linking to vox is odd yeah not sure why someone as even-keeled as tcock would post that article

There's a reason why ObamaGate isn't sticking...it's because it's a nothingburger.



You have to be careful with Vox. There's some excellent work that comes out of there but there's also A LOT of anti Trump shit. I don't think the article linked falls in that category.

This post was edited by thundercock on May 15 2020 05:58pm

fair enough, I suppose that could be true. plenty of outlets are capable of producing quality despite their reputation. I’ll give it a fair read. just in general i just treat them like faux or msnbc - blatant bias = high likelihood of slant

and of course Pres Trump was going to run riot with the Flynn situation. Being compelled to lie by being lied to by potential crooked cops to isn’t going to sit well with most people who value any idea of individual freedom

This post was edited by excellence on May 15 2020 06:08pm

THe owner of Vox is a laugh and a half. Him and girlfriend think that they are heroes saving the world because they take care of a rescue dog.

A subheadline from the end of the vox article:

"This debate should be about whether the Trump administration is politicizing intelligence"


Sorry, but the intelligence community was already politicized long before Trump took office. Anyone remember the reports about Comey's pathetic and ultimately futile attempts at cosplaying as James Bond during his attempts at setting Trump up?


Other than that, this article - just like its counterparts from right-leaning sites - has failed to capture my interest. Whether it's from the left or right, everytime I try to read about Obamagate, I fall asleep after one paragraph max.
It's peak nothingburger...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 15 2020 07:35pm

I find this sort of Trump defense bewildering.

You acknowledge some supposed wrongdoing, and then equate it to previous wrongdoing in another administration, as a way to dismiss it. Like when someone points out that Trump is using the presidency to make money at his hotels and golf clubs, people pivot to something like "that's how all politicians are", as if that's a valid defense.

It's a mix of whataboutism and false equivalence aimed at minimizing whatever wrongdoing went on.

Underlying this is a massively cynical view towards government and politicians that sustains the argument. If you actually view actors in the government realistically, as mostly decent people with mostly good intentions, it's easy to spot wrongdoing. But when you throw your hands up and pretend that everyone is bad, everyone is corrupt, everyone is operating in bad-faith, it's easy to see how Trump can survive after all the horrible things he has done.

I dont think the comparison with the Trump hotels is valid. There is an action-reaction thing going on with these current investigations that isnt there in all the other examples.

Trump is not lying because other politicians before him were also liars. He's not corrupt because others were corrupt. But he is launching the "investigate the investigators"-probes and and pushing back against everyone involved in the launch of the Mueller probe precisely because he and his people were indeed unfairly targetted by partisan actors from within the intelligence community.




Regarding your take on cynical views on politics: if the American public wasnt holding such a cynical view on its own political class, if it wasnt as embittered and nihilistic, a figure like Trump would never have stood a chance at becoming president. The same theme is also strong on the left, where the prevailing sentiment of progressives is that centrist and mainstream Democrats are actually just "corporate Democrats" and thus the enemy, even if they hold similar ideological beliefs. In some extreme cases, these leftists believe in the uniparty theory, that Democrats and Republicans are actually two sides of the same coin serving the same interests, and that there effectively is no difference between the two.

In fact, every president of the past 30 years, from Bill Clinton over W. Bush and Obama to Trump, has tried to stylize himself as an outsider of sorts. Most of their opponents, namely H.W. Bush, Dole, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary, were perceived as Washington insiders, and they all lost. The last time the more insider-y of the two candidates won a presidential race was in 1988. And Congress has ridiculous approval ratings of around 20%.

Simply put, huge parts of Americans, left and right, have a deeply cynical and disillusioned view on politics. And personally, I think they've got good reasons for this opinion. This doesnt mean that it's justified to fall into total moral relativism along the lines of "every politician is a self-serving, corrupt liar and nothing matters anymore". Your take of "mostly decent people with mostly decent intentions", however, seems far too optimistic.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 15 2020 09:40pm

I fail to understand why this continues to be a subject of conversation. Points in case:
1. When Presidents and their staff travel, they must stay in a Hotel.
2. When Presidents and their staff travel, the Hotel they stay at must be paid.
3. The Majority of Presidents who've served have played golf.
4. When a President plays golf, it must be at a golf course.
5. Trump believes his hotels and golf courses are superior, therefore utilized them.
6. There has been no significant cost difference between Trump's choices and Obama's choices of Hotel or Golf Course.

So, why is this constantly thrown out? If I own a restaurant that I know serves fantastic food, why would I cater to the competitor down the street? If I wouldn't utilize their service when I'm paying for it myself, why would I utilize it when taxpayers are paying for it?

Using such talking points as an attack on Trump is a clear sign of TDS. It's not an attack you'd use on anyone else. It's unique to Trump, specifically because you think it'll "stick". Yet in reality, if he were NOT utilizing his own hotels and clubs, and were paying more to go to inferior places, you'd be jumping on him for that.

1. trump has repeatedly, publicly, and relentlessly attacked obama for his golf outings.
2. trump claimed he'd be too busy to golf in case he became president.
3. trump's golf obsession has been much more expensive, and has occupied significantly more presidential time than obama wasted on this hobby.
4. trump is using his frequent golf outings to shovel taxpayer money into his own pocket. if he was as rich as he claims, he simply wouldn't charge the taxpayer for playing at his own clubs.

all that is documented and sourced in detail here: https://trumpgolfcount.com/

if you genuinely don't see the massive hypocrisy of constantly criticising obama, claiming he would not play golf as president, and then playing significantly MORE, while charging the taxpayer tens of millions for playing at his own resorts, you might have a severe case of RTDS (the Real Trump Derangement Syndrome).

Your entire post is another perfect example of your failure to remain intellectually consistent. Elsewhere, you've attempted to harp on how Trump didn't understand how government is actually run. That's clearly true, he'd never worked in government. He had an excellent idea of loopholes and how businesspeople abuse their relationships with government, but how to run it, or correct loopholes? He's undergoing the same learning curve Obama did.

His criticism of Obama's golf outings was *mostly* unwarranted, and quite literally everyone with a brain called him out on it. Presidents need to exercise, they need entertainment time, they need activities to keep their stress levels out of the red. This was the same for Obama, Bush, Clinton, going back to the founding of the nation. However, the business of the office simply does not stop. The golf course is an excellent place to de-stress while simultaneously conducting the business of state.

The only real criticism vs Obama's golf excursions were when there was no business involved, such as his golf outing with Tiger Woods. And even there, most Americans simply shrugged and said, "Whatever." That Trump harped on it? Sure, I can see how a previously unheard of junior senator from Illinois who was little more than a socialist activist utilizing the office to get in tight with famous people could be used to slam him. The guy spent a hundred times more time in the production studios of New York and Hollywood than he did in Chicago while he was in office. He was the first true "Celebrity President". Not because he was a celebrity before going into his Presidency, but because he used his Presidency to attain celebrity status, rather than focusing on his job. Which, from a community activist standpoint, was a brilliant move, and garnered him a massive amount of support. Kudos to him, and easy to understand why an actual Celebrity, such as Trump, who was a famous man and brand globally before ever making TV a priorty, would call that status "unearned". To the viewpoint of a Business Manager, if your job is to run a nation, and instead you're spending half your time ingratiating yourself to Hollywood and New York talk shows, comedy shows, etc. and making it great with people like Tiger Woods, then yeah, I'd say some shit talking is to be expected. On the flipside, I don't really care that Obama did those things, and I'd draw that line for you that Trump is not utilizing his office to either "become famous" or get in thick with "famous people". He doesn't need to.

Does Trump say stupid things? Sure, all the time! Were his criticisms and claims that he wouldn't spend time golfing while in office were he elected stupid as fuck? Sure! He had no understanding of the office prior to being elected to it, and he has found out different.

Now, to address your specific points:

1. Addressed already.
2. He conducts the business of State on the course. So technically, he IS busy while golfing.
3. You can't even claim that. You have no idea what charges, IF ANY, were incurred from the Trump golf course. We know the hotel stays have been minor, your own link shows that. When you attempt to talk about total costs including security, coast guard, AF1 travel, etc. all those same costs were associated with every trip Obama took. His single outing with Tiger woods, for example, cost taxpayers $3.1 million, by itself, using the same metrics. Hell, Obama's trip to the Jimmy Kimmel show to "phone drop" regarding Trump (great prediction, Obama), cost nearly as much. The basic fact is, the moment a President sneezes, it's going to cost a half million to the public. Because they gotta rush him out for a checkup, clear the roads, etc. etc. etc. Your very argument in and of itself signals a complete lack of understanding of the security measures taken regarding Presidents, which the people who hold the office, be it Clinton or Bush or Obama or Trump have absolutely NO CONTROL over, as it has been mandated by Congress for the safety of the Office.
4. You have yet to show any proof of that. The source you cite shows a grand total of $3.6 million in hotel stays, and that would include for Trump, his entire security detail and staff, in what, nearly 3.5 years? As far as hotel fees go, that's absolutely nothing given the cost of the Scotland and Ireland Hotels and the number of stays. And each time he traveled there, it was on affairs of state.

If you genuinely don't see the massive hypocrisy of constantly criticizing Trump, claiming he is "costing" more than Obama, you might have severe TDS.