- Messages
- 12,494
The Next Election, Political News, and Other Forms of Comedy (US, UK, & Intl)
- Thread starter OfficePants
- Start date
- Messages
- 40,417
since
doghouse
is going to post up a bunch of shit from yesterday's last day, i'd like to post a friendly reminder
doghouse
is going to post up a bunch of shit from yesterday's last day, i'd like to post a friendly reminder 
- Messages
- 21,978
Finally some people in the media are picking up on the fact that Trump is copying Nixon campaign material.
- Messages
- 40,417
http://www.ianwelsh.net/trumps-speech-not-insane
Trump’s Speech: Not Insane
2016 JULY 22
tags: Donald Trump Convention Speech
by Ian Welsh
Ok, let’s analyze what Trump said.
Crime is increasing, cops are being killed, I’m going to stop that.
I’m more with BLM, but this isn’t a surprising message. In fact, if he had not used it, as a Republican, I’d be shocked. (It’s also not true that crime is increasing, but that hasn’t stopped others from proposing hard-on-crime policies. And the perception of high crime is real, because of mass shootings and attacks on police.)
Illegal Immigrants are a big part of the crime wave, I’ll deport them.
Immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, but this isn’t that crazy, he’s just going to do more of what Obama and Bush did.The irony is, of course, that Obama has deported more immigrants than any President I’m aware of, but hey, doing Republican policies doesn’t get you credit with Republicans if you’re a Democrat.
Stop immigration from countries where terrorists might come from.
Ok. It’s not going to make much of a difference. But as a logical construct: “there are terrorists over there, we shouldn’t let them come here”, it’s not crazy. I disagree, America has some responsibility (ok, a lot of responsibility) for the refugee crisis, and if you broke it, you get to pick it up. But given how many countries are already refusing Syrian immigrants, this isn’t far out.
Fix Poverty
He starts with African American poverty stats. He pivots to the fact that Obama is a failure for ordinary people, their wages are down, etc…
Fix Trade
America has lost jobs because of trade and has an 800 billion dollar trade deficit. He’s going to fix that with bilateral trade deals. And 800 billion trade deficit is a LOT of jobs. And no, other countries aren’t going to stop selling to Americans.
This is not crazy. It is, in fact, sane.
Better Treaties
He starts with Iran, and moves on to trade deals. He throws a bone to Israel, and so on. The Iran and Israel bits are crazy, but his rhetoric is no worse than Clinton’s. The Iran deal happened after Clinton was no longer secretary of state for a reason.
Attacking Hillary’s Record
I don’t agree with the entire laundry list, but the argument isn’t a bad one. Libya is in ruins, Syria is in ruins. The Iran nuclear weapons bit is a lie, but it’s one Democrats tell all the time.
And he’s completely right that if Clinton wasn’t so important the way she handled her email would have destroyed her life. An ordinary person would not have skated on that.
He’s right in the uber argument too: Clinton is corrupt, beholden to various special interests and judged on her record in an actual position of power: incompetent.
I care for Americans
I’ve hugged this American and listened to that American’s tale of woe. I love you all and I’m going to look out for you.
Any politician who does not say this sort of thing is incompetent.
I am part of the corrupt system, but I will now fight for you.
Because I’m a billionaire, I know how the system works. But because I’m already rich, I owe nobody anything and I’ll work for Americans. A friend calls this the “sleazy version of FDR’s class traitor”. It’s a good argument, even if one doubts him.
Reiteration
I’ll fix crime by appointing the best people. I’ll fix the inner cities. (Sub Voce: I will care even for those who don’t vote for me.)
An End to Nation Building
Sorry, this is just the right policy. Especially since Libya and Iraq show what the results of American “nation building” are these days. While I supported the Arab Spring, its success or failure was no damn business of the US’s.
NATO is Obsolete
People have been squealing about this, but Trump’s position is that Russia is not particularly a threat, terrorism is, and NATO does little against terrorism. He also notes that America foots most of the bill for NATO, while it is intended to protect others (if Russia does attack, it won’t be sending tanks into DC).
I think that the way NATO has been used for the last 20 years (Estonia? Estonia?) has made a nuclear war more likely, not less. Trump’s wrong about the purpose of NATO in a way (control of Europe), but I think Europeans will be better off without large American garrisons.
Bring the Troops Home
They cost less to keep at home.
Sorry people, but it is way past time for most US overseas bases to be shut down. Sorry.
Immigration is a bad idea right now
It can bring in terrorists if it is from countries which breed terrorists and there aren’t enough good jobs for the people who are here already.
Border Wall
Practically his signature, not surprising it gets a call out.
I’m going to look after Americans FIRST
That’s the job description, people. That is not going to go across badly. If America can’t employ the people already in America, decreasing immigration until that is fixed is not insane. And it especially doesn’t look insane to the poor and working class who compete with immigrants for jobs.
The economics on this is dodgy, but the case can certainly be made (in England a BOE study found that immigration was decreasing wages for the poorest 20%.)
Bring Back the Manufacturing Jobs
Covered above: bilateral trade deals to bring them back. Not insane despite what the neolierals and economists who have given you the wonderful economy will say.
Cut Taxes and Regulations
I disagree, but this is a Republican nominee. And many Dems have said (and done) the same thing.
Fix of TSA,
Ummm, any politician not for this is committing political malpractice. (Correction: turns out the platform says this means not allowing unionization. Sigh.)
Allow Political Churches
I disagree, but he’s the Republican candidate. In any case, he just said he’ll fight for it, he’s unlikely to be able to do it except that he will tell the IRS to stop going after said churches, which was the status quo under Bush.
I love you, I love you, I love you
Grew up around regular people even if I’m not one now, think you’re wonderful. Honest. At least as believable as Clinton trying to pretend to like working class people. Slightly more, even, if they make him feel good about himself, he’ll like them.
Clinton is the more of the same candidate, I’m the candidate of change.
Whether you agree with Trumps plans or not, if he follows thru on even half of them this is completely true.
My Concluding Remarks
Pundits have been screaming about the conflation of crime and terrorism, and wailing about his NATO remarks. I don’t like the first, and I actually agree on his NATO remarks, but I am not super worked about this.
“I’m going to super deport illegals” is not a radical idea. “I’m going to be tough on crime”, which I disagree with about 95%, is not a radical idea. Clinton’s husband was responsible for one of the toughest on crime bills ever passed in America.
Now, depending on how far it goes Trump’s NATO policy could be radical, as could be bringing back troops to America. But it’s not a radical I necessarily disagree with, as noted above.
His trade policies: well, could go disastrously wrong, or could go brilliantly right. They’re certainly not de-facto stupid. But if you’re a working class or poor American the status quo is not in you favor, period. You need a roll of the dice.
I don’t support Trump, nor do I support Clinton, but the demonization of Trump is off the scale. I very much doubt he is Hiter reborn. He actually seems less likely to start a nuclear war than his opponent. Some of his policies I despise, but some of what he is proposing is not in the least nuts, it is just not acceptable to the guardians of the neoliberal status quo.
Trump’s position are reasonably consistent.
Trump is a nativist populist authoritarian. He does not believe in the American Empire.
More on Trump later. And judge for yourself, read the transcript of Trump’s speech.
Trump’s Speech: Not Insane
2016 JULY 22
tags: Donald Trump Convention Speech
by Ian Welsh
Crime is increasing, cops are being killed, I’m going to stop that.
I’m more with BLM, but this isn’t a surprising message. In fact, if he had not used it, as a Republican, I’d be shocked. (It’s also not true that crime is increasing, but that hasn’t stopped others from proposing hard-on-crime policies. And the perception of high crime is real, because of mass shootings and attacks on police.)
Illegal Immigrants are a big part of the crime wave, I’ll deport them.
Immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, but this isn’t that crazy, he’s just going to do more of what Obama and Bush did.The irony is, of course, that Obama has deported more immigrants than any President I’m aware of, but hey, doing Republican policies doesn’t get you credit with Republicans if you’re a Democrat.
Stop immigration from countries where terrorists might come from.
Ok. It’s not going to make much of a difference. But as a logical construct: “there are terrorists over there, we shouldn’t let them come here”, it’s not crazy. I disagree, America has some responsibility (ok, a lot of responsibility) for the refugee crisis, and if you broke it, you get to pick it up. But given how many countries are already refusing Syrian immigrants, this isn’t far out.
Fix Poverty
He starts with African American poverty stats. He pivots to the fact that Obama is a failure for ordinary people, their wages are down, etc…
Fix Trade
America has lost jobs because of trade and has an 800 billion dollar trade deficit. He’s going to fix that with bilateral trade deals. And 800 billion trade deficit is a LOT of jobs. And no, other countries aren’t going to stop selling to Americans.
This is not crazy. It is, in fact, sane.
Better Treaties
He starts with Iran, and moves on to trade deals. He throws a bone to Israel, and so on. The Iran and Israel bits are crazy, but his rhetoric is no worse than Clinton’s. The Iran deal happened after Clinton was no longer secretary of state for a reason.
Attacking Hillary’s Record
I don’t agree with the entire laundry list, but the argument isn’t a bad one. Libya is in ruins, Syria is in ruins. The Iran nuclear weapons bit is a lie, but it’s one Democrats tell all the time.
And he’s completely right that if Clinton wasn’t so important the way she handled her email would have destroyed her life. An ordinary person would not have skated on that.
He’s right in the uber argument too: Clinton is corrupt, beholden to various special interests and judged on her record in an actual position of power: incompetent.
I care for Americans
I’ve hugged this American and listened to that American’s tale of woe. I love you all and I’m going to look out for you.
Any politician who does not say this sort of thing is incompetent.
I am part of the corrupt system, but I will now fight for you.
Because I’m a billionaire, I know how the system works. But because I’m already rich, I owe nobody anything and I’ll work for Americans. A friend calls this the “sleazy version of FDR’s class traitor”. It’s a good argument, even if one doubts him.
Reiteration
I’ll fix crime by appointing the best people. I’ll fix the inner cities. (Sub Voce: I will care even for those who don’t vote for me.)
An End to Nation Building
Sorry, this is just the right policy. Especially since Libya and Iraq show what the results of American “nation building” are these days. While I supported the Arab Spring, its success or failure was no damn business of the US’s.
NATO is Obsolete
People have been squealing about this, but Trump’s position is that Russia is not particularly a threat, terrorism is, and NATO does little against terrorism. He also notes that America foots most of the bill for NATO, while it is intended to protect others (if Russia does attack, it won’t be sending tanks into DC).
I think that the way NATO has been used for the last 20 years (Estonia? Estonia?) has made a nuclear war more likely, not less. Trump’s wrong about the purpose of NATO in a way (control of Europe), but I think Europeans will be better off without large American garrisons.
Bring the Troops Home
They cost less to keep at home.
Sorry people, but it is way past time for most US overseas bases to be shut down. Sorry.
Immigration is a bad idea right now
It can bring in terrorists if it is from countries which breed terrorists and there aren’t enough good jobs for the people who are here already.
Border Wall
Practically his signature, not surprising it gets a call out.
I’m going to look after Americans FIRST
That’s the job description, people. That is not going to go across badly. If America can’t employ the people already in America, decreasing immigration until that is fixed is not insane. And it especially doesn’t look insane to the poor and working class who compete with immigrants for jobs.
The economics on this is dodgy, but the case can certainly be made (in England a BOE study found that immigration was decreasing wages for the poorest 20%.)
Bring Back the Manufacturing Jobs
Covered above: bilateral trade deals to bring them back. Not insane despite what the neolierals and economists who have given you the wonderful economy will say.
Cut Taxes and Regulations
I disagree, but this is a Republican nominee. And many Dems have said (and done) the same thing.
Fix of TSA,
Ummm, any politician not for this is committing political malpractice. (Correction: turns out the platform says this means not allowing unionization. Sigh.)
Allow Political Churches
I disagree, but he’s the Republican candidate. In any case, he just said he’ll fight for it, he’s unlikely to be able to do it except that he will tell the IRS to stop going after said churches, which was the status quo under Bush.
I love you, I love you, I love you
Grew up around regular people even if I’m not one now, think you’re wonderful. Honest. At least as believable as Clinton trying to pretend to like working class people. Slightly more, even, if they make him feel good about himself, he’ll like them.
Clinton is the more of the same candidate, I’m the candidate of change.
Whether you agree with Trumps plans or not, if he follows thru on even half of them this is completely true.
My Concluding Remarks
Pundits have been screaming about the conflation of crime and terrorism, and wailing about his NATO remarks. I don’t like the first, and I actually agree on his NATO remarks, but I am not super worked about this.
“I’m going to super deport illegals” is not a radical idea. “I’m going to be tough on crime”, which I disagree with about 95%, is not a radical idea. Clinton’s husband was responsible for one of the toughest on crime bills ever passed in America.
Now, depending on how far it goes Trump’s NATO policy could be radical, as could be bringing back troops to America. But it’s not a radical I necessarily disagree with, as noted above.
His trade policies: well, could go disastrously wrong, or could go brilliantly right. They’re certainly not de-facto stupid. But if you’re a working class or poor American the status quo is not in you favor, period. You need a roll of the dice.
I don’t support Trump, nor do I support Clinton, but the demonization of Trump is off the scale. I very much doubt he is Hiter reborn. He actually seems less likely to start a nuclear war than his opponent. Some of his policies I despise, but some of what he is proposing is not in the least nuts, it is just not acceptable to the guardians of the neoliberal status quo.
Trump’s position are reasonably consistent.
Trump is a nativist populist authoritarian. He does not believe in the American Empire.
More on Trump later. And judge for yourself, read the transcript of Trump’s speech.
- Messages
- 12,494
chogall
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 234
They should've realized that smear campaign doesnt work against Trump, yet they continue to do so. Even after the $$$ behind media smearing Trump into the position he has today. So much fail. And now they put so much attention on his wife's speech. More free PR and it will appeal more to the swing voters.
He is definitely not a refined speaker when hes on the stages, but that's what makes him real.
All that aside, its only logical to vote for Trump/Sanders for those who got left behind during this era of loose monetary policy. Voting for Trump, or Sanders, is a massive call option - voters got nothing to lose and the potential to change the game. On the other hand, its logical for those who are economically sound to vote for Clinton to keep the status quo in check. Guess which group has the numbers?
He is definitely not a refined speaker when hes on the stages, but that's what makes him real.
All that aside, its only logical to vote for Trump/Sanders for those who got left behind during this era of loose monetary policy. Voting for Trump, or Sanders, is a massive call option - voters got nothing to lose and the potential to change the game. On the other hand, its logical for those who are economically sound to vote for Clinton to keep the status quo in check. Guess which group has the numbers?
- Messages
- 12,494
The Clinton group actually. But many just aren't going to vote for her.
chogall
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 234
My argument is those who are economically stranded would vote for Trump/Sanders vs. GOP establishment/Clinton. Trump, despite GOP establishment opposition, still has and won the overwhelming majority of both delegates and popular vote.
On the other side, Clinton's win against Sanders is not as overwhelming, 55% vs 45%. IMO the turnout for those 45% will not be as high as those 55%. A good portion of them are in the anti Clinton camp. Don't know how many of them will turn to Trump.
It's not unlike the Obama campaign where people voted for 'Change' and a fresh face to break the neocon/neolib establishments, except the rhetoric of Obama leans on the positive side but Trumps rhetoric is leaning towards the negative side.
This is a Special Olympics election cycle - candidate whom people hate the second most will be the POTUS.
- Messages
- 12,494
Trump had the eighth lowest delegate count by a nominee in GOP history.
But your last sentence is accurate.
- Messages
- 40,417
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
RE: FNS 4-24-16
From:BrinsterJ@dnc.org To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-04-24 11:54 Subject: RE: FNS 4-24-16
Panel on Dems path forward * HRC ran through June in 2008, but right about this point she started to back off Obama attacks, Sanders isn't really. o We'll see what happens after Tues, Sanders will probably lose big in PA o He's doing damage by hitting her on trust, honesty, authenticity, judgment * What is Sanders going to do to get his supporters on board? Dem party planks taking on Wall St, oil/gas o There will be negotiations, but Clinton people will have much more leverage * HRC will go into gen election has vulnerable candidate o Dems don't even pay attention to email story o Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general * Move to the left on illegal immigration, tougher for Hillary? o Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters o She's forced to continue to appeal to young liberals as opposed to pivoting back to center
emphasis mine. such a drag to have to lie all the time...
RE: FNS 4-24-16
From:BrinsterJ@dnc.org To: Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-04-24 11:54 Subject: RE: FNS 4-24-16
Panel on Dems path forward * HRC ran through June in 2008, but right about this point she started to back off Obama attacks, Sanders isn't really. o We'll see what happens after Tues, Sanders will probably lose big in PA o He's doing damage by hitting her on trust, honesty, authenticity, judgment * What is Sanders going to do to get his supporters on board? Dem party planks taking on Wall St, oil/gas o There will be negotiations, but Clinton people will have much more leverage * HRC will go into gen election has vulnerable candidate o Dems don't even pay attention to email story o Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general * Move to the left on illegal immigration, tougher for Hillary? o Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters o She's forced to continue to appeal to young liberals as opposed to pivoting back to center
emphasis mine. such a drag to have to lie all the time...
- Messages
- 21,978
This gave me a laugh today from the papers. Apologies if folks read the original a few days ago.
"According to The New York Times, he sent his son, Donald Jr., to sound out Ohio Governor John Kasich as his running mate. Mr. Kasich was told that as vice-president, he would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. What, then, asked Mr. Kasich, would Mr. Trump do? Mr. Trump, he was told, would be in charge of making America great again."
"According to The New York Times, he sent his son, Donald Jr., to sound out Ohio Governor John Kasich as his running mate. Mr. Kasich was told that as vice-president, he would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. What, then, asked Mr. Kasich, would Mr. Trump do? Mr. Trump, he was told, would be in charge of making America great again."
- Messages
- 12,494
That's funny.
Rain Man
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 708
Trump's people had better do some research, here. You do not fuck with ABKCO. (Two words: "Bittersweet Symphony.") When it comes to being an entitled billionaire megalomaniac with sue-happy lawyers, Trump is a hobbyist compared to Jagger. (The Verve sampled four bars of a Muzak recording of a Stones tune and lost every penny their entire song will make in perpetuity.)
The first law of the rock and roll business is "Shit happens."
The second is "Get the money."
The third is "Mick Jagger will fuck you up."
And yes, the article below all says "Drumpf." I still have the Drumpfinator extension installed and I likely always will.
Rolling Stones Say Drumpf Used 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' Without Permission at RNC
7/22/2016 by Lauren Craddock
Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones performs at Estadio Monumental on March 6, 2016 in Lima, Peru.
BRIAN RASIC/WIREIMAGE
Donald Drumpf closed out the Republican National Convention on Thursday with the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” and The Stones aren’t too thrilled about it.
Turtles Say Use of 'Happy Together' at RNC Was Unauthorized
The band took to Twitter to clarify that the song use is not an endorsement for Drumpf. “The Rolling Stones do not endorse Donald Drumpf. You Can’t Always Get What You Want was used without the band’s permission."
The Rolling Stones do not endorse Donald Drumpf. You Can't Always Get What You Want was used without the band's permission.
— The Rolling Stones (@RollingStones) July 22, 2016
The Rolling Stones have continuously asked Drumpf to refrain from using their music. In May, Drumpf walked out for his Indiana primary victory speech to “Start Me Up,” with a rep for the band telling Billboard at the time, “The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Drumpf campaign to use their songs. [The band] have requested that they cease all use immediately.”
Watch Stephen Colbert Bum-Rush the Stage at the Republican National Convention
Prior to Drumpf’s campaign use of “Start Me Up,” The Stones made public their distaste for the use of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “Brown Sugar” during Drumpf's campaign. The Rolling Stones are one of many artists who have asked Drumpf to stay clear of their hits while campaigning for the presidency, including Adele and R.E.M.
The first law of the rock and roll business is "Shit happens."
The second is "Get the money."
The third is "Mick Jagger will fuck you up."
And yes, the article below all says "Drumpf." I still have the Drumpfinator extension installed and I likely always will.
Rolling Stones Say Drumpf Used 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' Without Permission at RNC
7/22/2016 by Lauren Craddock
- EMAIL ME
Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones performs at Estadio Monumental on March 6, 2016 in Lima, Peru.
BRIAN RASIC/WIREIMAGE
Donald Drumpf closed out the Republican National Convention on Thursday with the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” and The Stones aren’t too thrilled about it.
Turtles Say Use of 'Happy Together' at RNC Was Unauthorized
The band took to Twitter to clarify that the song use is not an endorsement for Drumpf. “The Rolling Stones do not endorse Donald Drumpf. You Can’t Always Get What You Want was used without the band’s permission."
The Rolling Stones do not endorse Donald Drumpf. You Can't Always Get What You Want was used without the band's permission.
— The Rolling Stones (@RollingStones) July 22, 2016
The Rolling Stones have continuously asked Drumpf to refrain from using their music. In May, Drumpf walked out for his Indiana primary victory speech to “Start Me Up,” with a rep for the band telling Billboard at the time, “The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Drumpf campaign to use their songs. [The band] have requested that they cease all use immediately.”
Watch Stephen Colbert Bum-Rush the Stage at the Republican National Convention
Prior to Drumpf’s campaign use of “Start Me Up,” The Stones made public their distaste for the use of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “Brown Sugar” during Drumpf's campaign. The Rolling Stones are one of many artists who have asked Drumpf to stay clear of their hits while campaigning for the presidency, including Adele and R.E.M.
- Messages
- 40,417
Rain Man
what dfo the rank and file think about trump's plan to pull back troops from overseas and disengage from nato?
Rain Man
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 708
No comment.
But it's cool. I'm sure it will all work out.
Nobody's, like, openly worried, or, you know (ahem) planning to retire early so they don't have to obey that fuckin' retard. That would convey distrust in our civilian leadership. I'm sure we're all behind whoever wins.
But it's cool. I'm sure it will all work out.
Nobody's, like, openly worried, or, you know (ahem) planning to retire early so they don't have to obey that fuckin' retard. That would convey distrust in our civilian leadership. I'm sure we're all behind whoever wins.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 40,417
- Messages
- 12,494
Couple of Seal buddies want to go in with us on a chalet in the Swiss Alps.
Fuck Tim Kaine right in the pussy.
- Messages
- 40,417
- Messages
- 12,494
Which is amusing given that guy ruined Va's fiscal situation worse than any governor in our history. And after Mark Warner left him the most cherry situation ever. He just keeps failing upward.
In the top five of worst politicians ever.
In the top five of worst politicians ever.
- Messages
- 40,417
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/07/24/tim-kaine-and-other-faith-based-politics/
Tim Kaine, and Other Faith-Based Politics
07.24
1.
Christ on a stick, this is what I didn’t count on with the Kaine pick as VP.
The problem isn’t the pick itself: it is what it is (see #2 below). The problem is the ejaculations of joy it prompts among the pundit class and the Twitterati, who now have to sell it to us as the greatest choice of a second since Moses appointed Aaron.
And not because the pundits are on the Clinton payroll: I’d have a lot more respect for them if they were.
No, they do this shit for free. Out of love. Rapture. And bliss.
2.
I’m not one of those people who cares much about a VP pick.
I don’t think it tells you much about Clinton one way or the other. Her agenda is what it is, and it’s not revealed or concealed by this choice. Do most people change their vote for a candidate based on the running mate? It’s hard to imagine it really matters all that much. So I’m neither heartened nor disheartened. Nor am I surprised.
But—you knew it was coming—can you imagine the howls of protest this VP choice would have provoked among Clinton supporters had it been made by Sanders? And not just howls for a few hours on a late Friday night that slowly morph into cheers by morning. No, I’m talking truly bitter howls of rage that last and last.
Howls of protest:
When I talked about the amnesia of the pundit class the other day, I was thinking they couldn’t remember what Nixon or Reagan said 40 years ago. But apparently they can’t even remember what they themselves said. Three months ago.
3.
Speaking of Kaine and abortion, there’s an interesting historical parallel here to note.
As I understand it, Kaine’s record on abortion as governor of Virginia was much more conservative than his record on abortion as senator from Virginia. As a Catholic, Kaine has always been personally opposed to abortion. And early in his career, he took some pretty bad stands.
But since he’s gotten into the Senate, Kaine’s gotten 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, by co-sponsoring a bill, for example, that would prohibit states from putting restrictions on abortion and insisting that Obamacare include greater access to contraception. Whether he’s given up the earlier bad stands—for example, backing the odious parental consent law and the equally odious “informed consent” law or the partial birth abortion ban—I don’t know.)
Lurking in the background for him, at least since 2008 when Obama was considering him as a VP choice, was the possibility of a seat on the national ticket. As he came closer and closer to the national stage, in other words, he “evolved” on this issue (as they say).
Which brings to mind nobody so much as another VP candidate from yesteryear: George H.W. Bush.
For years, in the 1960s and 70s, Bush was a pro-choice politician, with close ties to Planned Parenthood. So committed was he to reproductive rights that his nickname in Texas was “Rubbers.” Then, in 1980, as a spot on the national ticket came into view, he too “evolved.” To the right.
Not sure what any of this means, but I’m struck by the parallel.
P.S. On Facebook, the head of NARAL says:
I believe she chose Tim Kaine because she trusts the guy, and I trust her.
When Republicans say this kind of thing, we call it faith-based politics. Democratic skepticism, it ain’t.
4.
Whenever I pour a bit of cold water on the ahistorical commentary about Trump, I get charged with being indifferent to whether he wins or not. A commenter on this blog even compared me to people who yawned about Hitler. Which I found interesting, at the rhetorical level.
For decades, the Munich analogy was used by conservatives to say that liberals were soft on communism. Now it’s being used by liberals to say that leftists are soft on Trump.
Even when those leftists write whole books explaining to people that the reasonable, rational, prudential conservatives they think they know are in fact ultra-revanchist songstresses of domination and violence.
5.
Along the same lines, another meme I frequently see among the Clinton people and their supporters in the media is that we on the left are somehow indifferent to the fate of poor people and people of color who will be victimized by Trump’s policies .
Yet these very same people are rather blithe about the prospect of sending the US military off to fight Putin or whomever it is we’re now supposed to be willing to fight over NATO.
Now, it goes without saying that none of these people who are working themselves up into a froth over Trump’s remarks will ever have to pick up a gun and fight these wars. We’ve seen that script before, right? We had a word for that during the Bush years.
But, I wonder, who do these people actually think is going to pick up a gun and fight these wars against Putin? Who do they think actually signs up for America’s “all-volunteer” army is disproportionately drawn from if not the poor, the working class, and people of color.
Tim Kaine, and Other Faith-Based Politics
07.24
1.
Christ on a stick, this is what I didn’t count on with the Kaine pick as VP.
The problem isn’t the pick itself: it is what it is (see #2 below). The problem is the ejaculations of joy it prompts among the pundit class and the Twitterati, who now have to sell it to us as the greatest choice of a second since Moses appointed Aaron.
And not because the pundits are on the Clinton payroll: I’d have a lot more respect for them if they were.
No, they do this shit for free. Out of love. Rapture. And bliss.
2.
I’m not one of those people who cares much about a VP pick.
I don’t think it tells you much about Clinton one way or the other. Her agenda is what it is, and it’s not revealed or concealed by this choice. Do most people change their vote for a candidate based on the running mate? It’s hard to imagine it really matters all that much. So I’m neither heartened nor disheartened. Nor am I surprised.
But—you knew it was coming—can you imagine the howls of protest this VP choice would have provoked among Clinton supporters had it been made by Sanders? And not just howls for a few hours on a late Friday night that slowly morph into cheers by morning. No, I’m talking truly bitter howls of rage that last and last.
Howls of protest:
- about how, out of 57 Democratic senators, Kaine had the 41st most liberal record, putting him far closer to the Max Baucus conservative end of the spectrum among Senate Democrats;
- about his mixed record on abortion, about how he supported all those restrictions on a women’s right to choose;
- about how, despite his opposition to the death penalty, Kaine sent eleven people to their death as governor. (That one, incidentally, made me think of Bill Clinton. When it comes to capital punishment, Kaine smokes, but doesn’t inhale; or inhales, but doesn’t smoke.)
When I talked about the amnesia of the pundit class the other day, I was thinking they couldn’t remember what Nixon or Reagan said 40 years ago. But apparently they can’t even remember what they themselves said. Three months ago.
3.
Speaking of Kaine and abortion, there’s an interesting historical parallel here to note.
As I understand it, Kaine’s record on abortion as governor of Virginia was much more conservative than his record on abortion as senator from Virginia. As a Catholic, Kaine has always been personally opposed to abortion. And early in his career, he took some pretty bad stands.
But since he’s gotten into the Senate, Kaine’s gotten 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, by co-sponsoring a bill, for example, that would prohibit states from putting restrictions on abortion and insisting that Obamacare include greater access to contraception. Whether he’s given up the earlier bad stands—for example, backing the odious parental consent law and the equally odious “informed consent” law or the partial birth abortion ban—I don’t know.)
Lurking in the background for him, at least since 2008 when Obama was considering him as a VP choice, was the possibility of a seat on the national ticket. As he came closer and closer to the national stage, in other words, he “evolved” on this issue (as they say).
Which brings to mind nobody so much as another VP candidate from yesteryear: George H.W. Bush.
For years, in the 1960s and 70s, Bush was a pro-choice politician, with close ties to Planned Parenthood. So committed was he to reproductive rights that his nickname in Texas was “Rubbers.” Then, in 1980, as a spot on the national ticket came into view, he too “evolved.” To the right.
Not sure what any of this means, but I’m struck by the parallel.
P.S. On Facebook, the head of NARAL says:
I believe she chose Tim Kaine because she trusts the guy, and I trust her.
When Republicans say this kind of thing, we call it faith-based politics. Democratic skepticism, it ain’t.
4.
Whenever I pour a bit of cold water on the ahistorical commentary about Trump, I get charged with being indifferent to whether he wins or not. A commenter on this blog even compared me to people who yawned about Hitler. Which I found interesting, at the rhetorical level.
For decades, the Munich analogy was used by conservatives to say that liberals were soft on communism. Now it’s being used by liberals to say that leftists are soft on Trump.
Even when those leftists write whole books explaining to people that the reasonable, rational, prudential conservatives they think they know are in fact ultra-revanchist songstresses of domination and violence.
5.
Along the same lines, another meme I frequently see among the Clinton people and their supporters in the media is that we on the left are somehow indifferent to the fate of poor people and people of color who will be victimized by Trump’s policies .
Yet these very same people are rather blithe about the prospect of sending the US military off to fight Putin or whomever it is we’re now supposed to be willing to fight over NATO.
Now, it goes without saying that none of these people who are working themselves up into a froth over Trump’s remarks will ever have to pick up a gun and fight these wars. We’ve seen that script before, right? We had a word for that during the Bush years.
But, I wonder, who do these people actually think is going to pick up a gun and fight these wars against Putin? Who do they think actually signs up for America’s “all-volunteer” army is disproportionately drawn from if not the poor, the working class, and people of color.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
- Messages
- 5,259
This DNC email leak is funny as hell, when will the Dems get a break?
- Messages
- 40,417
in case you were unsure of how the sausage gets made
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-dnc-clinton-hires-wasserman-schultz-top-post
Mission Accomplished at DNC, Clinton Hires Wasserman Schultz for Top Post
Clinton responds to party chair's resignation on Sunday by thanking "longtime friend" for her service at DNC and immediately naming her as honorary chair of her own campaign
Though many progressives immediately responded by saying her ouster would not be enough to undo the damage her leadership has done, Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation on Sunday afternoon, saying she would relinquish her post immediately following the party's national convention which begins Monday.
Her announcement comes just two days after a batch of leaked internal DNC emails showed evidence that party officials during the primary season had attempted to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton against the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders. The emails appear to show top officials contemplating how they can undermine Sanders by pushing stories about his Jewish faith and questioning his ability to keep his campaign organized.
As journalist and radio host Sonali Kolhatkar tweeted:
Following Sunday's news, however, Clinton responded with a statement thanking her "longtime friend" for her service to the party and, seemingly without irony, announced that Wasserman Schultz would now serve as her campaign’s honorary chair.
"There's simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie," Clinton said, "which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign's 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states."
Throughout the campaign, Sanders and his top aides had expressed displeasure with "prejudice" exhibited by Wasserman Schultz in both deed and rhetoric. Since Spring, the campaign and many of its supporters had been calling for her resignation.
Not in time for it to matter very much, but those desires came true on Sunday.
"I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America’s future. I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory," Wasserman Schultz said in her statement. "Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention."
As early as this morning, citing the leaked DNC emails, Sanders said it was past time for the chairperson to go. His reasoning, however, appeared to contradict Clinton's response when he said his disappointment with Wasserman Schultz was not just because of the "prejudice" that she and her staff showed throughout the campaign, but the signal she sends to potential voters about where the country should be headed. "I think we need new leadership of the Democratic Party," Sanders explained, "that is going to open up that party to working people and to young people—to have that kind of vitality we need to not only win the presidency, but also gain control of the Senate and the House as well."
Meanwhile, the party's communications director announced that longtime political operative and pundit Donna Brazile, currently the DNC’s vice chair, will take over as interim chair through the election.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-dnc-clinton-hires-wasserman-schultz-top-post
Mission Accomplished at DNC, Clinton Hires Wasserman Schultz for Top Post
Clinton responds to party chair's resignation on Sunday by thanking "longtime friend" for her service at DNC and immediately naming her as honorary chair of her own campaign
Though many progressives immediately responded by saying her ouster would not be enough to undo the damage her leadership has done, Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation on Sunday afternoon, saying she would relinquish her post immediately following the party's national convention which begins Monday.
Her announcement comes just two days after a batch of leaked internal DNC emails showed evidence that party officials during the primary season had attempted to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton against the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders. The emails appear to show top officials contemplating how they can undermine Sanders by pushing stories about his Jewish faith and questioning his ability to keep his campaign organized.
As journalist and radio host Sonali Kolhatkar tweeted:
Following Sunday's news, however, Clinton responded with a statement thanking her "longtime friend" for her service to the party and, seemingly without irony, announced that Wasserman Schultz would now serve as her campaign’s honorary chair.
"There's simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie," Clinton said, "which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign's 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states."
Throughout the campaign, Sanders and his top aides had expressed displeasure with "prejudice" exhibited by Wasserman Schultz in both deed and rhetoric. Since Spring, the campaign and many of its supporters had been calling for her resignation.
Not in time for it to matter very much, but those desires came true on Sunday.
"I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America’s future. I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory," Wasserman Schultz said in her statement. "Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention."
As early as this morning, citing the leaked DNC emails, Sanders said it was past time for the chairperson to go. His reasoning, however, appeared to contradict Clinton's response when he said his disappointment with Wasserman Schultz was not just because of the "prejudice" that she and her staff showed throughout the campaign, but the signal she sends to potential voters about where the country should be headed. "I think we need new leadership of the Democratic Party," Sanders explained, "that is going to open up that party to working people and to young people—to have that kind of vitality we need to not only win the presidency, but also gain control of the Senate and the House as well."
Meanwhile, the party's communications director announced that longtime political operative and pundit Donna Brazile, currently the DNC’s vice chair, will take over as interim chair through the election.
- Messages
- 40,417
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...-shallow-brained-media-do-trumps-bidding.html
How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trump's Bidding
Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.
Here is an example: Networks on Trump: A ‘Dark Speech’ From a ‘Vengeful’ ‘Demagogue’ - Newsbuster
The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump’s “dark speech” as one coming from a “vengeful” “demagogue.”
The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Herindependent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech" theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.
are very low. Many people who would like to have a job have given up looking for one. The former big industrial areas have been shrinking for decades. The foreign policy of the U.S. is one of wars and terrorism with no positive message at home or abroad.
The Clinton campaign gurus and their media surrogates took up the "dark" scheme to set Trump into a negative light. But Trump followers agree with the description. The Clinton message confirms their believes. The people agree with Trump's "dark" diagnosis. Picking up on that and reinforcing it only reinforces his message.
When Trump describes the world as "dark", he solely does so to sell THE LIGHT - himself:
"Your world is dark. Let me enlighten it. I am the only one who can do it."
Reinforcing the "dark" scheme is pushing Trump's selling point.
In June the Clinton campaign spent about $50 million on TV ads. Trump did not even spent a tenths of that and has better polling results than before. He has pulled nearly even to Clinton. Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump is reinforcing his message.
The current "Trump is like Putin" and "Putin wants Trump to win" campaigns fail to understand how Trump and his supporters think. They see Putin as a nationalist leader who defends the interests of his country. Someone straight with whom one can do business. Most Trump supporters see Putin as a positive example of a leader. A thug maybe but one who gets things done. Clinton's Washington DC circus completely fails to recognize that.
Fred Hiatt's Funny Pages©, aka the Washington Post Opinion pages, have for months run one anti-Trump piece after the other. This is just one regular day:
source: Gregory Djerejian
The effect is essentially a marketing campaign FOR Trump. Not one day passes without two or three pieces with his name in big letters above it - branding that does not cost him a penny.
When one of Trum'ps children recently plagiarized parts of her convention speech, a New York Times journalist tweeted:
9:36 AM - 20 Jul 2016 - Binyamin Appelbaum @BCAppelbaum
1. Deny everything.
2. Blame Hillary Clinton.
3. Blame My Little Pony.
4. Deny everything.
5. Confess & apologize.
He doesn't get it. That is not the level on which the Trump campaign works. Here is the recipe. The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a main ingredient of it:
10:05 AM - 20 Jul 2016 - Moon of Alabama @MoonofA
A. Create "outrage"
B. Get huge media cov for 0 cents
C. Increase vote share
D. Laugh at stupid journos
E. Repeat
It works every time. Slip in a bit of plagiarizing and occupy the headlines. Hold a "dark" speech and let the Clinton campaign and her independent media make your point over and over again. Sell yourself as the solution to all the negatives they emphasize.
Whatever one might think of Trump - he IS a marketing genius. He knows exactly how the media tick and he makes them work for him without paying a penny.
The same encrusted, narrow and hardened view of omnidirectional belligerence which drives U.S. foreign policy is visible in the way Clinton and her media run the campaign. There is no room for diverging from the compulsory norm.
Trump breaks those structures and thrives. He uses the limits of mainstream framing against it. Like him or not, I don't, there is a genius in that.
edit: found this in the comments:
How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trump's Bidding
Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.
Here is an example: Networks on Trump: A ‘Dark Speech’ From a ‘Vengeful’ ‘Demagogue’ - Newsbuster
The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump’s “dark speech” as one coming from a “vengeful” “demagogue.”
The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Herindependent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech" theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.
- His Tone Dark, Donald Trump Takes G.O.P. Mantle - NYT
- Donald Trump Takes America on a Journey to the Dark Side - NBC
- In acceptance speech, Trump’s America is a dark and desperate place - WaPo
- Trump's emotional and dark message: How it will play out - CNBC
- Will Donald Trump's dark view of America resonate with voters? - CSM
- Trump paints dark image of America - CBSNews
- Trump's dark, dystopian — and false — version of America - MinnPost
- Clinton Campaign Slams Trump For Painting A ‘Dark Picture’ Of America - IBT
- Chuck Todd: Donald Trump’s dark vision of America has risks - Today
- Obama rejects Trump's dark America - Politico
- US election: Donald Trump's dark vision of America 'doesn't really jibe' with facts, Obama says - ABC
- Clinton: Trump 'painted a dark picture of America' - The Hill
- Clinton on Trump: 'I can't really imagine him on a white horse' - CNN
- Clinton-Kaine Ticket, in First Rally, Repudiate Trump's Dark Vision of U.S. - Bloomberg
- His dark materials: After that diabolical, masterful performance, Donald Trump could easily end up president - Salon
- Donald Trump’s Dark and Scary Night - Alternet
- 'The party I worked for died tonight': Republicans decry Trump's dark vision - Guardian
- Donald Trump’s Dark And Scary Night - HuffPo
- Donald Trump’s Dark, Dark Convention Speech - The New Yorker
- The dark, frightening America of Donald Trump - Boston Globe
- Twitter found Donald Trump’s speech to be the darkest timeline - Vox
- Donald Trump’s dark speech to the Republican National Convention, annotated - WaPo
- ...
are very low. Many people who would like to have a job have given up looking for one. The former big industrial areas have been shrinking for decades. The foreign policy of the U.S. is one of wars and terrorism with no positive message at home or abroad.
The Clinton campaign gurus and their media surrogates took up the "dark" scheme to set Trump into a negative light. But Trump followers agree with the description. The Clinton message confirms their believes. The people agree with Trump's "dark" diagnosis. Picking up on that and reinforcing it only reinforces his message.
When Trump describes the world as "dark", he solely does so to sell THE LIGHT - himself:
"Your world is dark. Let me enlighten it. I am the only one who can do it."
Reinforcing the "dark" scheme is pushing Trump's selling point.
In June the Clinton campaign spent about $50 million on TV ads. Trump did not even spent a tenths of that and has better polling results than before. He has pulled nearly even to Clinton. Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump is reinforcing his message.
The current "Trump is like Putin" and "Putin wants Trump to win" campaigns fail to understand how Trump and his supporters think. They see Putin as a nationalist leader who defends the interests of his country. Someone straight with whom one can do business. Most Trump supporters see Putin as a positive example of a leader. A thug maybe but one who gets things done. Clinton's Washington DC circus completely fails to recognize that.
Fred Hiatt's Funny Pages©, aka the Washington Post Opinion pages, have for months run one anti-Trump piece after the other. This is just one regular day:
source: Gregory Djerejian
The effect is essentially a marketing campaign FOR Trump. Not one day passes without two or three pieces with his name in big letters above it - branding that does not cost him a penny.
When one of Trum'ps children recently plagiarized parts of her convention speech, a New York Times journalist tweeted:
9:36 AM - 20 Jul 2016 - Binyamin Appelbaum @BCAppelbaum
1. Deny everything.
2. Blame Hillary Clinton.
3. Blame My Little Pony.
4. Deny everything.
5. Confess & apologize.
He doesn't get it. That is not the level on which the Trump campaign works. Here is the recipe. The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a main ingredient of it:
10:05 AM - 20 Jul 2016 - Moon of Alabama @MoonofA
A. Create "outrage"
B. Get huge media cov for 0 cents
C. Increase vote share
D. Laugh at stupid journos
E. Repeat
It works every time. Slip in a bit of plagiarizing and occupy the headlines. Hold a "dark" speech and let the Clinton campaign and her independent media make your point over and over again. Sell yourself as the solution to all the negatives they emphasize.
Whatever one might think of Trump - he IS a marketing genius. He knows exactly how the media tick and he makes them work for him without paying a penny.
The same encrusted, narrow and hardened view of omnidirectional belligerence which drives U.S. foreign policy is visible in the way Clinton and her media run the campaign. There is no room for diverging from the compulsory norm.
Trump breaks those structures and thrives. He uses the limits of mainstream framing against it. Like him or not, I don't, there is a genius in that.
edit: found this in the comments:
- Messages
- 40,417
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fact-checking-that-trump-putin-thing-8ed9fd850d40#.5qmp16wpy
Fact-Checking That “Trump & Putin” Thing
Josh Marshall asked me to substantiate my criticism on Twitter of his use of facts in his TalkingPointsMemo.com article “Trump & Putin. Yes, It’s Really A Thing”.
As background, Josh published the above mentioned post. Mark Cuban called him out for jumping to conclusions. Josh replied that he stuck narrowly to the facts. I disagreed w/ Josh and gave a few reasons why. Josh asked me for specifics.
What follows are seven statements from the TPM article which Josh has claimed are facts. He only got two out of seven correct.
“All the other discussions of Trump’s finances aside, his debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks.”
The increase in Trump’s debt load came from a Bloomberg estimate. An estimate is what’s done when accurate data isn’t available. So while Josh accurately quoted an estimate (not a fact), it’s also important to note that the Trump Organization disputed it according to Bloomberg. Josh failed to note that.
There’s no evidence that Trump has been blackballed. There is evidence that some big U.S. banks don’t want to work with him, but Deutsche Bank has lent him $300 million since 2012.
“Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin.”
As a luxury real estate developer, Trump sells to Russian and Chinese ultra-high net worth individuals because that’s who has been buying expensive real estate. In 2014, however, Russian investment money started drying up and Chinese investors filled the void.
One example of this is the Trump Soho development in Manhattan, one of Trump’s largest recent endeavors. The project was the hit with a series of lawsuits in response to some typically Trumpian efforts to defraud investors by making fraudulent claims about the financial health of the project. Emerging out of that litigation however was news about secret financing for the project from Russia and Kazakhstan.
Here’s a fact that Josh got right — Trump will take money from anyone including Russian criminals.
Then there’s Paul Manafort, Trump’s nominal ‘campaign chair’ who now functions as campaign manager and top advisor. Manafort spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close Putin ally. Manafort is running Trump’s campaign.
Paul Manafort‘s DC lobbying firm has taken so much money from so many despots, dictators, and human rights abusers ($900,000/yr from Ferdinand Marcos alone) that it’s been named as a top five firm in The Torturer’s Lobby(.pdf). He was paid $700,000 in an ISI operation (Pakistan’s Intelligence service) during the 90’s. And yes, Manafort was one of many political campaign advisors to deposed Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovychfrom 2004–2010, and made at least $63,750 during a six-month period.
Trump’s foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom…. Those ties also allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time.
Josh focused exclusively on Page’s relatively brief tenure advising Gazprom and completely excluded his connection with Ukraine’s billionaire philanthropist Victor Pinchuk. It was his friendship with Pinchuk that got him the Merrill Lynch appointment to Moscow in the first place. Why exclude it? Because unlike Gazprom, there’s no connection between Pinchuk and Putin that Josh could exploit.
Josh’s claim that “Those ties allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time” is a mystery to me because Page left Gazprom in 2007 and has made very little money from Russia ever since; especially after sanctions hit in 2014.
Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.
The article Josh used to source that “fact” only mentioned RT (Russia Today). This editorial in the Moscow Times hoped for a Clinton presidency:“The Moscow-Washington relationship promises to remain a rocky one and its management will require a steady hand, which a President Clinton is more likely to provide than a President Rubio, or, God forbid, a President Trump.”
And just a few days ago, the Kremlin criticized Trump’s statement on NATO and Russia via TASS.
As TPM’s Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there’s a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform…. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform.
Totally indifferent? Not according to the very same Tierney Sneed article that Josh used as a source. Sneed wrote “the Trump campaign had representatives at the platform meetings who were in communication with the delegates on the committee. They were very much aware of and involved in the process in the sense that they were talking to the delegates, Kobach said.”
But total indifference was what Josh needed in order to make the leap to his “One Big Exception” — Ukraine. Trump wanted to soften the wording on providing military assistance to Ukraine to providing “appropriate assistance”. Standing on its own, that’s actually a responsible change which is in agreement with a lot of other policy makers.
CONCLUSION
A fact is defined as a “true piece of information”. How many of Josh’s facts were true?
Fact-Checking That “Trump & Putin” Thing
Josh Marshall asked me to substantiate my criticism on Twitter of his use of facts in his TalkingPointsMemo.com article “Trump & Putin. Yes, It’s Really A Thing”.
As background, Josh published the above mentioned post. Mark Cuban called him out for jumping to conclusions. Josh replied that he stuck narrowly to the facts. I disagreed w/ Josh and gave a few reasons why. Josh asked me for specifics.
What follows are seven statements from the TPM article which Josh has claimed are facts. He only got two out of seven correct.
“All the other discussions of Trump’s finances aside, his debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks.”
The increase in Trump’s debt load came from a Bloomberg estimate. An estimate is what’s done when accurate data isn’t available. So while Josh accurately quoted an estimate (not a fact), it’s also important to note that the Trump Organization disputed it according to Bloomberg. Josh failed to note that.
There’s no evidence that Trump has been blackballed. There is evidence that some big U.S. banks don’t want to work with him, but Deutsche Bank has lent him $300 million since 2012.
“Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin.”
As a luxury real estate developer, Trump sells to Russian and Chinese ultra-high net worth individuals because that’s who has been buying expensive real estate. In 2014, however, Russian investment money started drying up and Chinese investors filled the void.
One example of this is the Trump Soho development in Manhattan, one of Trump’s largest recent endeavors. The project was the hit with a series of lawsuits in response to some typically Trumpian efforts to defraud investors by making fraudulent claims about the financial health of the project. Emerging out of that litigation however was news about secret financing for the project from Russia and Kazakhstan.
Here’s a fact that Josh got right — Trump will take money from anyone including Russian criminals.
Then there’s Paul Manafort, Trump’s nominal ‘campaign chair’ who now functions as campaign manager and top advisor. Manafort spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close Putin ally. Manafort is running Trump’s campaign.
Paul Manafort‘s DC lobbying firm has taken so much money from so many despots, dictators, and human rights abusers ($900,000/yr from Ferdinand Marcos alone) that it’s been named as a top five firm in The Torturer’s Lobby(.pdf). He was paid $700,000 in an ISI operation (Pakistan’s Intelligence service) during the 90’s. And yes, Manafort was one of many political campaign advisors to deposed Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovychfrom 2004–2010, and made at least $63,750 during a six-month period.
Trump’s foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom…. Those ties also allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time.
Josh focused exclusively on Page’s relatively brief tenure advising Gazprom and completely excluded his connection with Ukraine’s billionaire philanthropist Victor Pinchuk. It was his friendship with Pinchuk that got him the Merrill Lynch appointment to Moscow in the first place. Why exclude it? Because unlike Gazprom, there’s no connection between Pinchuk and Putin that Josh could exploit.
Josh’s claim that “Those ties allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time” is a mystery to me because Page left Gazprom in 2007 and has made very little money from Russia ever since; especially after sanctions hit in 2014.
Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.
The article Josh used to source that “fact” only mentioned RT (Russia Today). This editorial in the Moscow Times hoped for a Clinton presidency:“The Moscow-Washington relationship promises to remain a rocky one and its management will require a steady hand, which a President Clinton is more likely to provide than a President Rubio, or, God forbid, a President Trump.”
And just a few days ago, the Kremlin criticized Trump’s statement on NATO and Russia via TASS.
As TPM’s Tierney Sneed explained in this article, one of the most enduring dynamics of GOP conventions (there’s a comparable dynamic on the Dem side) is more mainstream nominees battling conservative activists over the party platform…. This is one thing that made the Trump convention very different. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the platform.
Totally indifferent? Not according to the very same Tierney Sneed article that Josh used as a source. Sneed wrote “the Trump campaign had representatives at the platform meetings who were in communication with the delegates on the committee. They were very much aware of and involved in the process in the sense that they were talking to the delegates, Kobach said.”
But total indifference was what Josh needed in order to make the leap to his “One Big Exception” — Ukraine. Trump wanted to soften the wording on providing military assistance to Ukraine to providing “appropriate assistance”. Standing on its own, that’s actually a responsible change which is in agreement with a lot of other policy makers.
CONCLUSION
A fact is defined as a “true piece of information”. How many of Josh’s facts were true?
- Trump’s debt load was a Bloomberg estimate, not a fact.
- Trump is highly reliant upon money from Russia. Open to interpretation, not a fact.
- Trump Soho took investment money from Russian criminals. Fact.
- Trump’s campaign manager used to work for Viktor Yanukovych when he was running for Prime Minister of Ukraine. Fact.
- Putin could put Carter Page, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, out of business at any time. Not only not a fact, but untrue and ridiculous on its face.
- Putin has aligned all state-controlled media behind Trump. False.
- The Trump Camp only cared about softening the platform on arming Ukraine. False.
Leitmotif
Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
- Messages
- 4,621
I love how the MSM keeps complaining about Trump being an agent of Russia, but nobody says anythig about Hillary being a well paid agent of the saudis, Kuwaitis, Qatar, UAE, and many others. Thanks for those last two
Grand Potentate
Grand Potentate
Scherensammler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,557
I love how the MSM keeps complaining about Trump being an agent of Russia, but nobody says anything about Hillary being a well paid agent of the saudis, Kuwaitis, Qatar, UAE, and many others. Thanks for those last two
What's kind of funny is the fact that there is a very similar smear campaign against Trump going on in Germany.
But it's not that surprising, most owners of the media empires involved are also members of the Bilderberg group, and Hillary has been often to those meetings.
Leitmotif
Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
- Messages
- 4,621
The current states of geopolitics is sad. The best two foreign ministers at the moment are sergey lavrov and maria zhakharova. The way they do its very impressive. If nato is taken down would definetely be a step forward in time.
- Messages
- 12,494
lol.
Leitmotif
Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
- Messages
- 4,621
Whats so funny
- Messages
- 12,494
You nutters.
Leitmotif
Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
- Messages
- 4,621
Oh lol
- Messages
- 12,494
- Messages
- 40,417
chogall
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 234
- Messages
- 40,417
I haven't had a chance to watch it yet. How is it?
- Messages
- 22,325
Scherensammler
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,557
Given that Bill Clinton signed a trade deal with China I'd think the Chinese own a big chunk as well.
- Messages
- 12,494
- Messages
- 40,417
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign
Documents released by Wikileaks detail how the DNC worked with the Clinton camp to downplay a key story about questionable fundraising
DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign
Documents released by Wikileaks detail how the DNC worked with the Clinton camp to downplay a key story about questionable fundraising
- Messages
- 12,494
I really miss the Monica Lewinsky brouhaha. That shit was so much fun.