Octopus Overlords

I wouldn't say Drumpf has had much influence one way or another. It was actual journalism over several years of digging that brought Weinstein low, and the courage of his many victims who were no longer being divided and conquered. There is strength in numbers.

#MeToo is the proud work of the New York Times and New Yorker and all all the victims willing to speak out. The Times and Yorker shared a pulitzer for their work.

Will Drumpf's obviously philandering and misogyny have an impact on future women taking leadership roles? Perhaps. Probably, even. But that impact pales in comparison to the Times/Yorker work and the #MeToo movement it inspired.

Perhaps you're right re: #MeToo, but there's no denying there was a powerful female movement before that as a direct result of Trump's presidency. The Women's March right after the inauguration being the primary example.

And the Women's March was born of seeing a viable, qualified, impressive female presidential candidate dragged through the mud and then quite possibly robbed of victory by the most retrograde sexist alternative ever seen.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:51 pm ...and then quite possibly robbed of victory by the most retrograde sexist alternative ever seen.

To be fair to YK, that was his point, or at least a large part of it.

And the women's march is a good example of Drumpf having an impact on women stepping forward, speaking out and demanding more say in the future of the country. So while I stand by my point, I think YK has more of a point than I gave him credit for originally.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:55 am The silver lining to Trump's presidency is that it bore the #MeToo movement, an unprecedented number of women running for office, etc. We can only hope that Trump's use and abuse of women will lead to more women in power than at any time in our country's history.

All counterbalanced by outright racism becoming normalized, the assault on news media , and the enboldenment of fringe groups like Qanon and the Incels.

Also, we showcased to the world the irrefutable evidence that a large percentage of the nation is irreversibly unhinged.

I take more of the view that seeing the cockroaches (and being able to deal with them) may be better than having them hidden.

If these groups are not confronted, they take the silence as passive approval.

link

Do they... somehow think this comparison is helpful?

Noted good guy Al Capone did nothing wrong, but was unfairly railroaded by the federal government.

Study it out!!

Google it

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:19 pm
link

Do they... somehow think this comparison is helpful?

Several Trump toadies have used it lately, and I believe Trump tweeted it out himself, so apparently they do. It's also funny because far more people are aware of Capone's general criminal history than are aware that he specifically went down for tax fraud.

And you just know Trump can't help himself but love the brotherhood he shares with Capone.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:59 am The same is true of advertising. If I go up to the campaign and ask for suggestions for an advertisement I'm going to run with my own money, that's a campaign contribution. They have to pretend to never communicate and be "independent" for it not to count. If they caught a conversation on tape where Trump directs a subordinate to purchase ad buys and not report it, it's the same campaign finance violation.

Right, for any form of campaign finance violation to attach to Trump, he has to have some knowledge or participation in it. In the case of outside advertising, a group doing such advertising has to follow whatever rules are applicable to that type of spending (which I'm sure are hardly enforced, but that's a side issue). If there's no knowledge or coordination with Trump, there can't be any plausible attachment of legal liability to him. Similarly, with hush money payoffs, if someone else is running around paying off former mistresses and Trump doesn't know anything about it, maybe that's a legal issue for the third party, but not for Trump. But if Trump knows about it and approves of it, that's when potential liability attaches to him (if he's then not disclosing the campaign contributions).

Sorry if this has already been posted, but Republicans are circulating a list of stuff that Democrats will likely investigate if they take at least one chamber of Congress this fall. It's all stuff that they should be investigating, including Trump's taxes, Trump's conflicts of interest, emoluments clause issues, the Puerto Rico hurricane response, and general corruption.

The best/worst part is that they think that this is a reason why people should want to keep Republicans in power.

It was nice of them to make a list and save Dems the trouble.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:13 am It was nice of them to make a list and save Dems the trouble.

It was compiled from Democratic committee requests (that Republicans have ignored).

Seems like a ready-made campaign item for the fall, though. "Here's the stuff that Republicans know they don't want you to see!"

Sure, but then they put it in a list.

Thanks, GOP.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:51 pm a viable, qualified, impressive female presidential candidate

Really? ROTFLMFAO

If only she'd sucked up to white supremacists. She might have had a chance!

Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:21 pm Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

That'd make her almost as corrupt as the swamp drainer himself.

Yeah but she'd at least know her ass from a hole in the ground and not be friends with Putin.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:21 pm Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

That'd make her almost as corrupt as the swamp drainer himself.

The amazing part is that it wouldn't.

Who knew getting along with Putin would major selling point to the right.

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:19 pm
link

Do they... somehow think this comparison is helpful?

I think it was Lloyd Bentsen who said, "I knew Al Capone, and you are no Al Capone."

Technically it’s the Elliott Ness approach.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:21 pm Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

That'd make her almost as corrupt as the swamp drainer himself.

Actually no. Remember that Trump leaked confidential Israeli sources to the Russians in the Oval Office, and has actually had worse debacles than Benghazi (US Squad wipeout in Africa).

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:20 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:21 pm Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

That'd make her almost as corrupt as the swamp drainer himself.

Actually no. Remember that Trump leaked confidential Israeli sources to the Russians in the Oval Office, and has actually had worse debacles than Benghazi (US Squad wipeout in Africa).

It's not a leak if the president does it. How much intel do you suppose is not shared with us since the great deal making diplomat took office>?

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:16 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:20 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:08 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:21 pm Honestly I'd take Hillary with definitive proof of Benghazi AND emails any day over Trump.

That'd make her almost as corrupt as the swamp drainer himself.

Actually no. Remember that Trump leaked confidential Israeli sources to the Russians in the Oval Office, and has actually had worse debacles than Benghazi (US Squad wipeout in Africa).

It's not a leak if the president does it. How much intel do you suppose is not shared with us since the great deal making diplomat took office>?

The thing is that neither Benghazi, nor the email foofraw had anything to do with corruption.

As to intel not shared with us? A lot, IMHO, as I wouldn't consider this Administration trustworthy if I were any foreign power. Trump governs by his id - there is no rationale, honor or loyalty there, afaik.

Trump wrote:Hillary Clinton’s Emails, many of which are Classified Information, got hacked by China. Next move better be by the FBI & DOJ or, after all of their other missteps (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA, Dirty Dossier etc.), their credibility will be forever gone!

Except no, not really...

FBI rebuts Trump tweet about China hacking Hillary Clinton's email.

Sixteen hours after President Trump tweeted about a right-wing media story alleging that China hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server, an FBI official is refuting the report in a comment to NBC News.

"The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised," the official said.

It’s the latest example of the widening breach between a president who traffics in unverified news accounts and the law enforcement agencies he frequently maligns.

If only the president of the united states had some sort of power to act on the knowledge that the Chinese had completely compromised Hillary's server in a forward thinking and preventative way to protect others. But alas, as a lowly public servant, his hands are tied. All he can do is make sure we're all aware of it, so we don't accidentally vote for her in all the future elections she's not a part of.

Shout it from the roof tops, oh beacon of light! It's the only way to...what, exactly? Make people remember that woman no one is thinking about? Who isn't relevant in any sort of political way that matters to you or your political party? To create some sort of paper tiger for you to defeat?

I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

He's been implying perfidy by China on several fronts this week: trade, North Korea, and now HRC.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

Two Minutes Hate

...after all of their other missteps...their credibility will be forever gone!

It's like he...I mean...does he...gaah, I give up.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

Why does he bother with any of his bullshit? Maybe it makes him feel better. Maybe it gives the drones that worship him what they want. Maybe it distracts his critics by getting them chattering about why he's still obsessed with Clinton rather than talking about all of the genuinely horrible policy he inflicts on the world every day. Maybe it normalizes the demonization of political opponents and critics, so when the time comes to move from rhetoric to action, it won't be as big a pill to swallow.

Or maybe it's just because the President of the United States is a certifiable loon.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

Two Minutes Hate

I agree with this, but I don't think he's doing it deliberately to brainwash. I think he's doing it because he enjoys the feeling he gets from it, and feeling the hate flow from his base. He's more like a stupid Palpatine than a plotting Hitler.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:01 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:54 pm I did a double-take on that tweet's date. Who still cares about Hillary's emails? Apart from the colluder-in-chief, that is.

It's all about that bass base.

But...why bother? They aren't going anywhere. Is he not getting enough love in his twitter feed or something?

Two Minutes Hate

I agree with this, but I don't think he's doing it deliberately to brainwash. I think he's doing it because he enjoys the feeling he gets from it, and feeling the hate flow from his base. He's more like a stupid Palpatine than a plotting Hitler.

Yes. The whole reason Trump loves Twitter is that he gets an immediate flood of hundreds of MAGA fans praising him and calling him the greatest. It's like one of his rallies, but he gets to feel it three or four times a day.

But there is some brainwashing as well. Or least setting the terms of the narrative and redefining what counts as True in TrumpLand--as well as in Trump's head. This is how narcissistic personality disorder actually works, only he's playing it out on a scale of millions rather than just friends and family.