@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
One might argue Bernie on this point. I'm not arguing that, but I could understand the case being made.
Bannon makes the case in several interviews there are really two kinds of populism - right and left.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think” WTF?
The entire point Yellow has been making to me the last few years is that society is obligated to appease the unskilled-uneducated class or else the country will end up with a disaster like trump. Trump populism is entirely about appeasing and placating economic losers in the plaintive hope of achieving social peace.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think” WTF?
The entire point Yellow has been making to me the last few years is that society is obligated to appease the unskilled-uneducated class or else the country will end up with a disaster like trump. Trump populism is entirely about appeasing and placating economic losers in the plaintive hope of achieving social peace.
Your ability to misunderstand literally everything around you is almost masterful.
Keep up the good work, CD. You sure called the 2016 Election correctly. I'm sure you'll strike out in 2020, too.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
In other words Trump won by being Trump, but Trump can't get a landslide because he's well, Trump.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think” WTF?
The entire point Yellow has been making to me the last few years is that society is obligated to appease the unskilled-uneducated class or else the country will end up with a disaster like trump. Trump populism is entirely about appeasing and placating economic losers in the plaintive hope of achieving social peace.
Your ability to misunderstand literally everything around you is almost masterful.
Keep up the good work, CD. You sure called the 2016 Election correctly. I'm sure you'll strike out in 2020, too.
Interesting perspective, CD, as I've yet to see you demonstrate any skill, while your lack of education, especially about history, is manifest.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
Fair.
But the giants of that movement would tell you that, as imperfect an instrument as Trump is (and believe me, they all see it, even Bannon), he was the perfect person to move this agenda forward. There is a blitzkrieg element to this movement that it's earliest architects believe is entirely necessary to move it forward. The giants in this movement think you needed someone who would barrel in and say "fuck it".
Not saying I agree. I don't really know how it would have played out if you had a guy who always followed the rules, followed decorum and spoke like a New England prep school educated fancy boy.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think” WTF?
The entire point Yellow has been making to me the last few years is that society is obligated to appease the unskilled-uneducated class or else the country will end up with a disaster like trump. Trump populism is entirely about appeasing and placating economic losers in the plaintive hope of achieving social peace.
Your ability to misunderstand literally everything around you is almost masterful.
Keep up the good work, CD. You sure called the 2016 Election correctly. I'm sure you'll strike out in 2020, too.
I called 2016 TurdbufferFS? Your record is perfect. 100% wrong. Maybe trump can add an extra tariff to help you out for Christmas.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
Timing is everything in politics, and what you're looking for is a Republican version of Bill Clinton, which ain't gonna happen with the country as polarized and the Democratic Party as chaotic and lost in the woods as it is right now. The Republican party isn't generating any Clinton-esque candidates either, particularly because it won't silence the 2nd Amendment folks or the Religious Right, so your dream candidate remains unrealistic for at least the next two election cycles.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
Timing is everything in politics, and what you're looking for is a Republican version of Bill Clinton, which ain't gonna happen with the country as polarized and the Democratic Party as chaotic and lost in the woods as it is right now. The Republican party isn't generating any Clinton-esque candidates either, particularly because it won't silence the 2nd Amendment folks or the Religious Right, so your dream candidate remains unrealistic for at least the next two election cycles.
It might be a pipe dream or maybe not. But I contend that that person would be able to cater a little to the Fundies and gun nut jerbs like @Swaye in the primary and then pivot a bit in the general. And THOSE PEOPLE would have to realize that he/she is the only thing standing between them and REAL socialist Armageddon.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
In other words Trump won by being Trump, but Trump can't get a landslide because he's well, Trump.
The EU is famous for all its polished candidates who spend most of their time trying to outshine each other with virtue signaling and faux diplomacy despite the fact they mostly hate each other. The "kinder-gentler" stuff, while made famous by Papa Bush, is actually very, very Seattle-like. Come come have a taste of that shit, and I promise you'll spit it out.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
Agree with much of that, particularly the point that the movement really did need a guy like Trump. It was almost predicated on getting a guy like that ... the idea being that it would be someone who is not afraid to say "fuck off" w/o worrying about what favor it might cost him down the road.
Still, I'm left with a question about the movement, which your post elucidates: "getting out of [America's] way" means exactly what? No doubt it means cleaning up a lot of the shit on the floor from years of establishment politics. But, I ask in all sincerity, what is the economic long game? Are we playing with the nuclear codes? Is what ultimately makes America great not some romanticized idea about western "spirit" or the wisdom of a bunch of guys who have been dead for 220 years or the statue of liberty or anything else "patriotic", but rather our system of economy and the way we've paid fealty to capitalist principles for most of our country's history?
I'm on board with a lot of it. But I'm skeptical of protectionist policies and promises of recreating a big fat middle class on the back of a big manufacturing economy we may never see again.
Almost all the conservatives I know including myself were not for Trump. Trump became our choice after the primary. The only choice available. But as I've said before there people who hate Trump are who really made me good with that decision. If they all hated him he was who I wanted.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
Timing is everything in politics, and what you're looking for is a Republican version of Bill Clinton, which ain't gonna happen with the country as polarized and the Democratic Party as chaotic and lost in the woods as it is right now. The Republican party isn't generating any Clinton-esque candidates either, particularly because it won't silence the 2nd Amendment folks or the Religious Right, so your dream candidate remains unrealistic for at least the next two election cycles.
The whole charade is about butthurt Hillary losers who can't accept the reality that they lost to a populist who rejected political correctness and obsessive self-criticism and loser-think in favor of a message that America is a Great and Generous Country if you get the fuck out of her way and let her do what she does best, without apologizing to the rest of the jealous world that surrounds her and wants to see her humbled. Trump gave a firm "Fuck You" to all of that and landed like a turd in the DC punch bowl and a grenade to DC elitism. That's why the liberal press, many republicans and every last democrat hate his guts and want him out, because he wrecked their rigged corrupt game. Talking about a possible investigation is now a High Crime or Misdemeanor? Fuck Off with that shit. He stepped outside the lines that the bureaucrats are used to and their biggest complaint is that his conduct is unusual compared to past presidents. Big. Fucking. Deal.
Agree with much of that, particularly the point that the movement really did need a guy like Trump. It was almost predicated on getting a guy like that ... the idea being that it would be someone who is not afraid to say "fuck off" w/o worrying about what favor it might cost him down the road.
Still, I'm left with a question about the movement, which your post elucidates: "getting out of [America's] way" means exactly what? No doubt it means cleaning up a lot of the shit on the floor from years of establishment politics. But, I ask in all sincerity, what is the economic long game? Are we playing with the nuclear codes? Is what ultimately makes America great not some romanticized idea about western "spirit" or the wisdom of a bunch of guys who have been dead for 220 years or the statue of liberty or anything else "patriotic", but rather our system of economy and the way we've paid fealty to capitalist principles for most of our country's history?
I'm on board with a lot of it. But I'm skeptical of protectionist policies and promises of recreating a big fat middle class on the back of a big manufacturing economy we may never see again.
Fair trade versus Free trade is a good start, with bilateral trade deals instead of giant, complicated multi-country trade deals overseen by corrupt international bureaucrats and courts. That's a good start.
And we could start getting out of our own way by dumping a lot of Marxist college professors and stop this "everyone needs to go to college" bullshit, which is burying young people in needless debt for worthless degrees that guarantees their support of socialist candidates because they'll never be able to repay their loans or provide for themselves. (Great Fucking Idea, Bernie!)
Almost all the conservatives I know including myself were not for Trump. Trump became our choice after the primary. The only choice available. But as I've said before there people who hate Trump are who really made me good with that decision. If they all hated him he was who I wanted.
You didn't want Trump yet you stroke him off every day.
@creepycoug you have always seemed a fair, if swarthy, poster. How do you view this "court" assembled by Schiff? What about the evidence? You appear to be no fan of Trump, so I'd like your take on how this impeachment is being conducted. TIAFYS
I'll be honest here: for most of this investigation / witch hunt stuff, choose your term, I've tried to maintain an agnostic position on the facts because I'm not really in a position to know anything. I'm just here in Seattle, soaking wet, trying to pull off convincing everyone I'm a real lawyer. It's hard. That goes from SCOTUS hearings, Mueller and Russia to Ukraine Gate.
On Trump in general, I'm truly ambivalent. There's a lot of this neo-con platform I like and some I don't. As for Trump himself, I think he's a guy who's used to being a CEO-like figure and thus tends to default to doing whatever the fuck he wants to do. That all said, there no question in my mind that the left is fractured and phuked up; the centrists have lost and the party is now being run by a bunch of reactionary idiots who are easily lured into overplaying their hand to the point where they have no credibility. Do I believe that crowd is capable of staging a mob witch hunt and doing shit they shouldn't do and justify to themselves that the goal of "saving the country", which they're convinced they're doing, justifies their shady behavior? W/o question, yes, I believe that.
But as Yella pointed out, whatever Trump did, even the worst version of that is not Watergate-level and thus, on the basis of maintain some credibility in our processes he should not suffer as severe a fate as did Nixon. So if I had the deciding vote, based only what I know, I'd vote against impeachment, which, btw, would be a favor to the left.
On the blow by blow of Schiff and Jordan and this committee met in a basement and deep state this and Al Barr that, ... honestly I leave that for others to follow because I haven't the attention span for it. I'm 3500 miles away and don't have connections close enough to those circles to have any intel. As a pretend lawyer, it's drilled into your head in pretend law school to focus more on what you don't know than what you do know.
Trump is most definitely not a neo-con @creepycoug . I agree, however, that the ambivalent approach towards him is the only sane one. TDS and MAGA are both delusional.
He most definitely is, or at least we need to level set on nomenclature. And, let's not focus on what Trump may or may not believe deep down inside. Let's focus on his platform.
If you read or listen to Steve Bannon, that's it right there. It is neo-conservative populism, which entails a strong "American First" agenda. An agenda that means, among other things:
- Not the world's cop; let's pull of out of the middle east and quit poking our nose where it doesn't belong.
- We empathize with immigrants fleeing shit hole countries, but we need to shut that down and manage what we have here before revisiting allowing large numbers of people in save for maybe political asylum seekers (I assume the neo-cons are still amenable to real asylum). This is about both culture concerns and economics, with the latter getting most of the play, but the former the more or as important issue for a lot of people (Ann Coulter being one). Officially, it's about protecting worker's wages and is unapologetically protectionist. As Bannon has said himself, the establishment "free trade" conservatives are no better than the liberals and hate him as much as they do. This, right here, is where neo-con runs right into the face of old school con.
- Fair trade ... meaning a hard line on countries like China who are playing with a stacked deck, and thus an implied agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs
"You may not like neo-con populism, but if we don't enfranchise the working class in this country and do something about the elites (i.e. wealthy), you're going to get leftist populism, and they're not coming for your income; they're coming for your property."
You know I love this shit. There are really greats points of debate in all of that. What I'm left with, however, is this: what is the long-game economic platform?
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
In other words Trump won by being Trump, but Trump can't get a landslide because he's well, Trump.
The EU is famous for all its polished candidates who spend most of their time trying to outshine each other with virtue signaling and faux diplomacy despite the fact they mostly hate each other. The "kinder-gentler" stuff, while made famous by Papa Bush, is actually very, very Seattle-like. Come come have a taste of that shit, and I promise you'll spit it out.
The model as always been there. Tuff with the ability to fight, but without all the carnival barker, huckster shit that turns so many off. Some say the style doesn't matter, and I'm saying it absolutely does.
Comments
Bannon makes the case in several interviews there are really two kinds of populism - right and left.
WTF?
The entire point Yellow has been making to me the last few years is that society is obligated to appease the unskilled-uneducated class or else the country will end up with a disaster like trump. Trump populism is entirely about appeasing and placating economic losers in the plaintive hope of achieving social peace.
Keep up the good work, CD. You sure called the 2016 Election correctly. I'm sure you'll strike out in 2020, too.
I'm referring to a gifted politician- i.e., charismatic and w/o Trump's baggage and gaffes - running on basically Trump's platform, so some degree of protectionism, strong on border, and strong military but no interventionism. There's a 60% // Reagan 1984 landslide coalition that would vote for this. But Trump's not the guy to do it.
In other words Trump won by being Trump, but Trump can't get a landslide because he's well, Trump.
But the giants of that movement would tell you that, as imperfect an instrument as Trump is (and believe me, they all see it, even Bannon), he was the perfect person to move this agenda forward. There is a blitzkrieg element to this movement that it's earliest architects believe is entirely necessary to move it forward. The giants in this movement think you needed someone who would barrel in and say "fuck it".
Not saying I agree. I don't really know how it would have played out if you had a guy who always followed the rules, followed decorum and spoke like a New England prep school educated fancy boy.
Still, I'm left with a question about the movement, which your post elucidates: "getting out of [America's] way" means exactly what? No doubt it means cleaning up a lot of the shit on the floor from years of establishment politics. But, I ask in all sincerity, what is the economic long game? Are we playing with the nuclear codes? Is what ultimately makes America great not some romanticized idea about western "spirit" or the wisdom of a bunch of guys who have been dead for 220 years or the statue of liberty or anything else "patriotic", but rather our system of economy and the way we've paid fealty to capitalist principles for most of our country's history?
I'm on board with a lot of it. But I'm skeptical of protectionist policies and promises of recreating a big fat middle class on the back of a big manufacturing economy we may never see again.
And we could start getting out of our own way by dumping a lot of Marxist college professors and stop this "everyone needs to go to college" bullshit, which is burying young people in needless debt for worthless degrees that guarantees their support of socialist candidates because they'll never be able to repay their loans or provide for themselves. (Great Fucking Idea, Bernie!)