Except this time, he told you he'd do it. He actually did something worse, though. Since nobody ended up calling, he started making some calls himself, and while wielding the purse of the US as leverage (edit: OK, one call?).
But that clip is pretty decent cringe all around, really.
KK. Kowalski, analysis. Subject that mfkin' string to some critical damping.
What are the Democrats thinking? Do they honestly think this is going to work? This is only further serving to increase Donald's clout because the vast majority of Americans do not, and cannot care about the issue. Monkey go LOUD NOISES and ooo ooo aaa aa we slap the lever on the voting machine.
Essentially that's how you take control in the 327 million-strong student council election we call America. People don't care who's influencing it because we're all geniuses on the inside who vote for who we like. Anyone who actually thinks the "Rule of Law" or "Equal Justice" are valid concepts in any country are getting smoke blown up their ass by retired military personnel working in secondary schools.
Who does the law actually apply to? The lower class, primarily, but that's Marxist nonsense, so let's just narrow it down to "people we don't like." Dudes who break into stores to feed their drug habit. The people we feel like it maaaan. The art and science of justice contain the worst parts of both of those things. I know girls in the top law school in the country right now and believe me, they couldn't calculate the zeros of a parabola if they were trapped in Harambe's enclosure.
So the president can be impeached for any possible reason. Anything that is illegal. Jaywalking. Salmon fishing. Lying under oath about getting a BJ. We can rant and rave and stumble over lego blocks but in the end the dude knows exactly what he's doing. Society is run by a) age group and b) confidence. The more controversy he stirs up, the more he wins. Winning! It's the Kanye approach. Fuck, if I were Trump I'd be trying to get arrested right now.
As a political consultant, here would be my alternate strategy for the Democrats. Do nothing. Abstain from voting, don't pay any attention to him. Do that shit up like 12 Angry Men. Watch this scene and report back. [I promise it's only 2 minutes]. Sure, you're still allowed to run candidates but don't bother trying to fight him on his own terms.
Populism can be viewed, fundamentally, as a protest vote. Things are bad, I want change, I don't care what it is. Trump is a populist; he did not win the states he won because of what he is but because of what he isn't. Drain the swamp. Make America Great Again.
A populist who wishes to be an incumbent must deliver bread and circuses. Build the wall. End Chain Migration. He need not make the country better, but he must give the protesters at least some of what he promised. If he promises to erect a 40-foot statue of a penis on the capitol steps, there'd best be a phallus come election day.
The calculus at play is whether or not the populace is happy, and whether or not the populist's coat tails are worth riding. From a cynical standpoint, if you can make a fraction of the MAGA-heads who were all about Trump be less all about Trump, you win. And if you can make the opportunistic quislings that have enabled Trump re-evaluate their costs-benefits analysis, you win.
Someone on Twitter longed for the days when all those who had enabled Trump over the past few years realize that they didn't advance their careers, they didn't constrain his impulses, they just provided cover fire for things to get worse and worse while everything Trump touches dies.
That's the Republican calculus, anyway. The Democratic calculus is to salve their base by doing the minimum common decent thing. Democrats in congress told Obama that Obamacare was the kind of thing they could lose their jobs over. Obama told them Obamacare was the kind of thing worth losing their jobs over. One party is clearly unprincipled. That makes it easy for the other party to follow suit. But if you wish to retain any of the donors, you have to do your job from time to time.
This comment got the noggin thinkin'. I agree with most of it, but two things:
- Populism can be viewed, fundamentally, as a protest vote. Things are bad, I want change, I don't care what it is. Trump is a populist; he did not win the states he won because of what he is but because of what he isn't. Drain the swamp. Make America Great Again.
If populism is a protest vote, what exactly were they protesting? The Obama years were marked by economic recovery and bettering of relations with other countries. We could argue about technological unemployment but that's been happening for a while and it's not as if a 2008 recession happened again. Unless a lot of people just think things are going to shit.
The people who were pissed off over Obama were ready to throw their support behind any mainstream Republican in the next election. Death panels. Gay marriage. The president is from Kenya. We all remember that crazy rhetoric.
So presumably the anger comes from large numbers of people who feel their voice has been completely ignored in politics and here's an opportunity to rearrange the deck. But most of those people were just going to vote Republican anyway. Unless he motivated people who would otherwise not vote (valid argument, saying nasty things about Hispanics does genuinely rile people up) where does the sudden increase in support come from? Who genuinely swings from Democrat to Republican?
To the fence sitters that switched, the one thing Hillary Clinton was was boring and Trump was exciting. Justin Trudeau is exciting. There's a strong allure to charisma in politics. Especially in America where it's customary to switch parties in power every 8 years. Obama was not a populist but he did seem like a dude that could lead and get shit done.
So there's the desire for change but I'm not sure it came from "things are horrible," unless we characterize gay marriage as being horrible. We had 12 years of Republicans, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Obama. Given the continual flip flop I think people are just looking for whatever is fresh. Hillary Clinton was almost certainly not fresh.
There are a LOT of people who aren't thinking deeply into the issues or policy proposals. I mean yikes, I had a friend who would appear super left wing but voted for the most conservative mayor I could imagine. Why? Oh, I like him and the left wing person was mean to my mom. Who cares? Policy > your mom. I don't even think he remembered this event correctly. Left-wing party against striking public workers? Since when?
It sounds stupid but there are loads of people that think in very bizarre and nonsensical ways. So you're right that people wanted change but I would argue it's more an attraction to novelty than a last ditch attempt to avoid perceived personal and societal destruction. The pundits on CNN were going off on how "people's voices weren't being heard" after the election but I sense people were more bored and wanted to rock the ship. Never underestimate the power of ngaf in large numbers.
Democrats absolutely need to retain donors and do their job but I worry they're just going to look weak as Donny's strategy is to just break shit. And johnnyFive raised an important point - what if this impeachment fails and he does something even worse? What if war breaks out? So far this presidency hasn't led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and the bankrupting of the country (better than Bush!) but if actual geopolical strife broke out God knows what could happen.
First, I think you're overestimating the reach of the economic recovery. In aggregate things got better, but this was not universal. If you were a 40-year-old man in the midwest with no education past high school, your job prospects did not bounce back the way a 25-year-old with a master's degree's did.
But beyond that, it's a mistake to couch this in solely economic terms. There's a lot more going on than that, and I think there are often situations where our broader political language does not have the capability of describing it. I recently re-read this essay on James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State. One of the key points is regarding legibility, and what happens when groups within a society simply cannot understand one another. After pointing out some researching showing the remarkably positive effects that a high density of "co-religionists" has on a community, the essay continues:
- I know this is hard, but imagine actually being a conservative Christian in a dying town. Everything I just described is going away, nothing seems able to replace it, and things are just getting worse. The most noticeable difference by far is going to be “cultural” – what language would you use? “Loss of faith and family” is actually pretty apt. Let’s say that their arguments are identical to mine, just shrouded in local language. Fine – all that means is that In the final analysis, the conservative christian recognizes that they’re being deprived even of the power to complain, which is to say, even of the power to explain their powerlessness.
So when you talk about people thinking in "very bizarre and nonsensical ways," I think this is what you're really talking about. It really was people not being heard, but it wasn't that no one was listening, it's that the broader population didn't know how.
Because remember, populism doesn't have to look like Trump. Populist parties starting winning elections like crazy all over the western world after the Great Recession. But again, it wasn't just conservatives. For every Trump or Le Pen you also have a Syriza or Podemos.
I concede the point. You and Klein certainly know what's going on. I need to brush up on my reading.
So in 10 years social conservatives in rural areas went from already isolating themselves from society (not hanging out with the godless) (creationism in class, fighting gay marriage and abortion) to suddenly seeing a society where gay marriage is legal, there are all-gender washrooms, drugs are legalized, acceptance of non-binary genders happens, etc. All the debate in the mass media over safe spaces and language and whatnot and OH GOD THEY WANT TO NEUTRALIZE THE ANTHEM. Meanwhile it's still a sin to have sex before marriage and you better do it at 18.
At that point you'd certainly feel like you're losing your grip on reality. Guy who says let's build the wall? Probably feels like the greatest breath of fresh air there is. But do I feel bad for them? Fuck no. I try to send them love but then I'm at work and the racist jokes start flying and all of a sudden women are alien creatures who can be harassed and teenagers are there to be fucked with and I need to nope the fuck out of there. Fuck you Ken. Fuck you and your motorcycles and your Jesus tattoos and your 3 ugly kids and your dog and the fact the last thing you condescendingly said to me was "how old are you?" before getting fired. Old enough to vote jackass.
Yeah I don't want to defend them as a group by any means. I just think it's worth being conscious of the fact that (1) it's not always because the person is racist and/or stupid, and (2) more broadly, it's always better to have a, well, better handle on a problem before we start trying to solve it.
Where these intersect is in, basically, not doing what you're talking about. It's easy for me to say since I don't have to deal with that on a daily basis, but that doesn't make me wrong, either. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, and it's worth thinking about what our ultimate goals actually are. If we just want the catharsis of OWNING someone we don't think much of, let's not then expect anything to actually change.
- If populism is a protest vote, what exactly were they protesting?
I had lunch with a buddy over the summer. He was one of the first guys at Go2Net who took all his earnings and went to become a helicopter pilot. He's a smart guy - one of the smartest I know. And he pointed out that we were paying $17 each for roast beef sandwiches.
Which is fine if you're making twice as much money as you were 20 years ago. But we're not.
Employer-provided health plans crossed an average yearly cost of $20k this year. Employees typically pay two thirds of that but with a median income in the United States of $59k, families are paying an average of 10% a year as insurance against getting desperately sick. And the system isn't working, particularly among non-college-educated white people.
Meanwhile, the nature of jobs has changed - if you were in manufacturing or transportation, you're not anymore.
And if you want your kids to have a better life than you, the amount of money you're having to contribute has gone through the roof.
The tricky thing about globalism is it's not pithy. It's not something you can easily explain. "We need to spend money overseas to raise the standard of living globally in order to promote cross-border cooperation and interdependency so that conflict declines and international harmony rules the day" is also "you're now competing with Bangladesh with an American cost of living and September 11 and the Iraq War happened anyway."
If I had to buy my house now, instead of in 2000, I would spend about 4.5 times as much. If I had to graduate college now, instead of in 2000, I would spend about eight times as much. I mean - I did some time at community college and the quarterly tuition rate was higher than my university was. Meanwhile, the average starting salary out of my degree program has gone from $66k to $76k in twenty years.
I think it's a lot easier for an older person to reach for populism because if you're 25? I mean, you know you're fucked but you have no experience of not being fucked. But if you're 55 you can clearly remember back when things weren't fucked. You can remember GM before NAFTA, you can remember retail before Walmart, you can remember the Internet before Facebook and you can remember healthcare before it was double your car payment.
And when one party says "we will continue to make things better for all Americans" you know you're not "all Americans" because things aren't better for you. And when the other party says "It's the immigrants!" at least you know that someone is acknowledging the problem.
I agree -- governmental and legal structures only matter insofar as we believe in them.
This really does seem like a no-win scenario for the Democrats. If they don't vote to refer things to the Senate for a trial, Trump can say he was exonerated again, and it gives that much more support to the "witch hunt" narrative. If it goes to the Senate but there's no vote to remove, then the same thing happens.
And what's worse is that this happening will make Trump impeachment-proof for however long he remains in office. He could do anything after this and there'd be no way to even think about impeachment.
Sorry mk, it appears the 13th Angry Man has entered the chat.
I'm just not optimistic this is going to go anywhere. We want Donald to be impeached but this is just one of many illegal things he's done (or suspected to be involved in). I can't imagine the Republicans voting to get that 2/3 majority required to actually impeach him. Which if nobody is above the law, why is it put to a vote?
The best outcome of this is Pelosi and the Democrats looking good because they tried to do something about the monster. Remember how low he was in the polls prior to the election. Now his approval rating is... climbing. It kind of scares me.
I refer you to the Watergate impeachment proceedings..
- Although many privately expressed doubts about Nixon’s innocence and criticized his handling of Watergate, congressional Republicans, with surprisingly few exceptions, publicly proclaimed Nixon’s innocence and opposed either his resignation or impeachment until nearly the end. Many congressional Republicans viewed Watergate as a political attack against Nixon and defended the president out of partisan considerations.
File under "nothing new under the sun." Also bear in mind: we like to think of the Nixon situation as a slam dunk in terms of public opinion, but there was little public enthusiasm for impeachment or removal from office even then:
- despite the increasingly negative views of Nixon at that time, most Americans continued to reject the notion that Nixon should leave office, according to Gallup. Just 26% thought he should be impeached and forced to resign, while 61% did not.
-From today's Pew Research article.
Another interesting tidbit from that article:
- By April, a resounding 83% of the American public had heard or read about Watergate, as the president accepted the resignations of his top aides John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman. And in turn, Nixon’s approval ratings fell to 48%.
Compare that to the present, when, as of August 5th- pre-all this shit- Trump's approval rating was 42%.
Now, I'm not Mister Sunshine about this or really anything. But there's a glimmer here. The true turning point in the Watergate proceedings was the recordings. I'm inclined to agree with mk; the transcript is pretty damning in and of itself, but if the White House offered it up this quickly when they offer nothing up without a fight, what else is waiting in the wings in terms of recorded evidence?
The minority leadership in the house has been conspicuously silent on the matter, as has the majority leadership in the Senate. Lindsey Graham being Lindsey Graham does not indicate that the President has the full support of his sucklings on this one. I'm very interested in the silence of Trump's minders-in-chief, and I'm curious to see how they respond after what these days counts as a stunningly long period of silence.
Again. It's way too early to determine the true fallout of this one. And God knows the sides are even more entrenched now than they were during Watergate. But this has got a different smell to it than the Russia investigation, the weight of which I was always skeptical about. There's very little plausible deniability here. We'll see.
The base loves it and CNN will get some more viewers but beyond that it’s all a circus that will distract from larger issues. Good for Biden bad for warren and sanders as this will distract from actual campaign issues. Though not sure Biden will come out super clean here either
Here's where we're at, the first paragraph is all you need:
- President Trump’s attempt to pressure the leader of Ukraine followed a months-long fight inside the administration that sidelined national security officials and empowered political loyalists — including the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani — to exploit the U.S. relationship with Kiev, current and former U.S. officials said.
I'll bet you that WaPo has probably been in contact with the whistle blower since just around the time that it became clear Trump's acting DNI wouldn't be submitting the complaint to congress. So around or after September 5th, I'd guess. The WaPo article is not an opinion piece, and I really doubt it will be retracted or corrected. I could always be wrong.
It's hard to imagine an issue larger than the singularly most powerful person on the planet either implicitly or explicitly extorting Ukraine by withholding military aide while asking over and over for the Ukrainian government to investigate his biggest political rival in an upcoming presidential election. This, while his personal lawyer (Giuliani) attempts to meet with the Ukrainian president's personal lawyer. Giuliani now claims to have been asked by the state department to work with Ukraine on behalf of the United States. Do you think any of this sounds like how democracy works?
Please, investigate Biden all you want. It's super shady that some Ukrainian natural gas company (Burisma) put the VP's son on the board to score name recognition points, totally agree, but the existing evidence doesn't show that Joe made decisions with Hunter in mind. Applying pressure to fire the corrupt prosecutor (Viktor Shokin, you can read about it here) was something almost every EU member recommended, and furthermore, the prosecutor actually tried to terminate the investigation into Burisma. Rudy has been promising incredibly damning dirt on the Bidens' actions in Ukraine for like 5 months now, and all he's done is rearrange an existing timeline of events and then he points out that it looks pretty bad for someone with substance abuse problems to make a few million dollars for perhaps doing nothing. Yeah, it does, but it's not exactly a crime. Maybe Rudy tells us what really happened sometime tomorrow.
What kills me the most is that all of this immediately follows the end of the Mueller report, which investigated Trump for something far less serious: NOT using the powers of the presidency, but still trying to possibly coordinate with a foreign government in the hopes of influencing a federal election.
Can you please explain how any of Trump's behavior is justified?
I also want to remind everyone of a detail released in the original Washington Post article from last Wednesday night: The whistle blower's report cited multiple conversations/communications between Trump & Zelensky that the whistle blower considered problematic. The report also mentioned a "promise" made by Trump. I̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶o̶l̶k̶s̶'̶ ̶a̶n̶a̶l̶y̶s̶i̶s̶ ̶(̶e̶l̶s̶e̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶t̶)̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶c̶r̶i̶p̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶h̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶n̶o̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶a̶l̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶p̶i̶e̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶v̶i̶d̶e̶n̶c̶e̶. IMPORTANT EDIT: Nope. The transcript alone should be enough. But if only the transcript is released, and not the entirety of the whistle blower report, that's not going to satiate me, and hopefully not Pelosi either.
It came out while you were typing your comment. No explicit quid pro quo. But to interpret this memo as exonerating Trump requires the furthest stretch of the imagination. The DOJ has apparently claimed (in more or less exact disagreement with me, see the paragraph beginning with "Edit:") that help from a foreign government is NOT a thing of value. To argue that opposition research intel isn't valuable is what you might do if you were a feckless piece of shit hellbent on expanding the executive's power unilaterally because you like the guy currently defiling the position.
The whistleblower complaint also documented several calls, and an explicit "promise" that was made by Trump to a foreign leader.
We've only seen one document so far...
And in related news, imagine what it must be like to live in AG Barr's home? His wife. Family. What must it be like, knowing this guy has Trump's dick so far down his throat he can't even speak...?
Actually, I completely retract my prior opinion, my apologies. I'm very much looking forward to Barr's hearing, and his explanation of how it made him feel (or whatever) to quash a report that showed Trump promising Zelensky Barr's help in what is unarguably an illegal political endeavor. I'm worried he'll wriggle out as per usual.
You know Trump's dumbass talked to Barr, at the very least. If the Dems can prove that he knew Trump's full intent, that's gonna be saweet, but I don't have my hopes up. Barr's probably too smart to get directly involved in this, and probably strung Trump along, but never performed an official action. Which would include deputizing anyone from the DOJ to help.
I agree with anyone saying that it's all gonna happen really fast in the next few weeks. And it needs to.
Edit: The following is no longer my opinion.
So far, it sounds to me like Barr is only involved insomuch as Trump namedropping him alongside Rudy in an attempt to give Rudy legitimacy and authority. Neither of which should ever be ascribed to Rudy, of course. And from me, personally, Barr is only granted the latter.
It sounds like the whistleblower complaint revolves almost entirely around the July 25th phone call, but also mentions a systematic abuse of the classification system to mask politically sensitive information.
I think a lot of people are gonna get some prison time, unless they're pardoned by Pence (or McConnell, at this point). But probably not Barr :(.
Yeah, it's that systematic abuse of the classified system that says, "Hey, we White House staffers all knew this shit was so bad that we couldn't let it get out publicly... but that it is going to save our asses one day, to be able to turn over these documents to an investigator, instead of just deleting them and pretending they never existed."
How quickly do you think the CIA sent over their IT guy to do a backup on that system? And then took that backup offsite to a very secure location unknown to anyone in the White House....
- And then took that backup offsite to a very secure location unknown to anyone in the White House....
Maybe not so secure? But yeah, maybe just about all of the beans are gonna spill, eventually. Some beans may be redacted, but I think we're in for an absolutely wild ride.
I'm very much looking forward to understanding the general attitudes of any rank-and-file White House workers that were even tangentially involved in handling these records. Or at least trying to understand. Deleting the transcripts is probably just as illegal as storing them in the wrong spot, and at least someone had to figure that they were possibly cataloging an eventual impeachment case on one of the most secure servers in the building.
I'll preface this by saying I know very little about US Politics, so this just an errant thought..
The fact that they've announced this formally, does that meant they're very confident of the inquiry leading to something? I assumed they would have to have everything very nicely lined up before even talking about it, as to fire a shot and miss would massively favour Trump in the end.
- The fact that they've announced this formally, does that meant they're very confident of the inquiry leading to something? I assumed they would have to have everything very nicely lined up before even talking about it, as to fire a shot and miss would massively favour Trump in the end.
"The decision to begin a formal impeachment inquiry does not necessarily mean that the House will ultimately vote to charge Mr. Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors — much less that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove him. But Ms. Pelosi and her leadership would not initiate the process unless they were prepared to reach that outcome.
And Mr. Trump’s allies mostly took it as a sign that a vote on articles of impeachment was inevitable."
(NYT)
Yes and no, mostly no I think.
Impeachment powers are very broad, not specifically defined, so they could have lined things up and done it long ago. The question is would they.
Will a heard of cats form ranks and march together? It's technically not impossible!!
And they've been threatening to promise to begin to decide whether they should form a committee to initiate a proceeding to determine...
Today is way more concrete than previous noises, so it's positive momentum at least.
Damn, you beat me to it. Turns out telling other nations to dig up dirt on your political rivals is not allowed, who knew?