CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trumpocalypse Now - Page 195

post #9701 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

 

Simply put: I don't believe this stuff. I think people have encased themselves in a bubble of hyperbole in which the light of reality only periodically shines through.

 

I lost any remaining faith in anyone's ability to apply skepticism to the things they desperately want to be true around the time everyone took the golden showers on Obama's bed story at face value.

 

It's such a liberal wank fantasy - this idea of Trump as the puppet of an evil foreign empire whose election victory was wholly illegitimate, and how any minute now it'll all be revealed and brought crashing down in the most spectacular way possible. It fully absolves them for their defeats, and hands them victory on a plate. What a surprise that they so deeply want it to be true.

 

Over the last year or so I've seen this kind of thing play out a bunch of times across the spectrum - the Bernie fans convinced his victory was assured long after there was any realistic chance of that happening, the conservatives convinced Clinton was literally going to jail for Bengazi or the fucking emails.

 

Now the liberals rejoin the party with their Russian puppetmaster fantasies, convinced this whole fantastical, flawlessly executed Manchurian candidate scheme will be exposed and bring down the government any day now, even though there's little solid indication that it's based on anything but speculation and innuendo. Even though there's little reason to think Trump's ramshackle operation could cover up almost anything at all.

 

Everyone caught in these bubbles believe wholeheartedly until the last possible moment. And then once reality rudely asserts itself once and for all they're like "...WHU???", sink into despair and are forced either to reengage with the real world, or double down on conspiracy theories to explain the failure of their last conspiracy theory.

 

There's two "fantasies" here:  the conspiracy and the fallout.  

 

The extent of the conspiracy is, as most here have said, more likely to be opportunistic and haphazard than the culmination of a years-long Master Plan.  Even in the most knuckle-headed version, it still represents an unprecedented level of tampering by and collusion with a foreign power in order to influence our elections.  The import of that cannot be overstated, and it's not just the Huffington Post suggesting it happened.  It's every intelligence agency and mainstream media outlet in the western world.  

 

As for the fallout, yeah, anyone who thinks it will somehow put the democrats in power before 2020 is deluding themselves.  But things are already happening because of it.  And remember, we're not even 1/3 of the way through the first 100 days yet.  This is still, ostensibly, the honeymoon period when the president is still enjoying their inaugural boost in approval.  But this president's top national security advisor resigned over some light treason within the first month.  And the replacement reportedly turned down the job.  That didn't happen with Nixon, so don't tell me that there's no way this amounts to anything.  For one, it already has, and for another we haven't reached the bottom of the barrel yet.  Fox News has flat-out called the president a habitual liar, within the first month of his term.  To use a cliche, this is not normal.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post
 

 

As for the Trump campaign being in contact with Russia, that is another claim that has little impact. It is obviously incredibly shady that the campaign was in contact with a government who was trying to influence the outcome of a US election to favor that campaign, but unless there is incontrovertible proof of collusion, that claim just won't stick to Trump. 

 

 
I tend to think the video of Trump publicly exhorting Russia to hack his opponent and release the results is fairly incontrovertible, but what do I know.
post #9702 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
 


And y'know, ran a campaign against Hillary Clinton that just might've siphoned off enough votes in enough states to make all the difference.


That too.

post #9703 of 37511

Oh, stop using your functioning brains to process information, you liberal wanks!

 

Trump admin is back to throwing out "draft memo" ideas and seeing how the public reacts. This time? Mobilizing 100,000 National Guard members to round up immigrants - https://apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

post #9704 of 37511
The very, very, very, very, very small upside is that there's footage of Paul Ryan saying that there won't be a deportation force, many times. Which is what that is. So he'll have to weasel out of it. Again.
 
man, fuck paul ryan
post #9705 of 37511

Yeah, having the military pull Americans out of their homes will be a fantastic look. 

This is probably a Bannon Special: turbocharge the conflict and get some blood on the street ASAP. 

post #9706 of 37511

It also coincides with Resistance Recess, with plans across the country to protest outside Congresspeople's offices and homes. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if next week is the first week we see police-on-protester violence. 

post #9707 of 37511

UPDATE: 

 

They lie and they lie and they lie and they're so fucking bad at it. 

https://twitter.com/Jordanfabian/status/832615942848913408

post #9708 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

It also coincides with Resistance Recess, with plans across the country to protest outside Congresspeople's offices and homes. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if next week is the first week we see police-on-protester violence. 


Trump: "I'm enacting a new police policy. For every one protest sign that makes me look bad, police are authorized to beat two protestors.


Edited by Gatorboy - 2/17/17 at 9:27am
post #9709 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Oh, stop using your functioning brains to process information, you liberal wanks!

 

'Wank fantasy' = 'masturbatory fantasy', I wasn't calling people 'wanks'.

 

What triggered my little rant was watching the flights of fantasy escalate into the 'horrifying and probably not implausible' prospect of Trump launching preemptive nuclear strikes on Putin to prove a point to his critics. Yep, 100% clear-headed commentary, this thread.

post #9710 of 37511

Paul C giving new meaning to the phrase "this is dumb" all over the place. 

post #9711 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

 

'Wank fantasy' = 'masturbatory fantasy', I wasn't calling people 'wanks'.

 

What triggered my little rant was watching the flights of fantasy escalate into the 'horrifying and probably not implausible' prospect of Trump launching preemptive nuclear strikes on Putin to prove a point to his critics. Yep, 100% clear-headed commentary, this thread.

 

I think that was mostly prompted by Trump publicly fantasizing about launching nuclear strikes on the Russians. 

post #9712 of 37511

I think many have difficulty determining what is likely to happen from what is unlikely to happen.

post #9713 of 37511

Well if we limit ourselves strictly to what is 'likely' to happen then humanity neatly sidesteps both World Wars. Totes unlikely! A major terrorist attack on US soil? No way!
 

Its the unlikely things that tend to really stick. And unlikely things probably have a higher chance of happening when you got a honest-to-God crazy person in the White House.

 

I think a lot of the fears and speculation are warranted. 

post #9714 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

I think many have difficulty determining what is likely to happen from what is unlikely to happen.

 

Trump makes that especially difficult, as he routinely says shit that the rational mind wants to immediately reject as hyperbole or sarcasm, but then there's a follow up question and he's like "no, we'll totally have another chance at taking their oil."  Or "but why don't we use nukes, if we have them?"  "No, seriously, just a big ol' wall."  "I'm not kidding, fatty will have the meatloaf."


Edited by Schwartz - 2/17/17 at 8:52am
post #9715 of 37511
Quote:
 

A DHS official says memo was "a very early, pre decisional draft... and was never seriously considered by the Department"

 

So, yes, it was true, but was considered batshit crazy.

post #9716 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

So, yes, it was true, but was considered batshit crazy.

 

It'd be one thing for some bureaucrat to make an offhanded comment among his peers....

 

<interior DHS office>

 

DHS Bob:   "Hey, what about if we get the NG to round up all the illegals?"

 

DHS Tom:   "Ha ha....well, you know that's just crazy talk....we can't really consider doing something like that....the optics alone would be horrendous.....right?"

 

DHS Bob:  "I'm going to write it down anyway....I bet that Trump will love it!"

 

DHS Tom: "Seriously dude....you shouldn't even joke about shit like this..."

 

<exterior of office> DHS Bob leaves the room and pulls off the mask he was wearing revealing that he is actually Steve Bannon 

post #9717 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

UPDATE: 

 

They lie and they lie and they lie and they're so fucking bad at it. 

https://twitter.com/Jordanfabian/status/832615942848913408

 

It seems to be a White House tactic, at this point.  Leak information to the press, watch the press report it and laugh it off.  There's not a lot of shame from the Bannon circle.

 

EDIT: In a way, that's not the worst thing.  Bannon clearly wants the press to be the villain during the Trump era.  The Democrats have little power and can't be blamed for much without a stretch.  The media isn't popular anyway, and strongmen need easy enemies.  So, they leak things to them and pretend none of it is true; Trump can consistently go to his Twitter feed and say, "What a bunch of liars!"  Many will know better, but not all.

 

But why is that not the worst thing?  Because Republicans are forced to spend time on this nonsense instead of getting their agenda in place.  They're already doing things, sure.  Other things are in motion.  Those first 100 days are the most important, though, and their lagging behind, despite full power.  Trump has hindered them with his various fights.

post #9718 of 37511

Yeah, it seems like a deliberate ploy to be able to cry "fake news!" at the AP.  It's an approach that should have diminishing returns, though; I love the bit where Spicer said "it wasn't true, I wish you guys had called before you tweeted" and the reporter replied that they did call, multiple times.  

 

On some more promising news, from my cousin's Facebook update:

 

 

Quote:

I'm at an airport in South Dakota, waiting for a plane. Watched today's press conference/meltdown with an older white man, who was also waiting for a plane. When it was done we both kind of glanced at each other with wide eyes and a "What the hell was that" look. He paused for a second and said, "Well, I voted for him, but it's pretty clear he's nuts. God help us all."

 
 
 
post #9719 of 37511
LOL, old people!
post #9720 of 37511
Quote:
I tend to think the video of Trump publicly exhorting Russia to hack his opponent and release the results is fairly incontrovertible, but what do I know

Yes, but Trump was exhorting Russia to hack Hillary and find her 33,000 e-mails. Not to hack the DNC. You would need clear evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the DNC and release those e-mails. I think it is rather likely that there was some level of collusion, but Trump's statement isn't proof of the specific crime that ocurred. As dumb and incompetent as the Trump people are, there has to be better evidence.

Also, I think people need to think really carefully about if we really want the intelligence apparatus to bring Trump down. I am sure some intelligence officers are motivated by patriotism to bring Trump down, knowing that he is completely unqualified to serve in the position. However, I suspect many oppose him because of his rhetoric and actions against the intelligence community. They probably wouldn't largely have an issue with him if he allowed them to operate as they saw fit. I think it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent to allow the intelligence community, with its largely unchecked power, to depose a democratically elected leader - even one as heinous as Trump - because he opposes them in some fashion. To be sure, Trump wants to turn them into his own personal lackeys, but what if another leader wanted to get in make substantial, positive changes to the intelligence apparatus that intelligence officials opposed?

Ultimately, it might be better for the country to establish this precedent, if it means ridding ourselves of someone as dangerous, unstable, and unqualified as Trump. But it still could have major consequences down the road.
post #9721 of 37511
Yeah, branches of government declaring war on the executive is concerning in and of itself. But considering the absolute madhouse that the first three and a half weeks of this administration have been, the fact that Trump clearly wants to be a king and not a president, and the fact that a man who essentially wants to destabilize American society in order to start WWIII is one of his chief advisers...if Godzilla can take out Azathoth here, hell, I'm rooting for Godzilla.
post #9722 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Yeah, it seems like a deliberate ploy to be able to cry "fake news!" at the AP.  It's an approach that should have diminishing returns, though; I love the bit where Spicer said "it wasn't true, I wish you guys had called before you tweeted" and the reporter replied that they did call, multiple times.

I'm wondering is these kind of "fake news" stories are from the Trump Administration's attempts to plug the leaks. It's a simple tactic really, propose to do something insane in a closed room and then see if it shows up in the news. If it does then you know that someone in that room is a leaker and it narrows down the suspects, do it a few more times and you will soon figure out who it is.
post #9723 of 37511
So fucking tired of the expression "fake news."
post #9724 of 37511

Fake post.

post #9725 of 37511

Hearing rumblings on twitter that the Trump rally in Florida has the potential to be Bannon's Reichstag Fire.  They're counting on lots of protesters showing up, and are going to exploit the opportunity to smear the left and portray the protesters as violent rioters via alt-right agitators planted in the crowd.    

 

https://twitter.com/MelissaJPeltier/status/832050031255494656

 

As much as I want to believe this rally is nothing more than Trump pathetically stroking his bruised ego after a historically terrible week, I wouldn't put anything past these assholes.  Hell, I still can't believe there's actually a fucking rally tomorrow.  Everything is insane.

post #9726 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by COULD432 View Post


Yes, but Trump was exhorting Russia to hack Hillary and find her 33,000 e-mails. Not to hack the DNC. You would need clear evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the DNC and release those e-mails. I think it is rather likely that there was some level of collusion, but Trump's statement isn't proof of the specific crime that ocurred. As dumb and incompetent as the Trump people are, there has to be better evidence.

Also, I think people need to think really carefully about if we really want the intelligence apparatus to bring Trump down. I am sure some intelligence officers are motivated by patriotism to bring Trump down, knowing that he is completely unqualified to serve in the position. However, I suspect many oppose him because of his rhetoric and actions against the intelligence community. They probably wouldn't largely have an issue with him if he allowed them to operate as they saw fit. I think it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent to allow the intelligence community, with its largely unchecked power, to depose a democratically elected leader - even one as heinous as Trump - because he opposes them in some fashion. To be sure, Trump wants to turn them into his own personal lackeys, but what if another leader wanted to get in make substantial, positive changes to the intelligence apparatus that intelligence officials opposed?

Ultimately, it might be better for the country to establish this precedent, if it means ridding ourselves of someone as dangerous, unstable, and unqualified as Trump. But it still could have major consequences down the road.

 

I'm not asking the intelligence services to make things up, and it's an important distinction between a service actually "deposing" a president and providing accurate (if damning) information to the press.  As for precedent, I'd be more concerned about it if the FBI director hadn't already used his supposedly-nonpartisan bonafides to intervene in an election to sabotage a particular candidate.  The genie is out of that bottle.  I can't speak to whether they will be acting responsibly in the next hypothetical situation, but I'll just say that it's not the duty of the intelligence community to help the executive branch cover anything up.  Of course, what their actual responsibilities are is a fairly nebulous question that's always going to be riddled with caveats, but in this particular case, it's obvious where I come down.

post #9727 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

So fucking tired of the expression "fake news."

 

The right has co-opted every term the left uses to try and identify what exactly is wrong with the right in the first place.  It's a defense mechanism, and Trump is practically the living embodiment of it.  The proliferation of the term fake news is one of the most damaging, because it serves the right's agenda of making all news suspect-- giving people freedom to believe anything they want.

post #9728 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Fake post.

It's a meaningless term. I mean, what are people saying?

1) The news is inaccurate?
2) The news is propaganda?
3) The news is artificial?

It's just a catchall, nonsense term that, as a result, isn't clearly defined, so people can ascribe whatever meaning they'd like, given the context.

If the news is fake, how is it fake? People that use the expression don't disprove the alleged "fake news." Simply calling it that apparently is all the evidence you need to dispell the myth.
post #9729 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

The right has co-opted every term the left uses to try and identify what exactly is wrong with the right in the first place.  It's a defense mechanism, and Trump is practically the living embodiment of it.

That's the same thing I thought after his "I inherited a mess . . . a mess, OK?" yammering yesterday.
post #9730 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post
If the news is fake, how is it fake? People that use the expression don't disprove the alleged "fake news." Simply calling it that apparently is all the evidence you need to dispell the myth.

 

I was just being snarky. Not very successfully, apparently.

 

But yes, I'm with what you're saying. It's gone from being a term meaning thoroughly false stories created for profit and/or hits to the use currently seen by Trump, which essentially means "We don't like what you're saying."

 

In other words: it essentially has almost no meaning now. Problem being assholes on the right are following the President's lead and it gives them yet one more reason to dismiss valid stories from legit sources.

post #9731 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim K View Post

I'm wondering is these kind of "fake news" stories are from the Trump Administration's attempts to plug the leaks. It's a simple tactic really, propose to do something insane in a closed room and then see if it shows up in the news. If it does then you know that someone in that room is a leaker and it narrows down the suspects, do it a few more times and you will soon figure out who it is.

Jesus, when our nation's political incompetance mirrors a scene from The Departed...
post #9732 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

I was just being snarky. Not very successfully, apparently.

But yes, I'm with what you're saying. It's gone from being a term meaning thoroughly false stories created for profit and/or hits to the use currently seen by Trump, which essentially means "We don't like what you're saying."

In other words: it essentially has almost no meaning now. Problem being assholes on the right are following the President's lead and it gives them yet one more reason to dismiss valid stories from legit sources.

I'm not yelling at you, Michael. I just thought of a bunch more stuff that I wanted to add.
post #9733 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

I was just being snarky. Not very successfully, apparently.

 

But yes, I'm with what you're saying. It's gone from being a term meaning thoroughly false stories created for profit and/or hits to the use currently seen by Trump, which essentially means "We don't like what you're saying."

 

In other words: it essentially has almost no meaning now. Problem being assholes on the right are following the President's lead and it gives them yet one more reason to dismiss valid stories from legit sources.

 

The same thing happened to 'literally', and like that word, 'fake news' was actually a useful term - it referred to those news websites that present themselves as legitimate while presenting wholesale, manipulative fiction. We will need a specific term for that, but Trump will take that. 

 

The Republicans around him must see that, beyond the short-term thrills and flaccid semis they get taking away millions of people's health care and safety nets, that he is fucking up things they presumably actually care about, namely the country they live in. 

post #9734 of 37511
Nah, people have been using literally for dramatic emphasis early than the 17th century. People are just ignorantly prideful about it at this time.

But not the point, I get it.
post #9735 of 37511
"Literally" means "I need a better way of emphasizing something's importance."
post #9736 of 37511

87% of Republicans think Trump's doing a great job - https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/832659834994503680

post #9737 of 37511
Who are those 8% of Democrats?
post #9738 of 37511

Hardcore Islamophobes, maybe?

post #9739 of 37511
So Bill Maher and...?
post #9740 of 37511
I'm waiting for some of you to say "BernieBros".
post #9741 of 37511

Seems pretty accurate. 

https://twitter.com/PresVillain

post #9742 of 37511

Also, probably some BernieBros.

post #9743 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Who are those 8% of Democrats?


White Southerners who pine for the time when ol' Strommy Thurmond represented the party.

post #9744 of 37511

http://fusion.net/story/387463/ice-accused-doctoring-paperwork
 

These whackstapo sons of bitches. Fuck ICE.

post #9745 of 37511

"Air-uh-planes".

post #9746 of 37511

The Munich Security Conference is going on right now. Here's McCain's speech, basically saying "Please don't associate us with Donald Trump." I guess he's on a regular schedule: one week he's a GOP shill, the next week he stands up to what's wrong with his party. Weird, but this is interesting:

post #9747 of 37511

"The world is in peril! They way of life in the West and all we've built is in danger! We have to stand up to authoritarianism and fascism, the likes of which we haven't seen in decades!"

 

[Goes back to Washington, and returns to sheepishly shrugging his shoulders.]

post #9748 of 37511

I truly believe McCain never fully recovered from having his spine broken in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

post #9749 of 37511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
 

http://fusion.net/story/387463/ice-accused-doctoring-paperwork
 

These whackstapo sons of bitches. Fuck ICE.

 

That's some Gestapo level shit right there. Every story I see concerning them pisses me right off.

post #9750 of 37511

Hey Trump apparently did something solid. I'll give credit on this one; Maduro is shit.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/trump-venezuela-maduro-lopez-tintori/517128/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Trumpocalypse Now