monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

"Elites" as scare word

Quote:
And in these attacks, the president-elect and his team are deploying one of the most effective partisan political stereotypes of the modern age. For most of American history, anti-elite sentiment was a matter of up versus down, not left versus right. But about half a century ago, the conservative movement set out to claim anti-elite politics as its own. That meant redefining the term away from class and toward culture, where the “elite” could be identified by its liberal ideas, coastal real estate and highbrow consumer preferences....

The concluding paragraph (above) from the quoted NYT piece well illustrates a related phenomemon entirely missing from the whole article, and that is the very significant rise of the progressive policy elite in government, academia and NGOs since the LBJ term in the late 1960s. During this 50 year period a new elite rose to power in this country focused on the "science" of "improved" policies for education, health care, public and private housing, welfare programs, employment lay and many other sectors of our lives, much of it focused on issues attendent to the civil rights movement that independently rose up during that period and, also independently, ended most of the artifacts (formal and overt in the South, informal and covert in the North) of the Jim Crow period that preceeded it.

The three or four generations that preceeded the 1960s saw the successful assimilation and integration of masses of Irish, Jewish, Italian, Polish immigrants to this country, while the old Jim Crow segregation had largely stopped the clock on that process for Blacks. This rising new progressive policy elite addressed that process along with a host of other issues.

How well or badly they have done was certainly an undercurrent in the recent campasign and election. NYT article addresses this matter as though a new distorted form of elite has arisen in the form, I presume, of a Trumpian populism that confounds conventonal social and economic norms. The progressive academic political elite that lost the election also confounded those social and economic norms, and that missing element of the NYT article casts an air of deceit over the besic theme of the article.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You'll enjoy this article.

Thanks for the article CI, interesting read. I think one of the reasons why some portion of people who register democrat might not be so ideologically centered is because they aren't as sure about the state of things as republicans.

This is of course comparatively speaking. There are rabid democrats too. But I've found that the more rational and intelligent folks (on both sides) aren't as quick to make absolute statements. I think the relationship is that the more detailed the argument, the less sure of an absolute answer.

I have this argument from time to time. I have general principles that guide me, that you might call absolute, but getting down to the nitty gritty of specifically applying them as actionable policy to some controversial, political, moral or social question can be difficult.

0 Replies

@blatham,

What happened to the Russian Reset between Obama/Hillary and Putin? I guess they didn't know how the Russian govt worked...

0 Replies

Three days ago, I told you that this would happen.

Quote:

In a separate tweet, Trump noted that Assange has "said Russians did not give him" leaked emails from the DNC and other prominent U.S. political leaders. Trump also pointed out that Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's Embassy in London to avoid sex assault charges in Sweden, said "a 14 year old" could have been the hacker.

LINK

Hannity's Tuesday broadcast of his interview with Assange set this up for Trump. Hannity says he has changed his mind about Assange and now trusts him to be truthful.

And I also said that as soon as this one came down the pike, the right wing tribe members here and elsewhere will grasp Assange to their bosoms. And they will. This 180 degree shift from how the right thought and talked about Assange over the last 7 or 8 years began to change with release of documents that damaged Clinton but now they'll want statues erected to Julian.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

This entire operation from the GOP will be marked most primarily by a continuation and expansion of the propaganda efforts to paint the ACA as a Democratic party policy failure that hurts more people than it helps and which is economically unsound. This will be trumpeted every day from most every right wing media operation and from GOP politicos and from their allies appearing on or in mainstream news operations.

It is a failure. It's only success is that it signed some people up who didn't have insurance. The plan was suppose to help everyone and very few Americans actually saw any help. Not me or anyone I know has saved $2500 a year on our premiums, the first year it went into effect, I saw them increase by $2500. The only propaganda being pushed is by Obama and the DNC in a desperate attempt to save a shred of his legacy.

13 states have exchanges, and a majority of those have very few options as a majority of the big providers have given up and quit the exchanges. The SCOTUS pulled a fast one to save Obama when they allowed the subsides to be used at the Federal level, that was never the intention.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Both sides have pulled a flip. The left loved Wikileaks when they were exposing classified information about things that took place during the Bush years. As soon as he started reporting on the slimy tactics used by Hillary and the DNC, the left turned against him.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

How well or badly they have done was certainly an undercurrent in the recent campasign and election.

Was it? How does your thesis apply to the two prior elections? And given that the GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 federal elections, how does your thesis apply to that result?

Quote:

the progressive policy elite in government, academia and NGOs since the LBJ term in the late 1960s. During this 50 year period a new elite rose to power in this country focused on the "science" of "improved" policies for

Love your use of quotation marks. Could you explain what regime of thought or consensus held in government and academia prior to LBJ? And how would you know this? What data or analyses are you depending on to describe it?

But I suppose the more important question is how might you imagine that this present administration with its unprecedented array of appointments of those from the corporate sectors of energy and finance - an array of billionaires since we haven't seen since when? the twenties? - could possibly be understood as some species of populist revolt?

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Three days ago, I told you that this would happen.

Quote:
In a separate tweet, Trump noted that Assange has "said Russians did not give him" leaked emails from the DNC and other prominent U.S. political leaders. Trump also pointed out that Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's Embassy in London to avoid sex assault charges in Sweden, said "a 14 year old" could have been the hacker.
LINK

Hannity's Tuesday broadcast of his interview with Assange set this up for Trump. Hannity says he has changed his mind about Assange and now trusts him to be truthful.

And I also said that as soon as this one came down the pike, the right wing tribe members here and elsewhere will grasp Assange to their bosoms. And they will. This 180 degree shift from how the right thought and talked about Assange over the last 7 or 8 years began to change with release of documents that damaged Clinton but now they'll want statues erected to Julian.

I also saw the earlier reports of Assange's statements to which you note Trump referred. I also saw some previous reports (unverified by me) suggesting that security on the DNC server lacked even ordinary businerss security protections. Perhaps that was what was behind Assange's statement that "a 14 year old could have been the hacker"

Whether truthful or not Assange is no one's friend but his own. I disagree with Hannity.

I think the real underlying issue here are;
=> the enormous big deal Obama has made about the supposed Russian hacking of the DNC server ( compared to his previuous long-term silence & inactivity on much worse and more threatening Russian actions);
=> the lack of any publicly available evidence supporting the claim of Russian hacking;
=> and the obvious convenience of the issue to Democrats, embarassed by the revelation of their illicit election activities and the scope of their defeat in the election. Certainly Obama appears a bit distraught over the impending collsapse of his "legacy" and this is for him as well a useful distraction from the grim truth.

In any event Blatham is due our sincere congratulationa on his self-proclaimed perspicacity.

1 Reply

PS... by the by, one of the rules/stipulations included in the now withdrawn GOP bill to gut the independent Office of Congressional Ethics was that members of the replacement body (unmonitored by anyone outside of congressional members) was that no one would be allowed to contact outside agencies like police or FBI or judicial bodies if criminal activity was found.

And isn't that just special.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Sounding more like Russia. We'll also have a tyrannical leader who admires Putin.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Was it? How does your thesis apply to the two prior elections? And given that the GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 federal elections, how does your thesis apply to that result?

No thesis at all . I merely noted that the Democrats lost the election, for President, many seats in the Congress and other posts in state governments. My use of the word "lost" referred to the actual outcome of these elections, not your tortured rationalizations for it.

blatham wrote:

Love your use of quotation marks. Could you explain what regime of thought or consensus held in government and academia prior to LBJ? And how would you know this? What data or analyses are you depending on to describe it?

I used quotation marks to distinguish between the terms used by Democrats and the truth. It's a common useage.
I do enjoy your pretentious and self-important demands for data or analyses here, particularly given your own continuous failure to do so yourself. Do you imagine you are some sort of professor or academic judge of others here? You most certainly are not either of these, and you don't approach such standards in your own frequent posts.

blatham wrote:

But I suppose the more important question is how might you imagine that this present administration with its unprecedented array of appointments of those from the corporate sectors of energy and finance - an array of billionaires since we haven't seen since when? the twenties? - could possibly be understood as some species of populist revolt?

Oh, I used the word casually and without any pretense of rigor or "science". However, populism is indeed a term that is frequently used in describing some aspects of the recent Trump phemomenon. in its upsets of both Republican and Democrat establishments. If this violates some aspect of a particular taxonomy you have in mind, that's OK with me.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I disagree with Hannity.

Well that's a relief. Lindsey Grapham and you stand boldly for continued disparagement of Assange.

And it is almost entirely irrelevant that some will say this, perhaps believe it.

What is important here is the propaganda initiative used by Hannity and Trump (and all those around Trump) to draw attention away from the evident role of Russia in advancing Trump in the election and damaging Clinton. The technique is misinformation and distraction. The goal is to present a false reality, to convince as many as possible as to what Hannity and Trump want citizens to think, for political ends.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Something about forests and trees..

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Let me clarify something, george. Your posts in response to mine are almost universally marked by snideness and insult directed towards me. The tone has been remarked upon by others frequently.

Do you realize you are doing this? What's going on with you? I certainly am snide and insulting but that's almost always directed not towards you or other posters (some exceptions, yes, but few) but rather towards political figures, Trump most commonly or towards modern conservative behaviors.

Are you going to continue in this mode? If you are, I won't engage you.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

What is important here is the propaganda initiative used by Hannity and Trump (and all those around Trump) to draw attention away from the evident role of Russia in advancing Trump in the election and damaging Clinton

Bernie, the problem here is that the Russian role in all of this is not evident at all. The Russians have not admitted it; the U,S. government has not released any specific confirmation of Russian hacking; and Assange, who issued the leaked material, now denies it (though I don't consider that proof).

Someone hacked the DNC material and released it with the assistance of Assange's organization. The Democrats are properly outraged by this event, and had have termed the information it contained as "unreliable" and "possibly doctored", but very oddly have not released any of the original dosuments (all of which they have) to confirm any doctoring or changes to what was released. What conclusion would a reasonable observer make from that?

I'll readily agree that everyone here, on both sides of the political issue, is acting in his/her self interest in offering interpretations of these uncertain events. The DNC, the Clinton Campaign and some Media outlets were the principal actors in the information released, however it was obtained, and, apart from a lot of defensive posturing and distracting accusations, they have completely failed to address the issues contained in the released material. Trump is merely a spectator in these events, though he too is exploiting them to his advantage whenever he can.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Was it? How does your thesis apply to the two prior elections? And given that the GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 federal elections, how does your thesis apply to that result?

6 out of the last 7 federal elections? The popular vote has nothing to do with federal elections, it's the EC. Why keep trying to make a point that holds no water. What's next, the football team with the most yards actually wins the game, not the team with the most points...

1 Reply

Quote:

Bernie, the problem here is that the Russian role in all of this is not evident at all. The Russians have not admitted it; the U,S. government has not released any specific confirmation of Russian hacking; and Assange, who issued the leaked material, now denies it (though I don't consider that proof).

We are not appraised of the full story on why intel believes as it does (and let's include private security firms as well) and we certainly won't be due to the need to keep certain security operations secret. But we do have the conclusions as stated by those agencies. This constitutes some significant level of evidence that the Russians were involved (and let's add Russia's behavior in their own region as precedent examples). And we do have further releases to help clarify coming along shortly.

The Russians can be expected to deny involvement.

Assange has only said that he/wikileaks did not receive it from the Russians. As you're aware, misinformation or black intel operations very commonly use third parties to forward or leak what they want out in public.

But again, the important matter here is how Trump and allies are engaged in a propaganda initiative. As dangerous as Russia's presumed involvement is here, for the US's leadership and the GOP to be doing such a thing and being excused for it or being ignored while doing it constitutes the far graver threat.

PS... and thank you for a straight up response.

3 Replies

It's becoming clear that the Russians had nothing to do with any hacking of any computers.

It's also becoming clear that 0bama & HRC created this fake news story in a pathetic effort to change the outcome of the election. All of this was done in-house by liberal progressive democrats.

Is anyone surprised that 0bama, HRC, and the rest of these desperate power hungry democrats lied to America?

0 Replies

America should not trust anything coming from the 0bama administration, or any of their infotainment / news outlets. These losers are fabricating stories, and creating fake issues because they refuse to accept responsibility for their defeat & failures.

Pathetic petulant 0bama is becoming increasingly dangerous as Trump's inauguration draws near, keep an eye on 0bama the idiot.

0 Replies

@blatham,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/15/cia-reportedly-preparing-major-cyber-assault-against-russia-in-wake-hack-attacks.html

CIA preparing major cyber assault against Russia - as reported.

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know