The Swamp

Blaming Hillary ad nauseam for Trump winning merely absolves the 65 million people who -- you know -- actually voted for the "weakest candidate in history".

Regardless of how much you love Bernie there was an easy choice to make last November but there's a lot of racists and idiots and celebrity worshipers and people who just want to watch the world burn. I don't know how you can fight that but I do know that re-litigating the fucking election every fucking post doesn't help at this point.

I find it laughable that the supposed answer to running a flawed candidate last election is to somehow SUPPORT more flawed politicians who apparently have no respect for women in some race to the bottom I guess, proving that...what? We can support assholes too?

Fuck that. And fuck anyone who thinks it.

EnochRoot wrote:

mister d wrote:Gingrich isn't lobbying for Franken to be nice or even to cover his own ass. He knows this is a massive open door.

No doubt about that.

Here's John Ziegler bemoaning journalism's role in all of this.

That article was BEFORE a half-dozen more women came forward, you know.

brian wrote:

EnochRoot wrote:

mister d wrote:Gingrich isn't lobbying for Franken to be nice or even to cover his own ass. He knows this is a massive open door.

No doubt about that.

Here's John Ziegler bemoaning journalism's role in all of this.

That article was BEFORE a half-dozen more women came forward, you know.

Also, John Ziegler is literally a Jerry Sandusky truther. He's one of the last people whose opinion I'd value on sexual harassment or assault issues. It was bad enough when the football media was promoting Ziegler's Mediaite column to defend Schiano, but this is just surreal.

Joe K wrote:

brian wrote:

EnochRoot wrote:

mister d wrote:Gingrich isn't lobbying for Franken to be nice or even to cover his own ass. He knows this is a massive open door.

No doubt about that.

Here's John Ziegler bemoaning journalism's role in all of this.

That article was BEFORE a half-dozen more women came forward, you know.

Also, John Ziegler is literally a Jerry Sandusky truther. He's one of the last people whose opinion I'd value on sexual harassment or assault issues. It was bad enough when the football media was promoting Ziegler's Mediaite column to defend Schiano, but this is just surreal.

I wasn't aware of Ziegler's championing of Sandusky.

Also, blaming journalism for this is likely blaming firefighters for your house catching on fire after they rushed to the scene to try and put it out.

Journalism as an institution is not unassailable, but you're tilting at the wrong windmill if you somehow think journalism is a net negative in trying to resolve the issues we face in this country.

Who gives a shit about Newt. Don't fall for the bait.

brian wrote:Blaming Hillary ad nauseam for Trump winning merely absolves the 65 million people who -- you know -- actually voted for the "weakest candidate in history".

Regardless of how much you love Bernie there was an easy choice to make last November but there's a lot of racists and idiots and celebrity worshipers and people who just want to watch the world burn. I don't know how you can fight that but I do know that re-litigating the fucking election every fucking post doesn't help at this point.

I find it laughable that the supposed answer to running a flawed candidate last election is to somehow SUPPORT more flawed politicians who apparently have no respect for women in some race to the bottom I guess, proving that...what? We can support assholes too?

Fuck that. And fuck anyone who thinks it.

Almost as laughable as getting played to perfection. Enjoy your handwringing. See where that gets you.

I'm not a BernieBro, or whatever you want to call it. Though I did join the Democrat party in order to vote for him in the primaries here in MD. Prior to that, I'd been an Independent since 1988. I'll probably slide back over to the undecideds. The Ds are myopic to the point of annoying. Cowards for not standing up for their own.

The ONLY answer is for Franken to go back to Minnesota and hold Town Halls to ascertain his future.

Right, because you want those who love him the most to make a decision with nationwide ramifications. Because you haven't learned anything from what's going on in Alabama.

degenerasian wrote:Who gives a shit about Newt. Don't fall for the bait.

Explain the bait.

The problem with these discussions and with politics in general is that some people -- hell, most people -- have trouble seeing things in shades of gray.

So the first time Obama compromises a little or drags his feet on campaign promise X, he's a sellout and a traitor to progressives, etc., etc.,

I'm not interested in tossing every Democrat overboard who gets a ticket for jaywalking, but ultimately if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. I'd rather be able to look at myself in the mirror than feel queasy about supporting someone who doesn't deserve my support. If that makes me weak in your eyes, Enoch then I can live with that, because I'd rather be that than a cynical asshole like you.

mister d wrote:Right, because you want those who love him the most to make a decision with nationwide ramifications. Because you haven't learned anything from what's going on in Alabama.

Yeah, his voters will rally around him, just like sports fans will give their star a standing ovation after he's been accused of domestic violence. That isn't exactly helpful.

The thing about having Franken resign is that the Dems are *not* giving up anything to the Republicans. Because Franken will be replaced by another Democrat.

Dems forcing Franken to resign isn't playing nice or giving in. It's a cold-blooded move that frees them up to attack the Republicans with Moore and Trump and also helps garner support from women and also is the right thing to do.

Steve of phpBB wrote:Dems forcing Franken to resign isn't playing nice or giving in. It's a cold-blooded move that frees them up to attack the Republicans with Moore and Trump and also helps garner support from women and also is the right thing to do.

I'm having simultaneous arguments here and via text and I don't see how this isn't universally obvious.

*ESPECIALLY* given that Republicans can't pivot back late without taking out Trump himself. This is such a clear fucking play even if you love Franken or don't care about women or anything like that.

mister d wrote:

degenerasian wrote:Who gives a shit about Newt. Don't fall for the bait.

Explain the bait.

He's just tweeting to get a reaction from people who defended Hillary winning the popular vote.
Their argument is valid, his is not. Don't fall for the bait.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

mister d wrote:Right, because you want those who love him the most to make a decision with nationwide ramifications. Because you haven't learned anything from what's going on in Alabama.

Yeah, his voters will rally around him, just like sports fans will give their star a standing ovation after he's been accused of domestic violence. That isn't exactly helpful.

The thing about having Franken resign is that the Dems are *not* giving up anything to the Republicans. Because Franken will be replaced by another Democrat.

Dems forcing Franken to resign isn't playing nice or giving in. It's a cold-blooded move that frees them up to attack the Republicans with Moore and Trump and also helps garner support from women and also is the right thing to do.

And what happens when the GOP's play is to shove Moore out the door and have the AL governor replace him? The Democrats lynch Al Franken, the guy who thinks on his feet and asks the pointed questions necessary in every senate inquiry we've ever seen him involved in. All so #metoo can be heard (which is a valid movement, but it's being exploited here).

I have a question though (I'm a cynical asshole, you know):

What additional women do you hope to persuade? Women who voted Trump have no fucks to give about this.

I don't think its any one group or specifically women. Its disgusted legacy republicans who aren't far right and can't stomach what's happening in Alabama, that weird segment of voters with so little base convictions they bounce from side to side each election, non-voters who could be convinced to single issue vote and then a huge pool of voters who wouldn't vote Dem if they didn't act and the whole "they're all the same" would legitimately apply.

And really, its probably more about maintaining and expecting this costs the Republicans versus some "look at all our new fans".

mister d wrote:And really, its probably more about maintaining and expecting this costs the Republicans versus some "look at all our new fans".

I think you're going to see an escalation of the weaponization of abuse claims. It'll assuredly be used to disqualify candidates, because the Democrats just turned on arguably their most important Senator. It's also going to turn away would be politicians who haven't enjoyed the protected life cycle of a butterfly. Wait until it's used against victims, too.

#cynicism

EnochRoot wrote:What additional women do you hope to persuade? Women who voted Trump have no fucks to give about this.

The thing is, there are millions of people who don't pay very close attention to politics or public policy issues. They hear the big stories, but they don't get into the minutiae. Many of the women who voted for Trump did so because he was less scandal-ridden than Hillary - she had all the horrible problems with emails and her foundation and being in hock to corporate America, while Trump was a successful business man who didn't need outside funding and was going to drain the swamp and fight for workers and their jobs.

Many of those people are reachable for the Dems. Also, many of the people who voted for Stein or Johnson or who didn't vote are reachable for the Dems.

Trump got 46%. The Dems don't need to get too many Trump voters to switch in order to win going forward.

Not sure if this would be more suitable in the Irony thread...

Remember Kim Davis? The County Clerk who wouldn't issue same-sex marriage licenses?

https://twitter.com/ColeLedford11/statu ... 0496324609

mister d wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:Dems forcing Franken to resign isn't playing nice or giving in. It's a cold-blooded move that frees them up to attack the Republicans with Moore and Trump and also helps garner support from women and also is the right thing to do.

I'm having simultaneous arguments here and via text and I don't see how this isn't universally obvious.

The problem is it sets precedence. Sure, boot Franken and the Dem Governor replaces him with another Dem. This is only going to motivate the Roger Stones/James O'Keefes to bring attacks of allegations on other Dems, and the Party will feel pressured to make the future accused Congressmen to resign. And if they don't resign, they will become a target and a sign of "sexually perverted Dems." 71% of Alabama Republicans don't believe Roy Moore's accusers, but 100% of people believe Franken and Conyers' accusers, because they apologized and Dems called for them to resign. Taking the moral high ground is a victory for the GOP, and exactly what Stone orchestrated. Fuck, Sarah Sanders even said Franken is far worse than Moore and Trump, because he admitted his misdeed, and they didn't. The GOP is still claiming the moral high ground because the Dems will have 2 Congressmen who resigned in shame for sexually harassing women, while no Republicans have admitted guilt. Already seeing that all over social media.

It sucks, I would love to be able to support only moral politicians, but in the end, Franken resigning is a huge win for the GOP in the short run, and likely the long run. In an ideal world, the GOP brand should be damaged by publicly supporting and financially backing a child molester and all around disgusting human, but I don't know if it will. I've seen a lot of Republican Strategists saying backing Moore will kill the brand, and at least 2 Republican Congressman have come out saying they are sickened by the Party backing Moore, but the RW propaganda machine will spin this, and probably succeed. Even if the brand is damaged, look at all of the "Never Trumpers" who continue to vote the party line, and support pushing the agenda, regardless of the individuals in office.

I can't help but think about how the GOP handled the Merrick Garland appointment. That has to be the most disgusting abuse of power. They stole a Supreme Court seat, and somehow won the spin game. Garland was Right of Center, and highly regarded by the GOP, yet they painted him as an evil Liberal Obama tried to cheat the system to nominate. Then, the GOP successfully played the spin game to bash Dems as cheating and destroying the system by asking legitimate questions of nominees at confirmation hearings. The Republicans will do whatever it takes to win, and when the Dems do something 1000 times less questionable, the GOP will claim moral superiority. And the genius is the whole "Liberal Media" conspiracy, and everything anti-GOP is fake, while Breitbart and InfoWars are the bastions of truth and good journalism.

TL/DR: We are so fucked.

I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all this has nothing to do with "trying to win over Republicans". I'm not sure how or why anyone could possibly think that.

If the moral and intellectual rot in this country is so bad that a "normal" or "average" person actually thinks Franken is worse than Moore or Trump then we're more fucked than you could possibly be implying.

I don't care if it sets precedence. "All sitting democrats who have sexually assaulted in the past are at risk now" doesn't upset me one bit. Things are incredibly fucked already right now and the path to un-fucking is absolutely not "protect the current establishment at the cost of public perception".

I have to agree too. Democrats have the take the high road, that's what makes them liberal.
Can't win a don't give a fuck war.

It's crazy to me now that the Republicans are now on the immoral side (and not even hiding it). What happened to "Christian family values"?
The two parties have flipped on many issues over the last 30 years. Just listen to the Carter-Reagan or Bush-Clinton debates.

Are you implying that back then they did have higher active morals or that the present day party doesn't still take the moral high road?

mister d wrote:I don't care if it sets precedence. "All sitting democrats who have sexually assaulted in the past are at risk now" doesn't upset me one bit. Things are incredibly fucked already right now and the path to un-fucking is absolutely not "protect the current establishment at the cost of public perception".

How long before James O'Keefe starts creating fake videos "proving" 10 more Dem Congressmen sexually harass women? What Franken did was obviously wrong, but nowhere near the level of what Roy Moore and Trump have done. Now that 6 more women came out against Franken, the potential excuses for the Tweeden picture don't hold up.

I don't want to protect the current establishment at all, but when I see the agenda the GOP wants to push, I feel like we are on the edge of a cliff, and instead of fighting the push over the cliff, the GOP of succeeded in getting the Dems to fight with each other as they continue rolling to the cliff.

If Congress and the establishment are a cancer-ridden patient, forcing Franken to resign feels like brushing the patient's teeth and ignoring treatment for the cancer.

I don't think other Senators speak out or Franken resigns today if he hadn't admitted to the acts. The slippery slope from "offenders should be ousted" to "you have to burn everyone minutes after unverified accusations" doesn't worry me.

mister d wrote:Are you implying that back then they did have higher active morals or that the present day party doesn't still take the moral high road?

They took the moral high road back. Wasn't it called the Moral Majority back in the 80s? Sure that might have have been bullshit knowing what we know now but today they don't even try to hide it supporting Moore.

degenerasian wrote:I have to agree too. Democrats have the take the high road, that's what makes them liberal.
Can't win a don't give a fuck war.

It's crazy to me now that the Republicans are now on the immoral side (and not even hiding it). What happened to "Christian family values"?
The two parties have flipped on many issues over the last 30 years. Just listen to the Carter-Reagan or Bush-Clinton debates.

Talk about taking the bait. The Republicans never gave a fuck about religion or family values. In the late 1970s, and ramping up into the early 1980s, the Republicans knew they were a dying party unless they could rope people in. They preyed on the fear and emotions of the Evangelicals to get them to vote against their economic interests. There is a great recording of, I think Lee Atwater, laughing at religious rubes saying that they need to make them think the GOP cares about their religion to keep the Party relevant.

I think somebody posted an article about the guy who created a film that sparked the Right to Life movement. They created the controversy whole cloth to rope in Christian voters, and created a movement of Right to Life single-issue voters. Evangelicals voted Dem in the 1960s. If you look at the "Liberal Agenda," it seems pretty close to the teachings of Jesus, yet the GOP exploited Christianity to get Evangelicals to fervently support policies that are completely opposite of what Jesus taught. It's amazing in it's evil-genius.

degenerasian wrote:

mister d wrote:Are you implying that back then they did have higher active morals or that the present day party doesn't still take the moral high road?

They took the moral high road back. Wasn't it called the Moral Majority back in the 80s? Sure that might have have been bullshit knowing what we know now but today they don't even try to hide it supporting Moore.

PROPAGANDA! I can call myself a sex symbol, doesn't make it true.

How does O'Keefe making fake videos force anyone else to resign? You're losing me here.

It's not a slippery slope from "allegations that everyone agrees happened" to "making shit up out of whole cloth". No one is going to resign if that happens and in fact if it does still only makes the GOP look worse, especially in the eyes of women.

That's not a slippery slope, it's like trying to drive from New York to London in a car.

degenerasian wrote:

mister d wrote:Are you implying that back then they did have higher active morals or that the present day party doesn't still take the moral high road?

They took the moral high road back. Wasn't it called the Moral Majority back in the 80s? Sure that might have have been bullshit knowing what we know now but today they don't even try to hide it supporting Moore.

Yeah, that was bullshit knowing what we knew *then*.

I think the other point that no one else has made here is that it's kind of silly and ridiculous for us as men to sit here and argue and debate this since we've never lived it a day in our lives.

My sense is that women -- ALL women -- see this #metoo movement as exceptionally liberating and the idea that we should be deciding who gets to stay and who gets to go based on our experiences as men is pretty stupid. Maybe it's time to actually listen to what they're staying.

The Sybian wrote:

degenerasian wrote:I have to agree too. Democrats have the take the high road, that's what makes them liberal.
Can't win a don't give a fuck war.

It's crazy to me now that the Republicans are now on the immoral side (and not even hiding it). What happened to "Christian family values"?
The two parties have flipped on many issues over the last 30 years. Just listen to the Carter-Reagan or Bush-Clinton debates.

Talk about taking the bait. The Republicans never gave a fuck about religion or family values. In the late 1970s, and ramping up into the early 1980s, the Republicans knew they were a dying party unless they could rope people in. They preyed on the fear and emotions of the Evangelicals to get them to vote against their economic interests. There is a great recording of, I think Lee Atwater, laughing at religious rubes saying that they need to make them think the GOP cares about their religion to keep the Party relevant.

I think somebody posted an article about the guy who created a film that sparked the Right to Life movement. They created the controversy whole cloth to rope in Christian voters, and created a movement of Right to Life single-issue voters. Evangelicals voted Dem in the 1960s. If you look at the "Liberal Agenda," it seems pretty close to the teachings of Jesus, yet the GOP exploited Christianity to get Evangelicals to fervently support policies that are completely opposite of what Jesus taught. It's amazing in it's evil-genius.

I agree, that was definitely taking the bait.

i'm just saying now that they don't even hide it. There is no bait.
We are scum, but the other side is destroying the earth! vote for us!

Team Syb

I still want it explained to me how Democrats are somehow going to start scoring own goals against themselves based on fake videos by discredited sleaze merchants like O'Keefe.

Or how O'Keefe is going to produce a credible video without falling to his death off a curb.

tennbengal wrote:Team Syb

Get onboard.

(Climb)

(aboard)

{dammit}