Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:30 pm Narcissism is about constant and constantly escalating reinforcement and aggrandizement.

Imagine being a narcissist with a Twitter following in the millions.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:17 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.

But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.

It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.

Pyper has this to say which I think is true, but I haven't been paying attention for that long. Personally I don't think these comments apply to the Bush years, but I do think they apply to the Obama years, and I don't see how anyone could argue that they don't apply to the current administration.

Pyperkub wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:35 am I'll give Frum an incomplete. What he fails to mention is that the GOP gave up on any sense of Duty years ago, and instead opted for cowardice.

Especially anyone in the Trump administration.

YellowKing wrote:I just finished the James Comey book and it seems almost quaint that we used to think that it was an example of "explosive revelations."

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm Uh, is there anyone in the administration that could pass a lie detector test?

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:17 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.

But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.

It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:20 pm

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm Uh, is there anyone in the administration that could pass a lie detector test?

Slate today is taking the rare step of publishing a letter someone sent us from inside an ongoing bank robbery. We have done so at the request of the author, who is currently robbing a bank, but would like to minimize his exposure to criminal charges from this whole bank robbery thing now that it seems to be going south. We invite you to submit a question about this essay or our vetting process here.

“Machine Gun” Bill McGuire, the leader of the gang of hardened criminals currently robbing the First National Bank, is facing a test to his leadership unlike any faced by a modern American bank robber.

It’s not just that the building is surrounded by police officers. Or that he’s running out of hostages to bargain with. Or even that the sentries he posted in the loading dock don’t seem to be responding over their walkie-talkies anymore.

The dilemma—which he does not fully grasp—is that many of the senior henchmen inside his own gang are working diligently from within the bank to paint ourselves as heroes in the press while continuing to stuff our duffel bags with as much money as we can grab.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:48 pm Oh, no one is going to do anything but if things start moving forward somehow or they actually start losing elections, it won't matter to them - because the plan all along was to lock up the Supreme Court. That's what they'll campaign on to try and stay in power but if it doesn't work they'll at least know that anything the Democrats try to do (health care, gun control, etc...) will stand a chance of being struck down. They're getting ready to embrace losing the battle because they've won the war (in their minds).

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:17 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.

But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.

It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.

No worries. I'm not losing sight of anything. My POV that the author is painting with too broad a brush in trying to lay Trump at the feet of "40 years of conservative thought" doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion that (1) Trump has to go; or(2) a secret "resistance" within the White House is not the mechanism to make that happen.

I just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump. It's not like we haven't gone over what led to Trump on these boards before (gross tribalism, balkanization and growing disparities between urban/rural communities, a depressing decline in civility, etc.), and a lot of that can certainly be attributed to Republicans and conservatives (especially the Gingriches of the world and Teabaggers like Palin and Bachmann and their financial backers), but to put it all on "conservatives" seems off base and misleading.

Defiant wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:19 pm https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/sta ... 1838575619

No one, it seems, views this author positively. Trump cultists of course see this person as a “traitor.” Trump’s harshest critics denounce this person who serves this president and can’t even sign his name to an op-ed. In their eyes, he is a cowering enabler. The Washington establishment, where this person will likely want to continue operating, has become, if anything, even more severe in its judgment: You cannot be honorable if you are silent in what appears to be an incapacitated, antidemocratic presidency. You’re an enabler.

In short, somewhere in a West Wing or department office, a nervous adviser is trying to blend into the walls, keep his head down. He likely didn’t get what he wanted — balm for his inflamed conscience. And worse, the chief “saviors” are gone or soon to go from Cabinet jobs, leaving fewer guardrails and putting the country further at risk. No, the anonymous author didn’t get what he wanted; indeed, he may have made his own and the country’s predicament worse.

geezer wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:09 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:17 am

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:27 am
We all know Trump is not a conservative. It’s crap to say that 40 years of conservative politics inexorably led to Trump. That’s counterfactual BS for the base.

But who cares? That's not the take away from the article or even important. Instead of focusing on the absolute facts in the article, you're focusing on the author using those facts for a political conclusion and disagreeing with it. The article is the point. The "conclusion" that the author reaches is not the point of the article. Whether his conclusion is valid or not does not invalidate the article itself. Personally I think you're just as wrong as he is, but that's a different topic.

It's like listening to a long report on climate change at the end of which the author concludes that it's all Hillary's fault. Don't lose sight of the report because you disagree with an opinion voiced at the end of it.

No worries. I'm not losing sight of anything. My POV that the author is painting with too broad a brush in trying to lay Trump at the feet of "40 years of conservative thought" doesn't mean I disagree with his conclusion that (1) Trump has to go; or(2) a secret "resistance" within the White House is not the mechanism to make that happen.

I just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump. It's not like we haven't gone over what led to Trump on these boards before (gross tribalism, balkanization and growing disparities between urban/rural communities, a depressing decline in civility, etc.), and a lot of that can certainly be attributed to Republicans and conservatives (especially the Gingriches of the world and Teabaggers like Palin and Bachmann and their financial backers), but to put it all on "conservatives" seems off base and misleading.

One can drill down more specifically if one so chooses, but as I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a nasty schism developed in the civil rights era that has yet to come close to healing. I blame conservatives for weaponizing that schism, while still acknowledging that the left has held fast to their desire for progress of a sort that is uncomfortable for some. So if you want to conclude that progressive thought is also a root cause of the split, that's fine. The difference to my mind is that if one side is arguing for racial, gender, and sexual equality and one side is fighting like hell to prevent it, and using that fight to rally it's least thoughtful, most reactionary base. One side it in the right, and the other I hold in much greater contempt.

There's also the fact that there's a litany of conservative strategists on record and going back decades stating that exploiting this split was a conscious, deliberate political ploy...

I'm a moderate, truly... But there's very little "both sides" to be argued about today's situation.

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pmI just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:34 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pmI just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump.

Wasn't the original quote, that conservative POLITICS led us to Trump? Conservative Thought != Conservative Politics.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:34 pm

Kurth wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:41 pmI just take issue with the perspective that "conservative thought" led us to Trump.

Wasn't the original quote, that conservative POLITICS led us to Trump? Conservative Thought != Conservative Politics.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:46 pm It's pretty amazing when you think about it. People were mad that Obama wouldn't say "Islamic terrorism" but we now have numerous press accounts of what amounts to a soft coup that's happening in the current administration, and it's terrific.

Really, we truly are fuct.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:41 pm I remember when I got mad at Clinton for saying whether he wore boxers or briefs because I felt it was beneath the dignity of the office. Oh, the good old days.

Kurth wrote:That's true, and I think that was the original quote, but I guess in the context of the piece, I didn't see the author making that distinction.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:49 pm

Kurth wrote:That's true, and I think that was the original quote, but I guess in the context of the piece, I didn't see the author making that distinction.

Roger.

But with that distinction, do you agree or disagree that the weaponization of ignorance and fear is something that can be laid directly at the feet of the GOP (forgetting “conservative”)?

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:49 pm the GOP (forgetting “conservative”)?

It's the biggest guessing game in Washington - a real-life version of Cluedo. Who is the culprit who took aim at Donald Trump, in the White House, with a New York Times opinion page?

Cui bono, as they say in Latin detective school. Who stands to gain? Who has a motive? Does the essay itself contain any clues?

Chances are the mystery author will turn out to be someone most people have never heard of, someone yearning for a fleeting moment of fame. But the finger-pointing is already underway - and big names are rushing to release "official" denials.

Kurth wrote: 100% agree.

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:42 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:49 pm It's not very complicated. This is the core of Trump's worldview.

(1) Donald Trump is the greatest bestest person on the planet, and is accordingly the best at everything.
(2) Anyone who acknowledges this self-evident Truth is by definition smart and good, and anyone who disagrees is by definition stupid or lying;
(3) Chairman Kim has acknowledged this truth
(4) Therefore Chairman Kim is smart and good.

QED.

I'm not surprised that Drumpf thinks it's awesome. I'm confused why he advertised it to the twitterverse like it completely redeems him in the public eye after all this bad press he's been getting. Surely he's not so delusional that he thinks the American people think character references from Kim are worth the bytes they're composed of? He's, literally, an Enemy of America. Putin isn't even this clearly a "bad guy" when it comes to America and the American people.

It's a character reference from a Bond villain, for god's sake.

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.

geezer wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:54 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.

The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:25 pm

Kurth wrote: 100% agree.

So I’m clear, you think that I’m talking about fucking attack ads?!

geezer wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:54 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.

The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?

GungHo wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:25 amSo do we know what 'could happen to' whomever wrote the NYT op-ed? Obviously trump would fire them yesterday but does this trigger yet another (OMG....) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president? Feels like there are some crimes being committed there but I'm way out of my depth here so I could be 100% wrong, and maybe their only 'crime' is disloyalty to the cheeto king and that only warrants a firing and a super scary 'The Donald' look with crossed arms and everything!

Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:53 am

geezer wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:54 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I *like* watching Rmn9 at work when it's not directed at me!

I don’t. I constantly feel like I’m living in bizarro world. Goddamn *decades* of horseshit like Rush, Hannity, Gingrich, Fox News and the whataboutism turns to a fucking political attack as against GHWB? Enough. I’m done with this nonsense. Carry on folks.

The Willie Horton ad was a republican creation AGAINST Dukakis, right?

Yeah. WTF? Willie Horton and the “Weekend Passes” ad was launched by the Bush campaign (well, not directly; it was an “independent” group) targeting Mike Dukakis as weak on crime. The ad is infamous and is widely seen as having contributed substantially to Dukakis’s defeat.

GungHo wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:25 am So do we know what 'could happen to' whomever wrote the NYT op-ed? Obviously trump would fire them yesterday but does this trigger yet another (OMG....) investigation into the trump white house to determine who is actively subverting the president?