• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ghost said:
The way Trump has successfully convinced evangelicals to set aside treasured values of decency, honesty, character, and morals in the people they support, admire, and rally around is one of the greatest con jobs ever pulled off in history.
Click to expand...

Hardly, if you look at the movies we watch, the way we talk, the things we look at online, the way we worship sports, and the shape of our families, there wasn't much decency to lay aside. Just a empty shell. To be honest, it was honesty that lead to Trump.

A year are so ago, my father in law were talking. I remember telling him the non-religous right scares me more than the left.
 
Evan said:
Well, perhaps THIS is why we disagree. See, a lot of us tried to provide well-reasoned arguments against Trump back during the primary season. Trump supporters weren't interested in debate, dissent, or any type of intellectually honest discussion. The response was always some variation of #MAGA, or "it triggers the libtards so I know it must be correct."

Instead, I have found that pointing out their utterly embarrassing hypocrisy and constant contradictions tends to be more effective. Are you acquainted with the theory of cognitive dissonance? It is incredibly uncomfortable for anyone that isn't a sociopath/psychopath. So, people either have to justify their conflicting belief, ignore/deny any information that causes a conflict, or change their conflicting belief. They're coping strategies to deal with extreme discomfort at holding a contradictory position.

By being confrontational, provocative, and constantly providing well-sourced information to highlight the hypocrisy of someone's position, you can take away the comfort they're accustomed to getting when they use one of the coping strategies. So when someone uses, for example, Gateway Pundit as a justification for one of Trump's actions (or to deny that their beliefs are in conflict), you impeach the hell out of that source. That causes them to be unable to easily relieve the pressure of their conflicted belief. They can't ignore it (another coping strategy) because you baited the hook so effectively that they are already responding. The hook is firmly in their mouth. That's when you've narrowed their options for them and they're forced to concede. Generally that's when you'll hear "well, I don't really care anyway because I support Trump and trust him." But, deep down they haven't been able to effectively relieve the pressure. It eats at people. Over time, that adds up. Sure, they're not going to stop supporting Trump. But privately they'll be more likely to grumble about his tweets and inability to get out of his own way. It is a marathon, not a sprint. The dissonance accumulates over time.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you said is true, but the reality is the more blind followers I see, the more I've begun to realize that their following is actually blind more than anything else. When they think "it triggers the libtards so I know it must be correct", they genuinely have that priority in their beliefs, and it's hard to convince them of otherwise even when you point out their blatant hypocrisy.

And once people take a stance on something, we all know it's borderline impossible to get them to admit that they're wrong.
 
Evan said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-access-to-us-financial-markets-senate-report

Obama admin has some explaining to do. From reading the article, it does seem like the Obama admin misled Congress. But, I'm going to read the Senate report myself once I get a moment. If it is overtly partisan BS then there may be less of an issue here. We'll see. At first blush it doesn't sound like a major scandal, but simply a reiteration of the dishonest BS Obama and his staff pulled to get the Iran deal done.
Click to expand...
David French at the National Review has a great write up on it. The Iran Deal was a disaster. It was nothing but giveaways to jihadists plotting to kill more and more Americans. We bent over backwards for people who chanted "Death to America."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-iran-deal-failure-and-reckoning/
 
I mean, c'mon..

 
both of these people are in love with their newfound celebrity.

 
Why can't you just be happy for Alice Johnson? You are just being petty. A man that has repeatedly urged the death penalty for drug dealers would never do this as nakedly political act. It wasn't done to benefit his standing with African Americans (Trump doesn't need to improve his chances at re-election or make sure those DC juries see that he's a Richard Scrushy).



Obama is such freaking jackass. He was too busy being King and installing his czars everywhere. We have a Democracy and the rule of law, not a monarchy, Barry.

I'm glad President Trump would never do something just because it is the opposite of what Obama did. That's the stuff the Democraps and little kids do.

This was such a unique situation, so we should give Trump credit. There's not many 2,000 - 3,000 kilogram (approx. 2.2 - 3.3 tons) cocaine kingpins in prison. That's just a standard amount one would have for personal usage. It's not like 2,000 - 3,000 kilos of cocaine is a #$&$ ton of coke that would even get attention in Colombia. Even being extremely conservative and cutting the street value in half, that's around 100-150 million dollars worth of cocaine. Double that if you want the true street value.

Like I said, thank God this is such a unique situation. If we had 3,000 people withering away in prison for non-violent drug offenses, it would be in incredible bad faith to commute the sentence of just one person for positive optics and racial politicking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/world/who-is-alice-marie-johnson-why-is-kim-kardashian-talking-to-donald-trump-about-her-a3851821.html?amp

Remember, this was a totally non-violent crime and Alice Johnson was just a messenger. That's why her 10+ indicted and convicted co-conspirators all named her as the head of the DTO (drug trafficking organization). That's why numerous multi-kilogram cocaine deals were performed inside, outside, and right next to her principle residence and home. That's why she rented a stash house (apartment) in her daughter's name. That's why she sent MILLIONS of dollars in buckets to Houston to pay the Colombian traffickers that were her wholesale source. We all know that 2-3 tons of cocaine can be bought, cut, and trafficked without anyone getting hurt. What, are you people going to say that there is some relation between violent crime and murder peaking in 1991-1993 right at the same time that Alice Johnson's drug trafficking organization was slinging bricks of cocaine all over Memphis?

Huh, up until 2016, the record for most homicides in Memphis took place in 1993 (213). Seems odd when a nice, peaceful lady like Alice Johnson was running her neighborly drug trafficking empire right in the middle of Memphis during that same time.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.fox1...-breaks-homicide-record-set-in-1993/474596049

But you know what? I defy someone to show me that cocaine caused a single one of those murders. That's just baseless speculation by racist assholes that don't support Trump's commitment to equal justice.

You can't find a single peer reviewed study that proves conclusively that cocaine led to a spike of homicides in Memphis during the 80s/90s, nor can you find one that concretely proves cocaine was a contributing factor if not the DIRECT cause of those violent homicides.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3193079/

Whew! People just want to critisize Trump for no reason. This was a lady that was laid off from her job at FedEx due to Bill Clinton's failed economic policies. It wasn't because she stopped showing up for work so she could go gamble instead. All she did was coordinate the purchase, sales, distribution, and trafficking of the cocaine, and the conversion, distribution, and laundering of the millions of dollars in cash. Total witch hunt! Unfair!
 
Last edited:
Kory said:
That goes without saying. Not sure why the NRA is suddenly infatuated with a girl who took grad pics with a rifle. If I had done the same, would I be this famous? Probably not.
Click to expand...

The NRA hasn't helped themselves since that crapshow CNN townhall with the buffoon sheriff and the NRA's pissy spokesperson. There are ways to go on offensive without being so, uhh, offensive and in your face. The NRA has become your typical al.com commenter in many ways. They aren't helping public perception one bit.
 
I don't think Alice Johnson should've spent the rest of her life in prison. The President possesses the unfettered power to release people from Federal Prison or even wholly pardon them for their crimes. But, in using this great power, much care should be given to make sure you are dispensing equal justice and protecting the rule of law. Commuting Alice Johnson's sentence did neither. That is incredibly unfortunate although quite beneficial to Ms. Johnson.

I'm glad Ms. Johnson is out of prison. 20+ years is plenty adequate for the crimes she was convicted of committing. But, it was a tragic day for many other offenders serving grossly disproportionate life sentences for petty crimes or drugs. Sadly, most reside in state prison, so Trump is unable to use his pardon power to assist them. What he could've done, and still could, is use this opportunity to strongly push for sentencing reform, a review of our criminal justice system, and a promise to commute/pardon all non-violent offenders with grossly disproportionate sentences after individual review by a skilled team of DOJ and White House staff.

But here's the thing. We know he's not going to do that. Trump has repeatedly called for the death penalty for those that sell drugs. He has done this as President as well -- as recently as within the past few months. He's also praised President Duarte of the Philippines for the indiscriminate assassinations of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians. He selected Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General, and has silently stood by while Sessions ripped up all the sentencing and prosecutorial reforms implemented by DOJ during the Obama admin that applied to non-violent offenders, drug offenses, etc. Trump hasn't said a word about DOJ going backwards in this area even though he attacks Sessions and DOJ on an almost daily basis for their actions elsewhere (Russia investigation, investigations of his opponents, immigration, etc).

So let's be honest about why Trump did this.

1. He's infatuated with this pardon power because it is the one unchecked power that he can use incessantly and receive lavish praise for doing so.

2. He needs to improve his standing among African Americans without implementing policies that might upset the nativist, nationalist, and racist part of his base. This strategy may very well be aimed at more than just Trump's and the GOP's electoral potential. Trump knows that Mueller has a grand jury empaneled in D.C. investigating his campaign, his WH, and him personally. He also knows that D.C. grand juries are almost always majority back (of the 3/4s to 7/8ths variety) and have universally negative opinions about him and his staff.

3. Trump knows that a brazen attempt to pardon his cronies, or using his pardon power to subvert Mueller's probe would likely result in a nearly untenable political situation. So, why be brazen when you can create plausible by acting as if you care about justice, sentencing reform, etc? And, by highlighting certain cases, you can also make the argument that the DOJ can make mistakes, can be heavy-handed, and has frequently overused so-called "process crimes" when trying to take down powerful people, when they have a weak case, or as a means to motivate others to testify against DOJ's principle target. It's not a sophisticated strategy and Trump's raw political skills and vision for conning people means he immediately saw the opportunity when it appeared. Get the American people in the habit of seeing you use your pardon power. Make sure to pardon some very deserving people from all walks of life, all races, religions, and levels of wealth, and all political parties. Do this randomly, but consistently. Mix the pardons of any cronies with the case of a deserving individual like Joe Johnson or Alice Johnson so you can mitigate any blowback. Send out trial balloons ahead of time by saying you are thinking of pardoning certain individuals. Gauge the public reaction to help you fine-tune your strategy, and to make sure you don't make any pardons just yet that are universally unpopular. The key is to do this while simultaneously undermining the public's confidence in DOJ, and while continuing to press your case that you and your people are all victims of malacious/selective prosecution - - just like the people you are pardoning!

I don't think even Trump's supporters and the MAGA nation deny that this is his strategy. It's just that they don't believe it is an abuse of power and an attack on the rule of law.

So, here's an interesting hypothetical for those that believe the Founders intended for a President to be able to pardon himself and his cronies, and that impeachment is the only remedy, but wouldn't be warranted. What if Trump pardoned himself, his entire family, and all members of his staff and campaign and Congress moved to impeach him. In response, Trump uses private merecenaries or diehard political supporters to murder all the members of Congress in favor of his impeachment, and then pardons himself and the murderers. What prevents Trump from doing that? That he's just a great guy that deeply respects his political opponents?

Another hypothetical: what prevents Vice-President Pence from murdering Trump, immediately becoming President, and then pardoning himself? Obviously he would have to threaten or murder Congress to prevent his potential removal just like the previous example.

Maybe you think Trump and Pence would never do this. I agree with that. I don't think they would. But what's to prevent a nefarious person in the future from doing this if you believe the power to pardon is unreviewable and that a President can pardon themself. Theoretically, anyone near the top of the Presidential line of succession could do this. A foreign adversary could help them do so.

But the military would intervene, right Why would they? A sitting President cannot be charged criminally or indicted according to Trump supporters. What authority would the military have to intervene? According to Trump world, it would be unconstitutional and illegal for the military to act because the President's actions were constitutional, and his criminal liability was eliminated by his self-pardon. They have also argued that it doesn't matter if the President and his supporters have committed crimes because the power to pardon is unreviewable and applies to the President himself. Their argument is that even if what Trump does is morally wrong or people don't like it, if it is Constitutional then he has the right to do it and they will back him.

If people don't see the potential for abuse then I can't help you. But, I'm absolutely positive that the Founders saw the potential for abuse, and they were not so naive as to believe that a bad person would never be elected President. What if the President decides to start handing out pardons for cash bribes? Or makes trade deals on the basis of his family company being enriched? With the ability to pardon yourself and control of the military, a President could prevent his own impeachment. Is this really the road people want to go down? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples. But history is full of extreme examples like Pearl Harbor, Stalin, Hitler, Larry Nassar, etc.

A President cannot and shouldn't be allowed to pardon himself. Congress needs to make it clear that abuse of the pardon power (such as pardoning one's self or close cronies that can implicate POTUS in a crime) will result in immediate impeachment. We need to have that conversation now so that we don't have an extreme event occur one day. Black swans happen. When it occurs in relation to the massive power of the President of the United States the repercussions will always be devastating. By no means am I saying that Trump has done ANYTHING near these extreme examples, but that is irrelevant. A system of checks and balances only works if it checks inequities large and small.
 
Kory said:
That goes without saying. Not sure why the NRA is suddenly infatuated with a girl who took grad pics with a rifle. If I had done the same, would I be this famous? Probably not.
Click to expand...

Because the NRA has become a right-wing GOP only political organization dedicated to intervening in the culture wars using Trump-like tactics. Evidently enough NRA members agree with the tactics enough to prevent anyone more sensible from reining in this kind of stupidity. If you "disagree" with their tactics and actions you're a gun-grabbing liberal or a sissy Jeb supporter.

I won't be renewing my NRA membership. Yeah, it's the only powerful organization that we've got on our side as it pertains to protecting SOME 2A rights (we both know the NRA is also full of FUDs that don't like NFA items nor are supportive of Constitutional Carry).

I don't know what the solution is. GOA has started to act in a similar fashion and has some real nutjobs associated with its leadership.

The best way to protect our 2A rights is to have an organization solely dedicated to preserving and expanding our 2A rights, and said organization should be politically neutral on all other topics and seek to recruit moderates and liberals as much as Republicans and Trump supporters. The only goal and topic should be the 2A. There are actually liberal and moderate gun owners that are actively seeking such a group, and clearly the NRA doesn't fit them culturally or politically. Besides, the NRA name has become incredibly toxic.

The best bet would be an entirely new organization meeting the standards I mentioned above, and the organization would not allow any previous NRA board member, leader above the mid-management level, or staffer involved with the executive team to hold any type of similar/related position in the new organization. It would essentially be like the de-Baathification of the new organization, but done how the US military wanted to do it in Iraq. Not like how Bremer and Rumsfeld actually executed it. They could be active members - - just not hold a position of power.

I realize that the part about de-Baathification might be too controversial and too much of a pipe-dream, but I'm not really interested in re-creating a facsimile of the NRA. Some people still have hope it can be saved, but I do not. Even if the political issues could be worked out (which is highly improbable) - - the name is so toxic it can never again effectively recruit moderate and liberal gun owners.

It is truly infuriating. The NRA is fighting a battle using tactics and strategy that are doomed long-term. It may please some people short-term and make them feel good, but it ultimately leads to the NRA becoming an absolute joke that is so politically toxic that only nutjob politicians will take their money or listen to them.

The way to oppose Hogg and Moms Demand Action isn't by adopting their tactics and strategy. It is by being well-organized, sane, dedicated, and shrewd. The NRA's current actions are the opposite of all of that. It is a very insidious and dangerous situation because we probably won't pay for it this year, and maybe not even next year, but eventually the debt will become due and gun owners will be the ones paying it - - not the leaders of the NRA.

Here's to hoping a sensible alternative emerges before it is too late.
 
Matt said:
This!


https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/30/dear-ex-friends-in-the-resistance/
Click to expand...

I'm completely shocked that an opinion piece that is essentially one giant straw man cloaked by a handful of valid points has your approval.

Tell me, Matt. Do you believe in Q-Anon? Do you believe there is a "deep-state?"

Oh, one final question. Do you believe this is more likely to end with Hillary and Obama facing criminal charges or with Trump facing criminal charges/impeachment.

I know you won't answer my questions above, but I find it amusing myself how similar "the Resistance" and die-hard Trump supporters are to each other. And, you both think we "normies" are the unhinged crazy ones for not joining you on your surreal descent into utter madness.
 
Evan said:
I'm completely shocked that an opinion piece that is essentially one giant straw man cloaked by a handful of valid points has your approval.

Tell me, Matt. Do you believe in Q-Anon? Do you believe there is a "deep-state?"

Oh, one final question. Do you believe this is more likely to end with Hillary and Obama facing criminal charges or with Trump facing criminal charges/impeachment.

I know you won't answer my questions above, but I find it amusing myself how similar "the Resistance" and die-hard Trump supporters are to each other. And, you both think we "normies" are the unhinged crazy ones for not joining you on your surreal descent into utter madness.
Click to expand...


Until I read this I had never heard of Q-Anon. I think neither will face charges although Hillary should be in jail right now. Evan, do you think Hillary broke the law with her private email server ? I believe there are people in this government that are trying to take out Trump and his administration. We will never agree on this. I can say nothing to change your mind and you cannot convince me Trump is Hitler or whatever the term of the dday is.
 
Matt said:
Until I read this I had never heard of Q-Anon. I think neither will face charges although Hillary should be in jail right now. Evan, do you think Hillary broke the law with her private email server ? I believe there are people in this government that are trying to take out Trump and his administration. We will never agree on this. I can say nothing to change your mind and you cannot convince me Trump is Hitler or whatever the term of the dday is.
Click to expand...
Clever.
 


My only respite from the despair and anger that I have after reading stuff like this is knowing that those responsible for this inhumane, cruel, and illegal policy will one day be judged at the gates of Heaven.

I am trying to find more information about temporarily housing some of these poor kids. I don't know if any of the groups are placing kids in Alabama, but I've spoken with my wife about us participating if possible. I cannot imagine how my children would react if they were torn apart from me and my wife.

It is an utterly despicable situation being perpetrated by total cowards. They won't even take responsibility for their own policy.

I mean this with zero hyperbole, but this reminds me of how Jews in Germany were separated during WWII and put into camps. An astonishing amount of very similar rhetoric is also being used by our government. Everything is the fault of immigrants. They are seen as subhuman or feral savages. Blamed for all the crime and societal issues even though every bit of reputable, honest research says the exact opposite.

We are taking freaking 18 month old babies away from their parents. The America Academy of Pediatrics is furious because they know how damaging this is. It will impart lifelong damage on every child forcibly separated like this. Truly monstrous. My understanding is somewhere around 75-80% of Americans are against this policy. I could be wrong, but I think this will end up seriously harming Trump and the Republican Party more than any other issue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top