What stupid shit has Trump done today?

[Maltin]

I've reported your post where you accused J Ed of racism and will report any further off topic insults.

Clearly it's for the mods to decide but this seems a bizarre and very disingenuous claim to make based on the recent posts that I can see.

 

[maomao]

Clearly it's for the mods to decide but this seems a bizarre and very disingenuous claim to make based on the posts that I can see.

I'm entirely serious. It's been going on for nearly a year now. Constantly chucking around baseless accusations of racism is defamatory and distruptive. Like I said I'm not disrupting amymore, just reporting posts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So:

1 Nobody important, nor with access to specialized knowledge/information/insight.

2. No reason to care, nor to be interested.

 

[J Ed]

So:

1 Nobody important, nor with access to specialized knowledge/information/insight.

2. No reason to care, nor to be interested.

1) I wasn't the one who brought her up.

2) The fact that this person is being given a very prominent media platform to say this stuff is indicative of a very worrying culture that seems to be emerging in America, very much a mirror image of Trump's political orbit.

 

[CRI]

A Special Prosecutor Is Not the Answer
Rather than an inquiry focused narrowly on criminal conduct, the way to resolve questions swirling around President Trump and his associates is to impanel an independent commission.

Interesting perspective on the dangers of treating the situ as a criminal investigation when the motives behind Trump and the GOP's actions have been political.

Few now disagree that the integrity of the 2016 election was polluted by clandestine foreign intervention. Americans deserve the full story of that pollution, If the president of the United States—or anyone near him—is compromised by connections to foreign intelligence or foreign organized crime, the public and Congress need to know that immediately. But the dangers—and the remedies—in the present situation are much more likely to be political than legal. It’s more important that the investigation be speedy and its full conclusions shared with the public than that it lead to indictments, prosecutions, and penalties. By delaying, distracting, and asking the wrong questions, a slow-moving and tight-lipped special prosecutor could well serve Trump’s interests better than Trump’s own lawyers to date have done.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No suggestion that you were; just a question about an apparent nonentity who seems to get talked about a lot in these threads.

 

[J Ed]

No suggestion that you were; just a question about an apparent nonentity who seems to get talked about a lot in these threads.

Don't you think it's a bit worrying that someone who is says that Black Lives Matter are Russian agents, and that ISIS attacks are actually Russian attacks, is being given prominence in mainstream liberal media in the US?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

She couldn't be given that much prominence: the only place I see her name mentioned is in threads on these boards.

 

[J Ed]

She couldn't be given that much prominence: the only place I see her name mentioned is in threads on these boards.

She is in the New York Times and on MSNBC.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Lots of things have been in the New York Times; that doesn't necessarily equate with prominence.

I peruse the NYT at least a couple of times per week; haven't read anything by her there, so far. It's a pretty big paper.

 

[J Ed]

Lots of things have been in the New York Times; that doesn't necessarily equate with prominence.

I peruse the NYT at least a couple of times per week; haven't read anything by her there, so far. It's a pretty big paper.

I don't really know how to respond to that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If your underlying thesis is that the mainstream media is losing its way, moving more and more toward clickbait stories as opposed to responsible journalism, you'll get no argument from me.

But these pronouncements from this Mensch person appear to fall more into the clickbait category; it's unclear why they're getting so much attention in these threads.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

2) The fact that this person is being given a very prominent media platform to say this stuff is indicative of a very worrying culture that seems to be emerging in America, very much a mirror image of Trump's political orbit.

I see you edited your post to add this second point.

I agree that something is worrying: the tendency of the media to gravitate more and more toward clickbait stories, and the decline of responsible journalism.

Standing in the grocery checkout line the other day, I was contemplating that there was a time when the sorts of stories and pronouncements that one sees on the front page of the National Enquirer, or the Globe, were for the most part confined to those sorts of periodicals.

Today, they are proliferating throughout the media.

 

[8den]

If your underlying thesis is that the mainstream media is losing its way, moving more and more toward clickbait stories as opposed to responsible journalism, you'll get no argument from me.

But these pronouncements from this Mensch person appear to fall more into the clickbait category; it's unclear why they're getting so much attention in these threads.

A high profile Tory MP married to the manager of AC/DC, who after trying and failing to launch a twittter rival is attempting to reinvigorate her career as some weird left wing Alex Jones.

I can't imagine why Urban has a slightly morbid fascination with the mind of Mench

 

[8den]

I see you edited your post to add this second point.

I agree that something is worrying: the tendency of the media to gravitate more and more toward clickbait stories, and the decline of responsible journalism.

Standing in the grocery checkout line the other day, I was contemplating that there was a time when the sorts of stories and pronouncements that one sees on the front page of the National Enquirer, or the Globe, were for the most part confined to those sorts of periodicals.

Today, they are proliferating throughout the media.

Not quite



.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A high profile Tory MP married to the manager of AC/DC, who after trying and failing to launch a twittter rival is attempting to reinvigorate her career as some weird left wing Alex Jones.

I can't imagine why Urban has a slightly morbid fascination with the mind of Mench

I suppose it makes sense that she would be familiar to British readers, who would continue to be interested in what she says.

But outside of Britain, I'd suggest she is somewhere between unknown and not-well-known; and from what I can see of her comments on here, she comes across as a bit of an amusing oddity - nothing more.

 

[MightyTibberton]

She's been in the NY Times once, on the opinion pages - and there was indeed quite a big fuss about it. I think she's been on TV a couple of times (but I honestly have no idea, I'm in the UK - I know a big one was being on the Bill Maher show). Her initial big scoop wasn't in the "liberal media" but in a Rupert Murdoch-owned site called Heat Street that seems to be aimed at millennial libertarian types.

She is being given attention, partly because she is a former MP and a very high-profile one, and very well connected (I thought he was Metalica's manager, but I'm no heavy metal fan!) and is determined to maintain that profile certainly.

But the fact remains that she broke the story of the FISA warrants, and someone close to her broke the story of the grand juries.

She didn't say Black Lives Matter are Russian agents - she said a genuine protest was hijacked by outside agitators and turned violent, in part to discredit it, and, yep, she blames the Russians for that.

Twitter is where she sits. I think she behaves badly on there sometimes and is sometimes irresponsible. I think some of what she says is indefensible to be honest. But someone is leaking stuff to her that has proved to be true and that completely scooped the mainstream media - the NYT reported a week before the election that the FBI had concluded that there was no link between the Trump campaign and Russia, they were wrong and she was right, that's one reason why she gets attention.

 

[MightyTibberton]

America has a Twitter president. . .

 

[8den]

I suppose it makes sense that she would be familiar to British readers, who would continue to be interested in what she says.

But outside of Britain, I'd suggest she is somewhere between unknown and not-well-known; and from what I can see of her comments on here, she comes across as a bit of an amusing oddity - nothing more.

Hence the endless amusement that some people (generally not urbans) are treating her tweets as gospel. She got one thing sort of right in Nov and spewing the crazy before and since.

She was even after a job on the Clinton campaign at one point.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

She's been in the NY Times once, on the opinion pages - and there was indeed quite a big fuss about it..

Not correct: it appears she's written there twice: once about Russian hacking, once about Brexit.

NYTimes.com Search

 

[8den]

America has a Twitter Toddler president. . .

Fixed that for you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hence the endless amusement that some people (generally not urbans) are treating her tweets as gospel.

Well, why not? There are people out there treating Alex Jones as gospel. I don't think that gullibility is restricted to any one political persuasion.

 

[8den]

Not correct: it appears she's written there twice: once about Russian hacking, once about Brexit.

NYTimes.com Search

A Murdoch-friendly British politician writing a pro-Brexit editorial?

 

[J Ed]

She didn't say Black Lives Matter are Russian agents - she said a genuine protest was hijacked by outside agitators and turned violent, in part to discredit it, and, yep, she blames the Russians for that.

Twitter is where she sits. I think she behaves badly on there sometimes and is sometimes irresponsible. I think some of what she says is indefensible to be honest. But someone is leaking stuff to her that has proved to be true and that completely scooped the mainstream media - the NYT reported a week before the election that the FBI had concluded that there was no link between the Trump campaign and Russia, they were wrong and she was right, that's one reason why she gets attention.

No, she literally said that Black Lives Matter activists in Ferguson were paid by the Russian state. This is the person being boosted by MSNBC and the New York Times, and journalists within that orbit, and they are doing that boosting on a daily basis.

 

[MightyTibberton]

Ah, well there you go. . . I apologise, I was only aware of the one.

That's one thing (I'm aware others think there are more!) that damages her credibility. She is quite happy to talk about all this Facebook propoganda and micro-targetting and the like affecting the election of Trump, but if it's brought up in relation to Brexit she tries to downplay any influence it might have had.

 

[MightyTibberton]

 

[MightyTibberton]

She tweets hundreds of times a day... so there's a volume thing too.

(EDIT: That's meant to refer to why she has so much attention. I believe it's a good way to get attention on social media - just make a lot of noise!)

 

[CRI]

'tae' fuck?!? You don't mind a bit of cultural appropriation yourself obviously.

This is supposed to be a thread for talking about Trump. If you throw around smears and accusations people will respond. How about just ignoring the people you're claiming to ignore and not dragging this thread down the same hole as the last two. I've reported your post where you accused J Ed of racism and will report any further off topic insults.

Yes, this is a thread about Trump. IMO, given the racist nature of his administration and the GOPs policies and how these tap into the white supremacist history and culture in the US, well, sometimes one might be inclined to talk about racism when talking about Trump.

And, I live in Scotland. Even English people say "get tae fuck," and some even drink IrnBru.

I prefer the block/ignore option in situ like this, as I think everyone has a right to say what they want (within site rules), but no one should be forced to listen to shit they don't want to hear. But in this case, I'm still aware he/she is stalking my posts when I see comments from others about them, and from others trying to force me to engage with them. I'd prefer a two way permablock so we can stay out of each other's hair. I've never reported a post or member here, but hey, knock yourself out!

 

[MightyTibberton]

It might well have been me who brought Louise Mensch up, and I seem to have elected myself counsel for the defence, too. . . Oh dear. . . Strange bedfellows and odd times and all that.

Perhaps there should be a seperate "Trump Russia" or "Trump impeachment" or something thread, so as to get this back to stupid shit he's done.

I believe he's playing golf today, so his stupid shit will be limited to his alleged cheating at the game until he starts to issue pronouncements from the club house.

 

[CRI]

Good piece here on the political remedy for the Trump situation from Harvard Constitutional Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe.

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving our constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office.

No American president has ever been removed for such abuses, although Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within a single vote of being convicted by the Senate and removed, and Richard Nixon resigned to avoid that fate.

Now the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.

Ample reasons existed to worry about this president, and to ponder the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, even before he fired FBI Director James B. Comey and shockingly admitted on national television that the action was provoked by the FBI’s intensifying investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia.

Even without getting to the bottom of what Trump dismissed as “this Russia thing,” impeachable offenses could theoretically have been charged from the outset of this presidency. One important example is Trump’s brazen defiance of the foreign emoluments clause, which is designed to prevent foreign powers from pressuring U.S. officials to stray from undivided loyalty to the United States. Political reality made impeachment and removal on that and other grounds seem premature.

No longer. To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader.

However, this is the crucial bit -

It will require serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty, for a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry. It would be a terrible shame if only the mounting prospect of being voted out of office in November 2018 would sufficiently concentrate the minds of representatives and senators today.

But whether it is devotion to principle or hunger for political survival that puts the prospect of impeachment and removal on the table, the crucial thing is that the prospect now be taken seriously, that the machinery of removal be reactivated, and that the need to use it become the focus of political discourse going into 2018.