192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:10 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
. The combo of McCain's death and the picture of a president so caught up in his own neuroses and greedy machinations that his underlings have to run the country behind his back makes the Republicans look worse for November, not better.


made - not makes

__

this anonymous op-ed was an effort to protect the conservatives/republicans - to separate them from any danger #45 poses to them in the midterms and after

#45 is neither a conservative nor a republican but he has helped them move a lot of their cr@p through in the past 18 - 20 months. they appreciate that about him. his base of 30 - 35% is not going to change. that's likely not enough to hold them through the midterms if recent voter turnout patterns continue. they need more than the base to survive the midterms. there is a chunk of traditional conservative voters will vote republican if they believe they are not voting for #45.

the nyt let the conservatives set that up. ptooey on them

Blickers
 
  0  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:12 am
@ehBeth,
Disagree. A lot more talk of impeachment and the 25th Amendment after the op-ed than before.

That's not going to help any Republicans in the midterms.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:13 am
@farmerman,
I think if Trump explained that his multiple failures to correctly pronounce "anonymous" was due to a recent bite-wound from a goldfish with rabies that had been placed in the oval office by deep state players, the fellow you're talking to would deem he'd just learned something of critical importance.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:14 am
@blatham,
Quote:
What do you see as hand-wringing and which "progressives" are you referring to?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just sort of baffled why people with a Dem/progressive/leftist perspective would be so suspicious and critical of someone dumping a ripe plum like this into the fruit cocktail.

Now I can understand the Trump/Republican response — "gutless". Which is a laughably transparent attempt to appear tough — "a real man would've resigned", etc. And I can understand the response of the "good government" people who worry about the "slow coup" and think this sort of thing is unprincipled.

But I don't get the tie-in with the midterms or see this as a way for conservatives to save face (and seats in Congress). Most Republicans running for re-election will be shamelessly pro-Trump. He's got 80% support within the organization which we used to know as the GOP. I don't think Trump's base or the independents who support some of his policies are going to be embarrassed about the author's description of Trump and his White House. The base won't believe it and the independent sympathizers have heard all this before — it's not news.

Yes, I know the author wants Trump's policies to succeed, or at least some of them (the Koch-sponsored ones). But that's not surprising is it?

I'm willing to admit that I may be missing part of the picture here. I was hoping Michelle Goldberg would make it clear for me but I'm still puzzled — why would anyone expect anything different?

Quote:
There’s every reason to believe that Kavanaugh will shield the president from accountability or restraints on his power. Yet even Republicans who think Trump is a menace are desperate to confirm his judicial pick.

What we have here, in miniature, is the corrupt bargain Washington Republicans have made with a president many of them privately despise. They know Trump is unfit, but he gives them tax cuts and right-wing judges. Those tax cuts and right-wing judges, in turn, strengthen the president’s hand, buying him gratitude from rich donors and potential legal cover. Republicans who participate in this cycle seem convinced that the situation is, and will remain, under their control.
revelette1
 
  4  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:14 am
@farmerman,
Oh, well, at least with CJ we have a virtual living example of one those people of Trump's base who would forgive him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

Quote:
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” he said.


source
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:14 am
@revelette1,
Yeah, that is funny. I've seen several good "slow news week" jokes and I've appreciated each of them
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -4  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:16 am
@Blickers,
Not everything, just how the media covers politics and culture, they have a preference and push that preference.
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:17 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
you buy into anything that your president says eh??

I buy into what the Constitution says. You and the others have turned to fascism.
Quote:
You have no "Bullshit filter" apparently

If I did, I would not see many posts at all, including yours.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:18 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
You don't think the offer of anonymity would depend on which President was being reported on?


no.

i think that plenty of people would love/would have loved to get their op-eds published in the NYT if they didn't have to go public with their i.d.

there are always people in government who don't like their leaders - there have always been conservatives in liberal governments and liberals in conservative governments. there have always been followers of different segments of parties within government (tea party/progressives etc etc) . most people want to cover their ass - no surprise there. the surprise for me is the NYT falling for it in this case. they could have reported on the offer - they could have presented the message - but no, they had to give value to the conservative/non#45 message. it's a big fail for the NYT for me.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:20 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
If someone really has fitness for office concerns, they need to be on the record.


yup

either publish it with their name - or report it as an unsubstantiated story from an anonymous source
Blickers
 
  1  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:21 am
@Baldimo,
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:
Not everything, just how the media covers politics and culture, they have a preference and push that preference.

They didn't have any senior officials in any other Administration who offered to publish an anonymous editorial to an influential newspaper outlining how the President is so mentally and emotionally dysfunctional that that his senior officials have to run the country behind his back.

Since that never happened before, your attempt to use this as evidence the media is picking on Trump because he's a Republicans falls apart.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:27 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
or report it as an unsubstantiated story from an anonymous source

How about a dossier from a known source, except to the FISA judges that were never told it was unsubstantiated? Law, or rule of law, means absolutely nothing to never Trumpers.

You have until the documents wanted , withheld, or redacted are declassified by Trump and released. I think that will happen before the midterms. If that is the case Democrats can kiss the House good bye. Which will leave you people making up stories and lying through your teeth Shocked until 2020.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:32 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Most Republicans running for re-election will be shamelessly pro-Trump.


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-22/trump-endorsements-no-longer-look-like-a-golden-touch

Quote:
But the real danger here is that Republican politicians begin to believe that Trump isn’t a threat to them after all. My guess — and it’s only speculation — is that this has been true all along. While a presidential endorsement might move quite a few votes in low-interest primary elections because voters are looking for any kind of cue about who the acceptable candidate might be, it’s a lot harder for endorsements to move votes against an incumbent. Not impossible, but difficult.

If Republican politicians do start believing that they have little to fear from Trump, that would eliminate (or, more likely, just reduce) the incentive to avoid confronting him, at least after the midterms are over. And that could be a huge blow to Trump, with implications for everything from legislation and nominations to oversight to the possibility of a nomination challenge or even, perhaps, impeachment. Politicians do more than just respond to incentives — but they’re far more likely to do things when they have good political reason to do them. And there’s no bigger incentive than fear for their reelection. If they’ve believed Trump could defeat them, that explains a lot of their behavior. If that belief fades or fully evaporates, their behavior may well change.


Granted, we’re in the world of interpretation and perceptions here. One election defeat for a Trump-endorsed candidate might have little effect on his reputation for electoral clout among Republican voters — or it could have major effects. That part is impossible to know so far. All we do know with some confidence is that Republican politicians watch carefully what happens to politicians the president endorses in primary elections. And Trump has squandered at least some of something he’s worked hard to build.


being given the value of an anonymous op-ed in the NYT - it was a gift they didn't deserve

this was a conservative win

ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:34 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
They didn't have any senior officials in any other Administration who offered to publish an anonymous editorial to an influential newspaper


we don't know that (are you a NYT insider?)
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:36 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
Oh, well, at least with CJ we have a virtual living example of one those people of Trump's base who would forgive him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

No you don't. I can not see why Trump is illegitimate just because you say so. You have not been able to prove one thing but tax fraud and entrapped Flynn and others. And Trump is not a murderer. Killary killed four in Benghazi and many of her associates have died mysteriously.

I do not support murders or listen to stupid overblown bullshit like shooting someone to prove you could do it. Trump said that to piss people off and has been playing them for fools ever since. That includes you!
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:39 am
@ehBeth,
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/04/ab/f604ab4ed8e04ca09a29750bf5309398.png
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:40 am
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k0eL2buDGUiB6hlumqV4HQHaEx&pid=15.1&P=0&w=267&h=173
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:42 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
we don't know that (are you a NYT insider?)

A good chance a third rate liar would be an insider. I think you are on to something.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  0  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:42 am
@ehBeth,
Quote Blickers:
Quote:
They didn't have any senior officials in any other Administration who offered to publish an anonymous editorial to an influential newspaper

Quote ehBeth:
Quote:
we don't know that (are you a NYT insider?)

No, but insiders who have written memoirs never mentioned such a thing.

For a senior official in any Administration to publish such a thing essentially ends his job.

The only thing remotely like this situation was reported by Woodward and Bernstein in The Final Days, when Nixon was in his last months and going up and down the halls talking to portraits of presidents while being sedated heavily, Al Haig was actually running the country on a day-to-day basis.

This might have led to Haig's performance later in the White House after Reagan got shot by John Hinckley, where he called a press conference to say "I'm in charge here" when he wasn't, constitutionally. He left the Administration shortly thereafter. I guess Haig went overboard when he figured that he took charge of the country once when Nixon was virtually incapacitated, time for him to do it again for a few hours until Bush's plane landed.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Fri 7 Sep, 2018 09:43 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
They didn't have any senior officials in any other Administration who offered to publish an anonymous editorial to an influential newspaper outlinging how the President is so mentally and emotionally dysfunctional that that his senior officials have to run the country behind his back.

We don't know if any senior officials have done such a thing before, regardless of the reason for writing such a piece, we would only know about it if the media reported it. If this had happened in the Clinton years, we more than likely wouldn't have any idea because the internet wasn't a thing, we had limited sources for news. We know the media protects DNC politicians, when they all refused to break the story on Bill Clinton, that was done by Drudge Report, or when it was the National Enquirer who broke the John Edwards scandal.

Quote:
Since that never happened before, your attempt to use this as evidence the media is picking on Trump because he's a Republicans falls apart.

We don't know if it has ever happened before, I'll point out above how the media has protected DNC politicians in the past by not reporting on their bad behavior. If they agreed with the politicians views, why would they publish anything making that politician look bad?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:23:20