In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 16 2017 21:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seen the strange clip from this 1958 TV show? A guy called Trump - a "conman" who promises to build a wall to protect the citizens of the town and threatens to sue for defamation.Episode is titled "The end of the world".
That's quite amazing. I did a quick research because it sounded too good to be true and sounded really like a hoax, but apparently this is legit.
Haha yeah I also had to look around to confirm. Strongest evidence of time travelling the world has yet to see, imo.
I don't see how that article demonstrates Obama being polarizing; it just demonstrates a result of polarization which is people writing articles that take a very un- or over- charitable interpretation of one side or another.
mostly it looks similar to the usual haters hating.
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON who could become POTUS would make a lot more money doing something else.
you're claims abotu the DNC actually running the media remain unsubstantiated.
there has been some false news twisting trump's words; there's also been a lot more news reporting what trump said word for word. and trump's said a lot of bda things, and a lot of things that show a large amount of ignorance. one need not misrepresent what trump says in the slightest for him to appear bad.
complaining about namecalling seems odd when trump has done a LOT of that.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
A) Without his tax returns, you can't really tell how much money he has. Maybe without the presidential run, he could not afford a yacht. Even his campaign was apparently at least partially refunded, if not profitable. B) Considering he's advocating channels like InfoWars, and straight up lying repeatedly about the establishment or obfuscating processes, he has not exposed anything of note, but rather spreading misinformation. C) Condidering the President-Elect called half his country losers on New Years Eve losers and haters, I really doubt you have a leg to stand on in terms of being neutral in coverage.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
His company does not stop functioning simply because he's the POTUS. In fact, it's set to make a lot of money on policies the POTUS makes, especially in relation to softening economic sanctions against Russia.
All other criticism notwithstanding for now - claiming that Trumps salarylevel decreases because he takes the seat as POTUS and rejects the salary, is a laughably simplistic look at his income.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
His company does not stop functioning simply because he's the POTUS. In fact, it's set to make a lot of money on policies the POTUS makes, especially in relation to softening economic sanctions against Russia.
All other criticism notwithstanding for now - claiming that Trumps salarylevel decreases because he takes the seat as POTUS and rejects the salary, is a laughably simplistic look at his income.
To be fair I don't think Trump ran for President for the money, and that he would still do it if he make 0 dollars at the end of it. Being 'the worlds most powerful man' is perfect for a narcissist.
That the position is good for his businesses is pure upside.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
His company does not stop functioning simply because he's the POTUS. In fact, it's set to make a lot of money on policies the POTUS makes, especially in relation to softening economic sanctions against Russia.
All other criticism notwithstanding for now - claiming that Trumps salarylevel decreases because he takes the seat as POTUS and rejects the salary, is a laughably simplistic look at his income.
To be fair I don't think Trump ran for President for the money, and that he would still do it if he make 0 dollars at the end of it. Being 'the worlds most powerful man' is perfect for a narcissist.
That the position is good for his businesses is pure upside.
Bingo. I've heard this argument a lot (mainly from my father-in-law) that Trump is so self-sacrificing by running for President instead of continuing to run his businesses. But for someone who has always had money and still (maybe?) has extraordinary wealth, what is more money? No, for an egomaniac like Trump, power is more important than money, and this is the most powerful office in the world, pound for pound.
He truly is a fantastic con man, because I don't know how he convinced so many people that he is this altruistic savior of the US when he has given every indication otherwise.
All he did was convince 62 million people, among whom were the key voters in key states, that he would be better than all the alternatives they had, most notably Hillary Clinton. Let's not pretend they all bought into his MAGA narrative.
On January 17 2017 04:13 ZasZ. wrote: He truly is a fantastic con man, because I don't know how he convinced so many people that he is this altruistic savior of the US when he has given every indication otherwise.
winning an election is all about the fine art of persuasion. if Hillary can't out-persuade Donald Trump... as bad as Trump is HRC is worse. i wish this was a Cruz v. Sanders election. i think they're both way better than Trump and Clinton.
It's rare that I would defend Obama in his shitty last few weeks but I think this article is completely off-the-mark.
In its remaining days in power, the Obama administration suddenly punished Vladimir Putin’s Russia for allegedly interfering in the U.S. presidential election. It claimed that Russian or Russian-hired hackers tapped into the records of the Democratic National Committee as well as the correspondence of John Podesta, a Clinton advisor.
But what the Obama administration did not say was that such cyber-crimes are by now old hat. Both the Russian and Chinese governments have been hacking into far more important U.S. records and government archives for years without earning retaliation
The administration also did not mention that the election hacking occurred largely because of Podesta’s own carelessness in using his security password. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge that the Republican National Committee was likewise targeted, but apparently had enough safeguards to prevent successful entry into its records. Finally, the administration refused to mention that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange went on the record saying that he did not receive the email trove from the Russians.
The problem isn't really the hacking, it's the leaking. Yes, everyone hacks. No, it's not very common to leak with the apparent intent of either influencing the result or disrupting the electoral process. The people who say it's unprecedented are wrong, but it's certainly a rare and aggressive action assuming that Russia did it (a reasonable assumption that I actually was more sure of before that bizarre anti-Russia release by the ODNI).
The truth is that Obama, throughout his presidency, has appeased Putin. As president, Obama ended the previously agreed-on Eastern European missile defense; he made open-mic promises to be more flexible with Putin after his reelection; he barely responded to Russia’s aggression toward Crimea and Ukraine; and he constantly criticized both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney for being inordinately tough on Russia.
Until now, he saw no reason to stop enabling Russia. Had Hillary Clinton won the election, Putin’s alleged hacking would not have earned any administration attention. But this time around, an emboldened Putin allegedly went too far and crossed the only red line that Obama might have enforced by supposedly enabling the release of information that might have turned off some voters on Clinton. Blaming Putin for Clinton’s loss was a more convenient narrative than admitting that Obama’s own policies have turned off even traditional Democratic constituencies and for now reduced the Democratic Party to a minority coastal party.
This fails to address the root of the problem. The Obama/Clinton strategy at the start sought to focus on China and make Russia less of an issue. In light of the desire for the Asia pivot and the fact that up until that point, the Georgia matter was the worst post-Cold-War crisis between the US and Russia, that made sense. The problem is not about not being "hard enough" on Russia but about fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the issue here. If Obama were "harder on Russia" all he would have on his hands is an even bigger conflict and a clash of arms that would end badly. He could probably say goodbye to the Iran deal, for one.
Want to build more missile shields? Don't complain when Russia says that the countries that hold the missile shields will be the first to die in a nuclear war, and puts shield-piercing nukes on their border. And so on - but the general point is that this author seems to fail to acknowledge what "harder on Russia" would actually look like in terms of the response.
All administrations play fast and loose with the truth. It is the nature of high politics to fib, cover up, and fudge in order to ensure the success of a so-called noble agenda for the greater good. But not since the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations have we seen a president so institutionalize misrepresentation.
There are ample examples. It was clear from Clinton’s own leaked emails and from real-time memos from intelligence agencies that the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not a spontaneous riot over an insensitive video produced by a reactionary Coptic zealot residing in the United States, as the administration claimed. But such a concoction fit Obama’s 2012 reelection narrative: the recklessness of right-wing Islamophobes endangers national security abroad. In contrast, the reality—a preplanned al-Qaeda-affiliated attack on an unprepared and semi-covert American consulate—challenged Obama’s reelection myth that Al Qaeda was “on the run” and that the administration was vigilant in ensuring security for our diplomatic personnel in the Middle East.
Benghazi, fuck off. While that wasn't a great bit of dealing by Obama/Clinton, that has been blown up into something so far from what it was that I don't take it seriously.
The far more important Iran nuclear deal of summer 2015 followed a similar pattern of dissimulation. “Bold” and “courageous” Middle East diplomacy nonetheless required White House subterfuge and deceitfulness. Ostensibly only Barack Obama was unaffected by past presidents’ prejudices against the revolutionary regime in Iran and thus could appreciate the mutual advantages of a breakthrough agreement to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb—as part of a larger diplomatic effort to return Shiite and Persian Iran to its natural role as a balancing force in the otherwise largely Sunni and Arab Middle East
In exchange for the U.S. and its allies dropping sanctions and commercial penalties—some of them approved by the UN—the theocracy purportedly agreed to reduce its installed centrifuges for 10 years. It promised to put limits on the purity of its enriched uranium and to reduce existing stockpiles. It agreed not to expand its enrichment facilities, while allowing on-site inspections.
But after 18 months, the true character of the deal has been revealed through slow leaks. In a secret side deal, Iran can update and improve its centrifuges; it can also inspect its own enrichment centers and report the results to international authorities; beyond that, Iran received a $400 million ransom payment on the exact day that Iranian-held U.S. hostages were let go.
Lord Tolkien's summary of the merits of the Iran deal are a fair place to start. This article here is a pretty good dissent. Overall it's not the perfect deal but the deal is better than no deal, and this criticism sort of misses the point.
Other examples of dissimulation exist—from Obama’s about-face on border enforcement, in which he redefined deportation and reneged on his promises to enforce existing law, to the linguistic gymnastics he employed to mask the disastrously abrupt pullout of peacekeepers from Iraq (ISIS as “the “jayvees”). Most recently, the administration has not been candid about the details of its latest estrangement with Israel. Obama and his foreign policy team hid the fact that they had helped to engineer a UN resolution condemning Israel, by suggesting to the public that they were unaware of the depths of apparently spontaneous expressions of anti-Israeli anger.
Meh. The Israel move was pretty badly done. No argument there.
Why does the Obama administration contort reality and mask the consequences of its initiatives?
Two reasons come to mind. One, Obama advanced an agenda to the left of that shared by most past presidents. Obamacare, the Benghazi catastrophe, the Iran deal, his strange stance toward radical Islam, and the Bergdahl swap were unpopular measures that required politically-driven recalibrations to escape American scrutiny.
Second, Obama’s team believes that the goals of fairness and egalitarianism more than justify the means of dissimulation by more sophisticated elites. Thus Gruber (“the stupidity of the American voter”) and Rhodes (“They literally know nothing”) employ deception on our behalf. Central to this worldview is that the American people are naive and easily manipulated, and thus need to be brought up to speed by a paternal administration that knows what is best for its vulnerable and clueless citizenry.
Such condescension is also why the administration never believes it has done anything wrong by hiding the facts of these controversies. Its players believe that because they did it all for us, the ensuing distasteful means will be forgotten once we finally progress enough to appreciate their enlightened ends.
Ugh. Let's not overcomplicate it. He just perceives that his general agenda over the past eight years is going to be met with a serious challenge in Trump's administration, and he (rather distastefully) puts in roadblocks to make it harder for Trump to do what he intends to do. Let's not turn this into a bigger conspiracy than it is. He did some work, he was more popular (as a result of personal charm) than his policies or his party, and now we see the backlash from that.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
A) Without his tax returns, you can't really tell how much money he has. Maybe without the presidential run, he could not afford a yacht. Even his campaign was apparently at least partially refunded, if not profitable. B) Considering he's advocating channels like InfoWars, and straight up lying repeatedly about the establishment or obfuscating processes, he has not exposed anything of note, but rather spreading misinformation. C) Condidering the President-Elect called half his country losers on New Years Eve losers and haters, I really doubt you have a leg to stand on in terms of being neutral in coverage.
Have you seen InfoWars?
At least they back all of their sources every time. At least they care about the average American to not get screwed by the establishment.
And calling people losers does not equate to the magnitude of mess that Hillary Clinton did by calling people deplorable, or irredeemable.
Infowars is a complete joke of a site. Alex Jones believes in fish people. They're one small step away from full out flat earth retardation. Like, I get that there are legitimate reasons to criticize mainstream media and if you wanna argue that breitbart or whatever fills an important function in today's media climate then whatever, I don't think I agree but I don't care enough to argue. Infowars however, is complete garbage, and it's pretty much impossible for me to reconcile belief in infowars as a legitimate news service and 'I have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about'.
On January 16 2017 18:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Well, that's really a weak definition.
For one thing, Trump will be making a lot less money serving as the POTUS than as a CEO.
He could've been sailing in his yacht but instead he decided to spend a hefty chunk of his money in exposing how the establishment works.
During the election, we have seen plenty of DNC run media (online and offline ones) constantly discouraging the now President elect Donald Trump's supporters by calling them names (with Hillary Clinton leading the charge) and writing fake news in twisting Donald Trump's word to misrepresent him.
A) Without his tax returns, you can't really tell how much money he has. Maybe without the presidential run, he could not afford a yacht. Even his campaign was apparently at least partially refunded, if not profitable. B) Considering he's advocating channels like InfoWars, and straight up lying repeatedly about the establishment or obfuscating processes, he has not exposed anything of note, but rather spreading misinformation. C) Condidering the President-Elect called half his country losers on New Years Eve losers and haters, I really doubt you have a leg to stand on in terms of being neutral in coverage.
Have you seen InfoWars?
At least they back all of their sources every time. At least they care about the average American to not get screwed by the establishment.
And calling people losers does not equate to the magnitude of mess that Hillary Clinton did by calling people deplorable, or irredeemable.
Not even close.
Your name and the content of your post are very much at odds with one another.
On January 17 2017 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: Infowars is a complete joke of a site. Alex Jones believes in fish people. They're one small step away from full out flat earth retardation. Like, I get that there are legitimate reasons to criticize mainstream media and if you wanna argue that breitbart or whatever fills an important function in today's media climate then whatever, I don't think I agree but I don't care enough to argue. Infowars however, is complete garbage, and it's pretty much impossible for me to reconcile belief in infowars as a legitimate news service and 'I have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about'.
But how can he know YOU are not a fish person? Or a Zerg unit?
On January 17 2017 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote: Infowars is a complete joke of a site. Alex Jones believes in fish people. They're one small step away from full out flat earth retardation. Like, I get that there are legitimate reasons to criticize mainstream media and if you wanna argue that breitbart or whatever fills an important function in today's media climate then whatever, I don't think I agree but I don't care enough to argue. Infowars however, is complete garbage, and it's pretty much impossible for me to reconcile belief in infowars as a legitimate news service and 'I have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about'.
Just another sheep that doesn't see how the government is turning the frogs gay.
THE REVEREND MARTIN Luther King Jr. is celebrated annually on a federal holiday on the third Monday of January. Politicians across the political spectrum put out statements praising his life’s work, and children in classrooms across America are told the tale of a man who stood up defiantly against racism and helped changed civil rights law.
But what they don’t mention is that King was not just a fighter for racial justice, he also fought for economic justice and against war. And as a result, he spent the last years of his life, before being assassinated in 1968, clashing not just with reactionary Southern segregationists, but with the Democratic Party’s elite and other civil rights leaders, who viewed his turn against the Vietnam War and the American economic system as dangerous and radical.
This “Santa Clausification” of King, as scholar Cornel West calls it — the portrayal of King as a celebrated consensus seeker asking for common sense racial reforms rather than as an anti-establishment radical — downplays the risks one of America’s most revered activists took to live according to conscience.
The Backlash Against King’s Opposition to the Vietnam War
While working alongside Democratic President Lyndon Johnson on civil rights issues, King was also increasingly disturbed by the war in Vietnam, and he would raise the issue privately with Johnson in White House calls and meetings. In April 1967, King decided to publicly denounce the war and call for its end. He gave a speech at Riverside Church in New York City where he called the U.S. government the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world” and denounced napalm bombings and the propping up of a puppet government in South Vietnam. He also called for a total re-examination of U.S. foreign policy, questioning capitalist exploitation of the developing world.
Many in the civil rights community warned King to focus on black civil rights and ignore the war so as not to alienate the Democratic Party. His Riverside Church speech explicitly rejected that demand, arguing that what America was doing across the world could not be morally segregated from what it was doing to African-Americans:
For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. […] Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read “Vietnam.” It can never be saved so long as it destroys the hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
The reaction from the American political establishment — much of it traditionally associated with American liberalism — was swift and harsh. The New York Times editorial board blasted King for linking the war in Vietnam to the struggles of civil rights and poverty alleviation in the United States, saying it was “too facile a connection” and that he was doing a “disservice” to both causes. It concluded that there “are no simple answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial injustice in this country.” The Washington Post editorial board said King had “diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country and his people.” In all, 168 newspapers denounced him the next day.
King had long considered himself a socialist, In 1966, he told staff at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that “there must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”
The last years of King’s life saw him escalate his campaign against economic inequality. He campaigned against the Oklahoma right-to-work referendum and warned that increased economic competition between whites and blacks would undermine civil rights — calling instead for a “Grand Alliance” between working-class whites and blacks.
He sought to use many of the same tactics he deployed in the South — boycotts, sit-ins, blockades — against economic injustice in inner cities in the North where African-Americans were trapped in endemic poverty. An article from the August 15, 1967, issue of The New York Times writes up King’s desire to “dislocate” large cities to force them to address these needs
EPT
