The Swamp

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:56 pm All three major networks can if they wanted to show their standard programming on the flagships, and then shunt the gaslighting off to another property (NBC -> MSNBC, ABC -> ESPN8, CBS -> TBS or one of those channels) and just run a ticker saying to tune in there if they want. Anyone who is still only on over-the-air signals lives out in the sticks and support Trump anyway, it's not like they're going to lose them.

Yeah, I think the story here is that it sets a bad example to essentially give in to Trump's constant bullying of the media. If not for him screaming "fake news!" and "enemy of the people!" for three years, they probably don't carry the speech. It's a bad precedent and honestly just encourages him to continue doing it. By now, they should surely realize he's never going to reflect upon his actions and determine he was unfair.

Here's why there's even an announcement today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/p ... imnik.html

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:19 pm Here's why there's even an announcement today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/p ... imnik.html

Worse, Natalya Veselnitskaya indicted for obstruction of justice as a Russian agent. She represented a Russian company in 2013 on a money laundering claim, and lied to the court, and helped prepare documents submitted by the Russian government while representing the company.

Veselnitskaya is the Russian attorney at the center of the Trump Tower meeting. Indicting her as a Russian government agent, I would think, is a huge chip in showing the Trump campaign team conspired with Russian agents to affect the election. It was known that an indictment tied to the Mueller investigation was going to be announced today concerning a foreign company and a foreign government refusing to comply with subpoenas, so Trump's people may have known and timed this. Or he is a batshit crazy narcissist throwing a toddler tantrum because he wants a fucking wall.

This is about the size of the shitshow set to air in a couple hours.

So it's a classic fear-mongering move.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:04 pm So it's a classic fear-mongering move.

I refused to watch. What did he do?

This about covers it:

Sigh. Fuck the networks for giving this air.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:16 pm SNIFFFFFFFF

Heh. Watching on my new 4K 65 inch screen and the camera way too close to Trump's face, it was seriously disturbing. He looks really sickly, I just kept thinking he was going to have a stroke while he struggled to read a speech written at a 3rd grade level. He made "Low Energy" Jeb seem like a speed freak tweaking out. Sooooo, soooooo saaaad.

My takeaway, I'm thrilled he didn't declare a national emergency or do anything crazy. He actually toned down some of the lies his team were publicly humiliated on. Pretty disgusting how he named the victims and in detail described the brutal killings by 3 illegal immigrants to show how we are all going to be murdered by bloodthirsty MS-13 gang members who are crossing the border today as infants, but are really killers in wait. He told some lies, pinned the shutdown on the Dems who want to shut the government down because they don't want border security, like more agents, more beds and judges (all things Dems voted for and Republicans voted against).

Best line of the night, he will build a steel wall, because the Dems want steel and not concrete, so he made the biggest concession. That was bizarre, but fuck it, he can say anything and his assholes will believe it.

The ratio and dunking on this all-time terrible AP tweet is fun:

There was college basketball on last night, just sayin'

I'm still partial to collusion:

Collusion, cooperation, conspiracy ... commingling, cordiality, camaraderie, courtesy ... nothing to see.

Yeah, so... You guys were very right about airing that bullshit last night.

I listened to a special episode of Lovett or Leave It this morning, which is the only way I would've consented to listening to that asshole.

What a bunch of cowards the networks are.

Frum mostly sucks, but this is a pretty good synopsis of where we are and where the nation stands I think. I still somehow keep expecting the Democrats to fuck it up, but it doesn't appear like that's gonna happen.

I've always assumed that if/when he's completely trapped, that's when the worst will happen.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:55 am I've always assumed that if/when he's completely trapped, that's when the worst will happen.

I think his out is this "national emergency" bullshit. He'll dangle that over everyone's head, but Congress will re-open government without the wall funding, possibly as soon as Thursday and Trump will declare victory because he'll maintain the right to do whatever he wants whenever he wants and his moron base will eat it up.

He's just pissed that Chuck and Nancy had better ratings yesterday.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:45 am Frum mostly sucks, but this is a pretty good synopsis of where we are and where the nation stands I think. I still somehow keep expecting the Democrats to fuck it up, but it doesn't appear like that's gonna happen.

I totally agree that Trump just wants to win. He doesn't want to actually resolve the border other than closing it.

However, I don't buy Frum's claim that the solution on the border is to simply put more asylum agents on the border. If you were to process applicants faster, you let the ones you accept in but then where do you do about the ones you reject? Put them on a plane back to Country X? Leave them in Mexico and let them deal with it? Mexico will then put them on a plane back to Country X? Is this a suitable solution or will it still be deemed as inhumane as families show up at the border and kids die because they were rejected. I'm not sure the US really wants to process these claims definitively yes or no. Catch and release is a lot easier.

You will see suicides before getting on a plane to go back to Country X. Is the US (and media) ok with wiping their hands clean once they're rejected a family?

I don't think you're wrong, but that's a little simplistic for what is admittedly a very complex problem.

My personal opinion would be that we should let most of the asylum-seekers from Central America in, but that will still require background checks to check for criminal records in their native country and that's still gonna take time, but having more judges at the border is an obvious immediate part of the solution. The ones who are rejected at that point it's probably going to be either for a past criminal record or some other checkered past and whatever they do or how they feel after they're send back to wherever is not our problem. But I suspect about 95 percent of those seeking asylum are legitimately trying to escape the narco-gangs.

We have been sending people back to their country of origin as a matter of policy for many years. Obama fairly successfully cut down on C.A. immigrants coming over the border back in 2014/15(?) when they increased the amount of personnel to process these folks.

This isn't a new idea, by any stretch. It is pragmatic and doesn't play well on Fox. So Trump hates it.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:08 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:45 am Frum mostly sucks, but this is a pretty good synopsis of where we are and where the nation stands I think. I still somehow keep expecting the Democrats to fuck it up, but it doesn't appear like that's gonna happen.

I totally agree that Trump just wants to win. He doesn't want to actually resolve the border other than closing it.

However, I don't buy Frum's claim that the solution on the border is to simply put more asylum agents on the border. If you were to process applicants faster, you let the ones you accept in but then where do you do about the ones you reject? Put them on a plane back to Country X? Leave them in Mexico and let them deal with it? Mexico will then put them on a plane back to Country X? Is this a suitable solution or will it still be deemed as inhumane as families show up at the border and kids die because they were rejected. I'm not sure the US really wants to process these claims definitively yes or no. Catch and release is a lot easier.

You will see suicides before getting on a plane to go back to Country X. Is the US (and media) ok with wiping their hands clean once they're rejected a family?

But the US (and other countries) have been rejecting asylum applications for years. Some applications are approved, some (most) are not. As I understand it, recently people have been allowed to live in the US while their application is reviewed. If it is denied, they have to leave or are subject to deportation.

EDIT: What nonlinear said.

Being allowed to live in the US while being reviewed and then being deported will be the problem. Going to be some sob stories.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:08 pm Being allowed to live in the US while being reviewed and then being deported will be the problem. Going to be some sob stories.

That's unfortunate of course, but it's still 100x more humane than what's going on now.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:08 pm Being allowed to live in the US while being reviewed and then being deported will be the problem. Going to be some sob stories.

That's unfortunate of course, but it's still 100x more humane than what's going on now.

That would be a compromise for Democrats. They couldn't run on what Frum is proposing.

And the Republicans aren't going to budge no matter how pretend moderate they sound.

Is wall for dreamers still on the table?

Would/should Democrats take that?

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:39 pm Is wall for dreamers still on the table?

Would/should Democrats take that?

At this point no. That might be have been proffered but the Democrats are negotiating from such a position of power now that would be stupid. Also I doubt Trump would accept that anyway because he would look weak then too to his base. Once you’ve gone all-in on racism you can’t take your chips back.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:19 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:39 pm Is wall for dreamers still on the table?

Would/should Democrats take that?

At this point no. That might be have been proffered but the Democrats are negotiating from such a position of power now that would be stupid. Also I doubt Trump would accept that anyway because he would look weak then too to his base. Once you’ve gone all-in on racism you can’t take your chips back.

Also, the Democratic position in immigration has gotten a lot more liberal lately. As recently as 2006, Schumer, Clinton, Obama and Biden all voted in favor of a 700-mile border fence. But it’s pretty hard to imagine any Democrat with national ambitions casting such a vote now.

You don’t trade anything for a motherfucking wall just like you wouldn’t trade anything for the reimplementation of slavery in the south.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:39 pm You don’t trade anything for a motherfucking wall just like you wouldn’t trade anything for the reimplementation of slavery in the south.

Yeah, this would seem to be a defining issue for the Democrats. They can turn the words "The Wall" into shorthand for racism and injustice in all of its forms, and it's a winner on the campaign trail. Plus "The Wall" is an avatar for this particular administration's abuse of the common (government) worker as well.

They simply can not back down on this issue.

I'm glad you all feel this way. I've read a few opinion pieces today that the Democrats should pay Trumps ransom and it's pretty sad.

I need a burner swamp account.

degen you ignorant slut

AB_skin__test wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:42 am degen you ignorant slut

That’s not the reason at all!

This is bizarre...

And it's not fake (Snopes checked it out)

U2 was showing those clips at their concerts

More bizarre silliness:

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:25 am This is bizarre...

And it's not fake (Snopes checked it out)

Holy shit, how have I never seen this before! It's amazing! Funny reading the replies joking that this is proof of time travelers, and how if time travelers existed, they would become TV/movie writers. I love that theory, and someone needs to create a show around that idea. Maybe a time traveler will.

Them someone ruined the fun by pointing out that Fred Trump was in his prime when this show aired, and maybe it's not a coincidence, as Woody Guthrie wrote a song bashing "Old Man Trump" in the 1950s, and they recently found a Guthrie poem about Fred Trump stirring up racial tensions. Also, the actor playing Walter Trump looks a lot like Fred Trump: