Cobb isn't some newbie DC lawyer, he has been doing this for awhile. Which is why it was news that he was taking up the job.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Cobb isn't some newbie DC lawyer, he has been doing this for awhile. Which is why it was news that he was taking up the job.
Occam's Razor says they are just incompetent.
Pretty sure someone being overheard saying that the White House council has "a couple documents locked in a safe isn't probable cause to obtain a warrant.
aspiegamer
Member
Wait, we're supposed to pity Spicer? Since when? He was, on the grand scale, a lowly peon in the broader operations, but he was still a dick and lied to everyone's faces on camera for an hour a day for 6 months. Were he press secretary for any normal administration whose boss screwed him over multiple times for the fuck of it I might sympathize, but he's as guilty of perpetuating this farce of an executive branch as much as anyone still there.
Very first day Trump made Spicey go in front of the press and humilate himself by lying about how big the inauguration crowds were.
Spicey could have told him to fuck off and quit right then. But he didn't.
I would guess a lot of people can now identify with him, which is why he's trying to rehab his image. Every day for an hour, he did what his boss told him to. He embarrassed himself over and over, because his boss asked him to. He was made to feel like shit, because his boss is a petulent, egotistical child. He was clearly more intelligent than his boss.
Remove the name Trump from the equation, and he's just like the average joe. No matter how much money Spicer actually has, I'm sure people just think "Oh, yeah, but he couldn't quit - he had no other job to move on to."
Projection at its finest.
Remove the name Trump from the equation, and he's just like the average joe. No matter how much money Spicer actually has, I'm sure people just think "Oh, yeah, but he couldn't quit - he had no other job to move on to."
Projection at its finest.
Randolph Freelander
Member
More of the darling of the elite.
https://twitter.com/chrissgardner/status/909598875928772608
STOP LETTING THESE PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK
https://twitter.com/chrissgardner/status/909598875928772608
STOP LETTING THESE PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK
Chill out. All the dude did was scoldingly lie to the American public about likely treason and helps lead an assault on the fourth estate. Now he's telling jokes about his likely participation in a massive treason and potential scuttling of American democracy. It's just a prank, bro.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Oh. Yeah, since you put it that way, I guess it's cool.
I got a little carried away, that's all.
All Spicer wanted was to be loved. It's sad that amoral Hollywood people don't have the conviction of their values.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I wonder if Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee, or Jeffrey Lord would get the same treatment. Only thing that differentiates Spicer is just how bad he was at it.
Did he at least allude to factlessness of the Trumposphere?
Just wait until Trump's out of office and laughing it up with everyone.
Shit, I wouldn't be surprised to hear SNL try to have him host again before he's left office.
Kellyanne and Sarah I don't think would get the same treatment, partially because they're women, partially because they seem to be more forceful in their defense of Trump. Kellyanne, especially, is in deep, and seems to relish flinging shit and defending the indefensible. For that reason, I don't think Jeffrey Lord would get the same treatment, because whilst he's male, he went full-on Trump defense. Even Sarah Huckabee relishes the position more than Spicer did.
I think Spicer is unusual in that, throughout it all, he appeared human - often physically pained by what he was doing. I'm not defending him - his influence will be felt far and wide because he normalised a lot in those early months - but I think there's a world of difference between him and the three you mention.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Basically what I'm hearing is he was bad at lying, therefore his lies were ok.
The Spicer stuff is gross but not unexpected. Before Trump, wasn't he basically known as just a standard RNC establishment type? And by most accounts, before and after Trump, he was known to be pretty affable to people in person. Out of everyone in Trump's administration, he seemed like the one most ready to be accepted back into the mainstream.
Then again, there's also the cynical view where Trump has celebrity-ified the presidency and all of these "characters" will be accepted into general celebrity life after this.
Then again, there's also the cynical view where Trump has celebrity-ified the presidency and all of these "characters" will be accepted into general celebrity life after this.
Electric Eye
Banned
Just look at W. his entire administration was one giant war crimes regime yet some look back and miss the idiot with nostalgic feels. This country has not learned or doesn't want to learn accountability of its leaders beyond impeachment without real repercussions. In other countries entire governments would have collapsed and new elections called by now but this country has convinced itself its exceptional above others and can therefore do no wrong.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
Why does it seem like his legs are shorter than they should be
CrimzonSamurai
Member
I had no idea that he was so small.
Like I never expected hiding in the bushes to be a viable strategy but I guess it was actually a good call on his part.
Not "bad". "Didn't like" would be a better descriptor. And I didn't say it makes it okay - I'm disgusted by all this. What I am saying is that it is easier for (some!) people to empathise with him, partially because of the poor treatment by his boss, and partially because he seemed to hate what he was doing.
But mostly because some people will do anything to absolve white people of their support for white supremacy
Yeah, no disagreement from me there. For people to empathise with him so readily, and with no apparent consequences for his actions is just, like, madness.
To me, it also crosses a fine line too. Before, it seems like SNL parodies people like the Trump admin. because of how horrible they are and how what they're doing is awful for the country. Now, Spicer's basically getting a celebration contributed to by SNL from their satire that people trusted to be against the Trump admin.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Trump is jealous.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't get why people point to 2008 or 2012 to show that the US has gone forward on race relations... and not backwards if anything.
I think it's more accurate to say that 2008 and 2012 didn't erase decades, centuries of racial animus, than that 2016 didn't erase 2008 and 2012.
I think it's more accurate to say that 2008 and 2012 didn't erase decades, centuries of racial animus, than that 2016 didn't erase 2008 and 2012.
If anything, it feels like the last 8(9) years made people drop their guards because "Hey! We elected a black president! Racism is almost over, and the country's moving forward!"
I'll admit to being one of these people. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I took one look at Ferguson and said "the fuuuuuuuck is this shit?" Have had both eyes open since.
Edit: And to be clear, that was just the start. The longer I've kept them open, the more I've realized how fucked it's always been. "LTTP: Racism"
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Come on! I didn't say anything like that at all!
I thought I was pretty clear about the continuing problems about race, and was only pointing to it as proof that democrats as a party could win again despite that, and that it would at least be an improvement from what we have now.
It's very unfair to clearly refer to me like that without quoting me or addressing anything I've actually said.
shinra-bansho
Member
It wasn't clear. And the sentiment of: look at 2008 or 2012, they aren't racists, they voted for Obama you can win them - has been expressed often. If that wasn't the underlying sentiment then my mistake, the comment still stands alone.
Ultimately though 2008 and 2012 aren't necessarily proof that these people can be brought back again, because it's not 2008.
Also I often don't bother quoting people unless I'm referring to something from pages ago.
Ultimately though 2008 and 2012 aren't necessarily proof that these people can be brought back again, because it's not 2008.
Also I often don't bother quoting people unless I'm referring to something from pages ago.
I'd also point out that just because they are racist, they could vote for a black man, especially if he was shown to not put emphasis on racial issues. It is clear that after the backlash he got on things like Trayvon Martin, that Obama was no longer palatable to those people.
You also see them looking the other way for other black people like Sheriff Clarke, as long as those people are the racists' favored type of scumbag.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know how my second and third paragraphs of that statement could be taken in any way but that racists voted for obama. My first paragraph was in context of the quoted person talking specifically about the democratic party. My fourth paragraph was optimistic, but in an admittedly weak way. I'm very open to critiques as long as it's about stuff I've actually said, and if it's just a misunderstanding, that's fine.
I guess our biggest difference is I would like more proof that those people can't be brought back again despite their racism, and neither of us really could have proof about that at this point in time, so I don't know how to approach that, outside of favorability ratings.
Do you think Trump would have won 2012 if he was the republican candidate instead of Romney? I don't think so, but I'd be at a complete loss for what to do if he would have.
shinra-bansho
Member
Ok so we agree they're racists. But disagree about how reachable they are.
The context of 2008 was years of an unpopular war. I tend to think 2008 is basically pretty useless as a reference point, unless we assume that the conditions are replicable.
2012 has the benefit of incumbency, although I don't think it's actually a given that Trump would have lost to Obama with the same racist, nativist notes and the same both sides scandal media.
You have an increased partisanship.
Worse race relations.
New conditions plaguing white communities like opioid addiction.
So I just don't see the basis for optimism.
Like, I think you'd get more mileage out of trying to game the system more.
The context of 2008 was years of an unpopular war. I tend to think 2008 is basically pretty useless as a reference point, unless we assume that the conditions are replicable.
2012 has the benefit of incumbency, although I don't think it's actually a given that Trump would have lost to Obama with the same racist, nativist notes and the same both sides scandal media.
You have an increased partisanship.
Worse race relations.
New conditions plaguing white communities like opioid addiction.
So I just don't see the basis for optimism.
Like, I think you'd get more mileage out of trying to game the system more.
If neither of us have evidence about whether people who voted for a white supremacist could be persuaded away from him, why is the appropriate default assumption charity?
I would argue that the moral depravity of white supremacy has been made pretty clear over the last year and that should itself count as evidence that people who still support Trump are probably not reachable.
Well yes, people who still support trump at this point should not be bothered with. The amount of moral compromises you would have to make vs the support you would gain are no where worth even contemplating. I think there are enough voters who have already turned away from him that even if they don't vote for the dem candidate, if they don't vote at all is just as fine. The bigger issue at hand is making sure to minimize and eventually reverse voter suppression and increase dem turnout back to Obama levels. Yes, there were a tangible number of Obama voters who voted for trump but there was also a critical segment who did not vote at all in 2016 but voted in 2008 and/or 2012. Of course it does not need to be mentioned that dems also have to be conditioned to turn out in midterms.
If dems turned out in midterms we would not be in this situation, an unhealthy number of states would not be republican controlled, gerrymandering would not be as big an issue, dems would have better chance at winning seats because districts would be better balanced, Republican presidencies could be damage controlled better if we held part or all the legislative branch. 2010 was a disaster of epic proportions, its consequences lead to today's situation. Because of 2010 not only do dems have to turnout for congressional elections, they have to turnout almost 60% to 40% republican just to win 50% of the house.
Part of it could be fixed by uncapping the house size as I think nearly 1 million votes are wasted in California alone due to dispropotional representation due to mandating all states have at least 1 reps while capping the total amount congress can have. Using wyoming population, California should have 67 representatives in the house, not 53.
The rest by ending gerrymandering of course.
Disproportional representation also warps the electoral college btw, it helps break it from working as intended. California should be worth 69 votes. Of course some red states would get more reps too but most of those states are actually closer to purple.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
lobbyists, guilty people, flok
BronsonLee
Member
I think he might realize he's screwed
People who want to MAGA!
Mark Andrew
Member
Kinda seems like Trump should be paying most of these fees. I do feel really shitty about those kids who got screwed out of a college fund because their dad is under investigation.
But Michael Flynn can definitely afford to pay lawyers himself.
This was in response to Trump nicknaming Kim Jung Un rocket man amidst nuclear tensions.
But Michael Flynn can definitely afford to pay lawyers himself.
This was in response to Trump nicknaming Kim Jung Un rocket man amidst nuclear tensions.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
No, but electing him twice, and comfortably, and the (I think correct) supposition he would likely have crushed Trump under his boot do suggest that the white supremacist side of America is not as intractable nor dominant as the razor-thin election of somebody as heinous as Trump would make it seem.
Yeah. I'd rather not treat Trump's presidency like it's one big funny joke like it seems Republicans are planning on doing once he's out.
People who think Mike Flynn is a good guy and didn't do anything wrong.
Since when is working with Russia illegal?
Silly liberals and their witch hunts.
Michael Flynn is basically doing a GoFundMe to pay his defense lawyers?
Fuck me, what a piece of shit! I mean, I've seen some egregious examples of crow-funding, but this is one of the shittiest ones yet.
These people have zero shame, and yet they should have the most shame out of anyone!
Fuck me, what a piece of shit! I mean, I've seen some egregious examples of crow-funding, but this is one of the shittiest ones yet.
These people have zero shame, and yet they should have the most shame out of anyone!
Mark Andrew
Member
Im pretty surprised we cant yet make recurring donations through Patreon.
Even a good person who's being unfairly prosecuted has no reason to have a GoFundMe if they have more than enough of their own money to pay them.
And to think these are the same people who denounce "hand-outs".
maabus1999
Member
GoFundMe site sounds like a way to get "outside" money in to protect Flynn.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked