Politics in the Media

[BBDi]

19 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

#CNNGetItRight (regarding a Ghana election story) is trending so much that CNN had to retract and correct part of the article. People in Ghana don't play with fake news!

LOL And from the two RINO's  McCain and Graham: 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-us-elections-2016/index.html

I'm not a fan of CNN (haven't watched it in a few years), but at least they publish corrections and retractions when they've made an error. LOL. 

[MulletorHater]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:49 PM, Duke Silver said:

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/807685349195522048

Thankfully, NYT's columnist, Dr. Paul Krugman, gets it right--as he usually does.  He doesn't mince words, as noted in this particular statement:

Quote

So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement.

I'm glad that he, along with columnist, Charles Blow, is willing to call a spade a spade without all the false equivalences that has made the news side of the "paper of record" extremely frustrating to read in recent months.

The Tainted Election

[Shannon L.]

OMG.  I was listening to the Michael Smerconish program on XM radio on my walk this morning and he was talking to Malcolm Nance, who wrote a book about Russian hacking during this election year.  Afterward, he took calls as he always does and 3 of the first 4 calls were from people claiming that they don't believe it and that it's definitely a MSM conspiracy theory.

How the hell are we going to fix this country if this type of thinking is becoming the norm? 

[DollEyes]

Another tweet, this time from Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald:

Quote

It needs to be said: Only reason a prez-elect would skip intel briefings is not because he's smart-it's because he's stupid and lazy

[sum]

Quote

An Open Letter to Fellow Minority Journalists

This came from an article in yesterday’s Washington Post.

Quote

Newspaper editors say they’re on the lookout for more such writers. “What happened this year is that many of the people who we count on for conservative commentary — many of whom have generally supported Republican candidates in the past — simply didn’t support Trump,” said Nicholas Goldberg, editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times. “I certainly believe our op-ed editor ought to be aggressively seeking smart, articulate people who have positive things to say about Trump, who are sympathetic to his point of view, or who are able to explain, support and justify him to our readers.”

The Washington Post’s editorial-page editor, Fred Hiatt, said the paper is as committed “as ever” to offering readers “a range of smart, independent thinking, and we are always thinking about whether there are new voices we should be adding” as Trump takes office.

Said the Times’ Bennet: “We owe it to our readers to help them hear the voices that were supportive of Trump. . . . I’m proud of the work we did, but we could have done better.”

Over the next year or two, media — especially prestige print media — will begin thinning out its ranks. The economic forecast, despite temporary spikes in post-election subscriptions, is not good and headcount spots will have to be cleared to make room for all the incoming pro-Trump takes. “Identity politics writers” (read: anyone who isn’t white and who doesn’t spend 99% of their time reporting) will almost certainly be the first to go.

[snip]

This same media has sprayed its panicked guts all over the walls in the weeks following the election, but it will eventually settle down into what these prestige journalistic outlets have always been — center-right, bourgeois takes read by lawyers on planes. And since the majority of lawyers on planes aren’t joining up with ‘the resistance’ (whatever the fuck that means), editors and publishers will start hiring alt-Tucker Carlsons so they can hear both sides. They will need to clear headcount spots to do this and they will quietly start purging the same writers they hired so enthusiastically — with rousing rounds of Tweet applause — two years ago.

Because Trumpsters' voices aren't being heard enough? These media people haven't learned, have they? Not every voice has the same value!
This is depressing.

Edited December 12, 2016 by sum

[potatoradio]

34 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

Mika and Morning Joe discussion of NYT ep-ed on echo chambers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ca_3RD0CUU

Taking reply to media thread. But, first, I'll give you a grudging congratulations for getting me to click the link despite my hatred for Joe S. because I had a feeling that my guilty pleasure, right-center, elitist reporter might be on the panel. He was. And so I had to watch the whooooole thing. I swore to myself I was going to stop following him, but I can't quit him. Diet ruined. And that's as far out of my bubble/echo chamber I'm gonna go now. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by potatoradio

[FilmTVGeek80]

19 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I think Kellyanne Conway has no fear.

I think what you meant is Kellyanne Conway has no shame. 

 

20 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

And this drum beating of Russia Russia Russia is because Jill/Hillary's recount scam to overthrow the election still isn't working: 

You do realize this "drumbeat" about Russia started way before the election nightmare results? Or are you just discounting that because, like Trump, it doesn't fit your own ideas? The recount is not a scam. It's something that needed to happen given the proof of Russian interference, not to mention, thousands of votes attributed to Trump have already been thrown out coincidentally when the recount was about to start.

 

26 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

If you google Bolton/false flag you will get an earful of what the respected former ambassador thinks about the hacking. He knows how easy it is for Obama to manipulate his agencies.

 

One guy's opinion, no matter how respected, is not proof of anything.

[MulletorHater]

22 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I think what you meant is Kellyanne Conway has no shame. 

You do realize this "drumbeat" about Russia started way before the election nightmare results? Or are you just discounting that because, like Trump, it doesn't fit your own ideas? The recount is not a scam. It's something that needed to happen given the proof of Russian interference, not to mention, thousands of votes attributed to Trump have already been thrown out coincidentally when the recount was about to start.

One guy's opinion, no matter how respected, is not proof of anything.

You took the words right out of my mouth regarding the Crypt Mistress.  I would also add that one has to at least have a conscience.  She will shill for whoever pays her and every time her lips move, it is guaranteed that a lie will spring forth from them.

I also don't see where the supposed "scam," comes in either.  Given that a known con artist has managed to dupe millions of people into voting for him, the choice of that word is deliciously ironic.  But, yes, let's just blame Hillary and Jill Stein while ignoring that the CIA's judgment is also shared by several other intelligence agencies--all of which Drumpf and his apologists dismissed during and after the campaign.  The only agency that refused to sign off on these findings months ago was the FBI.  But, we're supposed to feel comfortable giving Putin's stooge classified information while hoping and praying that said stooge has the maturity and impulse control to not deliberately or inadvertently share those secrets with our enemies--or with mistresses who are penning books about him.

The other thing concerning about this are the Drumpf campaign hacks and the possibility that whatever was found could be held over Drumpf's head.  Not to mention the millions of dollars in debt it is believe he owes to Russia's oligarchs (i.e., Putin).  It's simply fascinating to me that some folks were foaming-at-the-mouth pissed off about Hillary's email server and conveniently leaked DNC emails.  Yet, those same people are shockingly passive about Drumpf's openly disparaging the nation's intelligence agencies while defending Putin.

May I make a suggestion?  If Drumpf wants to dispel the belief that his financial dealings make him vulnerable to Putin's manipulations, how about producing those tax returns forthwith?  Is it possible that he won't because they incriminate him and will also reveal that he really isn't a billionaire?  

And, you want to talk about a scam, I'm still waiting for the Birther-in-Chief to produce all that evidence he claimed his investigators found to support his claim that President Obama perpetrated the biggest fraud in American history.  He spent five long years disseminating this lie so that it would conform with his own prejudices, as well as the prejudices of Obama's detractors.  Pitiful that he trusts his non-existent investigators more than the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday to protect this nation.  You know, people like former CIA officer, Valerie Plame, who was retaliated against by Dick Cheney and had to step away because she was compromised.  And, all because her husband told the truth and debunked that administration's lie that Saddam Hussein tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

[Menrva]

I'd like to add that Bolton is hardly respected; indeed, he's a bully and a hot head with no nuance or empathy. On paper, he looks great, but in reality, he's no diplomat. This is from way back in 2005. His rudeness and lack of grace are well documented.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/18/bullies/

I actually came to post this article; apologies if someone else already has. And don't laugh or sneer because it's in Teen Vogue (yes, you read that correctly). It's unflinching and honest and I'm glad that things like this are out there to keep young women and girls informed and motivated.

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

Edited December 12, 2016 by Menrva

[potatoradio]

A few stories now surfacing with the narratives that liberals are again to blame for this election because, huh, apparently, there is a crisis of conservative suppression: goddamned colleges and their liberal miasmas (conservative students have a sadz that not everyone rejoiced in their candidate's marginal win on a platform of racism and misogyny and psychopathology). Pundits tell hysterical librulls to shut it and enjoy the air out of their bubbles. Apparently, the 2.5 million people who did not want Tubby in office and hate everything he stands for are simply suffering from closed-mindedness and become hysterical at the very thought of a conservative idea. 

I'm not afraid of ideas at all, thankyouverymuch. The best courses I took in college, the ones I worked the hardest in, were courses taught by professors who had diametrically opposed ideologies from my own. I am glad to have had those courses. They did shape my own arguments and helped me understand complex issues. By all means, bring on the ideas for combating climate change, addressing poverty, the huge cost of medical care, atrocities and warfare in other countries. Obama himself said that this country needs a solid conservative Republican party. 

But don't fucking tell me that's what the Tubby disaster represents and that I'm a stupid whining smelly librull who needs to shut up and open my mind because TRUMP IS KING and HE WON! That's not opening my mind, that's buying the propaganda.

It's a far cry from having open and honest discussions about democracy in a college classroom and electing someone who doesn't give a crap about democracy unless it lines his own pockets. 

I have zero interest in leaving my echo chamber if what's outside is a world that claims the sky is green and the steaming pile of nuclear racist shit is really "refreshing" and actually quite progressive if I squint my eyes. 

Here's what my mind HAS been opened to, MSM: you need passionate, insightful and honest journalists who might have had the foresight to dig into stories that showed us where we were headed BEFORE the disaster of 2016. Where was all the talk of a divided country other than on the far left and far right? It wasn't there. How'd you miss that? Open your minds to that answer before you tell me that I need to respect every opinion equally or else there will be college republicans with their feelings hurt because they don't like being a minority and can't understand why they have to suffer feeling that way. 

We need to have the hard discussions, not screaming matches. I went to a panel discussion once with a professor from Ireland who said, "well, I come from a country where people were killing each other, so they needed to have the difficult discussions."

If we're going to live together, we need an array of intelligent propositions, not Tweetertantrums or propaganda, to open our minds to. 

[Duke Silver]

@potatoradio  RESPECT

[Menrva]

3 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

@potatoradio  RESPECT

What Duke Silver said.

[potatoradio]

Thanks and 100%, unadulterated respect back to you both, @Duke Silver and @Menrva. #Resist. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

4 minutes ago, Menrva said:

What Duke Silver said.

Definitely. Learning from more than one side is a good thing, if both sides can get something from it. Like what Roger Ebert said, it's sad that we're unable to have actual debates and discussions anymore.

[navelgazer]

16 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Definitely. Learning from more than one side is a good thing, if both sides can get something from it. Like what Roger Ebert said, it's sad that we're unable to have actual debates and discussions anymore.

It doesn't help that one side is sequestered inside of a fact-free bubble where nothing contrary to their rabid worldview or paradigm can ever reach them.  

[AntiBeeSpray]

2 minutes ago, navelgazer said:

It doesn't help that one side is sequestered inside of a fact-free bubble where nothing contrary to their rabid worldview or paradigm can ever reach them.  

Exactly. So basically we're left with both sides arguing with one another. It doesn't help that their views are so far extreme these days. There's no real way to try to compromise with them. It's their way or the highway and they think that anything having to do with the social safety net, abortion, woman's rights, lbgtq rights and marriage, etc., is a bad thing and that liberals have been forcing their views down their throat.

[navelgazer]

40 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Exactly. So basically we're left with both sides arguing with one another. It doesn't help that their views are so far extreme these days. There's no real way to try to compromise with them. It's their way or the highway and they think that anything having to do with the social safety net, abortion, woman's rights, lbgtq rights and marriage, etc., is a bad thing and that liberals have been forcing their views down their throat.

And yet the goddamn Democrats are still acting like compromise isn't a dirty word now and can't fathom that their opponents are cutthroat ideological savages who now won't give two shits about deficits now that it is their precious government programs that are in jeopardy -- the Pentagon and further tax cuts for the rich for example.  

Edited December 13, 2016 by navelgazer

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, stewedsquash said:

 

I accept that you don't take one guy's opinion as proof, it is an opinion of his that I think is a valid reason for the Russia squealing going on. In your response to the drumbeat/recount you say it needed to happen given the proof of Russian interference. I have seen a lot of squealing about Russia, but no proof yet. 

*squealing out in the world, not aimed at posters here having discussions

 

 

Also, while you and Trump might not be willing to listen to almost every Intelligence agency, even some Republicans are starting to realize that turning a blind eye to this is not a great idea (and none of these people have to do with the recount - or want it.)

At this point, even weasels like McConnell and Ryan, are at least willing to admit the Russian hack is possible. They don't really care because their side one, but unlike Trump and others, they're not acting like it's some out there idea. 

Republicans Okay with Hacking Investigation

 

1 hour ago, stewedsquash said:

Oh, and ha, I don't think Kellyanne has done anything shameful, fearless is exactly what I meant. I think she is having the time of her life and is a little bit wistful about missing her children and family. Here is a nice article about Kellyanne (Nov 29): 

 

No offense, but I'm not reading any puff pieces about that woman. I see who she is from her behavior and her interviews. Is she supposedly fearless because she's willing to look like a traitor to her own gender as long as the price is right? I find her to be almost as disgusting as Trump. She proudly stands by this disgusting piece of crap and continues to spout lie after lie, defends abhorrent behavior, all the while talking in such a condescending way. I don't give a damn that she's (willingly) missing time with her family. IMO her family's better off. Of course she's having the time of her life - she has no conscience.

[backformore]

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

No offense, but I'm not reading any puff pieces about that woman. I see who she is from her behavior and her interviews. Is she supposedly fearless because she's willing to look like a traitor to her own gender as long as the price is right? I find her to be almost as disgusting as Trump. She proudly stands by this disgusting piece of crap and continues to spout lie after lie, defends abhorrent behavior, all the while talking in such a condescending way. I don't give a damn that she's (willingly) missing time with her family. IMO her family's better off. Of course she's having the time of her life - she has no conscience.

Yep, and don't forget that BEFORE she was employed by Trump she was saying that he needed to reveal his income tax records, that the American people had the right to know.  Then she joined Trump's team, and before long her response became, "People aren't interested in seeing Trump's tax returns."  Followed, of course, by a deflection about "what people want to see are Hillary's emails."  KellyAnne will take whatever side of an issue she is paid to take.  She has no soul,  her opinion is whatever she is paid to think.

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I have seen a lot of squealing about Russia, but no proof yet. 

No, there is actual evidence for it--enough for the many intelligence agencies to say it and bring it to Congress. The PE and others are discrediting them and often using ignorance to do it.

[Zuzubee]

Before the election, there was media talk of Trump breaking the Republican Party. After the election, Hillary broke the Democratic Party. Well here we are .... the whole country is broke. Sorry for the bleakness ... Probably due to very recent family tragedy but it is true nonetheless. We are in trouble, says the person who always makes lemonade ....

[Duke Silver]

Does anyone here watch Don Lemon (CNN) on the regular?  I swear, every time I switch to CNN at night (typically when I'm cruising through channels, or a show I'm watching is on commercial break), either Don or a guest is advocating a position I just vociferously disagree with.  Tonight:  the normalization of the Rex Tillerson choice for SoS.  Nothing but "oh, he's great!"

Fucking CNN....I still seriously side eye the complaints Trump levies against them.  I don;t see the anti-Trump stuff that he claims.  I just assume it's more misdirection from him.

[Guest]

Don Lemon is a straight-up ignoramus who's more in love with his reflection than Narcissus. I remember first seeing him in 2008 during then-president-elect Obama's Whistle Stop thing while he was a "reporter" (or whatever title passes as a job description for a CNN employee who holds a microphone and speaks words into it). I was struck by how stupid this guy was and why the hell was he on CNN? In the ensuing years, I figured out why: CNN is a bottomless shithole filled replenished daily with the detritus of humanity willing to trade whatever they had left of their dignity for a healthy paycheck. 

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. There is a Kremlin puppet being installed as the fucking PRESIDENT of the United States who's filling cabinet positions left and right with pro-Putin nut-fucking-jobs and CNN is more concerned with hearing "both sides" of this story instead of reporting on the story. 

People, please don't watch this shit. It's like Entertainment Tonight but with people who "report" on ugly people instead of pretty ones.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Guest

[Keepitmoving]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

Don Lemon is a straight-up ignoramus who's more in love with his reflection than Narcissus. I remember first seeing him in 2008 during then-president-elect Obama's Whistle Stop thing while he was a "reporter" (or whatever title passes as a job description for a CNN employee who holds a microphone and speaks words into it). I was struck by how stupid this guy was and why the hell was he on CNN? In the ensuing years, I figured out why: CNN is a bottomless shithole filled replenished daily with the detritus of humanity willing to trade whatever they had left of their dignity for a healthy paycheck. 

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. There is a Kremlin puppet being installed as the fucking PRESIDENT of the United States who's filling cabinet positions left and right with pro-Putin nut-fucking-jobs and CNN is more concerned with hearing "both sides" of this story instead of reporting on the story. 

People, please don't watch this shit. It's like Entertainment Tonight but with people who "report" on ugly people instead of pretty ones.

I haven't watched CNN since Nov. 8th and don't plan to watch it. Don Lemon is definitely full of shit.  I watch Maddow who just happens to be on MSNBC, but I wish she would leave, and go online or anywhere else so I don't have to watch MSNBC. I wish Reid, O'Donnell and Hayes would follow too.  VICE news comes on five times a week over on HBO and boy do I truly appreciate it. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

3 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

I haven't watched CNN since Nov. 8th and don't plan to watch it. Don Lemon is definitely full of shit.  I watch Maddow who just happens to be on MSNBC, but I wish she would leave, and go online or anywhere else so I don't have to watch MSNBC. I wish Reid, O'Donnell and Hayes would follow too.  VICE news comes on five times a week over on HBO and boy do I truly appreciate it. 

I haven't watched much of CNN lately either. Yea. But if they move to HBO, then a lot of people would be sore out of luck. It costs that much more to get a subscription to it. I don't find it worth the extra money myself, apart from the free previews. Any good shows aside.

[Chicken Wing]

11 hours ago, backformore said:

Yep, and don't forget that BEFORE she was employed by Trump she was saying that he needed to reveal his income tax records, that the American people had the right to know.  Then she joined Trump's team, and before long her response became, "People aren't interested in seeing Trump's tax returns."  Followed, of course, by a deflection about "what people want to see are Hillary's emails."  KellyAnne will take whatever side of an issue she is paid to take.  She has no soul,  her opinion is whatever she is paid to think.

I'll give this for Kellyanne Conartist: She's committed. She never, ever wavers from the act. Her job is to be the spokesperson, the mouthpiece, for whatever or whoever she's being paid to plug, and damn, does she stick to the script. Of course, that makes her word worth absolutely jack shit, since anyone with half a brain cell knows she's only saying these things, taking these arguments, being there at all, because it's her job. Her conviction is only as strong as the paper on which her contract is written. Sometimes it actually makes me nauseous to watch her talk whenever she's on whatever show. I seriously doubt she believes half of the excrement spewing seemingly uncontrollably from her mouth, and then I almost feel sorry for her before I remember that, as far as I know, no one forced her to sell her soul to be a conduit for the Holy Fucktard.

[Macbeth]

I remember when GE had ownership of NBC.  Soon after the tsunami hit Japan and the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant started exploding and melting down - NBC sent a reporter to stand  in front of the melting nuclear power plant and basically say everything was fine.  Like the reporter was covering a blizzard.  I can't remember who the reporter was - I would love to know if the person is still alive.

I haven't been able to find out if Exxon outright owns a media company - but I am sure the other oligarchs are making money on Exxon stocks.  It will be interesting to see how the major news outlets treat the nomination of the CEO of Exxon as of Secretary of State. 

I am really surprised that any Republicans are balking at this nomination.  They are politician which means they are corporate whores. Maybe even they have standards. Doubt it.  More likely - their balking is their sign to Exxon that they need to be paid.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Macbeth

[Duke Silver]

HOLY SHIT

I just happen to be watching Morning Joe on MSNBC (working from home today).  Joe asked Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (sp) about Russia targeting women & children in Aleppo.  Rohrabacher tried to lie & Joe called him out on it; they spent about a minute yelling at each other--Rohrbacher yelling "don't interrupt me", Joe responding "I only interrupt when someone tries to lie on my air."

Rohrbacher finally was allowed to give a substantive answer & he said that we need Russia, the biggest threat is "radical Islam", "we allied w/ Stalin, who killed millions, in order to stop Hitler; Joe responded : "well, I agree that's an apt comparison: Putin to Stalin."

It reminded me of the heated exchange Rhorbacher had last week w/ that reporter from Yahoo (who's family had fled Soviet Moldova in the late 70's)

*****Main take-away:  Rohrbacher, a former Reagan speech-writer, is a SEVERE Russia-apologist

[NewDigs]

1 minute ago, Duke Silver said:

Joe responding "I only interrupt when someone tries to lie on my air."

That's rich.

But color me astounded at his stance!  

I've not been able to watch the MJ Tubby love-fest for more than a minute or two. 

And though I've only flipped to it a few times, CNN is doing a half-decent job countering the lies and actually, gasp, presenting new information with actual foreign correspondents.

I've been listening to more NPR and though the info kind of remains the same it's delivered in a more even-handed manner.

Last Friday Shields and Brooks were equally appalled by the day's events. How can one not be?

[PatsyandEddie]

Can someone puhleeze wipe that condescending, smug smirk off of Jeffrey Lord's face? 

[Chicken Wing]

6 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

More from the show us the proof front: News from Reuters about what the ODNI (known as the top spy agency, the coordinator of the others) thinks of the CIA findings:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

My summation: They confirm that of course Russia is involved in spying, CIA is on the money with that,  but there is no link to getting Trump elected. A lot of gibber jabber from "When you want a republican on your democrat side, he's your guy McCain"  but in essence, the ODNI does not find that the CIA has come forward with any proof that Russia got Trump elected.  

And no one will ever find proof that Russia's interference is why Trump won the election. I don't believe anyone is actually trying to claim that, or deny that he won the election by the voters' own volition and the results certify that. The issue is that Russia was behind the hacking of damaging emails about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and the conjecture is that they did it to damage her image and sway public opinion to Trump. No one can ever prove that the release of these hacked emails was the reason people chose to vote for Donald Trump unless they polled every single person who voted and asked them. But the fact remains that every voter voted for the person they wanted to vote because they wanted to vote for them for whatever reason they wanted, and every voter is entitled to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason, and the vote is what it is and the results are what they are. But it does not discount the importance of getting to the bottom of Russia's interference and determine if they were, actually, infiltrating our data and releasing private information with the intent of trying to influence the race.

[DollEyes]

The latest from Charles M.Blow:

Patriotic Opposition To Donald Trump

Edited December 13, 2016 by DollEyes

[izabella]

6 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

And no one will ever find proof that Russia's interference is why Trump won the election. I don't believe anyone is actually trying to claim that, or deny that he won the election by the voters' own volition and the results certify that. The issue is that Russia was behind the hacking of damaging emails about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and the conjecture is that they did it to damage her image and sway public opinion to Trump. No one can ever prove that the release of these hacked emails was the reason people chose to vote for Donald Trump unless they polled every single person who voted and asked them. But the fact remains that every voter voted for the person they wanted to vote because they wanted to vote for them for whatever reason they wanted, and every voter is entitled to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason, and the vote is what it is and the results are what they are. But it does not discount the importance of getting to the bottom of Russia's interference and determine if they were, actually, infiltrating our data and releasing private information with the intent of trying to influence the race.

It's also very important to determine whether Trump's henchmen worked with the Russians and to what extent. 

From the Electoral College Open Letter asking to be briefed on the Russian election hacking scandal:
 

Quote

 

Separate from Mr. Trump’s own denials of Russian involvement in the election, the confirmed communication between Trump’s aides and those associated with the Russian election interference activity raise serious concerns that must be addressed before we cast our votes. Trump-confidant Roger Stone confirmed during the campaign that he was engaged in back-channel communications with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, responsible for releasing much of the Russian-hacked Democratic communications, and indicated that he was aware of the hacked content prior to its release. Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page reportedly visited Moscow in July of this year, just prior to the release of hacked DNC communications, during which it was believed he met with the Putin aide in charge of Russian intelligence on the U.S. election. Page returned to Moscow this week where he claimed to be meeting with Russian business and thought leaders.

In addition to Donald Trump and his aides’ conduct, revelations about their further involvement with the Russian government over the course of the campaign demand further investigation, as well as full disclosure of findings from any ongoing or closed investigative efforts:

• Russian government officials revealed that they had maintained contact with the Trump campaign during the election, and stated that they were familiar with most of the individuals associated with Mr. Trump.
• Media inquiries into whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s July plea for Russian interference in the election resulted in a “Glomar response” neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation, rather than the more typical response of denying the request outright.
• U.S. intelligence officials reportedly probed Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page in regard to travel to his Moscow during the campaign.
• The FBI reportedly began an inquiry into Trump associates following reports of a multi-million dollar business relationship with pro-Putin figures in Ukraine and Russia, and reports of an effort to sway American public opinion in favor of Ukraine’s pro-Putin government.
• Michael Flynn, Trump campaign aide and the announced incoming National Security Advisor, traveled to Russia in December of 2015 for a gala event celebrating RT, a state-controlled propaganda network, at which he was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

https://extranewsfeed.com/bipartisan-electors-ask-james-clapper-release-facts-on-outside-interference-in-u-s-election-c1a3d11d5b7b#.pw83na96g

[Duke Silver]

[potatoradio]

Eichenwald tweeted that the story today was the first one that didn't bring a barrage of Newsweek overseas hacking. The feed discusses whether this is a sign that the overseas hackers see their job is done and "they won," so no need to do anything, even to the most d*mning, factual evidence. Also, the response of those in their alt-reality? Calling this "fake news." It's the new rallying cry for "don't harsh my mellow with your stooopid facts and long, boring articles."

Maddow had a story on this article last night - a sort of sneak peak on what was presented as irrefutable evidence of Tubby's unfitness. The same strategy was employed with Eichenwald's story on Tubby's ties to Cuba - Maddow led and the story broke the next day and I was thinking, "aha! At last! Proof." And.....nope. Crickets. Except Newsweek was attacked. 

I've subscribed to Newsweek, but I gotta say, I am royally pissed that this isn't getting more serious traction and attention. It seems that if Tubby don't tweetertantrum, it don't happen. I know Elizabeth Warren has called for an investigation into the conflicts of interest, but I don't hear CNN or the NYT or other MSM picking up this story and expanding or even refuting it, which is really disturbing. 

So, is Eichenwald considered "alt-left" and therefore discredited and ignored? He's fake news whereas the Faux News crew are now, in newspeak, "fair and balanced"?

Jeebus, that happened fast. 

Way to have the guy's back, MSM. Hope you can all learn to write and speak Russian soon. Because, this is real, whether you want to believe it or not. This is not an episode of Stranger Things and we are not coming out of Upside Down. If you keep following Alice down the rabbit hole when you should know better, don't ask us to tune in as you relegate yourselves to serving the Red Queen and the Mad Hatter* for the rest of your miserable, hypocritical days. We'll be in Canada or Califexit or holed up in our bomb shelters.

*with respect to the Mad Hatter, who I don't remember being a truly evil character, but maybe I just really hated the Tea Cup ride at Disney.

Edited December 13, 2016 by potatoradio
Parallel sentence structure is a good thing. Also, picture.

[sistermagpie]

51 minutes ago, potatoradio said:

Calling this "fake news." It's the new rallying cry for "don't harsh my mellow with your stooopid facts and long, boring articles."

It's the standard pattern that always works.

The right called out for policies that oppress minorities? It's the left who are the real racists because government programs make minorities slaves to welfare.

The right attacks women's right to control their bodies? They're the real feminists because they celebrate that women can have children - thanks God! (Also the "War on Women" was divisive because the left suggested the right was against women, not because the policies were actually an attack.)

So yeah, of course fake news is now any articles they don't like which only "elites" will bother to read anyway.

Basically, the important thing just becomes the word. If people like feminism, they'll co-opt the word feminism, not what it actually means. If racism is a bad thing, then they'll throw it at others (and also say it's meaningless when it's used to describe their policies). 

Now that people have accepted that fake news is all over the place, they'll use it to describe actual journalism (only a small step up from accusing them of "bias" all those years) while eagerly sharing links to right wing conspiracy websites they describe as "interesting" or whatever.

Oh, and likewise since they get that alt-Right are thought by some to be Nazis, now there's an alt-Left. They're both alt, so that makes them the same. 

It makes sense that it works because the left is always hampered by the fact that it actually cares about what these things mean. 

[SonofaBiscuit]

Why Obamacare enrollees voted for Trump

Interesting article.  Here are a few highlights:

Quote

I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. In fact, some of the people I talked to hope that one of the more divisive pieces of the law — Medicaid expansion — might become even more robust, offering more of the working poor a chance at the same coverage the very poor receive. 

[snip] “We all need it,” Oller told me when I asked about the fact that Trump and congressional Republicans had promised Obamacare repeal. “You can’t get rid of it.”

Quote

 

“I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many peoples lives,” says Debbie Mills, an Obamacare enrollee who supported Trump. “I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot pay for insurance?”

[snip] “We were wanting change,” she said. “We’re in an area with a lot of coal. When people aren’t in the coal mines, they’re not spending and buying in our area.” She said she thought Trump, a successful businessman, would have a better shot at fixing all that.

I asked her if she had followed the campaign and heard the candidates talk about repealing Obamacare. “I did, yeah,” she said. “That was the only thing I did not like about him.”

This was the conversation that followed, beginning with another question I asked:

Are you surprised how much Republicans are talking about repeal?

No.

Did you expect — do you think they'll do it, or do you think it'll be too hard?

I'm hoping that they don't, ’cause, I mean, what would they do then? Would this go away?

Yes, possibly.

The insurance?

It will go, if they repeal it. I mean, that's what they promised to do in so many elections.

Right ... so ... I don't know. ...

We spoke a good deal longer about the Affordable Care Act, and the possibility of repeal. Mills said she had gone into the voting booth confident that Republicans wouldn’t dismantle the law, despite their promises. How could they, when people like her had become so reliant on it?

 

Quote

 

Debbie Mills and I spoke for about an hour about Obamacare. By the end of the conversation, it had moved from me interviewing her to her asking a few questions about what might change and whether the coverage she would sign up for in a few minutes would still be valid.

I ended up reassuring Mills that nothing would change for her coverage in 2017, and likely not 2018 — but that wasn’t a guarantee. I didn’t know what would happen either.

Our interview began to make her a bit nervous.

“You’re scaring me now on the insurance part,” she said. “I’m afraid now that the insurance is going to go away and we’re going to be up a creek.”

 

This is the kind of people we're dealing with here.  "Well, I know he said he was going to take this away from me, but I voted for him anyways, and now that he plans to take this away from me (just as he promised), WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?  

Like seriously, fuck you.  You voted for this, so have fun being uninsured (but I AM sorry it's going to take down all the folks who need Obamacare and voted Hillary, because they absolutely don't deserve this).

[potatoradio]

I'm seeing this refrain repeated in so many Tubby-supporter stories. We wanted change, but...oh, wait...he didn't mean THAT kind of change, right? 

From an NYT article about a largely Latino community that went for Tubby:

Quote

Yuma County is a lot like other counties along the southern border, a place that is anchored on the globalist trade policies and mass immigration that Mr. Trump has fervently opposed. Its agricultural industry relies almost entirely on Mexican laborers. Every morning from November through March, as many as 40,000 of them cross legally into the United States to pick most of the lettuce consumed by Americans in the cold months.

But unlike the majority of border counties, this one voted for Mr. Trump, who won the county by a percentage point.

Its residents now hope that he did not mean everything he said during the campaign. Instead, they want him to recognize that their economic prosperity, which they agree needs to rely on more than just agriculture, depends on maintaining connections to Mexico.

Um...hello? You voted for someone hoping he didn't actually mean what he said? Er...ya'll got punk'd. And them's the facts. Not an echo chamber. Sure, I can sympathize with being played by a sociopath opportunist, but you know what? He's got the REST OF THE COUNTRY in here with you, including me. No, I am not going to listen empathetically to your desire for change as he revs up a chainsaw to hack us all to bits. 

By the way...guess what the actual margin of victory was for Tubby in Yuma County? A landslide? Nope. A healthy margin? Nope. One percent. One fucking percent. 

And yet...lookee below: how is this story being touted by the centrist or right-center journalists? Oh, I know! See? Latinos voted for Tubby because Democrats had their heads up their ass! Nyah! Or, what a heartwarming, mavericky story that kicks the country in the nuts because it's not that a psychotic fuck edged into the oval office on a tiny margin because of an outdated fucking Electoral College, or that our democracy is in danger. No, no, the STORY is that somehow, the 2.5 million of us who are very angry, but very sane, are the closed-minded problem.

Enlightenment, my ass. 

I mean, does the NYT or the Hill really expect an uptick in subscriptions or eyeballs or clicks by convincing the deplorables and the suckered that, see, we can sing the propaganda, too. Please like us. No, thank you. I'll stick with my sky is blue: 'mid america' in its own bubble truth in journalistic thought.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by potatoradio

[MulletorHater]

1 hour ago, SonofaBiscuit said:

Why Obamacare enrollees voted for Trump

Interesting article.  Here are a few highlights:

This is the kind of people we're dealing with here.  "Well, I know he said he was going to take this away from me, but I voted for him anyways, and now that he plans to take this away from me (just as he promised), WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?  

Like seriously, fuck you.  You voted for this, so have fun being uninsured (but I AM sorry it's going to take down all the folks who need Obamacare and voted Hillary, because they absolutely don't deserve this).

This reminds me so much of the town hall meeting I watched on All In with Chris Hayes last night, featuring Bernie Sanders.  I believe this took place in Wisconsin.  I was amazed at the number of people who weren't bothered by Drumpf's more extreme positions, particularly his threats against "the illegals," his threats to appeal the ACA on day one and other divisive threats to create a registry for Muslims, etc.  And, why weren't they bothered?  Some of them genuinely believed that (a) it was just talk to get elected; and (b) there are checks and balances in place to keep him from doing those "awful" things ("Congress would never let him do that").

This was in response to a young Muslim woman who expressed concerns about what a Drumpf presidency would mean to her community.  From what little I was able to watch, everyone seemed respectful and there was no shouting or name calling.  However, Senator Sanders did disabuse one gentleman of the notion that Congress would stop Drumpf.  To paraphrase, he basically said, "I'm in congress and I can tell you that's not going to happen!"  Admittedly, the crowd did get restless when a woman who was fully engaged with Sanders talked about how "the illegals" had driven down her wages, etc.  To his credit, Sanders listened respectfully before giving her a few facts, 1 by 1, as to why that wasn't necessarily the case including the transfer of wealth from people like her to the top 1 percent--a process that has taken several decades to achieve.  She actually seemed shocked, which indicates to me that she typically voted against her own economic interests.  She nodded a few times as the light bulb seemed to go off but I'm not sure if she was dissuaded from her beliefs that "illegal invaders" were responsible for all the crime and the loss of living wages for people like her.  She sure didn't get a lot of help from the crowd.

It's beyond frustrating though that now having voted for Drumpf, some voters are actually praying and hoping he didn't mean the vile things he said on the campaign trail--particularly the things that affect them personally.  I'm sure that they are looking at some of his proposed appointments and are shitting bricks right about now.

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

It's beyond frustrating though that now having voted for Drumpf, some voters are actually praying and hoping he didn't mean the vile things he said on the campaign trail--particularly the things that affect them personally.  I'm sure that they are looking at some of his proposed appointments and are shitting bricks right about now.

This is so confusing to me...then why cheer for it? I mean, I know that these individual people might not have been cheering at any rallies, but Trump said this stuff because it's what his supporters liked. Why did you love the idea of appealing Obamacare if you actually like it? Trump's campaign was pretty much about shouting anything you guys wanted to hear. If you didn't like this stuff he would have dropped it. He even admitted that when he talked about the nicknames he gave to people. What exactly did you vote for if not that stuff? Just the fantasy about him giving you back the jobs you had forty years ago?

Which, btw, Franklin Graham was on TV today saying that people didn't want to retrain because there was no "pride" in being a computer programmer. They wanted the jobs their fathers and grandfathers did. Which, uh...how far back we talking here? Are you going to demand work as a blacksmith? I don't see these guys worried about journalists facing a changing market and layoffs!

[izabella]

6 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

This is so confusing to me...then why cheer for it? I mean, I know that these individual people might not have been cheering at any rallies, but Trump said this stuff because it's what his supporters liked. Why did you love the idea of appealing Obamacare if you actually like it? Trump's campaign was pretty much about shouting anything you guys wanted to hear. If you didn't like this stuff he would have dropped it. He even admitted that when he talked about the nicknames he gave to people. What exactly did you vote for if not that stuff? Just the fantasy about him giving you back the jobs you had forty years ago?

Because it had the word "Obama" in it, and Obamacare was said in a sneering tone.

Edited December 13, 2016 by izabella

[AntiBeeSpray]

55 minutes ago, izabella said:

Because it had the word "Obama" in it.

Yep. But the thing is, that more affordable health care talk had been going around for years (see: Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney (Romneycare in Mass.)). But they really don't like Obamacare, and I bet they're not a fan of the fact that it was tied to Hillary either.

[Lantern7]

From AVclub: The president-elect may -- MAY -- think pro wrestling is real. All we need is Hillary e-mailing the article to concerned parties under the title "UNFIT!!!!!"

[Padma]

1 hour ago, SonofaBiscuit said:

Why Obamacare enrollees voted for Trump

Interesting article.  Here are a few highlights:

This is the kind of people we're dealing with here.  "Well, I know he said he was going to take this away from me, but I voted for him anyways, and now that he plans to take this away from me (just as he promised), WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?  

Like seriously, fuck you.  You voted for this, so have fun being uninsured (but I AM sorry it's going to take down all the folks who need Obamacare and voted Hillary, because they absolutely don't deserve this).

Seriously. It was like last night's "townhall" where Bernie and Chris Hayes talked with Wisc. Trump voters. Ased about the Muslim ban and the wall, etc. the common response was "he's starting a conversation. He's not really going to do it." Like health care repeal. Just a "conversation".

As for Eichenwald, he's got a lot of strength! But per post upthread, please, please let's not let Trump & Co change our language!!! There is no such thing as "post-truth, post-factual world".  Eichenwald is not "alt-left" (they're new push bac on "white nationalist = alt-right", making "Democrats = alt-left" as another way of making language criticisng them meaningless.  Let's push bac on that!  No such thing as "alt-left"!

I saw Tubby in the Wallace interview. He seriously looked unhinged.  A few weeks in the WH and I think his sanity will start to go.

Personally, I can't wait.

[callmebetty]

14 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

This reminds me so much of the town hall meeting I watched on All In with Chris Hayes last night, featuring Bernie Sanders.  I believe this took place in Wisconsin.  I was amazed at the number of people who weren't bothered by Drumpf's more extreme positions, particularly his threats against "the illegals," his threats to appeal the ACA on day one and other divisive threats to create a registry for Muslims, etc.  And, why weren't they bothered?  Some of them genuinely believed that (a) it was just talk to get elected; and (b) there are checks and balances in place to keep him from doing those "awful" things ("Congress would never let him do that").

This was in response to a young Muslim woman who expressed concerns about what a Drumpf presidency would mean to her community.  From what little I was able to watch, everyone seemed respectful and there was no shouting or name calling.  However, Senator Sanders did disabuse one gentleman of the notion that Congress would stop Drumpf.  To paraphrase, he basically said, "I'm in congress and I can tell you that's not going to happen!"  Admittedly, the crowd did get restless when a woman who was fully engaged with Sanders talked about how "the illegals" had driven down her wages, etc.  To his credit, Sanders listened respectfully before giving her a few facts, 1 by 1, as to why that wasn't necessarily the case including the transfer of wealth from people like her to the top 1 percent--a process that has taken several decades to achieve.  She actually seemed shocked, which indicates to me that she typically voted against her own economic interests.  She nodded a few times as the light bulb seemed to go off but I'm not sure if she was dissuaded from her beliefs that "illegal invaders" were responsible for all the crime and the loss of living wages for people like her.  She sure didn't get a lot of help from the crowd.

It's beyond frustrating though that now having voted for Drumpf, some voters are actually praying and hoping he didn't mean the vile things he said on the campaign trail--particularly the things that affect them personally.  I'm sure that they are looking at some of his proposed appointments and are shitting bricks right about now.

Yes the townhall did take place in Wisconsin.  Just curious since I didn't see it was it made up of both sides voters?

Also scary that Bernie is in Congress and saying that they aren't going to do anything to stop him.

I think that is the problem, people still thought of him as a typical politician who wouldn't do all those things he promised. (Umm hello you liked him because he wasn't a politician and you loved that he told it like it was)

Second you still believe and wrap yourself up in the safety of the Constitution and checks and balances. Ha that's gone now. There is no more safety. Thanks for taking us all with you.

[film noire]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:56 PM, FilmTVGeek80 said:

One guy's opinion, no matter how respected, is not proof of anything.

Especially Bolton's opinion. The man's a fool. He fell hook, line, and sinker for weapons of mass destruction & still thinks the invasion of Iraq was a totes awesome idea. 

Quote

Yep, and don't forget that BEFORE she was employed by Trump she was saying that he needed to reveal his income tax records

She sure did. And huffed and puffed about it indignantly -- as if the republic were in jeopardy! -- but since she's corrupt to the bone, she easily turned on a dime when Trump came calling. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by film noire

[stormy]

callmebetty,  I watched the Chris Hayes/Bernie town hall.  There were close to 300 people there, from all sides.

Bernie was on a little stage with two women and two men, all that voted for trump.  One of the men said he voted all dem except for president.  He voted for trump because he didn't like Hillary.

The bottom line was, Bernie pretty much seemed frustrated that the trump voters have no clue what they voted for and have no idea what their savior and his republicans in congress have in store.  They didn't even know that their very own fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan is already working to deconstruct Medicare, Medicade and Social Security, which by the way they say is hands off.  They repeated trump's BS and basically had blank stares.

The four on stage all said they "finally" have hope for the future because, of course, President Obama let them down.

Edited December 14, 2016 by stormy

[callmebetty]

7 minutes ago, stormy said:

callmebetty,  I watched the Chris Hayes/Bernie town hall.  There were close to 300 people there, from all sides.

Bernie was on a little stage with two women and two men, all that voted for trump.  One of the men said he voted all dem except for president.  He voted for trump because he didn't like Hillary.

The bottom line was, Bernie pretty much seemed frustrated that the trump voters have no clue what they voted for and have no idea what their savior and his republicans in congress have in store.  They didn't even know that their very own fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan is alreadyworking to deconstruct Medicare, Medicade and Social Security, which by the way they syt is hands off.  They repeated trump's BS and basically had blank stares.

The four on stage all said they "finally" have hope for the future because, of course, President Obama let them down.

Was this at the end they said this? Like after all the information Bernie gave them?

Do you think they'll repeat it I'd love to see it. 

They probably voted for Ryan too. Suckers.

[Keepitmoving]

22 minutes ago, callmebetty said:

Was this at the end they said this? Like after all the information Bernie gave them?

Do you think they'll repeat it I'd love to see it. 

They probably voted for Ryan too. Suckers.

The woman who was bitching about immigrants, had Bernie had more time, he might have been able to get through to her. Not on the subject immigrants, but on the wealthy paying their share and that being the reason why we can't afford to get the monkey off the back of  people like her because they aren't paying their fair share. The last back and forth he had with her he got her to admit that yes, the wealthy, billionaires should be paying their fair share and that they aren't. He finally said to her, alright, that's all I'm saying. But they got into it because she was like, who is going to pay for all the free education, healthcare, etc...she said, we are going to be paying for it. So that's when Bernie tried to explain about tapping Wall Street and the billionaires to chip in, because she really wasn't making the connection between the burden on her back and the billionaires not paying. But this was at the end and they ran out of time. But at that point, I thought he might get somewhere with her on where the money would be coming from and how the guy they just elected and the republican congress would not be passing legislation to help with this effort. But again, it was the end of the show and they ran out of time. But I saw the look on her face, being there with Bernie, she didn't feel like anyone was beating up on her, people were calm and respectful so they might have gotten somewhere if they had more time. Although I feel some type a way about free education, I'm not for it, sorry. Lower those tuition costs, the gov't stop trying to profit off these kids' backs with the interests on these student loans, healthcare needs to do something about the drug cost, but free, no and I'm a democrat. Everybody has to pay something, no free, just reasonable and stop trying to bankrupt people. This is why I was a Hillary supporter, I was fine with her talking about refinancing student loans, but she had to give in and promise free education, ugh, and she lost anyway. Ridiculous, I don't care how many billionaires you tap. Fact is, we aren't a Germany, so I was never into the free word on anything.

But I digress, then at the end of the program, one guy says well if he, Trump, doesn't come through, we'll vote him out. That's when Chris Hayes says to him something to the effect of that gives him hope, that the guy said that. I guess he means that, that guy saying that, may be a sign that all these Trump voters aren't hypnotized, cult followers, and they will eventually turn on him if he doesn't come through. That we will still have democracy if there are more voters like him who are willing not to treat Trump like some god, who can't be removed. That's what I thought anyway. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[AntiBeeSpray]

34 minutes ago, stormy said:

callmebetty,  I watched the Chris Hayes/Bernie town hall.  There were close to 300 people there, from all sides.

Bernie was on a little stage with two women and two men, all that voted for trump.  One of the men said he voted all dem except for president.  He voted for trump because he didn't like Hillary.

The bottom line was, Bernie pretty much seemed frustrated that the trump voters have no clue what they voted for and have no idea what their savior and his republicans in congress have in store.  They didn't even know that their very own fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan is alreadyworking to deconstruct Medicare, Medicade and Social Security, which by the way they syt is hands off.  They repeated trump's BS and basically had blank stares.

The four on stage all said they "finally" have hope for the future because, of course, President Obama let them down.

Well that might not have happened if the Republicans and corporations hadn't blocked President Obama at every turn. Saying that he let them down... doesn't say much. Since there wasn't a lot he could have done in the areas that they wanted him to get things done in. 

Bet even this or this wouldn't have convinced them that the President at least tried to get things done.

Sources: pleasecutthecrap.com and snopes.com