monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@McGentrix,

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/09/obama-congratulates-putin-for-election-win/amp/

Excerpt:

The Russian people and international observers may not see last Sunday’s presidential election in Russia as legitimate, but President Barack Obama has now officially endorsed the return of Russian past and future President Vladimir Putin.

"President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election," the White House said in a late Friday afternoon statement (read: news dump) about the Friday morning phone call between the two leaders.

"President Obama highlighted achievements in U.S.-Russia relations over the past three years with President Medvedev, including cooperation on Afghanistan, the conclusion and ratification of the START agreement, Russia’s recent invitation to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and cooperation on Iran," the statement read. "President Obama and President-Elect Putin agreed that the successful reset in relations should be built upon during the coming years."

Obama told Putin he looked forward to Putin’s May visit to Camp David for the G-8 summit and the two talked about how they could benefit economically from Russia’s joining the WTO, the statement explained.

That could be a reference to administration efforts to get Congress to repeal the 1974 Jackson-Vanik law that prevents the U.S. from giving Russia permanent normal trade status. Some in Congress are resisting that because of Russia’s deteriorating record on democracy, rule of law, and human rights.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Great opportunity to point out the shrill hypocrisy of the anti-Trump machine.

Trump could very likely be censured or impeached legitimately.

This complaint-and the overblown Russia ‘collusion’ hype-are illegitimate.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Re Adorno/McLuhan/Chomsky, understood. My final question was rhetorical and was intended to underline the magnitude of the problem, which your response does as well.

PS... I can't recall which Tom Wolfe book or compilation included his account of an interaction, in a fine restaurant, between McLuhan and their waitress. Brilliantly funny. Does anyone recall that piece?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Conservative strategist Stephen K. Bannon oversaw Cambridge Analytica’s early efforts to collect troves of Facebook data as part of an ambitious program to build detailed profiles of millions of American voters, a former employee of the data-science firm said Tuesday.

The 2014 effort was part of a high-tech form of voter persuasion touted by the company, which under Bannon identified and tested the power of anti-establishment messages that later would emerge as central themes in President Trump’s campaign speeches, according to Chris Wylie, who left the company at the end of that year.

Among the messages tested were “drain the swamp” and “deep state,” he said.

Isn't that interesting. These two notions or phrases, neither of which I had ever heard of previously, were quickly and widely adopted by millions on the right. Their thinking and perceptions were altered by the constant repetition of the phrases and notions in right wing information outlets. Very many in that audience came to believe they were dealing with rare truths passed on by uniquely dependable truth-tellers.

In other words, this is an epistemological system. That is, a system which "justifies" claims about reality. Of course, science is that as well. So is analytic philosophy. So is imagining that the Bible or the Koran were written by God and that the included words stand as indisputable truths. So is reading tea leaves. Or astrology. Or celebrity worship. Or, as in the example above, the propagandist enterprise.

I hadn't been on A2K for several months but in an idle moment opened it up to see what was happening ... and there it was ... Bernie's favorite word .... epistemological.

The simple truth is that both phrases (I.e. "drain the swamp" and "deep state" ) are simply metaphorical statements that have been in fairly common parlance for a very long time. The first once referred to efforts to reduce insect borne diseases and/or to create agricultural land by draining marshy areas ( that of course preceded the sanctity of "wetlands" by environmental zealots). The latter was a phrase once widely used by academics to describe the workings of the Soviet bureaucracy and in a few older ones some aspects of the British Empire.

Trump's, not very original, use of these phrases appears to have resonated with people in the way that such metaphors often do when they capture some already recognized aspect of things as perceived by them. It also appears to satisfy Trump's penchant for pithy phrases, as opposed to more formal forms of discourse.

I wonder if her political hacks similarly tested the resonance of Hillary's phrase "War on Women". Was that also "epistemological"?

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

the overblown Russia ‘collusion’ hype-are illegitimate.

How could you possibly justify this knowledge claim? You are privy to perhaps 1% or 3% of the relevant knowledge and evidence.

Quote:

Trump could very likely be censured or impeached legitimately.

For what, exactly?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I'm glad you're well. I was a bit worried you might have drowned in a benign "puddle".

As to "epistemology", you do rather sound like that Firing Line audience member who complained that Buckley used too many "big words". It's an interesting stance you and he adopt. Let's limit words to a maximum of three syllables. That would help. But we really ought to get rid of any terms previously considered proper English if they have Latin or Greek antecedents.

Further, it is just such a pretentious waste of time to speak or argue in a manner any more complicated than a 12 year old could easily process. That was Chris Hitchens' standard whenever he spoke or wrote. Make American great again.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Parkins character was the one person who could shake off all the "glamour" of the big city and go home. Still wondering who escapes the scumminess of the tRump arena and "goes home"?

1 Reply

Another real high point from everyone's favorite brain surgeon.

"My wife did it."

Quote:

Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, told a House committee on Tuesday that he had “dismissed” himself from the decision to buy a $31,000 dining room set for his office last year, leaving the details to his wife and staff.

Mr. Carson offered a rambling, at times contradictory, explanation of the purchase of the table, chairs and hutch, a transaction that turned into a public relations disaster that led President Trump to consider replacing him, according to White House aides.

NYT

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

APPARENTLY OTHERS HAVE HAD THE SAME THOUGHTS ABOUT THESE TWO.

Apparently it has been repeated so many times by bias media and talking heads there is no need to look for factual information. Oh wait, they are looking and have found nothing.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Great opportunity to point out the shrill hypocrisy of the anti-Trump machine.

Trump could very likely be censured or impeached legitimately.

This complaint-and the overblown Russia ‘collusion’ hype-are illegitimate.

Thankfully a Bernie Sanders supporter is here to defend Trump from all attacks and offer him the strongest of praise for every half-step in any direction.

At least you've held back your final applause for Trump on the guns thing. That means a lot.

2 Replies

@BillW,

Quote:

Still wondering who escapes the scumminess of the tRump arena and "goes home"?

For much of the modern right, there will be no level of scumminess too unpalatable to gobble down with a cursory wipe of the chin. If anything is obvious at this point in time, it's that.

1 Reply

@blatham,

How long has this rambling investigation been going on?

Supposedly focusing on ‘collusion’ between Trump and ‘Russia’, no evidence was found. So, in true FBI form, they begin picking through the personal lives of Trump insiders, finding the same financial misbehavior they would find on everyone in the beltway, and trying to leverage resulting dubious, forced ‘confessions’ to bring down a president.

It’s a sham. A tired, corrupt sham investigation to remove a president.

Once they were unable to find collusion, the costly investigation should have closed.

Trump is such a swaggering, careless bull, people who really want him removed should be able to find financial / property infractions.

3 Replies

@blatham,

As far as Candy, the book was much, much more - uummmm, lurid!

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I can understand how your bias dictates that morality doesn’t really exist, and anyone who doesn’t toe the line 100% in support of everything a party and its members do and say are to be attacked, so no surprise in your attack.

I’m not defending Trump. I’m defending truth.

Obama called Putin and congratulated him. That’s the truth. He did it on Friday evening so you could avoid the truth.

I’m going to keep pointing out the truth.

You’re going to keep attempting to avoid it.

You’re on the 100% toe the line plan. It’s a stupid plan.

2 Replies

Quote:

...a Republican lawmaker has just given away the real game behind this carefully crafted straddle. Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) was pressed by the Washington Examiner on why Republicans are hesitant to protect Mueller, and this is what happened:

Quote:
Republicans in Congress are hesitant to antagonize President Trump ahead of ahead of difficult midterm elections, wary of sparking a backlash from a committed grassroots base more loyal to the White House.

Amid sky-high Democratic enthusiasm and a developing “blue wave,” Republicans can’t afford a war with Trump that depresses GOP turnout. Republicans might be worried about Trump’s attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller, but they are reluctant to push back, much less support legislation to curtail the president’s ability to fire Mueller and sideline the federal probe …

“The president is, as you know — you’ve seen his numbers among the Republican base — it’s very strong. It’s more than strong, it’s tribal in nature,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who decided to retire when his second term concludes at year’s end, after periodically sparring with Trump.

“People who tell me, who are out on trail, say, look, people don’t ask about issues anymore. They don’t care about issues. They want to know if you’re with Trump or not,” Corker added.

This is a candid glimpse from a leading GOP lawmaker into what’s really driving the Republican straddle on Mueller. As I’ve noted, Trump’s attacks on Mueller are putting Republicans in a tough spot. The educated swing voters who are driving the Democratic anti-Trump resurgence support the Mueller probe and may vote to oust Republicans who won’t check Trump’s excesses. But Trump’s attacks probably rally GOP base voters, large percentages of whom see the Mueller probe as a witch hunt, making it harder for GOP lawmakers to protect that investigation.

Greg Sargent

For much of the right wing base and even for many GOP politicos, Trump is innocent axiomatically as a matter definition. He's a GOP president thus he is innocent of any charge that bears weight and significance. But for the more thoughtful (if not more ethical) folks on the right, Trump is the unsightly but effective means of getting Republicans out to vote. It is the promotion of the worst sort of tribalism that could go south very quickly.

0 Replies

I did see the story re the cop / school security guy who shot a school shooter.

There have been more armed-teacher accidental shootings than this single success. This also was not an armed teacher, but a cop on part-time school security detail.

Because of safety reasons, I don’t support armed teachers.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'm fine, Thanks for the good wishes. I agree about Buckley's frequent pedantry - though he usually covered it with arched eyebrows and other indications of irony.

In the case at hand I doubt there was any deep conspiracy to force new ideas on others (no matter how well recognition of such phrases may have been researched). Trump used metaphorical phrases, already in fairly common parlance, to capture and encapsulate public perceptions, already fairly widespread.

Contemporary progressives have done far more to impose new "epistemological " ideas ( mostly related to the currently fashionable group values (as opposed to individual ones) on the nation's public ... as is well illustrated in the new vocabulary of political correctitude.

Oddly you appear not to notice that, or attach any forethought or purpose to that, as you so consistently do in the case of more conservative ideas

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

How long has this rambling investigation been going on?

That's irrelevant to any question related to guilt or innocence. You advance the rhetorical question as if it constitutes evidence of innocence. Watergate investigations lasted two years before Nixon resigned as impeachment became certain (how much longer would that have taken?) How long have the GOP been investigating Hillary for whatever?

Quote:

Supposedly focusing on ‘collusion’ between Trump and ‘Russia’, no evidence was found.

Your source for this truth claim here is Hannity? Nunes and the other GOP reps?

Quote:

So, in true FBI form, they begin picking through the personal lives of Trump insiders, finding the same financial misbehavior they would find on everyone in the beltway, and trying to leverage resulting dubious, forced ‘confessions’ to bring down a president.

Again, you forward no evidence to support your claims about how the FBI operates or that Trump and the people around him are guilty of no more than anyone else who've been in the WH or the entire beltway. "Forced confessions"? Really? You're going to try to make that claim seem evident or even reasonable?

Quote:

It’s a sham. A tired, corrupt sham investigation to remove a president.

You are pushing, pretty much word for word the Fox/right wing talking points. You are, again, defending Trump in precisely the same manner as those media sources. At some point, you are going to have to provide some rational accounting of how a Sanders' supporter might behave as you behave.

2 Replies

@Lash,

God, you're reallllllllly full of it.

Hahahahahahahaha

1 Reply

https://lidblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CNN-1080x675.jpg

https://lidblog.com/not-firing-mueller/

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know