Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantI was surprised too by that. Especially since one of the counts was witness intimidation. Like Manafort.
. . .
WV, you don’t toot your own horn in these forums, but if I remember correctly, you lawyer for the poor on a regular basis, right? That means, essentially, you’ve sacrificed your own chance at being very, very comfortable, if not full-on rich, in order to help others in need.
That’s truly admirable. You walk the walk. Major kudos, WV.
Billy_TParticipant….The polls show a close race right now, with Biden, Sanders, or Warren all beating Trump by a slim percentage. Just as polls had Clinton favored by a slim percentage…
.===================
Just a little sidebar, fwiw — In the Taibbi/Rogan podcast I posted, Taibbi mentions that the MSM did indeed have some polls/info that the race would be much closer than the published-polls were showing. Taibbi said the MSM suppressed that info because they thought it might hurt Hillary’s chances.
w
vTaibbi’s conjecture strikes me as a mixed bag. On the one hand, if Dems had known the race was tighter than previously thought, it might bring out some Clinton voters who would have stayed home otherwise . . . thinking it was “already in the bag.”
On the other, a closer race could have rallied Trump supporters and gotten more to the polls.
Overall, a wash, I’m guessing.
And the MSM focused more on Clinton’s emails than on any other campaign story, in terms of time. If they had really wanted her to win, they wouldn’t have. They would have focused more on Trump’s crooked, mobbed up past, Trump U, Trump Charities, etc. That didn’t really start until after he took office, when it was too late to matter.
November 17, 2019 at 1:19 pm in reply to: Obama warns democrats about moving too far to the left #108246Billy_TParticipantThing is, centrists offer nothing for the poor, the working class, or the middle.
They don’t even MENTION the poor. It’s always the Middle Class they are “fighting for.” Which, of course, means affluent white people who vote.
And even that is only lip service.
Agreed. Unfortunately, even Sanders falls into that trap at times. He speaks of the middle class too often, in my view. Though he’s head and shoulders above the rest of the field on economic issues overall. It’s not close.
Times have changed. In 1968, RFK talked about the poor constantly, went to the Delta, campaigned to win their votes, directly. Same with First Nation reservations. Staunch support and advocacy for unions, Labor, the poor, being antiwar — all of that was on the table for liberal Democrats back then. The Dems pretty much turned their backs on all of that after the 1960s.
People like AOC, Tlaib and the rest of The Squad are trying to reverse that and go further still. I probably won’t live to see it, but I hope someday their way becomes the starting point, not the outlier.
Billy_TParticipantLotsa good points, Zooey.
But I’d argue that Trump has lost some support. I think this showed up in the 2018 elections, and in several off-off-year elections this year, like Virginia’s, and the two recent gubernatorial elections in the South.
I agree that he hasn’t lost his base. They’ll stick with him to the bitter end. But suburban Republicans are defecting, and he needs them.
Yes, the Dems could blow this if they run another corporatist/centrist Dem, unless that particular candidate has charisma and “connects.” As mentioned before, I think most Americans vote on personal, emotional grounds, not policy or ideology. Which means an actual leftist could win if he or she has that special something. They’re already waaaay ahead on policy, etc. It’s the lack of having “it” that loses elections, far more than policy or ideology, IMO.
Anyway, our elections are essentially base elections. The team that gets out its base to a greater degree wins. HRC pretty much drove down her own base, especially POCs, and drove up Trump’s turnout. Logically, the candidate who can reverse that for the Dems will win.
In short, I think the election is the Dems’ to win or lose. Not Trump’s. Which is kinda what you were saying too, if I read your correctly.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantW,
Don’t forget that Trump “won” with just 26% of the electorate. Clinton got 28%. They were the most disliked candidates in history.
Trump, as president, is even more disliked now than he was back then, and he no longer has a Clinton to run against. He’s the establishment now, and he has a record as president. That wasn’t the case before.
I think he got a huge number of votes from people who voted against Clinton, not for Trump. He no longer has that to fall back on, or Comey. It’s Trump now who’s under investigation, out in the open. His negatives are too high for him to win, if the election is on the up and up.
The only way he’ll win this time is to cheat more. Much more.
November 17, 2019 at 10:59 am in reply to: Obama warns democrats about moving too far to the left #108235Billy_TParticipantI’m guessing this same frustration is shared by all leftists.
The Dems claim a need to win over the working class and the middle of the country. They acknowledge those people are hurting, economically. Their answer is, to run centrists or conservadems.
Thing is, centrists offer nothing for the poor, the working class, or the middle. They want to maintain the status quo. Conservadems offer less than nothing. They come close to Republicans who actually, aggressively hurt the poor, the working class and the middle.
The only part of the political spectrum offering any improvements in quality of life, and a reduction in cost of living, is “the left.” And the further left you go, the bigger and bolder the policies and their effects.
How does it make sense to “appeal” to Americans in dire straits to keep things the way they are? Or make them worse?
It’s ONLY the left that offers real solutions, tangible improvements, serious cost reductions, etc.
Billy_TParticipantOn second and third thought, I need to revise a coupla things.
Yeah, Trump has changed some of the old order. But not in any positive manner. He’s decimated the diplomatic corp, for instance. And while it, too, is a part of the empire, it’s the part with the most potential for good, because it’s the part that can actually prevent wars.
First step was to install Tillerson, the Exxon CEO, to radically slash staffing and promote more fossil fuel dependence. Second step was to move Pompeo, the CIA chief, over to state, where he’s facilitated Trump’s formerly secret parallel track, headed by Giuliani, Kushner and Ivanka. And while the State Department has pretty much always been used as a way to evangelize for capitalism, it’s never before been so blatantly on the take for a president and his family. It’s never before been so brazenly and personally avaricious on the side, on the sly.
Other government departments have gone through a similar hollowing out, like the EPA, with fossil fuel CEOs and lobbyists at the helm of agencies that once tried to curb their excesses. The inmates now run the asylum directly. No middlemen, no wait, no fuss. All for profit, for themselves, Trump, his family and his oligarchical friends, all the time.
Yeah, the regulatory apparatus has been chipped away, bit by bit, especially after the 1970s. This didn’t start with Trump. But there was at least some semblance of roadblocks and layers between the government and the oligarchs previously. Trump basically just put the oligarchs directly in charge.
Drain the swamp? He filled it up and hired the richest alligators he could find and bragged about how amazing everything was.
Bottom line, for me: Trump inherited an empire. He’s done nothing to reduce its power to harm, in any sector, anywhere. He’s actually doubled down on that harm, especially to the environment, migrants, people of color, religious minorities, the poor. And he’s added new powers for private interests along side the old ones, and is directly profiting from this. Those 13,000 lies are on top of what he inherited.
Billy_TParticipantIt can’t be deliberately copied.
Anybody who blustered like Trump as a calculated strategy would reveal himself as doing it as a calculated strategy. A significant appeal of Trump is that he is a completely genuine fraud. His is honestly dishonest. He believes what he says when he says it, and he believes what he says when he flatly contradicts himself in the very next sentence. And he is never rattled by facts or opinions. Also something nobody can fake. The guy has a 100% conviction in his own absolute infallibility.
He can do that because of his personality disorder. You can’t Fake that.
I like the way you put all of that, Zooey.
I’d add a coupla things, though. My dime-store psych-101 take is that pretty much everyone who seeks power has a bit of the sociopath in them. And to do well in certain jobs, even without power, you need a bit too. Sales is one of those vocations. I stumbled into sales jobs after my first stint in college, mostly out of desperation. I couldn’t get a decent job with my Art Degree, so I tried sales. I quickly learned that it took a certain kind of “belief” in what one was doing, the product, the tactics, that generally required a willing suspension of . . . well, ethical norms, to put it gently.
The thing is, I noticed that the best sales people could project certainty about a product one day, and then do a 180 on that product with the same certainty a week later, if the circumstances demanded it. Trump is a salesman above all else, and I think he’s a full-on sociopath on top of that. Everything he does is about sales. Everything. Everything is the greatest ever, the biggest ever, the best ever — unless he’s lashing out at his enemies. Then it’s just the flip side of that.
We have a salesman in chief, and a sociopath in chief. And he has a kind of dark-side “charisma” which is extremely rare. It’s kind of like watching a train-wreck, for some. “Fascinating,” Spock would say. It can’t be replicated.
Billy_TParticipantHis lie count in his first 1000 days was more than 13,000.
That’s not a misprint. More than 13,000. No president has ever come within light years….
========================
Well, see, I dunno about that. Sure, Trump tells these surreal lies (and I agree with zooey about the narcissism thing), but isn’t it true Obama/Clinton told just as many lies? I mean every single day Obama/Clinton were conducting their CIA/NSA-bloody policies, they were lying to the American people. The CIA is based on Lies. People dont think of it that way, because its all been normalized.
I just think the American Corporate-Government “IS” a Lie, at this point. Look at all the Coups, and interference by the US-CIA-Government. Was Obama/Clinton truly ‘honest’ about any of it? No. Because they internalized the notion that when “we” do it, its for the good of the world. The Dem/Reps have supported every kind of death squad you can think of. They’ve murdered all kinds of socialists all over the globe. Are they ever honest about any of it? No.
So all these ‘lie counters’ i see all the time seem silly to me. They only count a certain kind of lie. But there’s all kinds of lies.
w
vTrump and the GOP are continuing the same policies you mentioned above, and escalating them. They haven’t rolled any of them back. They haven’t rolled back the empire or its effects. Trump’s 13,000 lies are on top of the status quo lies you mention, the “underneath” — a term I like, btw.
The lie counters aren’t calling Trump on stuff they ignored when Obama, Clinton and Bush were in power. They’re giving Trump and the Republicans a pass on all of that too. That hasn’t changed. The CIA is still doing its thing, but Trump controls it. His people lead all the Intel agencies, the military, etc. And he gave the military hundreds of billions more in funding, which means the Intel community has far more funding to harm others. The military in America actually does more surveillance and special ops work than the CIA, and the CIA is at least as powerful under Trump as it was before.
As for my fellow socialists. No president has ever been so vicious toward we leftists. No president has ever been as outspoken in his hatred of the left. And Trump surrounded himself with hard-right ideologues who echo that hatred. As an unapologetic socialist, I see him trying his damndest to demonize us, as if this were the 1950s.
Again, Trump inherited your “underneath” and hasn’t curbed one iota of its power, or exposed any of it. Those 13,000 lies are in addition to the status quo ante.
Billy_TParticipantI’m old-school though. I saw worse than that glancing-blow, on a weekly basis back in the 70s. Deacon Jones once twisted and tore Sonny Jurgenson’s head off, and then beat the QB with the decapitated HEAD.
And as I recall there was no fine at all.
w
vThanks for the hearty chuckle, WV. That’s “old-school” WV posting.
;>)
Billy_TParticipantWell, I’d like to see Scientists study why Democrat-voters are ok with voting for murderous Imperialists, election after election.
Wonder why no American Scientists wonder about ‘that’ ?
w
vThe study wasn’t a Dem vs Rep thing. It wasn’t about the voting habits of Republicans. It was about something very specific, ie Trump supporters. It wanted to find out why Trump supporters remain loyal despite gaffs and lies that would have sunk any other Republican candidate in history. This study was conducted before he was elected.
And there have been all sorts of studies that look at why people vote the way they do. I think what you’re really asking is, “Why Democrat-voters don’t know they are voting for murderous imperialists?”
Well, you already know the answer to that, Squeaky. 😉
If it was done before the election, have they followed up on that?
His lie count in his first 1000 days was more than 13,000.
That’s not a misprint. More than 13,000. No president has ever come within light years of that. I’d bet no other human has.
Billy_TParticipantTrump, IMO, is different. He’s a sleazeball on an epic scale. A bully, a braggart, a liar unlike we’ve ever seen. A sexual predator and peeping Tom. A six-time bankrupt who screwed over his workers, unions, small business supply chain, cheated for decades on his taxes, mobbed up here and overseas, a conman who screwed over students with his Trump U, donors to his charity, etc. etc. If people have a problem with the Clintons on a personal level, for their lies and corruption . . . Trump makes them look like angels in comparison.
And, on top of that, his policies escalated, accelerated, exacerbated all of the horrible policies already in place and that “underneath” you mentioned. And he’s beloved by white supremacists and has or had several in his administration. He’s helped mainstream their ideology.
IMO, he’s the most despicable and destructive president since Andrew Jackson — who just so happens to be his favorite.
In short, I think there’s reason galore for despising him like no other prez.
(Broke this into two to prevent TLDNR)
Billy_TParticipantYeah, I ordered a couple of grandin’s books because you talked about him.
But i got Fordlandia, and Empire’s Workshop.Btw, is it fair to say, Donald Trump just sets you off in some way that no other national american politician has, in the last 40 years or so?
We both agree he’s a monster but I just get the impression with you, its the fact that he’s a lying-weasel-monster AND its also personal somehow. Yes? No?
For whatever reason, the thing that sets me off ’emotionally’ is probly…liberal-capitalist-Dems. They make me crazy. I am able to control myself around them, but if they ever heard my internal dialogue….
w
vTrump does tick me off like no other. That said, I couldn’t stand a long line of presidents, but for different reasons. I was far, far less interested in politics during the Reagan era, but I detested him, his policies and the crooks he surrounded himself with. But I detested him primarily because of his actions as president, not necessarily on some personal level. Didn’t really think much of him, one way or another, on those grounds.
Bush triggered me on a personal and policy level, and got me to think a lot more about politics than I wanted to. Hated his policies, especially the invasion of Iraq. No one before Dubya provoked such a visceral response for me.
Didn’t like Clinton at the time. Thought his policies were “meh.” Now I see them as far more destructive and par for the empire’s course.
Obama? Liked him on a personal level. Didn’t like his policies. Too conservative for me. More of the same empire’s course. Clinton and Obama: two peas in a pod on policy and status quo/empire stuff.
Billy_TParticipantSorry for the odd formatting. The hyperlinks are in blue, of course.
Billy_TParticipantI agree with pretty much all of that, WV, and I share your frustration.
Unfortunately, Americans have to actually seek out books and articles to counter the myths we get from TV, elected officials and all too much of the status quo media.
Recent books I’ve read especially deal with what you’re saying — the underneath:
The End of the Myth, by Greg GrandinHow to Hide an Empire, by Daniel Immerwahr
The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee, by David Treuer
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/316457/the-heartbeat-of-wounded-knee-by-david-treuer/I wish everyone would read the above, and a host of others I’ve mentioned in the past. But 99% of the country never will.
So what’s the answer? We leftists are going to have to find a way to get our message out via “popular” channels, especially TV. And not just “niche” channels. It’s got to be mainstreamed.
If the far-right can do it — and they have, tragically — why can’t we?
Billy_TParticipantWell, I’d like to see Scientists study why Democrat-voters are ok with voting for murderous Imperialists, election after election.
Wonder why no American Scientists wonder about ‘that’ ?
w
vThe thing is, WV, Trump’s lies are in addition to those you mention. They don’t replace them, lie for lie. He’s actually piling on new ones on top of the old imperialism, empire, murder, environmental devastation lies. And his deeds are in addition to the status quo actions linked to those lies.
It would be an entirely different situation, requiring an entirely different response, if Trump did his usual lies while reversing the old order, while fighting for the poor, ramping down empire, saving the environment, etc. etc.
He’s actually made things far worse on the status quo issues like war, peace, incarceration, corporate control of society, inequality, health care, the earth . . . and on and on.
In addition to; not in replacement of.
___
Ariely had a really interesting study years ago about Americans’ view of inequality. He showed how large majorities aren’t aware how bad things are here, and actually think we’re more like Sweden in our levels. In blind tests, they consistently chose Swedish levels of inequality as the ideal, too. Of course, Americans wouldn’t pick Sweden if they knew the country’s name beforehand. They’d choose to good old US of A.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve been pounding the table for the Rams to use another lineman. With the degradation of the o-line, this is needed more than ever. Though they should play, all three tight ends are apparently dinged up. A two-TE set might be problematic because of that.
Play six linemen!! Or, if the rules allow it, seven. Tackle-eligible, or whatever is needed.
Make sure they activate at least nine for the game, instead of their usual seven.
Give Goff time. McVay’s entire passing attack needs time for the QB to do play-action and find open receivers. It’s not a quick-passing offense, typically. It’s not like NE’s or Minnesota’s, to give a coupla examples. Brees also gets the ball out there quickly.
And, of course, the extra linemen should help the running game too. And third and short, and the goal-line.
Not saying make that the default set. But it should be mixed in, liberally.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Invader,
That was a good discussion. I agree with Jones and Carr, especially. Carr said what I was thinking too:
Again, once the linemen are there, back off. Especially when you don’t have your helmet on. Let the refs (and coaches) take care of things. Garrett was going backwards, which means Rudolph had to charge him in order to get near enough to . . . do what? What did Rudolph think would happen when he charged a player already being pushed backwards by DeCastro . . . the only “hero” in this entire affair?
What did he expect? Obviously, not an helmet to the head. Again, that’s unconscionable. But he had to have known it meant more fighting. A restarted fight. So, again, why isn’t Rudolph getting a suspension?
I also didn’t like his comments to the media. Garrett owned up to his mistake. Rudolph just piled on, called him a coward, etc. etc. He needed to own up to his own part in the melee.
In short, there is a lot of blame to go around, including Rudolph.
Billy_TParticipantBut if we look at it with cold eyes, it’s just a fact of Cause and Effect that Rudolph’s running back into the fray, squaring up directly with Garrett, when he was already contained by DeCastro and another Pittsburgh lineman . . . . Well, I see that as escalation, totally unnecessary and pretty stupid.
I agree that was pretty stupid.
you’re not the only one. guys on nfl network were saying rudolph was getting off way too lightly.
although they said no doubt that there was no excuse for what garrett did.
Well, that makes me feel a bit better.
;>)
One way to consider this: Again, Rudolph went back into the fray, charged Garrett, who was already entangled with DeCastro and another lineman. That’s three on one. If Garrett had responded with a shove, or even a fist, would the conversation about “fault” be different in the aftermath? I think that’s a given.
It was the severity — and potential lethality — of his reaction that altered the discussion. But he reacted TO the charge from Rudolph (indefensibly).
Again, the counterfactual comes into play: If Rudolph goes back to his sideline, or even stands among his teammates, waiting for the refs to clean things up, and doesn’t charge Garrett, there is no escalation, no punching and kicking from Pouncey, no shoving of Rudolph from behind, no smashed head from his own lineman, etc. etc.
It’s just linemen engaged in, ironically, what they had been doing all game long — pushing and pulling at each other in the trenches.
I think it’s natural for people to want a certain kind of clarity in fights like this. They want someone to be at fault, and others to be innocent. Either/or, not both/and. In this case, I think it’s clear that Rudolph was at fault too. This in no way excuses Garrett’s response. But Rudolph actually restarted the battle with his own actions.
I’d suspend and fine him too — and make absolutely certain he was medically okay.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t go on twitter, cept to click on links posted by others here and in other forums.
So I haven’t followed the back and forth. But, as mentioned, I did watch a lot of the talk today, on shows like Get Up, which had more than a half dozen former players weigh in. None of them suggested Rudolph was in any way at fault.
I derived my minor dissent from re-re-re-watching the video, and seeing the way the whole thing developed. No equivalence between their actions. None. Garrett could have killed Rudolph. Not just hurt him. But killed him. People watching the game could have witnessed an actual case of manslaughter, first hand. So there is no equivalency. But if we look at it with cold eyes, it’s just a fact of Cause and Effect that Rudolph’s running back into the fray, squaring up directly with Garrett, when he was already contained by DeCastro and another Pittsburgh lineman . . . . Well, I see that as escalation, totally unnecessary and pretty stupid.
It doesn’t excuse Garrett’s reaction in the slightest. It. Was. Indefensible. But there is no hammer thrown if Rudolph doesn’t go after Garrett at that point. It’s just Garrett being forced backward by DeCastro and the other lineman.
Anyway . . . that’s my two cents.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
Thanks for the additions.
Good point about how crazy it was to let Rudolph back on the field, if that is what happened.
The helmet to the head had to have meant a concussion of some kind, and then his own lineman kneed him in the head, accidentally, after he was pushed from behind. In slow-motion, that second hit looked really bad too.
Again, I hope he gets serious medical attention, completely independent of any CYA by the NFL.
What’s your take on my take that Rudolph is partially at fault in this mess too? Again, this is no way excuses what Garrett did. That was indefensible. But I think Rudolph’s actions escalated what could have been a far lesser tussle between teams. He should not have run back into the fray, especially without his helmet on.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV, for posting this.
I’m a huge fan of Dr. Wolff. Watched the first 18 minutes or so, and will go back later to finish it up.
Two quick comments: Professor Wolff is actually being too kind to capitalism with his OxFam stat. He must not have kept up with their most recent assessments. It’s down to 30 people (last time I checked), and shrinking, and I’ve read others claim it’s just eight humans holding half the wealth of the world.
Also, socialism actually has a pretty long history of being anti-state and desirous of a ground up, localized, democratization of the workplace and society. I may have misread his commentary, but it sounds like he’s saying this is a new focus for socialists, that we learned from past mistakes, etc. etc. From my reading of the history, it’s actually the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, etc. etc. who veered wildly away from socialist tradition. They imposed “state capitalism,” not socialism.
(Hopefully he clarifies this later in his talk or Q and A.)
Other than the above, I’m in agreement with his take on things. Have been since the first time I read him or watched his youtube lectures.
Billy_TParticipantI messed up on the formatting, so I’ll just answer here without the quotes.
;>)
Your response was a goodin’, and helped clarify the “emphasis” point. Thanks.
It’s a shame, though, that we’re in such a fecked up moment in time, that critique of the most powerful person on earth might be misinterpreted as support for the opposing party. Isn’t that kinda sad?
Anyway, a clarification of my own:
My thing isn’t the relative “significance” of the Russian interference, and I’ve said repeatedly that I think the US is guilty of much worse overall. As in, more of it, more often, over more time, and to worse effect.
My thing is that if an American chases after, exploits, willingly receives foreign help, he or she needs to be held to account. The real issue is on the American side, for me, not the Russian.
It’s one of those “givens” that no nation should be doing this shhht. But it’s also a given that empires and nation-states always have. So until we can put a stop to the practice, we should focus on holding to account . . . individuals, groups and parties that willingly take advantage of that geopolitical chess for their own ends.
Billy_TParticipantForgot to mention:
There’s no evidence that Trump is against “endless wars.” It means nothing to me that he said it. He has nearly 14,000 lies on the books since he took office. Do his deeds match that comment? No. Again, he’s escalated our wars and ordered more troops into Saudi Arabia, gave them greater support in their genocidal war in Yemen, expanded drone attacks overall, weapons sales, jacked up defense spending, launched a failed coup in Venezuela, rattles his saber constantly against Iran, and early on against NK, etc. etc.
I’m not seeing what Hedges is seeing. Words mean nothing, if they aren’t backed up by deeds. His deeds tell me he’s fine with war. He just wants to get credit for them, one way or another.
Billy_TParticipantI think the main problem with Hedge’s premise stems from its Manichean foundation.
If X is bad, and it “goes after” Y, Y must be good, or innocent, or the battle itself can’t be fair or justified.
To me, this is problematic for a host of reasons, with two (perhaps) being most essential.
It’s a broad brush take on the supposedly “bad” entity or person, and doesn’t allow for diversity within those entities and/or across time.
And it doesn’t consider the possibility that both “sides” in the battle might be bad, or at fault.
Crips against the Bloods. One mafia family against another, etc.
Or, “good guys” within the entity deemed bad, with proper intentions, perhaps even “noble.”
In short, I think Hedges and some of his peers make huge assumptions in their critiques, and I think they narrow the possibilities to suit a preset narrative.
Just my take. Hope all is well, WV.
Billy_TParticipantI watched it again to see if I had jumped the gun a bit. I heard a bit more of a critique of Trump the second time, but then he basically cancels that out by turning Trump into the supposed victim.
He wasn’t. He isn’t. He brought all of this on himself. Again, if he hadn’t lashed out in the most personal way against the people Hedges mentioned, threatened them with investigations, called them traitors, etc. etc., they wouldn’t have responded in kind. And prior to that, if he and his campaign hadn’t colluded with Russia and Wikileaks to try to win the election, no investigation would have been launched in the first place. An investigation, btw, that was kept hidden until after the election — unlike HRC’s.
(Also: there is no Mueller investigation if Trump hadn’t fired Comey)
And Hedges is wrong about the collusion. That was proven by Mueller. I think Hedges is falling for the semantic trope that tripped up so many Americans:
1. There was no collusion (regarding the DNC hack)
2. There was no collusion with the Russians, period.It’s true they couldn’t prove #1, and I’m guessing Russia acted on its own. But we know the Trump campaign did collude with Russia after that. The Trump Tower meeting was “collusion,” and Mueller lists more than 150 other contacts in his report.
It’s similar to Bush’s causing 9/11 or just exploiting it after the fact. I go with the latter case, instead of the Truthers’ take.
Billy_TParticipantHedges leaves out all “context” in his critique here, and IMO he’s carrying water for Trump in the process.
It’s not a mystery why some in the Intel community have “gone after Trump.” Trump went after them, relentlessly, in public, on TV, in his tweets, on Fox, fired many of them, called them traitors, again, in public, for having the audacity to investigate his campaign.
Very disappointed in Hedges, yet again, leaving all of that out.
I realize it sounds a great deal juicier to make this into a Le Carre novel, but it’s actually a great deal more banal than that. No president in the history of America has ever attacked his own government like Trump. That includes his own appointees. It would be shocking if they didn’t eventually push back. And it’s not because Trump is somehow this champion antiwar voice, or is against the American empire.
In my view, Hedges is just being flat out silly for suggesting that. Trump fomented a (failed) coup in Venezuela, threatened to nuke North Korea, constantly threatens war with Iran, and has radically increased both defense spending and arms proliferation worldwide. He’s the Pentagon’s dream president, as well as the Intel community’s.
(Take away his personal attacks, and they’d love him and keep their usually silence)
And corporate America? He slashed their taxes and accelerated deregulation and privatization more than any president since Reagan.
Sheesh.
Billy_TParticipantGreat quote from Bertrand. An extremely important antiwar and humanitarian voice, as well as being an amazing mathematician.
I haven’t read any bios of him, but over years have gathered that he also had a true sense of humility. The much younger Wittgenstein floored him with his brilliance, and if memory serves, he had no problem acknowledging his superiority in matters of math and logic.
That’s pretty rare when it comes to famous people, including famous intellectuals.
Anyway, knowledge and compassion equals wisdom. I like that. My own bias is that the left attracts that combo more than any other part of the spectrum. I’d also add “creativity.” Yes, the center and right have their artists too. But it seems that “creatives” are pulled more often to left of center views.
Knowledge, compassion (wisdom) and the arts. The trifecta, in no particular order, for me.
Billy_TParticipantWell, ZN,
I vote that your vote is the wrong vote. That’s my . . . um, vote.
;>)
But, yeah, there’s plenty of room for different takes on the O-line and what ails the Rams. We should be able to agree, however, that they are ailing, whatever the rationales.
It’s all the more frustrating, when we think of the promise we all likely felt before the season. Despite my reservations about the O-line, and they were strong reservations, I still had no doubt the Rams would make the playoffs and do well in them.
Now, my cold-eyed look at the team says they’re not going to make the playoffs at all, while my fan-side says it’s still possible.
Regardless, they’re going to have to make some major changes in the off-season. IMO, it starts with the O-line. And if I had my druthers, they’d bring in a monstrous-sized, lane-clogging DT too.
-
AuthorPosts
