Trump

[Leo]

sowing chaos doesn't require a side to for or against. chaos and unrest in and of itself is a worthy goal for Russia.

 

[Leo]

if it leads to a general distrust of facts and the notion of an independent media, then mission accomplished.

 

[luka]

im with Gus in as much as im a bit sceptical, or at least inclined to roll my eyes at the science of amateur Putinology and its body of recieved wisdom.

 

[WashYourHands]

We can agree he’s a bit of a rascal though eh

 

[luka]

we can agree that hes a bit of a rascal, yep.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Besides, I listed 4 reasons you were wrong Tea.

So you say. Let's look at what you said:

I don't necessarily disagree, this is perfectly unimpeachable in the abstract, but 1) part of the reason he would feel threatening to these types was because of his coverage by the media, i.e. if you represent reality you're responsible for the mental health of people who internalize your representation; 2) Latino votes for Trump were a huge part of his 2020 turnout; 3) partisan affiliation is a way way higher predictor of "feeling threatened by Trump" than being a minority immigrant, ie white liberals were hysterical while black conservatives trolled for lols. And 4) This isn't what our conversation about, it's about the actual policies not about his rhetoric.

1) You never actually made a counter-argument, you just said "But what about Biden?". I would counter that it's not hard to understand why people more readily believe sexual assault allegations about a man who's on tape bragging about assaulting women, openly lusts after his own daughter and had a well publicised friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

2) Five seconds googling tells me that about 2/3 of Hispanic voters voted for Clinton in 2016 and for Biden last year. So much for that killer argument.

3) You're treating "partisan affiliation" as if it were some neutral thing totally unconnected with gender, ethnicity or anything else. Obviously it isn't. Yes there are some black Trump supporters, but the key thing is, there aren't that many of them. The vast majority of black voters don't vote for any Republican candidate.

4) Actual policies such as banning visitors from whole countries on the basis of their being majority-Muslim countries?

 

[luka]

craners rival owen hatherley just posted this on twitter, could be relevant

Daniel Finn, Perceptions and Reality — Sidecar

Analysis of the EHRC report on ‘Labour antisemitism’ and its aftermath, part two.

newleftreview.org

 

[IdleRich]

He tried to be. I judge his morality on what he wanted to do, not what he managed to do. You're talking about something else here. We've already agreed he was useless at everything he set out to do. Thank fuck.

In fact, aren't we mixing up two things? People when Trump came to power had to worry about what he might do, now we can look back and consider what he did do, which was considerably less (arguably cos people - including himself - stopped him). It's not a big surprise that there is a difference between those two perspectives.

 

[IdleRich]

we can agree that hes a bit of a rascal, yep.

There was a serious rumour in Russia that he had Parkinson's and was gonna step down in January. Looks like he fooled us again.

 

[WashYourHands]

Misdiagnosed Parkinson’s

 

[Leo]

craners rival owen hatherley

details, please. hope it's something juicy.

 

[luka]

details, please. hope it's something juicy.

this is your research file

Search results for query: hatherley

www.dissensus.com

 

[Leo]

What he's doing here @Corpsey and @version is trying to annoy me by referring to a completely non-existent feud that never existed between me and Owen Hatherley which long predated you (if it had ever happened, which it didn't).

fake news!

 

[Mr. Tea]

this is your research file

Search results for query: hatherley

www.dissensus.com

Haha, most of these results are you trying to goad craner!

 

[IdleRich]

Voting right now on whether to remove Marjorie Greene from all her committee seats, presumably will go roughly along party lines and she will be removed. Dunno what that means really.

 

[Leo]

it'll make her a martyr to the far right.

 

[IdleRich]

It feels at the moment that there is a bit of a dance going on where the GOP want to keep the nutters onside, but be able to disavow them when it becomes convenient (as it surely will) while the Dems are trying to pin them to their positions to be able to say "you voted in favour of Greene" when she gets caught firing missiles at Hillary Clinton or whatever.
Interesting that in the secret ballot yesterday the Rs voted overwhelmingly to keep Cheney in place - if the impeachment was a secret vote then Trump would be fucked, but luckily for him they're all too cowardly to vote for what they believe.

 

[IdleRich]

Also, they're trying to goad Trump into testifying at the impeachment, sending him a letter saying that if he doesn't they will draw adverse conclusions... but what's to stop them subpoena-ing him at this point when he's longer got presidential protection? It would be so funny to see him trying not to lie under oath.

 

[IdleRich]

The Republican leader condemned Greene’s past racist and anti-Semitic comments, but McCarthy has refused to remove the congresswoman from her committee assignments.
McCarthy accused Democrats of being “blinded by partisanship and politics”.

Just thinking how weird it is to accuse a politician making a political decision in the main chamber where politics happen of being "political".

 

[IdleRich]

Just in case everyone hasn't seen how scared Newsmax of being sued..... fucking full speed reverse ferret