Sunday, June 26, 2016

Jimmy Fallon & BHO Catapult The Propaganda During Prez 6/9/2016 Tonight Show Appearance

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda ~ George W bush (dob 7/6/2016) 43rd USA preznit (unelected).

The Urban Dictionary says "catapult the propaganda" means "to promote acceptance of lies/damn lies/statistics, through repetition and assisted by the blind obedience and willful omissions of the lapdogs posing as independent media".

Regarding BHO's appearance on the Thursday 6/9/2016 airing of The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, promoting of the lie that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be good for American workers was promoted. Although I don't know how much repetition there might be. I've heard that msnbc (1) fired Ed Schultz for criticizing it and (2) "cut away from live coverage of a Bernie Sanders press conference, just as he was condemning the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement".

So, there has been some prior catapulting, but inserting propaganda into a popular late night show is definitely a low point in the Obama presidency, IMO.

MONOLOGUE...

Fallon: ...so much has happened during president Obama's administration. ObamaCare was passed, same sex marriage was legalized, he worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership...

WHICH THEN SEGWAYED INTO A SLOW JAMMING OF THE NEWS...

Obama: I believe it is of the utmost importance to work alongside other world leaders... That's why I negotiated a new trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

Fallon: Now hold on there Prez dispenser (laughter) are you saying you're down with TPP?

Obama: Yeah, you know me (more laughter). Look, Jimmy, the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad. The more we sell abroad, the more higher paying jobs we provide here at home. It's that simple.

Fallon: So what you're saying is this trade deal will help put everyday Americans back to...

Tariq Trotter: (singing hook from Rihanna song) Work, work, work, work, work.

Obama: (off key, sans music) Work, work, work, work, work (laughter).

Clearly this propaganda was inserted into the Slow Jam The News segment because they knew it would not only be seen by people viewing it live, people viewing in on their DVRs, but also by clip watchers via the internet. Providing maximum exposure to the target viewer, which would be the low-information voter.

And, with Bernie Sanders out of the way and only Trump speaking against it, surely some people will be swayed by a comedic push of this bad trade deal (Trump and Sanders Are Right: Obama's Trade Deal Is a Dud). Yeah, Hillary has said she opposes it in it's current form, but (1) the TPP may be passed by a lame duck Congress and signed by a lame duck Obama, and (2) HRC may referse her opposition to the TPP and go back to supporting it. Remember she said the "TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" and referred to it as "the signature economic pillar of our strategy in Asia" (in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices). Although, I'm thinking she'd rather Obama sign it. And take the blame on his way out the door.

Even given reporting from the Washington Post that says no.

Hillary Clinton has signaled that if she is elected president in November she would oppose a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord during a lame-duck session of Congress, sharpening her differences with President Obama as he is ramping up his sales pitch on behalf of the deal.

Clinton, the Democratic pres­idential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: "I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election". (Clinton does not back Obama trade vote in post-election congressional session by David Nakamura. Washington Post 5/5/2016).

It sounds like Chris Matthews thinks HRC is going to flip flop back to supporting it, however. On the 6/15/2016 airing of msnbc's hardball he said "my view is that part of (Bill) Clinton's economic success for the 90s was free trade or trade agreements. I think Hillary Clinton is a trader. Maybe not a total free trader, but she's much more on the side of the importance of trade as part of being part of the international economic community than Bernie Sanders is".

Hopefully this is one concession that Bernie Sanders can extract in exchange for his support. Perhaps a plank in the Democratic Party platform indicating support for keeping jobs here (tax incentives for companies that bring jobs back, as opposed to the opposite). Fact is, I was thinking that the TPP might have come up during Senator Sanders' 6/9/2016 meeting with the president. Although this Tonight Show appearance was taped BEFORE Obama and Sanders met, Obama might have anticipated that Sanders would bring it up.

Who knows. What I do know is that Obama's disgusting shilling of the TPP (with an assist from willing stooge Jimmy Fallon) made my blood boil. Seriously, when the "slow jam" got to the TPP I said "f*ck you" to our sellout president. WHY he's betraying American workers on his way out the door is a mystery to me. Otherwise he has been an excellent president. For the most part. But this is not something I can excuse. Especially if it is passed by a lame-o Congress and President.

Will HRC (as president) keep her word? Even though there is ample reason to believe that Hillary Clinton's position on trade is total bullsh*t? The reason being the many many many times she has flip-flopped on the issue. I refer not just to her current flip-flop, but to previous flip-flops on other trade agreements (see the linked-to article for an accounting of HRC's shifting position re trade. Seems she was all in re bad trade deals when holding office and against them while running for office).

And, speaking of being against shipping jobs overseas (AKA "trade") while running for office, then breaking promises after being elected, Obama made a campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, then reversed himself as potus. (Obama Reverses Campaign Pledge to Renegotiate NAFTA).

I guess this stance puts me in the camp that says they don't trust HRC. Not that I WANT to be in this camp (and, in the past, people saying that they didn't trust HRC perturbed me). I thought, why? Because of the decades long campaign of lies against her? Because of this BS concerning her email server that she's NOT going to be prosecuted over... not because the fix is in re Obama manipulating things so she is not charged, but because there's nothing to prosecute her for (Report on Clinton Emails Is a Big Nothing Burger).

So, I don't not trust her for any of those reasons... but I do not trust her in regards to the TPP. I hope she doesn't reverse herself, but I think she might. WHY oh WHY couldn't the electorate have gone for Bernie Sanders? Him, I absolutely trust on this issue. He's been consistently opposed to all these bad trade deals for his entire career.

And there is also the fact that the American people are opposed to such trade deals. This explains why Ross Perot, as a result of his warning of the "sucking sound" of American jobs departing for Mexico, garnered 19% of the vote, making "him the most successful 3rd-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election" (his opposition to NAFTA being one of the primary planks of his 1992 campaign).

BTW, when Jimmy Fallon said that Obama "worked with 11 other countries to sign the historic Trans Pacific Partnership" that was a LIE, as the "signing" was symbolic ("Of course, the signing is a totally meaningless bit of theater"). The TTP has to be voted on by Congress first. Which has not happened yet. A president can't sign legislation INTO LAW until Congress approves it. (symbolic signing took place on 2/4/2016 in Auckland, New Zealand).

I truly hate to say it, but I've GOT to wonder WHY Obama is so eager to put Americans out of work. Is there a BIG payday awaiting him after he leaves office IF he accomplishes this (given that the TPP is SURELY high on the oligarch's wish list)? Or is he just incredibly naive?

Video: Jimmy Fallon and Barack Obama Slow Jam the news. And the TPP propaganda (7:06).

SWTD #337

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Thoughts On Yesterday's Election & Hillary Clinton Now Being The Presumptive Democratic Nominee

If, on November 8th of this year, Hillary Clinton is elected President, we will have only begun to fight ~ Bernie Sanders "quote" from the 6/7/2016 Andy Borowitz Onion-esque satirical article Sanders Vows To Keep Fighting For Nomination Even If Hillary Is Elected President.

Following yesterday's (6/7/2016) Democratic presidential primary elections I am now convinced that Bernie Sanders is done. Not that it wasn't HIGHLY unlikely that he'd end up the Democratic nominee on Monday, but Hillary Clinton being declared the presumptive Democratic nominee by the AP (Re: "the AP canvassed more undeclared superdelegates and enough came forward to publicly declare their support for Clinton Monday night ahead of voting Tuesday before California") was not good. In that it may have discouraged people from turning out (people supporting either candidate possibly deciding not to go to the polls because their vote would make no difference.

Which is why Bernie Sanders was still making the case (on Monday and Tuesday) that he could be the nominee (his argument concerning a big win in California and flipping Super Delegates). For which many derided him, questioning why he has not dropped out already. But, for Bernie, his run has always been about the issues and The People. Now I've heard that Bernie has requested a meeting with President Obama on Thursday (6/9/2016). After this meeting I believe that Bernie will bow out. And I believe that Bernie bowing out earlier would have been a strategic mistake.

Bernie has pull to push his campaign issues, and, during his meeting with Obama is when he will negotiate to have as much his issues adopted by the Democratic Party and the Hillary campaign as possible. He's earned the right to demand some concessions, IMO. After which he'll endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign on her behalf. Or not. At this time Bernie Sanders has said he'll fight on. Either way I think the end for Sanders is near. If he continues on it's only because he believes that it will be strategically advantageous for him to do so (but I doubt he will).

I do not (NOT for one second) believe that Bernie (thus far) has continued his campaign despite Hillary Clinton being the presumed nominee for awhile (even before the AP prematurely announced that she was) because Bernie has "a feeling of entitlement". Or because of his ego. Or because he is "bitter". Prior to Bernie Sanders announcing his candidacy I was quite familiar with the man (due to his weekly appearances on the Thom Hartmann Program), and Bernie convinced me that, with him, this fight (a fight he has engaged in for his entire political career) has ALWAYS been about The People and NOT about glory for Bernie Sanders.

While, during his MANY appearances on the Thom Hartmann Program, it had been suggested MANY times (by callers) that Bernie run for president, Bernie consistently said he had no interest in doing so. He indicated he was content fighting for The People as a Senator. Ultimately Sanders decided to enter the race "because America needs a political revolution". And I think the results (Sanders doing much better than the political pontificators initially believed he would) are proof that he was right.

Real Clear Politics reports that Hillary Clinton's current vote total 15,571,643 while Sanders total is 11,888,779 (56.7% versus 43.3%), which is pretty damn good considering the fact that (1) Sanders was considered a longshot when he first declared and (2) the virtual media blackout of his campaign.

Just as the news media bolstered the Trump campaign ($2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump), I believe the same is true for Senator Sanders. IMO Bernie would now be the presumptive nominee if not for Hillary's "media-bestowed aura of inevitability" (Stop trying to bury Bernie Sanders: Why the media's blinkered primary coverage is bad for America. Salon 3/9/2016). Or, the totals would be much closer (with Hillary possibly being ahead by a MUCH smaller margin). Although, personally, I think Bernie would have won.

BTW, why is Hillary Clinton now considered the nominee (BEFORE the convention) while Donald Trump is still the "presumptive nominee"? Or, just after Cruz suspended his campaign Trump was still presumptive, while Hillary seems to have skipped over being presumptive and gone directly to being the nominee (her own website says "Hillary wins nomination"). Hold on! There is a process in place and the process hasn't played itself out yet. The process will not be complete until after the convention.

But, back to these people calling for Bernie to bow out and concede the race; the comment regarding Bernie fighting on due to "a feeling of entitlement" made by a Left-leaning blogger who goes by the moniker Capt. Fogg. And YES, I was offended by what he wrote. Which was not just that he thought Bernie was fighting on because he feels entitled, but that Fogg has "the impression that Bernie is going to be satisfied by the convention results".

Those (incorrect) impressions could be explained by some bad behavior by some supporters (the so-called "Bernie Bros") as well as Fogg simply not being familiar with Senator Sanders. Even though this is just a guess, but HOW COULD Fogg be familiar with Sanders and reach such a ludicrous (in my STRONG opinion) conclusion?

But, what really offended me was the suggestion (by Fogg) that Senator Sander is "the Donald Trump of the Democrats". Which Fogg did, as well as referring to Sanders as "St Bernie of the beer hall", a fricking NAZI reference?! This, in regards to a Jewish candidate?

Now, while I do not believe any anti-semitism was intended, a Nazi analogy in regards to a Jewish candidate is STILL offensive. Which Fogg's commentary very strongly was. Even if it mainly regarded Bernie Sanders supporters.

Capt. Fogg: Brown Shirts for Bernie... By now I'm used to the trolls. I've been blogging for a long time but of late the most viciously personal ad hominem has come, not from the Republican Right but from the Bernie Boys. I blocked someone on another venue yesterday after I mentioned to a Bernie Bully that by hoping that a candidate Clinton would fail and thus cause the nation to fail, he was taking words out of Rush Limbaugh's prayer book. ...I am lucky, says he, that he doesn't have my address or he would kill me.

Sanders Supporters Prepared to fight, I read this morning. Indeed they are. You can almost hear the sound of a Munich Bierstube echoing with the sound of stomping jackboots and Bernie's Brownshirts yelling Sieg Heil!

Yes, they're ready to fight, because it's not about convincing the public that Big Brother B has a rational plan to address what ails us or a rational view of a complex world coupled with the ability of any president to do all those revolutionary things without an actual revolution.

It's all about the urge to fight, the narcissistic lack of introspection. Just close your eyes and fly right into the enemy battleship called "Wall Street" because... "The bankers are destroying our country" and where have we heard that one before? Sieg Heil indeed.

It's not about qualifications or experience or even about the possibility or even the legality of putting all that pie up into the sky, it's about BERNIE! St Bernie of the beer hall, leader of the Sanderistas - a Che Guevara for El Norte, the Donald Trump of the Democrats (5/18/2016).

Apparently Fogg, re the "actual revolution", has never heard of the phrase "revolution at the ballot box" ("the only kind of revolution this country can stand for" according to FDR). Was the New Deal not a revolution? I think it was.

Aside from that, my next objection with what Fogg wrote concerns his reference to a "Bernie Boy". Surely this is on par with/a synonym for the offensive term "Bernie Bro". Offensive because, as Glenn Greenwald writes in a 1/31/2016 article for The Intercept, "Bernie Bro" is a "handy pro-Clinton smear that [suggests only] straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression... support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn't the case" (because he's got female supporters. And many more than Trump, who actually has a REAL problem in that regard).

But it gets worse when he equates Bernie to Che Guevara and Donald Trump. Although, despite his STRONG Nazi analogy, not Hitler. Despite his followers being "Brown Shirts" stomping their jackboots and yelling "Sieg Heil!". So, while Fogg failed to bring his NAZI analogy home and call the Jewish Bernie Sanders "the Adolph Hitler of the Democrats", the post is still rises to the level of being highly offensive (as opposed to only mildly offensive).

Which is why I said something. Although I only pointed out that "Sanders will be endorsing Hillary and urging his supporters to vote for her soon enough". Also that Hillary Clinton herself had some fanatical supporters the first time she ran. They were called PUMAs and they vowed that they would either vote for John McCain or sit out the election. No way they'd vote for Barack Obama.

"Party unity, my ass!" the PUMAs declared, and some inexplicably voted for John McCain. Just as some of the "Bernie or Bust" people say they'll vote for Trump. Although some of these Bernie or busters were Independent and not Democrats (prior to supporting Bernie), while more of these PUMAs who voted for McCain were Democrats. Either way (PUMA McCain voter or Bernie or Bust Trump Voter) I say these people committed acts of political stupidity (although Independent Bernie supporters voting for Trump is easier to understand than Democrat PUMAs voting for McCain. Still dumb, but not as dumb IMO as the McCain voting PUMA Democrats).

However, "according to the 2008 exit poll, Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries split 83-16 for Obama-McCain" (WP 5/2/2015)... so most PUMAs ended up voting for Obama. And, this time around, I'm positive most Bernie or Busters will end up voting for Hillary Clinton. At least the Bernie or Busters who are Democrats. The Independents likely wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway (if Sanders had not run).

Which was the point I made to Fogg. But he was not having it.

...yes, the Tu Quoque ploy. You understand anything I might say about one candidate is not refuted by the attributes of another candidate? It's a diversionary tactic and is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy and it's not only typical of the fanatic partisanship in the Sanders camp, it's the sort of thing one finds in grade school playgrounds. You want to trade insults? Really? (5/23/2016 AT 6:34pm).

Did I want to trade insults? No. Nor was I attempting to refute anything. I only made a point which I believed (and still believe) to be valid. Whatever Bernie Sanders does now, it will all be over after the convention. Then he'll endorse her and urge his supporters to vote for her. And a majority will. Although, given Sanders' vows to fight on (past the 6/7/2016 primaries), Fogg is not convinced that is how things will shake out.

Capt Fogg: Viva Las Sandanistas!... I can't dismiss the idea that he really believes he can still become president without an election by somehow staging a Putsch at the convention. Is this obstinacy a sort of Sanderista Leitmotif which plays in Wagnerian fashion behind his recent career? Is it the same kind of thinking that lets him boast about how he's going to re-organize world banking and finance and fiscal and monetary and trade policy by fiat and to declare that henceforth college tuition will be free and never mind what congress or the courts or the colleges say.

It's either deceit or delusion but we've already had one president who thought he was Alexander the Great and we can't afford another. The voters didn't just reject Senator Sanders, they dodged a bullet. (6/8/2016).

WTF? Another Nazi analogy?! (note: the above is another commentary and not a response contained within in the prior post's thread. The previous commentary being dated 5/18/2016, while the latest is dated 6/7/2016).

In any case, regarding this new wave of Nazi analogies...

The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch... was a failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler... to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during 8–9 November 1923. About 2k men marched to the centre of Munich, where they confronted the police, which resulted in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen. (Wikipedia/Beer Hall Putsch).

ALSO...

The German composer Richard Wagner was a controversial figure during his lifetime, and has continued to be so after his death. Even today he is associated in the minds of many with Nazism and his operas are often thought to extol the virtues of German nationalism. ... Wagner was promoted during the Nazi era as one of Adolf Hitler's favorite composers. (Wikipedia/Wagner controversies)

I'm not sure what's going on with Fogg, but regardless, I do not believe that Sanders is motivated by "either deceit or delusion". I predict that, when the time comes, Sanders will offer a full-throated endorsement of Hillary, and will campaign for her and urge his supporters to vote for her. I would be SHOCKED if anything else occurs. Such as a Putsch, 3rd party run, or something else that could damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders has been VERY clear that our next president must not be Donald Trump (Bernie Sanders: "We will not allow Donald Trump to become president of the United States").

Regarding Fogg's allusions to Sanders' platform being unrealistic/pie in the sky... my opinion is that presidential campaigns are more aspirational, as opposed to a list of HARD promises. Bernie has laid out what he intends to push for as president. Promising to TRY to accomplish something is not the same as saying you're going to accomplish your goals, guaranteed. And Bernie Sanders has been clear that him accomplishing his agenda is wholly dependent on the success of his "revolution", i.e. bumping up citizen participation in our electoral process to unprecedented numbers, such that the Democrats take back both the Senate and the House.

I mention this due to all the Fogg-type doubters always bringing up how, if elected, President Sanders would have to work with Congress, and that is what stymied the Obama administration (See the Caucus Room Conspiracy). Personally, I agreed with the opinion that, if Bernie Sanders were the Democratic nominee, he'd have longer coattails than Hillary. Which would make it more likely that the Dems would take back the Senate and House (The coattail effect is the tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election).

The evidence in support of Bernie Sanders (if he had been the nominee) having longer coattails being his performance re winning the fundraising race. Bernie 2016 raised $207,664,551 according to Opensecrets, with 62% ($129,495,477) coming from small individual contributions. Whereas Hillary For America raised $204,258,301, with only 20% ($40,190,653) coming from small individual contributions. A fact that shows Bernie has strong grassroots support and that his donors and supporters are more enthusiastic.

Hillary may have won the popular vote, but (like I already said) IMO that is due to the Bernie Sanders media blackout. That fact, plus the reality of Hillary being the choice of the Institutional Democrats, gave her the edge. Trump, while NOT the choice of Institutional Republicans, benefited greatly from all the free media he received. He would NOT have been the nominee without it.

Bernie Sanders received strong grassroots support because he is a "message candidate" and not a "cultural avatar" who ran as a "messianic visionary" (2 phrases used by Fogg). As Bernie has said "We must always remember that change almost never happens from the top down, it happens from the bottom up".

As for Fogg's use of the phrase "Big Brother B", Senator Sanders is a strong defender of the 4th amendment, having voted NO on the PATRIOT act every time it came up for a vote (Bernie Sanders: It's Time To End Orwellian Surveillance of Every American). Maybe Fogg meant to write "Nanny B", as (it seems) he is objecting to Bernie's "pie in the sky" nanny state programs (free college, free health care, etc)? Although I thought "nanny state" is a pejorative of the right. Perhaps middle of the roaders (such as Fogg appears to be) utilize it? IDK.

The Nazi analogies? Those I was POSITIVE were coming exclusively from the Right. Regarding the claim that "Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and Nazis were Democratic Socialists" (made by Jason Villalba, a Republican Texas state rep), PolitiFact says "Pants on Fire". Despite Nazis being the National Socialist German Workers' Party "there was little socialist about the party's platform or Hitler's actions once he acceded to leading Germany in the early 1930s" (Politifact says).

So, Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and not a Nazi. Also, the Nazis were not socialists of any kind. According to "Rice University historian Peter Caldwell... the key word in the party's name was National and the party's focus was on building nationalism — a focus ultimately reflected in Hitler's twisted vision of cleansing the country of residents, especially Jews, not considered of pure German blood".

A fact that makes any Sanders/Nazi analogy (at the very least) in bad taste. A reality I remarked on when I submitted a (published) comment re Fogg's Swash Zone post (his 2nd Sanders/Nazi analogy). A comment he has not yet responded to, btw.

In any case, Sanders will (barring a unlikely HRC indictment) NOT be the nominee. I suffer from no "willful delusion" Fogg says he's seeing "as standard fare among his supporters". Note Fogg did not say "among his FRINGE supporters", which would be accurate (as opposed to Fogg's INACCURATE statement). Another point I made in a response to his previously (Sanders as a Nazi-analogy themed) commentary.

I am a Bernie Supporter. I voted for him in the Primary, and I prayed that he would win the Democratic nomination (viewing him as a once in a lifetime candidate). But I think it was clear awhile ago that HRC was going to be the nominee. And let me say (unequivocally) that I will vote for her and cross my fingers that she wins the presidential contest.

Not only because HRC is a better candidate than Trump, but because she will make a decent president. She might even turn out to be great. Although I think the likelihood of greatness depends on the Sanders movement staying active and continuing to push her Left on the issues. Another reason for Sanders to stay in the race until he gets the concessions he's after/until the convention.

So, in conclusion... when Bernie Sanders endorses her and campaigns for her, all this vitriol from people who are currently incensed that Bernie is not conceding fast enough will fade away. Although we might then see complaints about how Bernie not dropping out toot sweet "damaged" HRC's campaign. In advance of those accusations let me say, NO, I'm not buying it.

Even though we're likely to see Trump quoting Bernie. He'd have made the same attacks, regardless of whether or not Bernie said anything he might quote. And, Bernie Sanders campaigning for HRC (as a enthusiastic HRC surrogate) can (and I predict will) defend against any such Trump attack. Reversing oneself being par for the course for a politician (they call it "pivoting"). Not that Bernie will need to pivot much re any prior statement, but only point out that HRC is the superior candidate in every respect. Something I am 100 percent positive he will do.

SWTD #336

Thursday, May 26, 2016

The Day The World Ended

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine ~ Lyric from the REM 1987 song with the same title.

You probably aren't aware of it, but the end of the world has come and gone. The world ended on 3/6/1982. It was a Sunday. The significance of this day is that this is date on which a mentally ill lunatic named Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (AKA Ayn Rand) died.

Tom Snyder: I kind of think of this as ongoing, that there is an eternity, and that we are going to be a part of that eternity, that we aren't just corpses in graves when we die.

Ayn Rand: But we are not corpses in graves. We are not there. Don't you understand that when this life is finished, you're not there to say "Oh how terrible that I'm a corpse". What I've always thought is a sentence from a Greek philosopher, I don't remember, unfortunately, who it was, that I read at 16, and it's affected me all my life. "I will not die. It's the world that will end". (Interview is from the 7/02/1979 broadcast of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. As per Wikipedia, "unique one-on-one exchanges were common to the program").

Rand is clearly talking about the END of the world and not just the end of the world "as she knows it" (to paraphrase REM). And, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the world continued on after 3/6/1982. 34 years (plus 2 months and 21 days) have passed since Rand kicked the bucket. Longer since the day her most loyal acolyte Alan Greenspan (one of the primary architects of the bush recession) placed a "floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign" near her casket [1]. Which was strange, given the fact that Rand wasn't there. Seeing as she WASN'T a corpse in a box buried under the earth, it surely was a pointless gesture.

Also pointless was the fact that Rand left a will. Wikipedia says Rand's will "named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate", but I'm thinking this info must be erroneous and she did NOT leave a will. Given the fact that Leonard Peikoff ceased to exist the second Rand bit it. Why the hell would Rand leave a will if she knew the world was going to end when she died?

Obviously Rand was nuts. One of the manifestations of her mental illness being her sociopathic belief that the universe revolved around her and that when she died that was the end. Not just for her, but for everybody. A fact Liberal Talker Thom Hartmann commented on during the 5/24/2016 broadcast of his program.

Thom Hartmann: This [Snyder/Rand interview] gives you a glimpse into the mind of a sociopath. Sociopaths genuinely believe that when they die the world ends. That the only life that matters in the world is their life. [The sociopath believes that] in my life, I have no obligation to future generations.

This is why Objectivism, the philosophy devised by Rand, is (as George Monbiot put it) "a manifesto for psychopaths". Under this brain-diseased ideology greed and selfishness are virtues, and poor people are parasites and moochers that should be exterminated. Or, as Rand put it, "nature will take it's course". By which she meant that the parasites will die when the social safety net is completely eliminated (as Rand strongly believed it should be).

George Monbiot, a British writer, known for his environmental and political activism, expressed his thoughts on Objectivism in a 2012 article.

[Objectivism] has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. ... Objectivism... holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them.

Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax. ... Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. (A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot. 3/5/2012).

Obviously the world would end for a LOT of people if Rand's philosophy were instituted at a governmental level. In that they would die. Alan Greenspan, when he instituted Randian ideology in his capacity as chairman of the Fed (laissez faire capitalism/deregulation), almost killed our economy. Although what he did afterward (going along with bailouts) is where he parted with Randian ideology (or Libertarians will tell you, at least). Rand would have said our economy should be allowed to crash and burn.

Not that I agree with how the bailout were constructed. Instead of rescuing the fatcat banksters, I believe the banks should have been nationalized and the homeowners bailed out. But the way it was done benefited the rich and powerful while many others (members of the middle and lower classes) suffered. Which is one aspect of this crisis that surely would have made Rand smile.

According to the British Journal of Psychiatry "a dramatic spike in suicides between 2008 and 2010 can be linked with the economic crisis" (More Than 10,000 Suicides Tied To Economic Crisis, Study Says). So maybe Rand wouldn't have smiled. Not because people died, but because NOT ENOUGH people died (given how much she hated poor people and wished them dead).

In any case, the world clearly goes on, despite Ayn Rand's departure. Although the world is surely a worse place due to the fact that her sociopathic ideology is "sorely needed right now"... or so Republican politicians like Speaker Paul Ryan believe.

And the Randian goal of maximizing income inequality would surely lead to the world ending for a LOT more people. As, in addition to the 2008 economic crisis driving 10k people to take their own lives, Republican economic policies in general have this effect (Conservative Policies are Driving Americans to Suicide).

Unfortunately for us all Ayn Rand, while she did die and most assuredly is a corpse in the grave, the sociopathic Objectivism lives on. Given that it spawned the political ideology Libertarianism [2], as well as infecting the Republican Party (OST #61).

Which is why I say it's time to make Objectivism/Libertarianism a figurative corpse in the grave. By sending it to the the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Footnotes
[1] Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and repeal the laws constraining the banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. ...as Adam Curtis's documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan. Among the essays he wrote for Ayn Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business... as the greed of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking ..."is the unexcelled protector of the consumer". (A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot).
[2] Even though "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States and many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism", Ayn Rand said (of Libertarianism) "I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives". (Libertarianism and Objectivism & The Ayn Rand Lexicon: What was Ayn Rand's view of the libertarian movement?).

Video: Part 2 (on YouTube) of the 7/02/1979 Tom Snyder interview with Ayn Rand (9:55). Quote above begins at 2:53. See all 3 parts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

SWTD #335

Monday, May 02, 2016

On Larry Wilmore "Offending" Rush Limbaugh With His #WHCD2016 Speech

...the formerly drug-addled host was just rambling, which is his job. It's nice work if you can get it! ~ Gawker author describing how Rush Limbaugh entertains the "bitter white dudes" who listen to his program. Excerpted from a 8/21/2008 article "Should We Bother Getting Offended by Rush Limbaugh?".

World Net Daily (AKA Black Mob Central) reports that "Limbaugh peeved by use of N-word for Obama" (re Larry Wilmore's speech at the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner). To which I say BULLSHIT! Limbaugh is is feigning outrage because it presents him an opportunity to attack the Obama administration.

The White House is apparently not offended by the use of the N-word for President Obama, at least not when it comes from a black comedian, but radio titan Rush Limbaugh is. Comic Larry Wilmore uncorked a slang version of the racial slur at the White House Correspondents’ dinner Saturday night, when he told Obama: "Yo Barry, you did it my n**ga. You did it".

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he had talked to Obama about Wilmore's use of the word and said the president told him "he appreciated the spirit of Mr. Wilmore's expression Saturday night", the Washington Examiner reported. (Limbaugh Peeved by Use of N-word For Obama by Joe Kovacs. WND 5/2/2016).

Who Limbaugh is actually "peeved" at is revealed with the article's first sentence. I mean, has Limbaugh EVER expressed any offense before when the N-word was used to refer to Obama (the actual N-word and not the version of it ending with an "a")? According to Limbaugh a Black comedian (Larry Wilmore at the date correspondent's dinner) referring to Obama using the term "ni**a" is "indicative that there isn't much respect for the office of the presidency" - but apparently when Limbaugh referred to Obama as "Barack the magic negro" that was... respectful?

In March 2007, American critic David Ehrenstein used the title "Obama the Magic Negro" for an editorial he wrote for the Los Angeles Times, in which he described Barack Obama's image in white American culture: "He's there to assuage white "guilt"...

Rush Limbaugh began discussing Ehrenstein's op ed on the day it was published. He cast Ehrenstein's column as criticizing Obama himself for not being authentic or black enough: "The problem, Ehrenstein says, is he's not real. Al Sharpton's real, Snoop Dogg is real, but Barack Obama is not real. He's just there to assuage white guilt. In other words, the only reason Obama is anywhere is because whites are willing to support him because they feel so guilty over slavery". He described the column as an example of the "racism of the left". He said "The term Magic Negro has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008" and said he would "own" the term by the end of the week. He [Limbaugh] briefly sang the words "Barack the magic negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon". (Wikipedia/Magical Negro/Barack Obama).

Regardless of the fact that it was David Ehrenstein (exhibiting "racism of the left") Limbaugh took the "magic negro" application to Obama and ran with it.

Limbaugh later [in the broadcast] asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term", adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the Magic Negro, there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio". (Latching onto L.A. Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro" by Adam Serwer. Media Matters 3/20/2007).

Why use it at all (and in song form)? Because Rush is cloaking his racism with faux outrage. Because someone on "the left" used the term, Limbaugh saw that as license for him to use it (27 times during the same broadcast, according to Media Matters). And blame "racism of the left". But it's Rush's own racism that explains his actions.

He jumps at these opportunities. Previously it was David Ehrenstein who provided Rush the opportunity to express his true racist feelings (and have someone "on the left" to blame). This time it was Larry Wilmore (and there are likely many examples between these two that I'm not aware of).

And further proof that this is indeed is what is occurring is that this story was written up for the notoriously racist World Net Daily (their "religion is apeshit racist ring-wingnut douchery with a side of tabloid pablum" says a 2/18/2014 Gawker article).

WND author writes "racism is an illusion, and Black Lives Matter lies". And yes, Jesse Lee Peterson is an African American. But that's how WND "proves" it isn't racist - it has African American best friends (authors). But for even more proof check out the (more overtly racist) comments. These are the kinds of racist Whites that WND panders to (Trump voters).

As for Wilmore's use of the word being offensive? I'll leave that to the Black community to hash out. Although I will say that I agree that it's not the same when a Black person uses the term compared to a White person using it. Regarding the "controversy" within the Black community, I've heard comments both ways. From "get over it" to "yes, it was offensive".

Me, I'm more offended by Limbaugh. Not regarding what he says. The Gawker blogger I quoted at the top of this article has a point... THIS is what Limbaugh does. And he's been doing it for a long time. But that his last contract awarded him with $38 million a year for 8 years plus a $100 million signing bonus. That Conservative commentators like Limbaugh get Brinks trucks backing up to their homes with hourly deliveries of cash while Liberal commentators make significantly less? It makes me want to puke!

I'm talking about true Progressives commentators, btw (people like Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann). I think the talking heads at msnbc probably do OK. Those who weren't fired by Andy Lack who decided that, to fix the problem of msnbc's ratings being bad, decided the solution would be to go more Insider (Washington More About Insiders V Outsiders Than Democrats V Republicans).

SWTD #334

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Ronald Kessler Tells Newsmax Hillary Clinton Indictment Likely B4 General Election

A virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which scientists and Republicans thought had been wiped out at the end of the last century, is now afflicting millions of conservative Americans. Some Republicans so detest Hillary Clinton they are badly underestimating how likely she is, at this point in the campaign, to be America's 45th president ~ Mark Halperin, from a 10/26/2015 Bloomberg Politics article.

According to Wikipedia "Kessler's writings have been criticized in publications such as the Washington Post and The Week for overt partisanship and a lack of journalistic rigor". This HRC "indictment likely" BS falls into that category, IMO. And, YES, I absolutely think the suggestion that HRC will be indicted is total bullshit. It will NOT happen (I predict).

As for Kessler's partisanship, I can think of one other example. (The 73yo) Kessler is the one who reported that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said the reason was to get "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years" (SWTD #228).

Although what he actually said (according to his press secretary, Bill Moyers) was "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". I think that worry (which has been proven correct) is proof that LBJ's motivations were NOT to trick Black people into voting Democratic (as Republicans contend) but because it was "to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country [and] to close the springs of racial poison". These were LBJ's words in an address to the nation upon his signing of the legislation (which was broadcast live on 7/2/1964).

Given the fact that Rightwingers love this "quote", as it "proves" that the racist LBJ's motivations were to trick African Americans into voting Democratic, HELL YES, I've got to wonder if Kessler "reported" this for partisan reasons.

And I've wondering if Mr. Kessler reported that Hillary is "likely" to be indicted (over her emails) for partisan reasons. Especially considering which candidate he praised in his remarks (as reported by NewsMax).

Veteran journalist Ronald Kessler tells Newsmax TV that Hillary Clinton will likely be indicted before the general election for using a private email server to conduct classified government business as secretary of state — but will likely be pardoned by President Barack Obama.

"Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two", Kessler said Friday [4/15/2016] on "The Steve Malzberg Show". "By definition, putting classified information on an unsecured server is gross negligence. You saw President Obama trying to make excuses for her. I think he's leading up to giving a pardon to Hillary, but there's no question. She will be indicted. ... Jim Comey, the FBI director, is a man of great integrity. I think [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch is as well ... not political in the way Eric Holder was. No question she will be indicted".

Kessler - a former Washington Post reporter... said that even if Clinton is pardoned, the damage will have been done.

"Either way, she's going to be besmirched and it's possible that [Vice President Joe] Biden might step in," he told Malzberg.

Kessler also praised Donald Trump as a candidate who would be very different operating in the White House than how he appears on the campaign trail.

"People don't understand about Donald that there are two Donald Trumps. One is the guy you see on TV who makes these provocative comments to get attention", Kessler said. (NewsMax 4/15/2016).

Kessler is a former reporter for WP, but (what the article above failed to disclose) is that "from 2006 to 2012, Kessler was chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax". This would be the "conservative website and magazine" that "has continued to stoke birther fantasies" and supports Donald Trump for president.

With stories such as "Pat Buchanan to GOP: Support Trump Now or Lose to Hillary" I don't know how anyone couldn't conclude that they are far, FAR Right. Up there with World Net Daily.

Steve Malzberg, btw, is a wingnut who said "the president [Barack Obama] can be perceived and has been perceived by many as being an Islamist sympathizer by his actions [and that] most of his Middle East policies favor the Muslim Brotherhood" (Newsmax's Steve Malzberg Uses CNN Appearance To Legitimize Questioning Obama's Faith, Citizenship, 9/20/2015).

So, regarding Kessler... "birds of a feather flock together" could apply here, I think (Rightwing nutjobs associate with others of the same ilk). Certainly this HRC indictment being "likely/definitely" is nutty. Which I say because it isn't f*cking going to happen.

Past cases suggest Hillary won't be indicted (article excerpt) A Politico review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it's highly unlikely — but not impossible. The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton's use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don't appear to be present in Clinton's case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

A former senior FBI official told Politico that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases. (4/11/2016 article by Josh Gerstein).

"There's no question" HRC will be indicted sez Kessler, but that definitive an assertion is total bullplop. "Highly unlikely" (as the Politico article says) is more like it. Oh, and that Kessler suggests Biden might be the Democratic nominee and praises Trump (dismissing Trump's racism as "provocative comments") is proof enough for me that he's a total wingnut. As opposed to a "veteran journalist".

Which explains why he lied about LBJ (although that is a qualified "lie"; see SWTD #273). Also, why he's lying about Hillary being indicted.

Although, if HRC were indicted, that would throw the nomination (and presidency) to Bernie Sanders. Given the fact that Biden is definitely NOT going to "step in" (to suggest he might is pure idiocy) and neither Trump nor Cruz have much of a chance against either Hillary or Bernie. So, given this, I (as a Sanders supporter) might be able to get behind this HRC indictment notion? Nah. Why even consider that, when the chances are next to nil? Not when it's more fun to make fun of those who suffer from insane delusions regarding the Clintons (SWTD #313).

Mark Halperin (the game changer who called president Obama a dick), BTW, is absolutely correct about how virulent this strain of Clinton derangement syndrome is. Ronald Kessler being but one among the millions of those who are afflicted. Although, Halperin is dead wrong about CDS having been "wiped out at the end of the last century". The last century ended on 12/31/2000 and Hillary Clinton ran her first presidential campaign in 2008 against Obama, then served as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 (and during ALL of this time CDS was alive and well).

SWTD #333

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Religious Nutjob Ted Cruz "Called & Anointed" By God To Be The Next President

The corporate right fires up the religious right against gay marriage and abortion and uses their votes to push their deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. It's an old trick. The House of Saud has the same arrangement with the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia ~ Adam McKay (dob 4/17/1968) a film director and screenwriter who has a creative partnership with actor Will Ferrell.

One of the most frightening things about the candidacy of the Canadian-born Ted Cruz is a what a Rightwing religious nut he is. Ted's father Rafael Bienvenido Cruz believes that his son was chosen by the Almighty to be our next president. Rightwing Watch notes that "earlier this year, Ted Cruz's father and primary presidential campaign surrogate... spoke at televangelist Kenneth Copeland's church in Texas".

Kenneth Copeland is a televangelist who preaches the prosperity gospel, which is a twisting a scripture under which good (Republican) Christians are rewarded by God with riches. Ignore that BS about what Jesus said about how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven. These prosperity gospel hucksters insist that God wants you to be rich. Fact is, you can tell that a person is right with God if he is wealthy (wealth being a blessing from above).

And according to Copeland and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, Rafael Edward Cruz (AKA "Ted" Cruz) has been selected to be our next ruler (text below is a transcription from the video record of what took place at Copeland's TX church).

Rafael Bienvenido Cruz: The word from the Lord was "seek my face, not my hand". It was if the cloud of the Holy spirit descended upon the room. And all of a sudden, we were all worshipping. And the words that came out of Ted's mouth were "here am I Lord, use me. Let your will be done". I believe that the Lord has raised him up for such a time as this. (see video below).

There was a similar Mormon prophecy that some of Mittens' followers thought he was the one to fulfill. The White Horse Prophecy says that "the United States Constitution will one day hang like a thread and will be saved by the efforts of the White Horse". Some believe "Mormons expect the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And some believed that Mittens was that "White Horse", although Mittens himself said it wasn't "official church doctrine" and that he didn't "put that at the heart of my religious belief".

But Ted Cruz apparently DOES believe he is anointed by God to bring theocracy to the United States. Unless his father is lying about what he thinks God told Ted. But Ted was there (at Copeland's church) where he spoke for an hour. It might be possible that Ted is just going with his father's delusions (that have him believing the cloud of the Holy Spirit descended and spoke to his son)? Perhaps Ted decided he could use his father's delusions to dupe religious nutjobs into voting for him?

Anyway, if Rafael Edward Cruz were somehow elected president, I'd suspect fraud. And, if President Cruz attempted to steer our nation toward theocracy (I have no idea HOW he'd accomplish this, but let's say, for the sake of argument that he found a way) I'd suspect he was the AntiChrist. I say this seriously, as someone who identifies as Christian.

But I doubt any of this will come to pass. It's far more likely, IMO, that Ted Cruz won't be the nominee, let alone elected president (and then attempt to be a theocrat). And it's far more likely that Ted and his father are total nutjobs. Or liars who think they can take advantage of Rightwing "Christians" who think Ted is "the chosen one".

Video: Televangelist Kenneth Copeland (introducing Rafael Bienvenido Cruz) says, "I believe, with all my heart, that his son is called and anointed to be the next president of the United States".

SWTD #332

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Joe Scarborough Speaks Unspeakable Truth Re Fact That Republican Policies Benefit The Wealthy & Hurt Everyone Else

Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate ~ David Stockman (dob 11/10/1946) former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under preznit Ronny Raygun.

The following soundbite via the 3/6/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Program.

Morning Joe: The problem with the Republican Party over the past 30 years is they haven't (I'll say we haven't) developed a message that appeals to the working class economically in the way that Donald Trump has. We talk about cutting capital gains taxes - the 10k people who are in the crowd cheering for Trump - they're never going to get a capital gains cut, because it doesn't apply.

We talk about getting rid of the death tax [estate tax]. The death tax isn't going to impact these people. We talk about how great free trade deals are? Those free trade deals never trickle down to those 10k people.

Herein lies the problem with the Republican Party. It never trickles down. Those 10k in Trump's crowd, those are the people who lost jobs when they were moved to Mexico. The Republican donor class were the ones that got rich off it because their capital moved overseas and they made higher profits.

And the American people are finally figuring that out... according to Thom Hartmann. I'm not 100 percent sure of this. I think this realization explains why Bernie Sanders is doing so well. Yeah, it looks like Hillary will be the nominee, but the fact that a democratic socialist Jew is actually making a good showing against the establishment's choice? I think that says a LOT regarding the voters FINALLY waking up to the fact that Republican policies favor the wealthy and that the economic system that works so well in Europe (and worked so well under FDR) is something we should be doing more of (The 12 best reasons to be a democratic socialist).

That free trade benefits the "Republican donor class" is why Hillary Clinton was forced to backtrack on the TPP. Previously she referred to it as the "gold standard" and now she is saying she doesn't support it (45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes).

Yet, Trump says he's a "free trader", he'd just negotiate better deals. But he is not for ANY of the other pro-rich policies that never "trickle down" to the non-wealthy. Trump is proposing MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthy with a 15% max tax rate, no "death tax" and no corporate tax (Donald Trump's Tax Plan Would Make the Rich Richer, Uncle Sam Poorer).

Clearly the Trumpeteers are NOT figuring it out. And (imo) Hillary voters aren't figuring it out either. She's moved to the Left, but she's been pushed there by Sanders (and likely not stay there after elected). Hillary is not a Progressive, but a moderate. In her own words! (HRC 9/10/2015: "You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty").

If people actually were figuring it out Donald Trump wouldn't be poised to claim the nomination on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be winning on the Democratic side. And primary voting turnout wouldn't be "massive" on the Republican side, it would be MASSIVE on the Democratic side (Here's Just How Massive Republicans' Super Tuesday Turnout Was).

And the massive turnout would be for Bernie Sanders. He's a once in a lifetime candidate, IMO. The country NEEDS Bernie Sanders. Hillary might be OK and push some incremental change. Trump (or any other of the Republicans) would further harm our nation (Bernie Sanders Is a Once in a Lifetime Presidential Candidate. The Time Is Now).

Under a Sanders' presidency income and jobs would soar. This is according to Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor. His analysis shows that, under Sanders, "median income would soar by more than $22k, nearly 26 million jobs would be created and the unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%".

BTW, that tool Chuck Todd says (when Scarborough is speaking) "you sound like Bernie Sanders". Clearly upChuck was taken off guard by Scarborough's honesty. Honesty Thom Hartmann found astounding. Yeah, me too.

Video: Joe Scarborough gives up the game: After 30 years, the GOP base realized "it never trickles down" by David Edwards. RawStory 3/8/2016 (6:55, 1:25-2:30 for Scarborough comments).

SWTD #331

Monday, March 07, 2016

Donald Trump Just Telling The Rubes What They Want To Hear

When he called Trump a charlatan and a fraud yesterday I thought that was an endorsement ~ David Feldman; Emmy award winning comedy writer and standup comedian calling in to the 3/4/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show. A reference to a 3/3/2016 Mittens R-Money speech at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Is Donald Trump just telling his supporters what they want to hear? In other words, is he lying about all the next-to-impossible promises he's making? All the other candidates on the stage at the 11th gop debate - Cruz, Rubio and Kasich - said they think he is.

In remarks made later in the debate (transcribed below), Cruz refered to a Trump "off the record" conversation that Donald had with the NYT that was apparently recorded. (The conversation with the editorial board wasn't an interview, but only to help the board decide who to endorse. Note that prior to the Cruz remarks Megyn Kelly asked Trump if he was willing to ask the NYT to release the tapes, and he said no).

Ted Cruz: Marco's dad started as a bartender. My dad started washing dishes. You know how many Americans wanted those jobs? [working in Trump's FL hotel]? Roughly 300 applied. Donald hired 17. That's why this New York Times tape is so troubling. What's been reported is that Donald told the editorial board of the New York Times, "what I'm saying on immigration, I don't believe. I'm not going to build a wall. I'm not going to deport people. This is all just rhetoric for the voters".

Now, if he didn't say that, he has an easy solution. Simply release the tape. (3/3/2016 at the Fox Theatre in downtown Detroit MI).

Cruz's info is coming from a 2/29/2016 BuzzFeed article titled "Donald Trump Secretly Told The New York Times What He Really Thinks About Immigration. In this article it is mentioned that one NYT columnist who attended the meeting, wrote the following...

Gail Collins: The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn't believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you're making a deal.

The Opinion Page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, however, says "the Times is not covering up any information related to the presidential campaign that would be crucial to the public's knowledge".

Yeah, I don't know about that. Not that I think Trump would say "yeah, I'm lying" to anyone. But I do think he's only telling the rubes (his "Trumpeteers") what they want to hear. I think that is QUITE obvious. And there is the fact that Cruz asked again (after the remarks I excerpted above), for Donald to release those tapes, and Donald (referring to Cruz as "lying Ted") again said NO.

So maybe he did tell the NYT he's a huge liar. Not in those words, of course. What he might have said was likely (if he said anything of the sort) that he would "negotiate". Although Marco Rubio, in response to Trump insisting he was "flexible", said "there is a difference between flexibility, and telling telling people whatever you think you need to say to get them to do what you want them to do", afterwhich Kasich inserted "that's right".

Which is what he did with his "Trump University" scam, as Rubio also noted (Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam). Now he's attempting to scam the American people into voting for him. An observation of Marco's that I *do* agree with. Not that I agree with him (or any of the other Republican candidates) about anything else (except for Kasich taking the Medicaid expansion).

SWTD #330

Saturday, March 05, 2016

On Jeb Bush Dropping Out Of The 2016 potus Race (The Brother Of The War Criminal Who Failed To Keep Us Safe)

I congratulate my competitors that are remaining on the island ~ Jeb! remarks upon the "suspension" of his bid for the White House, 2/20/2016.

On 4/25/2013 Barbara Bush said "we've had enough Bushes". This was in regards to her other son John Ellis (AKA Jeb!) possibly running for the presidency. When Jeb decided he would run, Babs sent an email to prospective supporters asking for money (3/18/2015) that revised that past statement.

Instead of an emphatic NO (which is how I'd describe the "we've had enough Bushes") she says she was "hesitant". What made her change her mind was the "fact" that "our problems are so profound that America needs a leader who can renew the promise of this great nation". IMO the leader who can do that is Bernie Sanders. But, whether it's Bernie or Hillary on the Democratic side, it is now certain that the Republican the Democrat faces off against will NOT be Jeb.

Although, according to Late Late Show host James Cordon "George W bush was a little confused why Jeb quit because he was losing - because as far as George W bush is concerned, you still become president even when you don't get the most votes"... to which I say, good one. Ha ha. Al Gore was elected to the presidency by winning the most votes, but the Supreme Court stole his victory by anointing a man who would go on to ignore the warnings concerning an eminent terrorist attack (Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US) then go on to start two illegal wars (Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War).

Regarding the "please clap" moment (see video below) Host of the Late Show, Stephen Colbert, remarked (on the 2/22/2016 airing of his program) that Jeb should have said "please vote for me". Actually, I think that if you watch the video it's clear that Jeb ended his speech abruptly and the audience simply did not know he was done. They might have clapped if they had.

Still, even if the media misrepresented this moment (the author of the Colbert article writes that Jeb "received no applause after a speech on national security") and mercilessly mocked him for something he didn't deserve to be mocked for, I surely do not care one iota re the "unfairness" of it.

Frankly, I'm thinking that *if* one of the Republicans were to be elected, a president Trump might be the least worst option. Out of those who could conceivably win the nomination, that is. Otherwise I guess I'd go with Kasich, even though he'd still be pretty bad (Myth of the "moderate" John Kasich).

I was in agreement with Bab's initial comment regarding American not needing another bush. Surely the electorate would reject another after the economy crashing war criminality of the last one. It isn't as if Jeb was honest with us instead of spinning a ridiculous and patently false narrative that his doofus brother "kept us safe", Donald Trump told the truth during the last debate about how gwb LIED about WMD.

Even if he's now walked back his "bush lied about WMD" truth-telling, saying, in an AC360 interview "I don't know what he did". Clearly he only confronted Jeb on the lies of his brother to destroy the bush brother's candidacy (SWTD #326). And Jeb dropped out shortly after the debate.

So perhaps the strategy worked? Now he can deny he ever said the bushies lied about WMD and his idiot "Trumpeteers" will go along with the Donald's revisionism. Because they're so gaga over his xenophobia and jingoism they really don't care if he lies to them. Apparently they don't realize that he might be lying about the wall, deporting illegals, the Muslim registry, banning Muslims from entering the country, etc, etc. Because he's promising a bunch of stuff he can't deliver, I think it's clear he's simply telling the rubes what the want to hear (Donald Trump Secretly Told The New York Times What He Really Thinks About Immigration).

Anyway, remember that Jeb did say he would rather lose the primary in order to win the general? Looks like he succeeded with phase 1 of his master plan. I wonder what phase 2 is going to entail? Obviously the end result will be that Jeb is elected president, but how's he going to do it?

Video1: Speaking at the Hanover Inn near the Vermont border on [2/2/2016], Mr. Bush finished a fiery riff about protecting the country - "I won't be out here blow-harding, talking a big game without backing it up", he said — and was met with total silence. "Please clap", he said, sounding defeated. The crowd laughed — and then, finally, clapped. (excerpted from a 2/3/2016 NYT article by Jonathan Martin and Ashley Parker) (0:33).

Video2: Jill Sobule reveals the truth about the Trumpeteers in song - when they say "Make America Great Again", they mean by getting rid of the black and brown people (4:49).

SWTD #329

Thursday, March 03, 2016

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Co-Sponsors Legislation To Protect Payday Loan Sharks

He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head ~ The Christian Bible, Ezekiel 18:13 (New International Version).

In another in a string of disappointing moves, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and Rep for FL's 23rd district, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has gotten into bed with the payday lending industry with legislation that she is co-sponsoring (!).

Payday lenders fearing modest federal regulations will cut into their vast profit margins have a new, high-profile ally in Washington: ...Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is co-sponsoring legislation to delay and permanently muffle pending Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules to rein in small-dollar lenders that are currently able to levy triple-digit annual interest rates on the nation's poorest... The bill would force a 2-year delay of the CFPB's rules... the bill... would... permanently block [CFPB rules] in any state that enacts the sort of ineffectual, industry-crafted regulatory sham that FL adopted in 2001.

That bill featured "compromise language heavily influenced by industry players", the FL Alliance for Consumer Protection notes. Rather than a model for robust oversight that still allows low-income people to access emergency credit when they need it, the group describes the FL approach as a series of "well-disguised loopholes" that preserve the industry's abusive patterns. (The Official Head Of The Democratic Party Joins GOP Effort To Protect Payday Lenders by Alan Pyke. ThinkProgress 3/1/2016).

I call payday lenders "loan sharks" due to the interest rates they charge. Rates that fit the definition of usury.

Usury is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. ... A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. ... Someone who practices usury can be called a usurer, but a more common term in contemporary English is loan shark.

The term may be used in a moral sense - condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes - or in a legal sense where interest rates may be regulated by law. Historically, some cultures (e.g., Christianity in much of Medieval Europe, and Islam in many parts of the world today) have regarded charging any interest for loans as sinful. (Wikipedia/Usury).

Yeah, I'd say it's sinful, in that it's morally reprehensible for "some of the worst predatory bastards in America" (according to Charlie Pierce), to be raking in so much profit via sky-high interest rates in regards to loans to those who can least afford this overcharging.

...22% of borrowers end up rolling their loan over seven or more times, loans in such misery cycles account for 62% of the industry's business. Trapping people in lengthy repay cycles is literally the primary source of industry income. About 76% of all FL payday borrowing is rollover loans within two weeks of a previous loan, and 85% of all loans are part of a reborrowing sequence of seven or more straight high-interest loans. The typical borrower there pays 300% annual interest. (excerpt from same ThinkProgress article quoted above).

Add to this the fact that DWS voted to fast track the TPP (The 28 Democrats Who Voted For Fast Track), vigorously opposed a 2014 medical marijuana amendment in FL", and has inappropriately used her position as the DNC chair to tip the scales in favor of Hillary.

...speaking of the debate, why did Wasserman Schultz schedule it for the Saturday night before Christmas, at one of the least-watched times on television, virtually guaranteeing low ratings? ...the DNC under Wasserman Schultz wants to guarantee that as few people as possible actually watch the Democrats' own debates! Hillary's campaign wanted as few debates as possible to prevent her lesser-known opponents from getting free television exposure. DNC limited debates to six, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign... (Fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz by Miles Mogulescu. Huffpo 12/18/2015).

All proof that it's time for Debbie to go. The Progressive Left (the heart of the Democratic Party) should no longer tolerate an obvious corporate shill as DNC Chair. Heck, I'd say she needs to be primaried and booted out of the House as well. Which she is being, btw. Good luck to her challenger, Tim Canova (Meet Debbie Wasserman Schultz's First-Ever Primary Challenger: Tim Canova).

Image: HRC Campaign surrogate/shill Debbie Wasserman Schultz is inappropriately attempting to use her power as DNC Chair to anoint Hillary the Democratic nominee (5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton).

RNUSA: Wasserman Schultz To Go? (12/20/2015).

SWTD #328