Michael Flynn has resigned

[aerius]

Or you go to 3 different sites (assuming it's not an AP story, in which case flip a coin) and read the same articles about the same story and form your own opinion. If you can't be bothered to spend a whole 10 minutes doing that, then put on a tinfoil hat and hide in the closet.

Sure. And I got some ocean front property to sell you in New Mexico. Just as an example, every mainstream media site was lying their asses off on the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I had to dig all the way down to the court transcripts and autopsy reports to prove that we were all being fed a steaming pile of shit. That's the kind of work you need to put in to actually verify facts, 3 different sites could easily be lying to you in 3 different ways, and you won't know what the truth is till you start digging.

In the case of (inter)national policy & relations where a ton of stuff is confidential or otherwise unavailable to the public, you can't even begin to verify any of the claims made in news stories. You either trust it or you don't based on the reputation of the source and your gut feelings. Unless wikileaks or someone else leaks the sources, you're mostly limited to circumstantial evidence.

[Flagg]

Or you go to 3 different sites (assuming it's not an AP story, in which case flip a coin) and read the same articles about the same story and form your own opinion. If you can't be bothered to spend a whole 10 minutes doing that, then put on a tinfoil hat and hide in the closet.

Sure. And I got some ocean front property to sell you in New Mexico. Just as an example, every mainstream media site was lying their asses off on the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I had to dig all the way down to the court transcripts and autopsy reports to prove that we were all being fed a steaming pile of shit. That's the kind of work you need to put in to actually verify facts, 3 different sites could easily be lying to you in 3 different ways, and you won't know what the truth is till you start digging.

In the case of (inter)national policy & relations where a ton of stuff is confidential or otherwise unavailable to the public, you can't even begin to verify any of the claims made in news stories. You either trust it or you don't based on the reputation of the source and your gut feelings. Unless wikileaks or someone else leaks the sources, you're mostly limited to circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, so one incident is evocative of the entire mainstream media? Do you have other examples? Maybe of things that were not incredibly divisive? And are you sure they were lying, or did they just have bad sources? Because being wrong does not equal lying. And did you get the full autopsy reports with photos?

[Ace Pace]

Or you go to 3 different sites (assuming it's not an AP story, in which case flip a coin) and read the same articles about the same story and form your own opinion. If you can't be bothered to spend a whole 10 minutes doing that, then put on a tinfoil hat and hide in the closet.

Sure. And I got some ocean front property to sell you in New Mexico. Just as an example, every mainstream media site was lying their asses off on the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I had to dig all the way down to the court transcripts and autopsy reports to prove that we were all being fed a steaming pile of shit. That's the kind of work you need to put in to actually verify facts, 3 different sites could easily be lying to you in 3 different ways, and you won't know what the truth is till you start digging.

In the case of (inter)national policy & relations where a ton of stuff is confidential or otherwise unavailable to the public, you can't even begin to verify any of the claims made in news stories. You either trust it or you don't based on the reputation of the source and your gut feelings. Unless wikileaks or someone else leaks the sources, you're mostly limited to circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, so one incident is evocative of the entire mainstream media? Do you have other examples? Maybe of things that were not incredibly divisive? And are you sure they were lying, or did they just have bad sources? Because being wrong does not equal lying. And did you get the full autopsy reports with photos?

Are you fucking dumb as rocks or are you just terminally trolling? Aerius may be extreme but mainstream media is dogs shit. When they comment on anything I know the slightest bit about more than the average citizen (or even, hell forbid, a brilliant SDNer... ) they're making shit up as they go along. Most coverage of anything foreign related is so bad as to be comical to anyone living in these reported areas, nevermind when they report on things that they're simply clueless on.

And no, some of us do not need to spend 10 minutes investigating every crappy news story on the cycle. When you have obligations beyond jerking off, you want to read stories, understand their context and move on. Not fucking become an internet sleuth and open up the actual reports and whatever. If you're incapable of comprehending that, you haven't talked to anyone outside a computer in years. I'll go and investigate things that will matter to my behaviour, voting or otherwise. I have no intention of looking up if they're making up facts about the Belgian economy and when I discover they're making shit up there, I just move to ignoring them.

[Elfdart]

Vympel, you should know better than to introduce facts and logic into a discussion involving a crank conspiracy theory: It only fans the flames. I mean, any conspiracy theory that, in order to be true, needs the Russians, the FBI, Wikileaks AND Glenn Greenwald to be collaborating in the same plot is so insane that Alex Jones would pump the brakes.

Even if you did include lizard people and chemtrails.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I could honestly believe that Trump and his administration weren't actually put into power with Russian connivance, and simply have a big pile of problematic business deals and such going on with Russia. Which is exactly what you expect when you vote a billionaire into the White House, of course he's got prior business connections with every sleazy jackass, warlord, thug, and autocrat in the world.

And that furthermore, Trump, who aspires to a thug's notion of government where he gets to strut and beat his chest and order everyone around to appease his own manbaby ego, may well simply honestly admire Putin. The way that a lot of wannabe authoritarians pick up admiration for a successful authoritarian, the way that petty crooks admire a gangster who "makes it big."

This could easily happen without Putin or the FIS or whoever having deliberately engineered it or having provided more than the most trivial assistance. Or, say, simply having taken some degree of advantage of random blackmail material they've gathered on Trump (I suspect a LOT of people have blackmail material on Trump).

However, it still speaks poorly of an American president when he approaches a major foreign power this way.

[Elfdart]

You know, I could honestly believe that Trump and his administration weren't actually put into power with Russian connivance, and simply have a big pile of problematic business deals and such going on with Russia. Which is exactly what you expect when you vote a billionaire into the White House, of course he's got prior business connections with every sleazy jackass, warlord, thug, and autocrat in the world.

And that furthermore, Trump, who aspires to a thug's notion of government where he gets to strut and beat his chest and order everyone around to appease his own manbaby ego, may well simply honestly admire Putin. The way that a lot of wannabe authoritarians pick up admiration for a successful authoritarian, the way that petty crooks admire a gangster who "makes it big."

This could easily happen without Putin or the FIS or whoever having deliberately engineered it or having provided more than the most trivial assistance. Or, say, simply having taken some degree of advantage of random blackmail material they've gathered on Trump (I suspect a LOT of people have blackmail material on Trump).

However, it still speaks poorly of an American president when he approaches a major foreign power this way.

He has "problematic" business deals with everyone he does business with. He's a grifter, pure and simple; the snake oil he sells is the illusion that he's a self-made man who's a hit with the chicks. Deutsche Bank just advanced him about $300 million during the election, which is probably all he's worth (if that much). They're expecting a return on their down payment, namely making their problems with the Fed, Treasury and SEC go away. Even if they were lending the money to Agent Orange on the assumption that he would pay it back with interest (yeah, right!) it stinks to high heaven because this kind of bullshit loan against one's holdings is a convenient way so many rich people dodge taxes.

As far as his man-crush on Putin is concerned, it's pretty obvious that like Fred Trump and Hugh Hefner, Putin is the man Cheetolini wishes he could be. Putin really is a billionaire. He really does have the power to have citizens killed for displeasing him. He really can tell the most retarded, outlandish lies and the press treads lightly because they fear him. Trump has none of this.

One more thing: How do you blackmail a man with no shame whatsoever? If his admission that he likes creeping on underage girls while they're changing backstage at the Miss Teen USA contest didn't sink him, stories of hookers and pissing on beds certainly won't.

[Ralin]

One more thing: How do you blackmail a man with no shame whatsoever? If his admission that he likes creeping on underage girls while they're changing backstage at the Miss Teen USA contest didn't sink him, stories of hookers and pissing on beds certainly won't.

I said pretty much exactly that not long ago. Simon I think made the decent point that there are things Trump does seem to be afraid of having made public knowledge, most notably his tax returns because they'd probably show he isn't nearly as rich as he says he is.

The issue is more that Trump is too arrogant and stupid to reliably stay blackmailed, no matter what the leverage you have on him is.

[Vympel]

Vympel, you should know better than to introduce facts and logic into a discussion involving a crank conspiracy theory: It only fans the flames. I mean, any conspiracy theory that, in order to be true, needs the Russians, the FBI, Wikileaks AND Glenn Greenwald to be collaborating in the same plot is so insane that Alex Jones would pump the brakes.

Even if you did include lizard people and chemtrails.

Don't forget Susan Sarandon and her army of Bernie Bros

I'm going to be honest with you, the nature of American politics might make it impossible to be a Republican with ties to Russia and avoid the Iran hardliners. If, hypothetically, Trump were taking support from Russia or were predisposed to listen to Russian wishes, he might very well still put Iran hardliners in his cabinet.

I'm fairly well versed in American politics (I follow it more than Australian to be honest) and I'm aware that being tough on Iran hardliner is prety much bipartisan orthodoxy - but being an Iran hardliner like Flynn or Mattis is a totally different kettle of fish. Mattis is on record as saying that ISIS and Iran aren't really enemies, ffs. That's a whole other order of hardliner.

It's not just that he often speaks favorably of Putin. He seems to be almost physically incapable of doing anything but speak favorably of Putin whenever Russia comes up. His stances on various issues may be fairly innocuous taken on their own, but when he's practically parroting Kremlin talking points verbatim, surrounding himself with pro-Putin cronies, seems compelled to vocally defend Putin on every issue no matter how insignificant, but then suddenly clams up and starts claiming that he's being really tough on Putin, who he doesn't even know and has never met, whenever people start to scrutinize their relationship, it's hard not to speculate over why he's so subservient to Russian interests when he's nothing but bloviating bravado to anyone else.

It's pretty clear that Trump has a strong affinity (and IMO, unsophisticated and unlikely to succeed) for improving relations with Russia, so its unsurprising that he's unwilling to go along with the tedious attempts to make him take ideological attendance on calling Putin a thug/bully/murderer.

As it is, these weird attempts to have people denounce Putin personally are not only incredibly diplomatically ill-advised, but AFAIK entirely unprecedented. The history of the Cold War isn't exactly filled with American Presidents declaring the Premier of the Soviet Union - personally - a murderer.

[Elfdart]

Don't forget Susan Sarandon and her army of Bernie Bros

I saw her interview on MSNBC last night and the reaction from veal pen Democrats after, and they are starting to remind me of the Freikorps-types who still blame Jane Fonda for losing the Vietnam War.

[Flagg]

Sure. And I got some ocean front property to sell you in New Mexico. Just as an example, every mainstream media site was lying their asses off on the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I had to dig all the way down to the court transcripts and autopsy reports to prove that we were all being fed a steaming pile of shit. That's the kind of work you need to put in to actually verify facts, 3 different sites could easily be lying to you in 3 different ways, and you won't know what the truth is till you start digging.

In the case of (inter)national policy & relations where a ton of stuff is confidential or otherwise unavailable to the public, you can't even begin to verify any of the claims made in news stories. You either trust it or you don't based on the reputation of the source and your gut feelings. Unless wikileaks or someone else leaks the sources, you're mostly limited to circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, so one incident is evocative of the entire mainstream media? Do you have other examples? Maybe of things that were not incredibly divisive? And are you sure they were lying, or did they just have bad sources? Because being wrong does not equal lying. And did you get the full autopsy reports with photos?

Are you fucking dumb as rocks or are you just terminally trolling? Aerius may be extreme but mainstream media is dogs shit. When they comment on anything I know the slightest bit about more than the average citizen (or even, hell forbid, a brilliant SDNer... ) they're making shit up as they go along. Most coverage of anything foreign related is so bad as to be comical to anyone living in these reported areas, nevermind when they report on things that they're simply clueless on.

And no, some of us do not need to spend 10 minutes investigating every crappy news story on the cycle. When you have obligations beyond jerking off, you want to read stories, understand their context and move on. Not fucking become an internet sleuth and open up the actual reports and whatever. If you're incapable of comprehending that, you haven't talked to anyone outside a computer in years. I'll go and investigate things that will matter to my behaviour, voting or otherwise. I have no intention of looking up if they're making up facts about the Belgian economy and when I discover they're making shit up there, I just move to ignoring them.

Excuse me? I'm trolling because I differentiate between intentional misreporting of facts (lying) and simply being too lazy to fact check? I'm "dumb as rocks" because I suggested simply reading the same story from different sources if you think the mainstream press is unreliable? If taking 10 minutes to read different sources rather than dismissing a story you don't like out of hand is too much of a burden, then don't comment on that story. Or any other stories reported by the mainstream press. Shitty attitudes like this are why the "fake news" bullshit Trump and his moronic followers call any story that contradicts the horseshit they sell gains any traction.

Frankly, I'm not paranoid to the point of thinking "internet sleuthing" is something you need to do for 99% of stories. If you are, see a professional therapist.

[Flagg]

And another thing: You might as well be parroting Sarah Palin and her "lamestream media" nattering.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, it's super dishonest to simply say "mainstream media sucks" AS AN EXCUSE FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION ABOUT SOMETHING. Which was of course what started this imbroglio.

It's true that the mainstream media has a problem with accuracy. Honestly, nobody should be surprised, considering the job of the media is to report on an incredible variety of subjects in a short period of time, it's pretty much no surprise that they don't always get things right. And it's fine to be skeptical of any claim that the media makes. In fact it's SMART to be skeptical. However, it's NOT smart to then say that you believe the OPPOSITE of what the media said HAS to be true, simply because the media is not always trustworthy. If CNN says "the sky is blue", you can't then go "well, the sky absolutely positively CANNOT be blue, and in fact must be orange, because I don't trust CNN".

[Wild Zontargs]

Aerius may be extreme but mainstream media is dogs shit. When they comment on anything I know the slightest bit about more than the average citizen (or even, hell forbid, a brilliant SDNer... ) they're making shit up as they go along. Most coverage of anything foreign related is so bad as to be comical to anyone living in these reported areas, nevermind when they report on things that they're simply clueless on.

And no, some of us do not need to spend 10 minutes investigating every crappy news story on the cycle. When you have obligations beyond jerking off, you want to read stories, understand their context and move on. Not fucking become an internet sleuth and open up the actual reports and whatever. If you're incapable of comprehending that, you haven't talked to anyone outside a computer in years. I'll go and investigate things that will matter to my behaviour, voting or otherwise. I have no intention of looking up if they're making up facts about the Belgian economy and when I discover they're making shit up there, I just move to ignoring them.

Also known as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

--Michael Crichton

[Dominus Atheos]

Vympel, you should know better than to introduce facts and logic into a discussion involving a crank conspiracy theory: It only fans the flames. I mean, any conspiracy theory that, in order to be true, needs the Russians, the FBI, Wikileaks AND Glenn Greenwald to be collaborating in the same plot is so insane that Alex Jones would pump the brakes.

Even if you did include lizard people and chemtrails.

How would Glenn Greenwald or the FBI be involved?

And after that interview in which Julian Assange heavily implied that Hillary Clinton had his source murdered and then covered up, I fully believe that Assange has gone insane cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy (by Hillary Clinton) and is willing to say or do anything to take her down.

[Flagg]

Yeah, it's super dishonest to simply say "mainstream media sucks" AS AN EXCUSE FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION ABOUT SOMETHING. Which was of course what started this imbroglio.

It's true that the mainstream media has a problem with accuracy. Honestly, nobody should be surprised, considering the job of the media is to report on an incredible variety of subjects in a short period of time, it's pretty much no surprise that they don't always get things right. And it's fine to be skeptical of any claim that the media makes. In fact it's SMART to be skeptical. However, it's NOT smart to then say that you believe the OPPOSITE of what the media said HAS to be true, simply because the media is not always trustworthy. If CNN says "the sky is blue", you can't then go "well, the sky absolutely positively CANNOT be blue, and in fact must be orange, because I don't trust CNN".

Exactly. But stop trolling.

I posted an article a few years ago regarding my best friend from when I lived in FL (10 & 1/2 years ago) who made the national news making an ass out of himself ( ) when the idiot he was selling an 8ball of cocaine to butt dialed 911. Aside from his name, literally everything that was reported about him was dead wrong. Like they had him as being 10 years younger than he was and spelled his name wrong. Were they lying in some nefarious plan to cover up his real identity? No, they just had shit or nonexistent fact checkers.

[Flagg]

Aerius may be extreme but mainstream media is dogs shit. When they comment on anything I know the slightest bit about more than the average citizen (or even, hell forbid, a brilliant SDNer... ) they're making shit up as they go along. Most coverage of anything foreign related is so bad as to be comical to anyone living in these reported areas, nevermind when they report on things that they're simply clueless on.

And no, some of us do not need to spend 10 minutes investigating every crappy news story on the cycle. When you have obligations beyond jerking off, you want to read stories, understand their context and move on. Not fucking become an internet sleuth and open up the actual reports and whatever. If you're incapable of comprehending that, you haven't talked to anyone outside a computer in years. I'll go and investigate things that will matter to my behaviour, voting or otherwise. I have no intention of looking up if they're making up facts about the Belgian economy and when I discover they're making shit up there, I just move to ignoring them.

Also known as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

--Michael Crichton

Sorry, but I have a hard time taking anything a deceased Global Climate Change denier with an anti-science bent who inserted a critic of his Climate Change denying book into another book as a pedophile with a micro-penis who had zero impact on the plot.

That said, he's wrong. I watched Fox News for years knowing their commentary was full of shit and that the talking heads like Hannity and Captain Dildo (O'Reilly) were lying douchebags. But the regular reporting was just as correct as MSNBC or CNN on the stories they all covered (Fox tended to cover stories that would garner attention from their main audience of 70-100 year olds) and I only stopped watching when they were still going on about the non-existent WMD 6 months into the illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

It also presupposes that all articles are written by the same person, which is just so wrongheaded and obviously not the case, he was either lying again or a moron. I'd believe either.

[Flagg]

Vympel, you should know better than to introduce facts and logic into a discussion involving a crank conspiracy theory: It only fans the flames. I mean, any conspiracy theory that, in order to be true, needs the Russians, the FBI, Wikileaks AND Glenn Greenwald to be collaborating in the same plot is so insane that Alex Jones would pump the brakes.

Even if you did include lizard people and chemtrails.

How would Glenn Greenwald or the FBI be involved?

And after that interview in which Julian Assange heavily implied that Hillary Clinton had his source murdered and then covered up, I fully believe that Assange has gone insane cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy (by Hillary Clinton) and is willing to say or do anything to take her down.

I would love for Assange to be stuck in that embassy for the rest of his life, only I feel bad for the Ecuadorian embassy staff who have to put up with that fucking albino.

Have you heard the rumors of the Russians possibly sending Snowden back to the US? I hope Trump has good knee pads!

[Lord Revan]

As I said when the "russian hackers" thing first came out that, I suspect that it's less of a case of Russians actually having any signifigant effect on the US elections and more a case of Russia apparing to have an effect on the US elections, thus apparing that that the Russian Federation has inffluence over the United States of America eroding trust between Europe and USA (or USA and China) thus defanging USA in the foreign politics arena (well even more then Trump does by being a total idiot but that's besides the point).

[jwl]

Aerius may be extreme but mainstream media is dogs shit. When they comment on anything I know the slightest bit about more than the average citizen (or even, hell forbid, a brilliant SDNer... ) they're making shit up as they go along. Most coverage of anything foreign related is so bad as to be comical to anyone living in these reported areas, nevermind when they report on things that they're simply clueless on.

And no, some of us do not need to spend 10 minutes investigating every crappy news story on the cycle. When you have obligations beyond jerking off, you want to read stories, understand their context and move on. Not fucking become an internet sleuth and open up the actual reports and whatever. If you're incapable of comprehending that, you haven't talked to anyone outside a computer in years. I'll go and investigate things that will matter to my behaviour, voting or otherwise. I have no intention of looking up if they're making up facts about the Belgian economy and when I discover they're making shit up there, I just move to ignoring them.

Also known as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

--Michael Crichton

What that article seems to be essentially saying is that all things in the future are completely unknowable, including the election of new leaders and new policy decisions. If that is the case, democracy is a pointless exercise and you may as well draw policies from a hat.

[Simon_Jester]

One more thing: How do you blackmail a man with no shame whatsoever? If his admission that he likes creeping on underage girls while they're changing backstage at the Miss Teen USA contest didn't sink him, stories of hookers and pissing on beds certainly won't.

I dunno. Maybe the Russians got ahold of his tax returns? Or they have videotape of him in a dress or something?

Trump laughs off certain kinds of scandals and crises, but that doesn't mean he's literally bulletproof against ALL possible scandals. Especially ones that might undermine his snake oil as "macho man, ultra-rich brilliant businessman, dominant commanding oversexed with the ladies."

[Flagg]

One more thing: How do you blackmail a man with no shame whatsoever? If his admission that he likes creeping on underage girls while they're changing backstage at the Miss Teen USA contest didn't sink him, stories of hookers and pissing on beds certainly won't.

I dunno. Maybe the Russians got ahold of his tax returns? Or they have videotape of him in a dress or something?

Trump laughs off certain kinds of scandals and crises, but that doesn't mean he's literally bulletproof against ALL possible scandals. Especially ones that might undermine his snake oil as "macho man, ultra-rich brilliant businessman, dominant commanding oversexed with the ladies."

The tax returns strike me more as "exposes him as a decades long felony tax evader" rather than "exposes him as fake billionaire", anyway. Even though both are almost certainly true, only one sends him to prison for a long time, not that the empty suit known as Mike Pence wouldn't pardon him. But I think the GlOP would rather deal with Mike Pence who would fulfill President Pussygrabber's role as rubber stamp without being a magnet for Nazi's, insane conspiracy theorists, and ramming the silicon sphincter of a custom made Putin Real Doll.

[Simon_Jester]

I can see Pence pardoning Trump, but I can also see him not doing so. It would put his administration under a pretty heavy shadow right at the start, because once people start asking questions about Trump and involvement in criminality, they're not going to stop. Today is my day for quoting superhero movies, and "there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come."

Remember, Ford pardoning Nixon was a big part of why Ford lost the 1976 election- and the hostility towards a fallen Trump is going to be even more formidable than that towards Nixon, because Trump made even fewer friends on the way up and has personally stepped on a lot of key faces. Like Paul Ryan.

If he's no longer in a position of being corrupt and powerful and married to their mother, I suspect a lot of those Republicans will suddenly be shocked, shocked to discover corruption in the Trump administration!

[Flagg]

I can see Pence pardoning Trump, but I can also see him not doing so. It would put his administration under a pretty heavy shadow right at the start, because once people start asking questions about Trump and involvement in criminality, they're not going to stop. Today is my day for quoting superhero movies, and "there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come."

Remember, Ford pardoning Nixon was a big part of why Ford lost the 1976 election- and the hostility towards a fallen Trump is going to be even more formidable than that towards Nixon, because Trump made even fewer friends on the way up and has personally stepped on a lot of key faces. Like Paul Ryan.

If he's no longer in a position of being corrupt and powerful and married to their mother, I suspect a lot of those Republicans will suddenly be shocked, shocked to discover corruption in the Trump administration!

The thing is, I can't see a President not pardoning the dickbag former President before him. It set a precedent saying "we need to just move on". And when Ford croaked, the pardon was hailed as "just what the nation needed" and blah blah blah.

And while I've no doubt the pardon did major damage to Ford and his reelection chances at the time, I think the fact that he was never actually elected by the American people did quite a bit of damage, too. He got saddled with the oval office at the lowest point of American confidence in its government since the Great Depression at least and possibly even the run up to the Civil War. I mean he was in office during the fall of Saigon. And he was just saddled with the impression that he was an uncoordinated dolt. Which he wast, but themselves the breast.

[Lord Revan]

I could see pardoning Trump (assuming he's empeached and convicted) as case of "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't", with Trump having burnt so many bridges in a pyromanic glee that anyone related to his inner circle is seen as toxic (politically speaking) they'll have no easy way of not loosing the 2020 elections short of not having elections in 2020 (or having a parody of an elections where the outcome is clear before a single vote is cast) and I dout the anyone in Trump's inner circle really has enough support in the right places to be able to commit such an obvious coup.

[Ralin]

I can see Pence pardoning Trump, but I can also see him not doing so. It would put his administration under a pretty heavy shadow right at the start, because once people start asking questions about Trump and involvement in criminality, they're not going to stop. Today is my day for quoting superhero movies, and "there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come."

Remember, Ford pardoning Nixon was a big part of why Ford lost the 1976 election- and the hostility towards a fallen Trump is going to be even more formidable than that towards Nixon, because Trump made even fewer friends on the way up and has personally stepped on a lot of key faces. Like Paul Ryan.

The thing is, I can't see a President not pardoning the dickbag former President before him. It set a precedent saying "we need to just move on". And when Ford croaked, the pardon was hailed as "just what the nation needed" and blah blah blah.

This is pretty much what I'm thinking. Ford didn't benefit from his own precedent, but now we do have a precedent for sweeping the whole thing under the rug and everyone (supposedly) being happier to be done with it. An impeached Trump would be the poster child for "National embarrassment that we want to forget about," so...