Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

This is how you can tell Trump Indictment Fatigue has set in: a whole half day into it, and barely a page worth's of posts about it.

Just another day in postnorms America.

We're preaching to the choir here. Any Trumpservative who wanders in here yells and screams about being abused for several weeks, without offering any viable discussion. Then cries that they've been persecuted and runs off like a scared 12 year old. Or the post stupid memes like our recent friend Pig Virus.

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

1. Frog is boiled

2. I have cut wayyy down on my politics consumption both here and social media. It is just emotionally healthy. I can follow news like this without spewing opinions all over the place.

Regarding Point 2, the relative lack of noise in the post-2020 years doesn't mean that people aren't still really tired of Trump and wish he would just go away.

Edited August 15, 2023 by mtutiger

[Edman85]

44 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Regarding Point 2, the relative lack of noise in the post-2020 years doesn't mean that people aren't still really tired of Trump and wish he would just go away.

Kinda the point I was trying to make. Wasn't trying to dig at anybody, but I do know that shouting from the rooftops about politics in this era really doesn't change minds and just makes people go away. This thread, in particular, has a lot of tweets from accounts I've muted or blocked because I don't think they advance the discourse (Rupar, Flipowski, etc.). I can just check Newspaper websites to get caught up on things and not be fired up or feel the need to pontificate on social media.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Edman85

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

Kinda the point I was trying to make. Wasn't trying to dig at anybody, but I do know that shouting from the rooftops about politics in this era really doesn't change minds and just makes people go away. This thread, in particular, has a lot of tweets from accounts I've muted or blocked because I don't think they advance the discourse (Rupar, Flipowski, etc.). I can just check Newspaper websites to get caught up on things and not be fired up or feel the need to pontificate on social media.

These indictments have been long in the making so their release was not big 'news' per se. I think the only interesting aspect was that we didn't know if Willis was going to try to go narrow and indict just Trump on a narrow charge, or go for the whole enchilada with the RICO charge against the whole White House election fraud cabal. A few commentators like J. Rubin (who was legally trained) thought that Willis would be taking the most risk with the RICO type case, so we'll see where it goes...

I had to laugh a bit as we were with some friends last night when the announcement came, so they had to turn on the tube to 'get the news' but it was typical cable news time fill babble in a circle. They didn't actually have anything to report beyond that they were all there  reporting to you.

[Edman85]

I... uh... saw this elsewhere and thought it was funny.

[romad1]

This guy has a broken brain

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/former-trump-advisor-blames-jews-for-their-own-deportations-to-auschwitz-6BMJn5y5XpBfAJcNGhwFpy

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, romad1 said:

This guy has a broken brain

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/former-trump-advisor-blames-jews-for-their-own-deportations-to-auschwitz-6BMJn5y5XpBfAJcNGhwFpy

Must be these guys again....

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

27 minutes ago, romad1 said:

This guy has a broken brain

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/former-trump-advisor-blames-jews-for-their-own-deportations-to-auschwitz-6BMJn5y5XpBfAJcNGhwFpy

I thought for sure that was going to be Stephen Miller. whatever, **** both those guys.

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, Crazy Cat Gentleman said:

I thought for sure that was going to be Stephen Miller. whatever, **** both those guys.

Ric Grenell would have been a good guess too...

[romad1]

RE: Mike Flynn.  I remember reading the self-promotional literature that guy put out when he was in charge of DIA.   Just a bunch of hogwash about how his team were doing things better.  News flash: no. 

[pfife]

Well they said Twitter was biased against conservatives.... which of course means the exact opposite is true.  

 

 

[Motor City Sonics]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Must be these guys again....

 

I didn't click the link, it isn't Schemmie Schembechler, is it?  

[romad1]

21 minutes ago, pfife said:

Well they said Twitter was biased against conservatives.... which of course means the exact opposite is true.  

 

 

We should definitely empower egomaniac Musk to run the base on Mars. 

[mtutiger]

16 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Kinda the point I was trying to make. Wasn't trying to dig at anybody, but I do know that shouting from the rooftops about politics in this era really doesn't change minds and just makes people go away. This thread, in particular, has a lot of tweets from accounts I've muted or blocked because I don't think they advance the discourse (Rupar, Flipowski, etc.). I can just check Newspaper websites to get caught up on things and not be fired up or feel the need to pontificate on social media.

Part of the issue too is that most of the opinion content out there is based in DC or New York and more than a little divorced from what things are like in the rest of the country.

The way COVID (and related restrictions) was (and still is) addressed is a good example... the lived experience of most people putting out the content came from those living in jurisdictions that weren't necessarily representative of the how the rest of jurisdictions were handling the virus (ie. more restrictive than most) and that biased the content based on how it affected them personally

Subsequently, at least IMO, the general response and use of restrictions tends to get framed as being more unpopular than they actually were.

Edited August 16, 2023 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I didn't click the link, it isn't Schemmie Schembechler, is it?  

Not a link - just a nerdy STTNG reference - it was a parasite that had a preference for military officers.

Edited August 16, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

Thought exercise, nothing more:

What if, once having sifted through all the evidence, they find proof positive that Trump has the kind of relationship with Russia and/or the Saudis where they gave him billions of dollars personally and he made or approved policy decisions with the expressed intent of benefiting them—meaning a direct quid pro quo—which has led directly to, for instance, the invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, or to the murder of dissident journalists and the like. I couldn't hazard a guess about what all the details would look like, but just what if. A lot of people talk as though this is already happening and many take it for granted, almost in a shrug-what-else-would-you-expect-from-Trump kind of way. But as far as I can tell, there is no proof positive. But for this thought exercise, let's say this investigation actually does uncover the proof positive, stuff uniquely explosive because it involves his personal enrichment in exchange for allowing the deaths of people his benefactors want dead.

Would such evidence ever come out in court, or even otherwise be reported at all? Or would that kind of evidence be considered so explosive, so fantastic, so likely to lead to civil unrest, so damaging to the institution of the presidency beyond repair, that they think the better of it and seal it for good? As a broader question, is there a limit to what they would allow along such lines into the public record?

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by chasfh

[romad1]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Thought exercise, nothing more:

What if, once having sifted through all the evidence, they find proof positive that Trump has the kind of relationship with Russia and/or the Saudis where they gave him billions of dollars personally and he made or approved policy decisions with the expressed intent of benefiting them—meaning a direct quid pro quo—which has led directly to, for instance, the invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, or to the murder of dissident journalists and the like. I couldn't hazard a guess about what all the details would look like, but just what if. A lot of people talk as though this is already happening and many take it for granted, almost in a shrug-what-else-would-you-expect-from-Trump kind of way. But as far as I can tell, there is no proof positive. But for this thought exercise, let's say this investigation actually does uncover the proof positive, stuff uniquely explosive because it involves his personal enrichment in exchange for allowing the deaths of people his benefactors want dead.

Would such evidence ever come out in court, or even otherwise be reported at all? Or would that kind of evidence be considered so explosive, so fantastic, so likely to lead to civil unrest, so damaging to the institution of the presidency beyond repair, that they think the better of it and seal it for good? As a broader question, is there a limit to what they would allow along such lines into the public record?

 

In the first Impeachment they had him extorting Zelensky over weapons shipments of the Javelin anti-tank missile in exchange for political considerations. 

[romad1]

This is the thin wedge.  Or a thin wedge. 

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, romad1 said:

In the first Impeachment they had him extorting Zelensky over weapons shipments of the Javelin anti-tank missile in exchange for political considerations. 

Is that as explosive, as direct, as evidence would be of Trump being paid billions personally by hostile governments? I know some media reported Jared getting paid billions by the Saudis, but that's from a story in the heavily-disparaged media, not evidence presented during trial in open court; plus the payment to Jared was not a direct payment to Trump himself. What I'm wondering is, if the investigation did find such direct payment, explicitly, would that presented in open court for the whole world to see and damn the consequences? Or would it be sealed for, e.g., "the good of the country"?

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Is that as explosive, as direct, as evidence would be of Trump being paid billions personally by hostile governments? I know some media reported Jared getting paid billions by the Saudis, but that's from a story in the heavily-disparaged media, not evidence presented during trial in open court; plus the payment to Jared was not a direct payment to Trump himself. What I'm wondering is, if the investigation did find such direct payment, explicitly, would that presented in open court for the whole world to see and damn the consequences? Or would it be sealed for, e.g., "the good of the country"?

The GOP congress will get to the bottom of the Kushner payouts...just you wait and see.  :==)

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Is that as explosive, as direct, as evidence would be of Trump being paid billions personally by hostile governments? I know some media reported Jared getting paid billions by the Saudis, but that's from a story in the heavily-disparaged media, not evidence presented during trial in open court; plus the payment to Jared was not a direct payment to Trump himself. What I'm wondering is, if the investigation did find such direct payment, explicitly, would that presented in open court for the whole world to see and damn the consequences? Or would it be sealed for, e.g., "the good of the country"?

Fair question - but I think given the capacity of MAGA world to happily maintain black is white, I'm not sure if there is any kind of evidence with enough epistemological force they wouldn't find a way to wish it away. 

My own guess is that most destructive thing for MAGA world would be the televised trial in GA. MAGA is mostly conditioned by television, and MAGA world makes sure they never see Trump in a bad light on the TEE VEE. But they would be drawn the trial broadcast like moths to the fire, and there they would be forced to listen to real people right there in front of Trump, talk about what a loser he is and him having to just sit there in the dock with no evident superpowers. That I think could be powerful - but the odds of that trial happening before the election are not all that good.

[mtutiger]

34 minutes ago, romad1 said:

This is the thin wedge.  Or a thin wedge. 

Exhibit 209527089 as to why it's insane that people sidle up to this guy.... he considers everyone expendable.

Edited August 16, 2023 by mtutiger

[oblong]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

Fair question - but I think given the capacity of MAGA world to happily maintain black is white, I'm not sure if there is any kind of evidence with enough epistemological force they wouldn't find a way to wish it away. 

My own guess is that most destructive thing for MAGA world would be the televised trial in GA. MAGA is mostly conditioned by television, and MAGA world makes sure they never see Trump in a bad light on the TEE VEE. But they would be drawn the trial broadcast like moths to the fire, and there they would be forced to listen to real people right there in front of Trump, talk about what a loser he is and him having to just sit there in the dock with no evident superpowers. That I think could be powerful - but the odds of that trial happening before the election are not all that good.

Would Fox News dare not cover it if it were televised?

 

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

My own guess is that most destructive thing for MAGA world would be the televised trial in GA. MAGA is mostly conditioned by television, and MAGA world makes sure they never see Trump in a bad light on the TEE VEE. But they would be drawn the trial broadcast like moths to the fire, and there they would be forced to listen to real people right there in front of Trump, talk about what a loser he is and him having to just sit there in the dock with no evident superpowers. That I think could be powerful - but the odds of that trial happening before the election are not all that good.

I saw a suggestion that actually made more sense. Televising the OJ trial really didn't change many opinions (despite the gloves) and allowed both sides to grandstand more than necessary. The suggestion was to air the audio only. That could cut down on whatever grandstanding you would have. Many courts now stream audio, including the Supreme Court on major decisions. 
 

Just like Oblong's thoughts about conservative "news stations" not airing the trial, what radio outlets would actually give up $$$ to air it in 2023/2024? Then what MAGAs would actually tune in to either?