Trump 2017: Year Zero

[allegate]

Why is it so hard for people to say, "You know what, I'm rich enough. I have more money than I can spend in my or even my kids or even grandkids lifetimes. I'm good. I'm not going to accept this money from the bad guys and sell my morals."

[implanted_microchip]

Why is it so hard for people to say, "You know what, I'm rich enough. I have more money than I can spend in my or even my kids or even grandkids lifetimes. I'm good. I'm not going to accept this money from the bad guys and sell my morals."

Because once you have money, you realize how great it's been having it, so clearly having more of it must be even better, right? The types of shit these people are up to are also often fast-tracks to more influence and power, and for a lot of people who are already financially set, those become goals of theirs, too.

[theimage13]

Why is it so hard for people to say, "You know what, I'm rich enough. I have more money than I can spend in my or even my kids or even grandkids lifetimes. I'm good. I'm not going to accept this money from the bad guys and sell my morals."

Because being rich without people fawning over you is boring. You need power. You need admiration. And you get that by actively working to become more and more wealthy. America!

[allegro]

Because being rich without people fawning over you is boring. You need power. You need admiration. And you get that by actively working to become more and more wealthy. America!

I think it's more of a "challenge" to certain people -- rich or poor -- to untap some kind of "opportunity" that presents itself; those risks can make you rich but they can also bury or bankrupt you; the untapped opportunity is what gets them off. They don't care about the money, itself; they like that THEY were the ones who made the deal, made it happen, saw the opportunity and put the wheels in motion. It's not unusual in the world of business and law.

There are categories of people in the world of business and law:

* The thinkers who see an opportunity but do nothing
* The doers who see an opportunity and put the wheels in motion, do something about it
* The people who later say 'man, I had that idea first' (but did nothing about it)

The middle group are often also in the world of Government, and put themselves before country. Because the "art of the deal" is far more important than the wishes and needs of the populace.

Health Care Acts are like that: They should be called "The American Health Insurance Profits Act - to Protect the Profits of Health Insurance Companies"

Because neither the ACA nor the House's proposed AHCA or the piece of shit that is currently being developed in the Senate (rumored to remove the catastrophic cap) have ANYTHING to do with regulating the cost of "health care" (the high cost of which is why insurance costs so much, DUH) and everything to do with worrying about the health of the medical insurance industry. And making the medical insurance industry profitable (hugely) is how the members of Congress make sure their campaign coffers are full of that insurance lobbyist money.

See also: https://qz.com/1006885/ahca-the-sena...led-from-them/

[allegro]

Meanwhile, this administration has some really hilarious gaffs of ethics violations:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-ethics-rules/

[theimage13]

I think it's more of a "challenge" to certain people -- rich or poor -- to untap some kind of "opportunity" that presents itself; those risks can make you rich but they can also bury or bankrupt you; the untapped opportunity is what gets them off. They don't care about the money, itself; they like that THEY were the ones who made the deal, made it happen, saw the opportunity and put the wheels in motion. It's not unusual in the world of business and law.

There are categories of people in the world of business and law:

* The thinkers who see an opportunity but do nothing
* The doers who see an opportunity and put the wheels in motion, do something about it
* The people who later say 'man, I had that idea first' (but did nothing about it)

The middle group are often also in the world of Government, and put themselves before country. Because the "art of the deal" is far more important than the wishes and needs of the populace.

Health Care Acts are like that: They should be called "The American Health Insurance Profits Act - to Protect the Profits of Health Insurance Companies"

Because neither the ACA nor the House's proposed AHCA or the piece of shit that is currently being developed in the Senate (rumored to remove the catastrophic cap) have ANYTHING to do with regulating the cost of "health care" (the high cost of which is why insurance costs so much, DUH) and everything to do with worrying about the health of the medical insurance industry. And making the medical insurance industry profitable (hugely) is how the members of Congress make sure their campaign coffers are full of that insurance lobbyist money.

See also: https://qz.com/1006885/ahca-the-sena...led-from-them/

Basically, a way more articulate version of what I was attempting to say. Thanks

[Jinsai]

OK... that was surreal. I gave this thing the benefit of the doubt, but I assumed I was just being paranoid...

This "Bernie or Bust" guy on twitter (aaaaaaaaarrrggh) attacked a scant post I made... I never post on Twitter, I hate it...

So I engaged him.

I told him I voted for Hillary. Because she was my best choice at the time when that ultimate choice came on my tab.

He responds with calling me a shill and accusing me of being a corporatist... blah blah blah.....

And this is someone with Bernie Sanders avatar... And so I said "No, I voted for Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the final run because I saw this coming... what are you talking about?!"

And so I go to sleep. I wake up with 60 or so twitter notifications. "You're a shill!" "You love Hill" "You're so in love with the DNC that you'll set back 30 years of blah blah blah"

...

And so I thought "Why the fuck not?"
And so I tore his arguments apart.

I kept repeating "I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders, how are you not recognizing that aspect of my repeated stance?"

SHILL SHILL SHILL... idiot shill... it's what this bot kept accusing me of. It asked me to prove how many town halls I'd attended protest rallies, and by not knowing how many for sure, I was evading.

So I asked "how do you feel about the fact that friends of mine will die because of the revocation of the ACA? They'll die. I'm older than you're pretending to be by probably what seems like a decade?"

I got the bot to identify as 23.

"My friends will die... because of policy... that wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't president. How do you hold to that?" "

called me a snowflake.

Then, all tweets disappeared.

FUCK TWITTER. No wonder Trump loves this format. It's "old guy" snapchat.
It's also the short-attention span version of discourse we all dreaded, going back to the twilight zone.

This isn't talking, or debate... and fuck debate, this is the worst forum for debate ever, that's why they like it.

Did I mention I've been blocked and repeatedly reported to Twitter by this account?

[Jinsai]

I think it's telling when these bots fail to know what to do with the question that starts with: "My friend will die"

Keep on the strong fight, you fake Bernie lovers...

This "guy" https://twitter.com/veniteo

And yeah, these are weaponized bots, this is misinformation on a level we've never seen before. You cannot fight this without using the same tactics. We're just being asked to succumb to that level of shittiness, and that is how we wound up here in the first place, but so much worse

You can disbelieve me, and say that the whole argument I had with this weirdness was a lie, but look at the pattern here with what this thing tweets.
If Twitter was as "sophisticated" as Facebook, he'd list Lee Camp as one of the news television personalities that he likes.

And I don't know if I'm jumping at shadows here, but when you start wondering if the people you're arguing with are even real, you question your reality.

maybe that's when Lee Camp seems funny, Alex Jones seems like a whistle blower, and 9/11 was something other than horrifying.
Maybe that's when you're fully beyond gaslighting... where you go "clear."

[allegro]

I love Twitter as a news feed, I'm pretty much a news junkie, and I think Facebook is way too old Grandpa (we know retirees who spend ALL DAY on Facebook posting stuff that looks like it's from the Duggars) plus I couldn't hack the Trump Trolls over on FB who infiltrate what are intended to be friendly discussions among family or friends. Not being anonymous doesn't make it a better platform; it brings more of the moron soapbox people out.

But ALL OF SOCIAL MEDIA is FILLED with these people who argue, using baseless info or the same old memes over and over; the right AND the left call each other snowflakes. I don't talk with ANY of them, anymore. They're all a hair short on unhinged and I don't wanna be in their boat by talking with them.

I DO love seeing the Trump people get the shit trolled out of them these days, but it doesn't change anything. I report users on Twitter and Instagram (and YouTube, gah!!) too. There are some MEAN and IGNORANT people out there. I was reading comments on a JONI MITCHELL VIDEO from 1980 the other night and people were fighting with each other about politics there in the YouTube comments.

It's mostly POINTLESS arguing. Here's a random example, a Tweet by The Hill about a bunch of people resigning from Trump's HIV / AIDS council:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/876282348916146176

They'll go on like that in one Twitter thread for DAYS.

My Twitter and Instagram accounts are private. Only my selected followers (friends) see what I post or I only post non politics stuff on Instagram.

[elevenism]

OK... that was surreal. I gave this thing the benefit of the doubt, but I assumed I was just being paranoid...

This "Bernie or Bust" guy on twitter (aaaaaaaaarrrggh) attacked a scant post I made... I never post on Twitter, I hate it...

So I engaged him.

I told him I voted for Hillary. Because she was my best choice at the time when that ultimate choice came on my tab.

He responds with calling me a shill and accusing me of being a corporatist... blah blah blah.....

And this is someone with Bernie Sanders avatar... And so I said "No, I voted for Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the final run because I saw this coming... what are you talking about?!"

And so I go to sleep. I wake up with 60 or so twitter notifications. "You're a shill!" "You love Hill" "You're so in love with the DNC that you'll set back 30 years of blah blah blah"

...

And so I thought "Why the fuck not?"
And so I tore his arguments apart.

I kept repeating "I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders, how are you not recognizing that aspect of my repeated stance?"

SHILL SHILL SHILL... idiot shill... it's what this bot kept accusing me of. It asked me to prove how many town halls I'd attended protest rallies, and by not knowing how many for sure, I was evading.

So I asked "how do you feel about the fact that friends of mine will die because of the revocation of the ACA? They'll die. I'm older than you're pretending to be by probably what seems like a decade?"

I got the bot to identify as 23.

"My friends will die... because of policy... that wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't president. How do you hold to that?" "

called me a snowflake.

Then, all tweets disappeared.

FUCK TWITTER. No wonder Trump loves this format. It's "old guy" snapchat.
It's also the short-attention span version of discourse we all dreaded, going back to the twilight zone.

This isn't talking, or debate... and fuck debate, this is the worst forum for debate ever, that's why they like it.

Did I mention I've been blocked and repeatedly reported to Twitter by this account?

Welcome to the Death of the Age of Reason.-Frank Underwood.

This quote from the new season of House of Cards rang disturbingly true for me.
See, it doesn't matter anymore if you "win" a political argument.
People in both sides, they don't even care if their "facts" are true anymore.

For instance, I remember some trump surrogate talking about the claims that Obama wiretapped the Donald, and the surrogate said "even if it didn't really happen, it's great that it's out in the open and we're discussing it."

Even if it DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN.

[allegro]

Welcome to the Death of the Age of Reason.-Frank Underwood.

This quote from the new season of House of Cards rang disturbingly true for me.
See, it doesn't matter anymore if you "win" a political argument.
People in both sides, they don't even care if their "facts" are true anymore.

For instance, I remember some trump surrogate talking about the claims that Obama wiretapped the Donald, and the surrogate said "even if it didn't really happen, it's great that it's out in the open and we're discussing it."

Even if it DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN.

Yup, all totally spot-on. Nobody "wins" an argument in this shit; I've never seen anybody on Twitter or social media who's a staunch supporter of Trump or Sanders or Clinton suddenly change their minds mid-stream. They may evolve ON THEIR OWN but the idea that YOU will be the ONE PERSON who will utter the final brilliant pearl of wisdom that will get them to wake up and be enlightened to (your) reality is being just as dumb as they are. It's all just a bunch of proselytizing. And attempting to "reason" with people who are way beyond reason. It's a circle jerk.

And I don't think that a lot of people on social media (especially Twitter and Instagram and YouTube) comprehend that a HUGE number of those users are trolls. Deliberate, definitive trolls. And if you engage with them, you simply took their bait.

[Jinsai]

I may be failing to explain myself due to my complete unfamiliarity here with the Twitter format, but this is the larger point, and the one that makes me sound like a complete fucking lunatic: I don't know if I was arguing with a real person.

I remember when they first started coming out with AI AOL Chat bots back almost 20 years ago. I remember at first that it was fascinating. You could "chat" with this robot, and for the most part, it would immediately spit back a response that more or less made sense and seemed to be taking into a account what you just said in its response. I started trying to concoct discourse detours that would "freak out" the protocol of the AI, like, hit a wall on a point where the programmers would have felt there was a dangerous line being crossed. It flinched at nothing... and at one point, I typed something along the lines of "Ah, I just realized that I'm wasting my life talking to a robot, trying to get you to admit you're not real... what a waste of time, I should just shoot myself or something."

The bot response was something like:

"hah, I'm real... but, you're ok right?"
"Really though, if you're feeling upset or something is bothering you, I'd feel better if you called this number for suicide prevention. Please, don't do something stupid."

There was no "OK. Time to cut the shit. This program isn't really talking to you. Please seek help if you actually intend to harm yourself." It maintained the illusion, above all else, that it was still an actual personality and not a series of responses.
This was the first time I'd seen something like this, but it was, like I said, almost 20 years ago. Thinking back on it, it's like the prelude to an episode of Black Mirror. Nothing I said to that Twitter person was really all that challenging. The responses were self-righteous bullshit, and it almost never took anything I was saying into account in anything more than an immediately reactionary sense.

For all I know, I was having a "debate" with a thing, not a person... and the limited format of Twitter makes stilted, off the cuff "jab" responses seem more plausible.

[elevenism]

@Jinsai , it could have just as easily been ME failing to grasp your point due to MY lack of familiarity with Tweeter and "bots."
And good Gawd,I had no idea that these bots were capable of that level of sophistication
The implications are equal parts exciting and horrifying.

[GulDukat]

Trump is apparently yelling at the TV and wants out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6...-for-resigning

[allegro]

Trump is apparently yelling at the TV and wants out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6...-for-resigning

He and Melania and Barron are up at Camp David this weekend, their first time there. And I immediately wondered if the Donald would be griping about the old lodges and wood paneling and no gold-leaf anything.

I was wondering this weekend if Trump would resign due to "health" or something like that.

[elevenism]

I was wondering this weekend if Trump would resign due to "health" or something like that.

Do you guys think that this level of scandal would have forced a president to resign in the past?

[allegro]

Do you guys think that this level of scandal would have forced a president to resign in the past?

No. Bill Clinton didn't. Reagan didn't (Iran Contra). But they weren't cuckoo like Trump. (Or as old, although Reagan was 77 when his 2nd term ended and it's alleged that he had dementia the last few years and Nancy was running things.)

Edit: this is a really good new MSNBC video piece about Watergate (45th anniversary was yesterday):

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-live-with...m_npd_ms_tw_ma

[GulDukat]

Do you guys think that this level of scandal would have forced a president to resign in the past?

The special prosecutor needs to finish his investigation. We shall see.

[theimage13]

No. Bill Clinton didn't.

Can we really compare the two? Clinton was impeach for lying under oath; not because he got some from the intern. And we're not at impeachment yet.

In terms of comparing the level of scandal...getting frisky with a young woman (something a very, very large number of men do) vs possibly colluding with one of our biggest enemies to sway an election, ease sanctions behind the government's back, etc? I feel like as far as scandals go, these aren't even close to the same level.

[allegro]

Can we really compare the two? Clinton was impeach for lying under oath; not because he got some from the intern. And we're not at impeachment yet.

In terms of comparing the level of scandal...getting frisky with a young woman (something a very, very large number of men do) vs possibly colluding with one of our biggest enemies to sway an election, ease sanctions behind the government's back, etc? I feel like as far as scandals go, these aren't even close to the same level.

"Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage."

Watergate, Iran Contra, Paula Jones, Russians, they all created scandals and were prominent in the media every single day for a long time.

Bill Clinton's problems extended over the course of several years and several women (Gennifer Flowers nearly cost him the first election), plus there was Whitewater. "Getting frisky" wasn't the suit against Clinton: he was sued for sexual harassment, or using his position of power to sexually harass or obtain sexual favors from underling employees like Jones and Lewinsky. But make no mistake, the "scandal" that ensued was just as big as this or Watergate or Iran Contra. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. He was cleared by votes from the Senate.

Having lived through all of the above, I still count Watergate as the biggest scandal.

[allegate]

OK... that was surreal. I gave this thing the benefit of the doubt, but I assumed I was just being paranoid...

This "Bernie or Bust" guy on twitter (aaaaaaaaarrrggh) attacked a scant post I made... I never post on Twitter, I hate it...

So I engaged him.

I told him I voted for Hillary. Because she was my best choice at the time when that ultimate choice came on my tab.

He responds with calling me a shill and accusing me of being a corporatist... blah blah blah.....

And this is someone with Bernie Sanders avatar... And so I said "No, I voted for Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the final run because I saw this coming... what are you talking about?!"

And so I go to sleep. I wake up with 60 or so twitter notifications. "You're a shill!" "You love Hill" "You're so in love with the DNC that you'll set back 30 years of blah blah blah"

...

And so I thought "Why the fuck not?"
And so I tore his arguments apart.

I kept repeating "I'm to the left of Bernie Sanders, how are you not recognizing that aspect of my repeated stance?"

SHILL SHILL SHILL... idiot shill... it's what this bot kept accusing me of. It asked me to prove how many town halls I'd attended protest rallies, and by not knowing how many for sure, I was evading.

So I asked "how do you feel about the fact that friends of mine will die because of the revocation of the ACA? They'll die. I'm older than you're pretending to be by probably what seems like a decade?"

I got the bot to identify as 23.

"My friends will die... because of policy... that wouldn't have happened if Trump wasn't president. How do you hold to that?" "

called me a snowflake.

Then, all tweets disappeared.

FUCK TWITTER. No wonder Trump loves this format. It's "old guy" snapchat.
It's also the short-attention span version of discourse we all dreaded, going back to the twilight zone.

This isn't talking, or debate... and fuck debate, this is the worst forum for debate ever, that's why they like it.

Did I mention I've been blocked and repeatedly reported to Twitter by this account?

[october_midnight]

LOL at shitbag Trump speaking with the President of Panama today...

TRUMP: 'The Panama Canal is doing...quite well. We did a good job building it.'
PRESIDENT OF PANAMA: 'Yes. 100 years ago.'

lmaoooooo

[allegro]

LOL at shitbag Trump speaking with the President of Panama today...

TRUMP: 'The Panama Canal is doing...quite well. We did a good job building it.'
PRESIDENT OF PANAMA: 'Yes. 100 years ago.'

lmaoooooo

Trump: "Do you have John McCain's birth certificate?"

(Heh heh)

[Art Vandelay]

Trump: "Do you have John McCain's birth certificate?"

(Heh heh)

He keeps it with the tapes and his taxes.

[Louie_Cypher]

do you trust a guy that got fined for fraud, doesn't drink, but sells vodka, say anything do nothing, how many great businessmen can bankrupt a casino?, and people are willing to go??, I've, got some land and a few bridges,
-Louie

[ziltoid]

I keep seeing and hearing people throwing out the word "impeachment' and I don't think they fully understand exactly what it entails.
Just because someone is impeached doesn't mean that they are automatically removed from office, it is a lengthy procedure that may not even go anywhere.
People should research what impeachment is and what happens when someone is in the process of impeachment because it seems to me that many people think it will take very little time for the impeachment process to fully conclude.
Just my two cents.

[Louie_Cypher]

you don't think he knows this Russia ,know's this it took three years for Clinton, and whitewater, which he was fined for purgry dis barbed, Trump has no legal degree, no nothing, nothing political, Putin knew this there is no risk reward only reward, if he is caught, with collusion, what does America do? put him in the history books as the modern Benedict Arnold, greatest Con in history? now what?
-Louie

[theimage13]

I keep seeing and hearing people throwing out the word "impeachment' and I don't think they fully understand exactly what it entails.
Just because someone is impeached doesn't mean that they are automatically removed from office, it is a lengthy procedure that may not even go anywhere.
People should research what impeachment is and what happens when someone is in the process of impeachment because it seems to me that many people think it will take very little time for the impeachment process to fully conclude.
Just my two cents.

You're preaching to the choir. I think those of us posting here understand that. Browsing Facebook would certainly lead you to think otherwise though.

[ziltoid]

You're preaching to the choir. I think those of us posting here understand that. Browsing Facebook would certainly lead you to think otherwise though.

Absolutely talking about social media, news, and people that I run into at work.
I was just venting about it in here.

[allegro]

Just because someone is impeached doesn't mean that they are automatically removed from office, it is a lengthy procedure that may not even go anywhere.

The Senate has to find him guilty of the crimes for which he was impeached (by the House), then he'd go to prison; or, the House can impeach him but then the Senate could find him not guilty and go on with their day and everything goes back to normal (Clinton); or, he could resign after he was impeached but before the Senate trial and then he could get pardoned by the successor President (Nixon).

The impeachment talks are just a lot of hot air.