https://www.realclearpolitics....e_a_damn_149370.html

By Frank MieleJune 19, 2023

Frankly, Jack Smith, I Don’t Give a Damn

you can say whatever you want about Donald Trump, and I just won’t give a damn.

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...404af13c35a38f&ei=18

by Chauncey DeVega • 3h ago

"This was his campaign plan": Trump has flipped the stolen documents case into "a farce"

Neither article is very comforting!

Excerpt from the second article:

Cheri Jacobus is a former media spokesperson at the Republican National Committee and founder and president of the political consulting firm Capitol Strategies PR.

For Trump's direct victims, and for many in the country at-large, the indictments, while welcome, are somewhat anti-climactic. We are tired. These indictments and the expected additional coming indictments are at least a year too late. So much damage has been done and so many Trump criminal allies still roam free, inciting violence, fomenting fascism, and spreading disinformation. The national security ramifications of this massive breach are almost too frightening to comprehend. The cottage industry surrounding Trump — on both sides — media, superPACs, pundits — are largely repeating the mistakes of 2015-2016 that got us here in the first place. There is big money in promoting Trump, covering Trump as "news", and "fighting" Trump. To be clear — Trump understands this at a granular level.

We know Merrick Garland resisted the Mar-a-Lago raid for weeks. In fact, we might never have known that Trump stole (and let's be honest — likely sold) our nation's secrets, and the shared intel from allies, had he not announced the Mar-a-Lago raid, himself. He'd gotten away with refusing to return the stolen documents for a very long time, maintaining the upper hand. And Garland may have very well allowed him to skate. Which begs the question: Just why DID Trump go public? He knew it meant big media attention, big MAGA drama, big controversy where he could play victim and create chaos. And let's not forget the sweet fundraising boost it provided the pretend billionaire.

It's entirely possible that this was his campaign plan. He's succeeded in burying Ron DeSantis already, his poll numbers are strengthened, and he dominates and controls the TV coverage. Trump has always monitored when others eventually blink. House Democrats blinked and backed away from impeaching him on obstruction in the Mueller Report. That was critical information for Trump. Garland blinked by going soft and polite on the stolen classified documents crime, and it was only made public at a time of Trump's choosing — by Trump. In fact, at every step along the way, those who could have stopped him (or at least could have tried) — blinked. Just think how delighted Trump must be at the coincidence of his hand-picked MAGA judge, still wet behind the ears. Aileen Cannon, landing the case. Things could not be going better for Trump.

So yes — while there is satisfaction in watching the circus around Trump's indictments and arraignment, there still that nagging little voice in the back on my head reminding me that Trump is still in control, and that it simply may not be a realistic expectation that he ever spends a day in even the most luxurious of white collar crime country club prisons.

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/...inality-for-decades/

Republicans plan to capitalize on Trump's criminality for decades
The GOP's alleged hostility to the "Deep State" is nothing more than a set-up to co-opt state power for themselves

=============================================

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/...ck-smith-is-no-hero/

Jack Smith is no hero
The special prosecutor is a professional doing his job — and that is exactly why Trump fears him

================================================

Steve Bannon's 20,000 shock troops:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0...tage-foundation.html

Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration
No matter the Republican, the effort has set a goal of up to 20,000 potential officials in a database akin to a right-wing LinkedIn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/...s-rant-b1932144.html

Steve Bannon pledges 20k ‘shock troops’ ready to go as he rants that ‘we control this country’
Donald Trump’s former strategist has called on GOP to ‘deconstruct’ the state

Graeme Massie
Los Angeles
Monday 04 October 2021 19:32
(see video)

“We’re winning big in 2024 and we need to get ready now,” he said.

“Right? We control the country. We’ve got to start acting like it. And one way we’re going to act like it, we’re not going to have 4,000 (shock troops) ready to go, we’re going to have 20,000 ready to go and we’re going to pick the 4,000 best and most ready in every single department.”

=============================================

look at the videos of Bannon, over his right shoulder. He's selling Fascism and Jesus.

I tried Kabob. I couldnt make it all the way through either article. It was too Carlson/Maddow to waste time on.

Sorry about that, TB40.

Thanks for trying.

I consider the points made in the OP articles rep of where we are with the sides on this.

The other posts are to reinforce my points.

Anyway, here's a nice, gentle U-tube video for ya:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtFWOaNUlo

I expect you right when it comes to the vocal people on each side.
I still think the majority from both parties just want this shit gone, and we get back to disagreeing about issues, not the politicians themselves.

quote:

I still think the majority from both parties just want this shit gone

But it can't be rushed. We just have to ride it out.

In part, thanks to our newbe resident troll, the Russian Asset, I'm thinking that the important thing is for us to be civil to each other.

Don't let the Russian Assets, nor the Russian Tools, like Trump, divide us.

I hope you have 12 minutes to watch this video.

I'm not all on-board with it, but I'm ok with it, for thought and perspective.

The last part of it is best, (about 10:45>) but I'm not sure it will make sense unless you watch the whole thing.

It's sobering.

I may have to watch it twice, to get his logic and premise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZyfyWAH18

Kremlin's Strategy For Trump 2024

That was A+! I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his reading and though Im far from as concise in my attempts at conveying my meaning. I feel Ive had a similar message re trump supporters or more precisely right wing voters, over the last few years.

Here's something:

IMO, this is not MAGA or Trump supporter bashing. It's letting them explain themselves. This is straightforward stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F28MpHi8DH8


================================================

Here it is on PBS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnIIfuQswWU

What was the process by which they were chosen?

Your first link- regardless of what the panelists say, does the kind of damage that the guy before warns about IMHO. Just the title alone.

From my viewpoint the guy Pakman in his style and assuredness reminds me very much of this man from the other end of the spectrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLdEfMt8B40

I watched part of the video you linked.

I think it's a false equivalence.

The videos I posted were from PBS, one directly and the other indirectly. Both with commentary.

"Judy Woodruff is in Des Moines, Iowa, to listen in on voter discussions led by conservative pollster Sarah Longwell."

Also, these were actual Trump voters, saying exactly their beliefs and talking points. Same stuff we read herein. Same stuff Trump spouts and his assets in congress.

Looks to me like this is actual reporting. You can't make this shit up.

I also think this is not bashing. Packman says "we are going to look at what is happening psychologically, epistemologically and cognitively with you average Trump voter".

He gave specific examples of cognitive dissonance - magical thinking, etc.

I think it's objective reporting, and fair, and informative, because this is stuff we NEED to know and understand. Of course this not "News" in the give me just the facts sense, but just the facts in this case are not enough. This NEEDS explanation for clear understanding by the average person. I, for example know the terms cognitive dissonance and magical thinking, but I can't think of an example of it. He showed us at least one. Perhaps the whole MAGA movement is a massive example.

My point is, the first guys video didnt need to be shown when you had the original PBS video for us to draw our own conclusions from.
Pakman is making statements of opinion in which to convince viewers from his political viewpoint. His speech style and way of presenting is very similar too Morris. Probably not so much in the interview I posted, but To be honest I have little time for Morris and redacted, and Did not want to spend time finding one where he interjects on another piece with his opinion like Pakman. But they too exist.

OK. You are being fair enough, and I understand why you wouldn't want to search through Morris' stuff for better examples.

The post of the PBS video was an afterthought, hopefully for validity.

"Pakman is making statements of opinion in which to convince viewers from his political viewpoint."

That's a tough one for me to decipher.

OK, in the Packman video start at 5:11 > 6:28.

The woman says that Trump said "Lock her up" in "jest".

That's where he goes on to explain. Lots of people would agree with the woman. But they should know and we should know what they are really doing instead.

Then at 7:04 the camera pans to others who smile in agreement with the claim of "jest".

I could go on and on. As I've said several times, we don't know what we're up against. We don't understand and we want to understand. We would have missed the point of this segment without his commentary. Sure, we would have either been chagrin or pleased, but not know why.

As to opinion. The woman used the word "jest" which is her opinion, and the others. It's not a fact, but has the weight of fact.

It's a fact she said it, and believes her take on it. It's also a fact, as disclosed, that the people at the table believed HRC should be locked up. Where did they get that notion? Of course it was Trump who said it, many times - that's another fact. He even said during the debates that if he's elected he will lock her up - to her face. So, if they internalized it yet believed it was jest - go figure.

That's why we need to put a label on it. Doing so is not opinion. If it is opinion or conclusion or inference, then it's very well founded in facts.

The use of the word "jest" in that context is opinion, contradictory opinion, and not supported by facts. Quite the contrary. So, how did she and others get there?

Packman explains, and I think it's not a political explanation but a logical and practical one.

================================================

Oh and BTW, I did a google search on "when and how did Trump back off his promise to lock clinton up?"

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

So, he got his desired results, just like all the rest of the story.

Then the "jest" wasn't useful anymore, and not to mention the small thing of due process and rule of law, which he hadn't yet the time to crush. But he had the backing, which is what counts.

I guess to build on what you are saying. people then are not drawing their own conclusions. They are needing someone to analyse it for them.

The question is, do the people that agree with packman already see that, and so it becomes useful content for them to confirm their opinions? Or if they already agree, does it do no new good?

If the intent is to convince trump supporters of the error in their thinking and do some good in that manor< then how do you think it comes across?

I think it's utter fallacy when people say "just give me the facts and I'll decide". Debate is an age-old tradition that goes back much further than Aristotle.

Do you think for a second that these people who deemed Trump said "Lock Her Up" in jest had the original thought all by themselves, individually?

And even when Trump backed off, after the surprise win, they still believe she should be locked up. The notion still has mileage.

It shows the power of a demagogue, at least.

To answer your questions:

It's best that I speak for myself rather than project that I'm speaking for others. I just happened upon the Packman video, and watched it because it derived from PBS, so I figured it at least has some credibility, plus it was set up by a conservative pollster. And I agree with you that Packman didn't change my mind/opinion on the spectrum, but he filled the gaps of why in my intuition. Yet, it was a combo of not only Packman but the Trump supporters' own statements, put in context and perspective.

Does it do any good, either way? It HAS to be better than nothing, or simply raw facts. What's the alternative? Should we just let it go it's course? We've seen enough to know the trajectory of that.

Obviously, as shown, many can't sort it out, even when spoon fed. They very much think they can, yet it's not rational. Group think is powerful. I admit that my sorting out mode/tools are challenged. I don't want to project that on everyone, but the evidence suggests-------

It seems we can't have a reasonable discourse with Trumpsters, and others. If I can't build a bridge, then I want to know why, and I want those who block the bridge to know why I think they are doing it.

Yes I agree to some point. having someone articulate can indeed help us all order our own feelings into comprehensible thoughts.

And out of openess, I tell you that I recognise the faults in the panels collective thinking and opinions.
My discussion here centres around the message from the 12 minute vid you posted about the real dangers.
I would also like to know the selection process behind those individuals. My reason for that. Is I know quite a few americans who are republican and who potentially voted for trump. But I dont know any that talk that way.
Admittedly my quite a few is maybe 10.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think it's utter fallacy when people say "just give me the facts and I'll decide". Debate is an age-old tradition that goes back much further than Aristotle.

Do you think for a second that these people who deemed Trump said "Lock Her Up" in jest had the original thought all by themselves, individually?

And even when Trump backed off, after the surprise win, they still believe she should be locked up. The notion still has mileage.

It shows the power of a demagogue, at least.

To answer your questions:

It's best that I speak for myself rather than project that I'm speaking for others. I just happened upon the Packman video, and watched it because it derived from PBS, so I figured it at least has some credibility, plus it was set up by a conservative pollster. And I agree with you that Packman didn't change my mind/opinion on the spectrum, but he filled the gaps of why in my intuition. Yet, it was a combo of not only Packman but the Trump supporters' own statements, put in context and perspective.

Does it do any good, either way? It HAS to be better than nothing, or simply raw facts. What's the alternative? Should we just let it go it's course? We've seen enough to know the trajectory of that.

Obviously, as shown, many can't sort it out, even when spoon fed. They very much think they can, yet it's not rational. Group think is powerful. I admit that my sorting out mode/tools are challenged. I don't want to project that on everyone, but the evidence suggests-------

It seems we can't have a reasonable discourse with Trumpsters, and others. If I can't build a bridge, then I want to know why, and I want those who block the bridge to know why I think they are doing it.

The reason you can't build a bridge with MAGA is you rely on government funded propaganda............from a Marxist government who has been PROVEN to lie damn near all the time!!!


THE VAX WILL STOP THE SPREAD!!!!

Shanks, we will never know the details of the selection process. But why does it matter?

Those selected spoke their own minds, and as we have seen herein, it's representative on a broad scale.

Yes, I still value the message of the real dangers, in the 12 minute video of the x-Russian.

I know several Trump supporters. The majority of white folks around here are such. Most of my relatives are such, and fundamentalists too.

They all talk that way, and worse.

I have to live with them.

My question is how to abide the message in the 12 minute video, and stand by quietly and respectfully, when to me there is some deep disrespect running amuck? I'm not talking about disrespect for me personally. I'm talking about disrespect for the founding principles of the country, dignity, rule of law, even reality.

I think the Packman and the PBS videos maintain respect foremost, yet are not just standing by watching shit happen with deficient understandings.

quote:

The reason you can't build a bridge with MAGA is you rely on government funded propaganda..........

And you think Trump's and his cohorts in congress are not spouting propaganda, and it's not govt funded?

Which govt is funding your propaganda?

Maybe, just maybe, the bridge is impossible because MEGA and Russian Assets don't want a bridge. They want a wall.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

The reason you can't build a bridge with MAGA is you rely on government funded propaganda..........

And you think Trump's and his cohorts in congress are not spouting propaganda, and it's not govt funded?

Which govt is funding your propaganda?

Maybe, just maybe, the bridge is impossible because MEGA and Russian Assets don't want a bridge. They want a wall.

Come on Mika, your lil Marxist side DOMINATES the media outlets.

You're not this dumb, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Shanks, we will never know the details of the selection process. But why does it matter?

Those selected spoke their own minds, and as we have seen herein, it's representative on a broad scale.

Yes, I still value the message of the real dangers, in the 12 minute video of the x-Russian.

I know several Trump supporters. The majority of white folks around here are such. Most of my relatives are such, and fundamentalists too.

They all talk that way, and worse.

I have to live with them.

My question is how to abide the message in the 12 minute video, and stand by quietly and respectfully, when to me there is some deep disrespect running amuck? I'm not talking about disrespect for me personally. I'm talking about disrespect for the founding principles of the country, dignity, rule of law, even reality.

I think the Packman and the PBS videos maintain respect foremost, yet are not just standing by watching shit happen with deficient understandings.

Well it matters because if they have been selected for the strength of their views then its presenting a skewed perspective and potentially alienating the voter blocks further. The reason I question that is because the show would not work unless you had an almost unanimously strong point of view.
Pakman does not start with respect. He starts by calling them clueless and dangerous.
8.33 on the PBS version. Brian.

OK. I get it.

It's more fun to not be nice anyway.

What if they ARE clueless and dangerous?

What does the evidence suggest - that they are malevolent and well informed and see reality very well and base their political votes, supports likewise? Or otherwise?

What they are most likely, Is lacking in anyone who truely represents them and what they feel is important. People who feel marginalised.
They are most likely hard working decent people who feel that the democrats dont understand them or dont represent their values.
Thats an indictment on the democrats and an indictment on the republicans more so. Because the republicans might well take the easy route and accept their unwavering support and loyalty with out stepping up and doing better.

As of now, I see it as a no-win situation, for all sides.

You used the word "feel" three times in your interpretation of how they see themselves in the world. You are trying to understand them too, just like me.

What if the democrats, (let's say others), do understand them - better than they understand themselves, and most basic values are shared?

What if the mix of worldview and values that aren't shared, (hard to ID), but the consequences are easier to ID, thus the "values" at the root are easier to back into for ID - interpolated?

You also make the premise that somehow real "republicans" are somehow aside or above such people who "feel" like victims, and making these irrational dot connections. Like somehow this "feelings" bunch of non-critical thinkers are a mere faction latched onto a political party for lack of anywhere else to go to make their political expressions.

What if you are one of them, and don't acknowledge it?

What if those you describe, who "feel" the way they do, ARE representative of the GOP as a whole, and the GOP truly represents them?

What if this "feelings" thing, (victimization, marginalization, fantasy) is just as irrational as the rest of it? As a whole it's all homogenized.

The evidence suggests that they think a "leader" like Trump can fix it for them.

Now, how does the rest of the citizens reconcile with such people? Appeasement?

You just made things way to complicated.

When I say democrats and republicans. I mean the ones sitting in the house, senate and office.

Heres a question for you. not a what if. Do you think you understand them better than they understand themselves?

I am one of them. And acknowledge that.

As for the rest of your post. Ive sat here and thought, and typed, and retyped and deleted.
What im left with is, because I feel I know you now somewhat and have had many of these conversations, Is feeling's of anger, despair and dismay. Also a touch of helplessness because once again I realise I can not give you an understanding. And that anything I say will be antagonistic or futile and we will go around in a prolonged conversation getting no where.

I know I will semi forget that and we will have similar conversation sometime in the future and the result will likely be the same.
But for now its better to withdraw and talk about other things.

The breakdown:

quote:

Ive sat here and thought, and typed, and retyped and deleted.

me too.

You're right. Things are way too complicated.

quote:

What im left with is, because I feel I know you now somewhat and have had many of these conversations, Is feeling's of anger, despair and dismay. Also a touch of helplessness because once again I realise I can not give you an understanding. And that anything I say will be antagonistic or futile and we will go around in a prolonged conversation getting no where.

I have felt the same way, but I almost summed it up more concise than you did. "Phuck it" was my choice of words, but I deleted it. Discussion is tough. It's more fun to just play around in the arena of divisiveness, provoke and prod, etc.

But, aside, you have contributed to my understanding, directly and indirectly, always, in this thread and others. By researching and thinking about it, to give reasonable reply, has forced me to understand better.

Also, you have nudged my opinions. I hope I have nudged yours too.


==============================================

quote:

Do you think you understand them better than they understand themselves?

To answer your question: Let's limit it to one aspect, although there are many. This one says a lot. The cognitive dissonance thing that we discussed - if they understood it, as it is, like I do, then why can't they just stop doing it?

Maybe I'm giving too much credit thinking if they had the self-awareness to know what they are doing psychologically and irrationally, being "good" people, they would self-correct.

Maybe they know what they are doing and choose to do it anyway.

I not sure which is worse.

Just for fun:

Flat Earthers confirm round shape with costly experiment
Story by By Walla! • 1h ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f602f7d6546952&ei=12

Unyielding belief despite contrary evidence
The video of the experiment quickly went viral, generating a plethora of comments from viewers who were astounded by the researcher's refusal to accept the evidence contradicting his own theory. Observers expressed their amusement at witnessing the dissolution of his entire worldview , while others questioned his lack of explanation for the experiment's outcome.

The failed experiment intended to provide unequivocal evidence supporting a flat Earth inadvertently proved the Earth's spherical nature. Despite the results, the unwavering belief in a flat Earth persists among some individuals. This intriguing case serves as a reminder of the complexities of human perspectives and the challenges of confronting deeply entrenched beliefs.