coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 12:25 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Who Bankrolls Tucker Carlson's Hateful Propaganda?

Who bankrolls Rachel Maddow's hateful propaganda?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 12:28 pm
In case you missed this element to the Manafort court stuff today
Quote:
Katy Tur
‏Verified account
@KatyTurNBC
Manafort’s lawyer came out and just said “no collusion” which is wild because the Judge specifically said collusion had nothing to do with that case and that Mueller is still looking into collusion.

Could it be any clearer, Manafort’s folks are appealing for a pardon?

Maybe Tur has this right (she knows more than I do). There seems to me a couple of other possibilities. We know Manfort's legal team and the WH legal team have been working in coordination. So this PR gambit today may well have been insisted upon by Trump or his legal people. Or, possibly, Manafort's lawyers have cause to worry that outside of a commutation by Trump, there won't be money left to pay them. Obviously I'm guessing but what was said this morning needs explaining.



coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 12:32 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
In case you missed this element to the Manafort court stuff today

What you mean is that if you missed more time given to a Trump associate to scare anyone who has helped Trump or intends to help and support him is on the wrong side of the law as the MSM knows it. It amounts to abuse of power, by law enforcement and the media, and is calculated evil.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 12:39 pm
In a column on the Dem decision to refuse to engage in any debate hosted by Fox, Greg Sargent get this exactly right.WP
Quote:
...to the degree that Democrats are standing for the proposition that Fox has become an irredeemably malevolent and destructive force in our discourse and politics, they are getting a big and very important thing right.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 12:43 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Democrats are standing for the proposition that Fox has become an irredeemably malevolent

Who cares? Other networks like CNN and MSNBC are not? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 04:05 pm
The NYMag folks discuss...
Quote:
As Washington braces for the Mueller report, Intelligencer staffers Jonathan Chait, Benjamin Hart, Margaret Hartmann, and Ed Kilgore discuss whether the new Democratic House Majority should use its powers to merely investigate President Trump — or to impeach him.
HERE
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 04:10 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
whether the new Democratic House Majority should use its powers to merely investigate President Trump — or to impeach him.

Any progressives at that discussion?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 05:05 pm
@blatham,
he can only be pardoned for convictions in the federal courts so he'll be out of commission for a while in any case
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 05:32 pm
@ehBeth,
He needs to be convicted in state court before he has a pardon-proof conviction. And there are clear double jeopardy and abuse of power problems with the state prosecution.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 05:33 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
so he'll be out of commission for a while in any case

Good the world is a safer place. What an insipid comment.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 06:37 pm
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb031219dAPR20190312014507.jpg
https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2019/03/12/164009
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 06:44 pm
Trump May Have an Unlikely Re-election Ally

Quote:
Donald Trump’s low approval ratings have attracted a crush of Democrats vying to make him a one-term president. But he might have an unlikely ally in his re-election bid: Democrats’ mess of a primary system.

The most valuable commodity in a zillion-way presidential primary is attention: In 2016, much of Mr. Trump’s primary success owed to saying and doing so many outrageous things that none of the other 16 Republican candidates could compete for media oxygen against the more than $2 billion in free media his relentless antics generated.

But an overlooked key to Mr. Trump’s 2016 upset was the Republican primary system, which winnowed the 17-candidate field quickly and gave Mr. Trump a head start at jackhammering away at Hillary Clinton.

The party’s free-market-oriented rules give states the leeway to allocate all or most of their primary delegates on a winner-take-all basis. In 2016, this allowed Mr. Trump to build a commanding delegate lead with meager pluralities in many primaries. For example, he won about one-third of South Carolina’s primary vote but captured all 50 delegates at stake. Ultimately, he was able to avoid a convention fight and clinch the nomination in May — more than two months before Bernie Sanders formally endorsed Hillary Clinton.

By contrast, the Democratic Party’s egalitarian-minded rules allocate all pledged delegates to its convention on a proportional basis: A presidential candidate who receives at least 15 percent of the vote in any state or congressional district receives a corresponding share of delegates, making it difficult for a leading candidate to become a runaway train. In fact, had the 2016 Republican primary played out under Democrats’ rules, it would have almost assuredly resulted in an ugly, contested convention.

A brokered convention wasn’t a grave concern for Democrats in 2008 or 2016, because those races distilled to two main candidates quickly, virtually guaranteeing one would win a delegate majority. But for 2020, Democrats' jam-packed field is already on track to surpass the Republican 17-way rumble of 2016 and lacks an obvious front-runner. At the dizzying pace small- and large-dollar donors are bankrolling their favorite hopefuls, many Democrats could have the financial wherewithal — and even pressure from their backers — to campaign deep into the primary calendar, dramatically increasing the odds no candidate will capture a majority by the convention. Translation: Democrats could still be fighting among themselves little more than three months before the general election.

Democrats’ increasingly front-loaded primary calendar only adds to the chaos. California and Texas — the two largest states in the country — have moved up their primaries to Super Tuesday, on March 3. This means 36 percent of Democrats’ 3,768 pledged delegates will be allocated in early March, before the herd has truly been culled, making it even harder for one candidate to build a delegate majority. And if Colorado, Georgia and New York decide to join the Super Tuesday stampede, that share could rise to a whopping 46 percent.

Finally, consider the third rail of Democratic primary politics: superdelegates, the unpledged party leaders and elected officials who have automatically been seated at the convention in the past. In 2016, Mrs. Clinton won a clear majority of pledged delegates in the primaries and didn’t need these party elders’ help to prevail. But a common misconception among supporters of Bernie Sanders that this collective of “insiders” robbed him of the nomination played right into Mr. Trump’s assertion that Democrats had “rigged” the primaries for Mrs. Clinton.

In 2020, Democrats have sought to tamp down the superdelegate hysteria by barring these leaders and officials — currently 765 of them — from casting votes on the initial ballot at the convention. But here’s the ultimate irony: They can still cast votes on successive ballots, so they could be more influential than ever if the Democratic primary devolves into a floor fight. And the potential for back-room deal-making or heavy-handed Democratic National Committee refereeing could only further fuel grass-roots suspicion that the party’s elites are running the show, setting ablaze the prospect of party unity.

Some Democratic strategists argue that a large field is healthy for the party and that Democratic voters are so desperate to beat Mr. Trump they’ll pragmatically consolidate quickly behind a nominee no matter what. That could still turn out to be true.

But today’s Democratic Party is highly fractious. Some on its left flank insist on nothing less than full support for a Green New Deal, single-payer health care or disbanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, plenty of 2020 primary voters will be upscale suburban Republicans and independents whom Mr. Trump has converted to Democrats and who bristle at these proposals. There are also Democrats who believe that a white or male nominee can’t fully grasp the plight of Americans most vulnerable to discrimination. And there are Democrats averse to nominating a septuagenarian or a “coastal elite.”

Most Democratic primary voters aren’t this rigid in their desires and simply want to win. Moreover, the most hard-core members of each of the factions above might not represent more than a tenth of the party’s primary electorate.

But could a nominee named Joe Biden unify and galvanize all these elements? Could Bernie Sanders? Kamala Harris? Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar?

If an all-out fracas next July in Milwaukee were to leave even one of these groups embittered, it could cost the party. After all, Democrats are up against a highly manipulative politician who in 2016 pried open just enough cracks in their coalition to win the Electoral College by a combined 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin out of 137 million cast.

nyt
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 06:53 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

In a column on the Dem decision to refuse to engage in any debate hosted by Fox, Greg Sargent get this exactly right.WP
Quote:
...to the degree that Democrats are standing for the proposition that Fox has become an irredeemably malevolent and destructive force in our discourse and politics, they are getting a big and very important thing right.



There is altogether too much invective and partisanship in what passes for news and media coverage in this country now. However Fox is in my view not either the only or the worst offender in this area. Your categorical condemnation of Fox, and support for this evident DNC effort to manipulate elements of the media they don't like or favor, is merely more of the same thing of which you so zealously accuse others (Fox in this case). You use objective sounding language ("irredeemably malevolent and destructive") merely to mask your own malevolent partisanship. This is mere propaganda and you are again being hypocritical as has increasingly become usual for you.

There is something remarkably suggestive of Mao's Red Guards in the ongoing efforts of highly partisan Democrats to silence the voices of their political opponents. This is amplified by the increasingly mindless cant of Democrat advocates of their group values and supposed morality - involving nearly every issue before us. So far my impression is that most of them have become the chief consumers of their own propaganda, and are likely to fall into the grip of the illusion that thinking people don't see through it all.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 06:53 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
After all, Democrats are up against a highly manipulative politician

A very quick study, isn't he? He has not been a politician that long. He does not get any credit for that?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 08:14 pm
@hightor,
Interesting NYT piece. I was truly amused to their reference to the "contrasting egalitarian rules" of the DNC for their primary followed as it was. a paragraph later, by a description of the superdelegates, their exclusion from the first convention vote, and their ultimate control over the whole process. It appeared to me that the author had lost his way in the thicket of the facts and his prejudices.

The overarching facts of the last primary and election were that Hillary controlled the process from the start, including the selection of her (she thought) proforma and harmless opponent in the Primary, and, in the final campaign, the spending budget of the DNC. How all that might be different the next time around is yet to be seen. The problem the Democrats will then face looks remarkably similar to the one Republicans faced in the last election; with multiple candidates, a rebellious sub group of zealots in the Congressional delegation struggling to capture the party platform, and a better behaved but less exciting group of establishment party leaders trying to maintain control. Will they find a Trump equivalent to get past all that or will they remain enmeshed in their internal struggles as was the Republican congressional delegation after 2016?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 08:20 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
he can only be pardoned for convictions in the federal courts so he'll be out of commission for a while in any case
Yes, I know. I read something today (can't recall where now, so take with a grain of salt perhaps) that a commutation could allow Manafort to recover money and holdings that have been taken.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 08:43 pm
Quote:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Blames Oil Spill on a Pipeline That Doesn’t Even Exist

No, she is not a radical plant who has no idea of what she is talking about.
Quote:
Ocasio-Cortez went after the XL pipeline during her time to question Wells Fargo president and CEO Timothy Sloan during a House Financial Services hearing on Tuesday.

I think her keepers are going to quiet hr down.
https://godfatherpolitics.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-blames-a-pipeline-that-doesnt-exist-for-an-oil-spill/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 08:44 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
There is altogether too much invective and partisanship in what passes for news and media coverage in this country now. However Fox is in my view not either the only or the worst offender in this area.
I know that is what you believe, george. But you've really put no work into studying media and it is obvious that the media you do attend to is Fox or that which follows the same patterns of behavior ("Pocahontas", "Spartacus" - just two tip-offs in the last day). You've bought the propaganda package. And we both know that if I were to suggest studies and writings that analyze what we are now talking about, you won't go anywhere near them. To you, they couldn't be right, axiomatically.

It's no big thing. After all these years, I know I'm not going to move you on this stuff. You're a good-hearted chap and you are, in most ways, a smart and engaging fellow. One day you and I and Trump will be corpses. The only real difference is that one of us, Trump, will be trying to **** other corpses, if they have big, grey tits.


glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 09:39 pm
@blatham,
I don't think I can improve on your assessment.....but I do wonder who on God's Green Earth is more lackluster and twisted than official Republican/Rupert Murdock FOX television?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Mar, 2019 10:03 pm
@glitterbag,
Murdoch runs a criminal organization. That became utterly clear when we learned the details of what he and his people got up in in Great Britain. It wasn't just the phone hacking. That was the least of it. Murdoch's operation purposefully corrupted the top levels of the British government and Scotland Yard. He is more responsible, by far, than anyone else for the degradation of civic/political discourse in Britain, Australia and the US. And, yes, the quality of its content and its personnel is (with rare exceptions) lackluster at best. The only valid compliment one might give them is that their propaganda operations have been very successful. It's the sort of compliment one might give the Nazis for effectively moving huge groups of people by boxcar.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 02:38:43