Dotard tRump's Position On Trade (In Part) Won Him The Presidency. Why Sanders Or Warren Must Be The Democratic potus Nominee

For decades, the leaders of both parties preached the gospel that free trade was a rising tide that would lift all boats. Great rhetoric -- except that the trade deals they negotiated mainly lifted the yachts — and threw millions of working Americans overboard to drown -- Elizabeth Warren (Elizabeth Warren Goes After Free Trade Agreements in First Speech as 2020 Contender. 11/29/2018).

The following is excerpted from a 7/12/2019 conversation on the Thom Hartmann Program (a Progressive Political talk radio program that airs on Free Speech TV). Thom and Lori Wallach (the Executive Director Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch) discuss Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA (The USMCA) and where Congressional Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidates stand on the issue - the USMCA and the corporate benefiting "free trade" policies bought into by New Democrats Clinton and Obama.

Thom Hartmann: You and I agree that the neoliberal trade policies that really came in with the Reagan Administration in a big way - they negotiated NAFTA - George Herbert Walker Bush's Administration finalized those negotiations - this has always been republican trade policy. There has always been large chunks of the Democratic Party that have opposed this. In the modern era, it's the Sherrod Brown's... and yet, the guy who has successfully pushed back against it is Donald Trump.

It helped get him elected. Running on a Democratic position. Which is - yes, we need tariffs. Yes, we need protectionist policies. And yes, these so-called trade agreements actually suck. They're destroying American jobs. So, it puts us in this very awkward position of saying, thank God Trump is having a conversation about this. Because we've had two Democratic presidents (Clinton & Obama) who have been unwilling to. And a lot of Democratic members of Congress won't. Although some of them are out there screaming into the wind. From Bernie Sanders to Sherod Brown.

But, on the other hand, Trump is doing it completely wrong. He's demagoging this issue. So... how is the whole trade thing going? ... where are the Democrats on all this?

Lori Wallach: Obviously NAFTA has to be replaced. Almost a million jobs have been certified to the government to be lost to NAFTA. It's probably [more like] 4-5 million... Trump repeated what Democrats have said for a long time. Democrats in Congress tried to stop NAFTA. However, the deal Trump signed to replace NAFTA wouldn't stop the job outsourcing. Because the labor and environmental improvements and their enforcements are not strong enough. But he let Pharma put protections in there. So it [the USMCA] would raise medicine prices. It won't fix the existing problem, and it would lock in high prices here.

In that regard it's worse than the status quo. On the other hand he got rid of the outrageous corporate tribunals that have taken hundreds of millions of tax dollars, attacking environmental laws, etc. So, where are the Democrats? Miraculously, the Democrats are 100 percent united. Pelosi is being tough in saying to Trump - either you renegotiate your renegotiated agreement -- fix the labor and environmental standards so it means something. To stop the outsourcing and to raise wages in Mexico so the draw of jobs [away from the US] is stopped. And you have to take out that Pharma garbage. Or no vote. And she's holding firm. Now the showdown is -- what will the administration do?

[skip]

Thom Hartmann: When Bill Clinton first embraced NAFTA in 1992, he was in the minority among Democrats. He was loudly attacked by a lot of Democrats. Many Democratic voters -- apparently half of Ross Perot voters were actually Democrats - but, over time, the Democratic Party moved in that Direction. At least, much of it. ... These so-called free trade deals -- managed trade deals for the benefit of corporations -- have always been deeply embraced by Republicans [before and during the Trump administration -- explaining why his only option is to go it alone and apply tariffs by executive fiat]. Where is the Democratic party as a whole -- at the Federal level on this now? How does this break down in the House and Senate.

Lori Wallach: Right now, in respect to this NAFTA deal, the House Democrats are remarkably unified with the Speaker. Even the corporate Democrats -- the New Democrats -- the ones who have been for TPP - they say the environmental and labor standards need better enforcement and the Pharma crap has to come out. They sent a letter to the president that said - don't make the mistake of putting in this agreement... Congressional Democrats have always been better than the presidential wing [Clinton, Obama and many currently running to unseat Trump].

The candidates running for president have all signed a pledge that they would oppose any NAFTA renegotiation that included the Pharma goodies and didn't have strong labor and environmental standards in it. Including Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden. But the truth is Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris -- those guys are basically in the same place that Clinton and Obama were on trade. They're not good on trade.

You have Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Ryan [who] have been real champions on trade. ... If you have another Democrat, like Biden, who Trump can run against in Wisconsin and Michigan the way he did Clinton - "oh, you're for having more jobs outsourced. You're so sad TPP didn't pass"... We're going to lose again in those states. We have to have someone to the Left of him on trade. We have to have Sanders or Warren.

[End Thom Hartmann Program 7/12/2019 Excerpt]

Prior to New Democrats Clinton and Obama opposing free trade was the Democratic position. And on the side of the corporations (and against the workers) were the Republicans. That changed with Clinton. Then President Obama pushed the TPP and Hillary Clinton called it the "gold standard". Although she later (under pressure from Sanders) backtracked and vowed that, if elected, she would not sign the TPP. But many voters did not believe her. One reason was that her VP choice, Tim Kaine, also supported (then renounced) the TPP.

This (in part) explains tRump's win. Blue collar Democrats who voted for Obama decided to vote for tRump because of his views on trade. Many of them were for Bernie Sanders because of his opposition to job-killing free trade agreements. When Sanders didn't become the nominee they switched to Trump. A mistake because Trump does not know WTF he's doing. The United States needs a Trade Policy and NOT a president imposing tariffs by presidential fiat.

Me, I'd rather Bernie Sanders had been the nominee in 2016. It is my belief that he could have beat tRump. Because Blue collar Democrats who were swayed by the con man tRump would have voted for Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders would have had the Progressive caucus on his side and thus been able (or better positioned to) change US trade policy through Congress. tRump can't do this because Congressional republicans oppose protectionism and protecting American jobs from outsourcing.

This is why we must not nominate a Democrat with the wrong position on trade. The nominee must be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Either of these two candidates would have the best chance of beating tRump in 2020. If the nominee isn't Sanders or Warren - tRump will quite likely "win" a second term (with, as before, help from Putin). Even though tRump's tariffs have not succeeded in their goal of bringing back American jobs. And his attempts to renegotiate our crappy trade deals have been a failure (and driven many soy bean farmers into bankruptcy).

Yet, despite going bankrupt, these farmers continue to support tRump (for some reason). I guess they think that some pain must be endured before tRump is eventually victorious. But that won't happen. Their Chinese customers have gone elsewhere to buy their soybeans, etc. These farmer are screwed. They just don't realize how screwed they are yet.

In any case, before the New Democrat movement, it was the Democratic Party that represented Blue Collar workers and opposed the so-called "free trade" deals that outsourced their jobs. Clinton and Obama betrayed them, costing the Democratic party (and the entire nation) dearly. Their betrayal allowed a con-man like Dotard tRump the opportunity to take up the anti-globalism, pro-American worker mantle (even though he lied and is actually 100 percent for the plutocrats).

Democrats need to reclaim by nominating Sanders (my first choice) or Warren. Either Sanders or Warren could get the job done and fix our broken trade policies, IMO. Unlike tRump, who lies, does a bad job, and failed to do what he promised. The only thing the Orange Turd has "achomlished" is to make things worse.

BTW, I'm starting to think Warren might be a better choice than Sanders. Due to the bad rap "socialism" has among low information voters. And, even though Warren's positions are very similar (where they are not identical) to those of Sanders, he calls himself a "socialist" while she does not. A fact that could make the difference. Given the fact that demonizing "socialism" is going to be a bigly tactic of the Orange Turd campaign in 2020.

Video: Lori Wallach Exposes How Trump Got Trade Wrong. Published 7/12/2019. 9:10.


 swtd-415 

The Psychopath potus (It's DJT, Not BHO)

This post concerns another internet meme found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog Who's Your Daddy.

(The image is from remarks Obama made in East Room of the White House on 1/5/2016 while discussing proposed gun control measures following the Sandy Hook shootings).

So, as people who've visited this blog know, the proprietor likes to change up the memes at the top of her blog regularly. This one is gone now, but it was there for a few days prior to the publication of this post. In any case... is Obama a psychopath because of the way he wiped away tears? And is this according to The Body Language of Liars by behavioral analyst Glass?

As it turns out... no. Lillian Glass says "a popular meme misconstrued one of her quotes and made assertions that aren't credible or ethical".

According to Dr. Glass, the thrust of the meme is unequivocally false. Whether folks believe President Obama's tears at the 1/5/2016 appearance were legitimate or not, the meme based on that moment in no way represents the analytical work of the body language expert to whom it is attributed. (Crocodile Jeers by Kim LaCapria. 1/7/2016 Snopes).

Also, I think it's pretty sick to suggest that President Obama's tears (in reaction to 20 small children being blown away) were fake. Anyway, as far as psychoanalysis of presidents go, my go-to guy is Dr. Justin Frank (author of Bush on the Couch & Obama on the Couch).

Regarding Obama, Dr. Frank says Obama is "an admirable and down-to-earth individual who is generally in excellent mental health". NOT a psychopath, in other words.

As for incoming pee-otus Trump? Dr. Frank confirms that the orange buffoon is 100% certified nuts (my paraphrase). "I think that he and his thin skin allows him to tune into narcissistic loss and pain. And so he can feed his audience and be fed by them" Frank said on the 12/6/2016 airing of The Thom Hartmann Program.

Justin Frank: And so one of the senses that I have psychologically of Trump's power is that he really understands how to have power, how to execute power, and how to scare people. ... His father was a very successful businessman who also scared people and bullied people. And he said the most important thing is to win. Trump competed with his older brother ... Fred Trump Jr. was just too nice a guy and easy going to be a killer. And Trump's father wanted somebody who was going to be really tough and Donald... turned out to be that kind of kid who was a fighter in school, got into fights, who was very much of a bully and didn't really believe in rules and had to be sent to military academy in order to calm down. I think that it was also that [Fred Trump Jr's] alcoholism, part of the destruction has to do with turning their back on him because he was just a nice guy and that's what narcissistic and sadistic parents do. And the competitiveness with the brother, Donald, is what is called, and Anna Freud talks about identification with the aggressor [1+2]. If the father kicks the son, the son kicks the dog. And this is what we've got.

So, Frank is saying that Fred Trump Sr was "narcissistic and sadistic" to his brother, Fred Jr, because he was a nice guy (unlike Donald) and that Donald helped his father destroy his brother. Regarding Trump's tweeting, Frank said it shows that, unlike past presidents who acted as "father figures", Trump is "very similar to a ten-year-old child". Frank further remarks on "the danger that Trump invites because of his bombastic behavior and his incitement to hate".

Justin Frank: ...if you're a father, you have a super-ego function. You have to help your children learn about the Ten Commandments, learn about right and wrong, learn about not killing, learn about respecting other people, learning about paying attention, not coveting this and that. Trump is not that kind of person. He is not going to be a super-ego leader in this nation. He's going to be a super-ego permission giver. So just this morning the New York One television station said that there's about a hundred and twenty percent increase in violent crimes since the election. ... Hate crimes, rather, not violent, hate crimes. I mean that's really, that has to do with a permission to hate and a permission to be destructive.

"He shouldn't be President [because] this is a person who hates reality". Compare that to Obama, who Frank described as "an admirable and down-to-earth individual". In response Thom said "now we have a child king, basically. It's like the boy king in the French court in the 17th century". Although Thom said maybe Trump is malleable. That if you flatter him perhaps he'll listen to, and be influenced by what you have to say (meaning there may be some hope).

Frank's response was that Trump is "not malleable. ...look, for 8 years Obama thought Mitch McConnell would be malleable. He's not. Trump is even less malleable".

As to whether the Orange One is a psychopath, neither Frank nor Hartmann asserts that Trump is. Because Dr. Frank, an author who practices and teaches psychoanalysis, and Hartmann, a former psychotherapist, wouldn't offer an diaginosis of psychopathy because "there is no actual diagnosis of psychopathy in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (How is psychopathy diagnosed?).

Although I would say that DJT checks off all the boxes. Among the characteristics of a psychopath we find: superficial charm, grandiose sense of self worth ("I'm really smart"), need for stimulation/prone to boredom, pathological lying, conning/manipulative, parasitic lifestyle (paid no taxes for 20 years), poor behavioral controls (tweeting), promiscuous sexual behavior (hits on women even when married), many short term relationships (3 wives), juvenile delinquency (From The Art of the Deal: "As an adolescent, I was mostly interested in creating mischief"), etc.

Yep, Donald Trump is a psychopath. My opinion, as I am not in any way qualified to make a diagnosis of anyone's mental health. But I think all the evidence says the Orange One has the "personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits". We know for sure that he is a thin skinned narcissist who is COMPELLED to lash out at every slight (often via tweet). That's proof enough to conclude that this man has some serious mental problems, I think.

Video: Thom speaks with Dr. Justin Frank on his radio program (12/6/2016) about Donald Trump (20:02).

Footnotes
[1] "Identification with the aggressor was first described by Anna Freud in her book The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, first published in German in 1936" (International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Copyright 2005 Thomson Gale).
[2] Austrian-British psychoanalyst Anna Freud (12/3/1895 to 10/9/1982) "was the 6th child of Sigmund Freud and Martha Bernays".

Update 12/29/2017: Technically speaking, Trump is a sociopath. Although, even if what is claimed in the meme at the top of this post is true, Obama would also be a sociopath. As per Healthyplace.com (the largest consumer mental health site on the net), "Sociopaths are often called psychopaths and vice versa but there are differences between a psychopath and a sociopath. Psychopaths, for example, are far more likely to get in trouble with the law while sociopaths are much more likely to blend in with society. And while sociopaths and psychopaths do share some traits, sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) is generally considered less severe than psychopathy". NOTE that the title of my post is what it is (and I will leave it unchanged) because the meme claims that Obama is a PSYCHOPATH, not a sociopath.

SWTD #370

The 3rd Way Is The Wrong Way! A Big Reason Why A Reality TV Buffoon Will Be The Next potus

The rise of Trumpism makes perfect sense. Both parties have sacrificed the working class at the altar of globalism ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) tagline from his 3/23/2016 article They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin.

The following excerpt is from the 1998 book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America by American philosopher Richard Rorty.

Members of labor unions and unorganized skilled workers will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time those workers will realize that suburban white collar workers themselves, desperately afraid of being downsized, are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point something will crack. The non-suburban electorate will decide that they system has failed, and start looking around for a strongman to vote for. Someone willing to assure them that, once he's elected, the smug bureaucrats, the tricky lawyers, the overpaid bond salesmen and the postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. One thing that is very likely to happen is the gains made in the past 40 years by Black and Brown Americans and by homosexuals will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. (As read by progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on the 1/10/2016 airing of his program).

As per Wikipedia "several writers have cited a passage of the book, in which Rorty predicts the rise of an authoritarian strongman who gains popularity among blue-collar workers, as prophetic of Donald Trump's rise to political power".

Yeah, I think so. Even though I still believe (KNOW, I'd say) that Trump was aided greatly by the Republican election fraud scheme known as Interstate Crosscheck (see DSD #54 & SWTD #358).

I do acknowledge, however, that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. Also (and I think this is an important point) Barack Obama (IMO) shares a lot of the blame. Because of his support for the TPP. The blue collar workers who voted for Trump did so because "their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported".

If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate? I think the Democrats could have won. Because he has always been against these kinds of job-killing free trade deals. Unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (WJC signing NAFTA and BHO's support for the TPP). And don't forget that HRC initially (at least) supported the TPP (calling it the "Gold Standard") and ran as a 3rd term for Obama.

So, while she said she wouldn't sign it as president, people didn't believe her. Ironically, they believed she was just saying what she needed to in order to get elected. I say ironically because (as most/all voters who opposed Trump know), the thin-skinned reality TV buffoon lied his ass off during the campaign.

For the record, I view presidential campaigns as aspirational. In that the candidate states what he'd LIKE to do, not what he (or she) thinks they can do. Realistically they know they will only be able to accomplish a portion of what they're running on. Bernie Sanders what criticized for his proposals supposedly being unrealistic. He'd never be able to get his proposals through Congress, his detractors said. Perhaps, but I believe he would have tried. Trump, on the other hand? I believe was outright lying.

His VP choice (Pence, who is pro-TPP) and the Republican Congress (also in favor of the TPP) told me that Trump was not serious about bringing jobs back. He simply told Blue collar workers what they wanted to hear. Just like he told his dupes that he wouldn't cut Social Security or Medicare, yet cutting these programs are on Speaker Ryan's agenda to be brought up quickly. Bernie Sanders challenged Trump to issue a veto-threat so Congress doesn't waste a lot of time on debating and passing legislation that might not go anywhere (if Trump vetoes). So far no response from Trump.

Anyway, what's clear to me is that the Democrats need to return to their FDR roots. The Democratic Party went astray with the election of 3rd way Democrat Bill Clinton. That is when, according to William Greider of The Nation, the Democratic Party lost it's soul and "abandoned its working-class base".

The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton's New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton's bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers. (How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul. Dec 1-8, 2014).

The Democratic Party needs to get a hell of a lot more Progressive. It's looking like they realize this (fortunately), but it took a horrific defeat (by a thin-skinned liar who has no idea what he's doing as far as the potus job goes) and a (very likely) disastrous Trump administration for them to get the message.

I am dreading the next four years, during which I anticipate rights to be rolled back for African Americans and gay people, our social safety net to be greatly weakened, the wealthy to get even wealthier, the middle class to shrink, the ranks of the working poor to swell, and a recession (possible depression). As well as more war (Trump knows how to defeat ISIS... yeah, right). Possibly a world war.

Video: SNL video making light of the fact that HRC began adopting more and more of the positions of Bernie Sanders as the campaign progressed. Because the voters wanted a more progressive candidate (1:55).

SWTD #367

Donald Trump Will Be An Illegitimate President

I truly believe, without the Republican Voter suppression efforts, that she would have won, and perhaps did -- Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann on his eponymous radio program, 11/10/2016.

Apparently the "American People" decided that sending an orange buffoon to the White House would be a good idea. Except that Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote. More people will end up voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. The 2nd time in recent history that this has happened.

Prior to Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000, Democrat Grover Cleveland received the most votes but lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison (in 1888). A popular-vote-winner not winning the White House has happened 4 times in total. And they were ALL Democrats! Now Hillary Clinton will be the 5th Democrat to win a majority of the votes but not serve as president.

george w. bush was, in my opinion, an illegitimate president. Because his brother, as the governor of FL, along with his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, cheated. Cheated by bumping legitimate African American voters off the rolls. This was accomplished by way of ChoicePoint, a company that produced a list of "felons" to remove from the rolls. This they did by matching names of FL voters with the names of felons in other states.

If the name matched (even if the name was a common one and even if the middle initials differed), the "felon" was "scrubbed". They weren't allowed to vote because they had the same name as someone in another state who had been convicted of a felony, in other words (Greg Plast reported on this in his 2002 article "The Great Florida Ex-Con Game").

This time around the voter suppression technique was carried out by Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas. And, instead of "ChoicePoint", this time the voter disenfranchisement was carried out via "Crosscheck". Crosscheck is a computer program that compares lists of voters in multiple states. If a "duplicate" is found the assumption is made that someone is trying to vote twice (voter fraud), and both names are struck from the rolls.

No matter that MANY people across the United States have the same name. Even the same middle initial. But just the same first and last is good enough to get you removed from the voter list (Greg Palast reported on this election thievery method with his pre-election article "The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters").

But is anyone talking about the tens of thousands of voters losing their vote because their name is similar to a voter in another state? Hell, no! Instead the pundits are talking about how the pollsters got it "wrong". Totally ignoring GOP vote theft. As I predicted.

Donald tRump TOLD us the election would be rigged! He was right. The election was rigged. In his favor. But he said it was rigged against him, outraging the establishment Left. Donald Trump MUST accept the election results. To NOT do so would be unthinkable.

And so, When Hillary Clinton "lost", she quickly conceded. This was Trump's plan, I believe. Talk up phony "voter fraud" and imply he might not accept the election results. Get everyone riled up about how outrageous it would be if he contested losing, then when he "won", Hillary would be obligated to bow out fast.

Me, I'm not sure that, even WITH the cheating, Donald Trump would have won. A couple of things put him over the top, I think. The first would be what Van Jones termed "white-lash", which would be the Right's resentment that a Black man was elected to the White House. Twice. They stewed over that for 8 years. tRump harnessed their resentment.

But, in a democracy, that's "fair". A candidate can appeal to the voter's biases for their vote. Muslims are terrorists. Mexicans are rapists. Women need to be punished for exercising their right to chose murdering babies. Blacks are violent criminals and the police need to crack some heads shoot to kill. "Transgendered" men are sex predators who want to rape your daughters and wives in public restrooms. Gay people flaunt their immorality (by getting "gay married") and lure straight kids into the "homosexual lifestyle". Or just gross people out.

Second, Donald Trump ran to the Left of Hillary on trade. He came out against the job-killing TPP early on (as did Bernie Sanders). HRC, reading the tea leaves, decided she needed to be anti-TPP as well. But many didn't believe her flip-flop was genuine. Or was at least suspicious (myself included). This probably fed into the "untrustworthy" meme. Although Trump's promises of bringing back all our manufacturing jobs is very unlikely (IMO). Maybe we can bring some of them back.

But stemming the tide by rejecting the TPP is a no-brainer. Trump got that. None of that is "cheating". Appealing to the bigotry of the right isn't cheating either. Or appealing to their sexism. A woman can't be president. Trump went HARD for the deplorable vote. That's what the Right does. Although usually on the down-low. Trump is the first candidate in recent memory to openly and brazenly appeal to the alt-Right.

Anyway (except for running to the Left on trade), all of that is mostly par for the course for a Republican presidential candidate (except Trump did it MORE). As is the voter disenfranchisement (ChoicePoint, CrossCheck). Republicans cheat. Election fraud, not voter fraud (which mostly does not exist). But I'm convinced Hillary Clinton STILL would have won. Despite these hurdles. And despite being an imperfect candidate. Which is why something extra was needed.

Enter FBI director James Comey. Initially he said "no way" in regards to indicting Secretary Clinton for having a private server. Because, you know, everyone does it. The guy who had her job under gwb had a private email address (Colin Powell). Heck, the bush administration "lost" 22 million emails.

Yet nobody raised a stink over what the bush administration did. Even though many suspected they were covering up crimes. The fact that they cooked up a strategy to fool the American people into getting behind an illegal war in Iraq. And the fact that Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys for not prosecuting bogus "voter fraud" cases.

But Hillary sent "classified" material via email! Oh my God! A mistake, as opposed to covering up actual crimes. "Lock her up", the rubes chanted. Chris Christie held a mock trial during the RNC convention and "convicted" Hillary. Obviously that bullshit damaged her campaign.

But then, just when everyone thought it was over... surprise! Comey found more emails (on a laptop shared by Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin) and announced more "investigating" was necessary. On 10/26/2016 Rudy Giuliani gleefully revealed he knew Comey would reveal an October surprise shortly. "You'll see", the scumbag coyly replied when pressed for details by CNN's Don Lemon.

Clear election meddling, IMO. Yet Chris Matthews and the msnbc stooges blather on and on about how they all had it so wrong. Legitimizing his win. I don't accept that the pollsters had it ALL wrong. Perhaps they overestimated the ease with which Hillary Clinton would cruise into the White House.

But, as opposed to "getting it so wrong", I think this was more a case of the usual Republican election thievery, coupled with meddling by Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI. That is was what cost Hillary Clinton the election. And gave the presidency to an orange racist misogynist buffoon that, when he began his campaign, everyone laughed at. I'm not laughing now. I'm terrified. The Trump recession could cost me big league.

In any case, I predict that when the investigative reporters (people like Greg Palast) dig into this, they will find that my take on what happened is correct. More or less they will find that, while Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, the other side took advantage of Hillary's "flaws" (her email scandal), and took her down via illegal election meddling.

Even though Comey said (shortly after announcing the discovery of the new emails, followed by the Right speculating about an indictment and prison time... this time, for SURE) that all the emails were duplicates and that his original decision to not prosecute stood, the DAMAGE had already been done.

According to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, "while Clinton's chances were slightly declining already after she came off her post-debate peak, the rate of decline began to accelerate a couple of days after Comey [as per] post-Comey polls".

Add it all up - Trump running to the Left of Clinton on trade, the fact that HRC was a flawed candidate, the usual Republican election disenfranchisement and voter intimidation, and (lastly) the election meddling (by Russia, WikiLeaks and the FBI) and Hillary Clinton loses an election she SHOULD have won.

And, yeah, it's the illegal meddling of Comey that I think broke the camel's back. It was too much for some voters. As Glenn Beck predicted (DSB #60). I am listening to MSNBC as I type this. Earlier something caught my ear and I stopped and typed it into a text document. "The late deciders moved to Trump by 5 points". Someone (I don't recall who) said. "Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States", sez Matthews. Morning Joke and sidekick Mika (one of the pundits who gave Trump so much free airtime) did the same (while a banner scrolled across the bottom of the screen that said "The American way: the peaceful transition of power"). It's one the "hallmarks of our Democracy" according to Barack Obama (who will see his legacy destroyed in the coming years).

It sickens me that the Left is working so HARD to legitimize this doofus. I reject this legitimization. Donald Trump was the one telling us the election would be stolen from him and that he wasn't going to accept the results! Now the institutional Left is bowing to him? Not me! I say he will be an illegitimate president. Not because I'm a "sore loser" or a "cry baby" (as a troll said in an unpublished comment). But because they cheated! And more than usual.

The Republican voter disenfranchisement crap seemingly being the norm now. But what Comey did? That was surely not normal. Also quite illegal, I think. I mean, that is what the Hatch Act says. But clearly nobody cares. Whatever it takes to win is OK now. At least if the candidate in question is a Republican.

Video: Enjoy this video from 2/9/2013. Bill Maher makes fun of the birther Donald. Trump was a JOKE as a private citizen and will be a JOKE as president. He will not fulfill his campaign promises, except to repeal the ACA. Something that will HURT many of his idiot supporters. I doubt he'll blow up NAFTA. The TPP will likely be passed by the lame duck Congress. What will Trump do then? Republicans have traditionally supported job-killing trade deals. Because they enrich the oligarchs they serve. Trump will be a one term president (5:37).



Bill Maher: "I don't know what's in this man's head. It's like they took Lenny from Of Mice and Men and made him a billionaire". (re Trump's lawsuit against the comedian for saying his father was an orangutan. Comment from the 2/12/2013 airing of Conan O'Brien's TBS talkshow).

#notmypresident. #trumpIllegitimate.

 swtd-358. 

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.

Footnote
[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 "...build 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

Cruz A Useful Idiot At RNC Convention "Ultimate Reality Show", Poorly Educated Tumpeteers Successfully Duped

We need our fair share of villains every season. And now we're very careful in our casting... to develop characters that the audience is going to root for and root against ~ Mike Fleiss, creator of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.

Ted Cruz may have thought he was taking a stand and that (in doing so) is setting himself up to be the 2020 nominee (he couldn't possibly think, at this point, that Trump could be prevented from getting the nomination). However, what he really did was to serve as the useful idiot. I'm referring to the FACT that both camps knew Cruz wasn't going to endorse Trump, but they let him speak anyway (Donald Trump Jr: We Knew Cruz Wouldn't Endorse Dad).

Pro-Trump delegates were enraged at Cruz's speech, shouting him down and booing him off the stage, in what was described by the New York Times as "the most electric moment of the convention". Convention security personnel and Cruz advisor Ken Cuccinelli escorted Cruz's wife Heidi out of the hall, fearing for her safety. (2016 Republican National Convention/Ted Cruz's speech).

"The most electric moment of the convention", huh? Perhaps because it was PLANNED to be?

Thom Hartmann (excerpted from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 7/21/2016): The storyline yesterday was that Ted Cruz blew up the Republican convention by refusing to endorse Donald Trump. Cruz has asserted, as has the Trump campaign, that they knew for several days exactly what Cruz was going to say. Which leads me to believe that this is just more reality show stuff. The fact of the matter is that reality shows are scripted. They're not real. People play roles in them... there's the "good guy", the "bad guy", the "poor sucker" [etc]... Literally, they come up with these roles and cast for them. Sometimes these shows are lightly scripted, sometimes they're heavily scripted. Trump is running this convention as a reality show. So, he gets the guy in who disagrees with him, and then makes a fool of himself. Because everyone booed Cruz down. Then Trump comes out and glares at him. It was pure reality show. And the media goes "oh, this is terrible for Trump". No it's not. It's exactly what he wants. He's manipulating the media cycle. In fact, he's OWNING the news cycle.

As Trump potus campaign chairman Paul Manafort said the "GOP convention will be ultimate reality show". I wouldn't have guessed, however, that Ted Cruz would willingly play along.

What's really funny is that, along with the low information poorly educated dupes that are buying this reality show baloney, there are idiots on the Right who think that Ted Cruz STOOD UP to Trump with his speech. These fools think that Cruz's plea to delegates to "stand and speak and vote your conscience" will make a difference (harm instead of HELP Trump).

Co-host Pat Gray: The only thing I could stand was Ted's speech, and that was difficult because they were booing him at the end, when he’s talking about the Constitution and your conscience. They boo him! Co-host Stu Burguiere: And that's the thing that's interesting about that, is the audience knows that if someone tells you to vote your conscience, that means don't vote for Donald Trump. The Cruz speech was great, but the crowd's reaction took it to another league. The booing turned it into a legendary speech. Glenn Beck: Legendary. Stu Burguiere: Was the Trump campaign so annoyed at Cruz they tried to ruin his moment? If so, it didn't work. The bottom line is, I think it backfired. I think it helped Cruz. Now, if Trump wins by 20 points and he's a great president, I mean, Cruz is done politically, surely. But if he doesn't, who else do you look to that stood up and opposed this man? Cruz's character was on full display last night. Who else can you find that stood up in front of 30 million people and did one of the most difficult and brave political things you will ever see in your life? Co-host Pat Gray: And they called him a coward for it. They're booing him, and he muscles through it. [Glenn and his co-hosts all agreed they were "damn proud" of Cruz]. Pat Gray: The easiest thing would have been for him to stand up, cave in, and say, "I'm a Republican, I signed a pledge, I endorse Donald Trump". Glenn Beck: I was saying the whole time, like the last five or eight minutes, "Don't cave. Don't cave. Don't cave". The reason I felt that way was because of the wave of hatred that was coming his way. It was a tidal wave. The tidal wave of hate became so real that Cruz's wife Heidi had to be removed from the convention floor. I said it in stump speeches for him, I said, "here's a guy who will plant his flag on the point, and no matter what storm or tidal wave comes his way, he knows his principles, and he will not move". You saw that last night. For him to get quieter and not shout over their boos, to not take a cheap shot, to do nothing but finish that speech the way he intended took remarkable courage, remarkable courage. (Ted Cruz Speech: A Legendary Turning Point by "Lori". 7/21/2016 glennbeck.com).

Remarkable courage to play the useful idiot? That's hilarious. Although, if Cruz had skipped the convention (what he should have done) instead of helping Trump, he wouldn't be remembered in 2020 as the man who stood against Trump. But he did, and therefore he'll definitely be selected to depose Hillary Clinton in 2020 (who will be the president due to the primary voters foolishly selecting Trump). That MUST be the Cruz/Beck fantasy scenario. And why Cruz's speech will end up being a "legendary turning point".

But, like I said, Cruz was the useful idiot, in that "him doing that galvanized everyone". Which is the effect Donald Trump Jr thought Cruz's speech had. How pathetic is it that the rubes were so easily tricked by reality show theatrics? And Beck, instead of realizing that Cruz was played, thinks Cruz will end up the nominee in 2020?

By the way, Ted Cruz's role in the "ultimate reality show" that is the RNC Convention obviously was the villain. Remember that Trump also pulled the birther card on Cruz (although, with Cruz it has validity, given that he was born in Canada, while Obama was NOT born in Kenya). Point is, Cruz (according to Trump) is also an "other". A foreign-born usurper who keeps trying to steal the nomination from the (rich/white) man who rightfully won it.

Footnote
Quote at the top this post is from the 3/15/2010 20/20 special "Inside the Bachelor: Stories Behind the Rose", as reported in the 3/16/2010 Reality Blurred article Bachelors have sex with an average of three women, but Bob Guiney has the record with 5.5 by Andy Dehnart.

Video: Prior to reality TV, there was "professional" wrestling. And Donald Trump, prior to his Apprentice TV show, participated in a fake/scripted match where he faced off against Vince McMahon. Donald Trump bodyslams, beats and shaves Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania 23 on 4/1/2007. Right. Anyone think Trump could possibly beat McMahon if the fight wasn't scripted? (3:33).

SWTD #340

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

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

CBS CEO Loves Money More Than His Country

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five. She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam In her eye. It's interesting when people die ~ Don Henley (dob 7/22/1947). Lyric from the song Dirty Laundry from the 1982 album I Can't Stand Still.

In regards to the Trump candidacy, CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said "it may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS". This admission of a love of (advertising) money over country is surely not unique to CBS, as it seems as if even msnbc is a (free advertising for) Trump network.

As Progressive radio host Thom Hartmann pointed out on the 3/1/2016 broadcast of his program, it was the (WJC signed) telecommunications act (a deregulatory bill that lead to massive media consolidation) that caused "incredible damage". In that now what we have are "news" organizations where spectacle (drawing eyeballs/generating ad revenue) is more important than informing and educating the public.

"He is an invention of the media" said Hartmann. Trump would not be the frontrunner if all the potus candidates had received the same amount of coverage. But he has received significantly more. Because it's good for ratings and therefore good for Big Media's bottom line.

"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going", said Moonves. "Donald's place in this election is a good thing", he said Monday at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco. "There's a lot of money in the marketplace", the exec said of political advertising so far this presidential season. (Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS" by Paul Bond. The Hollywood Reporter 2/29/2016).

Sure, I bet he's really "sorry". The infotainment nooz channels have elevated Trump (with all the free air time they've devoted to him), and it's worked out really well for them. Drawing the eyeballs of both the misinformed Fox viewers - angry White racists (like David Duke) who support Trump - and those of us who can't believe that a racist misogynist bigoted blowhard reality TV star could win the GOP nomination. It's like a car accident that backs up traffic because every car passing by has to slow down to take a gander.

"If we had not changed the rules on media ownership back in 1996, I don't think Donald Trump would be where he is right now" Hartmann said at the close of this segment. A statement I've got to agree with. Reporting the news did not used to be a for profit venture (SWTD #94). Now that it is, the viewers aren't being informed, they're being entertained.

A predicament that has help Trump enormously. And also boosted Hillary Clinton, I think. IMO (and Thom Hartmann's) Bernie Sanders would be doing better if were being more fairly covered by Big Media (Hillary Clinton Gets 14 Times More Network News Coverage Than Bernie Sanders).

BTW, the Don Henley song, Dirty Laundry, was about how the news media exploits personal tradegy for financial gain. Now they're selling out the entire country... it may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS! A new low.

Audio: CBS Chairman Discusses Trump's Candidacy. Audio attached to a 2/19/2016 Intercept article by Lee Fang.

Update, 10/6/2017: According to the brainwashed trumpdupe (and ironically self-styled) FreeThinke, "ninety percent of ALL MEDIA and all ACADEMIA is OWNED and OPERATED by Cultural Marxists". Which would make Moonves (who does not give a damn about anything other than profit and unequivocally SAYS SO) a "Cultural Marxist". Proof FT's claims about "Cultural Marxism" are pure buncombe; an obvious FACT every sane person will acknowledge.

SWTD #327

On The Inevitability Of Donald Trump Winning The gop potus Nomination (& Then Losing In The General)

Latin people for Republicans are like roaches for raid ~ John Leguizamo (dob born 7/22/1964) a Colombian Puerto Rican American actor, voice actor, producer, comedian, playwright and screenwriter. Remarks made during a 2004 Democratic Party fundraiser.

The following is an excerpt from a 2/22/2016 conversation between David Schuster and the host of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program concerning the possibility of Donald Trump securing the GOP potus nomination. (Note that I have edited Schuster's and Hartmann's comments for brevity and clarity).

Thom Hartmann: You said that you think that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. You seem to be saying this with some confidence. It seems to me that the Republican Party, institutionally, is going to do everything they can to keep Donald from becoming the nominee. He doesn't have a majority, only a plurality. If a couple more people drop out of the race, and it becomes him versus fill in the blank, I think fill in the blank is going to win, don't you?

David Schuster: You're right, I sense a certain certainty about Donald Trump getting the nomination. The reason being that, in order arrive at the point where there are two men standing, you need either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz to pull out. In my reporting the Republican establishment hates Ted Cruz far more than they hate Donald Trump. We've seen a number of Senators like Orin Hatch and former senators like Trent Lott suggest that Washington can work with Donald Trump - he's a deal maker. We cannot work with someone like Ted Cruz, who simply does not want Washington to get anything done.

I'm starting to see a number of establishment Republicans warm to the idea that OK, maybe we can work with Donald Trump if he's the nominee. So, I'd bet that there's a greater effort to deny the nomination to Ted Cruz than to Donald Trump. But there is still the idea that a more Republican insider establishment person like Marco Rubio can become Trump alternative and the party can coalesce behind him. I'm not so sure that Rubio can pull that off. In some of the polling and analysis that has been done of Rubio supporters and Trump supporters, I think many of the Cruz supporters would go to Trump.

Thom Hartmann: Because so much of Ted Cruz's base is fundamentalist Christian/misogynist/racist/generally freaked out.

David Schuster: Exactly. And making matters worse for the Republican Party is, while there is a proportional count now, starting on March 15th (just over 2 and a half weeks from now), it's winner take all [non caucus states]. Let's assume that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio decide, hey I still have a legitimate shot - if they go into those contests and we're still looking at 3 candidates, Donald Trump with 35 or 40%, he can still win 100% of the delegates in some of these states.

I also look at history - nobody on the Republican side has ever won New Hampshire and South Carolina and NOT won the nomination. I just don't see anything that might change that this time around. To me, it seems that the Republican Party is going to come around try to find a way to work with Donald Trump. ... The cynic in me is telling me that is Donald Trump is a shrewd tactician who is doing this just to get elected. He isn't as crazy or hateful as he comes across. He simply realizes that there are a lot of Republicans voters out there who so angry at the Republican establishment that he can exploit that dissatisfaction and anger to get elected.

My sense is that Donald Trump will get the nomination, but I can't see how he'd win in the general election, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. Even if it's Hillary and she's indicted [over her emails].

[End 2/22/2016 Hartmann/Schuster Discussion Excerpt]

Wow! Schuster thinks that even if HRC is indicated she'll win. If that happens it's sure going to cause many Republican heads to explode (although I doubt there will be an indictment). I'm still hopeful that the nomination and presidency goes to Sanders, however. If so I believe his presidency will be transformational (and turn back the plutocratic tide). The only thing that could impact the inevitability of a Trump nomination and loss would be an economic crash (which is being predicted by Hartmann, the only question is how soon it will happen).

Otherwise I think David Schuster's analysis is correct. Mostly because "the GOP won't win back the White House in 2016 without garnering substantially more support from Hispanic voters than it received three years ago".

...the eventual Republican nominee needs to earn at least approximately 35% of the Hispanic vote in both Colorado and Nevada to compete for their Electoral College votes and at least 40%, if not 45%, of Hispanics in Florida. In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to hit these numbers, and lost all three states (How well must GOP do among Hispanics to win in 2016? by David M. Drucker. The Washington Examiner 9/3/2015).

Anyone think Trump is going to get more Hispanic votes than Romney did? Don't forget that Trump is in favor of ending birthright citizenship and wants to forcibly round up and deport 11-12 million illegal immigrants. I'm thinking that Trump's stand on these issues might have the opposite effect of endearing him to Latino voters.

SWTD #325

Thom Hartmann on Fox So-Called News (AKA Fox Nooz) In The Context Of HRC's 10/22/2015 Benghazi Questioning

A continual circulation of lies among those who are not much in the way of hearing them contradicted, will in time pass for truth; and the crime lies not in the believer but the inventor ~ Thomas Paine (2/9/1737 to 6/8/1809) as quoted in The American Crisis (1776-1783).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 10/23/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses the Fox "news" coverage of Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House sham Benghazi "investigation" committee.

Thom: Fox News cut away from the hearings once it became obvious that Hillary Clinton was owning these guys. Instead they went to just playing the clips in which Republicans would lay out a fantasy scenario and then Hillary Clinton would say - no, that's not true, that didn't happen. But they didn't include Hillary's response.

This is what Fox so-called news does. They are not a news channel. They are the official media arm of the Republican Party. This is how it was proposed to Richard Nixon by Roger Ailes to back in the 70s, and that's what it is. And it's obscene that they're allowed to call themselves NEWS.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

From Media Matters...

Washington Post opinion writer Erik Wemple noted that while Fox News has often heavily covered the 2012 Benghazi attacks, "the Benghazi network", as he called it, abandoned live coverage of Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Select Committee this evening in favor of general political commentary on The Five. Wemple described Fox's decision as "conceding that today's marathon congressional hearing on the topic is going nowhere". (Wash. Post's Wemple: Fox "All But Acknowledges The Benghazi Hearing Is A Snooze" by the Media Matters Staff. 10/22/2015).

Going nowhere in regards to furthering their Benghazi narrative, that is. The narrative being that Hillary Clinton issued a stand down order and is therefore personally responsible for the deaths of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. In fact, it is virtually the same as if she had murdered them herself. Making these yet more murders Hillary is responsible for. Previous murders including that of Vince Foster (in addition to the dozens of other people Hillary and her husband bumped off)!

Obviously Benghazi disqualifies Hillary from being president. Because 4 Americans died and she was Secretary of State. Even though, as Hillary pointed out, attacks on diplomatic outposts have occurred under Republican administrations, and Democrats responded by working with Repubs to try to fix the problem. As opposed to "investigating" to, as the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy put it, damage HRC politically.

Kevin McCarthy: Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought. (Source: The Washington Post 9/30/2015).

And where did Kevin McCarthy accidentally utter this truism? Why, it was on Sean Hannity's program! This is a prime example of why, even though Fox may do some actual news (with it's defenders citing Shepard Smith, among others), their main agenda is to act as the official media arm of the Republican Party.

While msnbc, the other channel on which political opinion can be found, has recently decided to move to the Right (SWTD #305). According to Talker's Magazine, NBC News Chief Andrew Lack "plans to rebuild MSNBC to focus on breaking news coverage and to be less of a left-leaning talk outlet"... so I don't think a similar accusation can be made against them. At least not any longer. Not that I think they have BEEN a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

Fox, on the other hand, CLEARLY is. Which is why I've referred to them in the past as Fox Nooz (DSB #12). And why I will continue to do so. It's because there are not "two so similar nooz channels"... despite what dissemblers on the Right (who attempt to present themselves as "consistent and non-partisan") may claim.

SWTD #314