You know, we in the Swamp spend a lot of time wringing our hands, asking ourselves "How can there be so many people so stupid as to support Trump?" It isn't just racism, or his support of guns and opposition to abortion (although those are also key factors). I think another thing is just the fact that he spews out lies, his supporters spew out lies, and the public laps it up, uncritically.
As example, this meme was posted on FB by a guy I went to high school with. I unfollowed him long ago, but got a notice that today is his birthday, so I took a look at his FB page and found the meme. I don't know all the exact facts, but i do know that Trump inherited an economy on the upswing, while Obama came in having to repair an economy that was savaged in 2008, which explains the GDP, job creation and unemployment numbers (assuming they are even close to correct!) Using first year stats cherry-picks the data. And, I'm fairly certain that the job approval and deficit numbers are inaccurate.
sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:45 pm
He thinks people write checks to pay for groceries.
And look, the media has already forgotten his embarrassing shitshow in France.
The problem is, how do you adequately cover this shitshow of a Presidency? If you continue talking about yesterday's scandal, you miss today's. You can't ignore his blatant lies, but covering them takes away from covering a bigger scandal. Slow-moving horrors like the destruction of the EPA is immensely important, but how do you keep that in the news when there is new shit every day?
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:45 pm
He thinks people write checks to pay for groceries.
And look, the media has already forgotten his embarrassing shitshow in France.
The problem is, how do you adequately cover this shitshow of a Presidency? If you continue talking about yesterday's scandal, you miss today's. You can't ignore his blatant lies, but covering them takes away from covering a bigger scandal. Slow-moving horrors like the destruction of the EPA is immensely important, but how do you keep that in the news when there is new shit every day?
Trump is the living embodiment of the 'Gish Gallop" technique.
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:45 pm
He thinks people write checks to pay for groceries.
And look, the media has already forgotten his embarrassing shitshow in France.
The problem is, how do you adequately cover this shitshow of a Presidency? If you continue talking about yesterday's scandal, you miss today's. You can't ignore his blatant lies, but covering them takes away from covering a bigger scandal. Slow-moving horrors like the destruction of the EPA is immensely important, but how do you keep that in the news when there is new shit every day?
I think, had the media established while Trump was still a candidate that statements were lies or racist, using those words, we would hopefully be in a different spot.
Not racially-tinged. Not misleading. Not untrue. Not inflammatory.
Use the actual words.
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:45 pm
He thinks people write checks to pay for groceries.
And look, the media has already forgotten his embarrassing shitshow in France.
The problem is, how do you adequately cover this shitshow of a Presidency? If you continue talking about yesterday's scandal, you miss today's. You can't ignore his blatant lies, but covering them takes away from covering a bigger scandal. Slow-moving horrors like the destruction of the EPA is immensely important, but how do you keep that in the news when there is new shit every day?
Trump is the living embodiment of the 'Gish Gallop" technique.
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.[3][4] In practice, each point raised by the "Gish galloper" takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved[6] or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
Holy shit.
Gish Gallop is going to need a lot more run. Let's start making this happen.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
We can't make this happen in part because we don't have a public platform to even begin the campaign which includes this website which is blocked behind a paywall to anyone who isn't registered and beyond that under the Geneva (Sweden) Convention it would be slander to post about the president being a racist if he himself hasn't acknowledged himself to be a racist atleast three (3) times and even if it weren't the word Gish cannot be used to explain the technique as it was already trademarked by Smashing Pumpkins' back in 2010 when they released the album Gish to little critical acclaim partially due to their lead singer Eddie Vedder's involvement in the murder of Kurt Cobain and later also his widow Kristen Pfaff.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:35 am
We can't make this happen in part because we don't have a public platform to even begin the campaign which includes this website which is blocked behind a paywall to anyone who isn't registered and beyond that under the Geneva (Sweden) Convention it would be slander to post about the president being a racist if he himself hasn't acknowledged himself to be a racist atleast three (3) times and even if it weren't the word Gish cannot be used to explain the technique as it was already trademarked by Smashing Pumpkins' back in 2010 when they released the album Gish to little critical acclaim partially due to their lead singer Eddie Vedder's involvement in the murder of Kurt Cobain and later also his widow Kristen Pfaff.
Even knowing the obvious joke here, this set off some sort of OCD trigger and I need to punch someone.
To make it more GOP/Conservative relevant, need to throw in a George Soros conspiracy.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
If the hyper-competent crew from the botched Mueller story a couple of weeks ago really is behind the Avenatti arrest, then there's a non-0% chance he's being setup.
rass wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:36 pm
If the hyper-competent crew from the botched Mueller story a couple of weeks ago really is behind the Avenatti arrest, then there's a non-0% chance he's being setup.
Its certainly possible and, if that's the case, the real trap might be for people on the left to knee-jerk defend Avenatti when they automatically believe anyone accusing a conservative.
(I could go either way. Avenatti is slimy in some form, just don't know which.)
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:46 pm
Its certainly possible and, if that's the case, the real trap might be for people on the left to knee-jerk defend Avenatti when they automatically believe anyone accusing a conservative.
That was absolutely the ploy with Mueller, and it 100% would have worked had their story not fallen apart after a couple minutes of scrutiny.
Avenatti would to me be the perfect guy to take down Trump. Trump is a pig, and the best person to fight a pig in the mud is a bigger wild boar. Trump isn't smart or sophisticated enough to be taken down with reason. That's one reason I roll my eyes with the whole "when they go low, we go high" strategy. It worked great for Senator John Fox, right?
A comparison here that just came to me was the movie Shane. Jack Palance's black hat couldn't have been taken down by that kid's dad because the dad was too principled. Only another gunfighter who lived in the mud like Shane could've taken him down.
(A fantastic movie to add to your list, btw. Sorry for spoiling a 60 year old movie).
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
I'd kind of held off reading the "this is a list of all the stuff Dems are going to investigate" stories for a bit. I'm going through a few of them now, and... Holy shit is this administration fucked.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:46 pm
Its certainly possible and, if that's the case, the real trap might be for people on the left to knee-jerk defend Avenatti when they automatically believe anyone accusing a conservative.
(I could go either way. Avenatti is slimy in some form, just don't know which.)
Oh, he’s definitely slimy. It’s been established in court that he was living a lavish lifestyle and taking fancy vacations at the same time he owed a ton of money to former employees.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:46 pm
Its certainly possible and, if that's the case, the real trap might be for people on the left to knee-jerk defend Avenatti when they automatically believe anyone accusing a conservative.
(I could go either way. Avenatti is slimy in some form, just don't know which.)
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Avenatti was guilty of... well, anything. OTOH, that James O'Keefe asshat is still a free man, so anything is possible. Totally agree with LJam, that it will take slopping around in the mud with Trump in order to beat him, and I love seeing someone play Trump's game against him. I'm fairly confident that most Dems/Liberals won't anoint Avennati as a savior or vote for him even if he single handedly destroyed Trump.
Last night I realized a close friend went to law school with Avenatti. Doubt he knew him, but I need to ask.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:49 pm
No, I agree he's the right type to engage, I just think he needs to be treated as a mercenary versus someone to be at all invested in.
100%, and I hope almost everyone agrees. Hitching our wagon to that POS is an ugly prospect that I hope Liberals are smart enough to grasp.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Same. He's fine trolling Trump from a (metaphorical) courtroom or a press conference. Anyone who seriously thinks this guy should be president of the United States is as dumb as any Trump supporter.
I'll keep defending Pelosi and I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it would be worth having her as Speaker even if only for how much the right absolutely hates her.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:22 pm
The right would also hate and oppose someone more progressive but with the added bonus they'd be more progressive.
They'd still have wrangle the entire caucus no matter how progressive they are. You don't get bonus points on floor votes because of how progressive the Speaker is.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:22 pm
The right would also hate and oppose someone more progressive but with the added bonus they'd be more progressive.
Sure.
Those fucking corporate centrists, with their voting against the Iraq War, saving Social Security, pushing through the greatest expansion of the welfare state in a generation (while everyone was freaking out about town halls and the loss of the Mass Senate seat), getting a climate change bill through a House dominated by Blue Dogs, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, regulating banks, and raising taxes on the rich.
Pelosi is in the leftward one-fourth of the Democratic caucus, and she is taking major heat from a bunch of centrist white guys saying they won't vote for her because she is too liberal and reflects San Francisco values (like the guy who may have beaten Mia Love in Utah). But those guys are going to be whipped into line by someone more progressive?
Who is going to be a better speaker than Pelosi? And what is the evidence they will be a better speaker than Pelosi?
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:00 pm
Avenatti would to me be the perfect guy to take down Trump. Trump is a pig, and the best person to fight a pig in the mud is a bigger wild boar. Trump isn't smart or sophisticated enough to be taken down with reason. That's one reason I roll my eyes with the whole "when they go low, we go high" strategy. It worked great for Senator John Fox, right?
A comparison here that just came to me was the movie Shane. Jack Palance's black hat couldn't have been taken down by that kid's dad because the dad was too principled. Only another gunfighter who lived in the mud like Shane could've taken him down.
(A fantastic movie to add to your list, btw. Sorry for spoiling a 60 year old movie).
Would Biden be enough of an attack dog? I cant see any of the other candidates being one.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:00 pm
Avenatti would to me be the perfect guy to take down Trump. Trump is a pig, and the best person to fight a pig in the mud is a bigger wild boar. Trump isn't smart or sophisticated enough to be taken down with reason. That's one reason I roll my eyes with the whole "when they go low, we go high" strategy. It worked great for Senator John Fox, right?
A comparison here that just came to me was the movie Shane. Jack Palance's black hat couldn't have been taken down by that kid's dad because the dad was too principled. Only another gunfighter who lived in the mud like Shane could've taken him down.
(A fantastic movie to add to your list, btw. Sorry for spoiling a 60 year old movie).
Would Biden be enough of an attack dog? I cant see any of the other candidates being one.
I don’t buy the notion that the nominee needs to be an “attack dog.” The more important strategic question is: will he or she be strong in the specific swing states the Dems need to win the Electoral College. The Electoral College currently gives the GOP,a significant built-in structural advantage, as we saw in 2016. And I think the midterms reaffirmed that there are still only a handful of states likely to be truly up for grabs in 2020. Of those states, the three that are absolutely vital to the Dems are Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Win those three, and I’m almost certain you win the election, the way Virginia and Nevada have been turning blue. Jennifer Granholm and Sherrod Brown should consider running for this reason alone.
Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:46 pmWho is going to be a better speaker than Pelosi? And what is the evidence they will be a better speaker than Pelosi?
Isn't this just the political equivalent of "which coach would do better with this roster and also somehow prove it" when you're sitting outside the playoffs but hypothetically could be worse? I can't fathom, after the election we just saw and the candidates who just won or nearly won, thinking a legacy Dem with a net worth well into eight figures who was part of the leadership that lost to Donald Fucking Trump is worth taking another trip with. That's Biden 2020 logic.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:10 pm
Eh. Sherrod Brown just walked and he's not a Manchin Dem.
Brown is still doing well in Ohio because he’s a small town guy with close ties to organized labor. I think that brand plays a lot better in places like Ohio or Missouri than the national Democratic brand, which is dominated by big-city natives who are more comfortable hanging around Wall Street or Silicon Valley than in a union hall.
