GOP2020: What Becomes Of The Collaborators Post-Trump?

mtierney said:

Actually, satire is fake news by cognizant liberals. 

Somewhere in Mexico, Ambrose Bierce’s bones are rattling with glee.

DaveSchmidt said:

mtierney said:

Actually, satire is fake news by cognizant liberals. 

Somewhere in Mexico, Ambrose Bierce’s bones are rattling with glee.

 Hat to  google him.

tjohn said:

 Hat to  google him.

 You’d better beware all that insider stuff and references. They can be a problem.

PVW said:

tjohn said:
One of the many sad aspects of the times in which we live is that satire is often uncomfortably close to the truth.

 If you were to send a WH press release or the transcript of a presidential interview back in time to 2008 or so, and tell people this was the GOP of 2018, you'd be dismissed as putting forth a cartoonish, mean-spirited satire of conservatism.

 ain't that the truth. Back in the day the arrogant SOMA bubble libs laughed at me. I could not get anyone here to take my comments seriously. I'll bet they're all crying out of the other sides of their faces now!

Satire is at least as old as Ancient Greece. It combines irony and humor to make a serious point, usually about reform. Sorry about the assumption that most folks know Borowitz. 

But seriously, the absurdity of the content should be a clue for anyone. Satire cuts sometimes like a scalpel and sometimes like broken bottle. I thought this piece was the latter.

mtierney said:
Let me be the first one to admit to not knowing this Borowitz Report — but then I only jump into this thread occasionally. My problem is I often don’t “get” insider stuff and references on this thread. My bad.
Satire is a dangerous weapon, especially in online discussions. Actually, satire is fake news by cognizant liberals. Dangerous, rather than funny, to see “quotes” attributed falsely.
Liberal New Jersey just elected a nincompoop for governor and re-elected Menendez for the umteenth time — even in the age of #MeToo!

If I didn't know you I might think that your comment was satire.

Did you not learn about satire in High School or College? Didn't they make you read Jonathan Swift/ Have you never watched Saturday Night Live? 

I have no idea why you would think Phil Murphy is a "nincompoop". I understand he was very successful in business.

Why will you not afford Senator Menendez the same presumption of innocence as Judge Kavanaugh?

long ago in another time, I was a reporter, covering local politics. At one local government meeting, an elected official made a statement denigrating a proposal for  a proposed housing project in town. No cuss words, just his blunt opinion.

I quoted his comment in an article, as it was very much a part of the story.

The next day, the official stormed into my boss’s office, demanding my head on the proverbial platter.

The boss asked the official if the quote was incorrect.

The indignant politician replied: “No, but I didn’t know I would be quoted verbatim!”

Now I am beginning to understand.

You do not want anything you post to be taken verbatim. Thank you.

What do Murphy and Menendez have to do with #METOO??

And conservatives don't really do satire, for the same reason they don't really do humor. Because when they try it sucks. I'm looking at you Dennis Miller.

It all depends on who you target. Satire is all about punching upward, not downward, and conservatives love so much to see little people cry.

ridski said:
It all depends on who you target. Satire is all about punching upward, not downward, and conservatives love so much to see little people cry.

Conservatives are also dealing with a set of alternate facts.  It's hard for the rest of us to laugh at an alleged joke when the premise has us going "wtf?"

mtierney said:
Actually, satire is fake news by cognizant liberals. 

 So you're saying conservatives are stupid and humorless?

Tom_Reingold said:

mtierney said:
Actually, satire is fake news by cognizant liberals. 

 So you're saying conservatives are stupid and humorless?

 what, this is news?

ml1 said:

ridski said:
It all depends on who you target. Satire is all about punching upward, not downward, and conservatives love so much to see little people cry.

Conservatives are also dealing with a set of alternate facts.  It's hard for the rest of us to laugh at an alleged joke when the premise has us going "wtf?"

 It’s a very good point. I’ve noticed a lot of the jokes cons make rely on a completely different set of reference points and perceived character traits that I’m totally unaware of. 

ridski said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:
It all depends on who you target. Satire is all about punching upward, not downward, and conservatives love so much to see little people cry.

Conservatives are also dealing with a set of alternate facts.  It's hard for the rest of us to laugh at an alleged joke when the premise has us going "wtf?"

 It’s a very good point. I’ve noticed a lot of the jokes cons make rely on a completely different set of reference points and perceived character traits that I’m totally unaware of. 

I remember memes based on Obama being a Marxist, and thinking "how is that supposed to be funny?"  If it was a meme based on him caving to Republicans, or having whistleblowers arrested, ok maybe it could be funny -- based on like, something he actually did.

LOST said:
Now I am beginning to understand.
You do not want anything you post to be taken verbatim. Thank you.

 The “conclusion” you have arrived at, needs translation. Perhaps you did not get the point? 

My recount of the incident, which happened decades ago, proves the value of standing by what one has said in a public forum,  rather than deny a verbatim account, and attack the messenger. Fortunately,  my boss knew me.

You neither know or understand me. But that’s okay by me.

RealityForAll said:

 Do you realize that the author, Andy Borowitz, is a comedian and satirist?  Your quoted article is from a satirical New Yorker article.  See https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/cindy-hyde-smith-says-she-never-lost-faith-in-mississippis-racists

Please confirm that you are NOT providing the New Yorker article (set forth above from your posting) as proof of Hyde-Smith's racism.  And, instead are merely passing it on as satire.

Please provide your date of birth, so we can confirm you weren't actually born yesterday.

Meanwhile, kudos to a Republican who does the right thing:

WASHINGTON — Tim Scott of South Carolina, the lone black Republican senator, said on Thursday that he would oppose the judicial nomination of Thomas A. Farr, a lawyer who defended a North Carolina voter identification law and a partisan gerrymander that a federal court said was drafted to suppress black votes “with surgical precision.”

Mr. Scott will join Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has vowed to oppose every White House nominee unless the Senate votes on legislation to protect the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. With Democrats united against Mr. Farr, his nomination to a United States District Court appears doomed.

So this all happened in this order as far as I can tell:

1. Trump submits answers to written questions from Mueller, including questions about his Moscow dealings
2. Cohen comes out and testifies that he had previously lied about Trumps Moscow dealings
3. Trump comes out and says that Cohen is lying to receive leaner sentencing
4. Trumps legal staff comes out and says that Trumps written answers are completely consistent with what Cohen is saying

What is going on here? 

gerritn said:
So this all happened in this order as far as I can tell:

1. Trump submits answers to written questions from Mueller, including questions about his Moscow dealings
2. Cohen comes out and testifies that he had previously lied about Trumps Moscow dealings
3. Trump comes out and says that Cohen is lying to receive leaner sentencing
4. Trumps legal staff comes out and says that Trumps written answers are completely consistent with what Cohen is saying

What is going on here? 

Gaslight

Obfuscate

Project

ridski said:

gerritn said:
So this all happened in this order as far as I can tell:

1. Trump submits answers to written questions from Mueller, including questions about his Moscow dealings
2. Cohen comes out and testifies that he had previously lied about Trumps Moscow dealings
3. Trump comes out and says that Cohen is lying to receive leaner sentencing
4. Trumps legal staff comes out and says that Trumps written answers are completely consistent with what Cohen is saying

What is going on here? 

Gaslight
Obfuscate
Project

I obviously would not agree with it, but from trumps perspective, I just cannot figure out why he hasn't fired mueller a long time ago already. If he had done it in the last 12+ months he would have had republicans covering him in senate and house, but now he is looking a democratic house that would give him a real hard time over it. And on the other hand, the longer mueller continues the more material he will uncover that are terrible for him. Possibly to the point where he or is family or company get into legal trouble. There is zero benefit for him to wait with this for so long. This is very perplexing to me.

“There is zero benefit for him to wait with this for so long. This is very perplexing to me.”

Not if you believe you are not guilty.

I would hesitate to speculate as to what Trump really believes.  I think it more likely that somebody (e.g. someone like Lindsey Graham) told him that it would be a really bad idea to fire Mueller and that to do so would be to cause some senators to oppose him.

tjohn said:
I would hesitate to speculate as to what Trump really believes.  I think it more likely that somebody (e.g. someone like Lindsey Graham) told him that it would be a really bad idea to fire Mueller and that to do so would be to cause some senators to oppose him.

But even if that were the case, it's only going to get worse the further this investigation goes, surely he must understand that. He is not going to go  down without a fight, so he will fire Mueller one day. And maybe he will pay a price for that, but the price will only get higher over time. And the damage done by the investigation is also only going to increase the longer it goes on. I honestly do not understand this.

gerritn said:

tjohn said:
I would hesitate to speculate as to what Trump really believes.  I think it more likely that somebody (e.g. someone like Lindsey Graham) told him that it would be a really bad idea to fire Mueller and that to do so would be to cause some senators to oppose him.

But even if that were the case, it's only going to get worse the further this investigation goes, surely he must understand that. He is not going to go  down without a fight, so he will fire Mueller one day. And maybe he will pay a price for that, but the price will only get higher over time. And the damage done by the investigation is also only going to increase the longer it goes on. I honestly do not understand this.

Well, he has made poor choices in the past.  If he had appointed CC attorney general and he had been approved, none of this would be happening to him.  Sessions was out of his depth.

He likes having enemies. He needs someone as a foil to fight against. "China" is too big and amorphous and far away. "Rocket Man" is now his main man. Unlike many of his supporters he knows that Hillary is a has-been.

With no Mueller and no Mueller Investigation what would he complain about? 

LOST said:
He likes having enemies. He needs someone as a foil to fight against. "China" is too big and amorphous and far away. "Rocket Man" is now his main man. Unlike many of his supporters he knows that Hillary is a has-been.
With no Mueller and no Mueller Investigation what would he complain about? 

The caravan? Pelosi? German cars?

gerritn said:

LOST said:
He likes having enemies. He needs someone as a foil to fight against. "China" is too big and amorphous and far away. "Rocket Man" is now his main man. Unlike many of his supporters he knows that Hillary is a has-been.
With no Mueller and no Mueller Investigation what would he complain about? 

The caravan? Pelosi? German cars?

 Bad hombres.

Pelosi is a possibility. He has problems with women.

gerritn said:

ridski said:

gerritn said:
So this all happened in this order as far as I can tell:

1. Trump submits answers to written questions from Mueller, including questions about his Moscow dealings
2. Cohen comes out and testifies that he had previously lied about Trumps Moscow dealings
3. Trump comes out and says that Cohen is lying to receive leaner sentencing
4. Trumps legal staff comes out and says that Trumps written answers are completely consistent with what Cohen is saying

What is going on here? 

Gaslight
Obfuscate
Project

I obviously would not agree with it, but from trumps perspective, I just cannot figure out why he hasn't fired mueller a long time ago already. If he had done it in the last 12+ months he would have had republicans covering him in senate and house, but now he is looking a democratic house that would give him a real hard time over it. And on the other hand, the longer mueller continues the more material he will uncover that are terrible for him. Possibly to the point where he or is family or company get into legal trouble. There is zero benefit for him to wait with this for so long. This is very perplexing to me.

Probably he didn't really believe Republicans would lose the House. Or didn't really understand the implications of what losing the House were. And now that the mid-terms are over, maybe he thinks Whitaker will make this all go away. Maybe after all the headaches firing Comey brought him, he actually has some dim sense of understanding the risks of outright firing Mueller. 

Trump's whole career has relied heavily on skirting and even outright breaking the law. As was his father's. What in his previous experience would make him think things are any different this time around? Maybe it's as simple as that he doesn't really take this too seriously.