monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I think if you guys read Hedges, Chomsky and the other authentic left writers...

There is a disgusting collusion between several powerful entities in this country that serves its own purposes, that is currently in the process of overturning the election.

Remember, no proof of any Russian involvement in the election has been forwarded much less proven.

Remember that the DNC has avoided responsibility for cheating voters even with the proof splayed across the Internet.

Remember, no proof of any Russian involvement in the election has been forwarded much less proven.

President Donald Trump’s envoy to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Russia was “certainly” involved in the U.S. presidential election, noting she does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin and that Trump is not stopping her from “beating up on Russia.”

Can't wait to see what a big splash Trump is going to make with his speech on Islam. Also would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what transpires between him and the delightfully outspoken Pope.

Quote:

I think if you guys read Hedges, Chomsky and the other authentic left writers...

That's the trouble — "authentic" left, "true" conservative. Politics has become a game of stuffing people into little boxes. I happen to like some of the things Hedges and Chomsky have said and I happen to disagree, strongly, to other things they've said. "Left" and "right" aren't found in nature. They are totally artificial constructs which change over time.

Lash wrote:

It seems silly that you wasted your time on this line of discussion. People seem to chafe at the characterization of "authentic left" because they feel it is a swipe against their ideals - as if their authenticity as a person is being impugned. Not so. However, "authentic left" is a reasonable term. Take a look at your own statement, bolded by me above. The variation between the things you like that Chomsky and Hedges have said can be calibrated as leftist views, some more centrist, some establishment views, etc. These constructs, as you say, were developed to help us talk about politics.

A deep fissure has emerged between establishment Democrats and authentic progressives. If anyone would like to be called an authentic Establishment Democrat, I'll be happy to comply. You get me? The point with the term isn't meant to belittle, but to clarify. There are still some Democrats walking around who don't know which they are and what the difference is.

Quote:

There is a disgusting collusion between several powerful entities in this country that serves its own purposes, that is currently in the process of overturning the election.

Are you saying that Flynn shouldn't have been fired? Are you saying that the succession of contradictory accounts and embarrassing statements emanating from the White House practically on a daily basis is simply "business as usual"? The president is widely seen to be incompetent and suffers from low overall approval ratings. If investigations do happen to show a measure of malfeasance are you saying the president can break the law with with impunity? When did removal from office become "overturning an election"? Why would the Constitution even allow an impeachment process at all?

Lash wrote:

My statement doesn't equate to the assumptions your questions imply. There is a screeching chorus of accusation in the news. No one can point to evidence to prove the accusations; yet a president is in the first steps of being impeached. I think he is incompetent, but like Hedges and Chomsky, I feel a power behind the scenes is running the show - and even if I agree personally with what will likely happen to Trump, once this precedent is set - and backroom power brokers can flex muscle of this magnitude - with innuendo, gossip, bullying from the media, this country is forever changed to a third-world shithole.

Quote:

Remember that the DNC has avoided responsibility for cheating voters even with the proof splayed across the Internet.

How did they "cheat" voters? They pissed off a lot of Sanders supporters but I don't see that they cheated anywhere. Sanders was still able to run an effective campaign and won a lot of contests, especially in open primary states where he attracted independent voters.

You know better than this,

With President Trump besieged by scandal and seemingly unable to stop tweeting himself into a deeper hole, suddenly the idea of a Mike Pence presidency is being seriously debated again. Several conservative pundits have argued that Republicans should be less hesitant to abandon Trump, since his replacement would be a competent Evangelical who issues threats with his steely gaze, not his Twitter account. However, this week the vice-president got caught in Trump’s web of controversy when a New York Times report suggested he might have lied about when he was informed of the issues surrounding former national security adviser Michael Flynn. On Thursday, New York Magazine’s politics team — Jonathan Chait, Ed Kilgore, Eric Levitz, and Olivia Nuzzi — joined digital deputy editor Jebediah Reed to discuss Pence’s role in the ongoing Trump drama, and what to expect if we find ourselves in a Pence administration before 2020.

Winner of today's Alternative Facts award

Quote:

Remember, no proof of any Russian involvement in the election has been forwarded much less proven.

Quote:

President Donald Trump’s envoy to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Russia was “certainly” involved in the U.S. presidential election, noting she does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin and that Trump is not stopping her from “beating up on Russia.”

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-un-envoy-russia-involved-elections-578040

Quote Brandon:

Quote:

After months and months of investigation, you do not have one single specific example of collusion.

You don't know that. The FBI hasn't issued its report, so you don't know. The Congressional investigations are still calling witnesses. Republican committee chairmen asked to investigate Comey are doing everything they can to get out of it, including going nuts and getting themselves recused or leaving Congress.

When the reports are issued, THEN you will know if they have a single instance, or many instances, of collusion. In the meantime, we have to wait and amuse ourselves with the daily changes of position the Trump Administration officials are making as more and more evidence comes in that the stuff the Trump Administration claims never happened, happened.

Kucinich is saying that the intel agencies are currently trying to destabilize the president. I think he is right about that. I have been saying for years that the US intel community is now far too powerful to leave politicians alone. We can disagree on whether it's a good or a bad thing (that might depend on the circumstances), or on whether it's entirely new or not (there are precedents) but I think the basic diagnostic is sound.

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity. Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.