream media as the enemy of the people and opined that mccain weren't a hero because he got captured?

pick us a day 1 'cause chances are trump were a walking nightmare o' lies and hate and ignorance from before that day. if media calling trump out for each lie and misdeed feels like overkill, is only 'cause o' just how often trump lies and attacks the Constitution.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

13 hours ago, ManifestedISO said:

holy crap, now it's Australia

 

[Guard Dog]

 

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am curious as to what counts as "day 1"? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

June 15 2015. All downhill after that. Or maybe July 28 2016. The day Hillary Clinton was nominated and we were guaranteed the next President was going to be a fool or a villain. Turns out we got both, lucky us. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Just think folks. If Pence is implicated in this whole sorry affair guess who is next in line of succession:

 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

8 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just think folks. If Pence is implicated in this whole sorry affair guess who is next in line of succession:

 

 

What's most interesting for me is that Trump was the one who came out throwing Pence under the bus, almost immediately. I imagine McConnell most have done the most massive of double takes when that happened.

[Guard Dog]

Never mind

Edited October 1, 2019 by Guard Dog

[redneckdevil]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am curious as to what counts as "day 1"? 

was day 1 when he had spicer go out and lie about crowd size? technical the lies 'bout crowd size started day two o' the Presidency, so you can feel good 'bout that, eh?

maybe day 1 were earlier, before he became President, back when he were talking 'bout a muslim ban and making his pu$$y grab comments? can't imagine why the media would go after such stuff. blatant unconstitutional on the one hand and moral repugnant on the other. take your pick. 

earlier? back when he had already designated the mainstream media as the enemy of the people and opined that mccain weren't a hero because he got captured?

pick us a day 1 'cause chances are trump were a walking nightmare o' lies and hate and ignorance from before that day. if media calling trump out for each lie and misdeed feels like overkill, is only 'cause o' just how often trump lies and attacks the Constitution.

HA! Good Fun!

Your kinda proving my point with the crowd size, was that worth the days and few weeks of the drama the media drummed up for it?

Now the **** grabbing and the Muslim ban comments eh, tbh don’t really care.  One **** grabbing and being a piece of **** husband/person doesn’t make someone not fit for office or else if it SOLELY does, why then is Bill Clinton or JFK so well spoken of as presidents?  Hell Clinton that so many on here voted for outright intimidated Bill’s victims....yet by the same standards SHES who we shoulda gotten to make things better?Muslim ban was said in direct retaliation of Obama wanting to bring over thousands and give them free homes and money by forcing states to fit the bill and take them in which imho was equally ****ty of both of them, neither should have happened and thankfully neither did.

We will both agree Trump is a vile piece of **** that shouldn’t have gotten office but so was Hillary and the DNC sabotaging their democrat voters for whom THEY wanted instead of who the PEOPLE wanted.

but I’ve lived long enough that ANYONE who is high enough in politics is a huge sack of vile evil ****.  BUT my biggest issue is and will be is our propaganda media until people realize that what u see is not the big picture or even THE picture but just a spin on what they can sell and force you to think.