Getting closer to a mafia state

[Maximus1]

How did Natalie Portman describe the reaction to the end of the Republic? " To thunderous applause."
Yesterday the transcripts find Trump and Pompeo dismantling the State Department. With no pros, foreign policy can opperate like the Gambino’s. Funny thing is I think even the Gambino’s would tell them I you want to be one of us quit and join.

 

[Spaten]

All the FACTS establish is that Trump asked Zelensky to do what he’s obligated by treaty to do.

What kind of “corruption” are you talking about? What evidence is there?

Maybe you recall the scene from Godfather, when the Don puts a gun to the head of the guy who owns Johnny Fontaine’s contract, and “asks” him to give it to him… the process is slightly underscored when the Don adds that either the guy’s brain or his signature will be on the dotted line in about 5 seconds. That is the kind of “asking” that Trump likes. Ukraine is in deep trouble, because Trump’s other bosom buddy, Daddy Vladimir already annexed some of it territory, and Trump is simply envious of his power.

I think of a hypothetical trial, where Trump is accused of extortion, bribery and other assorted sundry crimes all taken from his REAL LIFE. He, of course - denies it. When the actual REAL evidence is presented, he admits to the acts, but adds that he is above the law, he can do whatever he wants to do.

And then the jury - composed of he Senate Republicans - quickly declare him not guilty… after all HE, HIMSELF declared his innocence.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

People who support politicians who support killing children are not likely to be greatly affected if their party is called “evil”.

Then why do Republicans continue to do it? What do they hope to accomplish by demonizing Democrats?

It’s not exactly a matter of voting Republican either. I was a lifelong Democrat and might still lwould be one but for the party forcing a decision for abortion or opting out. So it’s not impossible.
I do vote for Repubs because all the Dems on my ballot are pro-abortion.

I have seen this comment before and did not say anything because it is really neither here nor there what your history was, but I have to say, this assertion is hard to believe given how many other Republican views you support that have nothing to do with abortion and how many Democratic views you reject having nothing to do with abortion, the one exception being the death penalty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When Nixon was President, you had 3 major networks and a few major metropolitan newspapers that all echoed pretty much the same story. Controlling public opinion was pretty easy. Now you have alternatives that aren’t just going to report “facts” intended to harm Trump, they’re going to report the other side. You may not like PJMedia, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, et. al., but Trump’s supporters do and that’s where they get their “facts”. Impeachment has been going on since Trump was elected, almost 3 years, and his supporters are showing no signs of abandoning him.

We can still hope that enough people on both sides are exposed to the same facts that such a complete divide of accepted facts never happens.

It’s not Trump supporters who are banning people on Twitter, Facebook, etc. it’s his opponents.

You can’t compare demonizing 50% the population with banning less than 0.0001% of the population from Twitter and Facebook.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

We can still hope that enough people on both sides are exposed to the same facts that such a complete divide of accepted facts never happens.

Not possible to deny it’s a lot easier to get information from both sides nowadays. Back during the Watergate days, that was impossible.

Now who is trying to steer us back to the bad old days when we only got information from one side?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We can still hope that enough people on both sides are exposed to the same facts that such a complete divide of accepted facts never happens.

Not possible to deny it’s a lot easier to get information from both sides nowadays. Back during the Watergate days, that was impossible.

Now who is trying to steer us back to the bad old days when we only got information from one side?

Those were the good old days when journalism was respected - a respect it richly deserved.

Information does not have a “side”. Opinion does, but not information.

 

[Theo520]

How did Natalie Portman describe the reaction to the end of the Republic? " To thunderous applause."
Yesterday the transcripts find Trump and Pompeo dismantling the State Department. With no pros, foreign policy can opperate like the Gambino’s. Funny thing is I think even the Gambino’s would tell them I you want to be one of us quit and join.

You clearly don’t know how the state dept works, and how political they are. It’s normal to clean house between administrations. It’s normal to change out the senior roles. Incidentally the Ambassador was effectively neutered as a power position starting with the introduction of the fax machine. Their strategic relevance has continued to decline as modern communication means spread across the globe. The real work all happens at the Foreign Service Officer level in the embassies.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Unless both sides stop

Yes .
But it won’t happen because “the other side really is the worst! We have to behave like this!”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So says both sides.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

So say we all

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Incidentally the Ambassador was effectively neutered as a power position starting with the introduction of the fax machine. Their strategic relevance has continued to decline as modern communication means spread across the globe.

That is a gross misunderstanding of the role of an Ambassador. Ambassadors are needed more than ever.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Those were the good old days when journalism was respected - a respect it richly deserved.

Not when it’s now well known how the media lied to us about Vietnam. Said we were losing when those were not the facts on the ground there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Those were the good old days when journalism was respected - a respect it richly deserved.

Not when it’s now well known how the media lied to us about Vietnam. Said we were losing when those were not the facts on the ground there.

Revisionist history. The media exposed the horrible truth about Vietnam. But if it helps you maintain your narrative about lying media, then I can understand why you might say that.

 

[Spaten]

So you’re figuring Trump’s going to play by the rules? That doesn’t sound very autocratic to me.

I am very concerned that Trump will NOT play by the rules, given half a chance. But if during the fact finding process a significant percentage of his supporters would turn on him, then his ability to go against the rules will be much smaller.

By the way, his support is not strong enough to really establish an autocratic system, much as he would love to do it. Remember how he “fell in love” with the bloodiest of the dictators (Kim Jung Un) and how he envies the position of Xi in China.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Too bizarre for response.

 

[phil3]

If you agree with this article youre are clueless. You people are leading this country to a civil war.

 

[drcube]

Too bizarre for response.

I’ve often wondered if you understood The Godfather when you post because you seem to think that quid pro quos are made in incredibly clear English where everyone understands exactly what they must do and that it is illegal.

If you agree with this article youre are clueless. You people are leading this country to a civil war.

I only hear about causing a Civil War from the right. Why is that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then why do Republicans continue to do it? What do they hope to accomplish by demonizing Democrats?

I think it’s one of those “call a spade a spade” things. When you come to full realization that the party’s main tenet is killing children, your mind just doesn’t accept euphemisms anymore.

I have to say, this assertion is hard to believe given how many other Republican views you support that have nothing to do with abortion and how many Democratic views you reject having nothing to do with abortion, the one exception being the death penalty.

You have to realize the Dem party has changed. I didn’t. I was actually slightly to left of center of the party most of the time. The party used to be for a strong defense, maximizing opportunity to those who worked for it, cheap energy, family oriented, low interest student loans and loan forgiveness for service, real borders, genuine programs for the poor. The Dem party isn’t like that now. I’ll have to admit there was a lot of optimism about the Great Society programs that didn’t pan out over time the way people thought they would. And the party was interventionist to a degree I would not be comfortable with now.

So you’re right in a way. When I was a party activist, the party did not stand for abortion. Nor did it stand for homosexual marriage. Nor did it stand for “medicare for all”. Nor did it stand for banning cars or cows or abandoning insane people to the streets in the name of self-determination. But that stuff is the Dem party of today, not the party even of Bill Clinton, the last Dem president for whom I voted.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve often wondered if you understood The Godfather when you post because you seem to think that quid pro quos are made in incredibly clear English where everyone understands exactly what they must do and that it is illegal.

Well, nothing Trump said was illegal. Nor is there any reason to think he intended to extort Zelensky. Nor did Zelensky think so.

But yes, I do understand the mafia quite well; likely a lot better than you do. The Dem Deep State people are a lot closer to it than Trump ever even imagined.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Revisionist history. The media exposed the horrible truth about Vietnam. But if it helps you maintain your narrative about lying media, then I can understand why you might say that.

I don’t deny that horrible things took place in Vietnam. But war has always been hell and Vietnam holds a special place in our history as it was the first war to be broadcast to our TVs on a daily basis. I daresay if WW1 or WW2 had been broadcast to us the way Vietnam was, we’d think differently about war. Even today, we’re still mostly inoculated by the media when it comes to the “war is hell” aspect of fighting wars. Seems that is only trotted out when a certain narrative needs supporting.

In any case, the fact is that the US forces beat back the 1968 Tet Offensive and had the North on the ropes that year. The NVA and the Viet Cong lost 40k soldiers in that one conflict and they were reeling badly. But that’s not what the media was telling us. The media told us the Tet Offensive was disastrous for us when it was really a disaster for them. The media only focused on the horrible stuff and downgraded every victory into a loss; hence they aided and abetted the public’s loss of will to continue and Johnson, the former champion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was forced to step aside.

Now none of that is to say we should have been there in the first place. We shouldn’t have been there. But being there and having the opportunity to win taken away with the media’s collusion, well I see that I appreciate the modern era of information a lot more than you do. Chaotic, yes. More work on our part to discern, yes. Greater possibility to see things for ourselves as opposed to 1968? Most certainly yes.