This is more of the new style of zero-sum thinking which I have described before--it isn't enough that I win, you must also lose. However, the psychology of it is becoming a little darker and is linked to how one views oneself. If I won it is because I am a winner, I feel like a winner, and I am going to let you know that I am a winner. You, on the other hand, lost because you are a loser and I am going to make certain you feel like the loser you are by shoving it into your face. It is analogous to the mode of thinking that whether you are rich or poor is somehow indicative of your moral worth--if you are rich you are good and/or blessed (because otherwise you wouldn't be rich) yet if you are not then it is because you are bad/not blessed (because otherwise you wouldn't be poor). Whenever you hear someone say that a person "deserved to lose" you know that this is how they think.
The only thing of which Hillary is truly "guilty" is not divorcing Bill decades ago when he wouldn't stop chasing skirts in Arkansas.
They've got everything but still they have to have an enemy, why is that?
You need to understand the psychology of conspiracy thinking in order to fully answer this question. As you are probably already aware, in many cases the root of anger is actually fear; the specifics of how the anger manifests might vary wildly but fear still drives it--the fear of losing something valued, of being alone, of feeling worthless, etc.
Even though politically the nation is on a roller coaster right now, in general things are still pretty stable--there are no riots of which I am aware, unemployment is down, we aren't under martial law, we aren't suffering from civil war or hyperinflation, and so on. Despite that, there are many American citizens who are living in fear on a daily basis--fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of social change, fear that their life won't be as good as the life their parents or grandparents lived (truthfully, I wouldn't want to go back in time and live my adult life in the world my grandparents inhabited--I like the Internet and I don't want lead in my gasoline). Loss of economic opportunity, loss of a sense of some national identity (which we have never actually had, by the way), loss of "the good old days" or the idea that the near future is going to be much worse than the recent past--all of these things are threatened and many of these people, like all humans, want an answer as to *why* these things are happening (or threatening to happen). Here is where conspiracy kicks in--it gives them a quick, easy answer in the form of The Other.
The Other is basically "any and all fringe groups lumped together". This vast network of undocumented immigrants and transgender individuals are all working to change how things are. If you are in first place--truthfully, by many measures of success by which a nation may be measured the United States has indeed been in "first place" since World War II, as evidenced by the number of people who still want to come here no matter what--then "change" means "you are no longer in first place". In other words, you are losing. This ties in with what I mentioned earlier--if we (the upstanding citizens of the United States) are losing then, by definition, someone else is winning (those dastardly Others) and if they are winning then that means they will turn this country into their vision of how things should be. If they get their way, I might become a second-class citizen--*gasp* that can't happen *here*, can it?!
Hillary is still the face of the Democrat Party even though she isn't a candidate or officeholder at this time and the Democrat Party typically embraces or espouses policies which positively benefit people whom we could classify as The Other (even though they are Americans, themselves, but no good conspiracy theorist lets a fact get in the way of a great conspiracy). Given that she has been connected to various conspiracies in the past she presents an easy target into which these conspiracy-minded pseudo-conservatives may focus their attention--either she has directly caused some of the problems they fear or she is connected to the causes of the problems they fear. Either way, it is somehow her fault and therefore she must *pay*.
Apologies for the wall of text but there was no simpler way to say all that.
Not going to quote any prior poster, but I am deeply concerned every time I dig into the definitions of fascism and totalitarianism and come up with LOTS of things that I see going on now in the Republican Party.
I mean hell, how are we not a one-party government RIGHT NOW? We're on the cliff's edge of a One-Party State, beholden only to themselves, and desiring only to make the party stronger, no matter the cost. There was a great video clip a few months back where a Republican basically was called out by the host for literally, quote, "Making a case for party over country". Only the fact that the party is fragmenting under the stress of all the various...character ideologies that fill it and trying to take the lead to direct its movement is stopping it from being effective at shutting down external dissent and opposition.
In his book The True Believer, Eric Hoffer argues that mass movements like Stalinism, fascism, and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. The individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.
And this is from a book a guy wrote more than 65 years ago. Tell me that's not accurate of the Republican party now? They believe liberals are morally corrupt and feckless, they believe that the Millenials are lazy (despite evidence to the contrary), and they have now been swept up in visions of glory for frustrated rural whites as a panacea for their lack of progress (They've been "forgotten"), and they're now assimilated into "fact-proof screens from reality".
Interestingly, that book was HIGHLY recommended from one of the two Republican Presidents of the 20th century who I feel was worth a damn, Eisenhower. (The other 20th century Republican President I like is Theodore Roosevelt). Maybe I should get ahold of a copy and read it.
When Bush left office, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him.
I'll give you Romney, but I feel the need to attack and scrutinize Bush because we are still feeling the effects of the war HE started. And we will BE feeling the effects AND COSTS of that war for a long, long time. Last estimate I heard was 6 trillion dollars JUST on veteran's health benefits of the Iraq War over the course of 30 years.
Meanwhile, the crisis in Catalonia is getting worse. The Catalan parliament has been dissolved and Puigdemont removed as leader after declaring independence. Instead of getting independence, Catalonia now seems to lose the significant autonomy they already had as Madrid takes over the region.
Puigdemont has been playing a really dangerous game all this time. It seems he's deliberately trying to provoke Madrid to either force them to negotiate or make them do something stupid that will make the independence movement gain more sympathy. The mayor of Barcelona summed it up best by criticizing the independence movement for "advancing at a kamikaze pace".
It's ironic that Puigdemont is portraying Spain as an oppressive, undemocratic country while also using the fact that it is not that to his advantage. This kamikaze pace is risky business in any kind of country. A stable, well functioning country is the only kind of country where this kind of risk-taking might pay off. Just compare with the Kurdish vote for independence where the Iraqi army immediately stepped in.
@JoenSo I don't think it's fair to paint the Catalans as playing games. They have been trying to talk for quite some time, but it takes two sides to hold a conversation ...
After the Spanish Civil War Catalonia was happy to pursue the idea of autonomy within Spain rather than seeking full independence and that process resulted in the 2006 Statute of Autonomy that was agreed by the Spanish government and accepted by a referendum in Catalonia (73% approving the Statute). Subsequently, however, the Constitutional Court of Spain reviewed the Statute. That took 4 years and was highly controversial, but by a 6-4 majority decision they eventually made considerable changes to the Statute in 2010.
The Court's decision resulted in considerable protest with an immediate public demonstration of over 1m people in Barcelona. Further protests and a series of local referendums on independence led to a further mass demonstration in 2012 which specifically called for the Catalan government to begin a process towards independence. Following that demonstration a snap election was held in which, for the first time, the majority of elected members were in favor of independence.
Given that background, if the Catalan government had not started considering independence they would have been breaking their election pledges. They held a referendum in 2015 in which 81% supported independence and a further election in 2015 again returned a majority for independence candidates - though this time with just under a majority of the popular vote.
That slight waning in support for independence appeared to be continuing with opinion polls in 2017 showing only just over 40% wishing for full independence. In that climate I would have expected it to be relatively easy to do a deal with the Catalan government - giving them some of the powers originally agreed under the 2006 Statute in return for not seeking independence (the deal would be subject to a referendum, but that would seem to have been highly likely to be accepted in that climate). However, the Spanish government refused to even talk about a deal - leaving Puigdemont only the options of giving up on the platform he was elected on or pursuing independence unilaterally.
Spain has a history of terrorism relating to separatist movements (until recent years this was one of the major causes of terrorism in Europe). The issue in Catalonia hasn't generally sparked such extremism, but if the Spanish government continues to behave as it is currently doing so I suspect that it will in the near future.
@JoenSo I don't think it's fair to paint the Catalans as playing games. They have been trying to talk for quite some time, but it takes two sides to hold a conversation ...
No, it isn't fair and it wasn't my intention to paint the Catalans like that. I meant how Puigdemont has handled it - promising to declare independence within days and then not doing it. Saying that he has important announcements and then delaying press conferences before cancelling them at the last minute. Stuff like that that seems to be part of thought out strategy. That's what I find dangerous, not the Catalans or the independence movement itself. I know that it is a strategy that comes from the frustration of Madrid's stubborn refusal to talk (as I said a few pages back). But it's still risky, since he's been playing on being unpredictable.
I'm not sure what my opinion is on the actual issue of Catalonia as an independent country. I understand they are sick of being patient and cautious. But any new country will face sooo many problems. And the problems will just be tripled if you kamikazed into it because you thought the timing was right.
That's the point. Normally they rally around president or a party platform, but the constituencies of the GOP are diverging more and more on policy and Trump is not popular enough to be a rallying point. The best flag they have to rally around during crises is their mutual dislike of Clinton. They won't let her go until they have a better rallying cry.
Not going to quote any prior poster, but I am deeply concerned every time I dig into the definitions of fascism and totalitarianism and come up with LOTS of things that I see going on now in the Republican Party.
I mean hell, how are we not a one-party government RIGHT NOW? We're on the cliff's edge of a One-Party State, beholden only to themselves, and desiring only to make the party stronger, no matter the cost. There was a great video clip a few months back where a Republican basically was called out by the host for literally, quote, "Making a case for party over country". Only the fact that the party is fragmenting under the stress of all the various...character ideologies that fill it and trying to take the lead to direct its movement is stopping it from being effective at shutting down external dissent and opposition.
In his book The True Believer, Eric Hoffer argues that mass movements like Stalinism, fascism, and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. The individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.
And this is from a book a guy wrote more than 65 years ago. Tell me that's not accurate of the Republican party now? They believe liberals are morally corrupt and feckless, they believe that the Millenials are lazy (despite evidence to the contrary), and they have now been swept up in visions of glory for frustrated rural whites as a panacea for their lack of progress (They've been "forgotten"), and they're now assimilated into "fact-proof screens from reality".
Interestingly, that book was HIGHLY recommended from one of the two Republican Presidents of the 20th century who I feel was worth a damn, Eisenhower. (The other 20th century Republican President I like is Theodore Roosevelt). Maybe I should get ahold of a copy and read it.
When Bush left office, I no longer felt the need to attack or scrutinize him.
I'll give you Romney, but I feel the need to attack and scrutinize Bush because we are still feeling the effects of the war HE started. And we will BE feeling the effects AND COSTS of that war for a long, long time. Last estimate I heard was 6 trillion dollars JUST on veteran's health benefits of the Iraq War over the course of 30 years.
Trump is spreading lies to confuse the public about the Russian attack on American democracy last year. There is no ambiguity about Russia’s preference in the election, and the only reason it needs to be stated is that Trump regularly lies about this basic fact.
And what is more alarming than Trump’s lies about this issue is his ability to get top Republicans and influential conservative media institutions to push the false narrative that the discredited Clinton uranium deal is the real collusion story Americans should care about. Congressional Republicans have announced hearings on the matter and Fox News is devoting a large quantity of its coverage to the issue. The frightening aspect of this is that Trump is able to confuse enough supporters into seeing the uranium episode as more important than the documented history of a massive Russian interference campaign in the election and the still unanswered questions about potential collusion between his campaign and Russian actors.
Facism and totalitarian indeed. Don't believe your lying eyes because whatever the Party says is the truth.
Well this seems....panicked. Hell, we don't even know that what is coming down tomorrow is going to net a big fish or not. It could just be a peripheral figure meant to squeeze for someone higher. Yet here you have the President, in all caps telling his base to "DO SOMETHING!", whatever the hell that means. Roger Stone just started verbally assaulting people on Twitter the last two days and was subsequently permanently banned for doing so, and Seb Gorka and FOX News are calling for Hillary to be arrested at the very least and EXECUTED at the most. They are acting like animals who are cornered, yet we have no idea what this indictment entails. The only reason for this kind of manic behavior is if they know they did something horribly wrong and are on their way to getting caught.
Don't forget to buy popcorn and beer for tomorrow.
Why do I get a feeling that this is going to turn out to be much ado about nothing?
Beer does sound good though!
It could because of how hyped the whole process has been. But as I said, even if it is nothing, an independent investigation had to be done to shut everyone up about it.
Regardless of what has been found out and what the charges are, expect right wing media to ask "that's it, all that money wasted and tje only charges are X, which will have a hard time holding up i court due to this self appointed law expert." Then repeat Mueller should be fired, Clinton is the enemy blah blah blah...
At first I thought it was kind of a joke "DO SOMETHING!" but I'm starting to read it as something a bit more insidious.
He is calling his army of deplorables to action but at the same time keeping plausible deniability. With Trump, we know the buck doesn't stop there it stops somewhere else. He blames everything that goes wrong on other Republicans, "his" generals, Hillary or Obama. Nothing is ever trump's fault if it goes wrong, but according to Trump everything is Trump's doing if anything anywhere goes right in the world.
With that Tweet he's telling his people - Fox News, Sessions, Gorka, Bannon, and his brainwashed Trumpkins to "DO SOMETHING". Do what? They could take it to mean anything. Take to the streets armed? Run over some protestors with a car? Shoot Hillary Clinton? His unhinged followers could easily take it to mean anything like that. This is dangerous, don't you see it? And then Trump would sit back and say no I meant x,y,z - like how he spun his saying 2nd ammendment people could take care of Clinton.
While I have faith that no one wants to ride down with the rats on the sinking ship I also don't expect this to resolve quickly so his calls to action could easily trigger some lunatic seeing their unassailable hero go down to do something nutty. Maybe Trump was telling Kim Jong Un to do something to distract from this.
In all likelihood, the chances are that it WILL be a peripheral figure connected to Manafort or Flynn who they have dead to rights and can flip. Whether that would be much ado about nothing is up for debate. The next tier would be Manafort or Flynn themselves. A tier up from that would be Don Jr. or Kushner (highly unlikley). I'd put the odds at:
Peripheral figure: 50% Manafort or Flynn: 45% Don Jr. or Jared: 5%
Here is a concise, no-nonsense, easy to digest rundown of Uranium One and why it may be the most ridiculous faux-Clinton scandal yet. From Market Watch:
• No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sell America’s uranium.” She didn’t own it, or control it, and never had. This entire accusation is a farce.
In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. They cashed out.
There is a very good reason no politician or organization tried to halt the uranium deal. It wasn’t controversial. Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines.
The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board.
This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it.
The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high.
• No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t.
The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
So, as far as we know, none of them said peep.
The committee could have intervened if it thought the deal threatened U.S. national security.
Others who could also have intervened in the deal, but saw no reason to, included the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and regulators in Canada and elsewhere.
• There is a very good reason none of those people or organizations tried to halt the deal. It wasn’t controversial. And if it weren’t for Trump’s cynical demagoguery, it wouldn’t be now.
America is a bit player in worldwide uranium production, and the amount involved was about half a percent — yes, really — of global supply.
Furthermore, uranium has been a drag on the international markets for years. There’s too much of it around. Miners are giving it away for less than it costs to dig up. There was no reason to think of it as an especially precious resource.
In 2010, when Russia agreed to this deal, the price of uranium had already fallen by 75% in three years. And since then it’s halved again. (But uranium prices have perked up a bit since Trump’s election. Long-suffering investors are hoping he’ll approve more nuclear reactors and buy lots more warheads. It’s another reason Vladimir Putin has reason to be so pleased with his protégé.)
• Finally, it’s worth remembering that this entire “story” was whipped up like a meringue by Peter Schweizer, a far-right hack at Breitbart. And, like a meringue, it’s almost all air.
So, in the first place, there was nothing nefarious or dangerous about the deal. But second of all, let's say a bank robber pulls off a heist, and while they are escaping in their van, they pass someone in a car on the interstate. Saying Hillary Clinton is responsible for this deal is like saying the person in the car getting passed on the interstate is responsible for the bank robbery.
Yesterday Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager of Donald Trump, was on Fox saying: “Look, the speculation is so insane right now,” Lewandowski said. “What we should be focusing on are the continued lies of the Clinton administration — the continued fallacies that they perpetuated.” ?
If she's not signing or vetoing laws, issuing executive orders, appointing justices to the Supreme Court, or exercising any of the powers or performing any of the duties of the presidency, she is not a president, "shadow" or otherwise.
Here is a concise, no-nonsense, easy to digest rundown of Uranium One and why it may be the most ridiculous faux-Clinton scandal yet. From Market Watch:
• No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sell America’s uranium.” She didn’t own it, or control it, and never had. This entire accusation is a farce.
In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. They cashed out.
There is a very good reason no politician or organization tried to halt the uranium deal. It wasn’t controversial. Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines.
The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board.
This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it.
The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high.
• No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t.
The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
So, as far as we know, none of them said peep.
The committee could have intervened if it thought the deal threatened U.S. national security.
Others who could also have intervened in the deal, but saw no reason to, included the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and regulators in Canada and elsewhere.
• There is a very good reason none of those people or organizations tried to halt the deal. It wasn’t controversial. And if it weren’t for Trump’s cynical demagoguery, it wouldn’t be now.
America is a bit player in worldwide uranium production, and the amount involved was about half a percent — yes, really — of global supply.
Furthermore, uranium has been a drag on the international markets for years. There’s too much of it around. Miners are giving it away for less than it costs to dig up. There was no reason to think of it as an especially precious resource.
In 2010, when Russia agreed to this deal, the price of uranium had already fallen by 75% in three years. And since then it’s halved again. (But uranium prices have perked up a bit since Trump’s election. Long-suffering investors are hoping he’ll approve more nuclear reactors and buy lots more warheads. It’s another reason Vladimir Putin has reason to be so pleased with his protégé.)
• Finally, it’s worth remembering that this entire “story” was whipped up like a meringue by Peter Schweizer, a far-right hack at Breitbart. And, like a meringue, it’s almost all air.
So, in the first place, there was nothing nefarious or dangerous about the deal. But second of all, let's say a bank robber pulls off a heist, and while they are escaping in their van, they pass someone in a car on the interstate. Saying Hillary Clinton is responsible for this deal is like saying the person in the car getting passed on the interstate is responsible for the bank robbery.
The biggest thing that the Republicans are careful not to mention is that this deal doesn't give the Russians access to American uranium anyway. A Russian company now owns more American mining and refining operations, but that doesn't mean they can export the uranium without permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
If she's not signing or vetoing laws, issuing executive orders, appointing justices to the Supreme Court, or exercising any of the powers or performing any of the duties of the presidency, she is not a president, "shadow" or otherwise.
People on or associated with FOX have mentioned a "Clinton Administration" or something similar too many times in the last month for it to not be on purpose. I remember seeing that John Roberts tweet a few weeks ago, and I was going to post about it then but didn't. This is very similar to what happens nearly EVERY time a Republican politician is in a scandal they can no longer ignore (which is what their typical tactic is). I can remember 5 or 6 times when Republican Congressman were caught dead to rights in something where the FOX chyron (the scroll on the bottom of the screen) identified them as Democrats for almost an entire day before they were called out on it and switched it, each time pretending like it was an honest mistake.
It is not beyond right-wing propaganda to try make people think the impossible is true. How could anyone believe Hillary is President?? Good question, but I'd ask the same question about ACORN, the community organizing group who was destroyed in a hit job by Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe. In 2012, FOX and other right-wing media outlets were STILL saying how ACORN was going to steal the election for Barack Obama. The problem with that narrative?? ACORN hadn't existed for 2 YEARS by 2012. It was shut down as a result of the right-wing attacks in 2010. Regardless, a poll in 2012 found that 49% of Republicans believed ACORN stole the 2012 election for Barack Obama. Somehow even 6% of Democrats believed this.
When I say I've seen this movie before in regards to FOX, I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass. I've been watching their tactics since I was in high school, and I first figured them out in 1999 when they led the charge in getting the Columbine Massacre blamed on Marilyn Manson. From there they were the first network to call Florida for Bush in 2000, prompting all the other networks to, thus cementing the idea of Bush as the winner in the minds of most of the public even though the result was still up in the air. It made Gore look like a sore loser from day one when there was no winner/loser yet. Then came the ramp up to Iraq, and it's been getting worse ever since. Since Election night 2000, the terms of the debate in the American media have been being set by FOX News.
Manafort is one of the big fish, has been the entire time. Again, no matter what they say, he was in charge of the campaign THROUGH the convention.
One of the charges is "conspiracy against the United States". White House sources are saying it has "nothing to do with them" and another is saying "they were bad people when they joined the campaign, and bad people when they left." So the defense seems to be "Trump isn't a criminal, he just let criminals run his campaign for awhile." Whatever Trump did, Mueller is now holding the Rosetta Stone to finding put what with Paul Manafort:
I have always disliked "conspiracy to commit x" being quantified as a crime. If you and I get together and plan out in detail exactly how we are going to rob a bank then launder the money afterwards so we can spend it freely but we never actually rob the bank we are "guilty" of "conspiracy to launder money" and "conspiracy to rob a bank"...even though we never actually committed any crimes. How can we be put in jail for something we didn't do?
What if we were just plotting out something for a TV screenplay or novel we were writing? Is that still an actual conspiracy to rob a bank?
I am not saying that Manafort and Gates are innocent, of course, only that if you want to charge them with crimes they need to be more substantive than "conspiracy".
Forget the two counts of conspiracy--counts 3 through 6 are "failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for calendar years 2011-2014), counts 7 to 9 are for "failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for calendar years 2011-2013", count 10 is "unregistered agent of a foreign principal", count 11 is "false and misleading FARA statements", and count 12 is "false statements". You may browse the U. S. Code for yourself, if you so desire. Note that the Code found here is up-to-date as of 2016 (but most of the code has not changed since then); the title in question is 21, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
Anyway, I wouldn't celebrate too much over Papadopoulos just yet. This could be the tip of the iceberg, yes, but it could also be all bark and no bite. That being said, as the pressure increases we will see what Trump does--I still expect him to start handing out pardons as if they were candy at a Halloween festival.
Trump is meeting Sessions for lunch today, if you were a fly on the wall there you might here some shtuff lol. Sessions has claimed to recuse himself so maybe Trump will fire him so that someone who hasn't recused themselves will meddle with the Mueller probe or maybe Sessions will meddle in spite of the recusal like what Devin Nunes is doing to the House of Representatives investigation.
Comments
The only thing of which Hillary is truly "guilty" is not divorcing Bill decades ago when he wouldn't stop chasing skirts in Arkansas. You need to understand the psychology of conspiracy thinking in order to fully answer this question. As you are probably already aware, in many cases the root of anger is actually fear; the specifics of how the anger manifests might vary wildly but fear still drives it--the fear of losing something valued, of being alone, of feeling worthless, etc.
Even though politically the nation is on a roller coaster right now, in general things are still pretty stable--there are no riots of which I am aware, unemployment is down, we aren't under martial law, we aren't suffering from civil war or hyperinflation, and so on. Despite that, there are many American citizens who are living in fear on a daily basis--fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of social change, fear that their life won't be as good as the life their parents or grandparents lived (truthfully, I wouldn't want to go back in time and live my adult life in the world my grandparents inhabited--I like the Internet and I don't want lead in my gasoline). Loss of economic opportunity, loss of a sense of some national identity (which we have never actually had, by the way), loss of "the good old days" or the idea that the near future is going to be much worse than the recent past--all of these things are threatened and many of these people, like all humans, want an answer as to *why* these things are happening (or threatening to happen). Here is where conspiracy kicks in--it gives them a quick, easy answer in the form of The Other.
The Other is basically "any and all fringe groups lumped together". This vast network of undocumented immigrants and transgender individuals are all working to change how things are. If you are in first place--truthfully, by many measures of success by which a nation may be measured the United States has indeed been in "first place" since World War II, as evidenced by the number of people who still want to come here no matter what--then "change" means "you are no longer in first place". In other words, you are losing. This ties in with what I mentioned earlier--if we (the upstanding citizens of the United States) are losing then, by definition, someone else is winning (those dastardly Others) and if they are winning then that means they will turn this country into their vision of how things should be. If they get their way, I might become a second-class citizen--*gasp* that can't happen *here*, can it?!
Hillary is still the face of the Democrat Party even though she isn't a candidate or officeholder at this time and the Democrat Party typically embraces or espouses policies which positively benefit people whom we could classify as The Other (even though they are Americans, themselves, but no good conspiracy theorist lets a fact get in the way of a great conspiracy). Given that she has been connected to various conspiracies in the past she presents an easy target into which these conspiracy-minded pseudo-conservatives may focus their attention--either she has directly caused some of the problems they fear or she is connected to the causes of the problems they fear. Either way, it is somehow her fault and therefore she must *pay*.
Apologies for the wall of text but there was no simpler way to say all that.
I mean hell, how are we not a one-party government RIGHT NOW? We're on the cliff's edge of a One-Party State, beholden only to themselves, and desiring only to make the party stronger, no matter the cost. There was a great video clip a few months back where a Republican basically was called out by the host for literally, quote, "Making a case for party over country". Only the fact that the party is fragmenting under the stress of all the various...character ideologies that fill it and trying to take the lead to direct its movement is stopping it from being effective at shutting down external dissent and opposition. And this is from a book a guy wrote more than 65 years ago. Tell me that's not accurate of the Republican party now? They believe liberals are morally corrupt and feckless, they believe that the Millenials are lazy (despite evidence to the contrary), and they have now been swept up in visions of glory for frustrated rural whites as a panacea for their lack of progress (They've been "forgotten"), and they're now assimilated into "fact-proof screens from reality".
Interestingly, that book was HIGHLY recommended from one of the two Republican Presidents of the 20th century who I feel was worth a damn, Eisenhower. (The other 20th century Republican President I like is Theodore Roosevelt). Maybe I should get ahold of a copy and read it. I'll give you Romney, but I feel the need to attack and scrutinize Bush because we are still feeling the effects of the war HE started. And we will BE feeling the effects AND COSTS of that war for a long, long time. Last estimate I heard was 6 trillion dollars JUST on veteran's health benefits of the Iraq War over the course of 30 years.
Puigdemont has been playing a really dangerous game all this time. It seems he's deliberately trying to provoke Madrid to either force them to negotiate or make them do something stupid that will make the independence movement gain more sympathy. The mayor of Barcelona summed it up best by criticizing the independence movement for "advancing at a kamikaze pace".
It's ironic that Puigdemont is portraying Spain as an oppressive, undemocratic country while also using the fact that it is not that to his advantage. This kamikaze pace is risky business in any kind of country. A stable, well functioning country is the only kind of country where this kind of risk-taking might pay off. Just compare with the Kurdish vote for independence where the Iraqi army immediately stepped in.
After the Spanish Civil War Catalonia was happy to pursue the idea of autonomy within Spain rather than seeking full independence and that process resulted in the 2006 Statute of Autonomy that was agreed by the Spanish government and accepted by a referendum in Catalonia (73% approving the Statute). Subsequently, however, the Constitutional Court of Spain reviewed the Statute. That took 4 years and was highly controversial, but by a 6-4 majority decision they eventually made considerable changes to the Statute in 2010.
The Court's decision resulted in considerable protest with an immediate public demonstration of over 1m people in Barcelona. Further protests and a series of local referendums on independence led to a further mass demonstration in 2012 which specifically called for the Catalan government to begin a process towards independence. Following that demonstration a snap election was held in which, for the first time, the majority of elected members were in favor of independence.
Given that background, if the Catalan government had not started considering independence they would have been breaking their election pledges. They held a referendum in 2015 in which 81% supported independence and a further election in 2015 again returned a majority for independence candidates - though this time with just under a majority of the popular vote.
That slight waning in support for independence appeared to be continuing with opinion polls in 2017 showing only just over 40% wishing for full independence. In that climate I would have expected it to be relatively easy to do a deal with the Catalan government - giving them some of the powers originally agreed under the 2006 Statute in return for not seeking independence (the deal would be subject to a referendum, but that would seem to have been highly likely to be accepted in that climate). However, the Spanish government refused to even talk about a deal - leaving Puigdemont only the options of giving up on the platform he was elected on or pursuing independence unilaterally.
Spain has a history of terrorism relating to separatist movements (until recent years this was one of the major causes of terrorism in Europe). The issue in Catalonia hasn't generally sparked such extremism, but if the Spanish government continues to behave as it is currently doing so I suspect that it will in the near future.
I'm not sure what my opinion is on the actual issue of Catalonia as an independent country. I understand they are sick of being patient and cautious. But any new country will face sooo many problems. And the problems will just be tripled if you kamikazed into it because you thought the timing was right.
And what is more alarming than Trump’s lies about this issue is his ability to get top Republicans and influential conservative media institutions to push the false narrative that the discredited Clinton uranium deal is the real collusion story Americans should care about. Congressional Republicans have announced hearings on the matter and Fox News is devoting a large quantity of its coverage to the issue. The frightening aspect of this is that Trump is able to confuse enough supporters into seeing the uranium episode as more important than the documented history of a massive Russian interference campaign in the election and the still unanswered questions about potential collusion between his campaign and Russian actors.
Facism and totalitarian indeed. Don't believe your lying eyes because whatever the Party says is the truth.
Well this seems....panicked. Hell, we don't even know that what is coming down tomorrow is going to net a big fish or not. It could just be a peripheral figure meant to squeeze for someone higher. Yet here you have the President, in all caps telling his base to "DO SOMETHING!", whatever the hell that means. Roger Stone just started verbally assaulting people on Twitter the last two days and was subsequently permanently banned for doing so, and Seb Gorka and FOX News are calling for Hillary to be arrested at the very least and EXECUTED at the most. They are acting like animals who are cornered, yet we have no idea what this indictment entails. The only reason for this kind of manic behavior is if they know they did something horribly wrong and are on their way to getting caught.
And the "DO SOMETHING" reads like "SAVE ME!" to me because the facts that are pouring out are against his team.
Beer does sound good though!
Regardless of what has been found out and what the charges are, expect right wing media to ask "that's it, all that money wasted and tje only charges are X, which will have a hard time holding up i court due to this self appointed law expert." Then repeat Mueller should be fired, Clinton is the enemy blah blah blah...
"Do something", bro you are the president you do something. You don't have to look far to take care of some Russian collusion and lawbreakers.
He is calling his army of deplorables to action but at the same time keeping plausible deniability. With Trump, we know the buck doesn't stop there it stops somewhere else. He blames everything that goes wrong on other Republicans, "his" generals, Hillary or Obama. Nothing is ever trump's fault if it goes wrong, but according to Trump everything is Trump's doing if anything anywhere goes right in the world.
With that Tweet he's telling his people - Fox News, Sessions, Gorka, Bannon, and his brainwashed Trumpkins to "DO SOMETHING". Do what? They could take it to mean anything. Take to the streets armed? Run over some protestors with a car? Shoot Hillary Clinton? His unhinged followers could easily take it to mean anything like that. This is dangerous, don't you see it? And then Trump would sit back and say no I meant x,y,z - like how he spun his saying 2nd ammendment people could take care of Clinton.
While I have faith that no one wants to ride down with the rats on the sinking ship I also don't expect this to resolve quickly so his calls to action could easily trigger some lunatic seeing their unassailable hero go down to do something nutty. Maybe Trump was telling Kim Jong Un to do something to distract from this.
Peripheral figure: 50%
Manafort or Flynn: 45%
Don Jr. or Jared: 5%
• No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sell America’s uranium.” She didn’t own it, or control it, and never had. This entire accusation is a farce.
In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. They cashed out.
There is a very good reason no politician or organization tried to halt the uranium deal. It wasn’t controversial.
Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines.
The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board.
This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it.
The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high.
• No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t.
The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
So, as far as we know, none of them said peep.
The committee could have intervened if it thought the deal threatened U.S. national security.
Others who could also have intervened in the deal, but saw no reason to, included the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and regulators in Canada and elsewhere.
• There is a very good reason none of those people or organizations tried to halt the deal. It wasn’t controversial. And if it weren’t for Trump’s cynical demagoguery, it wouldn’t be now.
America is a bit player in worldwide uranium production, and the amount involved was about half a percent — yes, really — of global supply.
Furthermore, uranium has been a drag on the international markets for years. There’s too much of it around. Miners are giving it away for less than it costs to dig up. There was no reason to think of it as an especially precious resource.
In 2010, when Russia agreed to this deal, the price of uranium had already fallen by 75% in three years. And since then it’s halved again. (But uranium prices have perked up a bit since Trump’s election. Long-suffering investors are hoping he’ll approve more nuclear reactors and buy lots more warheads. It’s another reason Vladimir Putin has reason to be so pleased with his protégé.)
• Finally, it’s worth remembering that this entire “story” was whipped up like a meringue by Peter Schweizer, a far-right hack at Breitbart. And, like a meringue, it’s almost all air.
So, in the first place, there was nothing nefarious or dangerous about the deal. But second of all, let's say a bank robber pulls off a heist, and while they are escaping in their van, they pass someone in a car on the interstate. Saying Hillary Clinton is responsible for this deal is like saying the person in the car getting passed on the interstate is responsible for the bank robbery.
FoxNews Chief White House Correspondent:
Yesterday Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager of Donald Trump, was on Fox saying:
“Look, the speculation is so insane right now,” Lewandowski said. “What we should be focusing on are the continued lies of the Clinton administration — the continued fallacies that they perpetuated.”
?
How do people take these guys srsly?
It is not beyond right-wing propaganda to try make people think the impossible is true. How could anyone believe Hillary is President?? Good question, but I'd ask the same question about ACORN, the community organizing group who was destroyed in a hit job by Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe. In 2012, FOX and other right-wing media outlets were STILL saying how ACORN was going to steal the election for Barack Obama. The problem with that narrative?? ACORN hadn't existed for 2 YEARS by 2012. It was shut down as a result of the right-wing attacks in 2010. Regardless, a poll in 2012 found that 49% of Republicans believed ACORN stole the 2012 election for Barack Obama. Somehow even 6% of Democrats believed this.
When I say I've seen this movie before in regards to FOX, I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass. I've been watching their tactics since I was in high school, and I first figured them out in 1999 when they led the charge in getting the Columbine Massacre blamed on Marilyn Manson. From there they were the first network to call Florida for Bush in 2000, prompting all the other networks to, thus cementing the idea of Bush as the winner in the minds of most of the public even though the result was still up in the air. It made Gore look like a sore loser from day one when there was no winner/loser yet. Then came the ramp up to Iraq, and it's been getting worse ever since. Since Election night 2000, the terms of the debate in the American media have been being set by FOX News.
I wonder if this is just the beginning. At least it's not a peripheral figure, @jjstraka34
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html?adkey=bn
One of the charges is "conspiracy against the United States". White House sources are saying it has "nothing to do with them" and another is saying "they were bad people when they joined the campaign, and bad people when they left." So the defense seems to be "Trump isn't a criminal, he just let criminals run his campaign for awhile." Whatever Trump did, Mueller is now holding the Rosetta Stone to finding put what with Paul Manafort:
Good question.
What if we were just plotting out something for a TV screenplay or novel we were writing? Is that still an actual conspiracy to rob a bank?
I am not saying that Manafort and Gates are innocent, of course, only that if you want to charge them with crimes they need to be more substantive than "conspiracy".
edit/add: I did manage to find the indictment itself in its entirety in case anyone is interested (it downloads as a .pdf).
Forget the two counts of conspiracy--counts 3 through 6 are "failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for calendar years 2011-2014), counts 7 to 9 are for "failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for calendar years 2011-2013", count 10 is "unregistered agent of a foreign principal", count 11 is "false and misleading FARA statements", and count 12 is "false statements". You may browse the U. S. Code for yourself, if you so desire. Note that the Code found here is up-to-date as of 2016 (but most of the code has not changed since then); the title in question is 21, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
It appears he was allowed to plead out, which would mean he is talking:
edit/add: oh, and remember Ms. Veselnitskaya? She was at the Trump Tower meeting. Anyway, apparently she did have talking points with her from a Russian official...but it was about money, not elections.
Anyway, I wouldn't celebrate too much over Papadopoulos just yet. This could be the tip of the iceberg, yes, but it could also be all bark and no bite. That being said, as the pressure increases we will see what Trump does--I still expect him to start handing out pardons as if they were candy at a Halloween festival.