This NRO piece sums up my view of the Impeachment proceedings
Comments
-
No one is saying that because Nixon got away with REAL treason, Trump or future Presidents should be able to get away with less. This gist of this piece, which I tend to agree with, is that are Trump's abuses of power so egregious as to merit his being the first POTUS removed from office via impeachment? Half the country and half the Senate don't seem to think so. Conviction and removal was designed by the Founders as to require an overwhelming majority so it wouldn't just be a tool to overturn elections.GDS said:
Wouldn't you agree that had congress and the public had access to the information at the time he doesn't even survive until 1974? Nixon knew the charge was serious hence why he called LBJ to try and claim he didn't make the overture he made.YellowSnow said:
Point being, numerous POTUS have broken the rules BIGLY and never got caught or NOC.GDS said:
We? the public only learned about the evidence of Nixon's overtures to Thieu after he was gone...again lacked the "smoking gun".YellowSnow said:
Perhaps.GDS said:
Nixon only lost in the court of public opinion once the tapes were released and his own words impugned him. Holding up tax payer appropriated funds to further his own personal political goals is far worse than watergate or blowjobgate BUT the dems and the public are still lacking a "tape" of Trump explicitly directing the scheme. Would Mulvaney or Bolton provide that smoking gun? Maybe. Without that though this won't go anywhere.YellowSnow said:
Impeachment is very much political and not criminal. Nixon lost in the court of public opinion which is why he had to resign. In this current era of 50/50 scorched Earth polarization, something equivalent to quid pro quo badgering of a foreign leader ain't enough to get it done. I think Clinton's perjury is probably morally equivalent to Trump's phone call and yet the Dems told us we needed to Moveon.Org because of 60% approval ratings.creepycoug said:
Stare decisis. It doesn't technically apply to these proceedings; for as many have pointed out, this is political, not legal. That said, it still matters as a fundamental indicator of fairness and intellectual honesty in how we? manage important processes.YellowSnow said:Trump is a Boob @Swaye . But where do his transgressions rank in the History of the Republic? I can think of plenty worse by past Presidents who never came close to losing their jobs.
"This is a country that backed away from removing Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and that avoided the first successful impeachment of a sitting president because of Richard Nixon’s resignation. A Senate vote to remove Trump would effectively declare that Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president, and other efforts to hold up congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine, was the worst decision of any president in American history, and the only one that warranted this ultimate punishment."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/decide-trumps-fate-at-the-ballot-box/
People forget that Nixon's worst "impeachable" offense came in days leading up to the 1968 election. And we only new about it because LBJ was spying on Nixon.
I have to disagree with the notion that because Nixon got away with (arguably) treason in the lead up to the 68 election we? shouldn't hold future presidents accountable for (arguably) lesser but still serious charges. -
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
-
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
-
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism -
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.YellowSnow said:
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way. -
Some of us tried to say Trump was never a republican from the beginning.creepycoug said:
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.YellowSnow said:
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
-
-
Creep, he's clearly something different and new from the traditional GOP platform. But what you're talking about isn't neo-con which instead is internationalism/nation building in the Middle East.creepycoug said:
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.YellowSnow said:
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way. -
I concede, but then the term has been aborted and hijacked. I'm parroting what they call themselves.YellowSnow said:
Creep, he's clearly something different and new from the traditional GOP platform. But what you're talking about isn't neo-con which instead is internationalism/nation building in the Middle East.creepycoug said:
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.YellowSnow said:
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish.
Don't feel badly. Sonny used to argue with Tom Hagen too. Eventually, when that famous Sicilian temper would cool, he'd see things Tom's way. -
But he had to pick a party, and as some old man I once knew used to say, the Ds abandoned the working class to get into bed with Wall Street and New England intellectuals and that void was filled with the Republican party. So it made sense for him to pick that platform given the platform on which he was going to make a run.dnc said:
Some of us tried to say Trump was never a republican from the beginning.creepycoug said:
They call themselves what they call themselves. There is no more articulate a spokesperson for the movement than Steve Bannon, who calls it neo-con populism.YellowSnow said:
For shame, Creep. For shame. What you are describing above is not Neoconservatism at all. Stay in the philosopher king and legal lanes and leave history to the expurts.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society.
Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[1][2]
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I'm less concerned with whether the "neo" applies consistently or not, even though I hear them use it to describe themselves; it's not important. What is important is the "con" modifier to populism, and he's the one who made the statement I quoted. "There are two populisms, left and right. I'm a populist first and foremost, and the republican establishment hates me more than the liberals do because of their radical fetish with free trade. But if we don't get this thing figured out [income disparity and worker disenfranchisement], they're going to get leftist populism and they're not coming for your income [Bannon pushed for a 44% tax on anything over $5 mill btw], they're coming for your property."
These are not your Daddy's Republicans. Make no mistake. In some respects, they share more in common with the traditional left than they do the establishment right, except that these populists are a lot less statist than lefty populists. Most of that confrontation, by their own calculation, is because of what he refers to as the "radical idea" of free trade, which he asserts is a republican fetish. -
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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? -
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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? -
One might argue Bernie on this point. I'm not arguing that, but I could understand the case being made.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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.
-
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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? -
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think”TurdBomber said: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.
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think”TurdBomber said: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.
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 have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
Interesting perspective, CD, as I've yet to see you demonstrate any skill, while your lack of education, especially about history, is manifest.TurdBomber said:
Your ability to misunderstand literally everything around you is almost masterful.CirrhosisDawg said:
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think”TurdBomber said: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.
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. -
Fair.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
I called 2016 TurdbufferFS? Your record is perfect. 100% wrong. Maybe trump can add an extra tariff to help you out for Christmas.TurdBomber said:
Your ability to misunderstand literally everything around you is almost masterful.CirrhosisDawg said:
“Trump’s a populist who rejected loser think”TurdBomber said: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.
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. -
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.YellowSnow said:
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
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.TurdBomber said:
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.YellowSnow said:
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
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.YellowSnow said:
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
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.TurdBomber said: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.
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.
-
I agree with this.TurdBomber said:
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.YellowSnow said:
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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. -
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.creepycoug said:
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.TurdBomber said: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.
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!) -
You didn't want Trump yet you stroke him off every day.Sledog said: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.
-
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.TurdBomber said:
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.YellowSnow said:
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here?TurdBomber said:
That's Brussels talk, Yellow. Same shit the Brits said "Fuck Off" to.YellowSnow said:
Imagine how popular a kinder, gentler populism might be in the hands of a truly gifted politician might be.TurdBomber said:
Props for realizing that Bannon gets it way better than most pols or pundits.creepycoug said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.creepycoug said:
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.Swaye said:@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
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.
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?
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.