Trump

[jdshock]

jdshock - Just curious, but do you see the DNC and Clinton campaign solicitation of dirt on Trump from the Ukraine government the same or is that different?

On the spectrum of behavior we see during political campaigns, Al Gore's turning in the illegally obtained Bush debate notebook is probably the high water mark, right? That's what we hope all candidates strive for. To me, this Russia stuff is very near the other extreme. There just aren't that many things, in my opinion, that are worse than it.

Clinton's stuff is much closer to Trump than it is to Gore. Neither story is fully uncovered at this point, though. Clinton because she didn't get elected and Trump because it's presently being investigated. Based on the facts we have now, I thought this article did a nice job comparing and contrasting the two: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ia-helped-tru/

To summarize, Clinton's stuff was wrong. It's maybe a little less bad for a couple of reasons: (1) it looks like it wasn't a concerted effort from the foreign government, (2) we have historically been friendlier with Ukraine than Russia, and (3) it's tough to separate Russia's cyber attacks from the Trump business whereas the Ukrainian stuff, as far as we know, didn't really involve anything like that. Nothing I personally want to see in politics, though.

[jdshock]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18593/...ign=benshapiro

hmmm

@MoValley John: is the other huge advocate of this argument. I just don't get how it's a compelling point.

We go to war with countries all the time. If we're attacked on our soil, you just brush it off since we do it too? The United States has taken a position, for good or bad, that it gets to be the hypocrite in international politics.

[MoValley John]

@MoValley John: is the other huge advocate of this argument. I just don't get how it's a compelling point.

We go to war with countries all the time. If we're attacked on our soil, you just brush it off since we do it too? The United States has taken a position, for good or bad, that it gets to be the hypocrite in international politics.

You've just taken a big swing and a miss on my opinion. Close, but no cigar.

[Kung Wu]

On the spectrum of behavior we see during political campaigns, Al Gore's turning in the illegally obtained Bush debate notebook is probably the high water mark, right? That's what we hope all candidates strive for.

Al Gore didn't turn in a debate notebook. He didn't even know about it until the FBI had it. Did Al Gore's campaign assistant read the notebook ... you know ... to see if it was credible ... before turning it in?

[jdshock]

Al Gore didn't turn in a debate notebook. He didn't even know about it until the FBI had it. Did Al Gore's campaign assistant read the notebook ... you know ... to see if it was credible ... before turning it in?

If you truly believe Jr was doing a credibility check, well... "I love it." But you don't have to defend it to me. If you're good with that kind of behavior, that's fine. Drain the swamp, right?

Anyway, the only people I've heard talk about it have stated they believe it wasn't read. They have pointed out Gore's answers didn't reflect what was in the binder. I wasn't there, so your guess is as good as mine.

[Kung Wu]

If you truly believe Jr was doing a credibility check, well... "I love it." But you don't have to defend it to me. If you're good with that kind of behavior, that's fine. Drain the swamp, right?

Of course it was a credibility check. There can be no debate about that. He was probably disappointed that it turned out to be nothing too, because he wanted dirt. This what campaigns do. They look for dirt. And in this case legally.

Anyway, the only people I've heard talk about it have stated they believe it wasn't read. They have pointed out Gore's answers didn't reflect what was in the binder. I wasn't there, so your guess is as good as mine.

Downey said in his own words that he watched 60 to 90 seconds of one of the tapes and came to his senses that he should not be watching it. He also read some of the papers -- so which did he do first? Realize what he had and then decided to throw a VHS tape in the player? He realized it was stolen so he turned it over to the police and then recused himself of help with debate prep. Exactly what he should have done.

If it had been a tape of Bush vandalizing a stolen painting of Tipper Gore, he would have turned it over to the FBI AND called the campaign manager -- who would have had a front page article published about it. But in this instance there was nothing to pin on the opponent (even though the liberal media TRIED to spin it like it was possibly a trap set by the GOP [see a pattern here??!?!]).

[shockfan89_]

To summarize, Clinton's stuff was wrong. It's maybe a little less bad for a couple of reasons: (1) it looks like it wasn't a concerted effort from the foreign government, (2) we have historically been friendlier with Ukraine than Russia, and (3) it's tough to separate Russia's cyber attacks from the Trump business whereas the Ukrainian stuff, as far as we know, didn't really involve anything like that. Nothing I personally want to see in politics, though.

One other difference. The DNC/Clinton campaign operative was soliciting this information from the Ukrainian officials, Trump Jr was offered the dirt on the opposition.

My take is this was probably a setup all along and whomever set it up (likely the Clinton inner circle with Obama administration assistance) thought Trump Sr wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to personally attend the meeting. Then they would have the smoking gun on President Trump. Maybe I need to take off my tinfoil hat, but the wording in the e-mail to Trump Jr was a little too perfect (unless of course there is other evidence to come that actually has some proof of collusion). I also find it interesting that Trump Jr so willingly shared the entire e-mail chain. Maybe it was because the NYT illegally obtained it and was going to publish it, or maybe it is because the Trump team knows if there is nothing more to this investigation it is going to help bury the democrats come 2018 and 2020???

And sorry, but one unsolicited e-mail that turns out to be nothing doesn't get you anywhere close to collusion. Bad judgment? No question, but collusion is two sides working together. So if Trump Jr would have responded and said "If the Russian Government can get me dirt on Hillary, I promise I will get my dad to xxx if he becomes President." So far there is no evidence of anything like that. You show me that, and then we are talking game changer!

[wufan]

Hold on there, this is not something the left just made up and created..

Identity politics was not made up by the left. It was put forth by Karl Marx, where there was the plundering owners and there was the exploited worker. It's easy to see some reality in that if you look for it. It has some truth, but when you try to get the proliteriate to unite against the capitalists, you throw away great amounts of productivity and wealth creation at all levels (albeit less for the worker).

Once it was recognized that communist ideals killed 40 million people in Russia and over 50 million in China, it sorta lost its shine. The French post-modernists soon picked up a different view of this (in the 1960s and 70s) in which the struggle was not over money, but rather over power; the tyrant/slave or opressor/oppressed relationship. The white males of the patriarchy became the villain. This was quickly picked up on by feminists, followed by minorities, then LGBQTunicorns. Now it is a rallying cry of the vocal far left.

[wufan]

Let's not ignore how Republicans pander to religions and legitimately demonize those on the other side as heathens etc. Republican's benefit just as much from identity politics.

Prior to the identity politics there was a strong sense of universal values. Once the identity politics crowd identified the patriarchy as the cause of oppression, the judaeo-Christian ethic was left behind in the Republican Party. They were "the oppressor". There is a fundamental reason for disagreement (although I'm not seeing a lot of use of the word "heathen") where the universal ethic was denounced. Individualism and the striving to be a better person was replaced by intersectionallity, and the view that no moral is better than any other; therefore your morals are wrong. Further, your morality (Christian white cys-gendered hedero male) oppresses me, and that further demonstrates the patriarchy.

That's not pandering to a crowd. That's purposeful division of groups with the end game being an overthrow. That is where the religious right is stuck...in the role of oppressor.

[wufan]

If you voted for Trump and you buy into his bullshit train, you are practicing identity politics. It's not just the left.

When democrats are in charge, republicans appear to be moral and upright. When their guy gets in charge, they become a bunch of hypocrites.

Identity politics of the 'oppressed white male' (and I am a white male, I just think it needs to be called out).

Otherwise, I think your post is spot on.

My prediction: Republicans will continue to try to do everything in their power to protect Trump and they will pay a heavy price in the swing states in the 2018 elections (I don't think anything will change in Kansas). This will validate Lincoln's quote to the effect 'you can't fool all the people all the time'.

There's a key distinction where it can sometimes appear that white people are saying they're oppressed, where they aren't using identity politics. You will often see the patriarchal folks use examples that could be seen as oppression against them to show that oppression is real, but not important. It's not a defining ideology, just a fact of life, and one that each individual should strive to overcome.

[Play Angry]

The U.S. has had voting blocs down socioeconomic, religious, racial, ethnic, geographic, industrial, rural and other dividing lines since inception; I am confused by the hypothesis that identity politics is a fairly recent phenomenon here.

It would seem to me that it's always existed, it's just the dividing lines that have changed. Am I misunderstanding?

[wufan]

The U.S. has had voting blocs down socioeconomic, religious, racial, ethnic, geographic, industrial, rural and other dividing lines since inception; I am confused by the hypothesis that identity politics is a fairly recent phenomenon here.

It would seem to me that it's always existed, it's just the dividing lines that have changed. Am I misunderstanding?

Voting blocs have always been common. Demonization of the opposition hasn't been a thing since about 1855. I mean that for both sides. There are fundamental differences that need to be recognized so a strategy towards salvation can be put forth.

[wufan]

I am not citing biased sites. Point out one citation you could say is spun? The thing is while there were 38 bills signed you can clearly see both from politifact and by looking at the link I also previously sent, the vast majority were house keeping legislation. Also can you at least acknowledge now that it has become an incredibly ineffective term? That number indicates that since the start of May a grand total of 5 things have been passed since we now sit at 43, which is on pace for the worst term in a non-divided government. And in fact the only worse ones are modern Republican congresses under Obama. I will acknowledge he did sign a lot more things in those first 100 days than most, but I what came of it? He has so few legislative wins he celebrated a bill passing the House and not even making it to the floor of the Senate.

Interesting article...it offers a counter to your claim that this session in congress is the least productive yet, from a conservative view point.

"The arc of the policy universe is long, but it bends toward liberalism. Conservatives can slow the growth of government but an enduring shift in policy direction would be unprecedented. History shows that a do-nothing Congress is a conservative’s best-case scenario."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-policy-has-gone-liberals-way-for-70-years/2014/04/08/8dffa2b2-b906-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?utm_term=.726faaca7e3d

[Play Angry]

Voting blocs have always been common. Demonization of the opposition hasn't been a thing since about 1855. I mean that for both sides. There are fundamental differences that need to be recognized so a strategy towards salvation can be put forth.

Not trying to be difficult, but it seems to have been a thing from much, much earlier than that. Sectarian violence has been around for a few thousand years. Jewish pogroms, persecution of the Huguenots, oppression and disenfranchisement of indigenous people, and so on. Many of those resulted in extermination of the demonized, or dehumanized, targets, as part of strategic moves by the governing powers at local and national levels.

What is special about 1855 to distinguish it from prior exploitation of similar tactics?

[Aargh]

One thing that's giving the Russia investigation more legs than it might otherwise have had is Trump himslef. Trump, in a campaign speech, encouraged Russia to interfere in a way to help him win the election. I don't know the exact timeline for all the meetings and Trump's asking Russia to keep digging up the dirt. With all the meetings that have been denied, but have now surfaced, that comment is going to make those investigating dig a little deeper and look a little harder.

Throw in the number of people who "forgot" that they had meetings with Russians and had to "amend" their statements. For those trained in doing investigations, that's a red flag that there may be something more there than just innocent meetings where nothing of significance occurred.