Print

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

[hector13]

Just the shorthand for taking drugs and then posting stupid shit on Twitter.

[Max™]

Yanno, that's one of those things where instead of the usual sort of seething disgust or urge to maim which I get when I think about the big orange turd too long, I can't help but find the idea that he's not on any drugs at all just creepy.

Like, I get the teetotaller thing, watch a family member dive into a bottle and drown and you might develop an aversion to it, and it isn't like booze really hits any of the fun buttons, it just turns down the concern and control knobs, tends to lead to... interesting discoveries the next day (gosh, why are my palms all cut up... was I really vaulting barbed wire fences to get away from cops after skinny dipping at the high school pool last night? fuck, glad drunk me is just as good at getting over fences as sober me, wish he would check for obvious consquences more often though) so hey, I get it, it's a thing of absolute last resort if I'm miserable and can't get to sleep or something if that.

Really the best use of booze is either mixing some merlot into a beef stew recipe and serving it over mashed potatoes or rice... alternatively next time you go to make some hamburgers, cook up some onions in some beer, and mix beer into the beef before you patty them up, fuckers are goddamn lustfully delicious, decadent, like you savour every last bite and see the bill claiming you just finished a $20 burger and you're like 'aight, making sure I get every last onion off my elbows then' cause FUCK THEY ARE SO GOOD.

Where was I, oh yeah, booze I got no use for outside of food, but other drugs? Come on, there are so many fun buttons in your brain to play with, even ones without nasty fucked up side effects!

[sluissa]

That said, I think Trump has done a pretty good job discrediting Mueller among his base, and it's still going to be the job of the opposition to put up a viable candidate(or, arguably, Republicans to run against their own incumbent. I'd like to see that, honestly, but wouldn't bet on it.), but impeachment just ain't happening in the next 2 years.

His removal from office is probably unlikely, but I think the House has painted itself into a corner on impeachment itself; not only do they have the votes to impeach him, they've also run on promises to reassert their oversight powers. For impeachment not to happen, either none of the 85+ investigations the House plans to launch discovers any impeachable conduct on Trump's part or the House decides to abrogate its constitutional responsibility at considerable political cost. Some 80% of Democrats want Trump impeached, and Pelosi is reacting mostly by deferring judgement until the facts come out.

Plus which, there's some utility in bringing charges before the Senate even if they're unlikely to convict; it throws into sharp contrast every individual Republican senator's willingness to ignore Trump's various offenses and the timing's likely to facilitate their opponents campaigning on that. Trump's base isn't big enough for going full-on sycophant to be a winning strategy for the GOP nationally.

EDIT to avoid double-posting: Lindsey Graham is sad because Trump won't accept anything but complete capitulation on the Wall, even from the Senate GOP.

On the other hand though, if they pull the impeachment hearing, and then the senate doesn't actually remove him from office, it sort of legitimizes his actions as well. It would also make a second attempt even more difficult. I think there's plenty of reason to not actually go through with it unless you feel like you're going to win.

I do think if he manages re-election in 2020, that all gets thrown out the window. But I think the best political strategy at the moment for democrats is just to delay until 2020. Let him keep digging his own grave. Let's not forget either, Pence is second in line. Unless you can take down Pence with him somehow, there's almost no point, and he has, at least from all currently visible angles, kept himself squeaky clean.

[Kagus]

Yanno, that's one of those things where instead of the usual sort of seething disgust or urge to maim which I get when I think about the big orange turd too long, I can't help but find the idea that he's not on any drugs at all just creepy.

She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie...

Rogaine.

[smjjames]

That said, I think Trump has done a pretty good job discrediting Mueller among his base, and it's still going to be the job of the opposition to put up a viable candidate(or, arguably, Republicans to run against their own incumbent. I'd like to see that, honestly, but wouldn't bet on it.), but impeachment just ain't happening in the next 2 years.

His removal from office is probably unlikely, but I think the House has painted itself into a corner on impeachment itself; not only do they have the votes to impeach him, they've also run on promises to reassert their oversight powers. For impeachment not to happen, either none of the 85+ investigations the House plans to launch discovers any impeachable conduct on Trump's part or the House decides to abrogate its constitutional responsibility at considerable political cost. Some 80% of Democrats want Trump impeached, and Pelosi is reacting mostly by deferring judgement until the facts come out.

Plus which, there's some utility in bringing charges before the Senate even if they're unlikely to convict; it throws into sharp contrast every individual Republican senator's willingness to ignore Trump's various offenses and the timing's likely to facilitate their opponents campaigning on that. Trump's base isn't big enough for going full-on sycophant to be a winning strategy for the GOP nationally.

EDIT to avoid double-posting: Lindsey Graham is sad because Trump won't accept anything but complete capitulation on the Wall, even from the Senate GOP.

On the other hand though, if they pull the impeachment hearing, and then the senate doesn't actually remove him from office, it sort of legitimizes his actions as well. It would also make a second attempt even more difficult. I think there's plenty of reason to not actually go through with it unless you feel like you're going to win.

Theres also the fact that a completely partisan impeachment attempt won't work, at least not easily, see Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. They're going to have to somehow convince at least 12 Republican Senators that Trump is bad enough to be impeached, and right now they're all but letting Trump literally walk all over them.

I do think if he manages re-election in 2020, that all gets thrown out the window. But I think the best political strategy at the moment for democrats is just to delay until 2020. Let him keep digging his own grave. Let's not forget either, Pence is second in line. Unless you can take down Pence with him somehow, there's almost no point, and he has, at least from all currently visible angles, kept himself squeaky clean.

Not to start some conspiracy theory, but it seems like he's a little too squeaky clean. Sure, some of it is explained by him not even being there for the portions that seem to have been the most critical, but he was involved in the transition. It just seems like either too many coincidences or some sort of due diligence on Pences part or other peoples part to isolate Pence from the shady going ons.

[Lord Shonus]

It could just as easily be "Pence was never more than a traditional Republican to balance the ticket, and was treated like a pitcher of warm spit during the campaign and transition".

[smjjames]

I thought he had headed the transition though? After Christie got booted out anyway. Just how involved he actually was during the transition though, no idea.

[Trekkin]

On the other hand though, if they pull the impeachment hearing, and then the senate doesn't actually remove him from office, it sort of legitimizes his actions as well. It would also make a second attempt even more difficult. I think there's plenty of reason to not actually go through with it unless you feel like you're going to win.

I do think if he manages re-election in 2020, that all gets thrown out the window. But I think the best political strategy at the moment for democrats is just to delay until 2020. Let him keep digging his own grave. Let's not forget either, Pence is second in line. Unless you can take down Pence with him somehow, there's almost no point, and he has, at least from all currently visible angles, kept himself squeaky clean.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom -- and with good reason, given the fallout from Clinton's impeachment. In general I'd agree with it, but here's why I think this case is different:

1. Clinton's impeachment had but four articles (two of which failed in the House), all related to the much-publicized Lewinsky affair. There's much less risk of a comprehensive list of Trump's impeachable conduct being entirely old news. If nothing else, articles of impeachment are an opportunity to lay out a concise list of Trump's wrongdoing; between the slow burn of the Mueller investigation, the incoming Democratic subpoena storm, and the welter of lawsuits against Trump and related entities, it's easily possible that only a relatively small fraction of the country is actually aware even of everything that's already been publicly alleged. 

2. Related to that, there could very well be entirely new information not known to the public at all. This is more important if Mueller's report is never made public, but this is probably the best way to get everything Trump-related into public view without actually making any potentially improper disclosures themselves because...

3. Trump will melt down. He will panic/rage-tweet continuously from the announcement of the impeachment process until he is physically incapable of doing so -- and with no discipline, no concept of classified information and no respect for the advice of counsel, he will declassify and unseal everything at all related if only to accuse the Democrats of doing everything he's charged with. He's so much a Roy Cohn disciple that he'll be locked in an endless cycle of terror at the prospect of revealing how terrified he is, and any competent reporter can both see that feedback loop and pick it apart into an endless series of very informative breakdowns -- and he's such a publicity addict that he won't even be able to hide from the media once he loses his mind.

So even if the Senate just perfunctorily clears him, it'll still captivate the nation, provide a concise narrative, and destroy his ability to emit a complete sentence, let alone do the most basic parts of his job (those being the only parts he has ever done). We can expect him to rapidly destroy any legitimacy an acquittal would provide, and it's even plausible that a second attempt wouldn't be needed; either he stays, permanently freaked out and without even a veneer of usefulness, or they pry him out via the 25th Amendment and replace him with a man driven by politically unworkable levels of zeal, one who could theoretically govern despite no one in Washington liking him but who would deal with the fractures in the GOP left by Trump's removal from office by creating the Republic of Gilead Party out of whatever faction got the evangelicals. Either way, the whole party's significantly wrecked.

[smjjames]

@Trekkin: On #2, theres that revelation from the redaction goof-up just this week. I don't know if that was directly from Muellers team or not, but it certainly reveals that there is much Mueller knows that the public at large doesn't.

Also, the Democrats have said that they'd make every effort to make the report public, and IMO, it should be leaked if it's prevented from being released.

[Trekkin]

@Trekkin: On #2, theres that revelation from the redaction goof-up just this week. I don't know if that was directly from Muellers team or not, but it certainly reveals that there is much Mueller knows that the public at large doesn't.

Also, the Democrats have said that they'd make every effort to make the report public, and IMO, it should be leaked if it's prevented from being released.

I would agree, which is why I think it's worthwhile to try and goad Trump into leaking it. If we make the assumption that something in Mueller's report or the concurrent investigations at least strongly suggests malfeasance on Trump's part, we can expect his defenders to react the same way they have in the past: "The real problem is not these unproven allegations, but rather the traitor/anonymous coward who violated the law and broke with our most sacred traditions and shamed the country and compromised national security (etc.) by leaking it." Giuliani asserts the well is poisoned, Don Jr. tweets something smug asking when the Democrats will investigate the real threat to the nation, Sarah Huckabee Sanders shames the media for reporting the news, Brad Parscale says accusations of treason are an hors d'oeuvre best served in the late afternoon on a bed of carrot foam, Kellyanne Conway calls Jim Acosta a big fat meanypants with no friends, and they collectively try to run out the clock.

If Trump does it, though, they can't complain about it. They can't say these are unsubstantiated rumours when it's the President alleging them, and he of course has the (imagined) absolute right to do whatever he wants, so there goes the moral high ground. It becomes vastly easier to force them to cede control of the narrative.

[Folly]

88 days ago, Jayme Closs's parents were both murdered and she went missing. This morning, she stumbled back into her home town, malnourished, disheveled, and confused.
The town Sheriff and Mayor immediately called a press conference so that they could jack each other off over how the girl's return was entirely because of them, and the power of their prayers. Godsdamn religious people are stupid. I mean, I assume some of them are not completely self-centered and delusional, but a lot of them are just unbelievably stupid.

[smjjames]

They only remember the times when it worked, not all the times it didn't work.

Anyways, WSJ (The Hill article though as the WSJ one is paywalled) and Republicans are worried about the precedent that doing a National Emergency to get around congress is going to set and that Democrats could take advantage of it by doing a national emergency on climate change or something. While I think they're hyperventillating somewhat, they do have a point about setting precedent.

Speaking of setting precedents... if the Republicans are so worried about this one, maybe they should have thought twice about some of the recent precedents that they've made, which kind of set things up for this to happen.

[PTTG??]

That's a great idea! A national emergency is, if anything, an understatement of Global Warming, so I think that's fair.

This just in, an old man who isn't in the Democratic party says that a popular young democrat isn't the future of the democratic party.

[Reelya]

Man, this shutdown is the bomb.

TLS certificates not renewed, so websites are starting to go offline.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/government-shutdown-tls-certificates-not-renewed-many-websites-are-down/

More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public.
More security news

NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted

...

Websites with expired certificates where admins followed proper procedures and implemented correctly-functioning HSTS (HTTP Strict Transport Security) policies are down for good, and users can't access these portals, not even to browse for basic information.

Government websites with expired TLS certificates but which didn't implement HSTS show an HTTPS error in users' browsers, but this error can be bypassed to access the site via HTTP.

Nevertheless, visitors are warned not to log in or perform any sensitive operations on these sites, as traffic and authentication credentials aren't encrypted and could be intercepted by threat actors.

Visiting and browsing content is fine, but users should also be aware that all websites will not be actively managed and there won't be employees on hand to process requests or update sites with the latest correct information.

The current government shutdown has been a disaster on the cybersecurity front so far. Experts from multiple cyber-security firms have warned that this would be the perfect time for hostile countries to carry out cyber-attacks against the US government, as agencies are understaffed and IT infrastructure is left largely unattended.

SEC out of commission, ruining what was supposed to be a big year for corporations with IPOs. While people might scoff and say screw wall street, it's mainly young and lean start-ups who are hurt by this, as larger companies planning IPOs have the cash to wait it out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/government-shutdown-could-ruin-big-year-for-ipos--.html

[Trekkin]

That's a great idea! A national emergency is, if anything, an understatement of Global Warming, so I think that's fair.

And will it still be fair when the next president unilaterally declares the emergency over and reallocates those funds to the Wall 2.0 or something equally asinine? Will it continue to be fair when Congress reasserts its power of the purse and the bureaucracy bloats under the weight of increasingly specifically appropriated funding, cutting back on needed services? Will you still think it's a great idea when it becomes funded purely at the pleasure of those presently in power?

The most extraordinary exceptions to governmental processes are also the most ephemeral. Don't be so quick to advocate for taking the most extreme measures you know to override everyone else's priorities; once they do it to you and it becomes normal, the resilience lost is not easily regained.