Help
What do you call gaslighting on a grand scale? Orwell chose Newspeak but it is 31 years early for that. Perhaps Orwell was a prophet, and the current version of gaslighting precedes Newspeak and should be called Barrump. Although it is not funny: rim-shot: Barrump-ump-ump
Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#12841
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-28, 12:07
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12842
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2019-May-29, 08:16
Strategic communication?
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#12843
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2019-May-29, 08:23
From Trump Country sees majority of new enrollees under Va.’s Medicaid expansion by Ned Oliver at the Virginia Mercury:
Reality is not what it used to be.
Quote
A majority of the roughly 280,000 people who now have health care under Virginia’s expansion of Medicaid live in localities won by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on eliminating federal funding for expansion by repealing the Affordable Care Act.
In 60 cities and counties, more than five percent of the population has gained health coverage under the expanded program, which began enrolling new patients in November. Trump won a majority of the votes in all but 18 of those localities, according to enrollment figures provided by the state, population estimates and election results.
Statewide, 142,230 people living in cities and counties won by Trump have enrolled, compared to 137,259 people living in localities won by Hillary Clinton.
“There’s this image of Medicaid as a program that is primarily of benefit to the inner cities, but the reality in Virginia and many other places is that large numbers of people living in rural communities lack health care,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington. “Medicaid expansion is extraordinarily beneficial for people living in those counties that supported Trump.”
In 60 cities and counties, more than five percent of the population has gained health coverage under the expanded program, which began enrolling new patients in November. Trump won a majority of the votes in all but 18 of those localities, according to enrollment figures provided by the state, population estimates and election results.
Statewide, 142,230 people living in cities and counties won by Trump have enrolled, compared to 137,259 people living in localities won by Hillary Clinton.
“There’s this image of Medicaid as a program that is primarily of benefit to the inner cities, but the reality in Virginia and many other places is that large numbers of people living in rural communities lack health care,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington. “Medicaid expansion is extraordinarily beneficial for people living in those counties that supported Trump.”
Reality is not what it used to be.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#12844
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,415
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-29, 08:29
y66, on 2019-May-29, 08:23, said:
From Trump Country sees majority of new enrollees under Va.’s Medicaid expansion by Ned Oliver at the Virginia Mercury:
Reality is not what it used to be.
Reality is not what it used to be.
The ACA is an example of a common political paradox. People frequently answer polls and even vote based on ideology. But when it comes to actually living their lives, they do what's best. Since the Republican agenda is against socialized medicine, that's how they vote. But since they actually need health care, they don't want to give up Medicaid.
#12845
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-29, 08:48
The "greatest" economy, "maybe ever, who knows", is in serious danger in the next 18-24 months:
An addendum:
Quote
US Treasury Inversion Worsens as $12.6 Trillion Bonds Trade With Negative Yield
TheStreet.com
Martin Baccardax,TheStreet.com•May 29, 2019
Global bond markets extended their recent rally Wednesday, pulling benchmark U.S. Treasury yields to fresh multi-year lows, as investors continue to favor fixed income assets amid escalating trade tensions, slowing growth and tepid inflation. Bank of America Merrill Lynch figures suggest nearly $160 billion has flowed into fixed income assets this year, dwarfing the $135 billion that's moved out of global equity markets, pushing benchmark yields in the world's biggest economies to multi-year lows. In fact, the drive for safe-haven assets, which has been exaggerated by the ramp-up in trade war rhetoric and notable declines in manufacturing and services activity from Tokyo to Toronto, now has nearly $13 trillion in fixed income securities trading with a negative yield.
TheStreet.com
Martin Baccardax,TheStreet.com•May 29, 2019
Global bond markets extended their recent rally Wednesday, pulling benchmark U.S. Treasury yields to fresh multi-year lows, as investors continue to favor fixed income assets amid escalating trade tensions, slowing growth and tepid inflation. Bank of America Merrill Lynch figures suggest nearly $160 billion has flowed into fixed income assets this year, dwarfing the $135 billion that's moved out of global equity markets, pushing benchmark yields in the world's biggest economies to multi-year lows. In fact, the drive for safe-haven assets, which has been exaggerated by the ramp-up in trade war rhetoric and notable declines in manufacturing and services activity from Tokyo to Toronto, now has nearly $13 trillion in fixed income securities trading with a negative yield.
An addendum:
Quote
The sweeping tax law Republicans enacted in late 2017 is definitely not paying for itself and has not significantly boosted the economy or increased wages, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said in a report.
But in line with what critics cautioned, the measure triggered a wave of corporate stock buybacks that benefited investors more than anybody else, according to the new study.
But in line with what critics cautioned, the measure triggered a wave of corporate stock buybacks that benefited investors more than anybody else, according to the new study.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12846
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-29, 10:28
Bob Mueller just tossed the ball into Nancy Pelosi's court and said, "Your serve".
Quote
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III announced Wednesday he was closing his office and offered his first public comments on the results of his work, asserting that Justice Department legal guidance prevented him from accusing President Trump of a crime and noting cryptically that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12847
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-29, 13:16
Here is why it is imperative to read the Mueller report: David Frum reports:
Quote
But the words of the report are damning.
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12848
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-29, 15:26
Winstonm, on 2019-May-29, 13:16, said:
Quote
There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”
One reason there was insufficient evidence was that Dennison consistently obstructed justice as noted in the Mueller report. He dangled pardons to Cohen and Manafort and who knows who else, refused to answer some questions from Mueller (36 times he couldn't remember, truly remarkable from the guy who has "one of the great memories of all time"), and blanket refused to even respond to some other potential questions from Mueller. And Mueller was apparently narrowly constrained in his inquiries as there are many other areas he did not investigate (like looking at Dennison's tax returns, loans, and other business dealings).
#12849
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2019-May-29, 17:13
Guest post from Robert De Niro via NYT:
Quote
May 29, 2019
Dear Mr. Mueller,
It probably hasn’t escaped your attention (in my mind, nothing escapes your attention) that I play a version of you on “Saturday Night Live.” As “Robert Mueller,” my character is intimidating because he is so honest and upright. I do it for comic effect — that’s the intention anyway — but there’s also a lot of truth to it. To put it another way — it’s good-natured fun, but not entirely good-natured.
There’s a level of satire, directed at the current administration. To be fair, not everyone appreciates the humor. The president has tweeted that there’s “nothing funny about tired ‘Saturday Night Live’” and that it’s “very unfair and should be looked into,” even “tested in courts,” and “this is the real collusion!” Though what or with whom the show would be colluding is unclear. But then I don’t have to tell you about problems with the term “collusion.” You barely mention the word in your report, and then only to explain why you’re not using it. That could be a punch line on “Saturday Night Live.”
As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better. I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law. I watched how you presided over the special counsel’s office apparently without leaks. And you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.
While I and so many Americans have admired your quiet, confident, dignified response in ignoring that assault, it allowed the administration to use its own voice to control the narrative. And those voices are so loud and so persistent that they beat even reasonable people into submission. The loudest, most persistent voice belongs to the president himself, and under most circumstances, we want to believe our president.
There’s a lot of speculation about the president being tone-deaf to facts, but there’s not much disagreement about the tone. Whether you take delight in it as his loyal supporters do or you’re the unfortunate target of his angry rhetoric, the hostile way he expresses himself registers with everyone. Nor is there much credible disagreement that the president treats lies, exaggerations and bullying as everyday weapons in his communication toolbox. These onslaughts of rhetoric aimed at his opposition mostly leave his antagonists sputtering in response, but I don’t think an in-kind response will be very effective either.
Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him. He has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him. He’s bringing down the level of the entire playing field.
And here, Mr. Mueller, is where you come in — where you need to come in. In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work “speaks for itself.” It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King).
You’ve characterized the report as your testimony, but you wouldn’t accept that reason from anyone your office interviewed. Additional information and illumination emerge from responses to questions. I know you’re as uncomfortable in the spotlight as the president is out of it. I know you don’t want to become part of the political spectacle surrounding Russia’s crimes and your report on them. I know you will, however reluctantly, testify before Congress if called, because you respect the system and follow the rules, and I understand why you’d want to do it away from the public glare.
But the country needs to hear your voice. Your actual voice. And not just because you don’t want them to think that your actual voice sounds like Robert De Niro reading from cue cards, but because this is the report your country asked you to do, and now you must give it authority and clarity without, if I may use the term, obstruction.
We’ve learned our lesson about what can happen to the perception of your work when interpreted in rabid tweets by the president, dissected by pundits all over the map, trumpeted in bizarre terms by the president’s absurd personal lawyer and distorted by the attorney general.
And if, in fact, you have nothing further to say about the investigation, for your public testimony, you could just read from the report in response to questions from members of Congress. Your life has been a shining example of bravely and selflessly doing things for the good of our country. I urge you to leave your comfort zone and do that again.
You are the voice of the Mueller report. Let the country hear that voice.
With great respect,
Robert De Niro
Dear Mr. Mueller,
It probably hasn’t escaped your attention (in my mind, nothing escapes your attention) that I play a version of you on “Saturday Night Live.” As “Robert Mueller,” my character is intimidating because he is so honest and upright. I do it for comic effect — that’s the intention anyway — but there’s also a lot of truth to it. To put it another way — it’s good-natured fun, but not entirely good-natured.
There’s a level of satire, directed at the current administration. To be fair, not everyone appreciates the humor. The president has tweeted that there’s “nothing funny about tired ‘Saturday Night Live’” and that it’s “very unfair and should be looked into,” even “tested in courts,” and “this is the real collusion!” Though what or with whom the show would be colluding is unclear. But then I don’t have to tell you about problems with the term “collusion.” You barely mention the word in your report, and then only to explain why you’re not using it. That could be a punch line on “Saturday Night Live.”
As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better. I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law. I watched how you presided over the special counsel’s office apparently without leaks. And you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.
While I and so many Americans have admired your quiet, confident, dignified response in ignoring that assault, it allowed the administration to use its own voice to control the narrative. And those voices are so loud and so persistent that they beat even reasonable people into submission. The loudest, most persistent voice belongs to the president himself, and under most circumstances, we want to believe our president.
There’s a lot of speculation about the president being tone-deaf to facts, but there’s not much disagreement about the tone. Whether you take delight in it as his loyal supporters do or you’re the unfortunate target of his angry rhetoric, the hostile way he expresses himself registers with everyone. Nor is there much credible disagreement that the president treats lies, exaggerations and bullying as everyday weapons in his communication toolbox. These onslaughts of rhetoric aimed at his opposition mostly leave his antagonists sputtering in response, but I don’t think an in-kind response will be very effective either.
Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him. He has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him. He’s bringing down the level of the entire playing field.
And here, Mr. Mueller, is where you come in — where you need to come in. In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work “speaks for itself.” It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King).
You’ve characterized the report as your testimony, but you wouldn’t accept that reason from anyone your office interviewed. Additional information and illumination emerge from responses to questions. I know you’re as uncomfortable in the spotlight as the president is out of it. I know you don’t want to become part of the political spectacle surrounding Russia’s crimes and your report on them. I know you will, however reluctantly, testify before Congress if called, because you respect the system and follow the rules, and I understand why you’d want to do it away from the public glare.
But the country needs to hear your voice. Your actual voice. And not just because you don’t want them to think that your actual voice sounds like Robert De Niro reading from cue cards, but because this is the report your country asked you to do, and now you must give it authority and clarity without, if I may use the term, obstruction.
We’ve learned our lesson about what can happen to the perception of your work when interpreted in rabid tweets by the president, dissected by pundits all over the map, trumpeted in bizarre terms by the president’s absurd personal lawyer and distorted by the attorney general.
And if, in fact, you have nothing further to say about the investigation, for your public testimony, you could just read from the report in response to questions from members of Congress. Your life has been a shining example of bravely and selflessly doing things for the good of our country. I urge you to leave your comfort zone and do that again.
You are the voice of the Mueller report. Let the country hear that voice.
With great respect,
Robert De Niro
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#12850
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,511
- Joined: 2008-September-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Gainesville, GA USA
Posted 2019-May-29, 19:00
#12851
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-29, 23:13
#12852
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-29, 23:34
White House Wanted USS John McCain ‘Out Of Sight’ During Trump’s Japan Visit: Report
It is unconfirmed whether the Navy was requested to provide adult pampers with the presidential seal for Dennison during this trip.
Quote
The White House coordinated with U.S. Navy officials to move the USS John McCain, a warship named for the late senator, “out of sight” during President Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
It is unconfirmed whether the Navy was requested to provide adult pampers with the presidential seal for Dennison during this trip.
#12853
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-30, 12:05
For those who have not read it, this is a direct quote from the Mueller report:
The information about future Wikileaks releases was reported to the Trump campaign by Roger Stone.
All we have to do now is buy a vowel, just me and ___: COLL_SION.
Quote
According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on possible release of Clinton e-mails by Wikileaks.
The information about future Wikileaks releases was reported to the Trump campaign by Roger Stone.
All we have to do now is buy a vowel, just me and ___: COLL_SION.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12854
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-30, 12:49
Dr. Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel is quite good at deciphering complexities. Here she points out:
Perhaps this is the thing for which Nancy Pelosi is waiting.
Quote
In other words, it appears that prosecutors might still indict [Roger] Stone with new crimes pertaining to the core issues that were under investigation.
That’s one reason I find the timing of Mueller’s announcement so interesting. The Howell hearing yesterday was technically after Mueller’s statement finished. I don’t know when yesterday’s announcement will become official, but it would seem to be final before Friday’s Miller grand jury appearance.
That would mean any charges that former Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky (as well as DC AUSA Jonathan Kravis, who has picked up the bulk of the ongoing matters from Mueller’s team) might decide to pursue after Friday would be subject neither to the logic of the Mueller investigation — which decided not to charge Stone for some WikiLeaks-related crimes in part based on First Amendment considerations, nor to the direct supervision of Attorney General Barr.
As I’ve noted, the logic EDVA used in its superseding indictment of Assange is in direct conflict with the logic Mueller used in deciding that WikiLeaks’ and Trump’s “wish lists” for Hillary emails do not establish a basis for a conspiracy charge in the same way WikiLeaks’ wish list for classified materials was used. That might mean that decisions made after Miller’s testimony Friday would work out differently than decisions on Stone’s charges in January. Mueller’s off the case. It’s DC US Attorney Jesse Liu’s decision now.
All of which is to say, even assuming Friday’s testimony doesn’t lead to new charges, unless Trump finds a way to pre-empt Stone’s trial, it will mean some of the most damning information about Trump’s involvement in what Mueller didn’t charge as conspiracy but which by most definitions would count as “collusion” will get aired less than a year before the 2020 election.
Given how rock solid that Stone indictment is, there are just two ways to avoid that: for Stone to flip on Trump or others (though prosecutors are unlikely to give Stone a deal without vetting his claims after the way Paul Manafort abused the process, and it would be too late to flip on Assange). Or for Trump to pardon Stone.
That’s one reason I find the timing of Mueller’s announcement so interesting. The Howell hearing yesterday was technically after Mueller’s statement finished. I don’t know when yesterday’s announcement will become official, but it would seem to be final before Friday’s Miller grand jury appearance.
That would mean any charges that former Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky (as well as DC AUSA Jonathan Kravis, who has picked up the bulk of the ongoing matters from Mueller’s team) might decide to pursue after Friday would be subject neither to the logic of the Mueller investigation — which decided not to charge Stone for some WikiLeaks-related crimes in part based on First Amendment considerations, nor to the direct supervision of Attorney General Barr.
As I’ve noted, the logic EDVA used in its superseding indictment of Assange is in direct conflict with the logic Mueller used in deciding that WikiLeaks’ and Trump’s “wish lists” for Hillary emails do not establish a basis for a conspiracy charge in the same way WikiLeaks’ wish list for classified materials was used. That might mean that decisions made after Miller’s testimony Friday would work out differently than decisions on Stone’s charges in January. Mueller’s off the case. It’s DC US Attorney Jesse Liu’s decision now.
All of which is to say, even assuming Friday’s testimony doesn’t lead to new charges, unless Trump finds a way to pre-empt Stone’s trial, it will mean some of the most damning information about Trump’s involvement in what Mueller didn’t charge as conspiracy but which by most definitions would count as “collusion” will get aired less than a year before the 2020 election.
Given how rock solid that Stone indictment is, there are just two ways to avoid that: for Stone to flip on Trump or others (though prosecutors are unlikely to give Stone a deal without vetting his claims after the way Paul Manafort abused the process, and it would be too late to flip on Assange). Or for Trump to pardon Stone.
Perhaps this is the thing for which Nancy Pelosi is waiting.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12855
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,193
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2019-May-30, 13:03
I am shocked, shocked to find cheating going on in the present administration: https://www.bloomber...-administration
Quote
A U.S. immigrants-rights group says it has new evidence that the Trump administration concealed the source and motivation behind a proposed question about citizenship on next year’s census, a revelation that could affect a highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#12856
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-30, 15:50
Dennison lies surpass 10000 since election
How The Washington Post tallied more than 10,000 Trump falsehoods in less than three years
A milestone achievement for the Psychopath Liar in Chief. The Manchurian President continues to confound critics and exceed expectations.
How The Washington Post tallied more than 10,000 Trump falsehoods in less than three years
Quote
In early June [2018], Glenn Kessler had documented 3,251 falsehoods from President Donald Trump. He said the count might reach 10,000 by the end of his term in 2021.
Less than a year later, it already has.
On April 27, The Washington Post Fact Checker, which Kessler runs, updated its ongoing database of Trump falsehoods. The fact-checking project had counted 10,111 false or misleading claims in 828 days.
Less than a year later, it already has.
On April 27, The Washington Post Fact Checker, which Kessler runs, updated its ongoing database of Trump falsehoods. The fact-checking project had counted 10,111 false or misleading claims in 828 days.
A milestone achievement for the Psychopath Liar in Chief. The Manchurian President continues to confound critics and exceed expectations.
#12857
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-31, 00:46
North Korea Reportedly Executes Officials For Failed Trump-Kim Summit
Isn't Kim the guy that Dennison fell in love with?
Trump’s comments on falling in love with Kim Jong Un ‘shocking and appalling,’ says conservative writer
I think Dennison should make a private trip to Pyongyang and give Kim a piece of his stable genius mind over these atrocities, assuming the Manchurian President thinks that Kim actually did something wrong
Quote
North Korea has reportedly executed the country’s special envoy to the United States over February’s failed summit between Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump, South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported Friday.
Quote
Another official, Kim Yong Chol, who worked with Vice President Mike Pence in the lead-up to the Hanoi summit, has also been punished, reportedly with forced labor and “ideological education,” according to the South Korean paper.
Isn't Kim the guy that Dennison fell in love with?
Trump’s comments on falling in love with Kim Jong Un ‘shocking and appalling,’ says conservative writer
Quote
Trump praised Kim at a campaign rally on Saturday, saying that he and the North Korean leader "fell in love."
"I was really being tough and so was he," Trump said. "And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters."
"They were great letters. And then we fell in love," he continued.
"I was really being tough and so was he," Trump said. "And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters."
"They were great letters. And then we fell in love," he continued.
I think Dennison should make a private trip to Pyongyang and give Kim a piece of his stable genius mind over these atrocities, assuming the Manchurian President thinks that Kim actually did something wrong
#12858
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2019-May-31, 05:22
From Disney Goes to War With Republicans by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:
Quote
Is Walt Disney Co. really going to go to war against Republican America? Is the Republican Party really ready to take on Disney?
Both Disney and Netflix Inc. are threatening to stop filming in Georgia if the state’s new anti-abortion law goes into effect. It’s not clear how serious either company is, or what the Supreme Court may say on the matter. But it would certainly be a big deal if companies started pulling out of states that impose stricter abortion laws. We’ve seen corporations take similar stands on issues such as “bathroom bills,” and business pressure has been used to defeat some other conservative social positions in the past. But I don’t remember any mainstream companies making this kind of threat before.
Abortion is simply different as a policy matter. For one thing, it’s a central – perhaps the central – policy question for a lot of Republican party actors. And any issue that puts the business community on one side and Christian conservatives on another could very well break the party apart.
A major problem for Republicans in this fight, as usual, is the heavy influence of party-aligned media outlets. Politicians care about winning elections. So do governing professionals, party officials and campaign workers. They all have strong financial and career incentives to win. Even most party-aligned interest groups want to win so they can advance their priorities, enough so that they might be willing to make compromises to secure a majority.
It’s not the same for party-aligned media. They can do just as well – or even better – if the party doesn’t win. Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network, for example, is already calling on people to retaliate against Disney and Netflix. For a political party that needs to win majorities, taking on popular companies like that is risky. For a state government, it can be even riskier: Georgia has become a major hub for film production, for instance, and quite a few jobs could be at stake. But for a media figure with a relatively small audience it’s a no-brainer: Even if Dobbs makes 100 enemies for every one new viewer, he can still get a million people to notice him and his ideas, however extreme. He comes out way ahead.
To some extent, the same is true for all news media, of course. What’s especially dangerous for Republicans is that these media outlets are wielding growing influence within the party, even as their incentives diverge from winning elections.
More broadly, the truth is that we have no idea what post-Roe v. Wade abortion politics is going to look like. We’re only now starting to get hints. I certainly don’t know whether business boycotts – or reactions to business boycotts - will wind up being a significant factor. But, like it or not, it looks like we’re about to find out.
Both Disney and Netflix Inc. are threatening to stop filming in Georgia if the state’s new anti-abortion law goes into effect. It’s not clear how serious either company is, or what the Supreme Court may say on the matter. But it would certainly be a big deal if companies started pulling out of states that impose stricter abortion laws. We’ve seen corporations take similar stands on issues such as “bathroom bills,” and business pressure has been used to defeat some other conservative social positions in the past. But I don’t remember any mainstream companies making this kind of threat before.
Abortion is simply different as a policy matter. For one thing, it’s a central – perhaps the central – policy question for a lot of Republican party actors. And any issue that puts the business community on one side and Christian conservatives on another could very well break the party apart.
A major problem for Republicans in this fight, as usual, is the heavy influence of party-aligned media outlets. Politicians care about winning elections. So do governing professionals, party officials and campaign workers. They all have strong financial and career incentives to win. Even most party-aligned interest groups want to win so they can advance their priorities, enough so that they might be willing to make compromises to secure a majority.
It’s not the same for party-aligned media. They can do just as well – or even better – if the party doesn’t win. Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network, for example, is already calling on people to retaliate against Disney and Netflix. For a political party that needs to win majorities, taking on popular companies like that is risky. For a state government, it can be even riskier: Georgia has become a major hub for film production, for instance, and quite a few jobs could be at stake. But for a media figure with a relatively small audience it’s a no-brainer: Even if Dobbs makes 100 enemies for every one new viewer, he can still get a million people to notice him and his ideas, however extreme. He comes out way ahead.
To some extent, the same is true for all news media, of course. What’s especially dangerous for Republicans is that these media outlets are wielding growing influence within the party, even as their incentives diverge from winning elections.
More broadly, the truth is that we have no idea what post-Roe v. Wade abortion politics is going to look like. We’re only now starting to get hints. I certainly don’t know whether business boycotts – or reactions to business boycotts - will wind up being a significant factor. But, like it or not, it looks like we’re about to find out.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#12859
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2019-May-31, 07:20
From David Leonhardt at NYT:
Personally, I think the right approach for Dems is to do a serious post mortem on the approach they followed in 2016 + let voters, not party pols, pick the nominee + mount a massive campaign to get out the vote like the one grass roots Dems mounted in 2018.
Quote
It was the fall of 2007 — only a few months before the presidential primaries would begin — and Barack Obama’s campaign wasn’t looking good.
He was trailing Hillary Clinton by about 25 percentage points, polls showed. “There are some real questions about electability,” one pollster said of him. He was even losing to Clinton among African-American voters — “one more indication of just how steep a climb remains for his campaign to overtake Clinton,” Politico wrote.
“His senior aides said they were now spending much of their days fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters,” The Times reported. Those supporters were expressing “mounting alarm” about “his lack of assertiveness.”
Less than three months later, of course, Obama would beat Clinton in Iowa, transforming the race. I encourage you to keep this history in mind when watching the current presidential campaign.
It remains in its early stages — its very early stages, before any debates have begun. The current polls may bear little resemblance to the eventual results.
So if you’re frustrated or disappointed that one of your favored candidates — say, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker or Beto O’Rourke — isn’t doing better, take a deep breath. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign provides a good reminder. A few months ago, everyone seemed to be asking why she was struggling. In recent weeks, The Times, Vox, The Washington Post and New York magazine have all written about a Warren boomlet.
The right approach for Democratic voters at this stage is to figure out which candidates they want to win, not which ones are likely to win or seem most electable. Remember: At various points in their own primary campaigns, Obama, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were all dismissed as unelectable.
He was trailing Hillary Clinton by about 25 percentage points, polls showed. “There are some real questions about electability,” one pollster said of him. He was even losing to Clinton among African-American voters — “one more indication of just how steep a climb remains for his campaign to overtake Clinton,” Politico wrote.
“His senior aides said they were now spending much of their days fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters,” The Times reported. Those supporters were expressing “mounting alarm” about “his lack of assertiveness.”
Less than three months later, of course, Obama would beat Clinton in Iowa, transforming the race. I encourage you to keep this history in mind when watching the current presidential campaign.
It remains in its early stages — its very early stages, before any debates have begun. The current polls may bear little resemblance to the eventual results.
So if you’re frustrated or disappointed that one of your favored candidates — say, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker or Beto O’Rourke — isn’t doing better, take a deep breath. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign provides a good reminder. A few months ago, everyone seemed to be asking why she was struggling. In recent weeks, The Times, Vox, The Washington Post and New York magazine have all written about a Warren boomlet.
The right approach for Democratic voters at this stage is to figure out which candidates they want to win, not which ones are likely to win or seem most electable. Remember: At various points in their own primary campaigns, Obama, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were all dismissed as unelectable.
Personally, I think the right approach for Dems is to do a serious post mortem on the approach they followed in 2016 + let voters, not party pols, pick the nominee + mount a massive campaign to get out the vote like the one grass roots Dems mounted in 2018.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#12860
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,853
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-May-31, 13:47
Fox News Defends Laura Ingraham After She Promotes White Supremacist
I would say that Fox Propaganda Channel has sunk to new lows but they've been there before.....
Tree of Life synagogue was the site of a massacre where 11 people were killed and 7 injured by an anti-semite mass murderer. Maybe Ingraham wasn't defending Nehlen, just promoting, sympathizing, and standing arm in arm with the white supremacist and anti-semite Nehlen. Instead of obscene, I would characterize this as normal Fox Propaganda Channel behavior.
From Ingraham's point of view they aren't extremists, just people holding mainstream Fox Propaganda Channel views. She's probably not wrong about that.
I would say that Fox Propaganda Channel has sunk to new lows but they've been there before.....
Quote
Critics raged that Ingraham would feature Nehlen ― a known anti-Semite who was seen in a T-shirt that celebrated the shooter of the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh ― as a sympathetic character whose speech was under attack. But in a statement on Friday, Fox News homed in on CNN’s characterization of the segment, saying it was “obscene to suggest” that she was “defending” Nehlen.
Tree of Life synagogue was the site of a massacre where 11 people were killed and 7 injured by an anti-semite mass murderer. Maybe Ingraham wasn't defending Nehlen, just promoting, sympathizing, and standing arm in arm with the white supremacist and anti-semite Nehlen. Instead of obscene, I would characterize this as normal Fox Propaganda Channel behavior.
Quote
While Fox News’ defense of Ingraham claims that many of those names were lifted from an Associated Press report “on best known political extremists banned from Facebook,” Ingraham never characterized them as extremists. Instead, during her segment, she said they’d been “shunned” from social media and called for conservatives to “stand up to these censors.”
From Ingraham's point of view they aren't extremists, just people holding mainstream Fox Propaganda Channel views. She's probably not wrong about that.