The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'In The News' started by Rambo, Jan 12, 2017.

  1. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
    I for one remain ever vigilant against any semblance of Mao's totalitarianism, such as being pressured to salute the flag or pledging allegiance to it.
     
    Monkeyface, sirloin and InstaHate like this.
  2. Fwiffo

    Fwiffo Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,179
    1,677
    How did we get to a conversation that President Trump is Chairman Mao?
     
  3. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
    How would we not?
     
    Monkeyface and InstaHate like this.
  4. Pimpernel Smith

    Pimpernel Smith Well-Known Member

    272
    173
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
  5. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    I for one have never had antifa try to force me to take a loyalty oath, unlike our Indoctrination Organizations schools.
     
    doghouse likes this.
  6. Fwiffo

    Fwiffo Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,179
    1,677
    First it was Chairman Mao and President Trump - now it's Piers Morgan and the integrity and credibility of NFL players - there are some series dichotomies here.

    Personal e-mail scandal now hitting Jared Kushner and Ivanka - you'd think as the person who screamed about mixing personal and public you'd be the first to close down your personal e-mail.
     
  7. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    Doghouse/Instahate 2020

    He brings the common sense.
    I bring the peer reviewed research and the astroglide.
     
    viaattovannucci and Thruth like this.
  8. Fwiffo

    Fwiffo Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,179
    1,677
    If Congress passes anything during this presidential term, pass the corporate tax cut. I put all my company pensions on US indices since President Trump was elected.
     
  9. Pimpernel Smith

    Pimpernel Smith Well-Known Member

    272
    173
     
  10. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    Knock knock
     
    Thruth and doghouse like this.
  11. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
     
    viaattovannucci likes this.
  12. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    Not Tom Price
     
    Thruth, Journeyman and doghouse like this.
  13. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
     
  14. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
     
    Thruth and Monkeyface like this.
  15. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    The San Juan mayor needs to pull her own weight, not rely on the government to help her. She was all praise until the Democrats told her to criticize Trump.
     
    Thruth likes this.
  16. Journeyman

    Journeyman Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,699
    2,907
    Amazing - one day after the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said that the US had open channels of communication with North Korea, President Trump has tweeted (of course - how else would be communicate?) that Tillerson is "wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man" and that he will "do what has to be done".

    What... the...

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...is-wasting-his-time-on-talks-with-north-korea

    This is quite an interesting article on the psychology of deterrence, and how Donald Trump is absolutely failing at it:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...ump-like-dealing-with-psychopath-boss/8993184
     
    Dropbear likes this.
  17. Scherensammler

    Scherensammler Well-Known Member

    2,871
    3,370
    https://www.contra-magazin.com/2017/10/wall-street-vs-kremlin-who-really-runs-the-white-house/

    Wall Street Vs. Kremlin: Who Really Runs the White House?

    By blaming Russia for America’s most abhorrent problems and most unforgivable policies, Wall Street is given another 4-8 year free pass.

    Authored by Tony Cartalucci / New Eastern Outlook

    Perhaps the only thing more incredible than quickly expanding conspiracy theories regarding the Kremlin’s influence over the White House is who is selling them and who is buying them.

    Organizations popping up overnight with advisory boards lined with Neo-Conservatives who came to prominence during the administration of former US President George Bush and who became notorious for selling the 2003 US invasion of Iraq based on intentional fabrications, now find themselves building an audience of unlikely political allies – left-leaning liberals.

    Who is Selling?
    The so-called “Alliance for Securing Democracy” recently accused Russia of manipulating news to target the US-based National Football League (NFL). It claims in its mission statement that:

    In 2016, American democracy came under unprecedented attack.

    The government of the Russian Federation attempted to weaken the pillars of our democracy and undermine faith and confidence in our society’s most fundamental right — the ability to choose our own leaders.

    The organization’s “Disinformation Dashboard” even includes a disclaimer admitting nothing about the information it presents constitutes evidence. Ambiguous terms like “Russia aligned” are never qualified. Instead, it claims (emphasis added):

    Content is not necessarily produced or created by Russian government operatives, although that is sometimes the case. Instead, the network often opportunistically amplifies content created by third parties not directly linked to Russia. Common themes for amplification include content attacking the U.S. and Europe, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Russian influence operations also frequently promote extremism and divisive politics in Western countries. Just because the Russia-aligned network monitored here tweets something, that doesn’t mean everyone who tweets the same content is aligned with Russia.

    An organization that accuses Russia and in particular, President Vladimir Putin for undermining US elections, inferring Russia’s responsibility for Hillary Clinton’s defeat, counts among its advisory council Michael Chertoff, a Bush-era Neo-Conservative who served as President Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security.

    There is also David Kramer who served in the US State Department under President Bush, served as president of the Neo-Conservative chaired State Department front, Freedom House, and currently serves as a member of the advisory council for the George W. Bush Presidential Center’s “Human Freedom Project.”

    William Kristol, considered by many as one of the chief architects, or at least leading salesman of the 2003 Iraq War, also chairs the Alliance for Securing Democracy advisory board. He was a signatory of the Neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century and the pro-war Foreign Policy Initiative. He served the administrations of US President Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

    Michael Morell – who recently declared interest in killing Russians and Iranians in Syria as the armed forces of all three nations fight Al Qaeda and militants of the so-called Islamic State – also serves as an adviser. He has worked in the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for over 30 years, and is currently a senior counselor at Beacon Global Strategies – an organization that appears to specialize in professional warmongering – along side other former US State Department, Department of Defense, and CIA employees.

    Kori Schake is described as having assisted with policy for the White House, Department of Defense, and the State Department as well as serving as senior policy adviser for John McCain and Sarah Palin during their 2008 bid for the White House.

    Michael Rogers, a former US Representative for Michigan and a Republican along with Admiral James Stavridis who helped wage President Bush’s wars and also serves as an adviser for the above mentioned Beacon Global Strategies help round off the advisory board.

    It is safe to say that the majority of this exclusively anti-Russian propaganda organization, eagerly promoted by American liberals, consists of Neo-Conservatives many of these same liberals at one point rightfully rejected, opposed, and vehemently condemned as they sold serial wars of aggression during the Bush administration.

    A similar list of Neo-Conservatives and long-time warmongers fills out the “Committee to Investigate Russia” (CIR) who recently made headlines when they hired veteran actor Morgan Freeman to appeal to audiences’ emotions rather than their intellect.

    CIR includes Max Boot, James Clapper, and Norman Ornstein who occupy various seats and positions at corporate-financier funded think tanks ranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Center for a New American Security, to the American Enterprise Institute all of which share sponsorship from big-oil, big-defense, big-banks, and big-industry – in other words – Wall Street.

    Other pop-up anti-Russian fronts have similar boards of directors, representing similar interests, and are similarly and very ironically, finding fertile ground among American liberals who at one point in recent history opposed the very sort of war propaganda now being sold versus Russia.

    Wall Street, Not Moscow Controls the White House
    The United States possesses over 800 military bases worldwide, with a military operating on a budget that eclipses the combined military budgets of the next 7 leading nations, including Russia and China. Of the top 10 Fortune 500 international corporations, 4 are American, none are Russian.

    While the Russian Federation protects its interests with a formidable nuclear and conventional military, a respectable stake in the global energy sector, and strong diplomatic ties with other alternative centers of power, it lags far behind in military and economic clout, ranked 12 by GDP behind nations like South Korea, Canada, Italy, and Japan, and obviously behind larger emerging nations including Brazil, India, and China.

    The Russian military budget, estimated at around $70 billion, when compared to the annual net sales of a single Wall Street defense contractor – like Lockheed Martin for example at around $50 billion in 2016 – helps further put the actual “reach” of Russia in perspective versus interests upon Wall Street.

    In fact, US policy think-tanks like those chaired by the above mentioned Neo-Conservatives, are sponsored by some of the largest corporate-financier interests on Earth, who with their combined resources and influence, eclipse even the most fantastic claims made regarding Russia.

    Not only do US corporations and financial institutions possess an immense advantage in resources and influence in general, they also enjoy the benefit of proximity – many operating offices or employing lobbying services located directly in Washington D.C.

    Wall Street also possesses immense influence over the Western media, often controlling media platforms on both the left and right of American politics, controlling narratives that safely divide Americans against one another and leave special interests on Wall Street in a convenient and well protected void of impunity.

    The administration of current US President Donald Trump consists of representatives from these Wall Street corporations and financial institutions – many of them representing the same interests who composed former US President Barack Obama’s administration and who would have composed Hillary Clinton’s administration had she prevailed in the 2016 election.

    These interests include large banking institutions, the defense industry and big-oil. While supporters of President Trump blame the “deep state” for his inability to make good on campaign promises, and opponents of President Trump blame “Russians” for his apparent disregard for America’s best interests – it is clear that Wall Street is responsible for both – as it was during President Obama’s administration before him and for decades before him- and as it would have been had Hillary Clinton won the election.

    Who is Buying?
    The notion that Russia holds more influence over the White House than the multitude of powerful, corrupt multinational multi-billion dollar corporations and financial institutions upon Wall Street is at face value absurd. These interests, however, see an opportunity to jettison responsibility for the most negative aspects of policy implemented under the Trump administration by implicating Russia.

    They are able to do this by exploiting anger and frustration following the 2016 presidential election – regardless of the fact that virtually all of President Trump’s “decisions” including expanding wars in Syria, tensions with North Korea and Iran, as well as imposing crippling sanctions on Venezuela were all policies pursued by President Obama and promoted eagerly by Hillary Clinton both in her role as US Secretary of State and on the campaign trail.

    Angry and frustrated Americans who might otherwise be tempted to trace the money and motivations underpinning the Trump administration’s flawed policies to Wall Street, are now being intentionally diverted with accusations of “Russian” interference.

    Instead of exposing and condemning corrupt corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Exxon, and BP, or financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Americans are looking for Russian influence that simply does not exist. Nearly a year after President Trump stepped into office, no significant evidence has emerged implicating Russia or even providing a cursory explanation as to how Russia has managed to eclipse Wall Street’s influence over the White House.

    It is another unfortunate case of emotions and ignorance prevailing over suspicion and due diligence. Many are now genuinely concerned regarding “Russian influence.” Others are opportunistically joining this modern day witch hunt for notoriety and attention, while others still are simply paid lobbyist like those lining the advisory boards of the “Alliance for Securing Democracy” and the “Committee to Investigate Russia.”

    What Americans Should Really Be Doing
    The White House is supposed to represent the American people. Instead, it represents Wall Street. The corporations that constitute Wall Street enjoy the wealth and influence they currently hold because Americans are easily diverted from recognizing and addressing this unwarranted concentration of power. While Americans fight themselves and phantom Russians, they continue paying their monthly paychecks into these corporate-financier monopolies, enhancing Wall Street’s control over a White House that is supposed to belong to the people.

    Should Americans put aside their witch hunt for “Russians” and recognize the true interests holding power over the White House, they may find common ground that transcends race, religion, and even politics long enough to expose and address the disparity of wealth and influence in America that has existed and divided the American people long before President Trump took office.

    Emotional appeals to the public featuring Hollywood actors, graphs and articles laced with weasel words such as “likely,” “apparently”, ”allegedly”, and “possibly”, and even outright disclaimers admitting nothing resembling evidence underpins accusations should immediately provoke suspicion and investigation – not blind hysteria. The very same interests who sold lies regarding Iraq and “weapons of mass destruction” to American conservatives to initiate a war of aggression that left a million Iraqis dead along with thousands of US troops is now selling similar and equally baseless lies to America’s liberals regarding Russia.

    Both conservatives and liberals find themselves the target of manipulation and exploitation by special interests who do not represent the best interests of either political group. In that alone, common ground exists.

    Those who oppose the policies presided over by US President Donald Trump need not embrace them. Indeed, they should vehemently oppose them – however, they must identify the true special interests influencing these policies on Wall Street rather than chasing phantoms those who claim they exist know will never be found or caught in the far-off Kremlin.

     
  18. Fwiffo

    Fwiffo Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,179
    1,677
    [​IMG]

    No different than a television game show or the Roman emperor tossing bread and circus at his subjects.
     
    Arnathor and Dropbear like this.
  19. Pimpernel Smith

    Pimpernel Smith Well-Known Member

    272
    173
    More on the Russians hacked my hamster.....

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-07/russiagate-more-fiction-fact

    From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence...

    [​IMG]

    In her new campaign memoir, What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she has followed “every twist and turn of the story,” and “read everything I could get my hands on,” concerning Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election. “I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack,” she writes.

    Clinton has had a lot to take in. Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence report “uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet,” The Atlantic observed that “it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions.” Noting the “absence of any proof” and “hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community’s message “essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’” That remains the case today.

    The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that “they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.” Well-placed critics of Trump - including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein - concur to date.

    Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place.

    Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss.” Instead, one source recounted, aides were ordered “to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way.” Within 24 hours of Clinton’s concession speech, top officials gathered “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up.… Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

    But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements of state power that oppose Trump’s call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that front.

    The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric—by all indications, a ruse—alarmed foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller, which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his improbable victory.

    [​IMG]

    These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article’s content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language—likely, suspected, apparent—appears next to “Russians” to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

    The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative.

    One was news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” Sater wrote, believing that voters would be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States’ “most difficult adversary.” The New York Times describes the outcome:

    There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov’s direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

    The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.

    Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump’s lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.

    The revelation of Sater’s e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Goldstone’s e-mail was more fruitful than Sater’s in that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes. Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as “a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter” who has “launched a host of crudely named websites—including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com… to attack a former business partner.” Meanwhile, Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.

    Then there is Facebook’s disclosure that fake accounts “likely operated out of Russia” paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board described it as “further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy.” A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, “the vast majority of ads…didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate” but rather focused “on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum—touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.” Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen “after the election.” The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.

    The ads are commonly described as “Russian disinformation,” but in the most extensive reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that the ads “appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency,” itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).

    The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts found that they “had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.” Furthermore, “the security team did not find clear evidence of Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts.” But Russiagate logic requires a unique response to absent evidence: “The sophistication of the Russian tactics caught Facebook off-guard.”

    The Post adds how Russian “sophistication” was overcome:

    As Facebook struggled to find clear evidence of Russian manipulation, the idea was gaining credence in other influential quarters.

    In the electrified aftermath of the election, aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama pored over polling numbers and turnout data, looking for clues to explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events.

    One of the theories to emerge from their post-mortem was that Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas in order to increase enthusiasm for Trump and suppress support for Clinton.

    These former advisers didn’t have hard evidence that Russian trolls were using Facebook to micro-target voters in swing districts—at least not yet—but they shared their theories with the House and Senate intelligence committees, which launched parallel investigations into Russia’s role in the presidential campaign in January.

    The theories paid off. A personal visit in May by Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “spurred the company to make some changes in how it conducted its internal investigation.” Facebook’s announcement in August of finding 3,000 “likely” Russian ads is now an ongoing “scandal” that has dragged the company before Congressional committees.

    Other election threats loom. A recent front-page New York Times article linking Russian cyber operations to voting irregularities across the United States is headlined, “Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny.” But read on and you’ll discover that there is no evidence of “Russian election hacking,” only evidence-free accusations of it. Voting problems in Durham, North Carolina, “felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” election monitor Susan Greenhalgh says, and “months later…questions still linger about what happened that day in Durham as well as other counties in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.” There is one caveat: “There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns—local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions—and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it.”

    The evidence-free concern over Russian hacking expanded in late September when the Department of Homeland Security informed 21 states that they had been targeted by Russian cyber-operations during the 2016 election. But three states have already dismissed the DHS claims, including California, which announced that after seeking “further information, it became clear that DHS’s conclusions were wrong.”

    Recent elections in France and Germany saw similar fears of Russian hacking and disinformation—and similar results. In France, a hack targeting the campaign of election winner Emmanuel Macron ended up having “no trace,” of Russian involvement, and “was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone,” the head of French cyber-security quietly explained after the vote. Germany faced an even more puzzling outcome: Nothing happened. “The apparent absence of a robust Russian campaign to sabotage the German vote has become a mystery among officials and experts who had warned of a likely onslaught,” the Post reported in an article headlined “As Germans prepare to vote, a mystery grows: Where are the Russians?” The mystery was so profound that The New York Times also explored it days later: “German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?”

    Following this evidentiary praxis, Russia can be blamed for matters far beyond Western elections. After the recent white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, foreign-policy consultant Molly McKew issued a widely circulated appeal on Twitter: “We need to have a conversation about what is happening today in Charlottesville & Russian influence, and operations, in the United States.” (McKew recently testified at a US government hearing on “The Scourge of Russian Disinformation.”)

    Writing for CNN, Yale Law School’s Asha Rangappa asserted that Charlottesville “highlighted again the problem of Russia.” Sure, Rangappa concedes, “there is no evidence to date that Russia is directly supporting extreme right groups in the United States.” But Russian government ties to the European far-right “when viewed through the lens of Trump’s response to Charlottesville, suggests an opening for Russian intelligence to use domestic hate groups as a vehicle for escalating their active measures inside the United States.”

    Linking Russia to right-wing American racists contrasts with just a few months prior, when it was fashionable to tie Russia to the polar opposites. In March, intelligence-community witnesses soberly testified to Congress that Russia’s “21st-century cyber invasion” has “tried to sow unrest in the U.S. by inflaming protests such as Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter movement.” The evidence presented for this claim was that both movements were covered by the Russian state-owned television network RT.

    Russian-linked tweets about NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice show the Russians “trying to push divisiveness in this country,” says Republican Senator James Lankford. A Russian-linked ad about Black Lives Matter aimed at audiences in Ferguson and Baltimore “tells us…that the Russians who bought these ads were sophisticated enough to understand that targeting a Black Lives Matter ad to the communities…would help sow political discord.… the goal here was really about creating chaos,” says CNN reporter Dylan Byers.

    But this story might actually tell us a lot more about the attitudes of pundits and lawmakers towards their audiences. On top of the 3,000 ads identified by Facebook, Twitter has now informed Congress of around 200 accounts “linked to Russian interference in the 2016 election.” Twitter has 328 million users. To suggest 200 accounts out of 328 million could have had an impact is as much an insult to common sense as it is to basic math. It also suggests Black Lives Matter protesters in places like Ferguson and Baltimore were unwitting foreign agents who needed Russian social-media prodding to march in the streets. To protest racism is not to sow “chaos” and “political discord,” but to protest racism.

    Because the ads may have originated in Russia, it is widely taken for granted that they were part of an alleged Russian government plot. Few have considered a different scenario, pointed out by the journalist Max Blumenthal, that the ads could have been like those from any other troll farm: clickbait to attract page views.

    Some who focus on Russiagate may be acting from the real fear and disorientation that follows from the victory of the most unqualified and unpredictable president in history. But those who partake, particularly those in positions of privilege, should consider that Russiagate offers them a safe and anodyne way to “Resist.” For privileged Americans to challenge Trump mainly over Russia is to do so in a way that avoids confronting their own relationship to the economic and political system that many of his voters rebelled against. “If the presidency is effectively a Russian op, if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign,” to borrow a scenario posed by Rachel Maddow, then there is nothing else to confront.

    But economic discontent, along with voter suppression, the Democratic Party’s failures to reach voters, and corporate media that gave endless attention to Trump’s empty promises and racial animus, are among the issues cast aside by the incessant focus on Russigate, as are the very real US-Russia tensions that do not fit the narrative.

    Amid widespread talk of Putin pulling the strings, Trump has quietly appointed anti-Russia hawks to key posts and admitted a new NATO member over Russian objections. Trump’s top military commander, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is backing an effort by the Pentagon and Congress to arm Ukraine with new weapons. President Obama had rejected a similar proposal out of fear it would inflame the country’s deadly conflict. Just before Russia’s recent war games with allied Belarus, the United States and NATO allies carried out their “biggest military exercise in eastern Europe since the Cold War” right next door.

    These tensions only stand to worsen in a political climate in which diplomacy with Russia is seen as a weakness, and in which challenging it through sanctions and militarism is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement. Conflict with a nuclear power may threaten the future annihilation of many, but it offers immediate benefits for some. “NATO concerns about Russia are seen as a positive for the defense industry,” the business press notes in reporting that military stocks have reached “all-time highs.” As have the ratings of MSNBC, the cable network that has pushed Russiagate more than any other.

    Those unbound by Russiagate’s offerings need not succumb to them. Trump didn’t get to the White House via Russia, but by falsely portraying himself as a populist champion. The only con he will be undone by is his own.
     
  20. Arnathor

    Arnathor The Hamiltonian Hung Like a Horse Supporter

    4,400
    3,191
    I wish I did not have to see Macho Radcow on this forum.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
    InstaHate likes this.
  21. Pimpernel Smith

    Pimpernel Smith Well-Known Member

    272
    173
    And you thought Morrissey's lyrics didn't scan...





    This response is class:

     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
    Arnathor likes this.
  22. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
    IMG_20171012_200552.jpg
     
  23. Pimpernel Smith

    Pimpernel Smith Well-Known Member

    272
    173
  24. Fwiffo

    Fwiffo Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,179
    1,677
    Gingrich, a Trump confidant, and the U.S. House Speaker from 1995 to 1999 who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, says Trump is "a stunningly effective president."

    Stunningly effective.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 7:25 PM
    doghouse likes this.
  25. doghouse

    doghouse King Of The Elite Idiots Moderator Supporter

    8,683
    8,041
     
  26. InstaHate

    InstaHate Well-Known Member

    1,514
    3,522
    Well the Dems aren’t making it easy for him. They should be acting more cooperative like the Republicans after Obama got into office.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017 at 12:01 AM