https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1195060117743558659?s=19
5 Likes
I still group them into two categories.
Those who are aware of the facts.
Those who are not aware of the facts.
A not-insignificant portion of the US population follows politics as closely as Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Probably LESS unless something really juicy happens (like impeachment proceedings).
They have no defense if presented with the facts, but that’s the thing. These are primarily people of privilege who get that most sacred of privileges, the privilege of ignorance, and thus almost never encounter anything that would provoke them to be better informed and involved.
This effect stays true even for issues they otherwise care about. How much did any of us devote today specifically to ending the ongoing Syrian civil war? Or simply ending hunger in the poorest parts of Africa?
Of course we would almost all agree those things are important, but they don’t have enough personal relevance for us to be involved, let alone informed. Talk to the people who are being directly affected, though, and you’re a monster for not doing more to help.
Breaking through that privilege is hard where it concerns current Trump supporters. I think these people are the equivalent of recognizing when someone is a-moral, not immoral. They are a-Trump, not pro-Trump, and otherwise are blissfully unconcerned with the wind carrying them just slightly over the edge of pulling the lever for Trump.
I believe breaking through that privilege also speaks to why these a-Trumpers feel so reflexively defensive and oppressed. To break through their privilege simply to get their attention can be a huge undertaking, and they of course understand that whatever we want, we are willing to go to extremes just to make them listen.
Anyway, I hope none of that comes across like I’m disagreeing with you. You got me to thinking as I kept typing. When it comes to informed Trump supporters, I’m of the same mind as you.
/rant
5 Likes
Just pure evil at every turn
There will be articles of impeachment filed in the House, I’m 100 percent certain of that. I currently do not know when they will do this. My speculation is that they’ll file/vote by Christmas recess, and that the Senate trial will happen right after they get back (or the vote will happen right after Christmas recess).
I think a lot of timing rests on the McGahn decision, which should be coming down within the next two weeks. I’m expecting McGahn to be completely done by mid-December (as long as SC declines it), and I expect the House will win McGahn. Everyone will have to testify at that point which could change the timeline a lot in relation to dragging things out. If the SC hears it, then they’ll just move forward without a decision on that and I think a pre-Christmas vote is realistic.
I’m not speculating about the Senate, because we just went public (more will certainly come out during this process), but I for sure think it’s higher than zero percent that they will convict.
No matter what, the impeachment will ultimately be a good thing for Dem election possibilities. It shouldn’t have been, based on the run up, but no one’s going to remember Nancy’s dilly dallying when it’s all over. A whole bunch of people are going to be painted very badly by saying that open corruption and crimes are fine as long as it’s a Republican. If he gets away with this, no Dem should ever submit to any investigation. If the public puts those people back in (and/or Trump), they’ve spoken. They want the corruption like a drug injected directly into their veins.
1 Like
Voting for impeachment in the house is more like 90%. Removal by the Senate is absolutely at 0% if all they are impeaching on is Ukraine. You have to be brain dead to think that there is some chance 20 Republican Senators flip based on what we currently know about Ukraine. That’s why this whole strategy is so bad. There will never be investigations of all of Trump’s obvious crimes and grift.
2 Likes
This is the first line under the Opinion headline. It’s actually good click bait for GOP morons, so I respect the game.
There’s only so much Republicans can do when Democrats have all the evidence they need.
By the way, the number one read story on Politico is:
Trump Exposed: A Brutal Day for the President
The second highest one is the one linked above.
Dale the GOAT dropping some sobering anecdata.
5 Likes
I think the biggest consequence of all this is the Republican name brand is gonna be toxic for a generation. Even now, the party leadership is still 100% behind Trump, they’re gong to spend years convincing Millennials and GenZ that Trump was some fluke and the party isn’t really like that.
3 Likes
That man is dedicated to the unbelievably pointless job he’s invented for himself.
1 Like
I’m old enough to remember when these people unironically called themselves ‘the silent majority’. Now they’re ‘the cheating blithering minority’.
1 Like
Didn’t see this ITT, maybe it’s in one of the impeachment ones but seems big if true:
AP source: 2nd U.S. official heard Trump call with Sondland
A second U.S. Embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.
The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.
The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation.
3 Likes
The One Successful Habit of Unsuccessful People
by Daniel Dale (ddale8)
2 Likes
The article is the second most read on Politico, which means it was clicked through Apple News. Your conclusion doesn’t match your thesis statement. They are clicking the headline, and then when they see the first line, literally right below the headline, they hit back or browser close or whatever. It’s kind of like when I’m on msn and they’re in disguise mode for the links and I find out I clicked a Fox News headline because it’s not in the link. All I needed to do was see the logo and it’s immediate shut.
It’s strong click bait for idiots who are trying to find their ‘I told you so’ articles for their facebook grandmother friends.
Hey he went from a Canadian newspaper to the worst news network outside of Fox News.
Fixed the headline:
“Impeachment is not a fair fight, Republicans have shown up at the gunfight armed only with rubber bands”
3 Likes
You remember 2016?
Or I don’t know 2 months ago?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/18/why-democrats-cant-speak-silent-majority/
Or are you actually a boomer who remembers Nixon coining that term in the late 60s? I am so confused?
!!! and just like that I love her again. At least for today.
1 Like
I vaguely remember Jerry Falwell Sr talking about the “silent majority” during the Reagan years but I was a kid
Nixon was the one who really took the term and ran with it. Worked for a while, until it didn’t
MM MD