Trump

[Mightysword]

Eh I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting there, or we're not really thinking on the same frequency at all. I don't know about you but no matter how good a movie is, my interest dropped about 50% at the 2nd run, and would barely keep focus on the third. Sure, I may get "excited" again when the next episode come if it offers enough significant different than the first. So what I am finding amazing here is how is it possible the politician in Washington manage to put on the same show years after years and yet still get people excited every - single - damn - time. Forget Hollywood, it's a skill worthy of envy even by Broadway standard.

But maybe that's just me, maybe you guys see enough difference that I don't. In that case enjoy, I heard they have another show scheduled pretty soon. And i'll be sitting right here, eagerly waiting, not for the show, but for people to deliver the same "heart-filled, emotional invested, and shocking" commentaries after watching said show

[Bishop149]

You know, just the fact that my posts made you go and research a little deeper into the issue, and to see just a little teensy bit of the side ... I consider it was worth the effort to issue the challenge. Did I seek and hope you would change your stand? Heaven no. But as I had said a few times before: even if our decision will remain the same, one made in full knowledge of the full context is still better than one made without. utral".

I knew most of the context already, the only thing I was mistaken on was that I kinda assumed Northam must have been anti-abortion to say what he said and that he and Trump were probably singing from the same hymn sheet.
This appears not to be the case and I think most interesting thing I learned from this exercise was Mork's analysis of his seeming doubling down on his obvious mistake.
Playing it to gain the votes of Trumpers? Ugggg.

The one and only credit I have always given to Trump is that it is COMPLETELY obvious what he stands for.
This does not mean he doesn't attempt to mislead or obfuscate, just that he's so bad at it (and his record of past action is so public) that you can see right through it.

[RegisterMe]

But maybe that's just me, maybe you guys see enough difference that I don't. In that case enjoy, I heard they have another show scheduled pretty soon. And i'll be sitting right here, eagerly waiting, not for the show, but for people to deliver the same "heart-filled, emotional invested, and shocking" commentaries after watching said show

Your dismissiveness is appreciated .

[Mightysword]

Your dismissiveness is appreciated .

May I'm being dimissive, but maybe that's the only way I can see it.

- Ask yourself this question: did you manage to learn anything news from the hearing? Was there anything from what was asked and answered that made you go "oh I didn't know that?"

- Ask yourself another question: when you express gratification in those posts above, what gave you that feeling? Offering my guess: it's because you see the very same scenario that has been played out on internet and maybe even your head. It's kinda like writing a script for a highschool play then later see it's played out on a stage at Broadway ... make one giddy won't it? The point is, the same scene has been played out and predicted long times ago, the hearing is basically an official casting of a well-known script featuring real actors. Well, I guess that's enough reason to get people excited.

- And the last question: do you remember seeing these scenes all played out before? Because I do. In just about every of these hearing, seeing someone on the panel make an emotional statement like "THIS IS SHAMEFUL,YOU SHOULD RESIGN" is basically par for the course. It's probably harder to find a hearing where those words are not uttered than were.

In the end, the panels asked the question you expected them to ask, and Barr answered exactly the way you think he would, and for me, the public reacted exactly how I think they would. If you have different idea I would love to hear it. And then both side turn around and ask each others: "SEE, SEE?!?!?" As a neutral my reaction has always been: "eh ... see what?" I'm sorry if that sounds dismissive, but ... there has rarely been anything substantial enough in this kind of hearing for me to have a different opinion.

I

[RegisterMe]

Your dismissiveness is appreciated .

May I'm being dimissive, but maybe that's the only way I can see it.

- Ask yourself this question: did you manage to learn anything news from the hearing? Was there anything from what was asked and answered that made you go "oh I didn't know that?"

- Ask yourself another question: when you express gratification in those posts above, what gave you that feeling? Offering my guess: it's because you see the very same scenario that has been played out on internet and maybe even your head. It's kinda like writing a script for a highschool play then later see it's played out on a stage at Broadway ... make one giddy won't it? The point is, the same scene has been played out and predicted long times ago, the hearing is basically an official casting of a well-known script featuring real actors. Well, I guess that's enough reason to get people excited.

- And the last question: do you remember seeing these scenes all played out before? Because I do. In just about every of these hearing, seeing someone on the panel make an emotional statement like "THIS IS SHAMEFUL,YOU SHOULD RESIGN" is basically par for the course. It's probably harder to find a hearing where those words are not uttered than were.

In the end, the panels asked the question you expected them to ask, and Barr answered exactly the way you think he would, and for me, the public reacted exactly how I think they would. If you have different idea I would love to hear it. And then both side turn around and ask each others: "SEE, SEE?!?!?" As a neutral my reaction has always been: "eh ... see what?" I'm sorry if that sounds dismissive, but ... there has rarely been anything substantial enough in this kind of hearing for me to have a different opinion.

I

Not really. Call me naive but what I expected was:-

* No (or at least far less overt) political theatre, or partisan grandstanding from Mazie Hirono (D), Lindsey Graham (R), or Ted Cruz (R).
* Tough, focused, pointed examination from both the Democrats and the Republicans.
* Honest answers from Barr that were respectful of the Senate's oversight (of the executive) role.

Of the above (and to be fair, of what I saw) I think only Kamila Harris and Patrick Leahy met my expectations. Barr did not, and so to my mind deserved to get skewered.

Politics in the UK is hardly the paragon of rational virtue, and whilst the House of Commons can seem like a kindergarten school at times our equivalent to Senate hearings, what we call Select Committees, are.... far less partisan (I can't actually think of an example, but there must be a few scattered about the place), far less theatrical (the closest recent examples that I can think of that might just qualify would be Philip Green about the BHS bankruptcy or Dominic Cummings about Brexit), and in the main people called before them are respectful of their function and role. They're.... dry, but reasonably effective.

[Observe]

I heard they have another show scheduled pretty soon. And i'll be sitting right here, eagerly waiting, not for the show, but for people to deliver the same "heart-filled, emotional invested, and shocking" commentaries after watching said show

And we will be eagerly waiting for you to deliver your same admonishments and rebuttals to the "heart-filled, emotional invested, and shocking" commentaries. Interesting watching the knee-jerk domino effect.

[Mightysword]

And we will be eagerly waiting for you to deliver your same admonishments and rebuttals to the "heart-filled, emotional invested, and shocking" commentaries. Interesting watching the knee-jerk domino effect.

Touche.

In my defense I didn't say anything of the sort last time during and after the Kevanaugh's hearing, rebuttals to the politic maybe, but not the commentaries. At least there used to be a long cool down period between the shows, I guess I found it extra amusing (read: irritating) how the previous show was only half a year ago, and despite the same content and acting it still manages to appear fresh. So it's half the tired repetition, but also amazement at the (short) memory of the audience. And what's more, we have another one in tow pretty soon, it's breaking record I tell you.

Since I have now said my piece on the audience, so next time while I will still eagerly awaiting such commentaries, I'll try to keep my amusement (or bemusement) to myself.

But trust me when I said, I dearly hope my expectation will NOT be met, a man can dream, right?

[Hank001]

Whilst on my back getting over the flu, I read the Meuller Report and then watched yesterdays dog and pony show of our Senate Judiciary Committee questioned our Attorney General. Here's what I took away from it:

As far as it deals with Trump or his kith, kin or minions: Working with hostile foreign powers, aiding and abetting, and any other crimes thereof including treason are just fine and at most to be given a wink and a nod.

Governmental oversight now not only does not apply to actions past, present, or future of the present President or this executive. In so far as those powers as apply outside of the US House of Representatives their official functions are now to advise and aid the President in any way and by any means (as those means will now be overlooked if they conflict with past or present laws, rules or regulations).

That any powers of oversight once held by the US House of Representitives upon the Executive Branch are to be held as null and void as it is now incumbent on the Justice Department, Executive and US Senate to work stridently to counter any effective use of their powers of oversight to place any action upon the Executive for any actions past present or future.

I have to admit one thing.

It's worked perfectly so far.

[Morkonan]

..."It's wrong because Trump doing it...

These days, that's not far from a perfect proof...

I'm not wrong doing the same thing because I'm not Trump."

That might qualify as a perfect proof, too... I dunno anymore.

..So tell me, unless I'm a Muppet, how can I even take this seriously?

You're not a Muppet. Unless you have sticks attached to your arms and you don't wear pants...

But, I'm with you on that - Yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, everyone is using inflammatory rhetoric and throwing gasoline on any darn fire they can in order to gain support. That seems to be the latest and most generally accepted strategy in the "Political Influence Handbook" these days.

And, I too wonder how in the world I'm supposed to take any of this crap seriously.

But, it is serious. Regardless of the circus we're being forced to watch, it's serious stuff. It's as if someone wanted to decide the outcome of a war entirely through the use of propaganda.

In World War II, the US was on its way to invade Okinawa. In the advance of US forces, the Japanese military began telling citizens that they should commit suicide rather than be captured. They then detailed horrible accounts of rape, torture, cannibalism and all the worst "bad things" they could think of that the US forces would commit on captured civilians and soldiers, alike. So, when the time came, many committed suicide, some by shooting themselves, hanging, strangulation, exploding grenades and jumping off cliffs rather than be "captured."

If this legislative measure passes, the government will be Executing babies!

What we have to do is realize that this sort of "propaganda" can have terrible consequences.

In a widely documented conspiracy theory called Pizza-Gate, heavily promoted by the "Alt-Right" somewhat fanatical segment of Republican supporters, largely led from Reddit and similar orgs, a bit of inflammatory propaganda made its way around to, albeit briefly, the "legitimate circuit." While quickly debunked there, it was obviously a product of the "Leftist Fake News Media." And then, some whacko charged towards the Pizzeria and started firing a rifle at everybody...

This stuff can have terrible consequences.

I agree - How in the crap are we supposed to take such people seriously when they resort to inflammatory rhetoric and half-truths or outright lies? How do we take a pot calling a kettle black seriously, too?

I think the above reasons are enough to warrant us taking such things seriously, but not what's actually being "said" but seriously considering penalizing the people who are willing to expose us to such dangers for their own gain. That's how we do it - Refuse to support or vote for such people. Always.

... It's worked perfectly so far.

Why?

I think it's because of the newfound effectiveness that has been discovered in the outright, blatant, "lie."

"These aren't the purjurors you're looking for..."
"This isn't the obstruction of justice you're looking for..."
"IT'S A CONSPRARICY! They're trying to take over teh gubbermint..."

I'm not so naive to think that anyone has ever not believed that lies work in politics. But, that Senate hearing yesterday was a friggin' mess of B.S. And, the servicing of Barr by political partisans bordered on the... pornographic. That being said, some of the attacks made by opponents went off into the realms of imaginationland, too. But, it was more pornography than play, that's for sure.

I think one of my favorite exchanges was when a Senator asked Barr if he would provide the notes/transcripts of the conference call he had with Mueller concerning Meuller's criticism of his presentation of the report.

"Will you provide us with this?"
"No," responded Barr.
"But," stammered the Senator, "why not?"
"I don't think I have to."

That's a Senator asking him that, not some crackhead. That's a Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee that is responsible for overseeing the Department of Justice...

"I don't think I have to."

A conversation that was recorded/noted by other officials at the Department of Justice, who were present in the room during the conference call and witnessing it and writing it all down, between the Attorney General of the Department of Justice and the former Special Counsel for the Department of Justice charged with leading a investigation conducted by that Department is not to be revealed to the Senate Committee responsible for overseeing that very same Department?

Lol... typical. I wonder if there's an X-Men's movie on tonight or something.

[Mightysword]

But, it is serious.

But ... is it really?

There is a poster here that for a period, day in a day out post something and followed with a proclamation along the line of "TRUMP GONNA BEND AND VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION" or "TRUMP IS MAKING HIMSELF KING". I tried pretty damn hard not to poke fun at any of it, but my monotone was always something like this:

Poster: TRUMP GONNA DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION!
Me: and ... ?
Poster: HE IS GOING TO MAKE HIMSELF KING!
Me: so ... ?

I hope you catch my git. Look, if it's a result of an accident or act of ill intent that someone like your arse on fire, I can offer sympathy if you running around screaming. But tbh, it's hard not to see a lot of the screaming these days are people decide to light up their OWN arse just to have a reason to run around screaming.

Regardless of the circus we're being forced to watch,

Correction, we're not forced, we watched it out of our freewill.

it's serious stuff.

And that's exactly what the show's producer want you to believe.


Tell me honestly, do you think it made a difference whether you watched this hearing or not? Do you think the hearing itself, whether it happened or not, had changed anything?

[Hank001]

At this point you just have to ask the question: "What Constitution?"

Seems the Constitution of the United States that lawmakers have sworn to uphold and "defend from all enemies foriegn and domestic" not to mention a thousand lesser laws and statues mean less than if they were writ on toilet paper if those so sworn decide it's not in their best intrests.

I wonder... Does the mafia have a similar document that the majority of this goverment is working off of?

It would be perhaps more conforting to think that if they are scrapping the constitution they they are playing off SOME sheet of music.

[Morkonan]

... it's hard not to see a lot of the screaming these days are people decide to light up their OWN arse just to have a reason to run around screaming.

Some truth in your statement, however we have to use our brains when deciphering what someone is claiming. We can, for instance, decipher a bit out that statement and imply that, at the least, the person is claiming that Trump will overreach his authority. (And, that's born out to be true inasmuch as he has at the very least attempted to do so.)

it's serious stuff.

And that's exactly what the show's producer want you to believe.

I understand your meaning, but what I was implying here that was "serious stuff" would include a show's producers "sensationalizing" something. I was more concerned about politicians and those with strong political bias lying, overstating or misinforming the public in an attempt to inflame them and gain their desperate support.

Tell me honestly, do you think it made a difference whether you watched this hearing or not? Do you think the hearing itself, whether it happened or not, had changed anything?

I think it made a difference to me whether or not I watched the hearing. I gained some new insight from it and am better able to render personal opinions for doing so.

Did the hearing change anything? In immediate terms, not much. Though, there will be some strong incentives for opposition and those who wish to further investigate the findings to band together.

Barr has stepped out and presented himself as a target that can be focused on.

That is important. It would have been much better for him to have avoided becoming a focus or an "excuse" if he had kept his cool and fully, and immediately, answered every question and offered any sort of compliance he could, being as gracious and nice and pleasant as possible while doing so. "Killing them with kindness" so-to-speak. Presenting the image of a fairly competent, congenial, cooperative and pleasant Attorney General who would do whatever was required by him, by the Law, to assist those empowered with oversight... That's called "diffusing a bomb."

It may have been that he was tired and just fed up with having to put up with all these insinuations and questions, deserved or not. But, he lost his cool, started pushing back and was, himself, a bit snitty. His posture and general expression as he dealt with yet another set of questions showed me he felt under a bit of stress and lapsed into relying on being defensive as an outlet.

So, yes, it changed things and Barr has now become the very thing that the Democrats feared he would be at his confirmation hearing. He had a chance to put that idea to rest and didn't do it. Admittedly, if someone had told me to subject myself to intense questioning while sitting in a room full of politicians for all those hours I would have told them to go ____ __ __ ____ __ __ and that they should enthusiastically ___ themselves with a ____.

So, yeah - It was an important hearing and it did result in "new" things. It was also a crapshow and looked like two groups of people with radically different fetishes vigorously touching themselves while they're both staring at a combined photo of everything they've always wanted to see that's worthy of touching themselves over... Someone had to mop up the floor after that darn hearing. They need a raise.

[Mightysword]

That is important. It would have been much better for him to have avoided becoming a focus or an "excuse" if he had kept his cool and fully, and immediately, answered every question and offered any sort of compliance he could, being as gracious and nice and pleasant as possible while doing so. "Killing them with kindness" so-to-speak. Presenting the image of a fairly competent, congenial, cooperative and pleasant Attorney General who would do whatever was required by him, by the Law, to assist those empowered with oversight... That's called "diffusing a bomb."

It may have been that he was tired and just fed up with having to put up with all these insinuations and questions, deserved or not. But, he lost his cool, started pushing back and was, himself, a bit snitty. His posture and general expression as he dealt with yet another set of questions showed me he felt under a bit of stress and lapsed into relying on being defensive as an outlet.

So, yes, it changed things and Barr has now become the very thing that the Democrats feared he would be at his confirmation hearing. He had a chance to put that idea to rest and didn't do it ...

Do you really think had Barr acted the way you described, he would be able to win heart and applaud? Do you really think the people sitting at the panel was seeking an honest reason to vindicate him? No, you're not asking Barr to "kill them with kindness", you're asking him to "lie down, push up his arse and get spank!". After all, for think to unfold as you imagine, it's not only require Barr himself to act like you wish, it also requires the people sitting on that panel to be the virtue of compassion, honesty and unity as well. And if that were really the case, then I doubt we would be in a situation where a hearing like this has to be called to begin with.

To quote a line from one of my most favorite anime: it is a pity (that I has to kill you), I do like your singing. But the real world isn't as kind as the one in a pop song.

[Morkonan]

Do you really think had Barr acted the way you described, he would be able to win heart and applaud?

I didn't write or imply any such thing.

You can read English, I know. So, why do you keep having a problem reading what I wrote?

Do you really think the people sitting at the panel was seeking an honest reason to vindicate him? No, you're not asking Barr to "kill them with kindness", you're asking him to "lie down, push up his arse and get spank!". After all, for think to unfold as you imagine, it's not only require Barr himself to act like you wish, it also requires the people sitting on that panel to be the virtue of compassion, honesty and unity as well. And if that were really the case, then I doubt we would be in a situation where a hearing like this has to be called to begin with.

I don't have any idea that supports an idea that implies you know what you're talking about...

I suggested what was basically a way for Barr to be able to present himself in order to do his best to diffuse the situation and to provide an excuse for people to imply, if not for themselves, then to others, that he would be unfairly persecuted for his testimony. That's it.

I have no doubt that most Democrats would have continued to attack him or find fault with him. But, he ended up giving them even more "ammunition" to use against him and they can now much more easily validate their continued complaints against him by pointing directly to his performance and testimony.

He made himself a bigger and much more visible target for opponents to rally against by his performance during that hearing.

To quote a line from one of my most favorite anime: it is a pity (that I has to kill you), I do like your singing. But the real world isn't as kind as the one in a pop song.

Makes about as much sense as Anime ever makes, I guess.

[Mightysword]

You can read English, I know. So, why do you keep having a problem reading what I wrote?
...
Makes about as much sense as Anime ever makes, I guess.

Then I guess I should use an expression that is more native to an English speaker: it takes two to tango. That's better?

btw, half of the anime I watched actually made more sense than half of the stuff I watched from Hollywood

He made himself a bigger and much more visible target for opponents to rally against by his performance during that hearing.

And that's the git of thing, he would ALWAYS become a bigger target regardless of how he acts. Ideally, things should unfold as you said: ideally. But that takes people, whether the one sitting on the panel, or the one tuning in on the TV to keep an open mind, and to judge things as it comes on their own merit. But we all know that's not the case, may be for you, but not for a large squat of others. Even before the event take place, people already formed their opinion, damn if you do, damn if you don't. The fact that he is Barr, the fact that he is a the current AG, and the fact that he decided not to indict his boss like many people think he should, he's already a goner or unforgivable to most. There is another American expression that's fitting to this situation I believe: stick to your gun.

[BugMeister]

William Barr is not President Trump's personal attorney - his duty is to the state - not the office..
he has already publicly stated his support for the continuation of the out-dated and superseded OLC advisory statement regarding the possibility of criminality by a President whilst in office..
- this means that his judgement is prejudiced - having taken this partisan view, by rights Barr should redact himself completely from the Special Counsel's investigation and cease his commentary..
- or resign as AG..

- otherwise, he's in danger of bringing the DOJ into disrepute - he MUST be challenged by his own department..
- and,/or - if necessary, stripped of his law licence and removed from office under appropriate censure..

[Hank001]

BugMeister says:

Barr should redact himself from the investigation - or resign..
- he's in danger of bringing the DOJ into disrepute - he MUST be challenged by his own department..

- and,/or - if necessary, stripped of his licence and removed from office under appropriate censure..

Gee, now let me think... EX Attorney General Jeff Sessions got bashed HARD for recusing (wish to @$!# you could redact someone short of homicide ) himself from something. So Trump hires Barr who got hired the first time for wanting to shove Iran/Contra under the rug. Didn't quite work then, but NOW he lobbied for the job and got it SPECIFICALLY because he'll work for DJT and the law be damned! The law is now ANYTHING the administration can get away with and what SHOULD happen is the LAST thing that's GOING to happen.

And he was a shyster then and just got worse with time.

[BugMeister]

Sessions knew that he had to redact himself - his judgement was also prejudiced - in the matter of contact with Russians during the election..
- at least he followed the letter of the law - and boy did that piss off Donny Drumpf..!!

- Barr is acting in direct contravention of the rules that govern his office..

meanwhile, the corruption and vigilantism at the border continues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdrvkIzPItU

[Morkonan]

Then I guess I should use an expression that is more native to an English speaker: it takes two to tango. That's better?

I don't like the Tango. It's... dumb. I actually had to do that once! No foolin'. A friend of mine and his wife made myself and my wife take "Ballroom Dance" lessons with them. Some sort of "married couple thing that's supposed to be fun that we can all do together."

Unfun.

It's especially unfun when the female dance instructor is your partner and she's hot and your wife is looking at you with that "you had better not enjoy dancing so close to her" look on her face.

btw, half of the anime I watched actually made more sense than half of the stuff I watched from Hollywood

I don't know that I've actually watched a movie made in the past two years, much less who made it... Dude - I'm friggin' boring. I still have to catch up on the Marvel series. Anyway, movie quality is relative and, honestly, I can't relate to anything "Anime." It just doesn't compute.

And that's the git of thing, he would ALWAYS become a bigger target regardless of how he acts. Ideally, things should unfold as you said: ideally. But that takes people, whether the one sitting on the panel, or the one tuning in on the TV to keep an open mind, and to judge things as it comes on their own merit. But we all know that's not the case, may be for you, but not for a large squat of others. Even before the event take place, people already formed their opinion, damn if you do, damn if you don't. The fact that he is Barr, the fact that he is a the current AG, and the fact that he decided not to indict his boss like many people think he should, he's already a goner or unforgivable to most. There is another American expression that's fitting to this situation I believe: stick to your gun.

I know he's already a target and I do know that as soon as he was targeted, he'll get prioritized in ever bigger chunks of "being a target" likely regardless of whatever he does. But, that's going to happen with twice the prejudice because of his lack of composure. His resistance did nothing but increase as the hearing went on. I do understand that - I would have been acting like a zoo monkey and throwing poo at the panel by the end of all that crap. But, that's why I don't get paid the big bucks in a high-profile politically appointed position... He does. And, he should know that he needed to manipulate as much as he possibly could in order to make things difficult for those that he so obviously opposes. It would not have completely defended him against attacks, but it could have provided him a good bit of ammo he could use to create an image that was being "unfairly persecuted by partisan politics." Now.. he doesn't have that fallback position as he's jumped the wire and gone charging across the battlefield.

He could have "stuck to his gun" by crafting that position right in front of everyone's face the way he wanted it to be. IF he wanted to "stick to his guns" by appearing to be a defiant partisan, then he managed to do that quite well. It's a mistake, IMO, though.

Now he's up for Contempt of Congress charges, last I heard. (That was this morning, dunno if it has changed.)

I guess the thing is that there's a situation that could have just been a "battle." Barr's testimony and his attitude is going to turn it into a "war." It didn't have to be that way. Yes, there would have still been battles based on Barr's testimony no matter what attitude he had presented. But, I think many of those could have been avoided. The "war?" It's kind of hard for anyone to purposefully avoid, now, since they, too, must appear to "stick to their guns."

[RegisterMe]

It's especially unfun when the female dance instructor is your partner and she's hot and your wife is looking at you with that "you had better not enjoy dancing so close to her" look on her face.

That's most of the point of Tango - hate, lust, passion, contempt, desire, all ****** up whichever way you like it .. Especially the Argentine Tango.

The Donald and Kamala. Maybe.

EDIT: Another entertaining one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRMpb1N01P4