I know the answer is "no" but I'm going to ask anyway.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
No. Literally none. Once the electoral college vote is certified, it's done. Now the only do-over we get is impeachment.
Which is fine, honestly. I'd rather not have a lower bar for shaking up the executive branch.
E: Even if I reaaaallly wish we could invoke it right now.
Agreed. There are no takebacks on elections, nor should there be, merely the proper due process to remove an elected official if malfeasance can be shown.
That depends on congess actually acting as a check on executive power of course. Which they don't. But the blame for that ultimately lands on the electorate. Both their constituents and the state voters that allowed electoral maps to be drawn such that they are untouchable. Our system steers like a barge, so we have to pay attention every step of the way. By the time we utter the words "President-elect Trump" it's far too late to just turn around.
I think if Trump's numbers continue to drop and this story doesn't go away, the Republicans in congress will see the way the political wind is blowing and will decide to remove Trump. They would be just as happy with Pence, maybe even happier. They just need to be convinced that Trump voters won't be angry at them for impeaching him.
I do not believe there exists any point at which they will see the impeachment of their party's president as preferable to anything that president may do or may be accused of. At all. The only hope of impeachment is that we elect enough democrats to do it on our own.
Impeachment is what you do to the other party's president, not your own.
Trump is a republican by technicality moreso then by any real allegiance to the party, it's history or it's ideals and the leadership of the party made it very clear a year ago that they didn't want this jackass in charge of the party.
If the opportunity presents itself and ther is blood in the water they will absolutely do a Julius Ceaser special on him.
The opportunity did present itself. Before the election. Instead the guys he'd spent months destroying lined up to give him foot rubs and work the phones for him. They wanted an R in office, even if it was Trump.
My concern is that there may exist no circumstance in which impeachment does less political damage to the party than whatever Trump actually does in office. Especially since, arguably, Congress wields their fair share of the power to actually "do" anything...Trump with a quietly hostile GOP Congress can likely be contained enough to maintain that same balance, where impeachment is the worse path.
It wont do damage...to their base.
The only way it won't do damage to other Trump voters or non-voters if if they can force Trump into the memory hole. If they impeach, they will go hard and fast, grabbing all the evidence to Russian ties for all to see, getting FOX news on board, having him tried for treason or espionage and having him incarcerated or executed. Because if they don't, Trump is going to cling to his Twitter account and power over the media for eternity.
I think if the Republican party wants Trump gone they will try to do it privately, deniably. If he quits because "the liberal media" were "destroying his business" or some bullshit, they can all save face. They won't impeach him unless he is caught on camera taking a check from a Russian spy while raping a 10-year-old boy. Remember how Sarah Palin just quit for no apparent reason in the middle of her term? Something like that.
Would Trump even bend the knee to an agreement like that?
EDIT - Perhaps if the GOP dangles such a threat in front of him.
I did not get any impression of Clinton being corrupt from the NYT's coverage. But I don't read every article. Perhaps I missed it. I got the same "this is a whole lot of nothing" message from them as I did from everywhere.
I did not get any impression of Clinton being corrupt from the NYT's coverage. But I don't read every article. Perhaps I missed it. I got the same "this is a whole lot of nothing" message from them as I did from everywhere.
I agree with a lot of what you've been posting - right up until here. The media coverage of Comey's release was not at all dismissive. News outlets were practically running around with their hair on fire to speculate the morning after it broke.
+20
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I did not get any impression of Clinton being corrupt from the NYT's coverage. But I don't read every article. Perhaps I missed it. I got the same "this is a whole lot of nothing" message from them as I did from everywhere.
I agree with a lot of what you've been posting - right up until here. The media coverage of Comey's release was not at all dismissive. News outlets were practically running around with their hair on fire to speculate the morning after it broke.
I don't recall having to hunt to find out exactly what he meant
I am very much on CB's side here, I continue to really dislike the amount of fault placed upon the media.
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
no particular outlet is perfect but if you're targeting the nyt/cnn/wapo you need to take a step back and consider the broad war we are fighting... the other side is attacking reality, information, the "msm". we cannot help them.
Those outlets helped to create the environment we're in! Trump's unreality is not that far removed from Bush's unreality. Remember, it was a Bush official who derisively said that "you're a part of the reality based community. We're creating our own reality."
This is not a new trend. This is a culmination (hopefully) of a trend.
They keep propping these assholes up and denigrating liberals. Who are then proven right. And ignored some more.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I did not get any impression of Clinton being corrupt from the NYT's coverage. But I don't read every article. Perhaps I missed it. I got the same "this is a whole lot of nothing" message from them as I did from everywhere.
I agree with a lot of what you've been posting - right up until here. The media coverage of Comey's release was not at all dismissive. News outlets were practically running around with their hair on fire to speculate the morning after it broke.
no particular outlet is perfect but if you're targeting the nyt/cnn/wapo you need to take a step back and consider the broad war we are fighting... the other side is attacking reality, information, the "msm". we cannot help them.
I think this is part of the attack on the "msm." The left damn the decent journalism outlets with faint praise or condemn them as too interested in seeming impartial. The right screech at them as "biased." End result: everyone hates them, no-one cares when the eventual headline is "Washington Post acquired by Russian media conglomerate." Because it was shit anyway, worthless, who cares?
Those outlets helped to create the environment we're in! Trump's unreality is not that far removed from Bush's unreality. Remember, it was a Bush official who derisively said that "you're a part of the reality based community. We're creating our own reality."
This is not a new trend. This is a culmination (hopefully) of a trend.
I really don't think so. As someone said earlier, no putting the genie back into the bottle.
Dodging reality, and doing it good is the new name of the game. You cannot take down an opponent that simply changes the narrative to one where you're at fault, or refuses to answer, all the while you're scrambling to just keep the issue on-topic.
Not in a debate or public argument situation. That democrats refuse to take up on arms in this arena will make them the losers, every single time, in the eyes of the public.
Emotional appeal, nothing else matters.
Now to the question of whether Trump was briefed on the synopsis last Friday. On television Wednesday morning, McFadden said he wasn’t; the online story said that Trump was “not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week’s intelligence briefing.” On the Wednesday night edition of “NBC Nightly News,” correspondent Hallie Jackson said, “A senior intelligence official with knowledge of the document tells NBC News Trump was never briefed about it.” Here’s a screenshot from from that edition of NBC News’s flagship program:
[...]
Reince Priebus, the incoming Trump chief of staff, told the “Today” show that he’d attended the intelligence briefing, yet the first he heard of the dossier was when BuzzFeed published it.
Last evening, however, CNN reported that Trump and FBI Director James B. Comey had a “brief one-on-one conversation at Friday’s intelligence briefing.”
It was FBI Director Comey in a one on one who briefed PEOTUS Trump on that synopsis, we can now report. More here –> pic.twitter.com/hklsmquhEF
Now to the question of whether Trump was briefed on the synopsis last Friday. On television Wednesday morning, McFadden said he wasn’t; the online story said that Trump was “not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week’s intelligence briefing.” On the Wednesday night edition of “NBC Nightly News,” correspondent Hallie Jackson said, “A senior intelligence official with knowledge of the document tells NBC News Trump was never briefed about it.” Here’s a screenshot from from that edition of NBC News’s flagship program:
[...]
Reince Priebus, the incoming Trump chief of staff, told the “Today” show that he’d attended the intelligence briefing, yet the first he heard of the dossier was when BuzzFeed published it.
Last evening, however, CNN reported that Trump and FBI Director James B. Comey had a “brief one-on-one conversation at Friday’s intelligence briefing.”
It was FBI Director Comey in a one on one who briefed PEOTUS Trump on that synopsis, we can now report. More here –> pic.twitter.com/hklsmquhEF
A rule for the next four years: When the Trump people are touting your reporting, worry.
Trump spokespeople are completely and utterly useless as sources of information.
They're great sources of information because they lie 100% of the time. That makes them super useful. Not only can you glean a lot from assuming that the opposite of what they say is the reality, I think if we found some people who always told the truth we could solve some excellent logic puzzles.
In a particularly dark mood tonight, and a premonition came to me.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if video evidence seeming to prove, on its face, that the whole dossier is true leaks onto the internet in the coming days and spreads like wildfire. And then, in a day or two, it turns out there's a subtle thing, like an item in the background that was invented in 2016, or an odd birthmark on the Trump body double that the real Trump doesn't have, that proves that the video is a fabrication. And so all the actual evidence of Trump being a Russian puppet gets swept under the rug because fake proof was offered, pounced upon, and then proven to be fake later because it was specifically fabricated to be so. Every time a story runs about Trump being in Russia's pocket, it can get countered with "lol like your Trump porno video right?" And even if proof comes out that Trump himself paid for the video to be created, that won't permeate the general public consciousness.
Basically the Dan Rather incident on a more orchestrated scale.
Except false flagging fake news will probably get the opposite result of what someone wants. As always, people will read the scandal in big font on the front page, and never read the correction on page 10 a week later. If video got out, people would be calling for his impeachment that day, he might not last long enough for the correction.
+7
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
I haven't forgotten. A big part of why the loss hit me so hard is that all of the data pointed to a Clinton win. I'm an engineer, my whole life is making decisions based on data. I ignored the Trump bumper stickers and billboards and the assclown waving a Trump sign on the streetcorner like one of those Little Caesars guys because the data told me we were safe. I volunteered with the Clinton campaign and was specifically told by their lead staffer "Our data is telling us that we just need to get our base out to vote, we don't need to worry about convincing independents."
And then the data was wrong, and I still don't know what to do about it.
It really wasn't though I don't think? Everything was looking pretty good until Comey delivered that knockout punch at exactly the right time to drop her below Trump on election day but not early enough to show up in the last round of polls.
I would like a detailed account of wtf happened in Florida though. Expected that to turn out more in line with Nevada.
+2
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I know the answer is "no" but I'm going to ask anyway.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
A constitutional amendment. So... yeah. Not going to happen. The closest real option is impeaching Trump but you'd still have Pence unless he's also implicated in something bad enough.
And if he is you end up with Ryan. :rotate:
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
The Hill reports that a number of Democrats emerged from the meeting convinced that Comey is “unfit to to lead the agency:”
“I was non-judgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him,” Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.
“Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.
“I’m extremely concerned — extremely,” he said.
“I’ll just — I’m very angry,” echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
It's not going away. Thank God.
God fucking god dammit Comey. I assume in this briefing he revealed they knew tons about this Trump Russia stuff but sat on it so he would have more chance to win (he wouldn't admit that but surely that is the message these dems got) . Remembered forever in history as a guy who refused to put his country first and knowingly helped install an extremely compromised and incompetent president.
He's the true villain of this piece. He knew that the Clinton email leaks and the Trump Russia documents existed. But somehow, only the Clinton email leaks (of much lesser import) were what he chose to inform the public about. He is meant to be impartial but he trashed any pretense of this. Hope his Orange Master rewards him well for being a traitor.
Comey wouldn't have mattered for shit if the press put the proper importance on the e-mail story to begin with. They're the villains.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
It's not freedom of the press people are upset about, it's shit editorial boards that have had a hate boner for her since her husband was president and printed a shitload of gossip for viewership.
I know the answer is "no" but I'm going to ask anyway.
Is there any possible way for a do-over election? What would it take for that to occur?
A constitutional amendment. So... yeah. Not going to happen. The closest real option is impeaching Trump but you'd still have Pence unless he's also implicated in something bad enough.
And if he is you end up with Ryan. :rotate:
Both are less bad than Trump, that's how terrible Trump is.
+20
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
It's like how freedom of speech is great, but if all you use it for is to shout bigoted slurs you're a senseless douchelord.
Giggles_Funsworth on
+20
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
And to bring it back on topic by, credulously reprinting shit Wikileaks said, burying the lede so the headlines were as scandalous as possible, they were the vulnerability that the Russians hacked.
You can't run an influence campaign without their cooperation.
Giggles_Funsworth on
+11
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who investigated Donald Trump’s alleged Kremlin links, was so worried by what he was discovering that at the end he was working without pay, The Independent has learned.
Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries.
Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who investigated Donald Trump’s alleged Kremlin links, was so worried by what he was discovering that at the end he was working without pay, The Independent has learned.
Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries.
Hollywood, make a movie about this (inter)national hero!
Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who investigated Donald Trump’s alleged Kremlin links, was so worried by what he was discovering that at the end he was working without pay, The Independent has learned.
Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries.
Hollywood, make a movie about this (inter)national hero!
I have watched too many spy movies with tragic endings.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.
Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.
Burr said late Thursday that he did not plan to touch on possible contacts between Trump emissaries and Russia, asserting that the issue likely falls under the FBI's purview. "We don't have anything to do with political campaigns," the Republican said.
Even though I doubt that anything will come from it, I do have some hope that at least there'll be some good grandstanding. The committee is 8-7, but Rubio was actually surprisingly rough on Tillerson the other day.
I think the allegations are worrying enough that some of the older members of Congress that remember the Cold War are going to want to do something about this. Every Democrat will be working her hardest against Trump, and if some Republicans flip as well, that might lead to something.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.
Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.
Burr said late Thursday that he did not plan to touch on possible contacts between Trump emissaries and Russia, asserting that the issue likely falls under the FBI's purview. "We don't have anything to do with political campaigns," the Republican said.
Even though I doubt that anything will come from it, I do have some hope that at least there'll be some good grandstanding. The committee is 8-7, but Rubio was actually surprisingly rough on Tillerson the other day.
The reversal could be as simple as one of his staff told him that in fact this is under the purview of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I think the allegations are worrying enough that some of the older members of Congress that remember the Cold War are going to want to do something about this. Every Democrat will be working her hardest against Trump, and if some Republicans flip as well, that might lead to something.
The old "hoping the republicans won't flip the US off" gambit?
I think the allegations are worrying enough that some of the older members of Congress that remember the Cold War are going to want to do something about this. Every Democrat will be working her hardest against Trump, and if some Republicans flip as well, that might lead to something.
The old "hoping the republicans won't flip the US off" gambit?
It's not really a gambit, it's all the hope we realistically have outside of massive protests. The Republicans hold all three branches of government.
And yes, I do believe that some Republicans in Congress would rather impeach their own President than willingly allow a Russian stooge to control the nuclear football. Not all of them, but some.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.
Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.
Burr said late Thursday that he did not plan to touch on possible contacts between Trump emissaries and Russia, asserting that the issue likely falls under the FBI's purview. "We don't have anything to do with political campaigns," the Republican said.
Even though I doubt that anything will come from it, I do have some hope that at least there'll be some good grandstanding. The committee is 8-7, but Rubio was actually surprisingly rough on Tillerson the other day.
The reversal could be as simple as one of his staff told him that in fact this is under the purview of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"I don't beleive we have authority over foreign influence on political campaigns"
I think the allegations are worrying enough that some of the older members of Congress that remember the Cold War are going to want to do something about this. Every Democrat will be working her hardest against Trump, and if some Republicans flip as well, that might lead to something.
The old "hoping the republicans won't flip the US off" gambit?
It's not really a gambit, it's all the hope we realistically have outside of massive protests. The Republicans hold all three branches of government.
And yes, I do believe that some Republicans in Congress would rather impeach their own President than willingly allow a Russian stooge to control the nuclear football. Not all of them, but some.
Mostly old fuckers who remember the cold war. Younger Republicans *adore* Russia and see it as a model. To them, this is like all those Europeans who expressed support for Obama during his election - a recommendation not a shameful capitulation. They see the Russian hacking as a friendly country nobly exposing corruption in the Democratic party and saving the USA from a war with Russia that Hillary had lined up.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, reversing himself one day after telling reporters that the issue would be outside of his panel’s ongoing probe into Moscow’s election-disruption efforts.
Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week.
Burr said late Thursday that he did not plan to touch on possible contacts between Trump emissaries and Russia, asserting that the issue likely falls under the FBI's purview. "We don't have anything to do with political campaigns," the Republican said.
Even though I doubt that anything will come from it, I do have some hope that at least there'll be some good grandstanding. The committee is 8-7, but Rubio was actually surprisingly rough on Tillerson the other day.
The reversal could be as simple as one of his staff told him that in fact this is under the purview of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Almost more likely the reversal comes from "uhh this is us, this will sink the Republican Party"
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Oh yeah, I forgot that the CIA hacked Nigel Farage's emails and leaked the most embarrassing ones, and some fabricated ones, in a selective udrip in the weeks leading up to the vote
Wasn't it hilarious when we learned that Farage is into watersports LOL too bad it didn't work out Obama you did your best
Mr Steele is now in hiding, under attack from some Tory MPs for supposedly trying to ruin the chances of Theresa May’s Government building a fruitful relationship with the Trump administration. Some of them accuse him of being part of an anti-Brexit conspiracy. A right-wing tabloid has “outed” him as being a “confirmed socialist” while at university.
Mr Steele is now in hiding, under attack from some Tory MPs for supposedly trying to ruin the chances of Theresa May’s Government building a fruitful relationship with the Trump administration. Some of them accuse him of being part of an anti-Brexit conspiracy. A right-wing tabloid has “outed” him as being a “confirmed socialist” while at university.
He's like a super-hero, where ever there is evil - he will bring it down. He should get a cape. A secret agent cape.
Mr Steele is now in hiding, under attack from some Tory MPs for supposedly trying to ruin the chances of Theresa May’s Government building a fruitful relationship with the Trump administration. Some of them accuse him of being part of an anti-Brexit conspiracy. A right-wing tabloid has “outed” him as being a “confirmed socialist” while at university.
This section got my attention:
Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries.
However, say security sources, Mr Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up, that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
It is believed that a colleague of Mr Steele in Washington, Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who runs the firm Fusion GPS, felt the same way and, at the end also continued with the Trump case without being paid.
Fusion GPS had been hired by Republican opponents of Mr Trump in September 2015. In June 2016 Mr Steele came on the team. He was, and continues to be, highly regarded in the intelligence world. In July, Mr Trump won the Republican nomination and the Democrats became new employers of Mr Steele and Fusion GPS.
In the same month Mr Steele produced a memo, which went to the FBI, stating that Mr Trump’s campaign team had agreed to a Russian request to dilute attention on Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine. Four days later Mr Trump stated that he would recognise Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. A month later officials involved in his campaign asked the Republican party’s election platform to remove a pledge for military assistance to the Ukrainian government against separatist rebels in the east of the country.
Mr Steele claimed that the Trump campaign was taking this path because it was aware that the Russians were hacking Democratic Party emails. No evidence of this has been made public, but the same day that Mr Trump spoke about Crimea he called on the Kremlin to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Posts
Would Trump even bend the knee to an agreement like that?
EDIT - Perhaps if the GOP dangles such a threat in front of him.
I agree with a lot of what you've been posting - right up until here. The media coverage of Comey's release was not at all dismissive. News outlets were practically running around with their hair on fire to speculate the morning after it broke.
I don't recall having to hunt to find out exactly what he meant
I am very much on CB's side here, I continue to really dislike the amount of fault placed upon the media.
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
no particular outlet is perfect but if you're targeting the nyt/cnn/wapo you need to take a step back and consider the broad war we are fighting... the other side is attacking reality, information, the "msm". we cannot help them.
This is not a new trend. This is a culmination (hopefully) of a trend.
They keep propping these assholes up and denigrating liberals. Who are then proven right. And ignored some more.
I think this is part of the attack on the "msm." The left damn the decent journalism outlets with faint praise or condemn them as too interested in seeming impartial. The right screech at them as "biased." End result: everyone hates them, no-one cares when the eventual headline is "Washington Post acquired by Russian media conglomerate." Because it was shit anyway, worthless, who cares?
Dodging reality, and doing it good is the new name of the game. You cannot take down an opponent that simply changes the narrative to one where you're at fault, or refuses to answer, all the while you're scrambling to just keep the issue on-topic.
Not in a debate or public argument situation. That democrats refuse to take up on arms in this arena will make them the losers, every single time, in the eyes of the public.
Emotional appeal, nothing else matters.
You can take the fifth amendment before congress.
In normal times, taking the fifth before congress as a government employee is... Unwise to say the least.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/13/nbc-news-engages-in-absurd-hair-splitting-to-prop-up-reporting-on-trump-intel/ Trump spokespeople are completely and utterly useless as sources of information.
They're great sources of information because they lie 100% of the time. That makes them super useful. Not only can you glean a lot from assuming that the opposite of what they say is the reality, I think if we found some people who always told the truth we could solve some excellent logic puzzles.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if video evidence seeming to prove, on its face, that the whole dossier is true leaks onto the internet in the coming days and spreads like wildfire. And then, in a day or two, it turns out there's a subtle thing, like an item in the background that was invented in 2016, or an odd birthmark on the Trump body double that the real Trump doesn't have, that proves that the video is a fabrication. And so all the actual evidence of Trump being a Russian puppet gets swept under the rug because fake proof was offered, pounced upon, and then proven to be fake later because it was specifically fabricated to be so. Every time a story runs about Trump being in Russia's pocket, it can get countered with "lol like your Trump porno video right?" And even if proof comes out that Trump himself paid for the video to be created, that won't permeate the general public consciousness.
Basically the Dan Rather incident on a more orchestrated scale.
It really wasn't though I don't think? Everything was looking pretty good until Comey delivered that knockout punch at exactly the right time to drop her below Trump on election day but not early enough to show up in the last round of polls.
I would like a detailed account of wtf happened in Florida though. Expected that to turn out more in line with Nevada.
And if he is you end up with Ryan. :rotate:
It's not freedom of the press people are upset about, it's shit editorial boards that have had a hate boner for her since her husband was president and printed a shitload of gossip for viewership.
Both are less bad than Trump, that's how terrible Trump is.
You can't run an influence campaign without their cooperation.
Good fucking movie too. And goddamn relevant. It's the same game.
And if the press doesn't acknowledge the rules they will continue to be complicit in influence campaigns.
Hollywood, make a movie about this (inter)national hero!
I have watched too many spy movies with tragic endings.
Read it again.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/burr-says-intel-panel-will-investigate-possible-russia-trump-links-233621
Even though I doubt that anything will come from it, I do have some hope that at least there'll be some good grandstanding. The committee is 8-7, but Rubio was actually surprisingly rough on Tillerson the other day.
The reversal could be as simple as one of his staff told him that in fact this is under the purview of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
It's not really a gambit, it's all the hope we realistically have outside of massive protests. The Republicans hold all three branches of government.
And yes, I do believe that some Republicans in Congress would rather impeach their own President than willingly allow a Russian stooge to control the nuclear football. Not all of them, but some.
"I don't beleive we have authority over foreign influence on political campaigns"
(Whispers in ear)
"Oh really? Fuckin A then."
Mostly old fuckers who remember the cold war. Younger Republicans *adore* Russia and see it as a model. To them, this is like all those Europeans who expressed support for Obama during his election - a recommendation not a shameful capitulation. They see the Russian hacking as a friendly country nobly exposing corruption in the Democratic party and saving the USA from a war with Russia that Hillary had lined up.
Massive protests might help, but probably not.
Almost more likely the reversal comes from "uhh this is us, this will sink the Republican Party"
GUYS
I am a secret mystic
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/36570016#Comment_36570016
NNID: Hakkekage
Special bonus in the final paragraph:
He's like a super-hero, where ever there is evil - he will bring it down. He should get a cape. A secret agent cape.
This section got my attention: