Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋




The worst thing about this timeline is seeing HOW MANY PEOPLE are able to do this level of utter shameless, effortless spinning, just at the drop of the hat, to deny reality and every perfectly reasonable challenge thrown at them, and to turn it around and immediately go on the attack against the challenger. To smile for the cameras and the millions of viewers and say "I am right, I have always been right, both these contradictory statements are true, and you are bad for suggesting otherwise, now for these messages".

It's just ... this many people are this good at being completely inhuman, in a way I can't even fathom being.

I'm that guy on the jury who listens to the Chewbacca Defense for so long his head just pops

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Majority of country wants trump impeached & removed; he somehow wins reelection anyway

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Dapper_Swindler posted:

didnt he gently caress his mistress by windows overlooking ground zero or some poo poo.

I ... it wasn't ground zero at the time

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



abigserve posted:

This is astonishing to me, literally since the story first broke as I've been following it:

- Trump was not soliciting political favors on that phone call. It was a perfect call.
- Ok, sure, maybe he was soliciting personal favors on that phone call, but there is no evidence he was pressuring Ukraine.
- Ok, yes, we can accept that he was pressuring ukraine, but there is no evidence that he was actively withholding aid to that end.
- Look, sure, we have already accepted that he was actively withholding aid to increase pressure on Ukraine to solicit personal political favors. Wait, that's what this is all about?

edit;

- he didn't do it
- ok he did it but it wasn't that bad
- ok yeah he did it and it was exactly as bad as it sounded but this is ok

OK sure, the president committed documented crimes, but the PHONE CALL is what is on trial here

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Lol I remember when MoveOn.org got started it was in the middle of the Clinton impeachment trial and the group's name was originally "Censure and Move On".

I wonder how far we are from the point where the GOP just throws up their hands and says "Okay so he did it, let's just ... I dunno fine him or something? And then we can all get on with our lives and pretend none of this ever happened"

(which is how that whole approach read to me back in the day and sounded totally venal even though I can completely understand in retrospect why they tried it, it was literally an attempt to please everybody, but it ended up sounding mealy-mouthed and like they wanted to just brush it under the rug while the GOP would settle for nothing short of removal)

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Oracle posted:

Because Trump will outright refuse anything but total vindication. ‘If you’re not winning you’re losing there is no compromise’ is something his sick gently caress father drilled into him his whole life and he’s not about to change now.
There is nothing worse in Trumps mind than losing. He literally psychologically cannot accept it.

Yeah but what I'm saying is "censure and move on" wasn't Clinton's idea.

They'd have to lock him in a tweet-proof faraday-cage closet to get it done but it would be the Senate GOP's tactic. e: ... And at that point surely they'd have made the calculation that they were better off getting rid of him anyway

Data Graham fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jan 29, 2020

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Wouldn't the counter to it just be "innocent until proven guilty"?

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



So "Ok YEAH, he did it, and YEAH it was a crime, and YEAH it was impeachable, but meehhhh we just don't wanna do anything about it"

is the position now?

Cool cool

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Chimp_On_Stilts posted:

People been saying in USPOL for years that the trajectory of the GOP would go:

1) He didn't do it
2) Fine, he did it, but it's not a crime
3) Fine, he did it, and it's a crime, but who cares?

We are solidly into part 3 now.

This new wrinkle of "yeah it's a crime but it's not a BAD crime" and "ok yeah it's a BAD crime but not so bad that we think anything should be done about it" is taking me some time to come to grips with. So from now on we can describe any kind of behavior short of .... okay you know what, I was going to say "literal treason" as being Presidential behavior, but honestly I'm having difficulty thinking of a form of treason that they wouldn't be able to find a way to rationalize.

At least the acquittal statement will necessarily be absolutely clear about this line of "reasoning" and won't say he's getting off due to lack of evidence. For whatever that's worth.

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



And it was all done organically and without specific explicit direction so there's no e: you know what never mind.

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Countdown to trump’s I LEARNED NOTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO LEARN, PERFECT PHONE CALL tweet

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



"Pool spray"

I'm never going to get used to this kind of press jargon.

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



TGLT posted:

Collins already retreated to the safety of "HE DEFINITELY LEARNED FROM THIS!" so Romney is likely the only one. He's straight up the only person now to vote to convict a president from his own party, it's not the sort of thing you get hall passes for. Unless Collins gets spooked again once more for a third time I guess.

I really hope some reporter asks Collins what she thinks now that Trump went "lol no I didn't"

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



Framboise posted:

I don't mean to sound all "nothing matters" because it's not my intent, but what long run impact are a few GOP conviction votes going to have? It needs a 2/3 majority to happen, right?

Like it's obviously not a bad thing that sucky people are finally growing a ghost of a conscience, but it is kinda too little too late here.

We never expected impeachment to result in removal. That's why half of us were always like "why bother".

What a few GOP defections does is remove Trump's ability to crow about it as a purely partisan affair with 100% REPUBLICAN SUPPORT, TOTAL EXONERATION EXCEPT BY THE DO NOTHING DEMS.

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them?

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



BigBallChunkyTime posted:

Half the country has convinced themselves that every time Trump opens his mouth, he owns the libs, and that's all they really care about.

It's also that when he speaks, he speaks with an air of complete, unassailable confidence. People respond to the tone more than they respond to the meaning. If they don't know what esoteric little jibes he's referring to, whether it's a policy maneuver or a bit of celebrity dishing, what people hear is "I'm in control, laugh along with my mean jokes because my opponents are worthy of ridicule". If someone speaks with confidence, their audience instinctively responds on a visceral level, whereas if they speak in uncertainties and try to argue issues on a mental level, it has the opposite effect on a listener who just wants to be given reason to feel secure.

His languid, pseudo-comedian delivery is a soothing balm to people in the same way that a mother's voice is to a baby who does not understand words.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Data Graham
Dec 28, 2009

📈📊🍪😋



BigBallChunkyTime posted:

I know that if I'm innocent, I fire all the people who testified under oath against me.

I mean, because they're all lying, right? Which means we can now prosecute them for perjury. Or they can sue for wrongful termination. And let's open up the floodgates for 100 more months of trials.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply