Haha if people panic. Nooo we going to win by 8-10 instead of 15
People have their hopes up about winning the house now I think. So that's the new thing to panic over
Haha if people panic. Nooo we going to win by 8-10 instead of 15
It so silly.Haha if people panic. Nooo we going to win by 8-10 instead of 15
And we know this how exactly?
I'm not saying he's wrong, but where's *his* proof?
I want to be clear, for anybody deeming last night in any way a Trump "victory" or who loved his "zinger" "...because you'd be in jail" or who is in any way, for any reason, still considering voting for this man:
The lowest part of the ugliest debate in American history was that threat to prosecute.
If a public servant commits some kind of malfeasance, we have a system for prosecuting such a crime, in a way which may not, I'll grant, be "non-partisan," or immune from some degree of corruption. HOWEVER, it is a system with myriad, multitudinous safeguards, separations of authority, independence, and judicious ascertaining of legal fact. That system, for better or worse, has functioned here, with respect to HRC. You may not like the outcome personally, you may think she gamed the system. It doesn't matter what you think, because absolutely nobody who was not part of the investigation can state with any authority that it came to the wrong conclusion. Because that conclusion is *legal* in nature: not "is HRC bad and stupid," but "Is there a legal case with which to prosecute her, which the evidence bears out any hope of success by going forward with?"
So when Trump says that he would "order the Attorney General to select a special prosecutor" and threatens in no uncertain terms that if successfully elected, he is intent on making sure this would result in HRC "being in jail," I want to dispense with the comparisons to Hitler, because that's facile, and the internet loves picking over such knee-jerk moves.
I want to talk about Sulla. I want to talk about Marius. I want to talk about Marc Antony, I want to talk about Octavian. We're talking about political tactics from the time where a real republic was upended, and finally came crashing down, because threats to political opponents *exactly* like Trump made last night were the hallmarks of the day. Hitler's system? That played out differently. "Win first under the guise of something legitimate, then kill everybody." But this threat - in open forum - was different. And harkens back to a different age altogether. Sulla, Marius, Octavian, and Antony. The men who killed the Roman Republic. You have to go back to *them* to find, in the Western tradition pertaining to democracies and republics and the men who endangered or ended them, a situation where the promise "If I win, then there will be retribution for opposing me" is enshrined in the normality of political discourse. Sulla, according to Plutarch, "made the streets flow with blood . . . many who had not any witness to say they had opposed him, only that by killing them Sulla pleased his adherents." Of Marius, any man "who did not greet him with salute or salutation was, by his men, to be murdered." Marc Antony is recorded by Cassius Dio to have promised Cicero, during the early days of the Second Triumvirate, that if he ever spoke out against him, he would "nail his head and hands to the Senate rostrum;" after Cicero delivered the Philippics against Antony's mismanagement, self-dealing, and philandering, Antony sent soldiers to his house, killed him, and did exactly that: nailed the head and hands of a political enemy to the speaking stage of the center of the Roman state, and the former shrine of its republican values.
It is an exercise in insanity to attempt to defend Donald Trump not only for his most recent incendiary remarks, but in light of this: his avowed method of conducting affairs. "If you're not with me, you're against me" is a far fall from the days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan having a scotch in the Oval Office and walking out with a compromise, but we've lost in this country the belief that politics is or ought to be about "compromise" at all. That's a place we need to get back to. But one way or another, we should all be able to agree that, in a presidential debate, when one of the candidates - standing in front of, no less, a wall plastered with the text of our Constitution itself - took us, in the political discourse of a democratic republic, to "If you're not with me, you're going to jail." That was not just a threat to prosecute, that was a threat to *proscribe.*
...*That* should be enough for anybody in the Trump camp who still values anything about what America is supposed to be to vote for somebody - anybody - else. Or stay home. And if you are so pissed off and angry at... whatever. Washington, Obama, the "East Coast/Establishment Types," the overall liberalization of social values, the inexorable tide of globalization... SO pissed off at those things that you still refuse to abandon Trump, then yes. I want this to be clear right now:
You are "deplorable."
Not because you are rhetorically lumped in with the "worst of the worst" of Trump's supporters (of which there are many)... but because you have opted to sacrifice the very notion that our country can do better than either Trump or HRC, by siding with a man who, rather than drive us to do better, is committed to tearing it all down for good.
That's sort of where I am with this. Greenwald et al. already is saying that this isn't Russia due to Russia hysteria over inconvenient truths because we can't trust the US government assessment after Iraq.
Again! This is the erosion of institutions.
Exactly.
This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/785909238279213057in NBC-WSJ polling Sat-Sun amid tape crisis, Trump lead among white voters shrank to 2 pts; on Mon, after debate rallied base, up to 14 pts
You should just keep him muted.I got fed up with Greenwald. Had to mute him until after the election. Guy is off his rocker lately.
Wait seriouslyThat's sort of where I am with this. Greenwald et al. already is saying that this isn't Russia due to Russia hysteria over inconvenient truths because we can't trust the US government assessment after Iraq.
Again! This is the erosion of institutions.
Exactly.
I love that they couldn't even be honest about "trump having multiple affairs and accused multiple times of sexual assault".
It would still be hypocritical but their immoral scumbags so they couldn't even get that right.
That's sort of where I am with this. Greenwald et al. already is saying that this isn't Russia due to Russia hysteria over inconvenient truths because we can't trust the US government assessment after Iraq.
Again! This is the erosion of institutions.
Exactly.
Wait seriously
Stop embarrassing me, white people.
He's downplaying the fact that, you know, the FBI knows the Russians are the ones who hacked it.
Going back to Greenwald, like I told metsfan, he's just an ideologue with a very specific ideology. He's made himself look like an ass a few times this summer alone, especially with that Brazil leak. Oh especially with that Brazil leak.
@mtracey
HRC endorsed war in Syria last night; Trump urged cooperation with Russia. Let's see Dems grapple with that reality.
@mtracey
Trump also argued against arming "rebels," while HRC's stated policy is to continue supplying weapons to fanatics (such as Al Qaeda)
@mtracey
HRC, Tim Kaine, and Mike Pence all basically agree with respect to Syria. The only one calling for a deviation from orthodoxies is Trump.
@mtracey
I don't recommend voting Trump. Never have. But he's the only one bucking the disastrous bipartisan FP consensus. That's just the truth.
It's really sad how any time Hillary coughs or Trump doesn't throw up all over himself, the polls instantly narrow again.Also lol white people. They are looking for any slight reason to vote for white nationalism.
And that there's a few cyber security firms out there who have looked into it themselves and corroborated it.
Certain segments of the left have a really dangerous streak running through them that's going to cause a lot of damage if it can't be kept under contro.
Oh I see Michael Tracey went to crazy town after I stopped paying attention during the primary.
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/785906242044780544
I love how Trump bounces back 4% from that debate.
I guess we should have known the video numbers were too good to last, oh well.
Oh I see Michael Tracey went to crazy town after I stopped paying attention during the primary.
The far Left was a mistake.
They over-sampled Monday for post-debate impact.You guys realize the one-day samples are extremely small, right?
Man, Republicans hate Hillary almost as much as Neogaf hatesWatch Dogs.
You guys realize the one-day samples are extremely small, right?
The left's own Trump civil war is coming. There's no doubt about it. Especially if Clinton were to win and is unpopular heading into 2020. There will be challengers and revolts.
The left's own Trump civil war is coming. There's no doubt about it. Especially if Clinton were to win and is unpopular heading into 2020. There will be challengers and revolts.
Fucking seriously. The DNC dump included people's social security numbers. How the hell can people critical of the government infringing our privacy be okay with that shit?And that there's a few cyber security firms out there who have looked into it themselves and corroborated it.
Certain segments of the left have a really dangerous streak running through them that's going to cause a lot of damage if it can't be kept under control.
Not only that, they are using a single day of polling to fit a narrative. That is not how polls work. They are basically using the same methodology daily tacking polls use which are unreliable.
It needs to be spread out across many days. What sucks most about this is that it is only done to push a narrative and that narrative will be that the orange turd campaign is showing signs of stabilizing. NBC jumped the shark on this...
No, it isnt 1/3rd of those polled as it typical. They over-sampled Monday for post-debate impact.
Per John Hardwood it is half and half. Sat Sun combined is 500 polled, Monday is 400.
The left's own Trump civil war is coming. There's no doubt about it. Especially if Clinton were to win and is unpopular heading into 2020. There will be challengers and revolts.
The left's own Trump civil war is coming. There's no doubt about it. Especially if Clinton were to win and is unpopular heading into 2020. There will be challengers and revolts.
And that there's a few cyber security firms out there who have looked into it themselves and corroborated it.
Certain segments of the left have a really dangerous streak running through them that's going to cause a lot of damage if it can't be kept under control.