The other side of this play is that it gives the entire national security issue to Democrats. For decades Democrats fought against the perception that Republicans did a better job when it came to...
Trump’s demand advances two goals: The first is to protect himself from legal consequences if he loses both the GOP primary and his federal court case. But given that Trump is telling allies he’ll trounce DeSantis and all other primary challengers, the demand for a pardon pledge appears to be more a political move. The question itself offers a trap for any Republican who tries to engage with it: either side with Trump and use the occasion to keep him in the campaign spotlight or share some uncomfortable real estate on the side of Joe Biden and the Justice Department.
The other side of this play is that it gives the entire national security issue to Democrats. For decades Democrats fought against the perception that Republicans did a better job when it came to confronting foreign adversaries and protecting American military. That's going to be a hard case to make if the charges against Trump are anywhere near as ironclad as they look. If Republicans are willing to say "yea, but he's our guy" when it's the crown-jewels of national intelligence on the line, they're going to face an uphill battle convincing voters that they're trustworthy in the White House.
I think this way of thinking about politics is a relic of a bygone era. Nowadays basically all professional opinion havers are either gullible centrists who bend over backwards to seem neutral or...
For decades Democrats fought against the perception that Republicans did a better job when it came to confronting foreign adversaries and protecting American military. That's going to be a hard case to make if the charges against Trump are anywhere near as ironclad as they look.
I think this way of thinking about politics is a relic of a bygone era. Nowadays basically all professional opinion havers are either gullible centrists who bend over backwards to seem neutral or hardcore right-wing shills. There's a few token liberals but they're all too concerned with decorum to effectively combat the disinformation puke funnel. The actual relationship that claims or performances have to reality simply doesn't matter anymore. The media establishment doesn't call balls and strikes often enough, consistently enough, or with any sense of proportion for that mechanism to work and the partisan shills have grown utterly shameless in the absence of accountability for peddling outright bullshit.
All that matters is how well you can whip up your supporters now. There's no feedback mechanism to check anything anyone says against reality anymore, only how well your narrative plays with various audiences. This is why "political analysis" now is all written like theater criticism instead of actual analysis. The only time anyone even thinks about doing math is to analyze opinion polls.
I agree largely with your point except there was no bygone era of good political reporting. A bad press that is captured and doesn't report what is important to voters isn't new. It was well...
I agree largely with your point except there was no bygone era of good political reporting. A bad press that is captured and doesn't report what is important to voters isn't new. It was well established long before Citizen Kane was filmed. Maybe people think it was a golden age when Cronkite was around, but that was the era of maximum manufactured consent through 3 TV channels and a few newspapers.
Also I don't know how much Democrats "whip up supporters". The closest thing is a populist like Bernie Sanders, but he's not actually trying to take something from his supporters to give it to his donors unlike most Republicans.
There's a difference in extent. I clearly remember during the Gulf War the news had Norman Schwarzkopf talking details about the hows and whys of the military's approach. In the lead up to it...
I agree largely with your point except there was no bygone era of good political reporting. A bad press that is captured and doesn't report what is important to voters isn't new. It was well established long before Citizen Kane was filmed.
There's a difference in extent. I clearly remember during the Gulf War the news had Norman Schwarzkopf talking details about the hows and whys of the military's approach. In the lead up to it there were actual foreign policy experts and political theorists on CNN discussing just war theory. An actual dialogue took place, out in the open, of subject matter experts discussing the substantive details of the policy choice. The cable news cycle has collapsed this all into opinion polling and horse race journalism. Nothing else matters anymore.
I don't disagree with you macroscopically but because those supporters are pretty evenly divided, the diminishing marginal utility of that is real. Also, because those supporters are a known...
All that matters is how well you can whip up your supporters now.
I don't disagree with you macroscopically but because those supporters are pretty evenly divided, the diminishing marginal utility of that is real. Also, because those supporters are a known quantity, we should expect the outrage machines to get pretty well tuned. I'd be stunned if we see a meaningful fall-off in voter engagement in 2024, for example; after all this time, the parties have their voters' figured out.
But that still leaves a thin margin of actual independents who can be won over. This is why Democrats continue to look to town halls and debates whereas Republicans tend to prefer rallies: Democrats can still win people to their platform on issues; Republicans win them on identity and no one changes their identity because of a debate.
All of which is to say that you're right -- the folks in the tank for Trump or Biden won't give a damn about how this does or doesn't play out because they've already made up their minds and this issue is ancillary to their existing political conclusions -- but given the exceedingly narrow margins on which we've seen elections turn out, especially in critical swing states, a small number of votes can be a deciding factor.
I'm going to need you to list out your main sources for this opinion just so I can be sure to avoid all of them completely. I wonder if there is a distinction between news and editorial that is...
I'm going to need you to list out your main sources for this opinion just so I can be sure to avoid all of them completely.
I wonder if there is a distinction between news and editorial that is missing from this assessment. I've already had the opinion that news and editorial were not sufficiently distinguished for most consumers, but your comment seems to just blur the two together in such an extreme way it feels new and different.
All of cable news and most op ed columns. Again, most news junkies are taking their cues from cable news. Even the newspaper columnists are having their views framed by what's going on with the...
I'm going to need you to list out your main sources for this opinion just so I can be sure to avoid all of them completely.
All of cable news and most op ed columns.
I wonder if there is a distinction between news and editorial that is missing from this assessment.
Again, most news junkies are taking their cues from cable news. Even the newspaper columnists are having their views framed by what's going on with the TV. This effect is significantly worse on the right side of the political spectrum, but it's pretty universal.
News doesn't really move the needle on political coverage. Most political reporting is just horse-race/theater criticism tier, so they're basically manufacturing perspectives through their coverage and then pretending the opinion poll results are downstream of some magical process of unbiased information gathering by survey respondents instead of vice versa.
Gotcha, so I think we agree. I'm hearing you say, most people get their "news" from editorial and editorial is garbage. So it becomes this long cycle of regurgitated garbage. I agree with that. I...
Gotcha, so I think we agree. I'm hearing you say, most people get their "news" from editorial and editorial is garbage. So it becomes this long cycle of regurgitated garbage. I agree with that.
I interpreted it as being more, "there is no such thing as good news." Which I take issue with because I think there is lots of good, informed news. Whether or not anyone reads it is another issue altogether.
This is the great tragedy of it. There is so much good journalism out there. But it seems impossible for the people making it to earn a living commensurate with the work and skill involved, and...
I interpreted it as being more, "there is no such thing as good news." Which I take issue with because I think there is lots of good, informed news.
This is the great tragedy of it. There is so much good journalism out there. But it seems impossible for the people making it to earn a living commensurate with the work and skill involved, and none of the gatekeepers seem willing to create a channel to give it wide adoption. It's crowded out by low-effort pundit content.
If I was absolute dictator, I would unironically ban 24 hour news coverage. The channels can remain, but unless there is actual breaking news I'd make them play random documentaries.
I often think about this and I think my takeaway is the exact opposite. I would want those channels to actually cover a lot more news. I don't know why they fixate on like 5 issues and just beat...
If I was absolute dictator, I would unironically ban 24 hour news coverage. The channels can remain, but unless there is actual breaking news I'd make them play random documentaries.
I often think about this and I think my takeaway is the exact opposite. I would want those channels to actually cover a lot more news. I don't know why they fixate on like 5 issues and just beat the horse into the ground. I don't know how they choose the issues they choose to focus on. There are SO MANY things to think about and to inform about. If they just actually covered those things, I think we'd be better off.
The one thing I will say though I think it is a very unpopular opinion is: I would ban all the fluff type stories. I really don't want to watch the news and hear about Karen's azaleas or Jimmy's high school whatever.
I feel like I lost a lot of would be followers by sharing that. Good thing it's a dictatorship.
Production crews and equipment are expensive. They physically can't shuffle masses of people around wherever news is happening. It's much easier to have 1 really high-production value crew go to 1...
I would want those channels to actually cover a lot more news. I don't know why they fixate on like 5 issues and just beat the horse into the ground.
Production crews and equipment are expensive. They physically can't shuffle masses of people around wherever news is happening. It's much easier to have 1 really high-production value crew go to 1 place and milk it for as much content as possible.
Partly this is because they're monopolies. When there was a lot more locally owned newspaper and channels you actually did get a lot more coverage. It was much lower value. The anchors are less polished. The equipment is less good. The connectivity and satellite linkages are bad. But they cover more stuff.
Yeah, I was being lazy. I can think of lots of reasons why. I guess I don't understand why people put up with it and reward the shit that comes out of a lot of media. News media included.
Yeah, I was being lazy. I can think of lots of reasons why. I guess I don't understand why people put up with it and reward the shit that comes out of a lot of media. News media included.
Did you happen to read this piece? https://tild.es/16ax Curious if you have any thoughts. I think this is true, but I also think progressives are too quick to shy away from 'uncomfortable' stories...
Did you happen to read this piece? https://tild.es/16ax Curious if you have any thoughts.
There's a few token liberals but they're all too concerned with decorum to effectively combat the disinformation puke funnel.
I think this is true, but I also think progressives are too quick to shy away from 'uncomfortable' stories if they happen to makeshift as ammunition in the 'disinformation puke funnel'. I'm not really sure what the answer is though, as Sulzberger notes it's a problem without an easy solution.
I don't agree with everything in that piece btw, I think the Cotton op-ed was indefensible at that time.
Yeah. It's another symptom of a systematic breakdown in capacity to engage in moral persuasion or dialogue. When facts don't matter and it's all about tribalism and narrative, then you can't...
but I also think progressives are too quick to shy away from 'uncomfortable' stories if they happen to makeshift as ammunition in the 'disinformation puke funnel'
Yeah. It's another symptom of a systematic breakdown in capacity to engage in moral persuasion or dialogue. When facts don't matter and it's all about tribalism and narrative, then you can't actually admit facts that are inconvenient to your narrative.
I think the Times, in general, is extremely disingenuous about their own role in shaping public opinion. They, like most elite media, have this perspective that truth is derived through some adversarial contest between different sides of an argument (and there are only ever 2 in their minds). This leads them to do stupid things like publish that Cotton op-ed and engage in other forms of bullshit laundering. I don't even know to what extent that argument is sincere versus motivated by selling subscriptions through controversy. Having your opinion platformed ought to be contingent on actually wanting to engage in good faith. Simply giving liars and bullshit artists free-reign to lie and spin BS doesn't benefit anyone.
It's certainly interesting that MTG and other associated nutcases are still banging their pro-Trump drums. Maybe they're worried that Trump would squeal. Or that they'd be next on the chopping...
It's certainly interesting that MTG and other associated nutcases are still banging their pro-Trump drums.
Maybe they're worried that Trump would squeal. Or that they'd be next on the chopping block once Trump is out of the way.
It's not interesting at all... it's totally predictable. I can't recall a single situation where any of those people have ever admitted wrongdoing or that they made a mistake. It's not in their...
It's not interesting at all... it's totally predictable. I can't recall a single situation where any of those people have ever admitted wrongdoing or that they made a mistake. It's not in their programming.
Seriously doubt that would ever happen. Trump's handlers have nothing to gain from him anymore, he's a useless turd who's destined for either jail or the grave, it's just a matter of how long he...
Seriously doubt that would ever happen. Trump's handlers have nothing to gain from him anymore, he's a useless turd who's destined for either jail or the grave, it's just a matter of how long he lives + how long he can delay jail time.
That information is wasted giving it to Trump, when they can hold it over others' heads and continue to influence them separate from him.
To some extent, yes, but frankly I think he's going to do that regardless of whether or not anybody is backing him at this point. It is a guarantee that Trump will be running for President in Nov...
To some extent, yes, but frankly I think he's going to do that regardless of whether or not anybody is backing him at this point. It is a guarantee that Trump will be running for President in Nov 2024, the only way that wouldn't happen is if he dies before that. Even if he was convicted of federal crimes, became a felon and was ineligible to hold office, and was sitting in jail come Election Day, AND wasn't the Republican nominee, he'd still be running for President, even if he couldn't legally be on the ballot in some/all states (I'm not sure what limitations there are in different states re: allowing someone to be on the ballot if they can't legally hold office). And morons would absolutely write him in no matter what.
He doesn't need the help of Russia or anyone else to accomplish any of that. Hell, even if Trump were to die tomorrow, there would still be supporters of his who would claim it was a conspiracy and that he was really alive and hiding from the deep state, and would still write him in.
This would matter if today's voters weighed issues anymore. The problem is that the Trumplicans don't really have principles like that. They're voting for Trump because he's the one and whatever...
This would matter if today's voters weighed issues anymore. The problem is that the Trumplicans don't really have principles like that. They're voting for Trump because he's the one and whatever he does is right because he's doing it. I doubt most of them give a shit about national security as a concept on its own. I'd be surprised if many of them actually gave a lot of thought to what it meant.
The vast majority of the rest of the GOP goes along with it because they don't want to alienate half their voters.
(Edit: Extremely hot? Incorrect?) Hot take, but I think the most recent indictment is really just a proxy for both sides to assess the entirety of Trump's conduct as president. Because, to be...
(Edit: Extremely hot? Incorrect?) Hot take, but I think the most recent indictment is really just a proxy for both sides to assess the entirety of Trump's conduct as president.
Because, to be real: Keeping classified documents in boxes in Mar-a-Lago is far from his greatest transgression. But since we can't indict him for being a sexist pig, destroying decades of cultural norms, or his myriad other violations, we get documents in boxes.
The reason I object to people calling Trump's indictment political is that getting mob bosses on tax charges wasn't political, either. You take what you can get in the justice system.
This is a real minimization of the absolute damage classified documents could cause if they fall in the wrong hands. At the very least, based on the indictment we know that Trump was showing maps...
This is a real minimization of the absolute damage classified documents could cause if they fall in the wrong hands.
At the very least, based on the indictment we know that Trump was showing maps and data on active military conflicts to multiple people without security clearance. That information can directly lead to the deaths of thousands in the wrong hands.
Based on everything that we know of trump he loves flattery and showing off. These documents are at the highest levels of classification. If they’re important enough to impress people, they’re important enough to be dangerous.
I voted for you and edited my parent comment because I'm realizing that your perspective (and the others here) make more sense than my original thinking. Thanks for helping to change my viewpoint!
I voted for you and edited my parent comment because I'm realizing that your perspective (and the others here) make more sense than my original thinking. Thanks for helping to change my viewpoint!
October 2021: Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants (NYT). August 2022: It came out that foreign spies could have accessed the documents: 'Terrifying' That...
I don't know how connected these events are in truth, but I've seen some reporting from independent journalists saying that they are. It's pretty easy to find those articles but confirmation bias is certainly important to keep in mind, so I won't link them.
It really depends on the contents of those documents and what he actually did with them. If they are national security secrets that got into the wrong hands, or if there’s even the possibility of...
Because, to be real: Keeping classified documents in boxes in Mar-a-Lago is far from his greatest transgression.
It really depends on the contents of those documents and what he actually did with them. If they are national security secrets that got into the wrong hands, or if there’s even the possibility of it, that’s an egregious violation of the safety of millions of people
That's true. It's disturbing to think about. I suppose my "hot take" was, in fact, hot. If your suspicion is right, this might not be a mob-boss-tax-fraud kind of case.
That's true. It's disturbing to think about.
I suppose my "hot take" was, in fact, hot. If your suspicion is right, this might not be a mob-boss-tax-fraud kind of case.
Exactly. And remember, the documents we're going to see discussed in the indictment and trial are the ones that DOJ, in collaboration with the other three letter agencies, consider the least...
Exactly. And remember, the documents we're going to see discussed in the indictment and trial are the ones that DOJ, in collaboration with the other three letter agencies, consider the least damaging to discuss.
One of those documents concerns US assessment of a foreign country's nuclear capabilities, which is to say that documents about nuclear readiness are among those in play.
Do any of those documents have to do with AMERICAN nuclear readiness? The W87 warhead, for example, has been modified since the United States ended live nuclear testing. Does it... you know... actually work? Documents casting doubt on that would PROFOUNDLY undermine American nuclear deterrence and put hundreds of millions of people's lives at risk.
Now, obviously, that's an extreme scenario (and the W87 warhead totally works; the modifications since the 1976 live-fire test are all extremely straightforward) but it's an example worth considering. There have been some secrets in intelligence history which have been considered worth many hundreds or even thousands of lives.
It's simple: about a 1/3 of the GOP (and about a 1/6th of the US) is ride or die with him. That's a lot of people, for a country of 300m. It's very hard to win any kind of national election if...
It's simple: about a 1/3 of the GOP (and about a 1/6th of the US) is ride or die with him. That's a lot of people, for a country of 300m. It's very hard to win any kind of national election if 1/3rd of your prospective voters are not voting for you. It's practically impossible to win any kind of primary when 1/3rd of the voters don't like you.
And that's just ride or die; if you expand to merely fairly loyal, then it's more like 45% of the GOP.
In a democracy, how can someone with command of so many people not have power? It is what it is. Democracy giveth, democracy taketh.
He is the thing that is destroying the party as a whole. He is forcing the party in a more crazy direction and attacking everyone in his party that does not support him. I don’t think Trump is...
He is the thing that is destroying the party as a whole. He is forcing the party in a more crazy direction and attacking everyone in his party that does not support him. I don’t think Trump is capable of keeping a secret and there is nothing at this point that is so damning that it could turn the GOP base democratic.
Citation: see the recent indictment which details Trump dieing classified documents to unauthorized people while declaring (paraphrased) "check this out, I'm not supposed to show you this, don't...
I don’t think Trump is capable of keeping a secret
Citation: see the recent indictment which details Trump dieing classified documents to unauthorized people while declaring (paraphrased) "check this out, I'm not supposed to show you this, don't get to close".
I would assume Trumps upcoming death is factored in by most people, especially his 'opponents'. The guy won't be around long enough for his threats to matter much, particularly to a replacement...
I would assume Trumps upcoming death is factored in by most people, especially his 'opponents'. The guy won't be around long enough for his threats to matter much, particularly to a replacement that will very likely adopt many of his strategies to keep right wing voters on-side.
Unfortunately you are right, also worth noting his dad lived to 93. Having said that, he is obese and despite no known history of heart issues, long-term obesity does mean lower life expectancy....
Unfortunately you are right, also worth noting his dad lived to 93.
Having said that, he is obese and despite no known history of heart issues, long-term obesity does mean lower life expectancy. It's also worth noting that Trump has gone to great lengths to conceal any potential health problems to protect his image, to the point that he wouldn't even allow doctors to release accurate reports on his health while he was president.
The other side of this play is that it gives the entire national security issue to Democrats. For decades Democrats fought against the perception that Republicans did a better job when it came to confronting foreign adversaries and protecting American military. That's going to be a hard case to make if the charges against Trump are anywhere near as ironclad as they look. If Republicans are willing to say "yea, but he's our guy" when it's the crown-jewels of national intelligence on the line, they're going to face an uphill battle convincing voters that they're trustworthy in the White House.
I think this way of thinking about politics is a relic of a bygone era. Nowadays basically all professional opinion havers are either gullible centrists who bend over backwards to seem neutral or hardcore right-wing shills. There's a few token liberals but they're all too concerned with decorum to effectively combat the disinformation puke funnel. The actual relationship that claims or performances have to reality simply doesn't matter anymore. The media establishment doesn't call balls and strikes often enough, consistently enough, or with any sense of proportion for that mechanism to work and the partisan shills have grown utterly shameless in the absence of accountability for peddling outright bullshit.
All that matters is how well you can whip up your supporters now. There's no feedback mechanism to check anything anyone says against reality anymore, only how well your narrative plays with various audiences. This is why "political analysis" now is all written like theater criticism instead of actual analysis. The only time anyone even thinks about doing math is to analyze opinion polls.
I agree largely with your point except there was no bygone era of good political reporting. A bad press that is captured and doesn't report what is important to voters isn't new. It was well established long before Citizen Kane was filmed. Maybe people think it was a golden age when Cronkite was around, but that was the era of maximum manufactured consent through 3 TV channels and a few newspapers.
Also I don't know how much Democrats "whip up supporters". The closest thing is a populist like Bernie Sanders, but he's not actually trying to take something from his supporters to give it to his donors unlike most Republicans.
There's a difference in extent. I clearly remember during the Gulf War the news had Norman Schwarzkopf talking details about the hows and whys of the military's approach. In the lead up to it there were actual foreign policy experts and political theorists on CNN discussing just war theory. An actual dialogue took place, out in the open, of subject matter experts discussing the substantive details of the policy choice. The cable news cycle has collapsed this all into opinion polling and horse race journalism. Nothing else matters anymore.
I don't disagree with you macroscopically but because those supporters are pretty evenly divided, the diminishing marginal utility of that is real. Also, because those supporters are a known quantity, we should expect the outrage machines to get pretty well tuned. I'd be stunned if we see a meaningful fall-off in voter engagement in 2024, for example; after all this time, the parties have their voters' figured out.
But that still leaves a thin margin of actual independents who can be won over. This is why Democrats continue to look to town halls and debates whereas Republicans tend to prefer rallies: Democrats can still win people to their platform on issues; Republicans win them on identity and no one changes their identity because of a debate.
All of which is to say that you're right -- the folks in the tank for Trump or Biden won't give a damn about how this does or doesn't play out because they've already made up their minds and this issue is ancillary to their existing political conclusions -- but given the exceedingly narrow margins on which we've seen elections turn out, especially in critical swing states, a small number of votes can be a deciding factor.
I'm going to need you to list out your main sources for this opinion just so I can be sure to avoid all of them completely.
I wonder if there is a distinction between news and editorial that is missing from this assessment. I've already had the opinion that news and editorial were not sufficiently distinguished for most consumers, but your comment seems to just blur the two together in such an extreme way it feels new and different.
All of cable news and most op ed columns.
Again, most news junkies are taking their cues from cable news. Even the newspaper columnists are having their views framed by what's going on with the TV. This effect is significantly worse on the right side of the political spectrum, but it's pretty universal.
News doesn't really move the needle on political coverage. Most political reporting is just horse-race/theater criticism tier, so they're basically manufacturing perspectives through their coverage and then pretending the opinion poll results are downstream of some magical process of unbiased information gathering by survey respondents instead of vice versa.
Gotcha, so I think we agree. I'm hearing you say, most people get their "news" from editorial and editorial is garbage. So it becomes this long cycle of regurgitated garbage. I agree with that.
I interpreted it as being more, "there is no such thing as good news." Which I take issue with because I think there is lots of good, informed news. Whether or not anyone reads it is another issue altogether.
This is the great tragedy of it. There is so much good journalism out there. But it seems impossible for the people making it to earn a living commensurate with the work and skill involved, and none of the gatekeepers seem willing to create a channel to give it wide adoption. It's crowded out by low-effort pundit content.
If I was absolute dictator, I would unironically ban 24 hour news coverage. The channels can remain, but unless there is actual breaking news I'd make them play random documentaries.
I often think about this and I think my takeaway is the exact opposite. I would want those channels to actually cover a lot more news. I don't know why they fixate on like 5 issues and just beat the horse into the ground. I don't know how they choose the issues they choose to focus on. There are SO MANY things to think about and to inform about. If they just actually covered those things, I think we'd be better off.
The one thing I will say though I think it is a very unpopular opinion is: I would ban all the fluff type stories. I really don't want to watch the news and hear about Karen's azaleas or Jimmy's high school whatever.
I feel like I lost a lot of would be followers by sharing that. Good thing it's a dictatorship.
Production crews and equipment are expensive. They physically can't shuffle masses of people around wherever news is happening. It's much easier to have 1 really high-production value crew go to 1 place and milk it for as much content as possible.
Partly this is because they're monopolies. When there was a lot more locally owned newspaper and channels you actually did get a lot more coverage. It was much lower value. The anchors are less polished. The equipment is less good. The connectivity and satellite linkages are bad. But they cover more stuff.
Yeah, I was being lazy. I can think of lots of reasons why. I guess I don't understand why people put up with it and reward the shit that comes out of a lot of media. News media included.
Did you happen to read this piece? https://tild.es/16ax Curious if you have any thoughts.
I think this is true, but I also think progressives are too quick to shy away from 'uncomfortable' stories if they happen to makeshift as ammunition in the 'disinformation puke funnel'. I'm not really sure what the answer is though, as Sulzberger notes it's a problem without an easy solution.
I don't agree with everything in that piece btw, I think the Cotton op-ed was indefensible at that time.
Yeah. It's another symptom of a systematic breakdown in capacity to engage in moral persuasion or dialogue. When facts don't matter and it's all about tribalism and narrative, then you can't actually admit facts that are inconvenient to your narrative.
I think the Times, in general, is extremely disingenuous about their own role in shaping public opinion. They, like most elite media, have this perspective that truth is derived through some adversarial contest between different sides of an argument (and there are only ever 2 in their minds). This leads them to do stupid things like publish that Cotton op-ed and engage in other forms of bullshit laundering. I don't even know to what extent that argument is sincere versus motivated by selling subscriptions through controversy. Having your opinion platformed ought to be contingent on actually wanting to engage in good faith. Simply giving liars and bullshit artists free-reign to lie and spin BS doesn't benefit anyone.
I'm betting trump has be given dirt from his handlers for the other GOP members. He wants to use it as leverage to avoid jail.
It's certainly interesting that MTG and other associated nutcases are still banging their pro-Trump drums.
Maybe they're worried that Trump would squeal. Or that they'd be next on the chopping block once Trump is out of the way.
It's not interesting at all... it's totally predictable. I can't recall a single situation where any of those people have ever admitted wrongdoing or that they made a mistake. It's not in their programming.
Seriously doubt that would ever happen. Trump's handlers have nothing to gain from him anymore, he's a useless turd who's destined for either jail or the grave, it's just a matter of how long he lives + how long he can delay jail time.
That information is wasted giving it to Trump, when they can hold it over others' heads and continue to influence them separate from him.
I dunno, I mean he's probably still useful if your goal is to just sow chaos and dysfunction in the American political system.
To some extent, yes, but frankly I think he's going to do that regardless of whether or not anybody is backing him at this point. It is a guarantee that Trump will be running for President in Nov 2024, the only way that wouldn't happen is if he dies before that. Even if he was convicted of federal crimes, became a felon and was ineligible to hold office, and was sitting in jail come Election Day, AND wasn't the Republican nominee, he'd still be running for President, even if he couldn't legally be on the ballot in some/all states (I'm not sure what limitations there are in different states re: allowing someone to be on the ballot if they can't legally hold office). And morons would absolutely write him in no matter what.
He doesn't need the help of Russia or anyone else to accomplish any of that. Hell, even if Trump were to die tomorrow, there would still be supporters of his who would claim it was a conspiracy and that he was really alive and hiding from the deep state, and would still write him in.
This would matter if today's voters weighed issues anymore. The problem is that the Trumplicans don't really have principles like that. They're voting for Trump because he's the one and whatever he does is right because he's doing it. I doubt most of them give a shit about national security as a concept on its own. I'd be surprised if many of them actually gave a lot of thought to what it meant.
The vast majority of the rest of the GOP goes along with it because they don't want to alienate half their voters.
(Edit: Extremely hot? Incorrect?) Hot take, but I think the most recent indictment is really just a proxy for both sides to assess the entirety of Trump's conduct as president.
Because, to be real: Keeping classified documents in boxes in Mar-a-Lago is far from his greatest transgression. But since we can't indict him for being a sexist pig, destroying decades of cultural norms, or his myriad other violations, we get documents in boxes.
The reason I object to people calling Trump's indictment political is that getting mob bosses on tax charges wasn't political, either. You take what you can get in the justice system.
This is a real minimization of the absolute damage classified documents could cause if they fall in the wrong hands.
At the very least, based on the indictment we know that Trump was showing maps and data on active military conflicts to multiple people without security clearance. That information can directly lead to the deaths of thousands in the wrong hands.
Based on everything that we know of trump he loves flattery and showing off. These documents are at the highest levels of classification. If they’re important enough to impress people, they’re important enough to be dangerous.
I voted for you and edited my parent comment because I'm realizing that your perspective (and the others here) make more sense than my original thinking. Thanks for helping to change my viewpoint!
October 2021: Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants (NYT).
August 2022: It came out that foreign spies could have accessed the documents: 'Terrifying' That Imposter, Secret Files Both at Mar-a-Lago: Ex-CIA Agent (Newsweek).
I don't know how connected these events are in truth, but I've seen some reporting from independent journalists saying that they are. It's pretty easy to find those articles but confirmation bias is certainly important to keep in mind, so I won't link them.
It really depends on the contents of those documents and what he actually did with them. If they are national security secrets that got into the wrong hands, or if there’s even the possibility of it, that’s an egregious violation of the safety of millions of people
Yeah, the increased cia agents and informant deaths under trump along with nuclear documents and his family getting money from Saudis is worrisome.
We know at minimum he showed data including maps on active conflicts to a journalist. It’s in the indictment.
That's true. It's disturbing to think about.
I suppose my "hot take" was, in fact, hot. If your suspicion is right, this might not be a mob-boss-tax-fraud kind of case.
Exactly. And remember, the documents we're going to see discussed in the indictment and trial are the ones that DOJ, in collaboration with the other three letter agencies, consider the least damaging to discuss.
One of those documents concerns US assessment of a foreign country's nuclear capabilities, which is to say that documents about nuclear readiness are among those in play.
Do any of those documents have to do with AMERICAN nuclear readiness? The W87 warhead, for example, has been modified since the United States ended live nuclear testing. Does it... you know... actually work? Documents casting doubt on that would PROFOUNDLY undermine American nuclear deterrence and put hundreds of millions of people's lives at risk.
Now, obviously, that's an extreme scenario (and the W87 warhead totally works; the modifications since the 1976 live-fire test are all extremely straightforward) but it's an example worth considering. There have been some secrets in intelligence history which have been considered worth many hundreds or even thousands of lives.
It's simple: about a 1/3 of the GOP (and about a 1/6th of the US) is ride or die with him. That's a lot of people, for a country of 300m. It's very hard to win any kind of national election if 1/3rd of your prospective voters are not voting for you. It's practically impossible to win any kind of primary when 1/3rd of the voters don't like you.
And that's just ride or die; if you expand to merely fairly loyal, then it's more like 45% of the GOP.
In a democracy, how can someone with command of so many people not have power? It is what it is. Democracy giveth, democracy taketh.
He is the thing that is destroying the party as a whole. He is forcing the party in a more crazy direction and attacking everyone in his party that does not support him. I don’t think Trump is capable of keeping a secret and there is nothing at this point that is so damning that it could turn the GOP base democratic.
Citation: see the recent indictment which details Trump dieing classified documents to unauthorized people while declaring (paraphrased) "check this out, I'm not supposed to show you this, don't get to close".
I would assume Trumps upcoming death is factored in by most people, especially his 'opponents'. The guy won't be around long enough for his threats to matter much, particularly to a replacement that will very likely adopt many of his strategies to keep right wing voters on-side.
Unfortunately you are right, also worth noting his dad lived to 93.
Having said that, he is obese and despite no known history of heart issues, long-term obesity does mean lower life expectancy. It's also worth noting that Trump has gone to great lengths to conceal any potential health problems to protect his image, to the point that he wouldn't even allow doctors to release accurate reports on his health while he was president.
He's a large man (tall) and fat as a house, he'll be dead in his early 80s.