This doesn't make any sense. If they didn't release it with the federal government running they certainly don't need to shut the federal government down to avoid releasing it.
If the Republicans are forced to go through with the new process of admitting the new senator, then the Democrats will have enough votes force to force the release.
I'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really think this document will change much? Distraction, projection, and denial are so effective it's not clear what impact people would imagine it has.
If you frequent conservative forums you'll notice people are more committed to the fascist project than they are to Trump. He may in the end be disposable to them.
"The government" is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. I have a hard time imagining this list being released would change much about how it operates, frankly. This strikes me as resistance borne of individual—if deep—fear.
Trump is being used as the scapegoat mechanism. They’re using him to push and shove the bad stuff so that when he’s expelled everyone feels like it’s over but nothing really has been reverted. Thiel is definitely part of this. As is his bought and paid for minion Vance.
He seems to be the glue that's holding together the current coalition. The fascist project set is absolutely there, but they've never really won over the MAGA crowd who flocked to Trump's rallies. It's certainly possible that someone will manage to hold them together post-Trump, but nobody in conservative leadership right now seems to have his charisma and ability to draw those people in. (I absolutely believe that Vance thinks he can do it, but I am extremely skeptical.)
Which does make it challenging for them, since Trump's an elderly man who doesn't look to be in particularly good health.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone who didn't already rise to prominence in the mass media environment of yesteryear to engage voters in the way Trump has.
In other words, I think Trump was able to succeed politically because he was "the guy from TV".
I don't think the current media environment is making more "guys from TV" (at least not with anywhere close to the status they had ~25 years ago).
I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was he was going to performantly proclaim "Let's stop protecting the pedophiles" realized mid-thought that that would effectively equate to saying "Release the Epstein files" putting him at odds with Dear Leader and at that point rafael_ed_cruz_brain.exe crashed and dumped core containing the shocking statement he ended up saying.
I don't know what else would make sense given that he didn't immediately correct himself, which is what one would expect if it were just a traditional brain fart.
>At least one Republican Senator has made the plan to stop attacking pedophiles explicit:
>I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was [...]
So not explicit? The whole point of something being "explicit" is that the point can be conveyed through straightforward reading of what was said, not vague implications through "dogwhistling" or "what he must have meant was...".
>He didn't correct himself and no one else bothered to correct him in the whole room. It's pretty explicit at this point.
No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub, given that he's clearly reading from a script and has a prepared billboard behind him that says "sex abuse -40%". If flubbing a line and not correcting it counts as "explicit", then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles? Super-duper explicit? "He flubbed a line and didn't correct it" falls right in the same alley as "dogwhistling" accusations, which also often accompanied with insistence that "he knew what he was trying to say" and "if he wasn't dogwhistling he would have worded it differently".
>Why are we still giving the benefit of the doubt at this stage?
I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm just pointing out that it's not "explicit".
">(of a person) stating something in a clear and detailed way.
It is indeed" explicit ".
>No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub
"binders full of women" was a flub. It was still a PR disaster. We've now moved beyond "grab them by the pussy" and we can't muster any rage now?
The charts don't really mean much given how much the admins have already contradicted this and talk about how crime is rampant in [insert city to be invaded].
>then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles?
Explicit. Still meets the definition. I don't think we need to argue about spectrum of explicit. We can bring "literal" back or "with genuine intent" if we want.
