Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This is very unsettling any way you look at it. The fact that it is uncorroborated yet cannot be dismissed because the person who gathered this information is not just any hack (pardon the pun) but a highly regarded former M1-6 officer with extensive experience and particular expertise in Russia.

 

Honestly, these feels worse than when Bush got into office. Of course, I had no idea of the tragedy to come then but now knowing what can happen when incompetence takes office, this just stirs a wave of thoughts and emotions to the fore, none of them good.

 

Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet and I'm already weary of him and the possibilities of what's to come. It's not just this latest scandal, it's the way this man conducts himself, his aura, his entire demeanor. Trash, sorry but no other word comes to mind. Trash.

 

Hopefully I can have a change of mindset and summon some strength to gird myself in the future for the resistance. Right now though, this feels like a drain.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3459

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I'm sure some of the Trump report isn't true, but we have to know a good amount of it was. They wouldn't have presented it to Trump and Obama had it not been. I feel like everything with Trump is going to be like an onion and we will continue peeling the layers. We all knew he had ties to Russia, this isn't news. Siding with them over everybody was puzzling to some but it makes sense considering. I'm sure this won't end well for him we just need to wait for them to finish unraveling and verifying this story. 

 

Many have compared Trump to The Manchurian Candidate, but this is truly a storyline lifted out of 24! By that I mean that it's so outlandish it can't be true, but everytime we think that Trump surprises us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It was not puzzling to me mostly because I saw most of it as ego-feeding. I still think it is, to be honest. I wouldn't be surprised if some is blackmail, but I also think a lot of people want and need it to be that complicated because they need to convince themselves that the Russians ruined everything for them and Hillary would have won otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hillary would've always had a tough go of it, but I do think Russia is very much responsible by her loss and unpopularity. People say she was unlikable, but I think that is mostly the press and done for many reasons but primarily because she's a woman which has always been her biggest hurdle. 

 

The very real negative stories that DID leak about Trump I feel would've been enough to bury him had it not been for Wikileaks and that was Russia. Every day the press was reporting on yet another new story from Wikileaks. There is no doubt the email scandal hurt her, but that daily negative campaign from Russia, always perfectly designed to distract from the latest Trump scandal is what I feel gave him the win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, the irony.

 

Agree.

 

With all due respect, Carl, what else can we do (but tell jokes)?

 

We know we're fucked.  We know there's nothing we can do to extricate ourselves from this mess or change Trump Nation's minds.  We HAVE to look for the humor if only to remain sane.  Otherwise, we might as well follow Blanche Deveraux's lead, slip into a hot tub, and pop open a vein.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with gallows humor, but in this case the focus on that type of material just takes away from the seriousness of the matter. I don't mean here, per se, or on ever-worthless Twitter, but in pop culture at large, including our alleged "press."

 

One of the biggest mistakes Ken Starr or whoever made the decision made with Bill Clinton's impeachment was releasing so many graphic details to the public, likely assuming this would turn the tides. Instead it was so tawdry and so ridiculous that it became easier for everyone to ignore the dangers in what he did because they could just joke about stains on a dress and a cigar up the hooha. 

 

The decision to release details that may not even be true about things like "golden showers" could very easily make the same thing happen here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ah, I see your point.

 

On the one hand, Carl, I agree with you.  We don't NEED to know what Clinton likes to do with his cigars or what Trump (allegedly) enjoys doing on hotel room sheets, because 1) it's really no one's business, 2) it serves only to desensitize and distract us from the REAL issues at hand.  Ergo, you COULD exercise some restraint when it comes to disseminating information to the media and the public.  However, exercising restraint and such works only up to a point.  After that, people will inevitably read your discretion as deception and demand disclosure of all facts, no matter how tawdry.  That's when you have to go on ahead and tell 'em about Monica's dress and Trump's curious way of reenacting Gene Kelly's solo from "Singin' in the Rain" (...allegedly).

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree. If they had more confidence in their material I'd agree even more, but releasing it and pretty much saying, "Some of this is BS and we can't actually tell you anything is accurate...but we're doing it anyway because it's our duty!" makes me extremely wary. Not just for this but also for the precedent it sets. 

 

I'd like to believe this will lead to, at the very least, real checks and balances on Trump by our nightmare of a Congress, but they'd probably just stay quiet as long as he promises to make all the "bad" people (anyone who isn't a rich white man) suffer even more than they already will. I also wonder if this last year has been so draining and traumatizing that the average person just tunes it all out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So John McCain has come out and said he was in possession of that information and turned it over to the FBI last year. If the MI-6 agent is a well respected former official - an expert on Russia, how hard could it be for the FBI to substantiate a lot of what the report contained. Especially the part about Trump's attorney meeting with RIA officials in Prague last year. TO me that would have been one of the easiest items to verify.

 

There were reports last year that foreign intelligence services were all wary of Trump due to his pro Russia stance and were suspicious as to whether Putin had anything on Trump, as that's his tactic, so there were varied intelligence agencies around the world who were putting effort in to discover if anything was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nobody actually ever "released" this information to the general public.

It was leaked (and most likely with a pointed purpose), which actually makes a difference.

 

ETA: I missed the press conference today. After such a late night and early rising this morning, I couldn't imagine trying to actively seek a livestream to listen to all of that! Nope.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Surely we (and Billy Flynn) are not going to be saddled with a character named Aristotle Dumas? This isn't 1970's Edge of Night.
    • What annoys me a little bit about the "day players" is they sound a bit too "Brooklyn-ish" sometimes.  Obviously, the show was taped in New York City, and the actors are all New York actors, but Monticello is supposed to be located in Illinois or Ohio.  Occasionally, they grab actors and actresses for small roles who have VERY distinct New York accents, which contrasts sharply with the main cast, none of whom have noticeable accents (except for our dashing European gigolo, Eliot Dorn, of course).  The heavy Brooklyn accent works fine if the character is a bookie, or the owner of a pawn shop, or a guy who's selling stolen guns on the street corner.  But when it's a steadily recurring character -- such as the first Mrs. Goodman, who worked for Miles and Nicole -- it's pretty jarring to me sometimes.  And you'll see it often -- such as an "under-five" character who witnesses a car accident, or a character who witnesses a shooting, or the occasional desk clerk, or waiter.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy