Octopus Overlords

My fear is that we seem to have been at the same levels of support for Trump for a while now, so that means this is it. This is the new norm. This is our country's political demographic going forward. This is how things will play out until we find someone who can cross the aisle successfully...and I just don't see anyone who can do that anywhere.

Trump widened the gap so far it's now irreparable.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:26 pm My fear is that we seem to have been at the same levels of support for Trump for a while now, so that means this is it. This is the new norm. This is our country's political demographic going forward. This is how things will play out until we find someone who can cross the aisle successfully...and I just don't see anyone who can do that anywhere.

Trump widened the gap so far it's now irreparable.

No one was crossing the aisle during Obama's tenure either, hence his use of executive orders.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:29 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:26 pm My fear is that we seem to have been at the same levels of support for Trump for a while now, so that means this is it. This is the new norm. This is our country's political demographic going forward. This is how things will play out until we find someone who can cross the aisle successfully...and I just don't see anyone who can do that anywhere.

Trump widened the gap so far it's now irreparable.

No one was crossing the aisle during Obama's tenure either, hence his use of executive orders.

It was still more fun when he was holding a leash on a rabid dog, instead of the rabid dog holding the leash on the US.

I think the gap can be breached. Those who follow tRump now do so mostly out of ignorance, hatred, and (in a lot of cases I suspect) sheer bullheadedness. If his support in the Senate erodes those same followers will listen to the new message of his horrible nature and follow their new lead. Since that message will likely be scattered so will their vitriol.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:56 pm I don't actually think Mitch wants to go this route at all as he knows the pendulum is likely going to swing back hard in 2020. Assuming we all survive President Trump, what happens when the next Democrat President declares Health Care or Greenhouse legislation a national emergency and bypasses the stranglehold Mitch has on the process?

The short-term effects of a declaration of emergency powers to build the wall are nothing in comparison to the bigger picture implications for how the whole process operates, imho.

Not going to say that's right or wrong but since when has the worst American ever feared the pendulum or his hypocrisy or consistent inconsistency in thought coming back to bite him legally or otherwise?

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:26 pm My fear is that we seem to have been at the same levels of support for Trump for a while now, so that means this is it. This is the new norm. This is our country's political demographic going forward. This is how things will play out until we find someone who can cross the aisle successfully...and I just don't see anyone who can do that anywhere.

Trump widened the gap so far it's now irreparable.

Concurred... Sort of... I think we're irreparable from the eldest down to the eldest of the millennial but those born in the late 90s and beyond have hope to become our new better present. I think the best bet for the best of us is try to find a way to peacefully coexist until we die off. The alternatives aren't so pretty.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:35 pm I think the gap can be breached. Those who follow tRump now do so mostly out of ignorance, hatred, and (in a lot of cases I suspect) sheer bullheadedness. If his support in the Senate erodes those same followers will listen to the new message of his horrible nature and follow their new lead. Since that message will likely be scattered so will their vitriol.

I wish and I hope I'm wrong. At this point it sure does seem like our best bet is mitigate the ongoing damage of the gap until the next wave sees it as their obligation to reject the paradigm. I've just seen too many tiger's stripes over the last decade and learned how much I've underestimated not only how us and them we are but I've been dragged kicking and screaming into an us having seen exactly how much power them has seized and wielded for their purposes to have any optimism.

On the age question:

I'm on my phone so I can't quote easily, but just this morning I saw polling (via Nate Silver) that more people in the 30-50 year cohort identify as liberal than conservative.

This is a new pattern. GenX seems not to be aging into conservatism as sharply as the Boomers did.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:14 pm

Concurred... Sort of... I think we're irreparable from the eldest down to the eldest of the millennial but those born in the late 90s and beyond have hope to become our new better present. I think the best bet for the best of us is try to find a way to peacefully coexist until we die off. The alternatives aren't so pretty.

I kind of buy this but kind of don't.

Multiple networks have agreed to broadcast the President's address in real time. Interestingly, multiple networks, including Fox have agreed to give democrats a chance to respond immediately afterward.

Is there a precedent for this? I have no idea. It seems incredible that an Oval Office address is immediately followed by a rebuttal. On the one hand, given the disinformation that is sure to come out of drumpf's mouth, a rebuttal would seem like an ideal response. On the other hand, the precedent has now been set for the immediate dilution of any future president's message to the American people by political opposition. The "You lie!" response is the ultimate in partisan discord without intelligent debate. It sucks.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:35 pm Multiple networks have agreed to broadcast the President's address in real time. Interestingly, multiple networks, including Fox have agreed to give democrats a chance to respond immediately afterward.

Is there a precedent for this? I have no idea. It seems incredible that an Oval Office address is immediately followed by a rebuttal. On the one hand, given the disinformation that is sure to come out of drumpf's mouth, a rebuttal would seem like an ideal response. On the other hand, the precedent has now been set for the immediate dilution of any future president's message to the American people by political opposition. The "You lie!" response is the ultimate in partisan discord without intelligent debate. It sucks.

State of the Union Address is precedent, although there may be others. Opposition party always has rebuttal air time after the State of the Union parade of bullshit.

Has its own wiki page I guess.

The practice began in 1966 when Republican U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (Illinois) and U.S. Representative Gerald Ford (Michigan) appeared on TV to offer a response to the address by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.[1] The opposition party's response has varied in format, ranging from a prerecorded 45-minute TV program in 1970[2] to a call-in show in 1972 where a panel of congressmen answered unrehearsed questions from callers.[1] Since the late 1980s, it usually has been a televised speech given soon after the State of the Union address.[1]

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:57 pm State of the Union Address is precedent, although there may be others. Opposition party always has rebuttal air time after the State of the Union parade of bullshit.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Is there anything more American than this?

Gambling site takes big odds on how many times Trump will lie in his national address

Pffft, a 3.5 over/under. Probably closer to 13.5.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:11 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:57 pm State of the Union Address is precedent, although there may be others. Opposition party always has rebuttal air time after the State of the Union parade of bullshit.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

The FCC's Equal Time Provision requires "that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives a given amount of time to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it, at the same price if applicable." It does not, however, apply to "news events" (among other exceptions). Is Trump's speech tonight a news event or a campaign speech? I'm guessing the networks don't want to split those hairs.

Still trying to verify this, but have now seen two Twitter-ites who are claiming to have received fundraiser e-mails specifically for tonight's speech.

Grifters gonna grift, I suppose.

"I need you to step up, Friend."

Where's that vomiting smiley when you need it?

I'm sure someone creative will be able to photoshop Hitler quotes into the "Just look at the facts" bullet points provided in this email, because holy shit.

Trump email wrote:I want to know who stood with me when it mattered most[,] so I've asked my team to send me a list of EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT who donates to the Official Secure the Border Fund.

This is it. This is when it mattered most.

I'm sure the "Official Secure the Border Fund" has no connection to the Trump election campaign, because that would be grift of the highest order.

Trump email wrote:I wouldn't be speaking to you tonight if this [weren't] one of the most critical times in the history of our country. I need you to step up, Friend.

[SIMULTANEOUS BARF AND DIARRHEA EMOJI]

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:25 pm This is it. This is when it mattered most.

I wish I could get another zero interest for eighteen month credit card, but my score is temporarily a bit low. Unfortunately, just about everything else is tied up in providing jobs to four people.

It sure is funny how someone as rich as Trump says he is spends so much time begging for money.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:25 pm

Trump email wrote:I want to know who stood with me when it mattered most[,] so I've asked my team to send me a list of EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT who donates to the Official Secure the Border Fund.

What the fuck? That's like blatant extortion. "You want to be on my nice list, just trust me..."

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:48 pm I'm sure someone creative will be able to photoshop Hitler quotes into the "Just look at the facts" bullet points provided in this email, because holy shit.

I'll be very honest, if Trump goes full campaign rally Trump, railing against the Press and Brown people as terrorists (as opposed to Statesman-like President, which I don't think he can even try to pull off), we'll be even closer to a Trumpista Kristallnacht.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:48 pm I'm sure someone creative will be able to photoshop Hitler quotes into the "Just look at the facts" bullet points provided in this email, because holy shit.

"Illegal criminals are flooding our nation." I guess all the legal ones are in the white house.

So...sounds like he didn't say that he was going to declare a state of emergency to build the wall. Everything else is just rhetoric and bluster.

Here’s the summary (via Twitter):

“Be fearful. Be afraid. Be afraid of everything I say you should fear. And I alone can save you from the things I tell you to be afraid of. But most of all, be afraid."

The networks gave him prime time coverage to say...the same shit he has been saying all along. Good work everyone. Also oddly he was out of focus. Then Chuck and Nancy awkwardly read statements while crammed behind a too small podium. #americaindecline? #cantaffordbiggerpodium?

I didn't watch it, but he missed a golden opportunity to piss his pants on live TV.

malchior wrote: #americaindecline?

Why the question mark?

Shade!

What was the final tally on number of lies?

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:43 pm What was the final tally on number of lies?

Didn't watch but I can answer. All of it.

I really think this was a very very bad move on his part. He pretty much showed that he can't and won't declare a national emergency. It was so pointless. I don't think anyone saw that and was moved one direction or another. The idiots will go along while the rest will wonder when this batshit crazy crap will end. I honestly could see him dragging this on to the next election. That's how little shit he actually cares about harming people.

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:30 am I really think this was a very very bad move on his part. He pretty much showed that he can't and won't declare a national emergency. It was so pointless. I don't think anyone saw that and was moved one direction or another. The idiots will go along while the rest will wonder when this batshit crazy crap will end. I honestly could see him dragging this on to the next election. That's how little shit he actually cares about harming people.

Amongst all his other inane BS he literally said today, in blaming Obama for not retaliating in Syria when his red line was crossed (and I'm paraphrasing her), 'that a threat without followup is useless'. And then he asks for money...I'd say 'unbelievable' but then...

The AP showing its very serious people chops at its best! What's crazy is it is the tweet and the one fact check it is based on that is pure 'both sides-y' - if you read the full piece it is mostly reasonable. It is just the 'fact check' on the Schumer/Pelosi that makes it sound 50/50. I guess that is true if you evaluate every fact in a context-less vacuum. Oy.



Chris Hayes made a comment that seems to nicely capture the tricky terrain that AP stumbled into:

I wonder if tweets like that, that add a both sides element that'd not present in the piece they're tweeting about, are entirely due to the habit of rage sharing. The data suggests that people are more likely to share something that they angrily disagree with than something they agree with. If you craft your tweet to imply a both sides thing, suddenly you get people on either side of the divide mad and sharing your tweet. If you make it one sided, you only have one side mad and sharing.

Tl;dr, social media and people are the worst.

Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:30 am I honestly could see him dragging this on to the next election. That's how little shit he actually cares about harming people.

People are all for it, until it actually starts to have an impact on things they care about. We're getting to the point where "real people" (i.e. not just those lazy government employees and mooching contractors) are being severely affected by this. My guess is that the pressure starts to ratchet up significantly over the next week, especially if the rumored mass TSA "sick-outs" continue or increase.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:54 amespecially if the rumored mass TSA "sick-outs" continue or increase.

I can't imagine TSA agents continuing to show up for work after a month without pay. They're not being paid well enough to have huge savings accounts to sustain them and the bleed off will ramp up until we're doing self-service security at the airports.

Democrats should start hitting Trump on:
- Trump has no blueprints for the Wall
- the Wall is wasteful and costly
- the Wall is ineffective
- the Wall never had the Republican votes to pass

Zarathud wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:19 am - the Wall never had the Republican votes to pass

I wouldn't use this one. The Republicans have yet to show any spine when truly pushed on something - I'm sure they could get there if it was to make the Pelosi look bad. The case is still effective without it.

Since it's all about the funding, I would hammer constantly on how Mexico isn't going to directly or indirectly ever pay for this wall.

Saying that Mexico would pay for the wall was:
a) one of the most delicious parts of the rally cry to the rally criers.
b) the absolutely most stupid thing a lot of us had ever heard.

Drive that point home, I say.