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.


Fallon: 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...


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).


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