REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 11:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 190860
PAGE 8 of 34

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 10:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
It applies to you. YOU'RE the one calling Trump a Hitler, and YOU'RE the one backing a candidate who compared Putin to Hitler. The person throwing around those "Hitler" comparisons is you and your candidate, dearie. You've just demonstrated another liberal-logic-fail. But I've discovered that if you scratch a liberal, what do you find under the skin? A dictator! -SIGNY

*snort* another Signym fail. Really, you need to read your posts. You just said, "Nuh-uh! You're Hitler!"
No, YOU need to re-read my post.

Did I say that liberals are "Hitler"? No.
I said "tyrant". There are plenty to choose from besides Hitler.

Quote:
One of Trump's recent tweets - using the "2 word slogan rule" mandated by the Trump campaign because their followers can only hold 2 words in their head at any time - links to a story at the NYPost. Funny enough, on the very same page are 2 stories about his wife Melania. I have blurred them for public consumption. The actual web page is much more explicit. The story titles are bad enough:

Melania Trump's girl-on-girl photos from racy shoot revealed
Melania Trump like you've never seen her before


I noticed something about the MSM and their coverage of the candidates. Something more insidious than their pandering to voyeurism and irrationality.

I'm going to wait and see if anyone has noticed the same thing, because it's darn peculiar.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:46 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You really believe that, don't you? Holy shit, SECOND, whatever happened to your reasonableness?

And that picture that you posted???

It applies to you. YOU'RE the one calling Trump a Hitler, and YOU'RE the one backing a candidate who compared Putin to Hitler. The person throwing around those "Hitler" comparisons is you and your candidate, dearie.

You've just demonstrated another liberal-logic-fail.

But I've discovered that if you scratch a liberal, what do you find under the skin? A dictator!
Do you really believe that is true or are you just saying it for entertaining an Internet audience? SignyM (and Trump) see doom everywhere, while I see Trump is jackass. I can't say what SignyM really sees doom without knowing what SignyM really believes, not just what SignyM writes for an Internet audience. Obviously Trump is also playing to an audience, but in his case there is no indication that in private and in person he is any different than he is on twitter or TV.

We're now so overexposed to the worst parts of society that it's hard to believe the World is getting better. Cameras, the internet, and most importantly, social media are everywhere showing the worst. This is what’s new....In the attention economy, people are rewarded for extremism. They are rewarded for indulging their worst biases and stoking other people’s worst fears. They are rewarded for portraying the world as a place that is burning to the ground, whether it’s because of gay marriage, or police violence, or Islamic terrorism, or low interest rates. The internet has generated a platform where apocalyptic beliefs are celebrated and spread, and moderation and reason is something that becomes too arduous and boring to stand.

And this constant awareness of every fault and flaw of our humanity, combined with an inundation of doomsayers and narcissistic nihilists commanding our attention space, is what is causing this constant feeling of a chaotic and insecure world that doesn’t actually exist.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/if-world-getting-better-why-do-
we-all-feel-so-much-worse

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Does SignyM really think Trump should be President? Easier question: Does SignyM really think the USA will be better eight years from now with Trump as President than Hillary as President, knowing that Trump is committed to wiping out everything good Obama has done, such as Obamacare and raising taxes on the wealthy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:53 PM

THGRRI


Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"I'll let those who wish to waste their time fact check what else you posted. Me, I know you post subjectively (to confuse an issue so people believe an untruth) so I won't waste my time further."

Yes, I did just that, wasted my time I mean, but to prove a point.

Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.
Source: BING search; Wikipedia on NAFTA.

The point you make about our little comrades is spot on; they often conflate information to confound and confuse and present it as fact......i.e.

Hillary's decades long "lying" record:

"And she has a decades-long history of lying about her positions on free-trade agreements. And she has a decades-long history of lying about Libya, and Ukraine, and Syria ... and Russia.

The very structure of that sentence is factually wrong. For one, the NAFTA agreement was championed by her husband, Bill Clinton as POTUS. Backed by both sides of the aisle as shown above. Hillary had nothing to do with it, but you knew that (and so do they). She may have supported it, that's about as far as one could take it. And (b), Libya, Ukraine, Syria and Russia all happened within the last 5 years. I know it's a technicality, but you know how our "friends" profusely expound upon their presentation of the "facts"; so I'm splitting hairs here.

Then they complete their confusing contributions by claiming that certain
media outlets provide few facts, thereby nullifying any contributions others may make in presenting their arguments. An old T-Bag tactic. The MSM argument is just such a misleading POV. All media, including our good friends at Fox, are mainstream (they are owned and operated by giant media moguls who put forth their own biases and prejudices).

That, of course, is different than having a candidate standing at a podium and lying through their teeth. That is a fact that cannot be denied, no matter who the politico is. If one wishes to claim Hillary is a liar and cannot be trusted, that's hyperbole and opinion, not fact and cannot be enter as such unless one has incontrovertible proof. I'm talking smoking gun proof. Otherwise it's assumption, inference......not fact. Funny, the FBI investigated, but did not arrest or recommend prosecution. Odd, because
there are those that suggest that "crooked" Hillary is so powerful that she can "influence" the FBI.

We all know that life exists on other planets, but...............


SGG


Yes excellent work. We have been showing 1KIKI and SIG as doing this for a very long time. I hope others here have seen enough evidence of their behavior that going into detail each time they post is not necessary.

To call Hillary a liar and not Trump who lies about everything is laughable to serious people. Because they are Russian trolls I have no illusions they will change their ways. However more people calling them on there lies and their spreading of Putin's propaganda would be nice.

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:58 PM

THGRRI


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

This election is over. This proves his stupidity and how dangerous it would be to elect this moron to anything. If the Republican party doesn't split from Trump they are doomed as well.
Don't being going there because Trump still has a pretty good chance of becoming President. I think it is significant that Trump's chance of winning is the same chance as losing at a game of Russian Roulette with two bullets in the revolver -- 33.3%. If I were Putin, I would try to put another Trump brand bullet or two in the six-shooter in hopes that the USA would pull the trigger.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Wait for it. I now believe his ceiling is 43%

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 1:04 PM

THGRRI


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It applies to you. YOU'RE the one calling Trump a Hitler, and YOU'RE the one backing a candidate who compared Putin to Hitler. The person throwing around those "Hitler" comparisons is you and your candidate, dearie. You've just demonstrated another liberal-logic-fail. But I've discovered that if you scratch a liberal, what do you find under the skin? A dictator! -SIGNY

*snort* another Signym fail. Really, you need to read your posts. You just said, "Nuh-uh! You're Hitler!"
No, YOU need to re-read my post.

Did I say that liberals are "Hitler"? No.
I said "tyrant". There are plenty to choose from besides Hitler.

Quote:
One of Trump's recent tweets - using the "2 word slogan rule" mandated by the Trump campaign because their followers can only hold 2 words in their head at any time - links to a story at the NYPost. Funny enough, on the very same page are 2 stories about his wife Melania. I have blurred them for public consumption. The actual web page is much more explicit. The story titles are bad enough:

Melania Trump's girl-on-girl photos from racy shoot revealed
Melania Trump like you've never seen her before


I noticed something about the MSM and their coverage of the candidates. Something more insidious than their pandering to voyeurism and irrationality.

I'm going to wait and see if anyone has noticed the same thing, because it's darn peculiar.



In other words you are making shit up. Nothing unusual here.

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 1:45 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

In other words you are making shit up. Nothing unusual here.
Alternative explanation is "making entertainment", as Colbert did at Trump's expense yesterday:



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 3:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


It's funny to me how you try and blame NAFTA on Hillary because her husband passed it.

I didn't say that, idiot.

And CONGRESS passed it. Bill SIGNED IT INTO LAW AS PRESIDENT. And Hillary was cheerleading it all the way - until it became politically inconvenient in 2000 and then she started lying about what role Bill and his administration had in it. AS PER THE PBS TIMELINE I POSTED.

What's the matter? You can't read English? You don't know how the US government works? Then you need to go back to Estonia, where you belong.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 6:15 PM

THGRRI


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's funny to me how you try and blame NAFTA on Hillary because her husband passed it.

I didn't say that, idiot.

And CONGRESS passed it. Bill SIGNED IT INTO LAW AS PRESIDENT. And Hillary was cheerleading it all the way - until it became politically inconvenient in 2000 and then she started lying about what role Bill and his administration had in it. AS PER THE PBS TIMELINE I POSTED.

What's the matter? You can't read English? You don't know how the US government works? Then you need to go back to Estonia, where you belong.


You remind me of Trump. He too tries to walk back what he says. He is on par with you for how often he has to do so.

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 7:25 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


THUGGR
It's funny to me how you try and blame NAFTA on Hillary because her husband passed it.

1kiki
And CONGRESS passed it. Bill SIGNED IT INTO LAW AS PRESIDENT. And Hillary was cheerleading it all the way - until it became politically inconvenient in 2000 and then she started lying about what role Bill and his administration had in it. AS PER THE PBS TIMELINE I POSTED.

THUGGR
You remind me of Trump. He too tries to walk back what he says.

There's nothing that I need to walk back. This is what I posted.

1993: NAFTA Dec 8 1993 Signed into law by President Bill Clinton
Takes effect Jan. 1, 1994.

2007: NAFTA outright lie, Bill Clinton could have vetoed it
"NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration." (Feb. 1, 2007: Time interview.)

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 8:14 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


In case you’re wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton’s advisers harbor similar contempt for the American public, let the following Facebook post from Robert Reich dispel any confusion:

An acquaintance from my days in the Clinton administration, who has been advising Hillary, phoned this morning.

ACQUAINTANCE: “Don’t you think your blog post from last night was a bit harsh?”

ME: “Not at all. The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot by not officially opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership.”

ACQ: “But you know why. The Party can’t take a stand opposite the President’s. He’s the leader of the Party, for chrissake. And he wants the TPP.”

ME: “Yeah, because he sees the TPP as a way to limit China’s economic influence. So he made a Faustian bargain with big global corporations who want more protection for their foreign investments. But he’s wrong. The TPP won’t crimp China. Global corporations will give China whatever it wants to gain access to the Chinese market. The TPP ….”

ACQ: “Look, it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The President wants the TPP, and the Party isn’t going to oppose him.”

ME: “You mean Hillary won’t oppose him.”

ACQ: “Hillary won’t, and Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] won’t, and neither will Nancy [Pelosi] or Harry [Reid] or Dick [Durbin] or Chuck [Schumer].

Back in 2014, we received confirmation of what politicians and their “very smart” advisers think of the American public. Namely, that we’re a bunch of stupid slobs who need to be tricked into agreeing to elitists legislation that always ends up working against us. I’m specifically referring to comments from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber exposed in the post, Video of the Day – Obamacare Architect Credits “Lack of Transparency” and “Stupidity of the American People” for Passage of Healthcare Law. Here’s some of what we learned:

An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” helped Congress approve ObamaCare. He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn’t know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.

In case you’re wondering whether or not Hillary Clinton’s advisers harbor similar contempt for the American public, let the following Facebook post from Robert Reich dispel any confusion:

An acquaintance from my days in the Clinton administration, who has been advising Hillary, phoned this morning.

ACQUAINTANCE: “Don’t you think your blog post from last night was a bit harsh?”

ME: “Not at all. The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot by not officially opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership.”

ACQ: “But you know why. The Party can’t take a stand opposite the President’s. He’s the leader of the Party, for chrissake. And he wants the TPP.”

ME: “Yeah, because he sees the TPP as a way to limit China’s economic influence. So he made a Faustian bargain with big global corporations who want more protection for their foreign investments. But he’s wrong. The TPP won’t crimp China. Global corporations will give China whatever it wants to gain access to the Chinese market. The TPP ….”

ACQ: “Look, it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The President wants the TPP, and the Party isn’t going to oppose him.”

ME: “You mean Hillary won’t oppose him.”

ACQ: “Hillary won’t, and Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] won’t, and neither will Nancy [Pelosi] or Harry [Reid] or Dick [Durbin] or Chuck [Schumer].

ME: “But it’s terrible policy. And it’s awful politics. It gives Trump a battering ram. Obama won’t be president in six months. Why risk it?”

Now here’s how extraordinarily dismissive and contemptuous of the American public Hillary Clinton’s people really are.

ACQ: “They don’t see much of a risk. Most Americans don’t know or care about the TPP.”

ME: “But they know big corporations are running economic policy. They think the whole

ACQ: “He can’t. She’s inoculated. She’s come out against the TPP.”

ME: “But it’s her delegates who voted not to oppose it in the Democratic platform. Her fingerprints are all over this thing.”

ME: “Actually, the real cynic is you.”

Just in case you remain confused, let’s not forget what we learned in the following posts:

Where Does Hillary Stand on the TPP? 45 Public Statements http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/06/16/where-does-hillary-stand-on-th
e-tpp-45-public-statements-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know/ Tell You Everything You Need to Know

Obama Administration Delays Release of Hillary Clinton TPP Emails Until After the Election

Hillary Clinton is and always has been in favor of the TPP, despite what she’s saying to get elected. If you don’t get that, you’re as dumb as her advisors think you are.



So is the rest of the Democratic Party, by the way. As the New York Times reported:

Amid boos from the sidelines, allies of Hillary Clinton and President Obama on Saturday beat back an effort by the Bernie Sanders campaign to have the Democratic Party officially oppose a congressional vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
At a sometimes-raucous meeting in Orlando, Fla., of the party’s platform committee, which is drawing up policy goals for the Democratic National Convention this month, lieutenants of Mr. Sanders argued that the trade deal would lead to a loss of jobs and competitive wages and that it would ultimately harm American workers and labor unions.
But given Mrs. Clinton’s need to unite the party, and Mr. Sanders’s desire to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, Mr. Sanders may ultimately choose not to mount a distracting and divisive war on the convention floor over trade.

What’s the big deal. Just another agreement to further annihilate the U.S. middle class. “Unity” is more important.



Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://newsinn.org/display/article/3183296/leaked-explosive-ttip-docum
ents-expose-corporate-takeover-dismantled-climate-protection

LEAKED: Explosive TTIP documents expose corporate takeover, dismantled climate protection

03-May-2016

Analysis of the leaked documents show that the investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause central to TTIP is a high priority for Washington.

Following in-depth analysis of the leaked documents, Greenpeace International and other anti-TTIP groups highlighted a number of key criticisms. The leaked negotiating texts indicate that TTIP, in its current form, will likely see progressive EU policies that were put in place to protect the planet scrapped.


Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/28/corporate-democrats-have-
always-hated-left-now-theyre-shocked-learn-we-hate-them


Corporate Democrats Have Always Hated the Left — Now They're Shocked to Learn That We Hate Them Back

Thursday, July 28, 2016
Jake Johnson

Since the 1970's, the American left has been on the defensive.

Facing both an increasingly ambitious business offensive against the core tenets of the New Deal and a Democratic Party establishment that was slowly beginning its rightward shift, progressive activists were pushed out of the mainstream, where they had remained a solid force during the Roosevelt era and through the 1960's.

These consequential shifts were, in large part, due to the changing composition of the Democratic Party's donor base — a base that moved away from union halls and into the lucrative embrace of corporate America.

To justify their rightward lurch, ambitious Democrats urged us to consider the dangers posed by, to use the words of Adolph Reed, "the relentless Republican juggernaut." Simultaneously, the party also became increasingly hostile toward those on their left, those who remained opposed to the corporate interests Democrats were attempting to attract.

"The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left," said Senator Evan Bayh in 2003, in a comment that captures quite well the posture of the Democrats of the 1980's and 1990's.

Looking to chart a new course — a "third way" — for liberals who were apathetic or even hostile toward organized labor and friendly toward organized wealth, the Democratic Leadership Council emerged as a powerful voice within the party's establishment, touting the benefits of "private-sector economic growth" and attempting to counter the perception that Democrats are the party of unions and "big government."

Coming to fruition with the election of the Bill Clinton, DLC liberals have since held tremendous sway over the party's ideological trajectory — President Barack Obama, putting to rest any lingering hope that he is a leftist at heart, has touted his own position within the ranks of the New Democrats.

"As it stands," writes historian Lily Geismer, "the Democratic Party is much more than a repository of liberal values. It's a party that consistently favors its upper-middle-class base in both presidential campaign platforms and its governing agenda."

But in 2016, in the face of unprecedented income inequality and rising anger against an impotent political establishment, a revolt has taken place, a revolt that has challenged the centrist bent of the party and forcefully argued that radical change is necessary to confront the deepest issues facing the United States and, indeed, the entire planet.

As Jedediah Purdy notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic, the 2016 presidential race has, in many crucial ways, been a referendum on "the Obama style" of politics, a major aspect of that style being his commitment to technocratic liberalism and market-based economics.

"For his efforts, Sanders has largely been repudiated by both the Democratic leadership and ostensibly liberal pundits, who went from carelessly dismissing Sanders's candidacy as a side-show to condemning his progressive movement from every possible angle."

Purdy observes that, far from "lifting all boats," Democrats' commitment to growth-oriented capitalism has in many ways contributed to the already existing status quo, in which "a vast share of new growth in recent decades has gone to a tiny upper echelon of high-earners and to the already wealthy."

The campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, though vastly different in almost every way, have channeled the opposition to this new normal.

While Trump has used hysterical bigotry to exploit very real material anxieties, Sanders has offered an ambitious way forward, focusing largely on the growing gulf between the wealthiest and everyone else, and its horrendous consequences. To shrink this gulf, Sanders has put forward proposals previously favored (at least in word) by Democratic Party loyalists, from single-payer health care to the seemingly uncontroversial goal of getting corporate money out of politics.

For his efforts, Sanders has largely been repudiated by both the Democratic leadership and ostensibly liberal pundits, who went from carelessly dismissing Sanders's candidacy as a side-show to condemning his progressive movement from every possible angle.

Yet even after months of ridiculing Sanders and his supporters, Democratic politicians and pundits seem rather startled by the relatively mild resistance they are confronting not just outside the walls of the well-guarded Wells Fargo Center, the site of their corporate-funded convention, but also from inside the lavishly decorated arena, on the convention floor.

Even Bernie Sanders, one commentator marvels, cannot convince his supporters "roll over and play nice with the presumptive nominee."

The underlying assumption here is, of course, precisely the problem: Complacent Democrats have come to expect the left to "roll over and play nice" with any candidate they put forward, no matter how awful, given the alternatives. And in a system that operates in such a way as to virtually guarantee two-party dominance, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, the alternative is usually horrifying.

For years, this strategy worked. Democrats pointed to the Republicans, a party explicitly dedicated to the needs of the wealthiest, and that was sufficient to garner votes, no matter how reluctant.

Of late, though, as Thomas Ferguson has noted, voters have come to realize that Democrats, while they continue to pay fealty to progressive causes, have in many cases done as much harm to the vulnerable as the other side.

Now, Ferguson observes, "Increasing numbers of average Americans can no longer stomach voting for parties that only pretend to represent their interests." Polling data offers some support for Ferguson's assertion: One survey suggests that almost half of Sanders's millennial supporters "are thinking about backing a third-party candidate."

The 2016 revolt is in part a reaction against the system that Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page describe in their remarkable 2014 study, in which they conclude that "In the United States...the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."

And that's the point: The people "generally lose," and they're tired of it. They see what's happening to them, to their kids, and to their communities, and they are no longer satisfied with the explanations of those who insist that everything is just fine.

Progressive activists have long been waiting for a candidate who represents their interests, a candidate who is willing to use the presidential primary process as a vehicle to drive key issues to the fore. They found that candidate in Bernie Sanders.

But by supporting Sanders in large numbers, progressives also brought to the fore a powerful faction within the political establishment — and within the media establishment — that is downright scornful of the mass politics Sanders's campaign has provoked.

So disconnected are they from the needs of the people, Democrats continue to peddle an ahistorical approach to change that eschews popular revolt in favor of what Matt Karp calls "fortress liberalism."

"Mass politics just does not compute with the professional-class worldview that suffuses today’s Democratic Party," Karp writes. "For liberal elites, effective political struggle is something that happens inside committee rooms, not at strikes, rallies, or protests. (The Clinton campaign itself embodies this vision of the world, where politics means deal-making and democracy means voting — nothing less and nothing more.)"

"Instead of making a good faith attempt to examine the material conditions from which this outrage against establishment politics emerged, prominent analysts have been content to gaze from their perches at the unserious rubes who don't understand the intricacies of political change."

This contempt for democratic action has emerged in full-force as Sanders delegates refuse to pay complete deference to the norms of party politics on the floor of the usually euphoric and commercialized convention.

But instead of making a good faith attempt to examine the material conditions from which this outrage against establishment politics emerged, prominent analysts have been content to gaze from their perches at the unserious rubes who don't understand the intricacies of political change.

Their comfortable position in the cultural hierarchy prevents them from seeing that, in fact, those they make a career of ridiculing understand political change better than anyone else.

People understand that they have been sold down the river by a party increasingly committed to the highest bidder — a party more interested in organizing seating arrangements at big money fundraisers than in organizing the working class and fighting for economic justice.

They see that the party now expecting them to fall in line makes nice with war criminals and bankers, with CEOs and notorious despots.

They see that Democrats favor loyalty to the president over principled opposition to corporate "trade" pacts that threaten workers and the environment.

They see that, far from putting forward an agenda that matches the severity of the issues we face, Democrats are using fear — fear of Trump in particular — as their primary strategy.

They see that, as Hamilton Nolan puts it, "All is not well."

"The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, of the progressives, of the left," Nolan adds, "and yet the Democratic Party is roughly equivalent to a major corporation, operating with all of the ruthlessness and profit-driven mindstate that that implies."

Recognition of this fact has driven the left for decades, and the movements that have spawned in large part from opposition to insulated Democratic Party politics have made crucial progress.

Bernie Sanders did much to bring the left back into the mainstream, and electoral losses will not change this fact, as long as the conditions, the anxieties, and the crises facing American families remain unaddressed by the nation's dominant political parties.

Nor will the vitriol spewed by prominent journalistic outfits and Democratic Party loyalists be enough to dissipate the resurgent left. But it is enough to clarify an important point, one that Fredrik deBoer, among others, has made repeatedly: Elite liberals harbor a striking level of disdain for the left.

"As the recent WikiLeaks revelations have made clear, Democrats have colluded to ensure that Sanders's progressive movement doesn't overtake Clintonian neoliberalism."

This year, thanks to those protesting both on the convention floor and in the streets, we have a voice (however limited) with which to say to the corporate liberals within the ranks of the Democratic Party: The disdain is mutual.

So the liberal commentariat and Democratic politicians are faced with a choice.

"You guys can keep complaining about booing from Manhattan and the Bay," deBoer writes, "or you can actually address this country's massive problems."

Given recent history, and given the extent to which the Democratic Party has been fattened by corporate money, I think we can safely predict which path they will choose.

As the recent WikiLeaks revelations have made clear, Democrats have colluded to ensure that Sanders's progressive movement doesn't overtake Clintonian neoliberalism.

But this concerted effort to destroy Sanders has never been about Sanders, himself; it has always been about his ideas. So, in discussing the organized opposition to the Sanders agenda, concludes Matt Karp, "there is no need to speak of conspiracy; for liberal and Democratic elites, ideology is usually more than sufficient."



Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:53 PM

MAL4PREZ


I came back to this fossil of a site to review the Bourne movie, which I did.

While I'm here - let's have fun.

1. First, pause to remember Riverlove's post just after the 2008 RNC, when she said that Sarah Palin was the CHAMPION and the end of the Democratic party. Savor that. Chew it like it's maple smoked bacon. Mmmmm.

2. I'm too lazy to find the link to this one, but challenge me and I will prove you wrong. I clearly recall asking the con-tards of this site, after the elections of 2008, something like: "In 2012 (or 2016), when Obama hasn't come for all your guns, and hasn't made Sharia law the law of land, and when the universe has not demolished itself but the US is really doing A-OK despite how bad it looks now [OMG do you people remember how bad it was in November 2008?]. When the economy is far better than it was after 8 years of Bush, will you acknowledge that you were wrong?"

Hmm?

3. New challenge: after HRC wins, make your predictions of how she will destroy America. This time I will bookmark your words to make make it easier to bring them back to you in 2020 and 2024. What disasters should we expect? Go on, put yourself on record.

4. Thugr. I like that you call out the Rollian trolls. But I don't forget. Please continue to worship that asshole who was a dick to me before he deleted all his posts and ran away like a little bitch. I like having proof of what kind of behavior you hold as heroic. Remind me.

5. Sig. Lolololololoooooolooooooo. OMG. Keep doing what you do. And please bring Rappy back. I miss him.




*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 10:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Barack, Hillary, Libya - and Khizr Khan

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/03/what-khizr-khan-said-wasnt
-about-trump-and-you-probably-wont-hear


What Khizr Khan Said That Wasn't About Trump and You Probably Won't Hear

Wednesday, August 03, 2016
Andrea Germanos, staff writer
47 Comments

...
As the United States this week expands its bombing campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS) to Libya, Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who gave a powerful anti-Donald Trump speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), has criticized U.S. wars in Muslim nations as leaving us in a "quagmire," "more vulnerable," and creating "chaos for ourselves." But Khan's take on the war on terror is unlikely to be amplified by corporate media, as one political writer points out.

...
Since the convention, Khan "has become something of a media celebrity," writes Ben Norton, politics staff writer at Salon.

...
(But) On Monday, the same day the U.S. started its new campaign in Libya—a move one antiwar group said will only further "entrench divisions and intensify violence" in the region—the Khans gave an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball."

Asked by host Chris Matthews, "What do you think when you, or feel, when you see us attack Iraq or go into Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden, or we go attack with bombs Libya? We're bombing Syria now—all Islamic countries. What do you feel as an Islamic man?"

Khizr Khan replied, "As a Muslim-American, not just as Islamic man—as a Muslim American, I feel that these policies are not in the interest of United States of America, and we see the result of it. We are more vulnerable now. We have created a chaos and—for ourselves."

"Well, you know you're speaking to the choir," Matthews responded. (In fact, "Matthews’ record isn't entirely consistent" on being against either the war in Iraq or on avoiding a military approach to confronting ISIS, Norton notes.)

"I wish this country would have listened to Chris Matthews when he was talking, when he was preaching," Khan said, "we could have saved ourselves from this quagmire."

This section of the interview, Norton points out, "is not included in the isolated clips for the episode on MSNBC’s website. One has to watch the full episode to see it."

The situation may remind some of how the corporate media chose to portray Malala Yousafzai, the Nobel laureate and children's education advocate who was attacked by the Taliban. She met with President Barack Obama at the White House and told him that "drone attacks are fueling terrorism." Yet, as Peter Hart wrote at FAIR in 2013, that "didn't register in a corporate media that followed Malala's visit, and her story, very closely." Hart continued:

This is in keeping with other media patterns we've seen. Earlier this year, Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni writer and activist, came to Washington to deliver moving testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the effect of drone strikes on his country: “What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America.” His words received scant coverage in the US media (FAIR Blog, 4/24/13).

If Americans wish to understand how US wars are experienced by those on the other side of the military attacks, it is important to hear these voices. But will US media allow these voices to be heard?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 12:53 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"When the economy is far better than it was after 8 years of Bush, will you acknowledge that you were wrong?"

Far better for who?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:17 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

. . .
You're posting too many keystrokes, 1kiki. Putin will cut back the rate you are paid per thousand keystrokes if you keep this up. It is the law of diminishing returns, 1kiki. Possibly even negative returns because when you post too often, your post aren't read.

Donald Trump Repeatedly Asked National Security Expert ‘Why Can’t We Use Nuclear Weapons?’
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/trump-asked-advisor-why-c
ant-we-use-nuclear-weapons.html

During a conversation with former CIA director Michael Hayden, Scarborough said a “foreign policy expert on the international level” advised Trump several months ago and the Republican nominee for president asked questions about nuclear weapons that might terrify you.

“Three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’,” Scarborough said that Trump had inquired. “Three times in an hour briefing, ‘Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?’”



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:17 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Fortunately I don't have to vote for Donald to not vote for Hillary. So all your blah blah about him just rolls on by.

BTW I never watch videos. They're for people who can't read and don't think.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 8:00 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

BTW I never watch videos. They're for people who can't read and don't think.
So, you didn't watch the Firefly TV episodes? Because Joss Whedon's series of Firefly novels were far superior and conveyed a more nuanced story about the heroic individual versus oppressive big government? Then you missed something that only video can show -- the fine interpretation of the written source material by the actors.

www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12351320/donald-trump-ivanka-eric-roger-ailes-sex
ual-harassment

Donald Trump said that if his daughter were ever sexually harassed at work, he hoped she would just switch jobs, or even careers. Anybody NOT see what is wrong with Trump?
www.gocomics.com/drewsheneman/2016/08/03

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Fortunately I don't have to vote for Donald to not vote for Hillary. So all your blah blah about him just rolls on by.

1kiki thinks a vote for Anybody-But-Hillary is a vote for freedom! Except for the fact, built into the electoral college system by the Constitution, that not voting for Hillary will never elect Jill Stein or some Libertarian. It is either Trump or Hillary. Not voting for Hillary or just not voting for anybody will not give you a third choice. Nothing will change that other than death or withdrawal from the race by Hillary or Trump.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 11:07 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Yesterday's announcement: the Trump Taj Mahal casino will close next month. Sad!

When Donald Trump opened the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City in 1990, the superlatives flowed like cheap champagne.

It was world’s biggest casino. It had the most slot machines and gambling tables. It had twice as many parking spaces than any other in Atlantic City.

The Taj Mahal’s run as the greatest didn’t last long. A little more than a year after it opened, the casino was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the first of many setbacks for the property.

Under his tenure, the three Atlantic City casinos he developed—the Taj is the last one operating under the Trump name—suffered from underinvestment and poor management, as he loaded the casinos with debt and milked them for cash.

“Early on, I took a lot of money out of the casinos with the financings and the things we do,” he told The New York Times earlier this year. “Atlantic City was a very good cash cow for me for a long time.”

Trump shed his last financial stake in the company in February, when it emerged from bankruptcy. He had owned 10% of the Taj Mahal since 2009, in exchange for the use of his name.
http://qz.com/750070/trump-taj-mahal-will-close-next-month-sad


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 3:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Originally posted by second:
So, you didn't watch the Firefly TV episodes?

Are you saying your videos have the same thought, complexity and imagination of Firefly? That your simplistic propaganda compares with a complete story? That your videos and Firefly are the same kind of thing because they were recorded on the same media? Because by that metric, a four frame Nancy comic is just like Crime and Punishment, because they're both on paper.

You're even dumber than I thought.

Originally posted by second:
1kiki thinks a vote for Anybody-But-Hillary is a vote for freedom! Except for the fact, built into the electoral college system by the Constitution, that not voting for Hillary will never elect Jill Stein or some Libertarian. It is either Trump or Hillary. Not voting for Hillary or just not voting for anybody will not give you a third choice. Nothing will change that other than death or withdrawal from the race by Hillary or Trump.

The freedom to vote your conscience: it's called democracy, cupcake. Get over it.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:17 PM

THGRRI



Quote; SECOND
You're posting too many keystrokes, 1kiki. Putin will cut back the rate you are paid per thousand keystrokes if you keep this up. It is the law of diminishing returns, 1kiki. Possibly even negative returns because when you post too often, your post aren't read.


Exactly SECOND. After you realize what SIG and 1kiki are about, stopping to read cut and pasted throngs of information that is edited so it fits into their agenda, is not going to happen. Because they are so off the mark it is simpler to take their points and expose them as the moronic statements that they are.

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:24 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Are you saying your videos have the same thought, complexity and imagination of Firefly? That your simplistic propaganda compares with a complete story?
1kiki, yammer on about this "simplistic" story. Trump is in the center. I'd show you the video of Trump and his henchmen, but you're so superior you'd call it propaganda, even though it is just Trump being a jackass and the crowd cheering him:

The simple truth of American politics—and of democratic life at large—is that our institutions are only as strong as the norms around them.

Trump crossed one of the brightest lines in American politics, the one that deals directly with our tradition of peaceful transfer of power.

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he said to a crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He followed up on this in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I’m telling you, November 8th, we’d better be careful because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, said that Trump should start talking “constantly” about the chance of voter fraud and a rigged election. “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud.’ ” Stone continued in this vein. “ ‘If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’ ”

From here, Stone’s language gets ominous. “If you can’t have an honest election, nothing else counts,” he said. “The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it,” Stone said, promising a “bloodbath” of “civil disobedience.”

Trump is a major party leader in an age of rigid partisanship. Not only has this bound reluctant lawmakers to his campaign, but it’s given him a definite floor for votes in the general election. If he loses, it won’t be a landslide. It might even be close. Which makes this language dangerous.

A Donald Trump who accuses the Democratic campaign of fraud—who says Hillary stole the election from him—is one who has allies and enablers within his party. It’s one who has an audience with millions of voters, primed to believe in an epidemic of fraud and stolen elections, where “fraud” often means black and Latino voting.

What happens if Trump loses the election, and he claims fraud? What happens when hundreds of thousands of his most loyal followers—fed on a diet of anger and rage—convince themselves that the race was stolen from their tribune? For the sake of his own ego, Trump is stoking fear and distrust just so he can lose the election without losing face.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/trump_s_rigg
ed_comments_are_corrosive_and_dangerous.html

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

The freedom to vote your conscience: it's called democracy, cupcake. Get over it.
You're rhapsodizing, again, about freedom. There are limits to how successful you can be, but failure can be infinite in a democracy. Example: The Confederate States of America and all those millions of patriotic slavery benefiting citizens, who were really serious about voting their conscience and making themselves into failures in life, commerce, morality and war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 7:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Trump crossed one of the brightest lines in American politics, the one that deals directly with our tradition of peaceful transfer of power."

Have the guns come out yet? If not, this belongs in the predictions thread and it's not the fact you state it as being. BTW election fraud is a well-known phenomenon is US politics especially in the Bush/ Gore election. And I certainly hope the pollsters and statisticians are on high alert for this election cycle.

"You're rhapsodizing, again, about freedom."

Yep. But freedom only exists in fact, as opposed to in theory, when it gets exercised. And in the real world it means choosing your course of action and accepting the consequences of that choice.

You otoh don't like people to be free. Whatever. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.


Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 8:42 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Have the guns come out yet? If not, this belongs in the predictions thread and it's not the fact you state it as being.

Yep. But freedom only exists in fact, as opposed to in theory, when it gets exercised. And in the real world it means choosing your course of action and accepting the consequences of that choice.
Has South Korea, USA friend, built an A Bomb and test fired it yet? Then no need for 1kiki to worry that soon-to-be-President Trump encourages them to build the Bomb to match N Korea's arsenal. You're a really far-sighted thinker there, 1kiki. President Trump ought to be encouraging S. Korea to exercise its freedom to have A-Bombs and President Trump should be accepting the consequences of S. Korea's democratic choice. That terrible-evil Hillary would be discouraging S. Korea from building the essential weapon it needs to protect itself from N. Korea.

When you’re in the nuclear business and talking about nuclear weapons, your statements are policy. Already Trump’s words may well be informing the calculus of other countries that could just as easily arm themselves, but have held off because of the United States’ commitment to deterrence.

Trump said during a CNN-moderated town hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, “At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea. We’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself.” Yes, Trump, N and S Korea with nukes. What could go wrong? Far better for both sides of Korea to be armed with nukes under President Trump than President Obama’s policy of both Koreas without nukes.

If Trump continues to signal that US commitment to nuclear deterrence could wane during his administration, what you’re looking at is not only a great destabilizing of a robust and sturdy security architecture. You’re looking at potentially one of the widest expansions of nuclear proliferation in history.
www.wired.com/2016/08/dear-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-bad/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 8:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Has South Korea, USA friend, built an A Bomb and test fired it yet? Then no need for 1kiki to worry that soon-to-be-President Trump encourages them to build the Bomb to match N Korea's arsenal."

Because Trump is dictator of S Korea? Or the US?

Really?

Whatever.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 9:30 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Has South Korea, USA friend, built an A Bomb and test fired it yet? Then no need for 1kiki to worry that soon-to-be-President Trump encourages them to build the Bomb to match N Korea's arsenal."

Because Trump is dictator of S Korea? Or the US?

Really?

Whatever.
I knew you were going to be a brat about A-Bombs. 100 days from now Trump has been elected President, hypothetically. South Korea's existence depends on the President protecting them with his very real power to nuke North Korea without asking permission from Congress. With 33% chance of Trump being President and whimsically deciding NOT to protect S Korea, do you really think S Korea is not making plans to build A-bombs?

Trump is just a B-List celebrity, at the moment, but that will soon change. He is now telling S Korea to build an A-Bomb after Trump wins. Trump is NOW telling his supporters to spill some blood if Trump loses in the next 100 days because Obama stole the election for Hillary. But in your mind, 1kiki, there is no problem because Trump has not yet lost or won the election.

Your flippant "Really?" and your indifferent "Whatever" mean you don't care about anything except exercising your freedom to be immature. Are you expressing your bratty personality with your choice of music, clothes, phone, home decor and Anybody-but-Hillary, since you're old enough to vote?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


S Korea - oh, and Japan and Australia - are part of 'nuclear umbrella' pact accepted by both parties. http://nwp.ilpi.org/?p=1221 That aside, S Korea is ALREADY considering (again) nuclear weapons, umbrella notwithstanding. http://www.ibtimes.com/south-korea-mulling-developing-nuclear-weapons-
despite-us-assurance-extending-its-2349007 NOTE: April 2016 (way before an imaginary Trump presidency was on the horizon). This appears to be due to Saint Obama's lackadaisical response to small N Korean actions, and that is making both S Korea and Japan nervous. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/18/raindrops-keep-falling-on-my-nucle
ar-umbrella-us-japan-south-north-korea/

Do you really think Trump is the ONLY factor in this equation? That recent N Korean activity AND Chinese activity, AND the US' long-term posture under Saint Obama aren't already moving both S Korea and Japan? That those countries don't move under their own accord for their own interests, that they only act under orders from Washington?

And that Congress, and the Supreme Court wouldn't play a role internally?

You actually give Trump way more credit than he deserves.



Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 6:28 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The first thing that came to mind when Trump made the pronouncement of voter fraud should he lose, was that which you correctly stated; he was preparing his followers (the poor schmucks) for the inevitable loss or possible withdrawal from the race. He's looking to save face, nothing more.

It's not about Trump being president so much as being D.I.C., Dictator in Charge. There it is.

Now, voter fraud has existed since the Europeans came to conquer this country. But in this day and age, with the advancements of technology, that has become both harder and easier to occur. The poor huddled masses why, of course, they have access to these technologies that will wreak havoc on the
democratic system of our government. Of course, they'll do anything to prop up their candidate of choice (some choice!) short of murder.

This land is "their" land, and no one is going to take it away from them. This is the mentality we are dealing with. This is Trump's way out of being labeled a "loser" - that ship has sailed Mister Looney-Bin! And then you have his cronies declaring a "bloodbath", a not-so-shocking declaration if I ever heard one. This has been brewing for quite some time, and now I see the end game.

Psychopaths welcome!


SGG


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Are you saying your videos have the same thought, complexity and imagination of Firefly? That your simplistic propaganda compares with a complete story?
1kiki, yammer on about this "simplistic" story. Trump is in the center. I'd show you the video of Trump and his henchmen, but you're so superior you'd call it propaganda, even though it is just Trump being a jackass and the crowd cheering him:

The simple truth of American politics—and of democratic life at large—is that our institutions are only as strong as the norms around them.

Trump crossed one of the brightest lines in American politics, the one that deals directly with our tradition of peaceful transfer of power.

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” he said to a crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He followed up on this in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I’m telling you, November 8th, we’d better be careful because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, said that Trump should start talking “constantly” about the chance of voter fraud and a rigged election. “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud.’ ” Stone continued in this vein. “ ‘If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’ ”

From here, Stone’s language gets ominous. “If you can’t have an honest election, nothing else counts,” he said. “The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it,” Stone said, promising a “bloodbath” of “civil disobedience.”

Trump is a major party leader in an age of rigid partisanship. Not only has this bound reluctant lawmakers to his campaign, but it’s given him a definite floor for votes in the general election. If he loses, it won’t be a landslide. It might even be close. Which makes this language dangerous.

A Donald Trump who accuses the Democratic campaign of fraud—who says Hillary stole the election from him—is one who has allies and enablers within his party. It’s one who has an audience with millions of voters, primed to believe in an epidemic of fraud and stolen elections, where “fraud” often means black and Latino voting.

What happens if Trump loses the election, and he claims fraud? What happens when hundreds of thousands of his most loyal followers—fed on a diet of anger and rage—convince themselves that the race was stolen from their tribune? For the sake of his own ego, Trump is stoking fear and distrust just so he can lose the election without losing face.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/trump_s_rigg
ed_comments_are_corrosive_and_dangerous.html

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

The freedom to vote your conscience: it's called democracy, cupcake. Get over it.
You're rhapsodizing, again, about freedom. There are limits to how successful you can be, but failure can be infinite in a democracy. Example: The Confederate States of America and all those millions of patriotic slavery benefiting citizens, who were really serious about voting their conscience and making themselves into failures in life, commerce, morality and war.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 8:15 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Do you really think Trump is the ONLY factor in this equation?
I will take another cut at this in an attempt to shake your smug certainty that you understand the subject, the kind of certainty I've seen from callow youths:

Donald Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Trigger

A former nuclear missile officer—and adviser to Republicans—on why the prospect terrifies him.

By Isaac Chotiner Aug. 3 2016 6:02 PM
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/08/a_forme
r_nuclear_missile_officer_on_why_trump_is_unfit_to_handle_the_nuclear.html

Wednesday morning on his television show, Joe Scarborough claimed he had spoken to a foreign policy expert who had been advising Donald Trump. During the course of that conversation, Scarborough said the expert told him Trump had asked three times why the president couldn’t use nuclear weapons. In response to the uproar that followed Scarborough’s comments, John Noonan, a former nuclear missile officer (and former adviser to Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush), published an extraordinary, and frightening, string of tweets on what it would mean for the future of American nuclear policy (and the world) if there were a “narcissist walking around with nuclear authenticators.”

Noonan wrote about his Air Force experience Wednesday morning, noting that at the time, he knew that he would only be ordered to launch in the most dire of circumstances. His concern about Trump is driven, in part, by the knowledge that a President Trump could order someone to launch for God-knows-what-reason. We spoke by phone on Wednesday afternoon. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed the psychological tests he had to undergo, Trump’s own mental state, and why the subject of nuclear weapons can never be taken lightly.

Q: How do they check your sanity and make sure you know the gravity of your job?

A: They will give you a battery of questions and ask if you have had any prior psychological issues. They will check medical records, if they are available. As part of the top-secret clearance process, they go back and ask people who you have been associated with if you are as you present yourself. And when I did it, you do a session with your squadron commander where he goes through all the responsibilities that you will have and whether you are willing to meet those responsibilities.

Q: One job we do not have a psychological test for is president of the United States. Have you heard people in Republican foreign policy circles speculate on Trump’s mental health?

A: I think anyone who listens to what Donald Trump has to say on foreign policy should be concerned. This is not the first time that he has talked about nuclear weapons in a reckless manner. Remember, he was interested in maybe having Japan or South Korea leave the U.S. nuclear umbrella and develop nuclear weapons of their own. That is contrary to decades’ worth of nuclear weapons policy and is, frankly, a terrible and dangerous idea.

Q: Whether or not it is dumb, it does suggest that nuclear weapons is a subject he just spouts off on. He doesn’t take them seriously.

A: Right. I don’t know if he understands the gravity of nuclear weapons enough to take it seriously. He didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, which is something I think most high-schoolers are at least somewhat aware of. It’s a red flag. It’s a big red flag. So, do you take him at his word, if this is what he said—and it was an anonymous source to Joe Scarborough, so there is a grain of salt necessary here. But if the quote is accurate, nuclear weapons are so scary and so grave that you have to be suspicious of the fact that he is asking questions.

Continues at www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/08/a_forme
r_nuclear_missile_officer_on_why_trump_is_unfit_to_handle_the_nuclear.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 9:57 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


“What Kind Of Monster Will Not Pay A Children’s Band?”
Donald Trump mocked for cheating trio of young girls.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 12:57 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Second, thanks for posting.

I heard a part of this story on MSNBC but I wasn't sure of the particulars.
Yes, it is disconcerting to think of the Donald having the "Biscuit" in his pocket.

I picture him looking to press the "button" behind a imagined slight by another world leader and Trump going ballistic. We would be eating "glowing" hamburgers for the next 30 years (I'm guessing).


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 1:03 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Stephen Colbert, a patriot through and through!


SGG


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
“What Kind Of Monster Will Not Pay A Children’s Band?”
Donald Trump mocked for cheating trio of young girls.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 1:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So now you're saying it's NOT about S Korea wanting it's own nuclear weapons (which, let me point out again, happened under Saint Obama). (BTW, Biden used the Japanese potential to get nuclear weapons 'virtually overnight' as a pressure tactic on China to rein in N Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomac
y/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/#.V6TKyHZXais, also under Saint Obama.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes
As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;[10] however, the two-man rule still applies. The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[7] The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.h
tml

Washington keeps details of the nuclear chain of command and its workings secret. The spokesman for the National Security Council, Ned Price, refused to say whether any other member of the chain of command could stop a presidential order to use nuclear weapons.

In real life, the lines of authority have blurred — markedly so during the Nixon administration, when there were at least two instances in which top officials tried to slow, or undermine, the president’s nuclear authority.

The first came in October 1969, when the president ordered Melvin R. Laird, his secretary of defense, to put American nuclear forces on high alert to scare Moscow into thinking the United States might use nuclear arms against the North Vietnamese.

Scott D. Sagan, a nuclear expert at Stanford University and the author of “The Limits of Safety,” a study of nuclear accidents, said Mr. Laird tried to ignore the order by giving excuses about exercises and readiness, hoping that the president who sometimes embraced the “madman theory” — let the world think that you are willing to use a weapon — would forget about his order.

But Nixon persisted. Dr. Sagan reports that during the operation, code-named Giant Lance, one of the B-52 bombers carrying thermonuclear arms came dangerously close to having an accident.

Then, in 1974, in the last days of the Watergate scandal, Mr. Nixon was drinking heavily and his aides saw what they feared was a growing emotional instability. His new secretary of defense, James R. Schlesinger, himself a hawkish Cold Warrior, instructed the military to divert any emergency orders — especially one involving nuclear weapons — to him or the secretary of state, Henry A. Kissinger.

It was a completely extralegal order, perhaps mutinous. But no one questioned it.

Experts agree that the real nightmare of nuclear command centers not on launching attacks, but responding to them. In a recent memoir, William J. Perry, secretary of defense to President Bill Clinton, called it “the immense peril we face when in mere minutes our leaders must make decisions affecting the whole planet.”

Yet in a March interview on MSNBC, Mr. Trump asked. “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” He added, “I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

Mrs. Clinton has herself taken hawkish positions in the past. During her bid for the presidential nomination in 2007, she refused to exclude the possible use of nuclear arms against terrorists.

“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace,” she said, “and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.”

But just a year earlier — before running against Mr. Obama — she seemed to have a different view. Asked about how the Bush administration should try to confront the Iranian nuclear program, she said: “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 1:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Do some reading, folks, before you get stampeded like mindless cattle, OK?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 2:05 PM

THGRRI


1kiki you are beyond stupid if you do not understand the difference of what Trump states and Hilary. Below is the quote of Hilary's you posted. The second is about Trump.

“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace,” she said, “and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse.”

In a March interview, Mr. Trump asked, “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” (Notice this is a question.)

Then on Wednesday, Joe Scarborough, an MSNBC host, said an unidentified foreign policy adviser had told him that, in a briefing, Mr. Trump had asked three times, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 2:13 PM

THGRRI



GOP foreign policy elites flock to Clinton

Two weeks before he hopes to consolidate his party at the Republican convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump is driving Republican foreign policy elites into the arms of Hillary Clinton, as several more Reagan and Bush administration veterans say they not only oppose Trump but will likely vote for Clinton this fall.

Two former senior officials from the George W. Bush administration tell POLITICO that they will cast a ballot for Clinton over Trump. They are Stephen Krasner, a Stanford University professor who served as the State Department's director of policy planning from 2005 to 2007, and David Gordon, a senior advisor at the Eurasia Group who was Krasner’s successor in that post, which provides strategic thinking.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/national-security-clinton-trump-
225137



____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 2:17 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


To bring the discussion back to reality, as I mentioned earlier, the only things worth discussing are THINGS THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Hillary's position on global warming? It doesn't matter. Nothing about that is going to get through Congress - assuming she even bothers to spend any effort at all proposing it. In fact, with a few rare exceptions, THE ENTIRE DNC DRAFT PLATFORM IS A FANTASY. And Hillary and the DNC know it.

What are those exceptions? Trade agreements. Putting nuclear systems right at Russia's borders (ongoing under Saint Obama). NATO aggression and it acting outside of international mandates (like Hillary's Libya fiasco, which she still thinks is a great success, btw.)

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 2:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/08/
a_former_nuclear_missile_officer_on_why_trump_is_unfit_to_handle_the_nuclear.html
... and it was an anonymous source to Joe Scarborough, so there is a grain of salt necessary here.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scary-implications-of-trumps-nuclear
-flippancy/article/2003672
It's an unattributed quote that the Trump campaign denies, so a grain of salt is necessary.


Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 5:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Originally posted by G:
Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.


Are you simply enamored when an 'authority' speaks? Or does your source have a history that can be examined?

https://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/29/rise-of-another-cia-yes-man/

Rise of Another CIA Yes Man
August 29, 2011

By Ray McGovern

As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to take the helm at CIA in September, he can expect unswerving loyalty from his likely deputy, Michael Morell, who has been acting director since July when Leon Panetta left to become Secretary of Defense.

Like many senior CIA officials in recent years, Morell’s record is checkered, at best. He held key jobs in intelligence analysis over the past decade as the CIA often served as a handmaiden to the war propagandists.

As for Michael Morell, as with many other successful CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House. If past is precedent, his loyalty will be to Petraeus, not necessarily to the truth.

Forgive me if my thinking about loyalty to the facts seems “obsolete” or “quaint” or if it seems unfair to expect CIA analysts to put their careers on the line when politicians and ideologues are misleading the nation to war but those were the principles that analysts of my generation tried to uphold.

The recent tendency at CIA to give politicians what they want to hear rather than the hard truth is not healthy for the Republic that we were all sworn to serve.

And, if Petraeus’s own past is precedent, loyalty to the four-star general will not always be synonymous with loyalty to the truth.

Burnishing an Image

However, you will get no indication of this troubling reality from the flattering, but thin, feature about Michael Morell, “Mr. Insider Will Guide Petraeus at the CIA,” by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 26.

Gorman is normally a solid reporter; but either she did not perform due diligence and let herself be snookered, or her editors stepped in to ensure her story was consonant with the image Petraeus and the Establishment wish to create for Morell.

Before her “rare” interview with Morell, Gorman should have taken a close look at former CIA Director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm, to learn what Tenet says about Morell’s record during the last decade’s dark days of misleading and dishonest intelligence.

In Tenet’s personal account of the CIA’s failures around 9/11 and the Iraq War, Morell Tenet’s former executive assistant is generally treated kindly, but Tenet puts Morell at the center of two key fiascoes: he “coordinated the CIA review” of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations, and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush.

Putting Access Before Honesty

So, Morell was there as Bush blew off early CIA warnings about the possibility of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden being “determined to strike in the US” and while Bush and his neoconservative inner circle were concocting intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

Tenet credits Morell with suggesting to analysts that they prepare a report on the terrorist threat, which became the President’s Daily Brief that was handed to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Bush brushed aside the warning with a reported comment to the CIA briefer, “all right, you’ve covered your ass,” and went off fishing.

Though Tenet said Morell got along well with Bush, it appears the President didn’t pay much heed to any CIA information coming from Morell, at least not anything that went against what Bush wanted to hear, nor did Morell seem to risk offending the President by pushing these contrary points.

After the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, Tenet wrote that he needed to follow it up, and did so with a trip to Crawford 11 days later, when Tenet remembers Bush driving him around in a pickup truck as Tenet made “small talk about the flora and fauna.”

Morell also was the CIA briefer with Bush in Florida on the morning of 9/11 when news arrived about the attacks on New York City’s Twin Towers. Later, Bush told Morell “that if we [the CIA] learned anything definitive about the attack, he wanted to be the first to know,” Tenet wrote, adding:

“Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush had hit it off almost immediately. In a crisis like this, Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief’s side.”

However, it appears Morell was not willing to risk his rapport with Bush by challenging the President’s desire to pivot from retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan to a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on false and misleading intelligence.

Tenet also described Morell’s role in organizing the review of the “intelligence” that went into Powell’s speech, which let slip the dogs of war by presenting a thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat, what Powell later called a “blot” on his record.

Though the CIA embraced many of Powell’s misleading assertions, Tenet recounted one exchange in which Morell stood up to John Hannah, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, regarding Iraq’s alleged efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.

“Hannah asked Mike Morell, who was coordinating the review of the speech for CIA, why the Niger uranium story wasn’t in the latest draft,” Tenet wrote. “‘Because we don’t believe it,’ Mike told him. ‘I thought you did,’ Hannah said. After much wrangling and precious time lost in explaining our doubts, Hannah understood why we believed it was inappropriate for Colin to use the Niger material in his speech.”

Despite that one pushback, the CIA analysts mostly bent to pressures coming from the White House for an alarmist treatment of allegations about the “weapons of mass destruction,” which turned out not to be in Iraq.

Of the CIA’s finished intelligence product, it was reportedly the PDB delivered by Morell that most exaggerated the danger.

Not Mistaken, Dishonest

It is sad to have to recall that this was not “erroneous,” but rather fraudulent intelligence. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

Rockefeller’s comments call to mind what Tenet told his British counterpart, Sir Richard Dearlove, on July 20, 2002, after former Prime Minister Tony Blair sent Dearlove to the CIA to get the latest scoop on how the U.S. planned to “justify” the attack on Iraq.

According to the official British minutes of a cabinet-level planning session chaired by Blair on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, Tenet made clear to Dearlove that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” to bring “regime change” to Iraq.

Could it be that Tenet would let the British in on this dirty little secret and keep George W. Bush’s personal briefer, Michael Morell, in the dark? Seems unlikely.

But even if Morell were not fully informed about the high-level scheme for war, would he have been with his prized relationship with the President the most appropriate senior official to “coordinate the CIA review” of Powell’s speech?

The ‘Sinister Nexus’

In the Wall Street Journal feature, reporter Gorman was assured of something else about Morell’s role in preparing the intelligence on Iraq. According to Gorman, “His [Morell’s] team didn’t handle the analysis that erroneously concluded the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction.” I guess that depends on your definition of “team.”

But what about alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the second bogus issue used to “justify” attacking Iraq? There Morell seemed to be on better ground, telling Gorman that his “team” had concluded that there had been earlier contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda, but there were no links to al-Qaeda operations at the time.

Still, Morell didn’t seem to have pressed this point very hard while coordinating the CIA’s review of Powell’s UN speech. If Morell had, one has to wonder why Powell was fed, and swallowed, the line about a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network?”

ABC’s Brian Ross shot down that canard just hours after Powell spoke. Citing a BBC report from London, Ross noted that British intelligence had concluded there was no evidence to support the theory that al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together.

Virtually all intelligence analysts with no axes to grind, after sifting through thousands of reports, had long since come to that same conclusion.

Did Secretary Powell have to learn about the Iraq/al-Qaeda disconnect from the BBC? Later, Powell was livid at having been led down the garden path by the likes of Tenet, Tenet’s pandering deputy John McLaughlin, and Morell, a Tenet protégée.

Tenet and McLaughlin were also co-liars-in-chief regarding those mobile biological weapons factories, a yarn spun by the infamous source called “Curveball.” In his memoir, Tenet doesn’t describe Morell’s role in promoting, or at least acquiescing in depicting, the charlatan “Curveball” as a reliable intelligence source for a key portion of Powell’s speech.

And, if you think it’s unfair to expect CIA bureaucrats to risk their careers by challenging the political desires of the White House, it’s worth noting the one major exception to the CIA’s sorry record during George W. Bush’s presidency and how honest CIA analysts helped prevent another unnecessary war.

After former chief of State Department intelligence Tom Fingar was put in charge of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), a thoroughly professional NIE in late 2007 concluded unanimously and “with high confidence” that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in mid-2003.

President Bush’s own memoir leaves no doubt that this Estimate played a huge role in spiking White House plans for war on Iran. It’s a pity that the Estimate on Iran should be an exception to the rule.

Much to Be Humble About

Yet, in the Wall Street Journal feature, Michael Morell lectures Gorman on the basics and the limits of intelligence analysis. “We end up having bits of information that have a multitude of possible explanations,” said Morell. “You’ve got to be really humble about the business we’re in.”

Well, yes indeed. The WSJ also ran a sidebar with a list of the following CIA failures and Morell’s facile potions for cures:

–2001, Sept. 11 attacks: A failure of both intelligence collection and analysis. Lesson: A need to better penetrate U.S. adversaries.

–2003, Iraq weapons of mass destruction: Analysts erroneously concluded Iraq had WMDs. Lesson: Analysts must describe confidence levels in conclusions, consider alternate explanations.

–2009, Bombing of CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan: Doubts about the asset-turned-suicide-bomber didn’t get to the right people. Lesson: Share information with the people who most need it.

Is this Morell fellow on the ball, or what?

Let’s address these one by one:

–9/11 need not have happened if Tenet and his protégées simply shared the information needed by the FBI and others. See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?” Or, Tenet and Morell might have risked their cozy relationship with Bush by challenging his casual dismissal of the existing multiple warnings.

–The WMD not in Iraq? How about promoting and rewarding honest analysts; no “fixing” allowed. Face down White House pressure. We used to do it all the time. We used to have career protection for doing it.

–On the tragedy at Khost? Well, how about some basic training in tradecraft, including rudimentary security precautions.

And speaking of rudimentary security precautions: Morell bragged to Gorman that he had recently flown to Kabul to brief Petraeus, carrying a blue briefing book emblazoned with the CIA seal and detailing the CIA’s every critical program, organization and operation. “It was the most highly classified guide that I’ve ever seen in my life” was Petraeus’s wow-response.

The appropriate reaction, in my professional view, would have been to fire Morell on the spot for recklessness. He should know better. They down aircraft, blow up motorcades and shoot people in Afghanistan, you know. Is it really such a great idea to carry a briefing book with the CIA’s most sensitive secrets into that environment?

Moreover, bragging about this cavalier approach to protecting sensitive documents sends shivers down the backs of foreign intelligence officers, adding to their reluctance to share delicate information with us.

Loosening Leashes on Dogs of War

There is ironic serendipity in the fact that the WSJ feature on Morell appeared on Aug. 26, exactly nine years after the fraudulent speech given by Vice President Dick Cheney before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, and just four days before the nation’s bookstores host In My Time, Cheney’s apologia pro vita sua. (The advance promotion includes his personal warning that the book will have “heads exploding” all over Washington.)

There are huge lessons in what happened and what did not happen immediately after Cheney’s Aug. 26, 2002, thinly disguised call for an attack on Iraq, and how those who recognized the lies could not summon enough courage to try to stop the juggernaut toward war.

The Fawning Corporate Media and the cowering careerists at CIA were among the main culprits. But there were others who, if they have a conscience and are honest with themselves, may still be finding it difficult to look in the mirror nine years later.

In his August 2002 speech, Cheney launched the virulent propaganda campaign for an aggressive war against Iraq, telling the audience in Nashville:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

This was no innocent mistake by the Vice President; it was a bald-faced lie, a falsehood that opened the gates to a hellish conflict that has ripped apart Iraq, bringing untold death and destruction.

Nine years later it is well worth recalling this lie on behalf of the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, the many more wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the five million displaced from their homes.

Let it be widely understood that on Aug. 26, 2002, Dick Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war.

Hear No Evil, Speak No Truth

Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear Cheney’s depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew.

Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings. “There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD. … I heard a case being made to go to war,” Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years later. (in original)

Zinni is normally a straight shooter with a good bit of courage. And so, the question lingers: why did he not go public when he first heard Cheney’s lie?

What seems operative here, I fear, is an all-too-familiar conundrum at senior levels where people have been conditioned not to rock the boat, not to risk their standing within the Washington Establishment.

Almost always, the results are bad. I would bet a tidy sum that Zinni regrets having let his reaction be shaped, as it apparently was, by a misguided kind of professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to classification restrictions. After all, he was one of the very few credible senior officials who might have prevented a war of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II branded the “supreme international crime.”

Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney’s words. Then-CIA Director George Tenet said Cheney’s speech took him completely by surprise.

In his memoir, Tenet wrote, “I had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.” But like Br’er Fox, Tenet didn’t say nothing.

Tenet claims he didn’t even check it all out with either Cheney or Bush after Cheney’s speech. Yet, could Cheney’s twisting of the data not have been anticipated? Indeed, weren’t Tenet and his CIA in on the determination to make a case for war?

In a way, that conclusion is a no-brainer. As mentioned above, just five weeks before Cheney’s speech, Tenet himself had explained to his British counterpart that the President had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Cheney simply was unveiling the war rationale to the public. Several weeks later, when Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham insisted on a National Intelligence Estimate before any vote in Congress, Tenet told his folks to prepare one that dovetailed with Cheney’s unsupported rhetoric.

Sadly, my former colleagues did. And where was Michael Morell in this process? Clearly, he did nothing to destroy his career or put himself too much on the outs at the White House.

The Sales Job

When Bush’s senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day 2002, the next five weeks were devoted to selling the war, a major “new product” that, as then-White House chief of staff Andy Card explained, one shouldn’t introduce in the month of August.

Card, too, apparently had no idea that Cheney would jump the gun as “fixer-in-chief.” At that point, the Tenets, McLaughlins and Morells of this world fell right into line.

After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed him to play a supporting role in advertising bogus claims about aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agents.

The hyped and bogus intelligence succeeded in scaring Congress into voting for war on Oct. 10 and 11, 2002.

In my view, it strains credulity to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of this campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he mostly kept quiet, and he got promoted. That’s how it works in Washington these days.

This kind of malleability regarding twisting facts to support war has worked well for Petraeus, too.

Today, there is little chance Petraeus can be unaware of Morell’s pedigree. Given Petraeus’s own experience in climbing the career ladder, the general may even harbor an admiration for Morell’s extraordinary willingness to please.

The two will make a fine pair for Official Washington, though not for those “quaint” folks who put a high premium on integrity.

As for Dick Cheney who was once given the well-deserved sobriquet “Vice President for Torture” in a Washington Post editorial, I just wish he would disappear so he would stop bringing out the worst in everyone.

I found my own feelings mirrored in a plaintive comment from a good friend who prays a lot. She said, “I keep praying for Dick Cheney, especially when he goes into the hospital. But he always comes out again.”



Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 6:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.

Hillary Clinton served as the 67th United States Secretary of State, under President Barack Obama, from 2009 to 2013.



I'm guessing Morell is applying for the upcoming CIA job.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 7:20 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

To bring the discussion back to reality, as I mentioned earlier, the only things worth discussing are THINGS THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Hillary's position on global warming? It doesn't matter. Nothing about that is going to get through Congress - assuming she even bothers to spend any effort at all proposing it. In fact, with a few rare exceptions, THE ENTIRE DNC DRAFT PLATFORM IS A FANTASY. And Hillary and the DNC know it.
You wrote "Nothing about that is going to get through Congress". The correct expression would be "Nothing gets through the Republican majority in the House and Senate". Everything could be accomplished if Republicans in Congress become an angry minority white party in some future election.

Zika virus funding is an example of Republican majority in action. The funds would be available, but only if Obamacare was overturned, abortions were banned, and the Confederate flag was flying at Post Offices in the South. The Republican majority would not pass the Zika funding unless the Republicans' wishlist was fulfilled. And Zika funding does not touch the Republican Party's belief that global warming is a hoax. It is just an ordinary issue that the Republican party has stymied.
www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/zika-funding-congress-senate-dem
ocrats

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 7:34 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Nothing gets through the Republican majority in the House and Senate."

Blame democrats. In the 2008 election the Democrats won the presidency, the House, and a super majority in the Senate. Since Obama took office, democrats lost the House to Republicans in 2010 , lost the Senate to Republicans in 2014, lost 12 governorships, and lost 910 state legislature seats.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 8:10 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Nothing gets through the Republican majority in the House and Senate."

Blame democrats. In the 2008 election the Democrats won the presidency, the House, and a super majority in the Senate. Since Obama took office, democrats lost the House to Republicans in 2010 , lost the Senate to Republicans in 2014, lost 12 governorships, and lost 910 state legislature seats.
You are always misleading, 1kiki. Obama only won because Bush had been an incompetent President and the recession of 2008. And because V.P. Sarah Palin is a nincompoop. By 2009, the Republican failures were forgotten by the so called Independent Voters, who once again voted Republican. The switch had nothing to do with the inadequacy of Democrats, it had everything to do with the failing memories of white Independent Voters.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 8:25 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Republican failures were forgotten by the so called Independent Voters"

Unh hunh.

You got a cite for that?


Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2016 11:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-democrats-lost-the-house-to-republican
s/

Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans

Congressional Democrats suffered their worst electoral defeat in decades, losing more than 50 seats in the House of Representatives. Preliminary CBS News exit polls show that these results were fueled primarily by a depressed turnout among Democratic base groups, independents leaning Republican and voter backlash against President Obama and his handling of the economy.


Based on those exit polls, here's how the Republicans took back the House:

The Democratic Base Stayed Home

Core Democratic groups stayed away in droves Tuesday, costing Democratic House candidates dearly at the polls.

Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections, propelling Mr. Obama and Democratic House candidates to sizable victories. In 2010, turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels.

Voters under the age of 30 comprised 18 percent of the electorate in 2008 and nearly 13 percent in 2006 but only made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2010. The share of voters from union households dropped from 23 percent in 2006 and 21 percent in 2008 to 17 percent in 2010. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate in 2008 but fell to 10 percent in 2010. Such apathy likely cost the Democrats House seats as voters in each of these groups cast ballots for Democratic House candidates by at least 15 point margins.


Independents Turned to the Right

Independent voters without loyalties to either of the major political parties swung dramatically toward the Republican Party in 2010, propelling Republican House candidates across the country to victory.

In the last two House elections, independent voters played a crucial role in the Democratic victories. Fifty-seven percent of independents preferred Democratic House candidates to Republican House candidates in 2006 while 51 percent of independents voted Democratic in 2008.

In 2010, independent voters comprised 28 percent of the electorate. They cast 55 percent of their ballots for Republican House candidates. Independent voters had not cast this great a proportion of votes for Republican House candidates since the last time the House flipped to the Republicans in 1994.
The New Leaders of the House


Disapproval of Performance from Obama and Congress

Mr. Obama proved to be a major liability in the 2010 election. Fifty-five percent of voters disapproved of the way the president is handling his job, including 58 percent of independents. Of those who disapproved of Obama, 86 percent voted for a Republican House candidate. Even more to the point, 37 percent of voters overall, as well as 37 percent of independents, claimed a reason for their House vote was to express opposition to Mr. Obama.

Voters were no happier with the Democratic-controlled Congress. A whopping 72 percent of voters disapproved of the way Congress is handling its job, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Of those who evaluated Congress negatively, 64 percent preferred a Republican House candidate to a Democratic House candidate in their local race.


Unhappiness with Obama's Policy Approaches

The exit polls show that voters have become disillusioned with Democratic policy prescriptions for the most pressing political problems. Nearly three quarters of voters (74 percent) are dissatisfied or angry the way the federal government is working. More than six-out-of-10 voters (61 percent) think the country is off on the wrong track. And 51 percent of voters think Mr. Obama's policies have hurt the country. Not surprisingly, sizable majorities of all these groups preferred Republican House candidates to their Democratic counterparts.

Nowhere is this dissatisfaction more strongly felt than with Mr. Obama's handling of the economy, the issue viewed as the most important facing the country by 62 percent of the midterm electorate.

In the 2008 election, there was considerable optimism among voters concerned about the economy that Mr. Obama would be able to right the ship. Exit polls that year showed that among the 48 percent of voters who thought the economy was poor, 65 percent preferred Mr. Obama to McCain for president. Similarly, of the 55 percent of voters who were worried that the current economic crisis would harm their family's finances in the next year, 65 percent voted for Mr. Obama.

By 2010, voters had become disillusioned with Mr. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress with many thinking they are part of the problem rather than the solution. Nearly a quarter of voters (23 percent) now believe that Mr. Obama is more to blame for the current economic problems than former President George W. Bush or Wall Street bankers. Nearly two-thirds of voters (65 percent) believe the economic stimulus package has hurt the economy or made no difference.

Voters pessimistic about the economy now feel that Republicans are the best option for a recovery. Of the 54 percent of voters who rate the national economy as poor, 65 percent voted for a Republican House candidate. Of the 37 percent of voters who rate the economy poorly, 70 percent preferred a Republican House candidate to a Democratic House candidate.


Mixed Midterm Messages

The 2010 midterm elections show an electorate frustrated by the problems facing the country and Mr. Obama's efforts to ameliorate them.

Unfortunately, voters are seriously divided about the next steps government should take in the upcoming years.

Thirty-nine percent want the highest priority for the next Congress to be reducing the budget deficit, compared to 37 percent who want Congress to increase spending to create jobs and 18 percent who want Congress to focus on cutting taxes.

When asked how Congress should vote on the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year, 39 percent supported continuing them for all while 37 percent supported continuing them only for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. Only 15 percent thought the Congress should let them expire for all.

Voters are also split on what do with the landmark health care bill passed earlier this year. Much of the law has yet to go into effect, yet 48 percent of voters think it should be repealed while 47 percent think it should be left as is or expanded.

The CBS News exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Results are based on 17,504 voters interviewed either after exiting the polls across the nation or by telephone if they voted early. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Samuel J. Best is an associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut and the former director of the Center for Survey Research and Analysis. He is the author of numerous books and articles on public opinion and survey methods. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.


IF Obama had come out strongly behind investigating if there was financial fraud to blame, IF he had used the power of the bully pulpit to exhort the democratically controlled Congress to get behind his plans, things might have turned out differently. But he mealy-mouthed his position and disappointed those who believed his message of 'hope and change'. DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME. A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS DISAPPROVED OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.

Who's to blame for that?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2016 8:01 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Republican failures were forgotten by the so called Independent Voters"

Unh hunh.

You got a cite for that?
I've got better than a political scientist's abstract paper. I've got data on Trump and Hillary:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

The odds have changed a great deal for the moment and yet Trump and Hillary have not changed at all from who they were in July. Trump and Hillary have not even said anything new since July. It is the same old stuff from both. Trump is still wildly and mindlessly attacking anyone who disrespects him in even the tiniest way. Hillary is still talking about policy details that her audiences could not follow even if the details was written down to help them comprehend. Same-old Hillary and same-old Trump.

But look at how the probability of winning has fluctuated for them! The flux is caused by the short memory of the “Independent” voters. They can’t remember that Trump was a thug and Hillary has always been a wonk. Unlike “Independent” voters, partisan voters like me don’t need to remember anything more than the name of their political party. Partisan voters don’t cause wide fluctuations in probabilities.

Just wait a couple of weeks and Trump’s probability of winning will go sky-high if he can be convinced to read from the teleprompter at all times. The “Independent” voters will forget what a jackass he is, if he speaks only prepared remarks. The memory of two very different political conventions will fade to absolutely nothing in the minds of “Independent” voters.

The short memory of voters is the reason why the Citizens United Supreme Court decision was very important for Republicans. Since “Independent” voters can’t figure out who screwed up the country, they settle for the dumbest and most inaccurate explanation: “It’s Congress’ fault!” With enough advertisement, the Republicans can fill the “Independent” voters’ empty memories with “It’s Democrats’ fault!” The mainstream media will play along with the Republican party’s theme because the media doesn’t want to lose Republican ad money.

Republican campaigns are better than Democrats at taking advantage of “Independent” voters’ short-term memory loss. If you have seen Finding Dory you'd understand how a person functions with the memory loss -- erratically -- exactly like “Independent” voters.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2016 1:06 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


What a Philip Roth novel can teach us about Donald Trump

Twelve years ago Philip Roth wrote a counter-factual novel in which an extreme right-wing populist wins the presidency. It seems less fanciful by the day

by Sameer Rahim / August 4, 2016

Is there anything new to say about Trump and his phenomenal rise? Amid the welter of opinion, it might be worth turning to fiction. In 2004, Philip Roth wrote a brilliant counter-factual novel, The Plot Against America, which imagined the US electing to the Presidency the celebrity far-right leader Charles Lindbergh with his bigoted views about minorities and a weakness for foreign strongmen. Reading the novel, you can’t help seeing striking parallels with the rise of Trump. Roth, writing about the past but of course also about the present, anticipates the rightward shift in post-9/11 US politics.

Charles A Lindbergh was a real person. An ace pilot, in 1927, at the age of 25 he flew solo non-stop from New York to Paris. Overnight he became a hero across America. In 1932, his baby son was kidnapped and killed by an immigrant ex-convict, which brought him widespread sympathy. By 1936, Lindbergh was in Berlin for the Olympics, describing Adolf Hitler as “undoubtedly a great man… [who] I believe has done much for the German people.” In 1941 he spoke at America First rallies (the slogan resurrected by Trump), and was touted by many as the next president.

In real life, that never happened. But in Roth’s novel, it does. The young Philip tells us how his patriotic father reacts with hysterical disbelief at Lindbergh’s triumph. All his long-held fears of anti-Jewish sentiment among his fellow Americans seem to be confirmed. Fear seeps through the family. Driving past a German beer garden, Philip sees, “The intoxicant of anti-Semitism. That’s what I came to imagine them all so cheerfully drinking in their beer garden that day—like all the Nazis everywhere, downing pint after pint of anti-Semitism as though imbibing the universal remedy.” Of course these men could simply be having a drink. But paranoia breeds paranoia, and the spectre of a German-American alliance as proposed by Lindbergh becomes for the Roth family an existential threat.

Gradually, the dread increases. On a visit to Washington DC to see the monuments to the Republic, the family are abused by Lindbergh supporters. More painfully, Philip’s older brother, a boy who hasn’t much affection for his religious identity, is drawn into a government programme called “Just Folks” run by the Office of American Absorption that inducts inner-city Jewish children into wholesome American country ways. (The etymological echo of “folk” and “volk” is a pleasingly sinister touch.)

Lindbergh is mainly kept off-stage. It is his effect on ordinary Americans that Roth is most interested in. Some vote for him to avoid another costly foreign war; some are bigoted; some are simply attracted to his power. One senior rabbi sides with Lindbergh, hoping to gain preferment for himself and his family. The rabbi, and Philip’s aunt who marries him, don’t realise that Lindbergh does not play by the common rules of compromise. He brings the single-mindedness of the successful pilot to the political arena. When he blames the Jews, he really means to blame the Jews.

The mature Roth has written some brilliant novels, but none feels so urgent as The Plot Against America. Grounded in an immaculately re-created family world, the fantasy becomes all too plausible. In the end, with America rioting and well-known Jews being done away with, Roth gets history back on track when Lindbergh dies in a mysterious airplane disaster. It’s implied that someone in the establishment decided that enough was enough. We can only hope that Trump is brought down to earth by democratic means on 8th November. Until then, it’s worth buying a copy of Roth’s novel. While you still can.

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/sameer-rahim/what-philip-roth-can-tea
ch-us-about-donald-trump

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2016 1:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Originally posted by second:
Republican failures were forgotten by the so called Independent Voters" (in 2010)

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Unh hunh.
You got a cite for that?

Originally posted by second:
I've got better than a political scientist's abstract paper. I've got data on Trump and Hillary


OH! Lookey that! You pulled another Geezer!

Just to remind you, you've been whinging about what poor shape the democrats are in, needing Hillary to rescue them from a republican-dominated Congress. And I pointed out that WHEN OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, DEMOCRATS HAD A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND A SUPERMAJORITY ON THE SENATE. Which they lost a mere two years later by a landslide. YOU blamed it on independents - no cite of course, even though I waited for one. Then I posted an analysis that showed DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME IN DROVES - many were unhappy with Obama's economic non-policy and a majority were unhappy with the DEMOCRATIC DOMINATED CONGRESS.

Meanwhile, you keep flogging the democratic same-old same-old, which is why they lost congress - and keep losing more of it every year.

Anything to say about that?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2016 4:39 PM

REAVERFAN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2016 6:10 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

OH! Lookey that! You pulled another Geezer!

Just to remind you, you've been whinging about what poor shape the democrats are in, needing Hillary to rescue them from a republican-dominated Congress. And I pointed out that WHEN OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, DEMOCRATS HAD A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND A SUPERMAJORITY ON THE SENATE. Which they lost a mere two years later by a landslide. YOU blamed it on independents - no cite of course, even though I waited for one. Then I posted an analysis that showed DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME IN DROVES - many were unhappy with Obama's economic non-policy and a majority were unhappy with the DEMOCRATIC DOMINATED CONGRESS.

Meanwhile, you keep flogging the democratic same-old same-old, which is why they lost congress - and keep losing more of it every year.

Anything to say about that?
Sure, it is easy to explain Democrats' losing Congress in 2010. And you know this perfectly well too, but you're being misleading, as always.

Democrats don't bother to show up to vote during non-Presidential election years, aka midterm elections. They've got the idea that only voting every 4 years is a good way to make their opinion heard in government, but there it is: as unforesightful, improvident, myopic as Dory the Fish from Finding Dory 2016. Many Democrats are only voting in half the elections. Republicans vote every election, very unlike Democrats. The Republicans are wiser than Democrats about how a Democracy works.

www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:38 - 43 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:38 - 45 posts
NATO
Wed, November 27, 2024 14:24 - 16 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL