She’s a pretty unabashed Trump cheerleader (I’ve seen clips of her basically talking about how great and brilliant he is and how he’s the victim of the witch hunt by the sore loser Democrats), so I don’t have too much sympathy for her, but I still haven’t watched it yet.
+1
“Ho ho, we’ve got the most reliable witness ever. Surely the words of <highly credible witness> will finally rend the veil of falsehood once and for all.”
Nope. It’s us against against world-class brawlers, liars, and shit-slingers, making a case to a population compulsively given to motivated reasoning. To ignore this reality is to court utter failure.
Yeah! They’re just copying the playbook of the 60 women who MADE STUFF UP about America’s Favorite Father, Bill Cosby, amirite? :dubious: But that’s okay. We punish women who make stuff up by not believing them. :smack:
[/sarcasm]
Will they sling less shit if we walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say? Trumpers are going to Trump, no matter what we do. Fuck 'em. We should make our case in the strongest way possible, without regard for how those who hate us might respond.
At no point did I suggest or imply anyone should walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say. That’s your invention.
I am speaking more to the magical thinking that seems to suggest the next silver-bullet revelation is always right around the corner. It’s not. Things aren’t hopeless, but there’s no knockout punch coming.
Yes, you did.
I stated what Republicans will say. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should worry about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should walk on eggshells about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should do anything at all about it.
If you can’t do that, then please shut the fuck up with your bullshit strawman.
Your warning was clear. I stand by my rebuttal.
In which part am I advising any course of action? Please underline those parts that support the interpretation that you are standing by. If it’s really that clear, this shouldn’t be hard.
Personally, I would say that if there’s one thing that Democrats should do, during the 2020 election, it’s to pile unabashed scorn and disgust on their Republican relatives and make it clear to them that they’re signing up for four more years of being called a defender of sexual molestation, of theft from US veterans, of selling out to foreign interests, and so on; that they are a disgrace to their nation and a failure of our country.
Feel free to use my template: John Doe « Reason for a New Age
Umm.
When someone suggests that a course of action has a point, (as Fear Itself did in the quoted text), a retort such as the one you posted can reasonably be read as a proxy for an argument that the course of action effectively has NO point, and if accepted as such a proxy, can be extrapolated into a recommendation that the proposed course of action be abandoned (or dismissed).
My apologies for not underlining things, but technically, you issued THAT challenge to Fear Itself.
Possibly, there has been some unintended but nonetheless mistaken interpreting and extrapolating going on in the exchanges between the two of you (for which it is not reasonable to assign fault to a single participant). Near as I can tell, you’re both in the camp that wants the America-hating fuckstick to not be President anymore, so fundamentally speaking, you’re both aces with me. Personally, I’d rather see you yelling at assholes who DO want the America-hating fuckstick to continue being President than at each other.
This interjection seems to hit the mark pretty precisely, guys.
HMS Irruncible, regardless of how Republicans are likely to spin Mueller’s repetition of information already contained in his report as “old news” the point is that the obstruction and the coordination/cooperation with Russian efforts detailed in that report actually will be news to many Americans when they hear it from Mueller himself. Maybe it changes public opinion, maybe it doesn’t, but the reasoning behind calling Mueller to testify is pretty solid.
Fear Itself, doubting the effectiveness of a tactic based on the expected GOP counters to that tactic is not the same as doubting the general effectiveness of forceful speech and/or unabashed truth telling, nor does that doubt necessarily imply passivity or conciliatory rhetoric as a strategy. 'Irruncible may indeed want to make that argument (what do I know?), but it doesn’t really seem that they have at this point.
I think this will be very useful. Not just because it is on television but because it is him saying it directly.
Right now, the average voter sees some pundits and interested parties on one side saying that the Mueller report raises serious questions about the Trump administration, while on the other hand you have the president, and the head of the agency that was in charge of the report saying that it exonerates him. So people are left with their impression that the report is open to interpretation. Mueller answering questions on his own work closes the door on interpretation.
Basically, having Mueller testify gives Trump’s critics the ability to do this
Even if there is no new information, just having Mueller come in and state forthright the answer to the following questions would be very useful
“Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?”
“Should the fact that the report didn’t establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign be taken to mean that there was no evidence of such a conspiracy?”
“Was there evidence of Obstruction of justice?”
“What was your primary reason for not indicting president Trump on obstruction of justice charges?”
“If there had been overwhelming evidence of Obstruction of justice would you have indicted Trump?”
“So we should not see your failure to indict Trump as an indication that there was not overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice?”
etc.
This is quite a stretch given that (a) my post contained none of that language, and (b) when pressed, I clearly stated that I intended none of that. If you want to apply some mental yoga, please apply it to unraveling the timeless mystery of the phrase “No, that’s not what you meant”.
Edited: I hope I’m proven wrong. Bookmark this thread and invite me back to cheerfully eat some crow a month from now. Bring salsa.
I mean, what does he know about monitoring elections?
Ooh. Ouch. “Legitimacy” is Trump’s exposed nerve, and Jimmy just hit it with a dentist’s drill. It’s why Trump is always yammering about his electoral landslide, and how he really “won” the popular vote. He harbors deep-seated insecurity, knowing that he didn’t legitimately win in 2016.
Pass the popcorn.
Nasty attack on Carter coming in 3…2…1…
Actually, we’ll have to wait until this is mentioned on Fox’n’Trump’nFriends. Then the shyte will hit the fan.
“I won’t let Iran take our people hostage like Jimy Carter did. They don’t want to mess with me. Jimmy Carter is a terrible sad peanut farmer who failed as president. And Carter has done nothing to help the people of this country in the past 40 years, not like me. No one has helped more Americans more than I have; NO ONE. MAGA!”
“Not many people know he was a Democrat. “Broken hip Jimmy” is just jealus that he will never be as great as me.”