Donald Trump and US politics

Meanwhile, in the world of Psychology and Sociology:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving

"

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.

Yeah, virtue signaling. Nothing new here. =^[.]^=

ETA: The comments on that article are very nearly as entertaining as those on this thread! =^[.]^=

"

Laurium wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

The media was so eager to be kind to Trump that they were willing to prop up a thoroughly average, thoroughly inaccurate speech as though it was "I have a Dream".

Yeah, that's the takeaway.

Your hatred and bitterness are so palpable. It's really too bad that you're so very worked up over what has been described as a positive moment for the country.

What, you mean a speech? It's not that hard to talk a big game and read fancy words off a teleprompter. It really isn't. Our last president did it all the time. A teenager can do that. Put me up on that stage and I could do that. My unemployed roommate who hasn't held down a stable job in years could do that. Pick out any politician and chances are they've done it a dozen times. It takes more than talking to accomplish things in government.

It would be nice if this started a pattern of Trump actually taking his office seriously, and not going off on deranged rants every other time he has to speak to the public, but again, the only reason this speech stands out is because the bar is literally lying on the ground, and most of his speeches do not rise to the level of "reading a decently-written speech off a teleprompter without losing his shit". It's nothing special, and acting like the president giving a nice speech is a "positive moment for the country" is rather ridiculous, especially when that speech is riddled with inaccuracies and supports an agenda which continues to be fucking awful.

In other news, Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his connections to Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f6af73534f9a

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general."

"At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”"

Smart money is on absolutely nobody in the republican-controlled government even pretending to give a shit about this. Particularly not Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in typical republican fashion - i.e. completely ignoring its main goal.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said

Man, how dare he? Does he think it's just okay for members of Congress to talk to ambassadors other nations appoint to talk with us? The nerve!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said

Man, how dare he? Does he think it's just okay for members of Congress to talk to ambassadors other nations appoint to talk with us? The nerve!

Hey, no harm, no foul on him talking to the Russian ambassador. There's nothing inherently wrong with that whatsoever. I just wonder why he felt the need to lie about it. Under oath. That thing we impeached Clinton for. And all he lied about was a blowjob, this is about contact with the ambassador to a country who clearly had a hand in getting his side elected.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said

Man, how dare he? Does he think it's just okay for members of Congress to talk to ambassadors other nations appoint to talk with us? The nerve!

Hey, no harm, no foul on him talking to the Russian ambassador. There's nothing inherently wrong with that whatsoever. I just wonder why he felt the need to lie about it. Under oath. That thing we impeached Clinton for. And all he lied about was a blowjob, this is about contact with the ambassador to a country who clearly had a hand in getting his side elected.

The question is: does talking to an ambassador specifically appointed to talk to your country, who is a legitimate member of the United States diplomatic community, really count as having "communications with the Russians?" My answer to that is: it would depend upon the nature of the conversations. If Sessions was speaking to the ambassador as his own man and not as an intermediary, I wouldn't consider Sessions' testimony to be inaccurate.

Scrotie, I think the part you're neglecting is that we're at war with Russia. That's why we're not allowed to speak to or associate with Russians for any reason; even if it's part of our job; even if they're relatives or friends.

Also keep in mind that HRC would not have lost if it wasn't for outside influence, duh. It's inconceivable that she was the worse candidate and lost in a fair election. Any day now the Truth (tm) will come out and there will be a reckoning, just you wait.

"

pneuma wrote:

Scrotie, I think the part you're neglecting is that we're at war with Russia. That's why we're not allowed to speak to or associate with Russians for any reason; even if it's part of our job; even if they're relatives or friends.

I'm confused. I thought if we were at war with a country, we were supposed to fly its military-age males into our country and give them free welfare.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm confused. I thought if we were at war with a country, we were supposed to fly its military-age males into our country and give them free welfare.

LOL :D

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Hey, no harm, no foul on him talking to the Russian ambassador. There's nothing inherently wrong with that whatsoever. I just wonder why he felt the need to lie about it.

He didn't. You are repeating the talking points memo that was heavily circulated and is the latest leftist attack plan on Trump. The MSM and their their puppets would have included the key word: Twice.

................

"There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

.........

about the 2016 election, <--- So, Sessions could have met with them and talked about Path of Exile, and the media would still try to spin it as him saying that he didn't meet with the Russians.

The "source" of this information according to the WSJ was so clueless that they didn't even know if the "investigation" was still active or closed.

This will last until Monday afternoon, Tuesday at the latest. The leftists were so flustered by Trump's speech that the shills went dark for about 6 hours, while they conjured up this latest rabbit. They need something negative to keep people from talking about the speech over the weekend. They also need to buy time to plan their next attacks.

They are winging it now. The display of "solidarity" during the speech only made the elected officials of the left look like petulant teenagers. Anyone who has raised kids recognized what the left was doing and subconsciously recognized the sulking of someone who hasn't gotten what they wanted through their own fault.

Over March and part way into April (iirc) the bids will go out for contracts to build the wall. We will see construction begin before the end of summer. Once the wall is going up, crime is going down and more people are returning to full time jobs Trump's promises will drown out any BS the MSM can muster.

If what I have seen tentatively proposed as his budget premise holds up, then we're looking at running the US at one trillion dollars UNDER tax revenue. When Trump pulls off an infrastructure expansion with added jobs and cutting the deficit, the collective left will lose their minds, and fiscal conservatives will warm up to Making America Great Again.

We elected a hard driving CEO. He isn't here to philosophically cuddle with us, he is here to put things on a track towards success. Those that are familiar with the visionary/executive mindset understand why Trump does and says things in a certain manner. Those that aren't familiar find it threatening, just as someone who found themselves on the field in the middle of an NFL game would find the big people running around threatening.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The question is: does talking to an ambassador specifically appointed to talk to your country, who is a legitimate member of the United States diplomatic community, really count as having "communications with the Russians?" My answer to that is: it would depend upon the nature of the conversations. If Sessions was speaking to the ambassador as his own man and not as an intermediary, I wouldn't consider Sessions' testimony to be inaccurate.

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

The Russian ambassador doesn't somehow count as Russian? Really? That's got to be the most bizarre excuse I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but when talking about communication with a foreign power, talking to their ambassador is pretty clearly communicating with that foreign power!

And yeah, you know, this shouldn't be a big deal. There's no reason it should be a big deal. There's absolutely no reason why a presidential candidate's team shouldn't be in communication with a foreign power, so long as that communication is diplomatic and not in violation of the Logan Act. Hell, by all means, Trump could have invited the Russian ambassador to his home for a party, and it wouldn't have been a big deal.

Which is why it's so puzzling that we now have two members of Trump's administration who have lied about being in contact with the Russians. One has already been dismissed over these lies; the other, as it has now been found out, lied about it under oath. This should raise a few eyebrows. Why can't the Trump team be upfront and honest about their communications with Russia? If nothing bad was going on, why can't they just say, "Yeah, we were in communications with Russia." Hell, Sessions could have answered, "I was in communications with Russia as part of my official capacity as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee." But he didn't say that. He said that he didn't. This was not true, and he knew it was not true. So why lie about it?

"

pneuma wrote:

Scrotie, I think the part you're neglecting is that we're at war with Russia. That's why we're not allowed to speak to or associate with Russians for any reason; even if it's part of our job; even if they're relatives or friends.

Dude, when you're asked "Did you or your team have any contact with Russia" and you know for a fact you were on the phone with the Russian ambassador on numerous occasions, the correct and honest answer is, "yes". You can complain about this being an unfair question if you'd like, that it doesn't really matter that Jeff Sessions was in contact with Russia, and I'd agree... right up until he lies about it. Then it becomes suspect.

"

Also keep in mind that HRC would not have lost if it wasn't for outside influence, duh. It's inconceivable that she was the worse candidate and lost in a fair election. Any day now the Truth (tm) will come out and there will be a reckoning, just you wait.

Yeah, god forbid we be a little concerned about the continuing negative influence Putin has been having on elections across the world. God forbid we be concerned that a foreign power whose head of state is a brutal autocratic dictator intervened in our election on behalf of one party, and that that party is now getting caught in increasingly embarrassing snafus about how much they communicated with that foreign power and how willing they are to lie about it.

We're not at war with Russia. But if their illegal actions helped change the results of our election, that's a pretty substantial thing. And if our president, whose team has been acting really weird towards Russia for quite some time, is hiding things about his relationship with Russia, that should really be cause for concern.