maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:04 am
@blatham,
I don’t believe this is true.

He owed back taxes on income that he never claimed. He would owe those back taxes regardless of his conviction and subsequent commutation.
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:42 am
@maporsche,
thanks. I could certainly have this wrong.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:53 am
@glitterbag,
Sinclair Broadcast Group is in a way worse. Most people in their communities still tune in to their local news and Sinclair Broadcast Group has bought up a lot of local news stations.

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/15/15598270/sinclair-broadcast-imminent-conservative-takeover-of-local-tv-news-explained
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 08:14 am
@revelette1,
Sinclair is a propaganda operation, of course. Their consistently rightwing content, when sent out to all their stations who are contracted to air them regardless of local station views, make this clear.

I suspect that these folks have correctly grasped that there are billions to be made by media operating in the manner of Fox or talk radio. As I've noted before, Fox News is Murdoch's big money source. Or, for another example, Limbaugh makes $50 million a year - or $4 million per month - or $1 million every week.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 08:59 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

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

You don't know my reading or viewing habits, and I think we both know the "objective" merits of he "studies and writings" to which you refer and which you quote with such abandon here.

The fact is I have, over the past several months, become very weary of all the TV media. When I do watch, I usually scan all the main vendors, including Fox, CNN and MSMBC. The contrasts in the both the material they select and in the various slants they put on what they do address it is at once stark, amusing and depressing. They all spew out a lot of propaganda, though on Fox it is a bit more segregated from the news than in the other sources ( Hannity & others are pure propaganda, while Baier & Wallace & others do report events with some objectivity)

I got "Pocahontas & Spartacus" from well-publicized Trump quotes , though no particular intelligence or insight is or was required to either make or associate these characterizations with the comic, pathetic and pretentious posturing's of Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker ( I saw his ridiculous, knowingly deceptive and self-aggrandizing, self-described "Spartacus Moment" during the Senate Justice Committee hearings on then candidate Kavanaugh, and found it to be unforgettable. The action of your own prejudices and the resulting blindness is evident in your "deduction" of my supposed source frankly says more about you than me.

The character of political discourse in the country now - and on these threads - has become depressingly partisan, filled with invective and the ludicrous (to anyone with an understanding of human history) assumption that all that is good or desirable is on one side and all that is bad or evil on the other.

There's a wonderful segment in Thucydides' "Peloponnesian War" in which he describes the breakdown of civic order in Corcyra (now Corfu) in events that directly led to the generation-long, and tragic, civil War between Athens and Sparta, which brought down Greek civilization. It is sadly reflective of current events, both in the U.S. and Europe. I looked it up and here's a few relevant segments from ~ 2,400 years ago ;

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy;
…….
Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention.
……
Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honour so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command.
….
. In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority;


It's an interesting read and an apt description of contemporary events.

However, there may be some hope for us. I recall a year ago reading Ron Chernow' s biography of Alexander Hamilton (the one that inspired the Broadway show), and was struck by the similarity of George Washington's second term with today's events, beset as it was in the very fractious disputes between Federalists and Jeffersonians. It too read like an equally apt description of the current scene.

I agree that we're not likely to persuade each other of the merits of our respective views. However, I do fault your monotone condemnation of "the right" and your implicit assumption that the defects and contradictions of human nature somehow don't infect those whose political views you support. Both sides have their propaganda, and both are populated by human beings. I like Trump, not for what he says or how he presents himself, but rather for (most of) the political and economic policies he puts in place. That's where the debate should be.
Brand X
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 10:34 am
Here's an article about how most major media outlets willingly spread lies. Greenwald reports on a NYT piece that finally discovered what an independent journalist reported weeks before about who really set fire to the aid trucks in Venezuela. They are the same outlets that constantly smear Tulsi Gabbard when she tells the truth about these regime changes.

'https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 10:58 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I like Trump, not for what he says or how he presents himself, but rather for (most of) the political and economic policies he puts in place. That's where the debate should be.

The carpetbagger from Canada has a agenda and Trump's accomplishments, no matter how successful, are of no interest to him. Your reply is elegant but it would be easier to tell him he is as full of **** and you are not the only one who has noticed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:06 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However, I do fault your monotone condemnation of "the right" and your implicit assumption that the defects and contradictions of human nature somehow don't infect those whose political views you support.
I've never made that claim. Nor would anyone who I quote here. The claim I do make (as do most of those others) is two-fold:
- though both parties tend display an alliance with big money, the GOP is much more the party of corporate interests
- the modern right displays many characteristics of authoritarianism along with a rejection of democratic principles in a manner or to a degree seen in your party.
In both of those respects, the asymmetry is not merely notable, it is undeniable. And it is dangerous.
Quote:
Both sides have their propaganda,

That is a formulation that is of no value whatsoever as it refuses to acknowledge or even account for differences. Are followers of Pope Francis and followers of the senior Ayatollah the same? Are Toyota and Lada the same? Are you and Spiro Agnew the same? The Republican party's constituency before LBJ and after are not the same.
Quote:
I like Trump, not for what he says or how he presents himself, but rather for (most of) the political and economic policies he puts in place. That's where the debate should be.

I understand that you approve. But no, that is very definitely not the only subject worthy of address regarding political matters. You and I would agree on some of Nixon's policies but that obviously ain't the whole story. One might try to make an accurate portrait of policies forwarded by the Nazi party but if you leave out what Goebbels got up to you end up with a portrait missing an absolutely essential aspect of the politics of the time and place.

It should be clear that I (and many others including an increasing number of conservatives/Republicans) believe your party has gone nuts and has moved to a very dangerous place. You've lost George Will, for **** sake. Because I do believe this is so and because I believe it is very dangerous for the US and for everyone else on the planet, I'm going to keep on my trajectory here as long as I can. But I have to try and be careful in sources and reasoning, and I cannot go propagandist - that is, I cannot proceed along this path if I attempt to use deceit - because that would turn me into what I despise and believe is a primary cause of what's going on.

That's my game.

revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:06 am
@blatham,
Most local people who aren't about politics day in and day out, probably just automatically think their local news is unbiased (it should be) but with Sinclair buying up the local news it is like conservative slated news is sneaking under like snakes to deliver their conservative right wing biased news.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:15 am
@revelette1,
Yes. It is a dangerous thing. And I think we can presume with near 100% certainty that Sinclair is NOT going to allow local stations to preface the mandatory propaganda pieces with an editorial announcement such as, "Our station, by the terms of our contract with Sinclair, must broadcast the following video even if we don't agree with all or any of it, such as is the case regarding the video you are about to watch if you stay tuned. Further, after the video, we will make our own editorial comment which may well, as it does today, contradict almost everything the video claims".
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:19 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
like conservative slated news is sneaking under like snakes to deliver their conservative right wing biased news.

And the Left wing biased news is all that should be shown? Why are people so scared of the Conservative argument? That fact alone reveals the Left does not intend to discuss anything and just wants one point of view out there. Cowards that are not concerned with anything but power.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:25 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Yes. It is a dangerous thing.

Since when is debate dangerous? I guess the danger you see is the idiocy in the ideas you pass off as viable are easily shot down. Censorship is your only hope, the facts will never be on your side so conservatives must be silenced. Nazis and fascists do that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:34 am
Holy poop. The House just voted unanimously to release the full Mueller report.

Edit: Effectively, this might mean nothing consequential about an actual release. But it does give weight to the concept/value of full transparency and that's important. Obviously, citizens are better served with a full release. Yet that will mean sweet **** all to McConnell or Trump or others who have power in this matter. The hinge will be presumed consequences for the election.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 11:37 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Holy poop. The House just voted unanimously to release the full Mueller report.

That is the AG's decision. Congress needs a civics course.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:21 pm
Greg Sargent has a bit of a depressing take on one aspect of O'Rourke's candidacy...
Quote:
O’Rourke is in fantasyland about today’s GOP. O’Rourke’s efforts to recapture the unifying, generational-change-oriented “yes we can” spirit of Obama leads him to take a similar approach to our partisan divides. In an interview with Vanity Fair, O’Rourke claims his “ability to listen to people” and his experience “working with Republicans” will enable him to find “common ground” as president.

Candidates always feel the need to say this, but we all know it’s nonsense, and few things confirm that more clearly than Obama’s presidency. The goals O’Rourke sets in this video — universal health care, humane immigration reform, combating climate change — are certain to generate little to no consensus among Republicans.

In fairness, none of the other Democrats have figured out how to talk about this problem. But candidates who seem to proclaim as a virtue that they’ll melt through the partisan divide with the heat of optimism and positivity — as O’Rourke does — have an extra obligation to explain themselves on this front.

Greg is right. This is not a realistic hope at all. Barring some catastrophe to the GOP, any move Beto (or any other Dem arriving in the WH) might make towards kumbaya will be met as it was when Obama arrived. https://wapo.st/2u89j6I
Quote:
As the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported in April, the book reports on a dinner of leading Republicans held the night of Obama’s inauguration.
For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.

"If you act like you're the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” Draper quotes [Rep. Kevin] McCarthy [R-Calif.] as saying. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.”

And Stein highlights this useful passage from Draper’s book:
The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:

Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it — please?’)

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Now Greg Sargent at The Plum Line is sounding the alarm over a revelation in “The New New Deal” by Grunwald. Vice President Joe Biden told the author that during the transition, “seven different Republican Senators” told him that “McConnell had demanded unified resistance.” This was after the 2008 election but before Obama and Biden took office.

“The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden says.


Additionally, McConnell said publicly that the Republicans could not support any Obama policy because if they did then their party would appear to have no individuality.

It is always about power with these guys. Always.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:22 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
...The claim I do make (as do most of those others) is two-fold:
- though both parties tend display an alliance with big money, the GOP is much more the party of corporate interests
- the modern right displays many characteristics of authoritarianism along with a rejection of democratic principles in a manner or to a degree seen in your party.
In both of those respects, the asymmetry is not merely notable, it is undeniable. And it is dangerous.

All illogical nonsense, demonstrably contrary to observable facts.
- The Republican party is a good deal less authoritarian, both in the organization of its national committee and in the observable behavior of its presidents and Congressional delegations. The contrast in the last Presidential Primaries and election was stark and clear. Hillary Clinton directly controlled the DNC and its finances right from the start of the primaries. In contrast the Republican primaries were hard fought and contentious. Moreover the Republican Congressional delegation pursued its own ( sometimes internally conflicting) objectives and in some cases opposed its elected President - behaviors we haven't observed among Democrats for several decades. The "superdelegates" of the Democrat party control its primaries, not it's grassroots.
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Both sides have their propaganda,
That is a formulation that is of no value whatsoever as it refuses to acknowledge or even account for differences. Are followers of Pope Francis and followers of the senior Ayatollah the same? Are Toyota and Lada the same? Are you and Spiro Agnew the same? The Republican party's constituency before LBJ and after are not the same

More nonsense. Propaganda is propaganda from whatever the source. There is a real difference between Propaganda and proposed concrete political objectives, policy and actions. The difference here is one which you habitually ignore.

You again judge everything based on your preconceived impressions of the source - a behavior that is evident in your words above. You have given the lie to your assumed objectivity by your own words.
The constituencies of both parties have changed over the past few decades in ways that are both good and bad for both of them. However both represent the values of people in this Democracy. Once again you appear to be judging everything based on your preconceptions of the source - THAT is in itself a very authoritarian concept, and you appear to be blissfully unaware of it.
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I like Trump, not for what he says or how he presents himself, but rather for (most of) the political and economic policies he puts in place. That's where the debate should be.

I understand that you approve. But no, that is very definitely not the only subject worthy of address regarding political matters. You and I would agree on some of Nixon's policies but that obviously ain't the whole story. One might try to make an accurate portrait of policies forwarded by the Nazi party but if you leave out what Goebbels got up to you end up with a portrait missing an absolutely essential aspect of the politics of the time and place.
More of the same - you judge everything by your preconceptions of the source. Nixon wasn't Hitler, though it appears you don't see the difference in your odd, categorical universe.

blatham wrote:
It should be clear that I (and many others including an increasing number of conservatives/Republicans) believe your party has gone nuts and has moved to a very dangerous place. You've lost George Will, for **** sake. Because I do believe this is so and because I believe it is very dangerous for the US and for everyone else on the planet, I'm going to keep on my trajectory here as long as I can. But I have to try and be careful in sources and reasoning, and I cannot go propagandist - that is, I cannot proceed along this path if I attempt to use deceit - because that would turn me into what I despise and believe is a primary cause of what's going on.

That's my game.

George Will is a political journalist. I recognize that you believe this is the highest expression of human achievement, but I, and most others, don't.

Unfortunately you spend your energies exclusively on your preconceived impressions of the characters of these "Republicans in a bad place" , but offer very little in the way of factual commentary about what you suppose is bad about it. Politics, particularly in Democracy is about what limited government should or should not do to protect the public welfare and the security of the state. These are precisely the things you don't address in your endless stream of propaganda about the supposed bad thoughts and motivations you imagine infest the hearts of those whom you oppose.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:29 pm
Today's Corrupt Government Notes

Quote:
Mnuchin Vows to Protect Trump’s Privacy if Tax Returns Sought
Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, signaled on Thursday that he would likely block a congressional request to obtain President Trump’s tax returns on privacy grounds, setting up a potential legal battle if Democrats follow through with plans to request those documents.

During an occasionally testy hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Mnuchin was peppered with questions from Democrats about whether he believes Congress has the authority to access the tax returns of American citizens in general and the president in particular.

Mr. Mnuchin told lawmakers that if a request was made he would consult the Treasury Department’s legal team and follow the law. But he indicated that taxpayer privacy, including that of the president, is paramount.
NYT
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:34 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Mnuchin Vows to Protect Trump’s Privacy if Tax Returns Sought

And that has what to do with progressives?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:35 pm
@georgeob1,
You are becoming more than a bit tedious george.
Quote:
Propaganda is propaganda from whatever the source. There is a real difference between Propaganda and proposed concrete political objectives, policy and actions. The difference here is one which you habitually ignore.
If you are willing to very carefully analyze and discuss what propaganda is and what is is not, how it is different from PR or any other sort of advocacy, I'll carry on a discussion with you. Otherwise it ain't going to happen. I'm not going to waste my time in pissing matches with you. Sorry.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:38 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
You are becoming more than a bit tedious george.

Anyone who does not agree are tedious. I hope it does not get to the point where you have to wish him dead like so many others that challenge your beliefs. You have done that a good number of times. That is hateful if you did not know.
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 0.23 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 05:10:57