President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16896
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 26 Mar 2019, 23:00

Speaking of circular firing squads, I've been thinking about how Jimmy Dore's got it in his head that the establishment Dems would rather keep Trump than have a progressive/socialist in office. There is an MSNBC video of Dem pundit Donnie Deutsch saying he'd vote for Trump over Sanders. I speculate that it has something to do with their stock portfolios being defense stock heavy. I also think the "anti-semite" smears come from this camp. Of course a Biden or Harris would be fine but no way could they beat Trump at this point but a Gabbard or Sanders might. As you can see little support for them from the DNC it'll probably be Trump 2020. And maybe Pence 2024. :?

If you were a rich Dem depending on your stocks for your living would you want your next Prez to be a threat the banks and Wall St.?
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53444
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 26 Mar 2019, 23:35

Betsey Devos defends deep cuts to Special Olympics program.

DeVos, a school choice advocate from the Grand Rapids area, said her department had to make "difficult decisions" but defended the cuts as part of a Trump administration effort to cut the federal deficit and debt.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 278388002/

You know what would have cut the deficit? Not passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

But I forgot: cruelty is the point.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 40616
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Charlie O. » 27 Mar 2019, 00:46

bobzilla77 wrote:I think we are so opposed to that guy on a gut level we are abandoning common sense and it leaves us easily manipulated. There were a lot of bombshell Revelations that smoldered out as apparent bullshit. Wapo printed lots of them. Thus has been a high profit period for them. Turns out they have a capacity for bullshit when their readership craves it.

WaPo may get a little carried away (I certainly got kinda sick of Jennifer Rubin), but... I saw/see very little outright bullshit there.

Margaret Sullivan posted this yesterday, and... I reckon she's right.

It should be no surprise to anyone that President Trump’s reaction to the Mueller report is to attack reporters for doing their jobs.

That’s exactly what he has been doing for years. It’s a predictable political strategy — an ugly, undemocratic one — that works as a way to feed raw meat to his base.

And it should be no surprise that his media echo chamber — led by Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity — is calling for the heads of journalists whose work Hannity couldn’t begin to emulate even if given 100 years.

As for the rest of the harsh criticism that’s being leveled at journalists who dug into the connections between Trump, as candidate and president, and Russia, it’s largely misguided.

Fairly typical of this was conservative writer Rich Lowry, who said the three biggest losers from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report were “the media, the media, the media,” which he described in a tweet as “obsessed & hysterical for 2 years.”

There are calls for a “reckoning” on news coverage.

All right, then. Here goes.

I reckon that American citizens would have been far worse off if skilled reporters hadn’t dug into the connections between Trump’s associates — up to and including his son Don Jr. — and Russians. That reporting has not been invalidated.

I reckon that the felonious lying to the public about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow remains a scandal — and that we know about this in large part because journalists were doing their jobs aggressively.

I reckon that the hard-nosed reporting about former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — roundly denied, you might recall, before it was proved — was an early sign of the venality that was to follow.

I reckon that reporting by The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, BuzzFeed, CNN, Bloomberg News, the Daily Beast, Mother Jones, ProPublica and others drove forward a national conversation that needed to happen. As Americans saw with their own eyes Trump’s bizarre efforts to ingratiate himself with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, that reporting mattered and provided context.

And that shouldn’t be forgotten or swept aside now.

And yes, I reckon that endless speculative threads and the explosions of tiny cannons on Twitter were ridiculous and over the top — and that the cable pundits who made a living off such speculation aren’t really journalists anyway.

It’s important to acknowledge the value of the serious journalism because there’s a real risk that news organizations will take the edges off their coverage of this subject now.

You could see it starting to happen over the weekend.

It was strange, for example, to see Scott Pelley’s lead-in to CBS’s “60 Minutes” erroneously describe the Mueller report’s findings in a way that Trump might have scripted: He flatly stated that the report, as described by Attorney General William P. Barr, exonerated the president.

In fact, Mueller came to no such conclusion on obstruction of justice, and on the contrary stated clearly that his investigation did not exonerate him.

Perhaps cowed by the criticism — which came from the left as well as the right, most notably from author Matt Taibbi — some news organizations may back down from aggressive coverage of Trump.

That would be a serious mistake. With some regrettable and damaging exceptions — individual stories that seemingly went too far — reality-based news outlets have done quite well on this story.

And it’s far from over. So this is no time to retreat.

What would be a good idea, though, is to be less obsessed with this subject to the exclusion of others that are far closer to home for most Americans: health care, the economy, affordable housing and crime.

“We’ve done two listening tours across the U.S. in the past two years, and it was striking how Trump, Russia and Mueller just never came up,” HuffPost Editor Lydia Polgreen told me Sunday. As a result, “we haven’t invested heavily in covering the Trump/Russia story in terms of enterprise.”

Similarly, I’ve been thinking of Christine Radwan, a Trump voter (and former Democrat) I interviewed in rural New York state in 2017.

When I asked her whether possible Russian collusion mattered to her, she paused and then answered thoughtfully: “Yes, it’s important, but not as important as our economy and what’s happened to our middle class.”

This observation is worth thinking about, and acting on.

But that’s not to suggest that serious news organizations should drop the Trump/Russia story, which is still playing out.

Nor should they allow themselves to be bullied about the important work they’ve done, and must continue to do.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/serious-journalists-should-be-proud-of--not-bullied-over--their-russia-reporting/2019/03/25/4adbe146-4ef0-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.613cd8534393
Image

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53444
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 27 Mar 2019, 03:20

"Fake news!"

*eye roll*

I would downgrade Taibbi from "author" to "writer."
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16896
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 27 Mar 2019, 04:44

Snarfyguy wrote:"Fake news!"

*eye roll*

I would downgrade Taibbi from "author" to "writer."


I'll make it easy for you. Choose one Tabbi point you disagree with and make a make a counterargument.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13705
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 27 Mar 2019, 05:55

Take out my trash, rotate my tires and fix me something to eat.
Make it snappy.
"Take THAT you hostile son of a bitch!!!!" - Dr. Sidney Schaffer

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53444
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 27 Mar 2019, 13:28

Taibbi's first line: "Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media."

Counterpoint: no, it's not.

Then: "As with most press coverage, there was little pretense that the Mueller probe was supposed to be a neutral fact-finding mission, as apposed to religious allegory, with Mueller cast as the hero sent to slay the monster."

This is just as overheated and purple as the stuff he's railing about.

Etc.

To the extent the media got out ahead of its skis, it was doing its job. Considering the number of passes Donald Trump gets, I'd say he's way ahead of the game.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53444
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 27 Mar 2019, 19:00

House Dems: get that guy Whitaker back on the stand.

It seems pretty clear Trump's former acting AG flew the coop so he wouldn't have to answer to the Inspector General about obstructy conversations he had with the president.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/03/2 ... m-justice/
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16175
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby bobzilla77 » 27 Mar 2019, 21:01

Still Baron wrote:I don’t really think the media DID act in bad faith (actually, maybe cable news did, I don’t know, I don’t watch it). I just don’t think there’s enough room for nuance in the reporting or in people’s brains. I also don’t think Barr is acting in bad faith. I definitely do agree that had Clinton or Obama had even one tenth of the dirt on them that is out there on Trump, the Articles of Impeachment would’ve already been voted out of the House.



I started to notice a few weeks ago that a lot of supposedly bombshell stories were starting to get "corrected." The only time Mueller's office spoke publicly, to my recollection, was to come right out and say that a particularly salacious accusation that was in the news cycle, was not accurate.

I've seen in the media the last couple days, people pushing the idea that the report obviously contains evidence of impeachable offenses which the AG is choosing to ignore. I think if it was being that wildly mischaracterized, we would hear from Mueller's office for a second time.

You know one thing that struck me this weekend, before the release, I was watching a documentary about Theranos. The lab company that defauded investors out of hundreds of millions on technology that never worked as advertised. There was a behavioral analyst talking about a test they designed to see if they could tell when people are lying to them. The first test was done on the basis that subjects had the opportunity to lie about something that would benefit them financially, and the lie was un-provable. They determined that people did indeed lie sometimes, and standard lie detectors were effective in measuring this. Then they ran the test again with the only change being, the money would go to the subject's favorite charity.

Not only did people lie more when the benefit went to charity, the lie detector completely stopped working. The brain no longer recognized lying as bad or wrong and stopped sending the signal that the detector is intended to measure.

This suggests that people working on something they think will be of great benefit to humanity, are capable of not just lying, but doing so and basically, no longer recognize that they are lying. This really struck me and I am thinking about it a lot in terms of these events. Matt Taibbi pointed out, while many journalists and their new orgs must have had reason to question some of the stories running around, they recognized that doing so would be beneficial to Trump. And the anti Trump forces were so powerful, no one wanted to be on the wrong side of them.

They sure made a lot of money freaking us out. WaPo is recommended to me by google so often, I've hit their paywall.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39458
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 27 Mar 2019, 21:10

Count Machuki wrote:
Still Baron wrote:Sadly I haven’t had the free time to write out my reaction Barr’s letter, and I fear that the Dems are losing the messenging war on this. Here’s a start, which makes a point or three I wanted to make:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-b ... -collusion


This language suggests that Mueller’s report viewed the conduct through the lens of a criminal investigative process—that is, whether the evidence met the Department of Justice standards for prosecution, including the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to violate the law.


This is sort of what I've been thinking recently. That Mueller was such a stickler that he didn't make a recommendation to prosecute cause he was only 90-odd percent there, not 100 percent. And that he trusted the system to sort out the rest. Of course, if the system is being gamed by the subject of the investigation, well...

I don't know, it's tough for a layman. My law knowledge isn't nearly strong enough to have a really informed opinion.

Thanks for the link.


Preet Bharara says it better than I did:

Preet Bharara wrote:I suspect that Mueller believed the buck shouldn’t stop with him or the special counsel’s office. He understands that there’s another constitutionally prescribed mechanism for addressing bad conduct on the part of the president, namely Congress. But even though he didn’t make a decision to charge, it seems unquestionable that he discovered some bad conduct.


https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18277312/ ... et-bharara

This is worth a read.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39458
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 27 Mar 2019, 21:16

furthermore, Preet Bharara wrote:Perhaps Mueller thought, “Well, when it’s a tough, high-stakes call like this, people are not going to have faith and trust in a definitive decision I make. It’s best handled by a political process that’s laid out in the Constitution.” And I don’t want to criticize that decision. This is not a random process. It’s been done before, and Congress can — and maybe should — handle it.


But again, Barr swept in and put his own imprimatur on it — while delaying the disclosure of the full Mueller report — causing his framing of it to be imprinted on the minds of lots and lots of people, and it may stay that way because the report may not come out for a long time.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 43714
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Still Baron » 27 Mar 2019, 21:47

Yeah (mostly) what Preet B said (though I would frame it even less in terms of Mueller passing the buck).
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
mentalist (slight return)
under mi sensi
Posts: 14553
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 10:54
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby mentalist (slight return) » 27 Mar 2019, 22:29

I just hope we get to see Bob Mueller on Dancing With The Stars now.
king of the divan

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16896
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 28 Mar 2019, 01:43

bobzilla77 wrote:
this suggests that people working on something they think will be of great benefit to humanity, are capable of not just lying, but doing so and basically, no longer recognize that they are lying.



My sources named it quite a while ago: Trump Derangement Syndrome.

https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stoc ... s-for-you/
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13705
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 28 Mar 2019, 18:09

oh give me a break. a 3 to 7 Hundred Page Nothing Burger that needs to be redacted since the stuff that didn't happen is so important to National security. :lol:

you and your sources have been doing a victory horn pipe for so long that it's a little hard to view the ones you are doing now with fresh eyeballs.
"Take THAT you hostile son of a bitch!!!!" - Dr. Sidney Schaffer

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 40616
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Charlie O. » 28 Mar 2019, 18:29

bobzilla77 wrote:Matt Taibbi pointed out, while many journalists and their new orgs must have had reason to question some of the stories running around, they recognized that doing so would be beneficial to Trump. And the anti Trump forces were so powerful, no one wanted to be on the wrong side of them.

The "anti-Trump forces" are more powerful than Trump/the pro-Trump forces, eh?

Taibbi seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass, toot sweet.
Image

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13705
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 28 Mar 2019, 19:43

I like Taibbi a lot but I really get lost in the weeds with that one. same with Greenwald. Christopher Steele as Chalabi? Trump Campaign's Russian ties as WMDs?

also, it seems to me that they both presume to know what's in the report. maybe they do. that judge guy they have on FOX business is certainly talking like he has, who knows?
Last edited by Sneelock on 28 Mar 2019, 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
"Take THAT you hostile son of a bitch!!!!" - Dr. Sidney Schaffer

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13705
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 28 Mar 2019, 19:45

mentalist (slight return) wrote:I just hope we get to see Bob Mueller on Dancing With The Stars now.

:lol: we should be so lucky.
"Take THAT you hostile son of a bitch!!!!" - Dr. Sidney Schaffer

User avatar
bobzilla77
Posts: 16175
Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 02:56
Location: Dilute! Dilute! OK!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby bobzilla77 » 28 Mar 2019, 19:56

Charlie O. wrote:
bobzilla77 wrote:Matt Taibbi pointed out, while many journalists and their new orgs must have had reason to question some of the stories running around, they recognized that doing so would be beneficial to Trump. And the anti Trump forces were so powerful, no one wanted to be on the wrong side of them.

The "anti-Trump forces" are more powerful than Trump/the pro-Trump forces, eh?

Taibbi seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass, toot sweet.


I don't want to mis-characterize his argument. I think the "anti Trump forces" I mention are the readers of those papers that were gleefully gulping down and spreading every story that looked bad for Trump, no matter how tenuous. The people paying for access. The cash incentive combined with the moral certainty led to poor judgment by some of those supposedly neutral news outlets.

You don't think that's possible?

Look, I don't like the guy. I want him out. But I am frustrated that this issue has been played all the way to the end with no result. I feel snookered.

And I am already terrified of the Democrats heading into 2020. Does anyone have policy prescriptions for what ails us? The only one I've heard recently was Kirsten Gillibrand saying she wants to prevent pain pill prescriptions for longer than 7 days. I've recovered from surgery myself - I can't possibly vote for someone who sees that as a serious solution to a national drug problem.
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 13705
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 28 Mar 2019, 20:11

I think Elizabeth Warren flattens the others in terms of outlining what she wants to do and how she wants to go about it. Too bad she reminds everybody of a well intentioned teacher that always wants you to volunteer for something.
"Take THAT you hostile son of a bitch!!!!" - Dr. Sidney Schaffer