Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Sure, "good for the people" is the ideal situation.

"good for the Democrats" is merely observational, not a value-judgement. If Trump turned out to be the anti-christ, turned red, grew horns and hoofs and started smiting people with lightning from his fingertips, that would be good for the democrats too, but doesn't imply it would be good for the nation as a whole.

Maybe it's the "wrong dichotomy" but it's the actual dichotomy that exists in real life. Realpolitik.

[smjjames]

I don't think he even understands 'unneccesary risk'. His lawyers definetly view it that way.

More likely is that he just wants to get it over with.

Given that the meeting is going to be closed to the public and the fact that Mueller has run such a tight ship, he may actually be inclined to speak more truthfully. He's done depositions before, so, he certainly knows how to obsfucate without outright lying.

[Max™]

If that happens, then it's going to be very good for the Democrats going into the 2018 elections.

Wrong dichotomy - I don't want it to be good for "the Democrats" or "the Republicans." I want things to be good for the people.  I make no mistakes about assuming that is more likely with one party or the other.

Right now either party is good for some people and outright bad for others.

That's some straight up bullshit yo, fuck outta here with that, yes they are both shitty fucking choices, yes they both put up fucking awful alternatives to Trump which were still bad enough to lose to him somehow, but before saying that shit remember a few things.

One of these parties has been cool with white supremacists and jailbait ass chasers so long as they aren't a democrat.
One of these parties has gone from blatantly doing shit which would fuck over tons of people to flat out saying they intend to do this shit and then managing to fuck up the execution.
One of these parties could be viewed as good for a very small group of people, a group which includes democrats and republicans alike, as the only relevant detail is the number of 0's after the first number in your personal wealth.
One of these parties has been actively trying to fuck over such broadly targeted chunks of society that they'll end up hitting their own voters too.

The other party is full of soulless shitbag neoliberal capitalist whores, no doubt, and fuck them too, but they aren't the ones fighting to fuck me over.

[Frumple]

If that happens, then it's going to be very good for the Democrats going into the 2018 elections.

Wrong dichotomy - I don't want it to be good for "the Democrats" or "the Republicans." I want things to be good for the people.  I make no mistakes about assuming that is more likely with one party or the other.

Right now either party is good for some people and outright bad for others.

Uh. No, it's more one is good for some and somewhat worse than previous for others, and the other is bad for most folks and a very literal existential threat for all but a sliver of what's left. S'what happens when one of the parties is dead set on defunding vital -- in the "not having this will kill people" sense -- services, amongst other things. Good for the people would be the GOP leadership vanishing in a puff of logic and its base somehow finding more than about three folks that give a single sodden shit about the people to replace them.

And mostly ninja'd, if with a fairly different outlook on thing, but eh.

It's a risk, yeah. However, Trump has done depositions before (remember, he's been involved in ligitative stuff most of his adult life), so, he knows how to handle that stuff. Plus Mueller is a professional and he acutely knows what's on the line.

Eh... trump's been involved in litigative stuff of a rather different sort most of his adult life, and he's spent a good deal of that life getting intermittently bled by it, too. Add on the non-negligible chance of diminishing capacity and it's likely any lawyer worth a damn would be trying real hard to prevent trump getting interviewed. 'Course, considering his lawyers it's still up in the air whether it happens or not, but eh.

[smjjames]

If that happens, then it's going to be very good for the Democrats going into the 2018 elections.

Wrong dichotomy - I don't want it to be good for "the Democrats" or "the Republicans." I want things to be good for the people.  I make no mistakes about assuming that is more likely with one party or the other.

Right now either party is good for some people and outright bad for others.

That's some straight up bullshit yo, fuck outta here with that, yes they are both shitty fucking choices, yes they both put up fucking awful alternatives to Trump which were still bad enough to lose to him somehow,

I feel more like the Democrats never gave themselves the chance to have a properly competitive primary because Clinton's influence/power/reputation/<insert word of choice> crowded out the field.

The Republicans had a bloody cagefight of a primary, the Democrat one was closer to a pillow fight. She barely had to compete against Sanders.

Obviously, going through a bloody primary can be a liability, but not going through one can be as well.

[SalmonGod]

So long as one of Oprah's rallies involves unleashing a horde of bees on a crowd, I'll consider it an improvement.

[Frumple]

It wouldn't get my vote on its own, but it would certainly help.

Hell, if we're still having trouble with bee extinction and the imminent ecological disaster that would follow it, there might even be room on the platform for the subject.

[MrRoboto75]

So long as one of Oprah's rallies involves unleashing a horde of bees on a crowd, I'll consider it an improvement.

Dr Bees 2020

[sluissa]

I have a hard time disliking Oprah herself based on her public persona, but her choice of colleagues, with Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil specifically, make me seriously question either her intelligence or her dedication to actually doing good for good sake rather than for the sake of lining her pockets.

I'm also against the office of president turning into a celebrity popularity show either, however inevitable that may be, I personally don't like it and I'd be against voting for anyone that came into the job with celebrity status beyond that which comes from doing well in a relevant field, such as politics or law.

[smjjames]

As I said before, while Oprah definetly has qualities that would make for a great diplomat, I'd really rather there be someone with actual political experience. Can you imagine the Democrats being unified on major legislation without the help of a President that is unable to lead them legislatively? They're unified now, yes, but they still have leadership problems and would be about as fractured as the Republicans are. The Republicans did get the tax stuff through, but that was purely from fear, anxiety, and desperation, not legislative help from Trump.

Though honestly, I think she could talk Kim Jong-Un into calming down and suspending his nuclear program, she has that kind of personality, charisma, and diplomacy.

I think Oprah would be much more capable of doing things than Trump, but she would be hitting the same learning curve that Trump is running into and one an otherwise seasoned politician wouldn't have as much of a problem with.

Besides, I'm pretty sure someone can still have knowledge of how to work things in Washington D.C. while still being an outsider.

[McTraveller]

I would *almost* support an amendment or something to the effect of "no famous people allowed" to run for President.  Because yeah, having it be a popularity contest of that nature is just... ugh.

I still maintain that the main problem is that there is some kind of fundamental limit to the maximum number of people that can reasonably be governed under a single organizational group.  It's probably a smallish number, too, like 10 million.  Maybe even smaller than that.

[smjjames]

You'd have to define famous here, famous in high school for x (x being a positive thing)? YouTube videos?

As much as we don't like it, it really is to a certain extent a popularity contest. Logically, in 2008, if experience and platform was the deciding factor, then Clinton would have won, but Obama won despite his low level of experience in comparison to Clinton.

[Karnewarrior]

The presidency has always been a popularity contest, it's just that we never really had nationwide celebrities before TV and radio, so it was difficult to run on platforms that didn't make sense. Abe Lincoln had to run on a platform with solid foundation because he would only qualify as a local celebrity now-adays, and as such few knew him outside of his home state and those who paid attention to politics (he was a senator or the like prior, yes?).

Now the fact that it's a popularity contest is biting us in the ass because there's easy ways for idiots to get famous for positive things. It's fine and I'm sure we'll come up with some societal fortification to stop it after some time has passed, as societies usually do, but for right now I am kind of concerned about my immediate living space, both in the three spatial dimensions and in the fourth temporal dimension. I'd like to get through college and have the capability to evacuate the country before it goes to shit. Being here when it hits the fan isn't good.

[sluissa]

As I said before, while Oprah definetly has qualities that would make for a great diplomat, I'd really rather there be someone with actual political experience. Can you imagine the Democrats being unified on major legislation without the help of a President that is unable to lead them legislatively? They're unified now, yes, but they still have leadership problems and would be about as fractured as the Republicans are. The Republicans did get the tax stuff through, but that was purely from fear, anxiety, and desperation, not legislative help from Trump.

Though honestly, I think she could talk Kim Jong-Un into calming down and suspending his nuclear program, she has that kind of personality, charisma, and diplomacy.

I think Oprah would be much more capable of doing things than Trump, but she would be hitting the same learning curve that Trump is running into and one an otherwise seasoned politician wouldn't have as much of a problem with.

Besides, I'm pretty sure someone can still have knowledge of how to work things in Washington D.C. while still being an outsider.

I don't disagree she's be better than Trump, but that's setting the bar VERY low.

https://jezebel.com/5766506/oprahs-long-history-of-sketchy-experts-and-endorsements

Not the most reliable source, but it at least lays out a pattern of poor judgement.

As for diplomacy, I think she's got the same sort of ego that Trump does. She's gotten unquestioning respect for so long she'll expect it from other world leaders... and she won't get it with no effort like she normally does. Maybe she can adapt to that, to at the very least not expect it, but I think she'll have difficulty figuring out how to deal with someone openly hostile to her. She can't just buy KJU a car and hug it out.

[Egan_BW]

She can't just buy KJU a car and hug it out.

I mean, has anyone tried?