Saturday, August 20, 2016

GOP The Party Of Racism & Bigotry, Henceforth To Be Referred To As Trumpism

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down ~ Bill Bennett (dob 7/31/1943) former Reagan education secretary. 9/28/2016 comment by Bennett from his nationally syndicated radio program, Morning in America.

It is time to dump Reaganomics and bring back the Great Society, but the rise of Donald Trump may present a problem in that regard. Trump has given voice to the racists on the Right (the silent bigot minority) and they won't go away if/when Trump loses. Although, that IS the direction it has been nudging toward for a long time. But now, under Trump, the racists are reinvigorated. They're LOVING Trump and his embrace of their hardcore bigotry.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/17/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom, reacting to an African American caller saying "this party has been at the root of all the ills of our country" (and blaming Reaganomics), shares his thoughts on LBJ's Great Society and the enormous economic damage Reaganomics has done.

Thom: I'm absolutely agreeing with you. You pointed out the damage that Reaganomics did to communities of color in this country. We were just a generation into the Great Society. It was just starting to strengthen the Black middle class. And it was also strengthening the White middle class, and it was dealing with poverty in White communities. I would say that White working class communities have been devastated by Reaganomics as well.

This piece Justin Gest wrote for Politico called "Why Trumpism will outlast Trump" [shows why this is the case]. Gest says "I solicited white Americans' support for Donald Trump, but also for a hypothetical third party dedicated to stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America's Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam — essentially the platform of the UK's right-wing British National Party, adapted to the United States".

65% of White Americans said they agreed with it. Now, I think that probably the biggest thing they're agreeing with is providing American jobs to American workers. But the reality is that there is a large base of pissed off White people too. And they've seen their jobs devastated by Reaganomics, too. Donald Trump is pumping that With rage and he's directing a lot of that White/Right rage toward communities of color.

It's a variation of, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s when politicians like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan were saying those Black workers (back when the unions were segregated) are going to take your jobs. This is an old playbook. We've seen this before. Detroit used to be the richest city in American... [but it was destroyed by Reaganomics].

Caller: The car manufacturing jobs moved to the Southern states that have right to work laws. Their [Trump voters] anger is so misdirected and they're so easily manipulated by rich white people [the oligarchs]. (Note: comment paraphrased).

[End 8/17/2016 Thom Hartmann Program Excerpt]

This is scary stuff. As the article notes, Trump supporters are "more likely to be males under 40, of lower socioeconomic status, without a university education and ideologically conservative - in other words, the Republican Party's longtime base. ...this is not a phenomenon likely to pass quickly".

"Trumpism is Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George bush Republicanism" Thom Hartmann said after returning from the break. Pointing out the fact that, since Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP has been the home of the nation's racists.

Republican strategist Lee Atwater started the meme that cutting taxes and the social safety net would hurt the ni**ers and racist Whites should vote Republican for that reason. Prior to LBJ's signing of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, it was the Dems who were the party of the racists (SWTD #228). But that changed with Richard Nixon. He saw that the White racist votes were up for grabs, and he decided that racists should vote Republican (and that is how he'd win). The GOP has been a home to the racists ever since.

Many of the "Reagan Democrats" switched over to the GOP because, as Atwater (who advised RWR & GHWB) said (in 1981) "You start out in 1954 by saying, ni**er, ni**er, ni**er. By 1968 you can't say ni**er - that hurts you. Backfires. So [now] you're talking about cutting taxes... totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".

"Boy, do we have an opportunity. We can get all these White Southerners who are hysterical about race to vote for insane economic policies that are going to destroy their own lives and make us [the ruling elites & the oligarchs] richer. Simply by talking to them in code. And we've got a new code, which is that government is bad because it helps Black people", Hartmann said later in program. Black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people and Gay people too. Democrats support these minorities and Republicans demonize them.

"The GOP has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry" Bob Herbert (an African American journalist) wrote in a 10/6/2005 NYT article (the same article I pulled the Bennett and Attwater quotes from). Black people KNOW this, and this is why they vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities (94% of the black vote went to Johnson the year he signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In the Obama Vs Romney contest BHO garnered 95% of the Black vote).

Former RNC chair Michael Steel claimed that "the idea of the Southern Strategy is over. I announced that when I was chairman. We're not doing that anymore" (SWTD #274). But he didn't last long in that position. Largely because he spoke against the idea that the GOP would abandon the racists and go for a larger percentage of the Black and Latino vote, IMO (that, and because he's Black).

The GOP, despite the autopsy report that said they'd start losing presidential elections going forward if they didn't convince minority voters to vote Republican, have gone farther Right instead.

"Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future" Herbert wrote in 2005. But the malignancy is spreading into the future. Racism and bigotry has a new name; they can now be referred to using the term "Trumpism". Due to the attention paid to the White Nationalists and "Alt Right" by the GOP under Donald Trump. Proof racists and bigots should now be called "Trumpists" is his selection of Breitbart bigot Steve Bannon.

Alt Right Rejoices at Donald Trump's Steve Bannon Hire (Daily Beast article by Betsy Woodruff and Gideon Resnick, excerpt) Donald Trump's campaign is under new management - and his white nationalist fanboys love it. The campaign's new chief executive, Stephen Bannon, joins from Breitbart News - where he helped mainstream the ideas of white nationalists and resuscitate the reputations of anti-immigrant fear-mongers.

BTW, rememeber when Trump tweeted that pic of Hillary with a Star of David next to it? The one that was captioned "most corrupt candidate ever". Well, if Trump isn't an anti-semite, then why is he "turning his campaign over to someone who's best known for running a so-called news site that peddles divisive, at times racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" (this is a quote from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook excerpted from the Daily Beast).

Time for people to open their minds and see the GOP of today for what it is, not what they want it to be [1]. If you're a Conservative voter who is "holding your nose" and voting for Trump, KNOW who you're voting for! Initially I thought that Trump was only USING the racists (a Southern Strategy on steroids being what he thought could be his path to the White House. Or at least the GOP nomination). Now, given his past history, I'm thinking that Trump is totally a racist.

That history being the Trump apartment renters being screened by race ("one rental agent said Trump's father had told him not to rent to blacks"). A young DJT, who was president of the Trump business at the time, decided to go to court to fight the discrimination charges (Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows).

Then there's Trump's reaction to the Central Park jogger attack, which was to pay for $85k for newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the so-called Central Park Five. Five young African American males who were convicted of the "assault, rape, and sodomy of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in NYC's Central Park, on 4/19/1989" (a crime it was later determined had been committed by another individual, and for which the 5 young men had been railroaded into confessing to by the cops).

But the Bannon hiring has changed my mind on this. Trump is now, and has always been a racist. Unless one was a sociopath, how could a person live with himself, doing what he's doing? I'm talking about pandering to the Alt Right to win the presidency (if it is enough to win, and I pray to God it isn't). Not that I don't think Trump isn't a sociopath. He may be. That's in addition to being a total narcissist, a misogynist, a bigot and a racist.

"I was from an area that was all Democrat. And, frankly, over the years, I have — and especially as I have gotten more and more involved — I have evolved" Trump said on the 8/23/2015 airing of Face The Nation. PolitiFact notes that "Trump has changed his party affiliation 5 times since registering as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987".

I not sure what he means by "evolved", but I do think this conspiracy theory that says the Democrat Trump was talked into running as a Republican by Bill Clinton so his wife could win... it's bullshit. Trump ran as a Republican because his racism is a PERFECT fit for the Republican party, NOT the Democratic party. Trump is a racist. His supporters are racists. Those who vote for him in November are racists or naive duped enablers of racism and bigotry. And remember that we're not talking about your average racists or bigots, but the absolute scum of the earth, the Alt Right/White Nationalists.

Something to keep in mind when you go to the ballot box in November. IF you vote for Trumpism, the fallout will BE ON YOU! You can't say later you weren't warned. I'm not talking about being warned by me (as nobody, or VERY few people will read this), but by Trump's actions. He's a racist and he's making it very clear that he's a racist. His decision to cozy up to the Breitbart bigots being proof positive of this.

[1] My modification of a comment from Sid Andrews, left in response to my 1/22/2014 commentary Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It (commentary that, according to Blogger stats, is my #1 most popular post). BTW, LJB was a racist and he did use the N-word. But he, I would argue, was a product of his times and place of birth. Not that this excuses his racism. But he did sign the legislation because he knew it was the right thing to do. And despite knowing that signing the 1957 CRA would cost the Democratic Party the South "for a generation".

Video: Footage from a Donald Trump rally in Phoenix AZ 6/18/2016 featuring Trump supporter Zachary Fisher who screamed " that fucking wall. For me! Trump! I love Trump!". "Fisher also has the number 43 tattooed beneath his left armpit. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the number is used by members of the racist skinhead group Supreme White Alliance". (1:41).

SWTD #347

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

You've Been Reported!

Attention! If your Blogger ID & site are on the list below, you've been reported to Blogger for violating their Terms of Service (TOS). Specifically, your ID and blog are potentially about to be found guilty of being in violation of Blogger's content policy, which prohibits copying content from someone else's blog ("someone is copying my content" AKA plagarism) as well as harassment ("harassment or bullying" or "blog attacking" according to the complainant).

In alphabetical order, the offending blogs are as follows.

Dog Report (D) Flying Junior.

FreeThinke (CC) FreeThinke.

The Oracular Opinion & Blogger Sleuth (C) Pamela D. Hart.

Progressive Eruptions (D) Shaw Kenawe

Rational Nation USA (C) Rational Nation USA.

Sleeping With The Devil (D) Dervish Sanders.

Who's Your Daddy (CC) Lisa.

(C: Conservative, CC: Crazy Conservative, D: Democratic).

If you find your Blog/Blogger ID on this list? You might want to take the situation seriously. Very seriously. Because Blogger takes violations of it's Terms of Service and Blogger Content Policy seriously.

Blogs/Bloggers on the list above may be subjected to the following penalties.

Delete the offending content, blog post or blog.
Disable the author's access to his/her Blogger account.
Disable the author's access to his/her Google account.
Report the user to law enforcement. (Source).

On the other hand, you may decide to not take this "reporting" seriously, given who the complainant is. It's a crazy, paranoid, deluded troll who thinks everyone is attacking him & plagiarizing his blog posts.

Luke: Since you insist on stealing my posts, I'll post them on your thread and make it easy for you. [Full text of post from Luke's blog Speak Your Mind titled The Clinton Machine]. (7/27/2016 AT 5:43pm).

Luke: I proved Shaw stole my post 3 times. You did miss it lying asshole and I'm not reproving it for a lying asshole like you. Again, check my blog for that Nader post lying asshole. Say what you want my blog proves alll of you lying assholes. By asshole. (8/07/2016 AT 3:23pm).

According to Luke Spencer's (his Google Plus ID) blog sidebar "their goal seems to be to force bloggers to close down their blogs". And he added "If they attack you, report it to Blogger, I did". "Their" being the bloggers on the list above. Apparently all these bloggers (myself included) are "buddies".

Although I know for a fact that nobody I mentioned initially is a buddy to either Lisa or Free Thinke. Also, Luke attributes "Dog Report" to -FJ, who, as far as I know is not Flying Junior. They're 2 different bloggers.

The following is the comment moderation note from Luke's Speak Your Mind blog.

Due to continuous attacks on my blog by Rational Nation and multiple other aliases (RN), The Oracular Opinion and Blogger Sleuth (Pam), Progressive Eruptions (Shaw), Sleeping With The Devil and 5 other blogs (Dervish Sanders) and their continuous plagiarism of my posts, I have set moderation. If you have trouble with these nasty trolls report them to Blogger, I did.

Anyway, as "buddies" all these bloggers are apparently harassing poor Luke by plagiarizing his posts and attacking his blog. Now, I don't know if anyone else is plagiarizing his posts, but I can speak for myself. And I can say I'd never heard of this Luke character until he showed up on my blog and submitted one of his posts as a comment (the first one I quoted above).

And it looks like Luke is super pissed at Shaw Kenawe because she stole his posts 3 times! I asked him for proof in the form of some links to where this "stealing" occurred, but he refused. So I concluded it never happened. I think you've got to prove something ONCE before you can "reprove" it.

As for the "Nader post" Luke talks about, he submitted a commentary titled "Hillary's Convention Con" from Ralph Nader's website to the RNUSA blog (as a comment) without saying where it came from (making it look like he was submitting it as something he had written).

Shaw Kenawe: For a troll who runs around the internet accusing people of plagiarizing his work, it is hilarious to read "Luke's" two comments which were taken word-for-word from Ralph Nader's site. At the end of his post on the DNC convention and Hillary, it does say "share and enjoy." But "Luke", who accuses people of stealing his work (false, BTW), should have either linked to the original text or at the very least, put Nader's name to it. So it goes. (7/31/2016 AT 09:25:00 AM EDT).

Luke didn't see the problem with him posting this on the RNUSA blog without attributing it to Ralph Nader. Apparently it says (somewhere) on Ralph Nader's site that people should copy and paste his articles onto as many blogs as possible. And, when you do that, you should never tell anyone where you got it or who wrote it. I don't know if this is true or not. I looked around Nader's site but all I found is the "share and enjoy" notation after each Nader commentary.

Maybe Luke thinks it says "share and annoy"? Which I think people were. Although I think they were more annoyed by Luke's accusations of theft. He tried it on Pamela's blog, and she promptly deleted everything he had written and banned him.

Pamela Hart: Luke, you aren't welcome here anymore. I will not tolerate you accusing me of plagiarizing your posts. (8/8/2016 AT 12:59pm).

As for the plagiarism accusations, nobody stole any posts from Luke's blog. Or maybe they did. He comments on Lisa's blog (Who's Your Daddy, AKA "the stench trench") and a lot of spoofing goes on there, apparently. I look every once and awhile, and see people saying that some comments are from sock puppets. I think someone there spoofs Shaw's ID. And maybe the Shaw spoof stole from Luke's blog? But that's a guess. Only problem with that theory is that Luke says Shaw stole from his blog and posted it on her blog (as if she had written it). (Luke told me to check Shaw's blog for his content).

The same accusation he made against me and against Pamela. I know I never stole his stuff, and I very seriously doubt Shaw or Pamela stole his posts (there is no proof). So I'm going to go with Luke being crazy. That, or he thinks it's funny to pretend to be crazy. Although he does apparently write his own stuff (excepting the Nader post, which is on his blog). I ran a few of his commentaries through a plagiarism checker and the checker said it didn't find anything.

I did this because he made a huge stink when Jerry Critter called him "Cut and paste Luke", which caused him to call me an a-hole and swear at me a lot. Because (in response to Jerry), I asked "you know who he's cutting and pasting from this time"? (the other time being copying from Ralph Nader).

Perhaps I'd say, "sorry I implied you stole everything on your blog. That doesn't appear to be the case". But stealing was the accusation he made against me with his very first comment on my blog! And the dipshit KNOWS I never stole his stuff. So f*ck him. Perhaps I should report him! Although I'm quite sure absolutely NOTHING will come of this "reporting".

Because this has happened to me before. I did something that another blogger was convinced was going to get my Blogger account blocked.

dmarks: I forwarded all [of Dervish Sanders'] comments to Google as spam, which often results in them classifying an account as spam and blocking it. (2/24/2013 AT 11:55am) See also SWTD #124.

This was back in February of 2013, and my account was never classified as spam and blocked. Mainly because dmarks never actually forwarded my comments to Blogger. I determined later (via reading his comments regarding what he did) that he just checked the box next to each of my comments and then clicked the spam button (while in the Blogger dashboard). Doing this does NOT forward comments to Blogger. And it NEVER (let alone "often") results in an account being classified as spam and blocked.

Blogger is only interested in spam blogs put up by professional spammers. Or "posting comments on other people's blogs just to promote your site or product" (source). They aren't interested in comments that someone (dmarks) might consider spam but are actually only annoying. Which is what my comments were. I annoyed him for a little while after he banned me because I called BS in regards to post he wrote concerning guns and Chicago (a post in which he put forward the gun nut argument, which is that Chicago is proof that gun regulation doesn't work).

Which isn't to say that Luke did something similar (only thinks he "reported" the blogs in question). Maybe he really did Report inappropriate content (on the linked to page). None-the-less I predict nothing will come of it. Especially considering the fact that Luke's accusations are all completely bogus.

Nobody is "harassing" him, nor is anyone stealing his content. Although, even if anyone was, it looks to me like Blogger is only concerned with copyrighted material (as they cite their copyright policy under this section). Has Luke copyrighted his blog posts? I doubt it. Not that anyone stole his posts anyway, so obviously this policy wouldn't apply either way.

Also, "harassment" has a legal definition, and, according to FindLaw "not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety". It doesn't mean "someone is annoying me by submitting comments to my blog when I don't want them to".

This also has happened to me (someone claimed I was "harassing" them and said they were going to report me). The person told me to not comment on their blog anymore but I didn't listen (submitted more comments). And, while I don't know if he followed through and "reported" me, I do know nothing happened (OST #15).

The point being that nobody should be worried about being reported by Luke. Not that I think anyone is. If they've visited his blog and seen the notice (via his sidebar or comment moderation note) that says Luke reported them. Or that he's encouraging others to report "these nasty trolls" (IDs listed above). Nobody else will report anything. Because what Luke alleges never happened. And I seriously doubt Blogger cares about imaginary harassment or imaginary plagiarism.

BTW, if you want to report Luke, you can do so here (report inappropriate content). Then select either to report Luke for "harassment or bullying" or "Spam" (re him spamming his content to other blogs). Not that either of these actually apply. Since, as I pointed out, Blogger is really only concerned with copyrighted material and actual bullying (NOT someone being annoying). But if Luke can report other Bloggers for imaginary offenses, certainly those he is reporting can do the same.

Updates: 8/30/2016: Luke Spencer changed the title of his blog to "Words & Music". 11/24/2016: Luke Spencer removed the lies concerning people plagarizing him as well as the comment moderation note from his blog (DSD #49).

SWTD #346

Friday, August 12, 2016

Donald Trump, Founder Of American ISIS (Theory)

The 2016 candidate has more in common with the terrorist group than he does with America ~ Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in his 12/9/2015 TIME article "What Donald Trump and ISIS Have in Common".

"Here's the reason you should shoot her, she started ISIS. He was literally saying that". "Her" being Hillary Clinton and "he" being Donald Trump. This observation from Suzanne Westenhoefer, guest on the 8/12/2016 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show.

Now Trump claims he didn't mean it. Again. Tweeting "Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) 'the founder' of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?".

Sarcasm? But when Trump was given an out by Conservative Talker Hugh Hewitt, he clarified that YES, he meant that BHO and HRC founded ISIS. Literally.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night [8/10/2016] in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace".

Trump objected. "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS", Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton".

Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them".

"I don't care", Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"

Hewitt and Trump went back and forth after that, with Hewitt warning Trump that his critics would seize on his use of "founder" as more example of Trump being loose with words. (Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally by Tal Kopan. 8/12/2016 CNN).

"Lose with his words"? I don't think so. Trump knows what he's saying. Previously I said that Trump speaks without thinking. I retract that. When he suggested that "2nd amendment people" should assassinate Hillary Clinton he meant it and he meant to say it (DSB #52).

That was a shout-out to the misogynist HRC haters on the Right. I don't believe that Trump actually wants anyone to shoot HRC. But that is what he said and what he meant. No doubt (despite some not being able to accept that he was talking about assassination).

This is the Trump MO. He'll say something "beyond overboard". And he absolutely means it when he says it. It's his way of speaking to the base. "I'm with you, *wink, wink*" he says. Then he walks it back. But the base gets the message.

"He was NOT suggesting assassination" the Conservative blogger Rational Nation insists, but he WAS. Saying outrageous things (that the crazy bigoted rubes want to hear) is an essential component of Trump's con.

"He's a truth teller! He's speaking to us" the rubes say. This explains why Trump jumped on the Birther bandwagon (Obama a Kenyan-born Muslim) and why he's demonizing HRC as "crooked" and suggesting she should be assassinated (she'll appoint SCOTUS judges who will get rid of the 2nd amendment, she co-founded ISIS). BHO (Black man) and HRC (Clinton, woman) being the focus of intense hate from the insane hate-fueled Right.

The trouble is that almost everyone outside the Trump base finds such statements crazy and objectionable. So he says these crazy and objectionable things (speaking to the base) but then walks them back (no, I don't mean exactly what you heard me say).

Donald Trump is a dangerous con man. I'd say he hijacked the Republican Party, but the truth is "you built that" Republicans. With your stoking of resentment for our first Black president ("racism" of Obama, Holder, et al, have hurt race relations, not racist bigots who are angry that a Black is in the White House).

It's one of the reasons people joined the Tea Party and why anti-government militias have surged since Obama was elected. A 2/4/2016 NewsWeek article says that "Right-wing extremists are a bigger threat to America than ISIS", and I agree.

And right now Trump is speaking for them. The scary thing is that if Trump wins or if Trump loses, he has riled them up... and they're going to be MAD (anger intensifying due to Trump losing, or anger intensifying when Trump wins and they figure out he was bullshitting them).

I honestly believe that it might only a matter of time before (in addition to Muslim extremist terrorist attack) we start seeing more Right-wing terrorism. Which is why I predict that the candidacy of Donald Trump might end up founding an American version of ISIS.

Yes, I seriously think this could happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president (something that seems more likely than not). One of the first orders of business being the carrying out of the assassination as ordered by their candidate (from whom the election was "stolen").

For the record... I agree with Hewitt in regards to that vacuum that lead to the creation of ISIS. Although the vacuum was created by gwb's illegal invasion of Iraq. gwb created ISIS and is their (former) MVP. Although I guarantee you they never "honored" him. (gwb did not "found" ISIS, however. That would be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

Video: President Obama and "crooked Hillary" co-founded ISIS, according to Donald Trump (0:28).

8/15/2016 Update: I was alerted to PROOF my theory regarding Trump may be correct my way of the Thom Hartmann program today. That proof? An 8/14/2016 "Blue Nation Review" titled Trump Is Seeking a White Nationalist Awakening NOT the White House. According to the author of the article, Peter Daou, Trump "realized he couldn't defeat Hillary so he simply aimed HIGHER than the presidency". The goal? Trump is "seeking to lead an uprising — and perhaps a violent one".

SWTD #345

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Donald Trump On Corporate Inversions & Titties

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault ~ Donald Trump tweet, 5/8/2013.

I'd say that I agree with Donald Trump about Corporate Inversions, but I don't trust the guy. He says he's against them, and so am I, but would he follow through and try to do something to stop them if "elected" president? I'm thinking he wouldn't.

Obviously he also likes titties, and (as a guy) I have to admit I like them too. Although I think a man can appreciate this aspect of the female form and not be a misogynist like Trump. btw, unlike with all his political positions, I absolutely trust him on this.

Trump: We'll also end job killing corporate inversions and cause trillions of dollars in new dollars to come pouring into our country. And, by the way, into titties like right here in Detroit. (remarks from a 8/8/2016 address to the Detroit Economic Club).

"There was someone in the front who was very endowed and he had his eyes on her boobs", a commenter on the YouTube page I got the video from (see below). And I had to look at a few different ones, as most cut off the part about corporate inversions. Because (I'm guessing), nobody knows what they are. Or cares.

I was watching Stephanie Miller today, and when she played the clip, "voice deity" Jim Ward said "Huh, corporate inversions"? The implication being that Trump was speaking gobbledygook (BTW, it isn't Jim Ward's job to know these things, but Miller should have known. Or looked it up. Or at least chose a clip that started playing after that part. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Stephanie Miller fan, but she's nowhere near as knowledgeable as Thom Hartmann).

In any case, Wikipedia says a corporate inversion "is the practice of relocating a corporation's legal domicile to a lower-tax nation, or tax haven, usually while retaining its material operations in its higher-tax country of origin... [the practice] involves creating a new parent company that sits on top of the corporate structure and is incorporated in the desired foreign jurisdiction".

Me, I say that, if a business operates in the US, they should pay US taxes. ESPECIALLY if the majority of their business is done in the United States.

But back to Trump on corporate inversions... Looking at what he's said (on his on the issues page), I'm not sure Trump knows what they are.

Trump: What's happening right now is something that not been a subject of conversation by politicians. They haven't talked about a corporate inversion. Companies are leaving the United States to go to other countries. They have trillions of dollars in those other countries. They can't get their money back in. It's probably two and a half trillion. All of that money could be used to rebuild our country. (Get U.S. money back into U.S.: address corporate inversion).

"They can't get their money back in"? He doesn't mention the fact that corporate inversions are done to dodge taxes. Instead, it sounds to me like he's talking about giving corporations tax breaks if they bring their money back to the United States.

That issue HAS been discussed by politicians. Republican politicians who want to offer corporations with money overseas a repatriation tax holiday. This is what he's talking about when he says "they can't get their money back in"... repatriation.

...income is subject to the (typically higher) U.S. tax rate minus the Foreign Tax Credits... There are currently hundreds of billions of dollars of Foreign direct investment in CFC's (controlled foreign corporations) because of the disincentive to repatriate those earnings.

So, maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about re corporate inversions. And nobody on his team caught this?

BTW, being a guy and liking titties doesn't mean I don't think him commenting on his daughters' assets isn't scuzzy. Because it REALLY is.

In 1994 episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous", the bombastic billionaire — already known for making creepy comments about his older daughter — and his then-wife Marla Maples opened up about their infant daughter, Tiffany...

Robin Leach: Donald, what does Tiffany have of yours, and what does Tiffany have of Marla's?

Donald Trump: Well, I think that she's got a lot of Marla. She's a really beautiful baby, and she's got Marla's legs. We don't know whether she's got this part yet (gestures toward his chest), but time will tell. (Donald Trump comments on 1-year-old daughter's breasts in disturbing 1994 interview).

What a creep. As well as a boob. As for how high DJT's IQ is... clearly his is higher than that of many of his followers, but "one of the highest"? I think the evidence says no.

Video1: Trump wants to end corporate inversions (AKA give huge tax breaks to corporations) which (he says) will help titties. I had to look at a few versions of this video to find one that included the part about corporate inversions. Which is why I selected one where the person captured it by videoing their TV (which I'd normally avoid). Looks to me like everyone focused on him saying "titties" and totally missed that he apparently doesn't know what a corporate inversion is (0:26).

Video2: Donald Trump interview from 1994 in which he speculates about the future size of his then 1-year-old daughter Tiffany's breasts (0:18).

SWTD #344

Thursday, August 04, 2016

Libertarian Candidate 4 potus Gary Johnson Is A Despicable Colossal Liar

If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course ~ Ayn Rand (1/20/1905 to 3/6/1982) creator of the Objectivist theology and the inspiration for Libertarianism; commenting on the poor man.

The man futily running for potus for potus as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson, appeared on the 7/29/2016 airing of Comedy Central's The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. The following is an excerpt from Wilmore's interview of the 29th Republican Governor of NM (1995-2003).

Larry Wilmore: What is Libertarianism, and is Libertarianism as kooky as Libertarians?

Gary Johnson: Libertarianism does reflect most people in this country. Keep government out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom. Let's stop with these military interventions. Let's bring the world together with free trade and diplomacy. Non aggression principle. Look, don't use force unless force has been applied to you.

Larry Wilmore: So it's... get out of the bedroom, get out of the wars, get out of my pocket. What do you get into?

Gary Johnson: Liberty and freedom. Always come down on the side of choice. That we as individuals should always be able to make choices in our lives. As long as those choices don't adversely affect others.

Larry Wilmore: What do you think about the three biggest issues that we're facing right now, and as a Libertarian candidate, how do you propose we address those issues?

Gary Johnson: Well, government is too big. It takes too much money out of our pocket books. So, lower taxes, balancing...

Larry Wilmore: Does lowering taxes itself reduce the size of government? I mean, that just reduces the ability of government to do the shit it's ineffectively doing right now, right?

Gary Johnson: I think you hit on it. Do any of us believe government is running on all 8 cylinders? No. So, we're headed to a fiscal cliff if we don't address some really big issues. And that's going to be the entitlements. Look, we can do this effectively. We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without. That's issue number 1.

Issue number 2... just liberty. Personal freedom. A woman's right to choose. Marriage equality. Let's legalize marijuana. [discussion from this point concerns legalization of marijuana. Then Gary calls both Trump and Clinton polarizing, Gary thinks he's going to get voters both from the Republican and Democratic side and get in the debates, shrink government, get out of Afghanistan].

The number one issue is slashing entitlements (his platform calls for a 43% reduction of all federal government spending) and he says "nobody goes without"? Clearly that's a lie. First of all, "slashing government spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security" involves stealing from people. What they already paid in? You're not getting that back under a Johnson administration.

Fact is, Libertarians want to completely do away with the safety net according to their own platform.

Healthcare: We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Retirement and Income Security: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. (Libertarian Party Platform, As adopted in Convention, May 2016, Orlando FL).

Also, the following from the same website (official website of the Libertarian Party).

End Welfare ... It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. (Poverty and Welfare).

So, under a Libertarian government, we'd phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... and end (completely) the "entire social welfare system" and end result will be that "nobody goes without"? Revising my prior comment concerning Johnson lying... That nobody is going to go without is clearly a HUGE lie.

The primary reason that people would go without is that the Libertarian "belief" that "members of society will become even more charitable" is total bullplop.

[Some say that] Charity can fill in any holes that develop [if government spending on welfare programs are cut]... But charity experts say that's a mathematical impossibility. ... Overall, the US government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry [while] Feeding America, the largest food charity in the US (and one of the largest charities), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year. But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP.

"No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP", said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions".

The total of US philanthropy is currently $300 billion... The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32%, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch... Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake", he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting".

Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2% of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say... (Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say by Alfred Lubrano. 5/20/2013 The Seattle Times).

I'll also point out that before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age. The point is that Libertarians know private charity can't and won't meet the need that exists. Heck, even though we spend as much as we do on welfare (not enough even though it is significantly more than private sector charity) people STILL go without.

Feeding America reported the hunger and poverty facts and statistics in 2014; stastics that said that "46.7 million people were in poverty}, or 14.8% of US citizens. In addition, 10% of seniors (4.6 million people) live in poverty.

Yet this asshole Johnson said that if we SLASHED anti-poverty programs that NOBODY will go without. Because all the lazy Takers will get jobs and for those people who are genuinely needy, private charities will step up. That, or he's saying private charities will spend MORE than government is spending now.

Plus, we have to remember that Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would affect the working poor, many of whom need these programs to survive (so Johnson wants to make their situations a LOT worse). Frankly I'm convinced that, when Libertarians like Gary Johnson say "nobody goes without", they mean NOBODY LEFT ALIVE goes without. That would be after millions starve to death.

This is a stated goal of the Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand, an evil woman who fantasized about the utopia that would emerge after the nation's poor died in great numbers (fantasies that took the form of a novel in which large numbers of moochers or "parasites" are exterminated when rich "Makers" go "on strike").

Although Libertarians would take no responsibility for the consequences of eliminating the safety net. They place the blame entirely on poor people. "Not choosing to live" (as per the Rand quote) being "choosing" to not work. And "nature taking it's course" being starving to death and dying. Meaning, in the twisted and immoral mind of the true-believing Ayn-Rand-worshiping Libertarian, poor people are basically committing suicide (something many more Poors would undoubtedly do under a Johnson administration).

Something (committing suicide by not working) I imagine Libertarians like Johnson believe people should have the freedom and liberty to do. If they choose. In any case, we are definitely not "in this together", nor are we "our brother's keeper". This explains why Libertarians are atheist, I suppose. Although their ideology has been adopted by Satanists (the article Satanism and Objectivism from the Church of Satan website, notes that "Objectivism... is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey").

Which is why I say I am NOT unfairly judging Gary Johnson (as one supporter recently claimed). Not given my view (based on the stated objective of Libertarians to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" so that parasites will die) that Objectivism and Libertarianism are evil ideologies.

It's a shame that Larry Wilmore didn't call Johnson on his HUGE whopper ("We can still still create a safety net. Nobody goes without"). And note that, while he said he's opposed to "military interventions" he also said "don't use force unless force has been applied to you". Which is his out for continuing the fight against ISIS in the highly improbable event he's elected president.

I mean, I think the "foreign interventions" are over (we aren't going to topple any more foreign governments by sending in occupying forces). At least for a few generations. After Afghanistan and Iraq the American people are DONE with them. So he'd end the war in Afghanistan (which I'm strongly in favor of). But he'd continue the fight (boots on the ground) against ISIS. My point being him saying "let's stop with these military interventions" is meaningless. We already did them and aren't likely to do anymore (so he thinks he's taking a "stand" by saying he's not going to do something we aren't going to do anymore anyway).

Similar to how, when he ran for potus in 2008, he said that he was in favor of gay marriage. And that Barack Obama was chicken because he didn't come out in favor of it at that time. But the hypocrite Johnson, while governor of NM, didn't use his position to push for it. This guy seems to mostly take "principled stands" when taking the "stand" is meaningless. I mean, it wasn't like he had a chance of winning the presidency in 2008, so what the hell difference did it make that his position on gay marriage might have cost him votes?

"All politicians lie" is a criticism I hear often. Especially from Libertarians and the Right. But Johnson's lies concern the core principles of Libertarianism! He says "Nobody goes without", yet the fact that Libertarians want to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" is clearly stated on the official website of the Libertarian Party (this would be the party that Johnson is running as the potus candidate of)!

Oh, and Gary Johnson absolutely does share Ayn Rand's views when it comes to the "parasitical takers".

Gary Johnson: ...I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did - that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers. (Gary Johnson on Principles & Values. On The Issues) [1].

So, why isn't it "oppressive" to those who give to charity? If the money is going to "non-producers" (and surely it MUST, if NOBODY is going to go without). Apparently people will decide to voluntarily oppress themselves (via significantly more charitable giving).

Obviously Johnson's claim that "we can still still create a safety net" and that "nobody goes without" (under a Johnson administration) is a f*cking lie. Obviously the Takers who still refuse to work (at a job where they would earn a NON-Living wage, due to Johnson abolishing the minimum wage) would go without. And die, which is WHAT THEY WANT! (as stated by Ayn Rand).

The end result would be a huge increase in the working poor. We'd probably have to create a new term, as "working poor" won't come close to describing HOW POOR these people would be (slums and shanty towns would surely proliferate under a Johnson presidency). And death for those who "refuse to work".

Including many who can't find work (I seriously doubt Johnson believes he'd be able to magically bring about full employment. Or that he'd even want to, given the fact that a tight labor market causes wages to rise... and Libertarians want to keep wages LOW). And, many of the people who "refused" to work would be doing so due to health or disability reasons (don't forget that Social Security provides for many disabled people and Gary wants to "phase it out").

All of which leads me to conclude that, not only would would the safety net be significantly harmed (causing MANY more people to go without), but that we'd quickly deteriorate into a 3rd world hellhole with one of the greatest divides between rich and poor on the planet. Not that we're doing great in that regard anyway. But under an improbable Johnson presidency (one under which Congress worked with him, which, given the fact that Libertarians and Conservatives both hate Poors, they likely would), extreme poverty would assuredly increase astronomically.

[1] Wikipedia: On the Issues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site. The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.

Image: Gary Johnson wants a government that's big enough (and taxes enough) to pay for a "strong defense", which I would assume includes fighting ISIS. And he's also for a regressive consumption tax. According to Brookings "if you move the tax from income to consumption, you're raising the relative burden on low savers, which are low and moderate income households, so almost any revenue neutral shift from the income tax to a consumption tax will be regressive in that manner".

See Also: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Fraud (DSD #26).

8/17/2016 Update: In regards to Gary Johnson and his VP nominee William Weld, Thom Hartmann (on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program) said "They're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

SWTD #343, ARHP #4.

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

On The Possibility Of The WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Hacked Material Throwing The Election To Donald Trump

Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It's self-defense ~ Joe Biden (dob 11/20/1942) 47th USA VP.

As you've probably heard, WikiLeaks released a bunch of DNC emails. The data was likely liberated from DNC servers by Cozy Bear & Fancy Bear, "hackers working for the Russian government" [1]. Out of the 20K emails, a few were found in which DNC staffers talked about possible strategies they could use to harm the Sanders campaign. Although they never followed through.

One staffer thought that branding Bernie an atheist would harm him among Christian voters. "My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist", he wrote. (For the record, B-S "declared he had very strong religious and spiritual feelings at a Democratic town hall" in Derry NH on 2/3/2016).

In addition, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote (in one email) that Bernie Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver was a "damn liar" and "particularly scummy" in regards to what he said about what happened in Nevada.

Also, she didn't like it when B-S didn't drop out soon enough. In response to Weaver saying that Sanders would stay in the race and take the fight to the convention, DWS wrote "He is an ASS". All of which shows that there was a pro-Hillary bias at the DNC under DWS.

"We have published proof that the election campaign of Bernie Sanders was sabotaged in a corrupt manner by [former DNC Chair] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others within the DNC" is how head WikiLeaker Julian Assange is characterizing the offending emails.

Now, I'm not sure that I quite agree with this statement, as the "sabotaging" was apparently mostly talk and no action. Aside from scheduling the few debates the HRC campaign agreed to on days the audience would be small. In an effort to protect HRC and minimize exposure for B-S (if more people heard what Sanders had to say, more people might decide to vote for him).

So... Bernie WAS corruptly sabotaged. Or, DWS didn't act with impartiality, that's for sure. But Assange is saying the DNC is/was corrupt and B-S was sabotaged. And I think that the Assange narrative is cause for concern. Or a reason to be interested. Despite one pro-HRC blogger (Flying Junior) telling me that "no thinking person" should be interested (in what's in the emails).

Because the WikiLeaks email dump will surely cost HRC votes. Among B-S supporters who are now convinced that the primaries were totally rigged. So, Sanders supporters who MIGHT have voted for HRC when it looked suspicious (that the DNC had its thumb on the scale)... now they may very well dig in their heels and say "no way". They absolutely will not vote for the side that cheated.

Not that there is any evidence that HRC and DWS were in league in regards to any of this cheating (or thumb pressing on the scale. Lightly or heavily). Except for grassroots Clinton field offices being co-located at DNC offices (as per the US Uncut article 5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton). And perhaps other examples I'm overlooking.

But the leaking isn't over. Assange is now saying "we have more material related to the Hillary Clinton campaign". Material they haven't already released. Which, while I am a fan of transparency and (as such) approve of WikiLeak's efforts, causes me concern. Because I'm sure none of this info (which hasn't been released yet, but will be) has the possibility of HELPING the HRC campaign.

According to Assange, he "has no interest in tipping the US election in favor of any candidate, including Trump". OK. But certainly this 2nd WikiLeaks release could help Trump. Depending on how bad it is. And, believe me, I do NOT want it to be bad. Because, if it is, those who might still be on the fence, WILL buy the Assange narrative. Which is that the whole thing was rigged from the beginning by the corrupt DWS and HRC (who acted in concert to steal the nomination from B-S).

Although some think the dump does prove that HRC and DWS were co-cheaters. "The Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign", the NY Post asserts.

A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 - a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid - declared that "our goals & strategy" are to "provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC". (Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start by Marisa Schultz. 6/16/2016 NYP).

And, the Conservative News site Horn News (quoting the NYP article) says "Busted! Document proves DNC, Clinton rigged election". So, whether or not there was a DWS and HRC conspiracy to "pave the way" for Clinton, that WILL be the narrative.

As for me, I'm wondering if these characterizations stretch the definition of "rigging". I'm more comfortable with saying that the DNC under DWS placed their thumbs on the scale. Certainly NOBODY (including ardent HRC supporters) can claim that DWS acted impartially.

Although they may not care. But, like I said, I think they should care. Because (if nothing else) this scandal will cost HRC votes. And possibly the election. Especially if the next dump is as bad as Assange says it's going to be.

In a recent interview with ITV, Assange said the whistleblowing website will soon be leaking documents that will provide "enough evidence" for the DOJ to indict the presumptive Democratic nominee. ... While Assange didn't specify what exactly was in the emails, he did tell ITV that WikiLeaks had "accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment".

Assange hinted that the emails slated for publication contain additional information about the Clinton Foundation. He also reminded ITV's Robert Peston that previously released emails contained one damning piece of communication from Clinton, instructing a staffer to remove the classification settings from an official State Department communication and send it through a "nonsecure" channel. (BREAKING: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton by Shockwave. 7/22/2016 Silence is Consent).

"Julian Assange was a hero to the left when he leaked information about US documents on the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. I guess not so much anymore, huh?" reads a comment attached to the Horn News article. To which I say "it depends". I'm not in agreement with his assessment of what's been released so far, and (as of today) my opinion regarding Clinton "corruption" is that it's bullshit. The Right has been after the Clintons for decades and the results of all their efforts have been bupkis (SWTD #313).

Despite wasting 80 million "investigating" WJC and 30 million "investigating" HRC.

Now, after the Iraq War documents leak revealed "compelling evidence of war crimes and a sectarian cleansing that led to the mass killing of civilians in Iraq" did ANYONE in the bush administration suffer any appropriate consequences? Consequences like war crimes charges and trials and convictions at the Hague? (Evidence of war crimes in Iraq: WikiLeaks).

As we all know, the answer to that question is NO. Yeah, so I thinking that WHATEVER is in the forthcoming WikiLeaks Clinton info release, HRC will not be indicted. But even if she is, that STILL doesn't mean I'd be open to a president Trump.

We'll just have to wait and see. Me, I'm thinking that - when what Assange is saying about the forthcoming WikiLeaks release turns out to be WAY overblown - my opinion of him will no longer be positive. Regardless, I'm sure there will be (at least some) additional fallout. In which case the consequence might be a squeaker in which HRC narrowly defeats DJT.

Point is, that, despite Assange's claims that he "has no interest in tipping the US election in favor of... Trump", that IS what he's doing. Tipping by how much remains to be seen. If only there was a similar Trump leak. One that showed that Trump won't be releasing his taxes because they show that "he is deeply involved in dealing with Russian oligarchs" (George Will raises possible Trump link to Russian oligarchs).

Or evidence that clearly points to a Trump conviction in regards to his "university" scam. But that's not likely. A similar Trump hack/WikikLeaks release, that is. There is a good chance of judgement against Trump for fraud in regards to his university scam, I think.

Similarly unlikely would be that (after a HRC & DJT WikiLeaks dump) Bernie Sanders joins Jill Stein as the Green Party President and Vice Presidential candidates (respectively). And (due to the GOP and Democratic candidates both having been shown to be corrupt) the Sanders/Stein ticket is elected (with B-S becomming the country's 1st 3rd party POTUS. Then, following the smashing success of the Sanders' agenda, Jill Stein is elected as the country's 2nd 3rd party POTUS in 2024. And 1st female executive).

[1] An earlier version of this commentary attributed the DNC hack to Guccifer, but the actual hacker was Guccifer 2.0. Or, he SAYS it was him. The first Guccifer, Marcel Lehel Lazar, was "arrested in Romania on hacking offences [and in] March 2016, he was extradited to the US to face trial on a variety of hacking and fraud charges". The identity of Guccifer 2.0 is currently unknown. His involvement in the DNC hack is doubted because "detailed analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike suggests the organization was actually penetrated... by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, 2 hacker groups "closely linked to the Russian Federation's intelligence services".

Video: Julian Assange claims the next leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton. 7/27/2016 RT (2:53).

WTNPH: On Julian Assange's Claim that the Next Cadre of Wikileaks Releases Will Be Enough to Put Hillary Behind Bars (8/2/2016).

SWTD #342