I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's less exact. Fascism was an actual thing in other countries. There were people and political parties who identified as fascists, and the people you are calling fascist here do not. Also: Mao was not a fascist.

Um, that was my point. "Authoritarian" would include Mao as well as Franco. "Fascist" is just Franco. Trump is an awful lot like Franco. And make no mistake, the Republicans are now building close alliances with the political parties in Europe that are the direct descendants of the fascist parties.

I don't necessarily think calling Republicans fascists is a way to win anyone's hearts and minds. But, analytically, they fit the bill and understanding Trump and the direction of the Republican party today involves understanding fascism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Um, that was my point. "Authoritarian" would include Mao as well as Franco. "Fascist" is just Franco. Trump is an awful lot like Franco. And make no mistake, the Republicans are now building close alliances with the political parties in Europe that are the direct descendants of the fascist parties.

I don't necessarily think calling Republicans fascists is a way to win anyone's hearts and minds. But, analytically, they fit the bill and understanding Trump and the direction of the Republican party today involves understanding fascism.

Analytically, there are both similarities and differences with fascists, their descendants, and other authoritarians around the world. You could mention Latin American caudillos while you're at it. (Pinochet had the libertarians backing him, something that points to how American libertarians behave.) Just applying the label "fascist" doesn't accomplish much of anything. Having a richer conversation about what Trump and other Republicans are doing is a great idea. I don't think you need the label to do that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Analytically, there are both similarities and differences with fascists, their descendants, and other authoritarians around the world. You could mention Latin American caudillos while you're at it. (Pinochet had the libertarians backing him, something that points to how American libertarians behave.) Just applying the label "fascist" doesn't accomplish much of anything. Having a richer conversation about what Trump and other Republicans are doing is a great idea. I don't think you need the label to do that.

It's not just a label but an analytical construct, and in particular gives some insight into potential strategies he may have. If you accept the idea that he is behaving in a way that makes it look like he wants to consolidate power and eliminate as thoroughly as possible all opposition, watching how others have done it is useful. He's going to use strategies more like Mussolini or, yes, some of the caudillos, but not so much like Mao or Stalin.

We should always be careful to avoid reifying constructs, but it is very hard to analyze any situation without using constructs of some sort.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not just a label but an analytical construct, and in particular gives some insight into potential strategies he may have. If you accept the idea that he is behaving in a way that makes it look like he wants to consolidate power and eliminate as thoroughly as possible all opposition, watching how others have done it is useful. He's going to use strategies more like Mussolini or, yes, some of the caudillos, but not so much like Mao or Stalin.

We should always be careful to avoid reifying constructs, but it is very hard to analyze any situation without using constructs of some sort.

You're an analytical construct.

I saw Run The Jewels on The Daily Show last night, who are hilarious. It prompted me to go back to this video, which Thurgreed posted a few months ago. Truly the video of our times.

"Pinch your momma on the booty,
Kick your dog, fuck your bitch
Fat boy dressed as Santa
Taking pictures with your kids"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You're an analytical construct.

I saw Run The Jewels on The Daily Show last night, who are hilarious. It prompted me to go back to this video, which Thurgreed posted a few months ago. Truly the video of our times.

"Pinch your momma on the booty,
Kick your dog, fuck your bitch
Fat boy dressed as Santa
Taking pictures with your kids"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY

O.K, so Sessions lied to Congress about his communications during the campaign with a hostile power that has been accused with interfering with the election. Prison seems like a no brainer for me. But can someone in this echo chamber play Devil's Advocate and explain to me the rationale for why he at a minimum should not immediately resign? And why having him continue to have any role in the investigation would not be somewhere on the spectrum between ridiculously ludicrous and ludicrously ridiculous?

Also, it's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose. Here's an extended cut of Mind Power. Sit back and let the groove spread out and fill in the cracks in your soul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeTP6qsu0Bo

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K, so Sessions lied to Congress about his communications during the campaign with a hostile power that has been accused with interfering with the election. Prison seems like a no brainer for me. But can someone in this echo chamber play Devil's Advocate and explain to me the rationale for why he at a minimum should not immediately resign? And why having him continue to have any role in the investigation would not be somewhere on the spectrum between ridiculously ludicrous and ludicrously ridiculous?

Also, it's James Brown Thursday on the Daily Dose. Here's an extended cut of Mind Power. Sit back and let the groove spread out and fill in the cracks in your soul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeTP6qsu0Bo

Come on, Congress already blessed him as AG despite him being a racist son-of-a-bitch wanting to roll back the Constitutional rights of much of the population and also despite his desire to send black helicopters after every blue-state pot-smoker, so what's a little fib about whether or not he slept with the Russian Ambassador go to do with anything? Why do we care what kind of espionage consenting adults engage in as long as it doesn't involve pot-smoking or miscegenation?

You snowflakes need to realize elections have consequences.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Come on, Congress already blessed him as AG despite him being a racist son-of-a-bitch wanting to roll back the Constitutional rights of much of the population and also despite his desire to send black helicopters after every blue-state pot-smoker, so what's a little fib about whether or not he slept with the Russian Ambassador go to do with anything? Why do we care what kind of espionage consenting adults engage in as long as it doesn't involve pot-smoking or miscegenation?

You snowflakes need to realize elections have consequences.

I see the WH has said that Sessions was "100% straight" with Congress, so I guess he didn't sleep with the Ambassador, just had international relations with him. My bad.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

But can someone in this echo chamber play Devil's Advocate and explain to me the rationale for why he at a minimum should not immediately resign?

Because the Democrats are too stupid to hold him accountable? This morning some called for him to resign, but, importantly, others (I think including Klobuchar) called for him to recuse himself from any Russia investigation.

Meanwhile, some GOP leaders called for recusal and then walked that back as soon as they saw that some Dems were stupid enough to adopt that as their position.

He should, at minimum, resign. Every Dem should be calling for that, to which the GOP was going to counter with recusal, which the Dems would eventually roll over and accept.

Now? He's just going to be another senior official who got away with lying to Congress.

[SEC_Chick]

It's even more of an echo chamber in here without Sebby.

I'm pretty against the Trumpist pro-Russia influence on the GOP, but I don't think this is a big deal. Just as I don't think it's a big deal with all of the whataboutism being focused at McCaskill. And frankly, the whataboutism that has invaded the Republicans is just a reflexive reaction to the selling out of their own principles. And if you are going to do it, even though it is weak, pointing out when Ted Kennedy explicitly asked the Commies to influence Reagan's campaign would have been a much better example.

I'm sorry that Franken/Leahy didn't ask the questions you wish they had.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I'm sorry that Franken/Leahy didn't ask the questions you wish they had.

Unasked (btw, this is a thing Trump does too, offering things they don't have to that get them in trouble) he said he's a surrogate for the campaign and he had no contact with the Russians. That's a lie.

Now, it was the ambassador and it was semi-official, so maybe there's nothing particularly nefarious about the contacts and I'd probably believe him if he just said he forgot about it.

But that's not what he's now saying. He's saying he didn't mention it because it wasn't about the campaign. His story is he intentionally gave a misleading answer.

And, oh, yeah, they did at least briefly mention the campaign.

Regardless, while a surrogate for the Trump campaign, Sessions had contacts with the same Russian official Flynn was talking to. At the very least, that makes him a potential witness in any investigation of the Russia thing who can't be anywhere near the investigation.

If I'm the administration, I'm not sure I want him as a senior official who has to testify to Congress regularly either, but I doubt that this administration cares much whether Congress thinks they are lying.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It's even more of an echo chamber in here without Sebby.

I'm pretty against the Trumpist pro-Russia influence on the GOP, but I don't think this is a big deal. Just as I don't think it's a big deal with all of the whataboutism being focused at McCaskill. And frankly, the whataboutism that has invaded the Republicans is just a reflexive reaction to the selling out of their own principles. And if you are going to do it, even though it is weak, pointing out when Ted Kennedy explicitly asked the Commies to influence Reagan's campaign would have been a much better example.

I'm sorry that Franken/Leahy didn't ask the questions you wish they had.

Not a big deal because you don't think his lying about the subject is a big deal or because you don't think he lied? Because, regardless of what Franken asked him, he said, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians.” Seems like he was lying to Congress, which is a crime, right? He also apparently denied it in a written application.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I'm pretty against the Trumpist pro-Russia influence on the GOP, but I don't think this is a big deal.

You don't think what is a big deal? The fact that a staggering number of people in Trump's campaign were in contact with Russia throughout the election while Russia was hacking the DNC to aid Trump? The fact that we have no idea what was being discussed? The fact that Trump is acting completely irrational (even for him) when it comes to anything Russian? The fact that he has admitted to having major business dealings with Russians? The fact that we can't examine his tax returns to understand whether he does in fact have those business dealings (or maybe hasn't reported them)? The fact that if he does have business dealings that they may be ongoing and since he hasn't divested, his decisions w/r/t Russia may be colored by self-interest? The fact that there may be information out there that compromises him and may subject him to Russian influence?

Or is it just no big deal that no one in the GOP gives a shit about any of this?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It's even more of an echo chamber in here without Sebby.

I'm pretty against the Trumpist pro-Russia influence on the GOP, but I don't think this is a big deal. Just as I don't think it's a big deal with all of the whataboutism being focused at McCaskill. And frankly, the whataboutism that has invaded the Republicans is just a reflexive reaction to the selling out of their own principles. And if you are going to do it, even though it is weak, pointing out when Ted Kennedy explicitly asked the Commies to influence Reagan's campaign would have been a much better example.

I'm sorry that Franken/Leahy didn't ask the questions you wish they had.

Regardless, there is great beauty in watching the people who have been leading witch hunts and handing out pitchforks to the villagers lo these last few decades suddenly running for cover and arguing that it was just a minor law they violated, and it was just unintentional, and they didn't mean what they said over and over again.

Sessions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no more, no less. It is an easier fate that what he argued for for others.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I see the WH has said that Sessions was "100% straight" with Congress, so I guess he didn't sleep with the Ambassador, just had international relations with him. My bad.

From here on out, I assume that "no contact" means "no penetration".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You don't think what is a big deal? The fact that a staggering number of people in Trump's campaign were in contact with Russia throughout the election while Russia was hacking the DNC to aid Trump? The fact that we have no idea what was being discussed? The fact that Trump is acting completely irrational (even for him) when it comes to anything Russian? The fact that he has admitted to having major business dealings with Russians? The fact that we can't examine his tax returns to understand whether he does in fact have those business dealings (or maybe hasn't reported them)? The fact that if he does have business dealings that they may be ongoing and since he hasn't divested, his decisions w/r/t Russia may be colored by self-interest? The fact that there may be information out there that compromises him and may subject him to Russian influence?

Or is it just no big deal that no one in the GOP gives a shit about any of this?

TM

What about the fact that Russia is just one of many issues where there is a clusterfuck of disloyalty, incompetence, greed, abuse of process, and stupidity going on?

I mean, this is framed by his attacks on the media, his ignoring or downplaying of hate crimes and domestic terrorism, and his immigration nightmares. For a start.