Did you hear the news? When asked to respond to one of Trump's latest bizarre tweets, campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could offer no explanation other than the obvious: The man's nuts.
If you haven't heard about it, that's probably because I just made it up. It's fake news.
Hopefully, it will catch on.
Hey, it's Trump Time! Fake news is all the rage. It's not only normal, it's fashionable. I don't think enough credit can be given to Donald "White Power" Trump for taking this phenomenon and making it mainstream. He has been the leading purveyor of fake news for years now. Way back in 2011, when Birtherism was a mere fringe activity -- restricted solely to those afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome -- the Donald used his celebrity to bring that lunacy front and center before the American people.
The Donald had "heard" things and "read" things about Obama. Really bad things. Things that he apparently was sure were true because he presented them as proven fact. Like the fact that Obama's own grandmother admitted that he was born in Kenya. And how nobody ever knew him growing up in Hawaii or when he supposedly attended Columbia University. He had a bunch of other things he accused the President of. These were all proven facts. Except the only thing proven about those things -- by numerous fact-checking organizations -- is that they were all demonstrably false.
There doesn't appear to be a single phoney right-wing conspiracy theory that The Donald hasn't bought lock, stock, barrel and promoted like it had his name on it. Like how he saw "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attacks on 9/11. Or how he retweeted outrageously false crime statistics that claimed 82% of white murder victims were killed by blacks when that is actually the percentage of whites killed by other whites. (If Trump has accepted those real statistics, I sure hope he is going to do something about all those white predators who are murdering innocent white people, because white lives matter most)
The Donald doesn't only repeat, retweet and spread false rumors. He fabricates his own. Remember when he claimed that he sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate? He said they couldn't "believe what they're finding". He got a lot of people wondering what sort of treachery Obama had committed. So far, he hasn't revealed Obama's betrayals. Like his decision whether or not to accept the results of the election, he's keeping us in suspense. When asked about it years later, he said he would reveal it "when the time was right". Another time he told the reporter it wasn't any of his business.
Oh Master of the Master Race, how could you do this to us? You know how this stuff is like heroin to your supporters. They're just dying to know. We're all dying to know.
Maybe if we keep pestering him about it the way he pestered Obama about the long form birth certificate, he'll finally share everything his investigators found out.
Speaking of the professional double-talker -- Kellyanne Conway -- her frequent presence on my TV and computer screens is a constant irritant. To hear her describe Trump's falsehoods, contradictions, idiocies and racist lies as honest, truth-telling brilliance is such an outrageously obnoxious insult to the intelligence of anyone listening. But what adds injury to that insult is how effective her obfuscating tactics are. She is usually able to -- if not completely bamboozle her interviewer -- escape relatively unscathed.
Her recent dust up with Clinton's communications director is a depressing example:
FIREWORKS: Kellyanne Conway vs. Clinton Camp's Palmieri: Trump Gave Alt-Right, White Supremacists A Platform | Video | RealClea
Clinton's Palmieri says she'd rather 'lose than win the way you guys did'. Conway says "I'm sorry -- how exactly did we win -- no, go for it, Jen -- how exactly did we win?" Palmieri stutters and Conway filibusters. But when given a chance to elaborate, Palmieri talks about giving the Alt-Right a platform. (That is an awful consequence of the Trump campaign but not the way they won. However, Trump did convince enough people that non-whites [Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, the Chinese] are a dire threat to their safety and prosperity and that Trump was the only person with the courage and conviction to push these hordes back and Make America White again! What about Putin and the Russians? Oh, they're great! They're white!) Anyway, Conway demonstrates outrage, brushes the alt-right platform accusation aside and filibusters some more.
Since Conway came on board, what I've been waiting all campaign for, is someone to confront that -- I'm thinking of a word for her and it rhymes with confront -- with some of the more outrageous lies that Trump has told. I would love to see how Conway would try to talk her way out of that. This is what Palmieri should have zeroed in on, particularly his racist lies. Like -- you know -- most, if not all, Mexican immigrants are drug bringing criminal rapists, and the other lies I mention in the fourth paragraph of this post.
Being familiar with Conway's tactics, my guess is that she would have used the "best defense is a good offense" ploy. 'You want to talk about lies, let's talk about Hillary's lies.' (she's actually said things just like that) Then Palmieri could have truthfully and correctly said that Hillary didn't lie about other people and whole races and religions. And she could have stressed how terrible those lies were and how damaging and divisive they are.
Here's another thing I haven't heard brought up to her. When they talk about the popular vote and the anti-Trump protests, she says 'the elections are based on electoral votes not the popular vote', the protestors are 'crybabies and sore losers' and they should just shut up and accept the results. The Donald won fair and square.
Well, the question I would ask her, if I had the chance, is how she thinks The Donald and his supporters would have behaved had he won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. I would love to hear what kind of double-talk she would conjure in order to answer that question. Interestingly, we know how he and they would have behaved because we have the proof, from their own hypocritical mouths. See my previous post, below.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Trump: I Would Have Won Even More Bigly
As the number of votes cast against Donald Trump continues to rise, Trump and his supporters continue to brush that fact off with an interesting bit of reasoning. If the election was based on the popular vote, they say, Trump would have campaigned differently. Trump himself tweeted: "If the election were based on total popular vote, I would have campaigned in N.Y., Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily."
There's at least one thing wrong with that rationale. It assumes that Clinton would not have changed her campaigning strategy, too. As it stands now, Clinton's popular vote total is by far the largest winning margin -- in history -- by a candidate who lost the electoral college. If that happened without Clinton even trying to get the popular vote, doesn't it makes more sense that her popular vote margin would have been even larger if she had campaigned for it?
The fact that the popular vote count is being brought to the attention of the American people really annoys the Trumpers. And they are livid at the anti-Trump protests. Their response to these realities? "You lost. Get over it." What should really be annoying them are these facts (from a Nov. 15 politico article):
On election night in 2012, Trump ranted about the Electoral College when he appeared to believe, incorrectly, that President Barack Obama lost the popular vote to Mitt Romney.
"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!" Trump wrote that night, continuing in a subsequent post that "the electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!" he added [sic].
"More votes equals a loss ... revolution!"
It is amazing how the Trumpers are able to filter out all of the incredibly stupid and contradictory things Trump says. It seems like there isn't a single thing that comes out of that jerk's mouth that hasn't been completely contradicted by a previous thing he's said. Like these other tweets from 2012:
Of course, when he thought he was going to lose, he incited his supporters with unfounded accusations of rigging. He urged them to take matters into their own hands with "Second Amendment remedies" if Hillary won. Some of them vowed to wage an armed revolution if Trump didn't win.
According to The Independent, Clinton has more than 1.7 million more votes -- and counting -- than Trump and more total votes than any other US presidential candidate in history -- except for Barack Obama -- who's approval rating is 55%.
Besides losing the popular vote, the Republicons lost two Senate seats and six congressional seats.
Imagine if the Dems had nominated someone other than Hillary Clinton. Someone without her long history of ethically dishonest and corrupt decision making. Someone like Bernie Sanders, for instance.
The anti-Trump protests are not only fair -- common human decency demands it.
Trump is a racist liar and a moral degenerate. That is not partisan hyperbole. As Senator Paul Ryan said -- "it's the textbook definition." I hope and pray that -- out of these protests -- a demand for an apology from Trump emerges. We can't let him get away with his mountain of insults, slurs and lies. We can not let this be the norm of our political discourse.
Trump gets his talking points from the right-wing hate media. He has delved into the dark and ugly fringes of the alt-right, white nationalist and white supremacist movements. Those hate mongers get away with that shit when they speak to their gullible audiences. We can't let Trump get away with that when he speaks to a national audience.
We must demand an apology.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Disbelief, Despair -- And Then Anger
Even though I knew Trump could win, when it actually happened, it seemed so
unreal.
When that reality finally sunk in, I sunk, too -- into a pool of despair. I
had to face the realization that an ultra-right, ultra-white Senate and House of
Representatives will be led by a pussy-grabbing, lying, racist, conspiracy-theorist-demagogue. And he's stupid, too. George W. Bush stupid. A huge asshole. Yuuuge.
Hey, Trump. When are you going to release your college transcripts?
Because "I heard you were a terrible student, terrible. How does a terrible
student go to the Wharton School? Let us see your records. I have friends who
have smart sons with great marks, great boards, great everything and they can't
get into the Wharton School. We don't know a thing about this guy. There are a
lot of questions that are unanswered about our President-elect."
(If the words in those quotes look familiar, it's because they are Trump's
-- speaking about Obama and Harvard, back in the heady days of Birtherism. Ahh,
those were intoxicating and exhilarating times for those suffering from Obama
Derangement Syndrome. Too bad they'll be gone all too soon.)
Did you know that when Trump was asked if he would release his college
transcripts he told the reporter that it was none of his business? Ha!
So, first disbelief followed by despair but then the anger started to rise. I got really pissed at the way so many Dems
were being so nice to Trump, considering what a scumbag he's been. They should
have demanded an apology for all the vile garbage and lies he's spewed -- before
they said a single word to him (other than the demand for the apology.)
The fucking prick said he wouldn't accept the results if he didn't win! He incited his supporters with constant and unfounded accusations of rigging. Some of them vowed to wage an armed revolution if he didn't win. He urged them to take matters into their own hands with Second Amendment remedies if Clinton got elected.
Being nice to that bastard is completely unwarranted. He is a scumbag of the first order. In the name of decency, he should be thoroughly repudiated. Think of how his basket of deplorables treated President Obama, a decent person, during his entire time on the national stage, with the most vile attacks imaginable.
The attacks on Obama were based on distorted information, twisted reasoning and outright lies. They constantly accused him of saying horrible things when he actually said the exact opposite of what they accused him of. Meanwhile, Trump's bile was crystal clear and totally unambiguous. The same retards who attacked Obama cheered and chanted as Trump lied and demagogued his way to the presidency.
A few days ago, I heard Chris "Lane Closings" Christie being asked if Trump should apologize to Obama for all that birther stuff he promoted for all those years. Governor Lane Closings had the audacity to brush all that stuff off as mere jabs at the President -- just the normal kind of politics that everyone engages in. After all, he said, President Obama himself did the same thing to Trump at that 2011 White House Correspondents' dinner.
That double-talking liar had the gall to compare Trump's five year birther campaign of hate to Obama's five minute ribbing at that dinner!? I need a word that means "obnoxious to the power of ten." I bet they have a word for that in German.
I've got a new chant for Gov. Lane Closings. It goes like this:
LOCK HIM UP -- LOCK HIM UP -- LOCK HIM UP
The Republiconservative talking heads are out there decrying the protests and legitimate grievances being expressed by those who oppose Trump. Liar for Hire, Kellyanne Conway, feigned disgust and accused them of being divisive!!! Why you miserable fucking C-word. You wretched piece of shit.
You just did all the official double-talking for the undefeated,
undisputed, world heavyweight champion of divisiveness, Donald J.
Trump!!!
If anyone is offended by the vulgarity in this post, let me remind you -- this is Trump-time!!!
Just as he did for racism, he has made vulgarity socially acceptable.
I predict he will issue an executive order making political correctness illegal.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Who's Smarter: Trump, Cruz or Obama?
One of the primary symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome is an obsessive compulsion to believe that Barack Obama is stupid. This unreflective urge becomes so strong that it will seize on the most embarrassingly flimsy evidence to justify the aforementioned belief, while dismissing any facts to the contrary.
A case in point. Back during Obama's 2008 campaign run, he said that he had visited 57 states. Without any concern for the context of the statement, the right-wingers seized on this and declared that the Harvard Law School graduate and professor of constitutional law at Chicago University was so stupid that he thinks the country has 57 states.
The right-wingers loved this notion so much that, abetted by their favorite talk show hosts, they indulged in the pleasure of repeating it over and over and over again for years and years. (I heard a caller bring it up as recently as a couple of months ago on Rush Limbag's show.)
But, just as the laughter one experiences after a good joke eventually subsides, the "Obama is stupid" notion -- though going strong for three years -- began to lose some of its gratification.
So, after wringing almost as much pleasure as they could out of the "Obama is stupid" notion (they are still doing it eight years later), the degenerative nature of Obama Derangement Syndrome eventually took its course and the right-wingers' reasoning went from ridiculous to flat-out nutbag loony.
A new notion began to emerge from the crazed minds of those suffering from ODS. And it went like this:
"OK, you Obama apologists, you say the gaffe was just a slip of the tongue? Well, it was a Freudian slip! He accidentally referred to the 57 Islamic states of the world!"
Let's let one of the battiest Members of Congress and man who belongs in a padded cell, Rep. Louie Gohmert, explain, as he did on the floor of the House of Representatives in 2011:
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, this ridiculous notion was such a topic of conversation among the right-wingnuts, that it actually made it to the floor of the House, three fucking years later.
So, since then, the right-wing nuts have been going back and forth, according to their fancy, between the "Obama is stupid" and the "Obama is helping to usher in the reign of the Islamic Caliphate" notions.
The Daily Kos gave a much more plausible explanation for Obama's gaffe:
There is one thing I'd like to point out, though. If you refuse to believe that Obama's gaffe was a mere slip of the tongue, then anyone with only average reading/listening comprehension and second grade level arithmetic ability should be able to figure out that Obama thinks that there are 60 states, not 57.
It's bad enough that ODS sufferers have to twist reason and logic to prove Obama is stupid, but when they inadvertently prove their own stupidity in the process, well, that's the kind of irony that gives someone like me the kind of pleasure that ODS sufferers were seeking in the first place.
In my next post (part two) we will compare the intelligence of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to that of President Obama.
A case in point. Back during Obama's 2008 campaign run, he said that he had visited 57 states. Without any concern for the context of the statement, the right-wingers seized on this and declared that the Harvard Law School graduate and professor of constitutional law at Chicago University was so stupid that he thinks the country has 57 states.
The right-wingers loved this notion so much that, abetted by their favorite talk show hosts, they indulged in the pleasure of repeating it over and over and over again for years and years. (I heard a caller bring it up as recently as a couple of months ago on Rush Limbag's show.)
But, just as the laughter one experiences after a good joke eventually subsides, the "Obama is stupid" notion -- though going strong for three years -- began to lose some of its gratification.
So, after wringing almost as much pleasure as they could out of the "Obama is stupid" notion (they are still doing it eight years later), the degenerative nature of Obama Derangement Syndrome eventually took its course and the right-wingers' reasoning went from ridiculous to flat-out nutbag loony.
A new notion began to emerge from the crazed minds of those suffering from ODS. And it went like this:
"OK, you Obama apologists, you say the gaffe was just a slip of the tongue? Well, it was a Freudian slip! He accidentally referred to the 57 Islamic states of the world!"
Let's let one of the battiest Members of Congress and man who belongs in a padded cell, Rep. Louie Gohmert, explain, as he did on the floor of the House of Representatives in 2011:
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, this ridiculous notion was such a topic of conversation among the right-wingnuts, that it actually made it to the floor of the House, three fucking years later.
So, since then, the right-wing nuts have been going back and forth, according to their fancy, between the "Obama is stupid" and the "Obama is helping to usher in the reign of the Islamic Caliphate" notions.
The Daily Kos gave a much more plausible explanation for Obama's gaffe:
Obama said in this 2008 visit to Oregon that he had visited 57 states, "one left to go" and then noted that he couldn't go to Alaska and Hawaii because it was too far to justify. So, Obama was trying to visit all 48 continental states, and he was trying to say that he had been to 47 states. It's easy to say 57 instead of 47, "fifty" is similar to "forty" and when we talk about states, it is ingrained in us all to say "50 states" instinctively.
There is one thing I'd like to point out, though. If you refuse to believe that Obama's gaffe was a mere slip of the tongue, then anyone with only average reading/listening comprehension and second grade level arithmetic ability should be able to figure out that Obama thinks that there are 60 states, not 57.
Here: (according to Obama) the 57 continental states he visited, plus the one he hadn't yet, makes 58. Plus Alaska and Hawaii makes 60.
But, actually, thinking that there are 60 states, instead of 50, is really
a sign of ignorance and not a true indication of stupidity. On the other hand,
not being able to process and understand what Obama said well enough to make the
correct inference for how many states he thinks there are -- doesn't say much for
that person's processing capacity.
It's bad enough that ODS sufferers have to twist reason and logic to prove Obama is stupid, but when they inadvertently prove their own stupidity in the process, well, that's the kind of irony that gives someone like me the kind of pleasure that ODS sufferers were seeking in the first place.
In my next post (part two) we will compare the intelligence of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to that of President Obama.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Trump Warns Of Riots If Not Nominated, Calls MoveOn "Thugs"
That's right, the guy who called MoveOn members and other protesters at his
rallies thugs, warned that his supporters would riot if he were not given the
Republican nomination. Hmmm... what kind of a person would riot if they didn't
get their way, even though all the rules were being followed...?
Let me point out that Trump was talking about a contested convention, in which no single candidate has secured a majority of delegates. In this situation, according to the rules of the Party he chose to run for, all delegates are allowed to change their vote to another candidate.
Trump has been presenting this warning the way Fox News presents the news -- "He reports. They decide." In other words, he's merely making an observation, he's not calling for or condoning violence.
He would never do anything like that.
When have we ever heard him do anything like that?
This warning is a dog whistle if I never heard one (I never heard it because, according to the metaphor, only dogs can hear dog whistles and the metaphorical dogs in this case are those who would be the kind of person who would riot if they didn't get their way. So, since the whistle was intended for Trump supporters, I never heard it. It's kind of a paradox.)
Now, the whole right-wing media propaganda machine/complex has gone on a very aggressive disinformation campaign to make the protesters out as the aggressors and initiators of violence at the Trump rallies.
They are furiously talking the hell out of this and spinning a twisted yarn. "Thugs" has become the operative word now whenever the right-wingers talk about the left. Sean Hannity, the master of repetition, has already logged countless hours using this word and spinning this reality. Rush Limbag, Fox News and the entire right-wing hate machine has been at it 24/7. The hyperbole knows no bounds. The other day, I heard Michael Savage scream to his audience, "MoveOn is the American ISIS!!!" (I am serious)
My God, when I first started to attend those meetings, twelve years ago, that MoveOn had been inviting me to, via emails, I had no idea that I was collaborating with a bunch of murderous terrorists. I thought they were just teachers, lawyers, accountants and retirees. All along, I assumed we were merely exercising our right to peaceably assemble and to petition our representatives for a redress of grievances, as explicitly provided for by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. I didn't know it was all just preparation for the torture and beheadings that we've been committing since, well, whenever it was that we've been doing that.
Before I get into the question of who's to blame for the violence, let's settle the question of who is a thug. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: a violent person, especially a criminal.
Mr Trump likes to portray himself as a non-politician who doesn't suffer political correctness. Yet we can see how, just like a politician, he will tailor his speech according to his audience. For instance, when he's speaking to Mormons, he doesn't litter his speech with F-bombs or tell them that Mitt Romney would have been willing to give him a blow job in return for his endorsement. He just tells them how smart Mormons are and how Romney can't be a Mormon because he's so stupid. Or when he's talking to Jews, he tells them what good negotiators they are, not how they're always able to "jew someone down." And I'm certain he would never tell them that they are "niggardly" (stingy), especially if Sammy Davis Jr., Lenny Kravitz, Maya Rudolph, Rashida Jones, Lisa Bonet or Drake was in the audience.
And when he's being interviewed before a national audience about the violence during his rallies, he doesn't reminisce about the good old days when protesters would be carried out on stretchers. Instead, he says, "I don't condone violence."
So my question for Mr Trump is, when you talk at rallies to your supporters about liking to punch protesters in the face, or tell them to knock the crap out of hecklers and promise to pay their legal fees, what kind of a person do you think you are talking to? What is the personality type that would be receptive to that kind of talk?
What was that definition of thug, again?
"A violent person, especially a criminal."
Amazingly, the police completely ignored the thug who threw the elbow, John McGraw, but tackled the guy who was assaulted! McGraw was eventually arrested but only after the video was shown all over the place, over and over again. He was charged with assault and battery, disorderly conduct and communicating threats. After that incident, Trump actually said he was looking into paying the thug's legal fees, just like he promised. Two days later, though, he kind of back tracked.
If Trump doesn't pay, wouldn't it be great if the thug sued him, on the grounds that he promised (three times) to pay anyone's legal fees if they "knocked the crap" out of the hecklers? The guy who was assaulted (Rakeem Jones) by the Trump-supporting thug, should also sue Trump, for inciting the thug to commit that crime. It would be especially great because Trump is always threatening to sue people.
Remember when he threatened to sue Bill Maher?
Another interesting thing. During that rally, Trump was yelling at the protesters to "Get out!" "Go home to mommy!" and, this is my favorite, "Get a job!"
You see, that's code for "Vote for me and I'll get rid of all the White people."
So let's get this straight. Trump talks to his supporters like they're a bunch of thugs, and he says they don't have jobs, which makes them angry. And what else is a person to do when they get angry, other than commit acts of violence or riot?
Based on the aforementioned evidence, I would like to posit the following suggestion: Trump thinks his supporters are thugs and losers.
The "Get a job!" line has apparently become a popular theme with his supporters because they used it again just a few days ago when they yelled that at a Muslim-American protester, who was being forcibly ejected from a Trump rally, for holding up a sign that read "Stop Hate Speech Against Muslims"
Let me point out that Trump was talking about a contested convention, in which no single candidate has secured a majority of delegates. In this situation, according to the rules of the Party he chose to run for, all delegates are allowed to change their vote to another candidate.
Trump has been presenting this warning the way Fox News presents the news -- "He reports. They decide." In other words, he's merely making an observation, he's not calling for or condoning violence.
He would never do anything like that.
When have we ever heard him do anything like that?
This warning is a dog whistle if I never heard one (I never heard it because, according to the metaphor, only dogs can hear dog whistles and the metaphorical dogs in this case are those who would be the kind of person who would riot if they didn't get their way. So, since the whistle was intended for Trump supporters, I never heard it. It's kind of a paradox.)
Now, the whole right-wing media propaganda machine/complex has gone on a very aggressive disinformation campaign to make the protesters out as the aggressors and initiators of violence at the Trump rallies.
They are furiously talking the hell out of this and spinning a twisted yarn. "Thugs" has become the operative word now whenever the right-wingers talk about the left. Sean Hannity, the master of repetition, has already logged countless hours using this word and spinning this reality. Rush Limbag, Fox News and the entire right-wing hate machine has been at it 24/7. The hyperbole knows no bounds. The other day, I heard Michael Savage scream to his audience, "MoveOn is the American ISIS!!!" (I am serious)
My God, when I first started to attend those meetings, twelve years ago, that MoveOn had been inviting me to, via emails, I had no idea that I was collaborating with a bunch of murderous terrorists. I thought they were just teachers, lawyers, accountants and retirees. All along, I assumed we were merely exercising our right to peaceably assemble and to petition our representatives for a redress of grievances, as explicitly provided for by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. I didn't know it was all just preparation for the torture and beheadings that we've been committing since, well, whenever it was that we've been doing that.
Before I get into the question of who's to blame for the violence, let's settle the question of who is a thug. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: a violent person, especially a criminal.
Mr Trump likes to portray himself as a non-politician who doesn't suffer political correctness. Yet we can see how, just like a politician, he will tailor his speech according to his audience. For instance, when he's speaking to Mormons, he doesn't litter his speech with F-bombs or tell them that Mitt Romney would have been willing to give him a blow job in return for his endorsement. He just tells them how smart Mormons are and how Romney can't be a Mormon because he's so stupid. Or when he's talking to Jews, he tells them what good negotiators they are, not how they're always able to "jew someone down." And I'm certain he would never tell them that they are "niggardly" (stingy), especially if Sammy Davis Jr., Lenny Kravitz, Maya Rudolph, Rashida Jones, Lisa Bonet or Drake was in the audience.
And when he's being interviewed before a national audience about the violence during his rallies, he doesn't reminisce about the good old days when protesters would be carried out on stretchers. Instead, he says, "I don't condone violence."
So my question for Mr Trump is, when you talk at rallies to your supporters about liking to punch protesters in the face, or tell them to knock the crap out of hecklers and promise to pay their legal fees, what kind of a person do you think you are talking to? What is the personality type that would be receptive to that kind of talk?
Maybe it's the kind of person who would take you up on that offer you made
and sucker-punch (actually it was an elbow -- MMA style) a heckler who was being
escorted out of the building by police, and then threaten to kill him if he saw
him again.
What was that definition of thug, again?
"A violent person, especially a criminal."
Amazingly, the police completely ignored the thug who threw the elbow, John McGraw, but tackled the guy who was assaulted! McGraw was eventually arrested but only after the video was shown all over the place, over and over again. He was charged with assault and battery, disorderly conduct and communicating threats. After that incident, Trump actually said he was looking into paying the thug's legal fees, just like he promised. Two days later, though, he kind of back tracked.
If Trump doesn't pay, wouldn't it be great if the thug sued him, on the grounds that he promised (three times) to pay anyone's legal fees if they "knocked the crap" out of the hecklers? The guy who was assaulted (Rakeem Jones) by the Trump-supporting thug, should also sue Trump, for inciting the thug to commit that crime. It would be especially great because Trump is always threatening to sue people.
Remember when he threatened to sue Bill Maher?
Another interesting thing. During that rally, Trump was yelling at the protesters to "Get out!" "Go home to mommy!" and, this is my favorite, "Get a job!"
Obviously, these were all meant as insults. The insult being, of course, if
you don't have your own place and a job, you're a loser.
Funny thing, right after that rally, Trump tried to defend his supporters' violent, thuggish behaviors by explaining that they were angry because there are no jobs. People just can't get jobs. He explained that this was because of Obama, of course, whom he also called "the great divider." According to Trump, Obama was making people angry because he destroyed all the jobs (despite all the job statistics) and because he was dividing the country. He blamed Obama for the whole thing.
Yeah. Making people angry and dividing the country. That's Obama's thing. He's exactly the kind of person who would do something like that. How do you think he got people to vote for him? Remember his rallies? "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America."
Funny thing, right after that rally, Trump tried to defend his supporters' violent, thuggish behaviors by explaining that they were angry because there are no jobs. People just can't get jobs. He explained that this was because of Obama, of course, whom he also called "the great divider." According to Trump, Obama was making people angry because he destroyed all the jobs (despite all the job statistics) and because he was dividing the country. He blamed Obama for the whole thing.
Yeah. Making people angry and dividing the country. That's Obama's thing. He's exactly the kind of person who would do something like that. How do you think he got people to vote for him? Remember his rallies? "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America."
You see, that's code for "Vote for me and I'll get rid of all the White people."
So let's get this straight. Trump talks to his supporters like they're a bunch of thugs, and he says they don't have jobs, which makes them angry. And what else is a person to do when they get angry, other than commit acts of violence or riot?
Based on the aforementioned evidence, I would like to posit the following suggestion: Trump thinks his supporters are thugs and losers.
The "Get a job!" line has apparently become a popular theme with his supporters because they used it again just a few days ago when they yelled that at a Muslim-American protester, who was being forcibly ejected from a Trump rally, for holding up a sign that read "Stop Hate Speech Against Muslims"
Not only did the protester, Nate Terani, have a job, but he is an American
Navy veteran of over ten years.
Muslim
Vet Booted From Trump Rally, Told To "Get A Job." Guess What He Does For A
Living...
Monday, February 29, 2016
The Republican Primaries As Seen Through the Eyes Of Joe Lii
Joe Lii is a right-wing blogger who is really out there.
Why am I plugging his blog?
It's a long story but let me start from the beginning.
I first came across this character during the election campaign of 2008.
A friend of mine had engaged some of his friends and coworkers in a group email discussion about the victory of then Senator Obama. The group included people of varying political opinions -- left, right and center -- and in the case of this Joe Lii character, way, way far to the right. He stunned everyone with this incredible rant, which I saved because it was so priceless:
As they have conspired to plot, plan and execute the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the liberal media has succeeded in hiding the truth about the madrassa raised, terrorist sympathizing, America hating, infanticide legislating, socialist muslim.
Despite the heroic efforts of patriotic Americans like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, the American public was not allowed to learn the truth about this traitor.
He called our troops murderers!
How long before he nationalizes industry and turns over the profits to the millions of Mexican immigrants who will now be streaming across the border to collect their monthly welfare checks?
After he grabs the guns away from all white males, who will be left to stop his genocidal "cleansing" of those white males?
All this so he can force white females into sex slavery and then auction them off in return for political favors.
He will offer Kim Jong Il his pick of the finest white females in exchange for a promise that he won't use the nuclear weapons that we will now help him build.
Change your hair color ladies, the blonds go first!
Some people were appalled. Others didn't know whether to take him seriously. But the conservatives among the group loved him. I found him to be hysterical (in more ways than one). Why do I plug his blog?
Well, since that time, Joe and I have engaged in a "cordial" (at least on my part) conversation on political matters in which we agree to disagree. I think it's important to understand how people think, especially people who don't think like me.
If you read his blog, I think you might understand why so many conservatives find Trump so appealing. Here's a slice from his latest blog post, which he titled Who's The Real Alpha Male:
The other candidates, while infinitely superior to anything the Democrat party had to offer, were mere wimps next to alpha males Cruz and Trump...
At a rally in Sparks, NV, Trump described Sen. Cruz as a “soft, weak little baby.”...
Up until this point, I was convinced that Cruz’s credentials as a tough, macho, he-man were unquestionable. After all, he stood up to Obama and insulted him practically every time he opened his mouth. He threatened to shut down the government, like, how many times? Then there was Cruz’s “Machine-Gun Bacon” campaign video where he wrapped some bacon around the barrel of his AR-15 rifle and fired off a bunch of rounds until the bacon was cooked!...
But, all of a sudden, after Trump’s remarks, I began to see Ted Cruz in a completely different light. His soft, pear shaped body and womanly hips. That weak chin and jaw line. The pinched nasal tone of his annoyingly whiny voice. The guy is like the Pillsbury doughboy!
To read more click here:
America's Truth Detector | Just another WordPress.com site
Why am I plugging his blog?
It's a long story but let me start from the beginning.
I first came across this character during the election campaign of 2008.
A friend of mine had engaged some of his friends and coworkers in a group email discussion about the victory of then Senator Obama. The group included people of varying political opinions -- left, right and center -- and in the case of this Joe Lii character, way, way far to the right. He stunned everyone with this incredible rant, which I saved because it was so priceless:
As they have conspired to plot, plan and execute the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the liberal media has succeeded in hiding the truth about the madrassa raised, terrorist sympathizing, America hating, infanticide legislating, socialist muslim.
Despite the heroic efforts of patriotic Americans like John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, the American public was not allowed to learn the truth about this traitor.
He called our troops murderers!
How long before he nationalizes industry and turns over the profits to the millions of Mexican immigrants who will now be streaming across the border to collect their monthly welfare checks?
After he grabs the guns away from all white males, who will be left to stop his genocidal "cleansing" of those white males?
All this so he can force white females into sex slavery and then auction them off in return for political favors.
He will offer Kim Jong Il his pick of the finest white females in exchange for a promise that he won't use the nuclear weapons that we will now help him build.
Change your hair color ladies, the blonds go first!
Some people were appalled. Others didn't know whether to take him seriously. But the conservatives among the group loved him. I found him to be hysterical (in more ways than one). Why do I plug his blog?
Well, since that time, Joe and I have engaged in a "cordial" (at least on my part) conversation on political matters in which we agree to disagree. I think it's important to understand how people think, especially people who don't think like me.
If you read his blog, I think you might understand why so many conservatives find Trump so appealing. Here's a slice from his latest blog post, which he titled Who's The Real Alpha Male:
The other candidates, while infinitely superior to anything the Democrat party had to offer, were mere wimps next to alpha males Cruz and Trump...
At a rally in Sparks, NV, Trump described Sen. Cruz as a “soft, weak little baby.”...
Up until this point, I was convinced that Cruz’s credentials as a tough, macho, he-man were unquestionable. After all, he stood up to Obama and insulted him practically every time he opened his mouth. He threatened to shut down the government, like, how many times? Then there was Cruz’s “Machine-Gun Bacon” campaign video where he wrapped some bacon around the barrel of his AR-15 rifle and fired off a bunch of rounds until the bacon was cooked!...
But, all of a sudden, after Trump’s remarks, I began to see Ted Cruz in a completely different light. His soft, pear shaped body and womanly hips. That weak chin and jaw line. The pinched nasal tone of his annoyingly whiny voice. The guy is like the Pillsbury doughboy!
To read more click here:
America's Truth Detector | Just another WordPress.com site
Monday, February 15, 2016
Chris Wallace Asks Sanders A Tough Question
In my post of 2/9/2016, I expressed a concern I had about Bernie's ability to defend the leftist/socialist views he espouses. I was concerned that he might not be able to handle the tough questions, both fair and unfair, that were sure to come his way.
These worries were based on my observation that whenever I hear him talk about these things, for the most part, he doesn't address the attacks that right-wingers use against those ideas. Plus, he tends to say things that the right would pounce on and use against him.
This, to me, was a sign that Bernie isn't really familiar with these "arguments" and has never really engaged in the kind of tough, rigorous debates that would have prepared him for the kind of question Chris Wallace asked him the other day on Fox News Sunday.
Wallace brought up a favorite FoxNews line of argument -- which they've been using for years to convince their audience that it's the wealthy who pay all of the taxes. From crooksandliars.com:
WALLACE: Senator, one of the central points in your campaign, you say it over and over again, is that the American economic system is, in your words, rigged. But I want to go over some numbers with you. In 1981, the top 1 percent paid 17 percent of all income taxes. Now the top 1 percent pays 37 percent. Question, sir, if the wealthy have rigged the system, why have they done such a lousy job of it?
Unfortunately, Bernie's response doesn't directly answer the question: "in recent years [there's been] a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent, whose percentage of wealth in America has doubled. We're talking about trillions of dollars going from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent."
This response may work with libs and Dems but in the eyes of the Republiconservalibertarians, Wallace just exposed Bernie for the clueless dope and promoter of class warfare that they always "knew" he was.
The "huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent" line is sure to enrage the right-wing talkers. As far as they're concerned, the wealthy are doing all of the heavy lifting and paying all of the taxes. They've earned their wealth with their hard work and good ideas. The rest of us are just ungrateful beneficiaries of their benevolence.
Bernie's "transfer of wealth" line will give them the ammunition that they will use to attack Bernie for his socialism.
I can hear it now, "Bernie wants to take from the producers and give to the moochers! He wants to soak the rich! Class warfare! Makers and takers! Politics of envy! Socialist swine!"
Here's what I wish Bernie would have said:
"Yes, Chris, what you've just said is one of the central points in Fox News' campaign to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut programs for the non-wealthy. Those numbers that you chose to go over with me are very misleading for the following reasons. You said, and Fox News has been saying this over and over again, that the top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes. But that number is for federal income taxes and you said all income taxes. Many people who don't pay federal income taxes still pay state and local income taxes, which are much more regressive.
And as Josh Barro of Business Insider points out, the federal personal income tax only makes up 28% of all U.S. government tax collections. Federal, state and local governments collected $4 trillion in taxes last year; just $1.1 trillion of that was federal personal income tax. And people whose incomes are not high enough to pay federal personal income tax, do pay lots of those other taxes: payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, and more. They also pay other taxes indirectly: workers bear the burden of employer-paid payroll taxes and part of the burden of corporate income taxes.
But I've heard Sean Hannity say over and over again, that 50% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever.
Question, sir, why do you
guys at Fox keep saying things like that?
That's neither fair nor balanced.
Another point. You said; in 1981, the top 1 percent paid 17 percent of all income taxes. Now the top 1 percent pays 37 percent. Those numbers, by themselves, make it look like we are taxing the 1% more than ever. But in actuality, their tax rate has been reduced dramatically.
Let me point out that in 1981 the top marginal tax rate was 50%. In 2013, the year you referred to, the top marginal rate was only 35%. So, even though the tax rate is much lower now for the 1%, why do they pay a higher percentage of the federal income tax? The main reason for that, by far, is that the percentage of wealth in the top 1% has grown exponentially, while wages for the rest of America have been stagnant. Are the top 1% exponentially smarter or harder working than they were in 1981? Of course not. Are the poor and middle class less hard working? No. It's because the economy offers more opportunities for a few to make obscene amounts of money -- in many cases without creating jobs or doing anything good for society -- while offering less opportunity for the poor and middle class to find good jobs. Yet that wealth, which concentrates at the top, is created, in very large part, by the hard work of the poor and middle class. Without that work, that wealth would not be possible. This is why it is fair to redistribute some of that wealth.
Don't you think that would have given the Fox audience something to think about?
Instead of putting the right-wing talkers on the offense (Bernie wants to take from the producers and give to the moochers! He wants to soak the rich! Class warfare! Makers and takers! Politics of envy! Socialist swine!) it would have put them on the defense and forced them to address these other facts.
The time for Bernie to laugh would have been after Wallace's next question:
WALLACE: But, sir, isn't a lot of that because of the economic policies of President Obama and of the Federal Reserve, which put interest rates at basically zero?
Bernie: Do you mean President Obama, the Marxist?
Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ah, ho, ho, ho, he, he, ha, ha...
No Chris, Ha, ha, ha,ha... it's just the nature of free market capitalism, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, he, he...
Because this is not PBS, Wallace runs out of time and goes to commercial.
From Ezra Klein at Washington Post.
When all taxes paid are included. Click on image to enlarge:
These worries were based on my observation that whenever I hear him talk about these things, for the most part, he doesn't address the attacks that right-wingers use against those ideas. Plus, he tends to say things that the right would pounce on and use against him.
This, to me, was a sign that Bernie isn't really familiar with these "arguments" and has never really engaged in the kind of tough, rigorous debates that would have prepared him for the kind of question Chris Wallace asked him the other day on Fox News Sunday.
Wallace brought up a favorite FoxNews line of argument -- which they've been using for years to convince their audience that it's the wealthy who pay all of the taxes. From crooksandliars.com:
WALLACE: Senator, one of the central points in your campaign, you say it over and over again, is that the American economic system is, in your words, rigged. But I want to go over some numbers with you. In 1981, the top 1 percent paid 17 percent of all income taxes. Now the top 1 percent pays 37 percent. Question, sir, if the wealthy have rigged the system, why have they done such a lousy job of it?
Unfortunately, Bernie's response doesn't directly answer the question: "in recent years [there's been] a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent, whose percentage of wealth in America has doubled. We're talking about trillions of dollars going from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent."
This response may work with libs and Dems but in the eyes of the Republiconservalibertarians, Wallace just exposed Bernie for the clueless dope and promoter of class warfare that they always "knew" he was.
The "huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent" line is sure to enrage the right-wing talkers. As far as they're concerned, the wealthy are doing all of the heavy lifting and paying all of the taxes. They've earned their wealth with their hard work and good ideas. The rest of us are just ungrateful beneficiaries of their benevolence.
Bernie's "transfer of wealth" line will give them the ammunition that they will use to attack Bernie for his socialism.
I can hear it now, "Bernie wants to take from the producers and give to the moochers! He wants to soak the rich! Class warfare! Makers and takers! Politics of envy! Socialist swine!"
Here's what I wish Bernie would have said:
"Yes, Chris, what you've just said is one of the central points in Fox News' campaign to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut programs for the non-wealthy. Those numbers that you chose to go over with me are very misleading for the following reasons. You said, and Fox News has been saying this over and over again, that the top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes. But that number is for federal income taxes and you said all income taxes. Many people who don't pay federal income taxes still pay state and local income taxes, which are much more regressive.
And as Josh Barro of Business Insider points out, the federal personal income tax only makes up 28% of all U.S. government tax collections. Federal, state and local governments collected $4 trillion in taxes last year; just $1.1 trillion of that was federal personal income tax. And people whose incomes are not high enough to pay federal personal income tax, do pay lots of those other taxes: payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, and more. They also pay other taxes indirectly: workers bear the burden of employer-paid payroll taxes and part of the burden of corporate income taxes.
But I've heard Sean Hannity say over and over again, that 50% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever.
Question, sir, why do you
guys at Fox keep saying things like that?
That's neither fair nor balanced.
Another point. You said; in 1981, the top 1 percent paid 17 percent of all income taxes. Now the top 1 percent pays 37 percent. Those numbers, by themselves, make it look like we are taxing the 1% more than ever. But in actuality, their tax rate has been reduced dramatically.
Let me point out that in 1981 the top marginal tax rate was 50%. In 2013, the year you referred to, the top marginal rate was only 35%. So, even though the tax rate is much lower now for the 1%, why do they pay a higher percentage of the federal income tax? The main reason for that, by far, is that the percentage of wealth in the top 1% has grown exponentially, while wages for the rest of America have been stagnant. Are the top 1% exponentially smarter or harder working than they were in 1981? Of course not. Are the poor and middle class less hard working? No. It's because the economy offers more opportunities for a few to make obscene amounts of money -- in many cases without creating jobs or doing anything good for society -- while offering less opportunity for the poor and middle class to find good jobs. Yet that wealth, which concentrates at the top, is created, in very large part, by the hard work of the poor and middle class. Without that work, that wealth would not be possible. This is why it is fair to redistribute some of that wealth.
Don't you think that would have given the Fox audience something to think about?
Instead of putting the right-wing talkers on the offense (Bernie wants to take from the producers and give to the moochers! He wants to soak the rich! Class warfare! Makers and takers! Politics of envy! Socialist swine!) it would have put them on the defense and forced them to address these other facts.
The time for Bernie to laugh would have been after Wallace's next question:
WALLACE: But, sir, isn't a lot of that because of the economic policies of President Obama and of the Federal Reserve, which put interest rates at basically zero?
Bernie: Do you mean President Obama, the Marxist?
Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ah, ho, ho, ho, he, he, ha, ha...
No Chris, Ha, ha, ha,ha... it's just the nature of free market capitalism, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, he, he...
Because this is not PBS, Wallace runs out of time and goes to commercial.
From Ezra Klein at Washington Post.
When all taxes paid are included. Click on image to enlarge:
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Do I Owe Hillary An Apology?
After posting my last article, from 2/9/16, I realized a bad error I made, which was based on some wrong assumptions on my part.
Based on these assumptions, I accused Hillary Clinton of backing up a dump truck in order to drop a load of horseshit on Bernie's healthcare plan.
I singled out a particular word from her statement that: "A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year."
I claimed that the word "more" proved her deceitfulness.
Furthermore, I used this claim as justification for my description of her as a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
Upon further investigation, I discovered that Ms Clinton was apparently, correct. As a matter of fact, she may have understated it.
Professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Jerry Friedman, who was responding to a hit piece on Sanders by the Wall Street Journal, put the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. (that's 1.5 trillion more per year)
Do I think I should apologize to Ms Clinton?
In the immortal word of the late Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens:
So how do I justify my refusal to apologize?
By the fact that, while her offense is not one of commission (a lie), it is a deceit by omission.
This is the same charge Friedman leveled at the conservative WSJ:
“The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.”
Bern and Hill had another debate last night where they went back and forth again about whether Bernie's plan would save the middle class money or, as Hillary actually claimed, cause many people to be worse off than they are now.
Bernie said that someone at the median income level would pay $500 more per year in taxes but save $5,000 in total costs.
Hillary claimed that "every progressive economist who has analyzed that says that the numbers don't add up."
I think I smell something and it reminds me of the time I was in a stable. I'll see what the fact checkers have to say about that later.
This does not make any sense to me because, if Bernie's plan is funded by taxes, and taxes are based on income, where the rich pay more per person (even if it's a flat tax) -- and if the total cost of the plan is less than we are currently spending -- how could this not be good for the middle class? The current system is based on private company premiums that cost individuals the same amount no matter what that person's income is.
Hillary could be engaging in double talk, like she did in the last debate, when she tried to make us think that Bernie's plan would be an unthinkable burden on the middle class. Notice she claimed that every economist said the numbers don't add up. She didn't say that they said there would be no savings at all. She merely implied it. Maybe they'll only save $3,000 a year.
Then, when she said that many people would be worse off, she didn't say "middle class people." She merely implied it with her impassioned warning that "this isn't about math, this is about people's lives."
Oh my goodness.
Maybe she's just talking about the wealthy (who would be paying more in taxes).
Thanks to Bernie and his socialism, these poor rich folks would be unable to afford one more redundant luxury.
Maybe that's the human tragedy she's referring to.
The other mistake I made that needs correcting is my estimate of the total cost savings -- to the country -- of Bernie's plan. My original estimate was based on the incorrect assumption that the total cost of his plan was 1.4 trillion. Like Hillary said, that is additional to what the government currently spends.
So here are my revised numbers. In 2014 total healthcare expenditures was $3 trillion. Government spending -- Medicare $618.7 billion plus Medicaid $495.8 billion equals $1.114 trillion plus Bernie's $1.4 trillion equals $2.514 trillion. Subtract from $3.0 trillion and, hey that's almost $500 billion less per year, or as the economist Friedman said, "nearly $5 trillion over ten years". And because my calculator wasn't working, I literally did that on the back of an envelope.
Oh, one more thing. Hillary said something else that was demonstrably false. "Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman, running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment."
Apparently, at least 362 other persons characterize you in exactly the same way as Bernie does, your gender notwithstanding.
From fivethirtyeight.com:
"Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.
Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders."
So my charge against Hillary still stands.
She's still a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
Based on these assumptions, I accused Hillary Clinton of backing up a dump truck in order to drop a load of horseshit on Bernie's healthcare plan.
I singled out a particular word from her statement that: "A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year."
I claimed that the word "more" proved her deceitfulness.
Furthermore, I used this claim as justification for my description of her as a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
Upon further investigation, I discovered that Ms Clinton was apparently, correct. As a matter of fact, she may have understated it.
Professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Jerry Friedman, who was responding to a hit piece on Sanders by the Wall Street Journal, put the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. (that's 1.5 trillion more per year)
Do I think I should apologize to Ms Clinton?
In the immortal word of the late Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens:
So how do I justify my refusal to apologize?
By the fact that, while her offense is not one of commission (a lie), it is a deceit by omission.
This is the same charge Friedman leveled at the conservative WSJ:
“The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.”
Bern and Hill had another debate last night where they went back and forth again about whether Bernie's plan would save the middle class money or, as Hillary actually claimed, cause many people to be worse off than they are now.
Bernie said that someone at the median income level would pay $500 more per year in taxes but save $5,000 in total costs.
Hillary claimed that "every progressive economist who has analyzed that says that the numbers don't add up."
I think I smell something and it reminds me of the time I was in a stable. I'll see what the fact checkers have to say about that later.
This does not make any sense to me because, if Bernie's plan is funded by taxes, and taxes are based on income, where the rich pay more per person (even if it's a flat tax) -- and if the total cost of the plan is less than we are currently spending -- how could this not be good for the middle class? The current system is based on private company premiums that cost individuals the same amount no matter what that person's income is.
Hillary could be engaging in double talk, like she did in the last debate, when she tried to make us think that Bernie's plan would be an unthinkable burden on the middle class. Notice she claimed that every economist said the numbers don't add up. She didn't say that they said there would be no savings at all. She merely implied it. Maybe they'll only save $3,000 a year.
Then, when she said that many people would be worse off, she didn't say "middle class people." She merely implied it with her impassioned warning that "this isn't about math, this is about people's lives."
Oh my goodness.
Maybe she's just talking about the wealthy (who would be paying more in taxes).
Thanks to Bernie and his socialism, these poor rich folks would be unable to afford one more redundant luxury.
Maybe that's the human tragedy she's referring to.
The other mistake I made that needs correcting is my estimate of the total cost savings -- to the country -- of Bernie's plan. My original estimate was based on the incorrect assumption that the total cost of his plan was 1.4 trillion. Like Hillary said, that is additional to what the government currently spends.
So here are my revised numbers. In 2014 total healthcare expenditures was $3 trillion. Government spending -- Medicare $618.7 billion plus Medicaid $495.8 billion equals $1.114 trillion plus Bernie's $1.4 trillion equals $2.514 trillion. Subtract from $3.0 trillion and, hey that's almost $500 billion less per year, or as the economist Friedman said, "nearly $5 trillion over ten years". And because my calculator wasn't working, I literally did that on the back of an envelope.
Oh, one more thing. Hillary said something else that was demonstrably false. "Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman, running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment."
Apparently, at least 362 other persons characterize you in exactly the same way as Bernie does, your gender notwithstanding.
From fivethirtyeight.com:
"Clinton leads 362-8 among superdelegates, who are Democratic elected officials and other party insiders allowed to support whichever candidate they like.
Superdelegates were created in part to give Democratic party elites the opportunity to put their finger on the scale and prevent nominations like those of George McGovern in 1972 or Jimmy Carter in 1976, which displeased party insiders."
So my charge against Hillary still stands.
She's still a #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
The Idealist Versus The Pragmatist
(A note to readers of this post. After doing some additional research into Bernie's healthcare plan, it occurred to me that my thinking on certain points in this article may be flawed.
I was thinking in terms of total healthcare spending, government and non government.
Hillary was talking about government spending only. So she may have been right about the one trillion more in government spending.
Also, I think my assumption that the 1.4 trillion dollar figure covers the entire cost of Bernie's plan may also be wrong. I'm still looking into this and trying to figure it out. I will get back to this when I do. On the bright side -- can you feel the Bern? Sanders wins New Hampshire by a landslide! Bern, baby, Bern!)
I was nervous going into last week's debate between Bernie and Hillary. I was expecting Hillary to attack Bernie on his socialism because that's the kind of thing "politicians" like Hillary do. They attack idealism in the name of pragmatism.
The reason for my nervousness was that, despite my excitement over the fact that someone like Bernie has become a viable primary candidate, and as much as I appreciate Bernie's enthusiasm for single payer healthcare and redistribution of wealth, whenever I hear him talk about these things, for the most part, he doesn't address the attacks that right-wingers use against those ideas.
This, to me, was a sign that Bernie has never really engaged in the kind of dirty, bare-knuckled fight that any of the Republican candidates would be itching to have with him. (Trump: "Oh, would l love to run against Bernie. He wants to tax you at 90 percent.")
Hillary didn't really go after Bernie's "socialism" like I thought she would but she did hit him on single payer healthcare with precisely the kind of fallacious attack that a dishonest to goodness right-winger would use.
In the early part of the debate, Hill and Bern went back and forth a few times over his position on single-payer. She said it would cost too much and he would have to raise taxes on the middle class. Bernie explained that those people would be saving money based on reduced medical costs.
Instead of refuting what Bernie said, she just repeated her bullshit argument.
Now, you would hope that the audience would be paying enough attention to what Bernie was saying so that they would get the point he was making. Unfortunately, based on my observations of things like this, rather than paying attention to what a person says, most people pay more attention to the way a person says it. And, if you notice, the pundits and analysts do the same thing and reinforce this flawed way of thinking.
So at this point in the debate, I'm sure most of the audience is thinking "well, Bernie says this and Hillary says that -- it's just a 'he said, she said.'" But then, a little while later, Bernie makes one of his most powerful points in the debate. He described the way his large grassroots/small donation campaign contrasted with her special interest/super PAC financed campaign and how she represents the establishment.
The power of this argument was not lost on Hillary. So she knew it was time to back up the dump truck she had waiting, and drop a load of horseshit on the audience. She responds -- judging from the applause -- with what her supporters must have thought was her best moment of the debate. She says "Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman, running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment." Oh woman, please. You are the pragmatic politician. That is the definition of establishment politician. You posses all of those distinctly negative characteristics of the typical American politician.
(In a future post I will explain why a Hillary presidency would be the worst possible thing to happen to the progressive movement.)
So, while riding high after using the "gender card," Hillary then went after Bernie's best argument -- his position on single-payer healthcare. Now she needed to back up the other dump truck and drop a load of bullshit on top of the horseshit she already unloaded:
"A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year... I don't want to see the kind of struggle that the middle class is going through exemplified by these promises that would raise taxes and make it much more difficult for many many Americans to get ahead and stay ahead, that's not my agenda."
Why you #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
What the F*** kind of $%&# is that?
A trillion dollars more a year? That makes no sense whatsoever.
OK, so I tried to fact check this. Amazingly, I had a hard time just finding any mention of this part of the debate. I had to dig deep to find this:
"Reality Check: Clinton on Sanders' $1 trillion health care plan
By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney
Clinton accused Sanders of not telling voters the truth about his proposals, particularly his Medicare-for-all plan.
"I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost. A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year. I'm not going to tell people that I will raise your incomes and not your taxes and not mean it," Clinton said.
Actually, according to that health economist, Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Sanders' universal health care plan would cost nearly $1.4 trillion a year.
But Sanders has recently been upfront about how much it will cost. He released Friedman's assessment alongside his plan for Medicare-for-all last month.
Also, Sanders has acknowledged that the plan calls for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers, as well as additional taxes on the wealthy. The Vermont senator, however, argues that ultimately middle class Americans will save money under his health plan because they will no longer pay premiums to private insurers.
That said, Sanders initially was reluctant to spell out his proposal. Clinton pushed him earlier this year to release the details, pointing out that she pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class. Sanders finally unveiled the plan a few hours before a Democratic debate last month.
Verdict: False."
If you'll notice, the reporter fact checks Hillary's claim that Sanders "didn't tell the truth about his... Medicare-for-all plan.", not her claim that a health economist said it would "cost a trillion dollars more a year", the operative word being "more." Please notice that the economist's cost estimate is nearly 1.4 trillion a year, not 1.4 trillion more a year.
What a sneaky little so and so.
Funny thing -- I looked up the definition of the phrase "operative word" and it says:
"the most important word in a phrase, which explains the truth of a situation"
Ironically, the truth that word explains is the truth of Hillary's dishonesty.
She purposely used that word so people wouldn't ask "what are we spending now?" and just assume those costs to be additional.
So, what I did next was google how much the US spends per year on healthcare. Guess how much we spent in 2013? I'll give you a hint.
2.9 trillion. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that means Bernie's plan, using the 2013 numbers, would save the country, including those struggling Americans Hillary cares so much about, 1.5 trillion dollars! Not to mention the fact that it would cover the millions of people the Affordable Care Act does not. This is what Bernie should have been emphasizing, emphatically.
My point is, most people will not pay attention to what Hillary said, but how she said it.
The timing was perfect -- coming after her dramatic declaration that by the mere fact that she is a woman, she can't possibly be an establishment politician -- and before Bernie had only thirty seconds to respond to the original question of her "establishmentness." Bernie chose to answer the establishment question and let her deceit stand. Now the truth had been lost.
Unfortunately, most people, especially conservatives, will come away from that exchange thinking "A trillion dollars more!? That's shocking! Raise my taxes!? That's unthinkable!"
Bernie needs to do a much better job at explaining and defending single-payer, because Hillary's crap is nothing compared to what the right-wingers will say.
In my next post, I will give Bernie my advice, not only on how to promote and defend single-payer, but how we can finance and transition to it. No charge, Bernie. Pro bono publico. For those of you who forgot your Latin, that means "for the public good."
I was thinking in terms of total healthcare spending, government and non government.
Hillary was talking about government spending only. So she may have been right about the one trillion more in government spending.
Also, I think my assumption that the 1.4 trillion dollar figure covers the entire cost of Bernie's plan may also be wrong. I'm still looking into this and trying to figure it out. I will get back to this when I do. On the bright side -- can you feel the Bern? Sanders wins New Hampshire by a landslide! Bern, baby, Bern!)
I was nervous going into last week's debate between Bernie and Hillary. I was expecting Hillary to attack Bernie on his socialism because that's the kind of thing "politicians" like Hillary do. They attack idealism in the name of pragmatism.
The reason for my nervousness was that, despite my excitement over the fact that someone like Bernie has become a viable primary candidate, and as much as I appreciate Bernie's enthusiasm for single payer healthcare and redistribution of wealth, whenever I hear him talk about these things, for the most part, he doesn't address the attacks that right-wingers use against those ideas.
This, to me, was a sign that Bernie has never really engaged in the kind of dirty, bare-knuckled fight that any of the Republican candidates would be itching to have with him. (Trump: "Oh, would l love to run against Bernie. He wants to tax you at 90 percent.")
Hillary didn't really go after Bernie's "socialism" like I thought she would but she did hit him on single payer healthcare with precisely the kind of fallacious attack that a dishonest to goodness right-winger would use.
In the early part of the debate, Hill and Bern went back and forth a few times over his position on single-payer. She said it would cost too much and he would have to raise taxes on the middle class. Bernie explained that those people would be saving money based on reduced medical costs.
Instead of refuting what Bernie said, she just repeated her bullshit argument.
Now, you would hope that the audience would be paying enough attention to what Bernie was saying so that they would get the point he was making. Unfortunately, based on my observations of things like this, rather than paying attention to what a person says, most people pay more attention to the way a person says it. And, if you notice, the pundits and analysts do the same thing and reinforce this flawed way of thinking.
So at this point in the debate, I'm sure most of the audience is thinking "well, Bernie says this and Hillary says that -- it's just a 'he said, she said.'" But then, a little while later, Bernie makes one of his most powerful points in the debate. He described the way his large grassroots/small donation campaign contrasted with her special interest/super PAC financed campaign and how she represents the establishment.
The power of this argument was not lost on Hillary. So she knew it was time to back up the dump truck she had waiting, and drop a load of horseshit on the audience. She responds -- judging from the applause -- with what her supporters must have thought was her best moment of the debate. She says "Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me, a woman, running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment." Oh woman, please. You are the pragmatic politician. That is the definition of establishment politician. You posses all of those distinctly negative characteristics of the typical American politician.
(In a future post I will explain why a Hillary presidency would be the worst possible thing to happen to the progressive movement.)
So, while riding high after using the "gender card," Hillary then went after Bernie's best argument -- his position on single-payer healthcare. Now she needed to back up the other dump truck and drop a load of bullshit on top of the horseshit she already unloaded:
"A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year... I don't want to see the kind of struggle that the middle class is going through exemplified by these promises that would raise taxes and make it much more difficult for many many Americans to get ahead and stay ahead, that's not my agenda."
Why you #%$#&%$##ing piece of $%&#!
What the F*** kind of $%&# is that?
A trillion dollars more a year? That makes no sense whatsoever.
OK, so I tried to fact check this. Amazingly, I had a hard time just finding any mention of this part of the debate. I had to dig deep to find this:
"Reality Check: Clinton on Sanders' $1 trillion health care plan
By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney
Clinton accused Sanders of not telling voters the truth about his proposals, particularly his Medicare-for-all plan.
"I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost. A respected health economist said these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year. I'm not going to tell people that I will raise your incomes and not your taxes and not mean it," Clinton said.
Actually, according to that health economist, Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Sanders' universal health care plan would cost nearly $1.4 trillion a year.
But Sanders has recently been upfront about how much it will cost. He released Friedman's assessment alongside his plan for Medicare-for-all last month.
Also, Sanders has acknowledged that the plan calls for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers, as well as additional taxes on the wealthy. The Vermont senator, however, argues that ultimately middle class Americans will save money under his health plan because they will no longer pay premiums to private insurers.
That said, Sanders initially was reluctant to spell out his proposal. Clinton pushed him earlier this year to release the details, pointing out that she pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class. Sanders finally unveiled the plan a few hours before a Democratic debate last month.
Verdict: False."
If you'll notice, the reporter fact checks Hillary's claim that Sanders "didn't tell the truth about his... Medicare-for-all plan.", not her claim that a health economist said it would "cost a trillion dollars more a year", the operative word being "more." Please notice that the economist's cost estimate is nearly 1.4 trillion a year, not 1.4 trillion more a year.
What a sneaky little so and so.
Funny thing -- I looked up the definition of the phrase "operative word" and it says:
"the most important word in a phrase, which explains the truth of a situation"
Ironically, the truth that word explains is the truth of Hillary's dishonesty.
She purposely used that word so people wouldn't ask "what are we spending now?" and just assume those costs to be additional.
So, what I did next was google how much the US spends per year on healthcare. Guess how much we spent in 2013? I'll give you a hint.
2.9 trillion. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that means Bernie's plan, using the 2013 numbers, would save the country, including those struggling Americans Hillary cares so much about, 1.5 trillion dollars! Not to mention the fact that it would cover the millions of people the Affordable Care Act does not. This is what Bernie should have been emphasizing, emphatically.
My point is, most people will not pay attention to what Hillary said, but how she said it.
The timing was perfect -- coming after her dramatic declaration that by the mere fact that she is a woman, she can't possibly be an establishment politician -- and before Bernie had only thirty seconds to respond to the original question of her "establishmentness." Bernie chose to answer the establishment question and let her deceit stand. Now the truth had been lost.
Unfortunately, most people, especially conservatives, will come away from that exchange thinking "A trillion dollars more!? That's shocking! Raise my taxes!? That's unthinkable!"
Bernie needs to do a much better job at explaining and defending single-payer, because Hillary's crap is nothing compared to what the right-wingers will say.
In my next post, I will give Bernie my advice, not only on how to promote and defend single-payer, but how we can finance and transition to it. No charge, Bernie. Pro bono publico. For those of you who forgot your Latin, that means "for the public good."
Monday, February 1, 2016
A Correction, Some Omissions and a Clarification
I'm taking this opportunity to issue a correction, include some omissions and make a clarification.
First of all, a couple of months ago I sent an email to my legion of fans. (actually, I don't know how many fans I have. My blogsite tells me how many visits my blog gets but not how many unique visitors I get. Last month I got 327 visits. If I were to be honest, I would not be able to say how many of those visits were from separate individuals or how many of those visitors could be considered "fans." But we live in the age of Trump. And if the Republican frontrunner in the nomination for president of the United States can tell the world that he saw "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attacks of 9/11, why can't I say that my fans number in the thousands and thousands?)
In my email, I related a health crisis I experienced some months ago that sent me to the emergency room in critical condition. I erroneously stated that I came down with Toxic Shock Syndrome. That was a slip of the tongue, so to speak. It was actually Septic Shock Syndrome. They are similar but not the same.
I also said that I would give an account of my experience -- solely as a public service, in order to raise awareness of this potentially fatal illness -- in my next blog post. Well, I still intend to do that but, instead, after I get some political issues out of the way.
The omissions relate to a previous post where I presented a graph that showed the correlation between two variables: the hate a person has for Obama and the love that same person would have for Ted Cruz.
I have added some detail to that graph. The revised graph is shown below.
The y axis represents the degree of hate for Obama while the x axis shows the degree of love for Cruz.
Click on the image to enlarge:
The clarification regards the plugs I've been giving to right-winger Joe Lii's blog at
America's Truth Detector | Just another WordPress.com site
Who is this character and why do I plug his blog?
I will explain in my next post.
First of all, a couple of months ago I sent an email to my legion of fans. (actually, I don't know how many fans I have. My blogsite tells me how many visits my blog gets but not how many unique visitors I get. Last month I got 327 visits. If I were to be honest, I would not be able to say how many of those visits were from separate individuals or how many of those visitors could be considered "fans." But we live in the age of Trump. And if the Republican frontrunner in the nomination for president of the United States can tell the world that he saw "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attacks of 9/11, why can't I say that my fans number in the thousands and thousands?)
In my email, I related a health crisis I experienced some months ago that sent me to the emergency room in critical condition. I erroneously stated that I came down with Toxic Shock Syndrome. That was a slip of the tongue, so to speak. It was actually Septic Shock Syndrome. They are similar but not the same.
I also said that I would give an account of my experience -- solely as a public service, in order to raise awareness of this potentially fatal illness -- in my next blog post. Well, I still intend to do that but, instead, after I get some political issues out of the way.
The omissions relate to a previous post where I presented a graph that showed the correlation between two variables: the hate a person has for Obama and the love that same person would have for Ted Cruz.
I have added some detail to that graph. The revised graph is shown below.
The y axis represents the degree of hate for Obama while the x axis shows the degree of love for Cruz.
Click on the image to enlarge:
The clarification regards the plugs I've been giving to right-winger Joe Lii's blog at
America's Truth Detector | Just another WordPress.com site
Who is this character and why do I plug his blog?
I will explain in my next post.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn -- But It's Alive! Part Three
On December 19th, in part one of this series about the life, near death and resurrection of Birtherism, I pointed out that, despite the firestorm created by the Birthers over the alleged foreign birthplace of the country's first black President, there was almost no talk at all about the fact that Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas, was
born in a foreign country.
Then, about two or three weeks after that post, all of a sudden, everyone was talking about it.
In part two of the series, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the conservative media complex -- which talked ceaselessly, nonstop and around the clock about Obama being born in Kenya -- but was stunningly silent about Cruz.
And all this despite the fact that the mountain of evidence showing Obama's birthplace as Hawaii rose much higher than the point of reasonable doubt, while the birthplace of Cruz shows, with no doubt whatsoever, that he was born in Canada,
a foreign country.
What I didn't do, in part two, was brag about how I predicted that the birther issue was about to explode, as evidenced by the title of my post:
I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn -- But It's Alive!
How did I know this was going to happen?
Because, ever since he announced that he would be seeking the Republican nomination, I've been paying very close attention to Trump and the things he says. I noticed that, every once in a while, he would be asked about Ted Cruz's citizen status. I've been particularly interested in how he would answer this question, for obvious reasons. Early on in his run, he would say "well, maybe it might be an issue, I don't know." Then, at one point, weeks later, I heard him say "this has been looked into, it checks out, he's OK." But then when Cruz started to close in on him in the polls, he started saying "it might be a problem for him, someone might contest it." Now he's flat out saying "he was born in Canada. The Constitution says you have to be born in the United States."
At about the midway point in his transition from "everything checks out, he's OK" and "He's got a problem," I thought I figured out why and how he was finessing this question.
The Donald pays very close attention to the right-wing media. I know this because I pay very close attention to said media. If you listen to Trump, you would recognize all the favorite phrases, talking points and propaganda that you hear from the right-wing media.
During his 2011 run for the nomination he was in daily contact with Joseph Farah the editor of WorldNetDaily, the right-wing conspiracy web site that was the biggest promoter of the "Obama born in Kenya" allegations. This is where he got the other ridiculous rumors (all of which were thoroughly debunked by the fact checking organizations) that he repeated as if they were certain facts.
The Donald was named 'Man Of The Year' last month by these nuts. Read about it here:
www.rightwingwatch.org/content/worldnetdaily-names-trump-man-year-compares-him-founding-fathers
The people on this web site are fucking crazy, completely out of their minds.
This is from drudge.com (not to be confused with Matt Drudge):
But Farah's and WND's conspiracy theories do not end with the president's birthplace. In a 2011 column, he accused Muslims of promoting a "homosexual agenda" to help destroy America. That same year, he called a minor earthquake in Washington, D.C. a punishment from God for "disobedience and indifference to our Creator," while warning that the city "deserves" worse.
In 2012, he claimed that Obama's re-election would mean that he and other conservatives would be "hunted down like dogs." And earlier this month, Farah wrote on the site that the Obama administration is "facilitating, enabling, and empowering" terrorist attacks "by jihadis."
According to Right Wing Watch, Trump is scheduled to speak at a March conference for Farah's Western Center for Journalism, at which Farah will be honored by his own group as a "Hero of Freedom."
Yes, these are the people Trump get's his information from. Great judgement, huh? He might be the next President of the United States.
Anyway, ever since 2011, he's also been a regular guest on Fox News. And because he regularly bashes Obama and repeats all the stuff they say, he has been well liked by all the right-wing radio talkers.
Speaking of the radio talkers, Trump understands the power they have over the people whose votes he is courting. They are the ones who can get inside the heads of those voters and tell them what to think. These radio hosts each have three hours a day where they can, unchallenged, manipulate their audience's emotions and make them hate Obama, Democrats and liberals. If you've ever met a ditto head or a Mark Levin or Michael Savage fan, you'd know what I mean.
Trump knows that he can even diss Fox News and Megyn Kelly as long as he stays on the good side of the radio talkers.
As much as Trump comes across as his own man, un beholden to anyone, who says what he thinks, in actuality, he will dance to the tune of the radio talkers because he knows they can destroy him if he steps out of line.
Allow me to elucidate. We all know Trump has held liberal positions on some issues. In the first Republican debate, even though he attacks Obamacare like it was spawned from the mind of Satan (even though it came from the minds over at The Heritage Foundation -- hmmm, same thing?) it was pointed out that he used to be for single payer healthcare. Instead of saying "oh, that was in the past, I've changed my mind. I now see that that's socialism, which is evil," like any other Republican would say in that position, he said "I held that position because it works very well in..." and he named a couple of countries, then continued "...but you couldn't do it in this country." (because he knows the right-wing talkers control the minds of their audience)
That was Trump being his own man and saying what he thinks. Then there was the time he was on Sean Hannity's Fox TV show. Sean was really excited about Trump's hard line positions on Mexicans and Muslims and the crude and insulting way he was expressing them. So he asks "and what about taxes? You're going to cut the top tax rates a lot, right? Do you want a flat tax?" Trump says "I think the rich should pay more, I think there should be a graduation of some kind." He then goes on to say that the tax code is a mess and "we're" going to be looking into it so it can be straightened out.
But holy shit! He actually said that on Fox News! On Hannity's show! Right to his face!
Alas, that was way back last summer. The right-wing talkers have since straitened him out on these and other heresies.
He no longer talks anything like that. He is fully on board with everything the ruling right-wing ideological elite (the radio talkers) demand that he say.
Ironically, even though he brags about being politically incorrect and not being in the pocket of political interests, he has sold out his own positions in order to become politically correct in the eyes of the right-wing talk show hosts.
Check out these articles about how the radio-talkers will criticize and warn Trump whenever he says anything that sounds like it would come from a liberal. They get especially upset when he criticizes Cruz with something that a lib would say:
www.oximity.com/article/Conservative-Radio-Hosts-Criticizing-T-1
hotair.com/archives/2015/12/14/rush-limbaugh-trumps-un-conservative-attack-on-ted-cruz-raised-a-red-flag-for-me
My point is, he knew to be very careful about bringing up that thing about Cruz being born in a foreign country because the talkers have always liked Cruz very much because he is the most ideologically pure conservative and the most (obnoxiously) outspoken Republican in Congress.
Not to mention that, doing to Cruz what he did to Obama would have been a very unpleasant thing for the talkers and their audiences to have to deal with because, among other things, it would expose their sanctimony -- meaning, it wasn't their reverence for the Constitution that motivated their accusations that the country's first black president forged his Birth Certificate.
It was just their deranged hatred of Obama.
So he knew he had to be very shrewd about how he used the birther card.
Because he so famously made such a big deal about the "Natural Born Citizen" issue the last election cycle, it was inevitable that he would be asked about Cruz. He didn't even have to bring it up himself. And we can see how, at first, he said as little as possible about it and only when asked. Then, he gradually began to elaborate. This allowed him to gauge the reaction so, if he had to, he could pull back and limit any damage. It also, eventually, became a topic for the press. Now that the cat's out of the bag, he's able to say "I didn't bring it up, I was asked by the press." And, of course, it's true. And by him saying "the Democrats will sue," it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
Brilliant!
Stay tuned, more to come.
born in a foreign country.
Then, about two or three weeks after that post, all of a sudden, everyone was talking about it.
In part two of the series, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the conservative media complex -- which talked ceaselessly, nonstop and around the clock about Obama being born in Kenya -- but was stunningly silent about Cruz.
And all this despite the fact that the mountain of evidence showing Obama's birthplace as Hawaii rose much higher than the point of reasonable doubt, while the birthplace of Cruz shows, with no doubt whatsoever, that he was born in Canada,
a foreign country.
What I didn't do, in part two, was brag about how I predicted that the birther issue was about to explode, as evidenced by the title of my post:
I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn -- But It's Alive!
How did I know this was going to happen?
Because, ever since he announced that he would be seeking the Republican nomination, I've been paying very close attention to Trump and the things he says. I noticed that, every once in a while, he would be asked about Ted Cruz's citizen status. I've been particularly interested in how he would answer this question, for obvious reasons. Early on in his run, he would say "well, maybe it might be an issue, I don't know." Then, at one point, weeks later, I heard him say "this has been looked into, it checks out, he's OK." But then when Cruz started to close in on him in the polls, he started saying "it might be a problem for him, someone might contest it." Now he's flat out saying "he was born in Canada. The Constitution says you have to be born in the United States."
At about the midway point in his transition from "everything checks out, he's OK" and "He's got a problem," I thought I figured out why and how he was finessing this question.
The Donald pays very close attention to the right-wing media. I know this because I pay very close attention to said media. If you listen to Trump, you would recognize all the favorite phrases, talking points and propaganda that you hear from the right-wing media.
During his 2011 run for the nomination he was in daily contact with Joseph Farah the editor of WorldNetDaily, the right-wing conspiracy web site that was the biggest promoter of the "Obama born in Kenya" allegations. This is where he got the other ridiculous rumors (all of which were thoroughly debunked by the fact checking organizations) that he repeated as if they were certain facts.
The Donald was named 'Man Of The Year' last month by these nuts. Read about it here:
www.rightwingwatch.org/content/worldnetdaily-names-trump-man-year-compares-him-founding-fathers
The people on this web site are fucking crazy, completely out of their minds.
This is from drudge.com (not to be confused with Matt Drudge):
But Farah's and WND's conspiracy theories do not end with the president's birthplace. In a 2011 column, he accused Muslims of promoting a "homosexual agenda" to help destroy America. That same year, he called a minor earthquake in Washington, D.C. a punishment from God for "disobedience and indifference to our Creator," while warning that the city "deserves" worse.
In 2012, he claimed that Obama's re-election would mean that he and other conservatives would be "hunted down like dogs." And earlier this month, Farah wrote on the site that the Obama administration is "facilitating, enabling, and empowering" terrorist attacks "by jihadis."
According to Right Wing Watch, Trump is scheduled to speak at a March conference for Farah's Western Center for Journalism, at which Farah will be honored by his own group as a "Hero of Freedom."
Yes, these are the people Trump get's his information from. Great judgement, huh? He might be the next President of the United States.
Anyway, ever since 2011, he's also been a regular guest on Fox News. And because he regularly bashes Obama and repeats all the stuff they say, he has been well liked by all the right-wing radio talkers.
Speaking of the radio talkers, Trump understands the power they have over the people whose votes he is courting. They are the ones who can get inside the heads of those voters and tell them what to think. These radio hosts each have three hours a day where they can, unchallenged, manipulate their audience's emotions and make them hate Obama, Democrats and liberals. If you've ever met a ditto head or a Mark Levin or Michael Savage fan, you'd know what I mean.
Trump knows that he can even diss Fox News and Megyn Kelly as long as he stays on the good side of the radio talkers.
As much as Trump comes across as his own man, un beholden to anyone, who says what he thinks, in actuality, he will dance to the tune of the radio talkers because he knows they can destroy him if he steps out of line.
Allow me to elucidate. We all know Trump has held liberal positions on some issues. In the first Republican debate, even though he attacks Obamacare like it was spawned from the mind of Satan (even though it came from the minds over at The Heritage Foundation -- hmmm, same thing?) it was pointed out that he used to be for single payer healthcare. Instead of saying "oh, that was in the past, I've changed my mind. I now see that that's socialism, which is evil," like any other Republican would say in that position, he said "I held that position because it works very well in..." and he named a couple of countries, then continued "...but you couldn't do it in this country." (because he knows the right-wing talkers control the minds of their audience)
That was Trump being his own man and saying what he thinks. Then there was the time he was on Sean Hannity's Fox TV show. Sean was really excited about Trump's hard line positions on Mexicans and Muslims and the crude and insulting way he was expressing them. So he asks "and what about taxes? You're going to cut the top tax rates a lot, right? Do you want a flat tax?" Trump says "I think the rich should pay more, I think there should be a graduation of some kind." He then goes on to say that the tax code is a mess and "we're" going to be looking into it so it can be straightened out.
But holy shit! He actually said that on Fox News! On Hannity's show! Right to his face!
Alas, that was way back last summer. The right-wing talkers have since straitened him out on these and other heresies.
He no longer talks anything like that. He is fully on board with everything the ruling right-wing ideological elite (the radio talkers) demand that he say.
Ironically, even though he brags about being politically incorrect and not being in the pocket of political interests, he has sold out his own positions in order to become politically correct in the eyes of the right-wing talk show hosts.
Check out these articles about how the radio-talkers will criticize and warn Trump whenever he says anything that sounds like it would come from a liberal. They get especially upset when he criticizes Cruz with something that a lib would say:
www.oximity.com/article/Conservative-Radio-Hosts-Criticizing-T-1
hotair.com/archives/2015/12/14/rush-limbaugh-trumps-un-conservative-attack-on-ted-cruz-raised-a-red-flag-for-me
My point is, he knew to be very careful about bringing up that thing about Cruz being born in a foreign country because the talkers have always liked Cruz very much because he is the most ideologically pure conservative and the most (obnoxiously) outspoken Republican in Congress.
Not to mention that, doing to Cruz what he did to Obama would have been a very unpleasant thing for the talkers and their audiences to have to deal with because, among other things, it would expose their sanctimony -- meaning, it wasn't their reverence for the Constitution that motivated their accusations that the country's first black president forged his Birth Certificate.
It was just their deranged hatred of Obama.
So he knew he had to be very shrewd about how he used the birther card.
Because he so famously made such a big deal about the "Natural Born Citizen" issue the last election cycle, it was inevitable that he would be asked about Cruz. He didn't even have to bring it up himself. And we can see how, at first, he said as little as possible about it and only when asked. Then, he gradually began to elaborate. This allowed him to gauge the reaction so, if he had to, he could pull back and limit any damage. It also, eventually, became a topic for the press. Now that the cat's out of the bag, he's able to say "I didn't bring it up, I was asked by the press." And, of course, it's true. And by him saying "the Democrats will sue," it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
Brilliant!
Stay tuned, more to come.
Monday, January 11, 2016
I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn -- But It's Alive! Part Two
Have you heard the talk about Ted Cruz's citizenship status? If you've been watching/reading/listening to the news the past week, I'm sure you have. Interesting, huh? -- or, as they say in Canada, eh?
In my last post, from December 19, I wondered why there was hardly any talk at all -- from Trump and the press -- about Cruz's eligibility to serve as president of these United States. And up until about a week ago, there wasn't. As a matter of fact, ever since Cruz began showing signs that he coveted the office of Commander-In Chief (in early 2013) the ultra-conservative Senator from Texas seemed to be benefiting from a baffling lack of concern from, well, anyone, about the fact that he was born in a foreign country.
I mean, we had just gone through five years of angry declarations about the importance of the Constitutional requirement that (as the birthers and seemingly everyone else interpreted it) anyone seeking election to the office of President must be born on United States soil!
And despite all of the very recent and self-righteous histrionics about "the supreme authority of the Constitution," all of a sudden there was nothing but silence from the conservative media complex.
This hypocrisy was predictable, coming from the right, but what about the press? Back then, I didn't see/read/hear anything more than a few mere mentions that Cruz was born in Canada -- without any commentary as to the implications of this fact. And nothing from the libs or Dems.
But when Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, I thought for sure there would be something said about this in relation to the firestorm we had just gone through with Obama.
However, the only thing I heard was the mere mention that he was doing it to be eligible for the Presidency -- again without anything said or explained about how this "renouncing" changed the fact that he was still born in Canada -- a foreign country.
Now, I must say that in doing research for this topic, I did come across some contemporaneous articles that talked a little about his eligibility. But I had to dig deep for them -- they weren't front page news. And almost all of the articles casually stated that, even though he was born in Canada, a foreign country, he was still a "Natural Born Citizen" because his mother was a US citizen.
Apparently, because this eligibility issue had come up before with Mitt Romney's father and a few others, a consensus of legal scholars had determined -- in their opinion -- that this was the case.
Now, my question is, why the fuck didn't anyone mention this during the attacks on Obama?
Everyone knew his mother was a US citizen. Which would have made the whole Birth Certificate question, at the most, secondary. At least to those who are now saying it's already settled law.
I didn't hear a single person mention it during that whole damn time. Did you?
Now we have every right-wing talk show blowhard who hates Obama, from Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham to Mark Levin, declaring -- loudly and with angry indignation -- that there is no question that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen because his mother was a citizen!
They are all saying, now, that it's a stupid waste of time and we should be talking about the real important issues -- like how come Obama had his college transcripts sealed? And how come no one ever saw or knew him when he was an alleged student at Columbia University? And how did he get into Harvard?
Affirmative Action!! That's how!!
OK, I'm kidding about that last part. They didn't mention that stuff just now. But they talked the hell out of it for the whole time they were giving Birthers a platform to report on this and other critically important information. And this stuff went on for years. And it still gets mentioned, even to this day.
I have a confession to make. When I first heard that Cruz -- arguably the most repugnant politician in the entire country -- was imagining a place for himself in the Oval Office... and that he was actually born in
a foreign country... I was filled with glee!
The whole irony of the situation was so beautiful.
Here was the perfect conservative Republican that the people (who hate Obama the most) would love.
As a matter of fact, there is a precise linear correlation between these two emotions.
Here, I plotted it on a graph so you can see:
Not only is the irony and correlation perfect but so is the justice.
This was Karma.
We all know Shakespeare's line -- "hoisted by one's own petard"
Here's what that means, in English:
To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another.
Unfortunately, so far, things haven't been going exactly as it should, if this were a just world.
I will elaborate further in part three of "I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn."
In my last post, from December 19, I wondered why there was hardly any talk at all -- from Trump and the press -- about Cruz's eligibility to serve as president of these United States. And up until about a week ago, there wasn't. As a matter of fact, ever since Cruz began showing signs that he coveted the office of Commander-In Chief (in early 2013) the ultra-conservative Senator from Texas seemed to be benefiting from a baffling lack of concern from, well, anyone, about the fact that he was born in a foreign country.
I mean, we had just gone through five years of angry declarations about the importance of the Constitutional requirement that (as the birthers and seemingly everyone else interpreted it) anyone seeking election to the office of President must be born on United States soil!
And despite all of the very recent and self-righteous histrionics about "the supreme authority of the Constitution," all of a sudden there was nothing but silence from the conservative media complex.
This hypocrisy was predictable, coming from the right, but what about the press? Back then, I didn't see/read/hear anything more than a few mere mentions that Cruz was born in Canada -- without any commentary as to the implications of this fact. And nothing from the libs or Dems.
But when Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, I thought for sure there would be something said about this in relation to the firestorm we had just gone through with Obama.
However, the only thing I heard was the mere mention that he was doing it to be eligible for the Presidency -- again without anything said or explained about how this "renouncing" changed the fact that he was still born in Canada -- a foreign country.
Now, I must say that in doing research for this topic, I did come across some contemporaneous articles that talked a little about his eligibility. But I had to dig deep for them -- they weren't front page news. And almost all of the articles casually stated that, even though he was born in Canada, a foreign country, he was still a "Natural Born Citizen" because his mother was a US citizen.
Apparently, because this eligibility issue had come up before with Mitt Romney's father and a few others, a consensus of legal scholars had determined -- in their opinion -- that this was the case.
Now, my question is, why the fuck didn't anyone mention this during the attacks on Obama?
Everyone knew his mother was a US citizen. Which would have made the whole Birth Certificate question, at the most, secondary. At least to those who are now saying it's already settled law.
I didn't hear a single person mention it during that whole damn time. Did you?
Now we have every right-wing talk show blowhard who hates Obama, from Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham to Mark Levin, declaring -- loudly and with angry indignation -- that there is no question that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen because his mother was a citizen!
They are all saying, now, that it's a stupid waste of time and we should be talking about the real important issues -- like how come Obama had his college transcripts sealed? And how come no one ever saw or knew him when he was an alleged student at Columbia University? And how did he get into Harvard?
Affirmative Action!! That's how!!
OK, I'm kidding about that last part. They didn't mention that stuff just now. But they talked the hell out of it for the whole time they were giving Birthers a platform to report on this and other critically important information. And this stuff went on for years. And it still gets mentioned, even to this day.
I have a confession to make. When I first heard that Cruz -- arguably the most repugnant politician in the entire country -- was imagining a place for himself in the Oval Office... and that he was actually born in
a foreign country... I was filled with glee!
The whole irony of the situation was so beautiful.
Here was the perfect conservative Republican that the people (who hate Obama the most) would love.
As a matter of fact, there is a precise linear correlation between these two emotions.
Here, I plotted it on a graph so you can see:
Not only is the irony and correlation perfect but so is the justice.
This was Karma.
We all know Shakespeare's line -- "hoisted by one's own petard"
Here's what that means, in English:
To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another.
Unfortunately, so far, things haven't been going exactly as it should, if this were a just world.
I will elaborate further in part three of "I Thought Birtherism Was Stillborn."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)