CatBus

Wow. Okay. Moving right along.

So there’s a saying (I’m too young to know if it’s true) that in 1969, Nixon voters could be found everywhere. In 1974, they were getting scarce. And by 1976, you couldn’t find anyone who’d voted for Nixon.

HA Goodman started an interesting trend. At first, he was just a fairly transparent Republican operative, right? This libertarian Republican who decided to jump right into supporting a Socialist, but rarely actually says very much about his newfound love for those lefty policies–instead he pretty much does nothing but attack the Democratic Party. But “from the left”, get it? Not from the right. Maybe he’ll convince an unsuspecting reporter or voter to think he’s not a Republican, and try to initiate a narrative about the chasm between Bernie and Hillary. You’ve got Goodman’s followers booing Bernie at the convention to, uh, show their love for Bernie (or something, I’m sure it made sense to them). That made some headlines, and it kinda worked for a while, successfully drawing the media’s focus away from the actual lack of any serious split between Bernie and Hillary.

But then something odd happened after the election. He (and others) kept going, he’s still doing his Bernie supporter schtick. And this is what’s interesting about it. Using Goodman’s precedent, Trump voters can pretend to be Bernie supporters, as a means of hiding their shame. Now I’m sure most Trump voters aren’t ashamed, but already there’s this small sad tribe of Trump voters who can’t come out and be honest with the world. Are they, like the disappearing Nixon voters, the wave of the future?

Sure, the FBI may have him on a jaywalking rap he can’t beat. That’s absolutely mathematically possible.

In other news, lots of sites are making hay about the remark by the FBI Special Agent in the Senate Intelligence Committee today: “The commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures at times against his opponents.” It’s fairly dressed up in impressive lingo (active measures and all that), but really he’s talking about stuff that’s already public knowledge–remember, this was an open session–no classified stuff allowed, so this is not indicating any information from the ongoing FBI investigation, as some seem to be hoping.

So what’s he referring to then? The Sputnik link I mentioned earlier, which basically showed that Russian intelligence did in at least one case alter the leaked DNC e-mails to make them look incriminating, and that altered version made a direct line from the Sputnik site to a Trump speech a few hours later without hitting any other news or propaganda sources first–which was made even less probable by the fact that Sputnik pulled the article off their website almost immediately after publishing it (probably because it was provably doctored). So common public knowledge for the past six months, dressed up like a bombshell. But really it’s the same-old, same-old. Yes, Russian intelligence used the mail to support their desired election result (Russian active measures). And Trump used that material at a speed that makes it appear it was sent right to his campaign (used against his opponents). I’d like to hear something we didn’t know long before the election happened.

Jetrell Fo said:

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

Certainly there are varying opinions on what an immunity deal means. Here’s one opinion, but I’ll admit the source is kinda sketchy.

“When you are given immunity that probably means you’ve committed a crime.”
– Lt. Gen Michael Flynn (Ret), Sept 2016

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to “testify” to some cover story implicating nobody in any wrongdoing whatsoever, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Oliver North. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer–if I were the FBI, I’d pass too.

EDIT: Ahh, forget it.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

I think that many Christians voted for Trump because he made clear his support of their hot-button items, and because of his hard-line stance against other non-Christian religions. Also because of the perplexing fact that most Christians are republicans.

I forgot about hating the right people (Muslims, gays), there’s definitely an affinity based on that, at least within a sizeable subset.

TV’s Frink said:

Religious people who voted for Trump did so because of the Supreme Court. Frankly, that was probably the most sensible reason anyone had.

That’s basically what my evangelical friends said. They don’t care about the p***y grabbing, fancy dinners with Romney & Priebus, gold toilet seats, excessive golf outings, his enemies list, crowd size obsession, or bragging about his best brains (quick quiz–where’d I get this list?). You overturn Roe and all is forgiven. And of course they don’t care that Obama reduced the number of abortions to pre-Roe levels via non-punitive means, nor do they even care if the number of abortions goes up in a post-Roe era. If it’s all happening illegally, they don’t have to worry about it anymore.

Compared to that, the speed-the-apocalypse-by-supporting-the-antichrist theory has only one logical leap.

Nitpick: the word is expatriate. It shares a root with “patriot” but there’s no relationship meaning-wise. You can be a patriot expatriate, not a problem.

Yeah, all the Russia-related scandals make it sound like all Russians are money-laundering hacker assassins (in much the same way the “Islamic State” makes Muslims seem like antidemocratic misogynists) … if you don’t actually know any, you can’t easily dispel the stereotypes. I’m sure the Russian community has a “please don’t let it be a Russian” reaction to the news sometimes, so it’s good to hear a positive story about Russian good guys now and then.

On a related note, this has been bumping around in my mind for a while now, and I just don’t like it. Trump is our first atheist President. Yeah, I know, he passes for Presbyterian–a lot of us have to pass for something for various reasons, and most of us are way more convincing than he is. But leaving that aside for a moment, what “bad reputation” do atheists have in the larger culture? Let’s see: amoral, untrustworthy sociopaths who think they’re inherently superior to everyone else. Uh-oh. Oh yeah, and at least during the Cold War they were also Russian agents. Igh.

So I’m really, really hoping, in spite of his ongoing collapse in popular support, that when Trump eventually slouches off stage left, that whatever mysterious hypnotic “I’m one of you” hold he has on white Christians remains firmly in place. Because otherwise they’ll say: “That’s what happens when you put an atheist in charge,” and we’re back to the days of debating if atheists can actually be Americans. That’s all assuming that the evangelical support isn’t due to some speed-the-apocalypse-by-supporting-the-antichrist theory, but I’ve been assured by people who actually travel in evangelical circles that this is not the case. And I checked with multiple people, because I didn’t believe their assurances the first few times 😉

Re: the rest. Wikileaks and Sputnik (unintentionally) released the only publicly-available evidence tying Russia to the election that I know of. By the time the array of experts finally voiced their opinion–very late in the game–everyone already knew. If CrowdStrike never came forward with whatever secret evidence they thought they had to add to the pile, nothing would have changed. Same with the 17 intelligence agencies for that matter, although I was pleased to see they weren’t napping.

I’m Batman, you insensitive clod!

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t know if she was truly defamed, but defamation is not protected speech.

Read the article and tell me that people should be sued for posted the stuff they posted. I realize that defamation is not protected speech, but we should be careful to give what is protected speech a wide berth, lest we give politicians the power to shut down any speech they don’t like under the argument that it is defamation.

People should not be sued for posting the stuff that was quoted in the article. If the article in question was written without an agenda, then those posts are representative and the whole thing is stupid. However, I’ve never heard of this media outlet before, so it’s possible they quoted the more innocuous posts in an attempt to make her look worse. Luckily this is probably so clear cut it’ll get decided quickly.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

When wiping the floor with Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, and Wilson just isn’t enough, you know you’re facing a 21st Century Problem.

?

Sorry, that was posted before I realized that you and I were using the word “Qualified” very differently. I was using it like you do in a job interview (and frankly, so do most people): “What are your qualifications? Well, I spent X years as a US Senator, where I did X and Y” and so forth. So in that sense of the word, Clinton was easily much more qualified to be President than all of those people who were actually President (and others too, I had to stop somewhere). So when you said you had a high bar for the modern world’s problems, and Clinton didn’t seem extremely qualified–well, that was my response–Clinton beats all those Presidents and still doesn’t make the cut?–that’s ridiculous. My “qualifications” is kinda like “experience” except experience can often be used to prop up a do-nothing safe-seat candidate over someone who hasn’t been in office as long but has accomplished much more, or as an ageist dog whistle. Clinton had qualifications, and she accomplished a lot–much of which I disagreed with, which came into play later. But “extremely qualified” applies.

Now I know you were using “Qualified” to mean more like “Would you make a good President?” which is much more subjective and simply can’t be quantified like my definition. Obviously you and I are more in agreement about how your definition would apply to Clinton, since I voted for both Obama and Sanders in the primaries, both of whom were less qualified (in my sense of the word) than Clinton.

EDIT: And in case you’re wondering “Why are qualifications in your sense even relevant, if you voted for the less qualified candidate?”. Of course they’re relevant–they’re simply not the only consideration. The Bush I/Bush II contrast is a case in point. Both of them were military adventurers, both of them ran on supply side economics. But Bush I had a lot of experience, and his military adventures were well-executed, had clear objectives, and involved a high level of diplomacy. Bush II, not so much. Bush I knew from experience that supply side economics was all political BS and sometimes you just had to raise taxes on rich people to pay for the stuff you’re doing. Bush II, not so much. Basically, policies that I oppose, executed competently, still end up better than policies I oppose, executed incompetently. You may think the incompetent boob would be better, because they’d fail to get anything done, but that’s a failure of imagination, and/or wishful thinking (see: Trump). The boob can mess things up in ways nobody ever thought possible. Qualifications matter. And Obama and Sanders were both qualified, just less than Clinton.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.

I guess it depends on what you mean by being qualified. Does she have a lot of experience? Yes. But when I look at whether or not someone is qualified, I look beyond experience and try to determine from all I know of the person, how good/bad the person would be at being President. I am not seeing what would make her a great President.

Qualifications are one thing, policy choices are another. I rate Bush I very, very high on experience, but I think his policy choices were middling to bad. Nor do I see him as a particularly great President, except in contrast with his son. I don’t think Clinton would have been a great President. But she’d have been competent–maybe not too different than Bush I–and that’s sure seeming like a lot these days.

When wiping the floor with Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, and Wilson just isn’t enough, you know you’re facing a 21st Century Problem.

TV’s Frink said:

Since Trump is once again tweeting (rehashing, if you like) the same tired nonsense about Clinton, Russia, Uranium, etc. that gets passed around some of the more unsavory parts of the internet (including this part of the internet)…

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/

Saw that too. But with Politifact you have to read the full article, not the headlines. They’re the same outfit that promoted something they’d twice rated half true to “Lie of the Year” a few years back. They didn’t hide that fact in their article, but the headline was a clear case of clickbait. This seems fairer, but still, I’m wary of Politifact.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I agree she was qualified, but extremely so? I’m not seeing it.

Man, you sure have a high bar.

If he’s reserving that term until someone unseats Jefferson as the most qualified Presidential candidate ever, he’s in for a long wait. The trend is going in the other direction.

I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

You said extremely qualified.

Ok, how was she not extremely qualified?

See CatBus’ response.

JEDIT: And Puggo’s.

So you seriously think she was extremely qualified? ok.

Yes.

If you say so.

In spite of the last page of me temporarily being the biggest Clinton-hater in the room, I say so too. Senator & Secretary of State alone put her above her husband, Reagan and many other recent Presidents experience-wise. She also redefined the First Lady role (much to the chagrin of many who preferred the tea parties), and prior to that, when her husband was Governor of Arkansas, I’d say she had the more distinguished career of the two Clintons. I’d say her closest recent equivalent in terms of experience was maybe Lyndon Johnson.

Vader21 said:

CatBus said:

IIRC, Mike Verta has reported that the “destroy order” is still in effect. If Lucasfilm (now Disney) happens to get their hands on prints of the OOT, they will destroy them.

Just seems so stupid to destroy a piece of history, fair enough it may have once been common practise but to destroy a piece of film from that ers today is just ridiculous…

Actually (again, IIRC) the original destroy order dates from when there were 1997SE film prints out there. Theatres would get the reels, send them back to the studios, and the studios would send them back out again (not destroy them). That was normal. The order was to destroy all copies of the OOT as they came back in, so that only 1997SE prints would go back out. So even worse than you thought…

Jeebus said:

I just don’t think being endorsed by a hate group is comparable to voting in favor of a war crime.

Like your understatement about “don’t like”, the “endorsement” was also an understatement. Sure, the Klan was a free agent. But then Trump actually goes and works with unapologetic white supremacists. Multiple times. The endorsement goes both ways. So yeah, he’s worse in my book. And he supported the war too, he just (thankfully) didn’t have a Senate seat then. And then there’s the other reasons I gave that you didn’t quote, such as her being qualified for the job, and the fact that it was already obvious with publicly available information in July '16 that Trump was the Kremlin’s man.

Would I have liked there to have been a better candidate? Definitely. Was it a hard choice? Not remotely.

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.

As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.

So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?

I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11.

There are lots of opinions on that matter, but I’m using the Nuremburg standard. The AUMF was a blank check to someone who’d already made it very clear he planned to attack the Iraqis on any dreamed up pretext. If Bush had been a little more guarded about his plans, or if there was ever any credible link between Iraq and Sept 11, there’d be more room for argument. As it was, Hillary knew the Iraqis posed no threat, and she knew she was authorizing an attack on them. The only thing she didn’t know is that we weren’t just planning to attack, we were planning to occupy–and that there would be political fallout because of that. Had she known that, she may have calculated differently.

She was fortunate that Trump was also in the “I supported the invasion until it started losing popularity” club, or he may have gotten more votes than her.

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.

As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.

So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?

“People you don’t like”? We’re talking about an active domestic terrorist group!

Yeah, that Khmer Rouge. They were real downers. I totally wouldn’t want to hang with them.

TV’s Frink said:

I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?

People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.

As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Alderaan said:

TV’s Frink said:

Sure.

Quit crying and find a better candidate next time.

I’m not crying for me. I’m a old(ish) straight male white millionaire US citizen, my life is good. It’s the people that don’t fall into that category that I cry for.

Anyone who thinks Clinton and Trump would have been equally bad is deluded.

You’re a millionaire‽

Maybe.

Monopoly money doesn’t count, Frink. I keep telling you.

IIRC, Mike Verta has reported that the “destroy order” is still in effect. If Lucasfilm (now Disney) happens to get their hands on prints of the OOT, they will destroy them.