The Russians are coming because Obama left the door open

Remember when Obama ridiculed Romney for saying the Russians were a threat? Remember when Hillary “reset” our relations with Russia, complaining that the Bush folks had been too confrontational? Recall who was president and whose team was on the field when Russians supposedly hacked the election by revealing what Hillary folks were really doing and saying? So what is the Obama response? Blame Trump

We can work with the Russians, but the Russians are not our friends. Obama let them get out of hand.

Remember Obama's red lines in Syria? Remember his "freeing" Libya by leading from behind?

Obama sought love from our enemies. Russia? The 80s want their foreign policy back. Iran? Let's make deals.

Our enemies still don't love us, but they fear us a lot less. It will take a while to rebuild after the Obama foolishness. Trump may mess up yet, but it for sure is not Trumps fault now.

Posted by Christine & John at December 15, 2016 5:29 PM
Comments
Comment #411266

If Obama and the Democrats were so “weak” with respect to Russia, then why didn’t Russia intervene to help them win?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 5:46 PM
Comment #411267

I agree John.

The new Left blame game will switch from Bush to Trump. We don’t forget the Obama effort to affect the election in Israel either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 5:46 PM
Comment #411275

“If Obama and the Democrats were so “weak” with respect to Russia, then why didn’t Russia intervene to help them win?”

WP, you didn’t just puncture the article’s logic, you created a rapid decompression.

The Russians and especially Putin had it in for Hillary Clinton because of the sanctions after their moves in the Crimea and Ukraine. They held her responsible for the recession they have been in since then. They also blame her for protests after Putin’s election in 2011.

The US and Russia cooperate when it is in our mutual interest. We cooperated negotiating the Iranian nuclear non-proliferation deal. We have also cooperated on drawing down nuclear arsenals.

With Trump, Putin sees a way to continue Russian expansion, throw off sanctions, and craft big oil deals with the former CEO of Exxon, while simultaneously weakening NATO, the EU, and other military and economic alliances.

In addition, Trump seems hostile towards China. Pitting China and the US against one another further strengthens Putin’s hand, whether it takes the form of a trade war or open conflict.

If the cabinet choices are any indication, Trump’s domestic agenda will create chaos and further weaken our country. Someone figured out the 17 choices named to date possess as much wealth as 33% of the entire country. Half a dozen are literally opposed to their department’s basic mission. Some have no experience whatsoever running large organizations. Others lack expertise. The NSA advisor was fired from his previous position in Defense, and has been discovered to be re-tweeting fake news posts 16 times, including the one about Hillary Clinton being involved in a child s** slave racket through Comet. That advisor, General Flynn, dined with Putin and appeared on a Russian television program, Russia Today.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2016 6:28 PM
Comment #411282

Goodness, global strategy is not Warren’s or phx8’s area of expertise.

Consider that Putin fully expected Hillary to win. He knew the gullible would believe he had a hand in attempting to influence the election which would adequately disguise his true desire to have a weakling like Clinton in the White House. He knew Clinton could be bought cheaply as he had successfully done it with the uranium fiasco.

Putin had much more available to be used as blackmail if the new president Clinton wouldn’t cooperate.

Putin is as disappointed with the Trump win as the Left is. He will have to deal with a man who can’t be bribed or blackmailed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #411288

How much does a room at the Trump Hotel International Washington DC cost?

Nah, I’m sure Trump’s smart enough to charge more than that for his bribes, right?

And while we are at it, do we have even an iota of evidence to suggest that Clinton had any influence over the transaction regarding Uranium One?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 7:10 PM
Comment #411289

Guess we have to place the evidence Warren asks for into a blender so his baby mind can assimilate it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 7:16 PM
Comment #411291

Can I get it with a cherry on top?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 7:24 PM
Comment #411292

Babies may choke on cherries.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 7:29 PM
Comment #411293

Well, that’s why I’m the one eating it, not you.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 7:30 PM
Comment #411294

Cranky Warren needs a nappy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 7:32 PM
Comment #411297

You have way too much fun doing this, don’t you?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 7:40 PM
Comment #411298

Too much fun…not possible.

I will try and not take advantage of my Leftie Pals during the New Year. We are all Americans and all want success for ourselves and our neighbors.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #411301

It is what it is. You and I come to Watchblog for different reasons. For me, it is an opportunity to learn and explore. For you, it is a zoo showcasing a bunch of exotic opinions and occasionally you taunt the chimpanzees too much leading to a shitstorm of sorts.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 7:49 PM
Comment #411307

Of course you’re right Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 15, 2016 7:59 PM
Comment #411308

Warren

My theory is that the Russians figured that Hillary would win and just wanted to mess with her, make it less legitimate.

It worked out for them anyway.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 15, 2016 8:22 PM
Comment #411309

C&J,
Again, it doesn’t make sense for the Russians to harm the candidate that they thought was better for their interests.

I am sure you are right that the Russians thought Hillary was going to win so they messed with her to decrease her legitimacy. But it only makes sense to decrease the legitimacy of the candidate you fear the most.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 8:33 PM
Comment #411312

Warren

Are we sure Russians thought Trump was better? They thrived under Obama, including the time when Hillary was Secretary of State. We notice that people like Hillary and Obama talk a lot about good things but do little. She was not a good secretary of state and she is no energetic.

But they probably did think she would win. So whether or not they think she is better for them in general, they would still try to weaken her. They don’t weaken the one they are most afraid of; they weaken in general.

I used to work countering Soviet disinformation. The goal of disinformation was not to get people to believe the disinformation. Their goal was to weaken the whole idea of truth They have succeeded in this case.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 15, 2016 8:43 PM
Comment #411315
They thrived under Obama
Looking at their economic performance over the past 8 years, it is hard to argue they are thriving. The same can be said for their influence abroad. Russia went from having dominance over all of Ukraine to controlling just 3 oblasts.
They don’t weaken the one they are most afraid of; they weaken in general.
No, the Russians would not target the person they thought was a pushover, lest they would risk installing a President that they feared.
Their goal was to weaken the whole idea of truth They have succeeded in this case.
Absolutely. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 9:07 PM
Comment #411316
a man who can’t be bribed or blackmailed.

I wonder if Ozan Ozkural (or someone else) is going to get his money’s worth. At least we know Donald Trump doesn’t care about people seeing his tax returns, so any threats to leak them to the press are unlikely to have an effect.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 15, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #411317

Warren

The Russian (former Soviet) economy and their disinformation-intelligence services are not the same and only weakly related.

The Russians play the long game. And they do no act in obvious ways. Democrats have been softer on the Russians since they (Democrats) became generally wimpy after the 1960s. Hillary talked tough - sometimes - but we could observe in her behavior that she was not so tough. Recall that her time as Secretary of State was a weak time for the U.S. we can blame Obama, but she went along.

Putin did not fear Hillary. Be serious. She was a weak leader who couldn’t even instill fear in her own party. Putin knows more ways to kill you than you know how to die. Somebody like Hillary does not trouble a guy like that. Hillary didn’t even scare me when she was my “boss”. We all knew that she would talk loud but then you could go about your business as before.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 15, 2016 9:56 PM
Comment #411321

Trump has been lying about the Russian interference with the election. He knew. He was briefed. And he blatantly lied. Tomorrow Obama will hold a press conference. Up until now Obama has operated behind the scenes. He spoke with Putin and warned him to stop interfering with the election. He wanted to issue a bipartisan statement about the Russian activity before the election. Some Republicans agreed. McConnell nixed it; quite simply, he put party and power over the best interests of the country.

In an NPR interview coming out tomorrow Obama says we will respond to the Russian espionage attack, and it will be “at a time and a place of our own choosing.” Up until now, most of the pressure has been economic.

The Russians are good at cyber attacks, but we are better.

And it looks like the gloves are coming off for Obama.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 12:15 AM
Comment #411325

Where is the hard evidence and why won’t the CIA take it to Congress? Wikileaks founder says it was not Russia. IMO the CIA and other intelligence agencies aren’t even sure themselves or the are blaming Russia for their own dirty deeds.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 16, 2016 8:55 AM
Comment #411328

KAP, wherever that hard evidence is, is sounds like they need to share it with their SoS.

On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry said:
“I’m not going to comment on anonymous reports from intelligence officials that are not identified that have quotes around the concept of intelligence officials,” Kerry went on to say, putting “intelligence officials” in air quotes.

But yet we have leftists intentionally dividing the country and trying to destroy our form of government. And now President Obama is threatening a major superpower right before his successor replaces him?

It’s pretty clear who is really putting “party and power over the best interests of the country.”

Posted by: kctim at December 16, 2016 9:31 AM
Comment #411329

warren

“Again, it doesn’t make sense for the Russians to harm the candidate that they thought was better for their interests.”

Bingo !!!!

Posted by: dbs at December 16, 2016 9:38 AM
Comment #411330

All

This is stopping us (and Democratic leadership) from making a good analysis.

Let’s list things that are true.

Hillary lost

Information leaked by Russians and/or others hurt her
- This information was not false; it was just an embarrassing look into Hillary’s inner circle.
- This sort of information is similar in effect to that leaked about GW Bush’s drunk driving etc.

The leaked information was effective because it was reasonably accurate and fit with general impressions of Hillary, based on her penchant for secrecy and her use of a private server. She made herself vulnerable.

The Obama folks were in charge of national security and the Obama team was on the field when all this hack allegedly occurred. They were also running American foreign policy, including that directed to Russia.

Hillary made significant tactical errors, specifically choosing to do fund raising events in place like California and New York, rather than doing vote raising events in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She drove up vote totals where they did not help and neglected the places she needed. She misunderstood the Electoral system or, more likely, just thought she had it in the bag and wanted to drive up her vote in gene

Elections are statistical events. Lots of factors affect them. They just an estimate of popular will at one point in time. They are not some kind of magic measure and things can go very differently depending on prosaic factions.

Hillary almost won. The election could easily have gone the other way and then we would be praising Hillary’s intelligence and good planning.

BUT - Hillary lost. What if we establish with 100% certainty that Russian leaking of information cost Hillary those votes that would have given her victory in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. What would we do? How would our behavior change?

There are no accusations significant of voter fraud. Our Democratic friends have repeated assured us that this is not a problem or even a serious possibility. Hillary lost because not enough people in place like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for her. We can discuss why. Maybe their decisions were affected by the leaked Russian information, but they did what they did and there is no way to go back.

Trump was not my choice and I wrote about that for more than a year. But he did win the election. We have to move on.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 16, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #411337

It seems like FOXNews has reported that the Russians did indeed hack the DNC.

Let me remind the right here of a few things. First, when Obama demanded Syria give up its chemical weapons, it did. Now I know folks on the right treacherously decided to buy into Putin’s obfuscation on the matter, but even so, did Syria keep their chemical weapons and dare Obama to strike?

No.

Where is Qaddafi? Dead. Qaddafi promised to wash the streets in the blood of his citizens. Obama countered with a targeted campaign of airstrikes. He weakened Qadaffi’s forces to the point that the leader actually fell, and died with a bullet to the head. It’s his picture that Ann Romney mistakenly showed as Ambassador Steven’s bloody corpse.

The problem is, it’s damn near impossible to follow through on these successes when you have a Congress hostile to any action Obama takes, and more interested in getting to the bottom of Benghazi, REPEATEDLY, than actually dealing with the situation there, or in Syria.

The Republicans are willing to let this country and the world go to hell so they can sit at the top. Now they got what they want!

And now it’s going to ****ing destroy them. Why? Because they got to caring more about the real and imagined faults of their rivals than their own competence and ability to govern. You can get ALEC to write you up every bill you want to promote your agenda. You can gerrymander yourself into domination. you can do all that. At the end of the day, though, the quality of your judgment is not measured in how many points you scored with the Koch Brothers, or any ideologue out there.

It’s measured by results. But getting good results in government, like anything else, is a matter of practice and good fortune. Obama didn’t avoid a multitude of scandals by luck or a friendly media. He did so by setting down hard rules and enforcing them. Trump and the Republicans? They think they’re above that.

They’re not. Nobody is. You can convince a core of people that checking off an ideological list is good enough, but sooner or later, your promises have to kept in the real world, and the consequences of your promised actions will unfold.

Yes, Hillary lost. But here’s the thing I’d tell you, C&J, what you might not being getting at this point: Trump almost lost.

If turnout in a few key states had been different, if Comey hadn’t blundered or deliberately stuck his nose into things. So you guys need to stop acting like it’s 1964 or 1984. You have a limited amount of grief you can give people before you risk a wave reaction against you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2016 1:13 PM
Comment #411338

When someone tells you “to move on” or says “there’s nothing to see here” you should definitely NOT “move on” and there is almost always “something to see”. An investigation will either show no outside influence of any significance in the election, proving Donald right, or there was intrusion that must be addressed. Had Hilary won and the same claims of Russian meddling surfaced, every Republican would be clamoring for an investigation. But now its “move on” from the same people that wanted perpetual Benghazi hearings.

Posted by: Paul at December 16, 2016 1:22 PM
Comment #411339

Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million. It appears she will lose in the electoral college by a narrow margin. People are running around quoting Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68 as a reason for the electors to refuse to vote for Trump:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Since many states bound their electors to the popular vote in their states, it is unlikely Trump will be rejected.

Trump repeatedly and falsely promoted the Wikileaks attacks with misleading statements. Yesterday TRMS did a film montage of lies Trump told about the Wikileaks e-mails. There are numerous fact check articles about this. If anyone is unclear, I would simply encourage them to take a look at whatever sites they prefer.

The goal was to build a long-term narrative that Hillary Clinton was somehow untrustworthy, or lying. In fact, fact checkers once again showed her to be the second most honest politician out of all the presidential candidates during the 2016 campaign. That did not matter. The point was to endlessly repeat the Big Lie, regardless of the lack of evidence. The Russian cyber attacks funneled through Wikileaks promoted this idea, even if the content did not bear it out.

All in all, the Russian cyber attacks can be approached in two ways: 1) as a matter of national security, and 2) as a political matter.

Trump and his supporters refuse to acknowledge the national security aspect. For Trump, it is all just a personal attack, an egregious violation of his narcissistic self-image. For others in the GOP, only party and power matter. Some in the GOP recognize the danger to the integrity of our elections. Most refuse.

The media played into this problem by stressing neutrality rather than truthfulness. We now face the astounding situation where fake news sites on social media are receiving more hits than the NYT and the WaPo.

WI conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes said it well:

“No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters…

In this political universe, voters accept that they must tolerate bizarre behavior, dishonesty, crudity and cruelty, because the other side is always worse; the stakes are such that no qualms can get in the way of the greater cause.

For many listeners, nothing was worse than Hillary Clinton. Two decades of vilification had taken their toll:… they generally refused to accept evidence that came from outside their bubble. The echo chamber had morphed into a full-blown alternate reality silo of conspiracy theories, fake news and propaganda…

we had succeeded in persuading our audiences to ignore and discount any information from the mainstream media…

We destroyed our own immunity to fake news, while empowering the worst and most reckless voices on the right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/opinion/sunday/charlie-sykes-on-where-the-right-went-wrong.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 1:32 PM
Comment #411340

Stephen

Assad actually used chemical weapons AFTER he supposedly got rid of them. But anyway …

Re “Yes, Hillary lost. But here’s the thing I’d tell you, C&J, what you might not being getting at this point: Trump almost lost.”

THIS is what I wrote just above -

“Elections are statistical events. Lots of factors affect them. They just an estimate of popular will at one point in time. They are not some kind of magic measure and things can go very differently depending on prosaic factions.

“Hillary almost won. The election could easily have gone the other way and then we would be praising Hillary’s intelligence and good planning.”

Actually, I think I even explained it better than you did. You see, I try to look for truth on both sides.

Paul

Please see above to Stephen - you are also correct, “Had Hilary won and the same claims of Russian meddling surfaced, every Republican would be clamoring for an investigation.”

The question is, would it be stupid and unpatriotic if Republicans did it? It goes for Democrats too.

For both Stephen and Paul

I try to be consistent in what I call stupid and smart, bad and good. I judge based on a code of ethics that applies to all. I admit a “liberty bias” but I do not judge Republicans any less harshly.

It is almost too easy with liberals. I can just cut and paste what they say on the one side and put it on the other, and it generally outrages them.

Trump was not my choice. This is what I wrote a few days before the election “I feel mild depression whenever I think of the next four years. I am pretty sure that Hillary will win. Hillary is the second worst candidate of my adult life, surpassed in odiousness only by her opponent.”

BUT I support MY president. I supported my President Bush and my President Obama. I would have supported my president Clinton but I now support my President Trump.

That does not mean we have to love them or not oppose policies of theirs, but let’s cut the hysteria.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 16, 2016 1:47 PM
Comment #411342

As I’ve posted in the past, there is way too much party cheerleading going on and not enough real leadership. If outside forces were attempting to influence the election it needs to be investigated and the truth told, just like Donald promised during his convention speech. I respect that members of both parties have agreed to investigate the potential hacks. Mitch McConnell is acting like a grown up too bad Donald is unable or unwilling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/

What i don’t understand is how anyone expects people who didn’t vote for Trump to rally behind him when he can’t demonstrate that same maturity. He did not win a majority of votes, has no mandate and generally acts like a total jerk with anyone he disagrees with. He has had many opportunities since winning to show his critics that he is a way better leader than they expected but he has repeatedly failed to seize those moments. If people aren’t giving him a chance its his own fault, not the so called liberal media’s fault, or vanity fair’s fault, its not SNL’s fault or the NYT or any other of the many scapegoats he tweets about.

Posted by: Paul at December 16, 2016 2:24 PM
Comment #411343

And it looks like the gloves are coming off for Obama.
Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 12:15 AM

OH, MY, he has said that before and the world, and Putin…didn’t give a shit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #411344

Putin cared a great deal. That was why he took the risk of a cyber attack on our elections. It was worth doing it to put Trump in the White House. He will face a payback, but in the meantime, he now has a US president who says “NATO is obsolete,” whose campaign made only one change to the Republican party platform- not providing arms to the Ukrainians. The incoming president-elect has also said he might not honor his NATO treaty obligations. Oh, and it gets even better for Putin.

A few years ago, the incoming SoS was working on a big $500 billion deal with the Russians to drill the Arctic. Sanctions stopped the deal. The new SoS opposed sanctions at the time. He was awarded the Russian Medal of Friendship. He even went to a meeting in St Petersburg to get together with Putin, despite requests by the Obama administration not do to so, since it violated the spirit of the sanctions. Almost all the major business leaders that were invited turned down the chance. The Exxon CEO went anyway, one of the few to put the interests of his corporation ahead of his country. Now he will be making decisions at State.

Putin took a big chance, but after years of sanctions and a prolonged economic recession, he may finally be able to break free and renew dreams of expansion.

Putin cares. He cares a great deal. He stopped the hacks when Obama told him to do so in September, when they met in person in China, but of course, the hacks were a done deal. Putin cares a great deal.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #411345

Consider the nature of the hacks. All they did was to reveal discussions among Hillary’s team members. They were actual quotes. So maybe the Hillary folks should not have said such things, or at least been smart enough not to write them down, or failing that, have a more secure server.

I don’t like it that the Russians did such things and I wish Obama had taken the threat seriously sooner. But they were able to pull it off because Obama left the door open for them and Hillary provided lots of material to work with.

What should Trump have done? He could have condemned the Russians, but then neither Obama nor Hillary took that road either. He could not have condemned the information, since they were true.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 16, 2016 4:27 PM
Comment #411346

All we have is speculation and Anonymous reports from intel. people. The same people said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that played out well. Russia and others have been hacking us for decades as have we been doing. The left is now pitching a bitch because their darling was defeated and now they won’t get their way, BOO HOO, BOO HOO.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 16, 2016 4:42 PM
Comment #411347

Racism, Se*ism, Xenophobia, Jim Comey, fake news, hacked voting machines, Russian conspiracy have been blamed at one time or another for Hillary’s loss the only one they on the left have not blamed and the one they should blame is Hillary herself.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 16, 2016 4:53 PM
Comment #411348

John is absolutely correct, “They were actual quotes.” Did voters rely upon the truth if they changed their vote? Does the truth harm voters? Is release of hacked information made worse by virtue of who did the hacking?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 4:57 PM
Comment #411349

“•Oct. 31 from Warren, MI: “Did you see where, on WikiLeaks, it was announced that they were paying protestors to be violent, $1,500?… Did you see another one, another one came in today? This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”

•Nov. 2 from Orlando, FL: “Out today, WikiLeaks just came out with a new one, just a little a while ago, it’s just been shown that a rigged system with more collusion, possibly illegal, between the Department of Justice, the Clinton campaign and the State Department.”

•Nov. 2 from Pensacola, FL: “They said about Hillary, she’s got bad instincts right. You know who said that, Podesta. I would fire Podesta so fast. I mean the way he talks about her, whether true, not true, who cares. He speaks so badly about her. Of course he didn’t know there was a thing called WikiLeaks right.”

“•Nov. 4 from Wilmington, OH: “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”

•Nov. 6 from Sioux City, IA: “Just today, we learned Hillary Clinton was sending highly classified information through her maid. Did you see? Just came out a little while ago, who therefore had total access to this information, completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States. This just came out. WikiLeaks.”

•Nov. 7 from Manchester, NH: “Hillary has shown contempt for the working people of this country. Her campaign in WikiLeaks has spoken horribly about Catholics and evangelicals and so many others. They got it all down folks, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks. And what Podesta said about her, bad instincts. He said she’s got bad instincts.”

Trump called attention to it constantly! He even did it today, focusing on the content and calling a leaked question to CNN “illegal” (If it happened, it might have been unethical, but it was not illegal).

The point was to keep the focus on the Big Lie about e-mails. The MSM focused on it constantly, as if it were the equivalent of the nearly daily outright lies told by Trump. The point was to absorb bandwidth, prevent discussion of issues, and most importantly, create the impression- the impression- that Hillary Clinton was somehow dishonest and untrustworthy.

Like I said, Director Comey probably deserves the most blame. Intentionally or not, he fed into the whole e-mail meme being pushed by the Russians and Trump by giving his opinion about that investigation- an unprecedented move by an FBI Director- followed by announcing he was re-opening the investigation into e-mails just days before the election, even though it turned out those e-mails were just duplicates. That was unprecedented too.

Now it is too late. A person who is utterly unfit to be the Chief Executive will take over, and his cabinet appointments virtually guarantee a disaster.

By the way, Larry Kudrow was named National Economic Advisor. It is a laughably bad appointment. People don’t get to be more wrong than Kudrow. He was supposed to be an expert. Criminy, he was paid for his opinion on the economy.

“Kudlow firmly denied that the United States would enter a recession in 2007, or that it was in the midst of a recession in early to mid-2008. In December 2007, he wrote: “The recession debate is over. It’s not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that’s a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come”. In May 2008 he wrote: “President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country” in his “‘R’ is for ‘Right’”. He said that “I don’t believe we’re heading into a recession” in regards to the large Wall Street drop of August 4, 2011 and recent signs of weaknesses in the United States’ GDP.”
Wikipedia

He went on to predict ‘The Obama Bear Market.’

What a knucklehead!

Seriously, how does an economic advisor get to be that wrong? How did this guy stay employed? And now he is National Economic Advisor?


Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #411350

Isn’t it interesting when Obama promises retribution against Russia for hacking, he won’t reveal when, how, or where. But…when it came to troop withdrawals and other military actions he was very specific. Can’t wait for the door to hit this guy in the azzzz as he leaves the WH.

A thank-you goes out to phx8 for reminding us how devastating the truth can be to those masquerading as something they are not. It’s just a damn shame that the truth about Obamacare didn’t leak before becoming law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #411351

Here is the great news for you, RF. You will be able to do a statistical apple-to-apple comparison of the performance by Bush #43 and Obama, and then Obama and Trump. The hard numbers will be available.

Can conservatives do better with health care reform than Obamacare? By all means. I would be very happy to see that.

But there better be a plan. Because if the GOP repeals it without a replacement, they will throw 20 million people off insurance. The shift in health care will go away from GP’s and back to specialists. It will go away from preventative care. Health care costs went up under Obamacare, but they went up a LOT more without it.

Oh, and Obamacare included free birth control for women as part of the overall cost. Abortions are at the lowest level since before Roe v Wade because of the wider availability of birth control through Obamacare.

Posted by: phx8 at December 16, 2016 5:35 PM
Comment #411352

I am not sure of what I will say here concerning C&J. Were you involved in some intel work recently? I don’t need any more info than that. About 50 years ago I too was involved in some intel work. Gathering intel has some basic rules. Beyond the basic rules it is wide open. The reason I mentioned C&J was that I was under the impression that intel work was a part of your service. I will not question your work. There are people on this site that think they know all about the CIA and FBI and all the other intel agencies. When I was doing the work back then we did not have all those alphabet soup agencies. So you “experts” who don’t know squat it is just entertainment. There are some that do make sense here also.

The name I use is on facebook and other places, but you will never find it in the files of intel activity, because the name I use is not what you read here. That is part of the fun of being covert over the years. I am at an age now where nothing bothers me and I am prepared to meet my Savior who is Christ the Lord.

Posted by: tom humes at December 16, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #411353

Thank you for your service tom.

phx8 uses the “fake news” number of 20 million losing coverage if Obamacare is eliminated.

Many studies indicate that 71 percent of the total coverage gain came from Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.


Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 6:22 PM
Comment #411354

Michelle Obama says America is entering a time of hopelessness

“In a new interview with Oprah Winfrey, the first lady addressed the election outcome and suggested that the U.S. is entering a time of hopelessness.”

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/12/16/michelle-obama-says-america-is-entering-a-time-of-hopelessness/

Yup, you bet Ms. First Lady. I believe Laura Bush had similar remarks when your husband won. OH, WAIT, never happened. The Bush’s had some class.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 7:29 PM
Comment #411355

Based upon new information I choose to believe regarding “Snopes”, I will no longer accept as factual any links to their information.

Facebook Empowers Far-Left Group to Bury “Fake News”
Snopes political “fact checker” is a mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton & the Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-empowers-far-left-group-to-bury-fake-news/

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 16, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #411356

phx8

It became news. Didn’t Hillary use the accusations women made against Trump?

Re health care - GOP has lots of proposals. Ryan has one. The think tanks have made proposals. It will need to be done iteratively. That is as it should have been done last time.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 16, 2016 8:34 PM
Comment #411357

Tom

I worked on Soviet disinformation when there still was a Soviet Union, a long time ago. I was familiar with Soviet active measures, but did nothing covert. I also did unclassified work to counter violent extremism more recently, but still a while ago. I was a consumer of classified information, but not a producer. I did very little that I could not talk about today, but a lot of it was not very interesting to outsiders. If you have similar experience, you know what I mean. They make movies and write books about people doing our sort of work, but it takes ten years of work and 100 people to make one exciting life story to fill a couple hours.

I have absolutely no insider information about the current situation, but I am familiar with how Soviet active measures used to work and I figure they have not changed that much.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 16, 2016 8:49 PM
Comment #411358

Tom,

Thank you for your service.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 16, 2016 9:00 PM
Comment #411369

Well, I am genuinely stumped. How will the GOP repeal Obamacare yet continue to see people covered who were only able to qualify or afford health insurance because of Obamacare in the first place?

Are there proposals for alternatives? That’s nice. The GOP has already voted for repeal over 60 times. There has never been a Republican bill that made it out of committee because Republicans opposed each other’s proposals, never mind Democrats. They have been in control of Congress for years, yet there is nothing to show. Nothing.

Repealing Obamacare and replacing it with Medicare for all would be totally fine for me. That is an easily implemented plan. Costs not covered by Medicare could be covered by private health insurers. Other aspects of Obamacare, such as shifting health care from treatment to prevention could be incorporated.

Allowing the government to negotiate drug pricing with providers would dramatically reduce the cost of prescriptions. That is another easily implemented plan. I go through www.northwestpharmacy.com because drugs purchased in Canada are much cheaper than the exact same ones purchased in the US. One prescription costs me $300 in the US. Through Canada it costs less than $60. My wife was going to be charged $250, but paid only $25 through northwestpharmacy.com

Posted by: phx8 at December 17, 2016 11:51 AM
Comment #411370

RF,
Alex Jones of Infowars pushed the story about Hillary Clinton being involved with a child s** slavery ring being run from the basement of Comet Pizza. This hoax was taken seriously by a young man in NC who drove to the restaurant and shot up the place with an assault rifle. He thought he was going to free the enslaved children being kept in the basement.

There was no basement.

There were no child s** slaves.

And no, Hillary Clinton was not involved with trafficking child s** slaves.

It was a fake story. It was a hoax. Do you understand that?

When Snopes fact checked the story it turned out to be false. The truth was not a matter of a liberal bias. There was no basement, no child s** slaves, no tie to Hillary Clinton and s** trafficking.

Alex Jones of Infowars has been responsible for stories about the Bush administration being behind 9/11 and the Sandy Hook massacre being done with actors, among others. You understand those stories are not true, right?

Facts are facts. They are neither liberal nor conservative. That so much of the fake news moves through the conservative world should be a matter of great concern for conservatives.

Facebook is going to incorporate reputable fact checkers from the AP, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, WaPo, and ABC News.

And no amount of denunciation or finger pointing at liberals is going to mean there is really a basement in Comet Pizza where Hillary Clinton is keeping child s** slaves.

Posted by: phx8 at December 17, 2016 12:05 PM
Comment #411371
Facts are facts. They are neither liberal nor conservative. That so much of the fake news moves through the conservative world should be a matter of great concern for conservatives.

Phx8,

But, but, but… the facts make Royal Flush feel uncomfortable. And we can’t have that, can we?

Personally, I think Facebook is asking for trouble with the new scheme to factcheck stories in their newsfeed. It’s a fallible system and the instant it makes a single mistake, conservatives will stop trusting Facebook just like they’ve abandoned every other fact-based media organization out there. At the very least, Facebook needs to be a hundred percent transparent about what it’s doing. It needs to publish lists of what is currently being blacklisted and whitelisted in order to let its users police its own work. Otherwise, there will be endless conspiracies whereby people accuse Facebook of burying legitimate news favorable to the Republicans.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 12:29 PM
Comment #411372
That does not mean we have to love them or not oppose policies of theirs, but let’s cut the hysteria.

Sage advice C&J, but I wonder why now?

Seems to me you rode the Obama Derangement Syndrome train for quite some time. In fact president elect Trump was a certifiable member of the ODS crowd, an engineer driving the ODS train onward to new heights of hysteria. Now we are to forgo hysteria!

As a right wing populist Herr Trump has said many a hysterical thing, has promoted many a hysteria idea and once elected has appointed many a hysterical nominee from the fringes of the dredged swamp. Seems to me hysteria is a tool to win votes from the people of this country. I also think Mein Trump is using hysteria as a tool, much like fear, to gain acceptance of his ruling oligarchy.

So once again why forgo hysteria now?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 17, 2016 1:10 PM
Comment #411373

phx8 asks; “Are there proposals for alternatives (to Obamacare)?

Certainly. Go to www.better.gop

You will find as much information as you may desire.

“Snopes originally gained recognition for being the go-to site for disproving outlandish urban legends -such as the presence of UFOs in Haiti or the existence of human-animal hybrids in the Amazon jungle.

Recently, however, the site has tried to pose as a political fact-checker. But Snopes’ “fact-checking” looks more like playing defense for prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and it’s political “fact-checker” describes herself as a liberal and has called Republicans “regressive” and afraid of “female agency.”

Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4T7aCCz7p

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 1:30 PM
Comment #411374

Here’s some more fun stuff to read about Kim Lacapria. Enjoy.

http://100percentfedup.com/busted-main-political-fact-checker-for-snopes-is-finally-exposed-as-liberal-hack/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/#ixzz4ByrUl7x0

I suggest that sll those on WB with a brain should cease depending upon “snopes” for truth in politics.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 1:49 PM
Comment #411375

Snopes addressed the scurrilous article by the Daily Caller writer in great detail:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/19/failed-daily-caller-writer-throws-temper-tantrum-about-being-debunked-by-snopes-com/

The www.better.gop consists of a wish list for health care. It is incredibly vague. There are a lot of statements without any kind of overall cost projection. I could say ‘I am going to provide everyone with better health care that will cost less’ but that does not make my statement a plan either.

WP,
It will be interesting to see if the FB approach to fake news works. While freedom of expression and press and recognized rights, a social media outlet like FB is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone. We have a terrible problem: a large number of people, particularly Trump supporters, believe a lot of things that are simply not true.

We are not in a post-fact or post-truth era. Putting two people on the air knowing that one is telling the truth and the other is lying is not a proper application of journalistic neutrality.

The problem with all the conspiracy theories rampant among Trump supporters is a serious one. It goes beyond a young guy showing up a pizza restaurant with a assault rifle and shooting up the place as he looks for a non-existent basement full of non-existent child s** slaves. It matter on a large scale. A National Security Advisor who first missed the onset of the Great Recession, and then missed the recovery- the longest one without a recession in US history- obviously believes things that are wrong, and there is virtually no chance that he will be able to give sound economic advice. A National Security Advisor who actually believed and re-tweeted the Infowars story about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in a child s** ring, along with 15 other hoaxes, is not likely to give good advice on National Security.

There are big problems with FB news and the media. They have contributed to the current dire state of affairs with the GOP. The FB approach may not be sufficient, but it is a start.

Posted by: phx8 at December 17, 2016 2:08 PM
Comment #411376

I don’t care who Kim Lacapria is as long as she accurately cites her sources and tracks down the primary sources to verify various claims.

I don’t pay attention to the “True” or “False” rating that these various fact-checkers provide because I don’t trust anyone to objectively rate things like that. However, I do look for reporting that reveals the chain of knowledge between the primary sources and the opinions they generate. Because the fact-checkers conveniently summarize all the primary sources on a topic, I often cite them in my comments.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 2:10 PM
Comment #411377

phx8 responds to the link I provided by writing; “The www.better.gop consists of a wish list for health care.”

I really don’t know why any Conservative bothers to answer questions by Lefties. They are simply whiners and pity-pot sitters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 2:26 PM
Comment #411378

Feel free to use Snopes any way you wish Warren. Ignoring many of the sources you use is not unusual for me and others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #411380
FB is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone.

Believe me, the invisible hand squeezes FB mightily in this regard. The are wont to everything they can to keep conservative users within their fold. If that means providing a platform for conservative alternative media, then so be it. Facebook’s current struggle is to have its cake and eat it too. They need the advertising dollars from those links to conservative alternative media, but they also don’t want to scare off their liberal users at the same time.

a large number of people, particularly Trump supporters, believe a lot of things that are simply not true.

I think this is mostly a result of an erosion of trust in traditional media sources. Those media are assembled together by elites living in America’s big cities. There’s a cultural gap between them and the rest of America. They don’t speak the same dialect anymore and it shows. An unfortunate paradox comes into being whereby the quashing of rumor comes across as condescension, widening the trust gap even further.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 2:35 PM
Comment #411381
Ignoring many of the sources you use is not unusual for me and others.

Such is the tactic of a pity-pot sitter.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #411383

Warren, I am flattered by your imitation of my word-smith imagery.

The NYT has rented out the top floors of their Mother Ship as it is hemorrhaging money as increasing numbers of people come to understand that much of their news is merely commentary and opinion.

There is nothing “main-stream” anymore about much of the print and TV media.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 2:59 PM
Comment #411384

You are welcome. Your pithy insults are just as out of place in my writing as they are in yours.

much of their news is merely commentary and opinion

NYT is “hemorrhaging” money because their product is a nonrival good. It’s basic economics. Compare them to the successful Huffington Post, which is almost literally nothing but opinion and commentary. Understand that alternative media invariably leeches its stories from traditional sources.

Honestly, there is not much of a market for traditional reporting of the facts these days. Very few people understand the importance of good reporting or primary sources.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 3:15 PM
Comment #411385

Agree on the HuffPost.

In the “Stone Age” of my past, major media was proud of being accurate in reporting news. Some even did investigative reporting…imagine that. Editors could read, write and even demand excellence and truth in reporting.

Long ago, White House reporters were not mere minions copying down and relaying what the president’s mouthpiece desired.

There should be a warning declaration on much of what passes as news; “Reader beware of misleading and untrue claims”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #411386
In the “Stone Age” of my past, major media was proud of being accurate in reporting news. Some even did investigative reporting…imagine that. Editors could read, write and even demand excellence and truth in reporting.

Yes, it is worthwhile to discuss how technology has transformed the media over the past 30 years or so. Now, I am not old enough to have witnessed “old” media firsthand, but I have the luxury of talking to people who did as well as seeing what is available in various archives. However, if I get anything wrong, feel free to point it out.

Firstly, we must understand that the press has always been inhabited by liberals and they have never been perfect straight-shooters always giving straight reports of the facts. Remember Edward R. Murrow’s editorialization in his reporting of the McCarthy Hearings. In fact, well before any of us were born, media were dominated by heavily biased and opinionated “Yellow Paper Journalism”.

Secondly, the dawn of cable TV gave certain outlets way too much time to fill. The New York Times’ motto has always been “all the news that’s fit to print”. With 168 hours of dead air to fill, outlets like CNN began broadcasting things that weren’t fit to print. Of course, competition and the free market caused the syndrome to spread back to the older media institutions. This is where we got the spectacle of the daily Presidential Briefing where “minions copy down and relay what the president’s mouthpiece desired.” Instead of digging deep to find meaningful truths, there are way too many incentives to be lazy and ask various people to comment on what someone else said.

Thirdly, the rise of Craigslist and Ebay took away Newspapers’ revenue. For many decades, news reporting was actually a loss leader to draw eyeballs to the classified ads. Without the ads, the newsgathering needs to make a profit all by itself, which is something that never really happened before.

Fourthly, the internet has spawned so many “news” sites that merely leech off the hard work of others. If a newspaper spends loads of resources conducting a piece of hard-hitting investigative reporting, then 5 minutes after they publish it there will be a summary of said story on all their rivals’ websites as well as the websites of leeches such as the Huffington Post.

Nevertheless, there are still many great examples of great investigative reporting. In the past 6 months, none has been better than the hard work David Fahrenthold has done investigating the corruption and lawbreaking emanating from the Donald Trump Foundation and the huge conflicts of interest posed by his corporation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #411387

WP
You mentioned McCarthy above.

If we had a few more people like McCarthy, Hillary would have been a “who’s that”.

Throw in another MC name like General of the Army Douglas McCarthur and many of you on WB would be writing in a different style.

I have studied both men intensly. So much mis-information has been spewed forth about both men. The writers are even now known as “who were they”, meaning the writers.

Both of those men as well as the UN are my 3 fsvorite subjects. My HS speech class final speech was titled “A Condemnation of the United Nations”.

Posted by: tom humes at December 17, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #411388

I know. You have mentioned your secret file cabinent with documents exonerating McCarthy many times before. Regardless, I hope your special files have the correct spelling of MacArthur’s name somewhere.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #411389

There was a time in national television news in which an opinion was announced as that, before it was given.

One of my favorites was CBS Commentator Eric Sevareid.

Follow this link to watch and hear a farewell message from Mr. Sevareid on retiring from CBS News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 17, 2016 6:39 PM
Comment #411390

wp

Am I allowed a typo?

Posted by: tom humes at December 17, 2016 7:02 PM
Comment #411391

RF,

Thank you for sharing Eric Sevareid’s farewell remarks. I also found his remarks given they day after JFK’s assassination and the day Eldbridge Cleaver. I understand why you enjoyed his commentary. Obviously, things have changed over the years and today’s Americans do not have attention spans for a 3 minute monologue every night. It is why the main networks no longer cover the national political conventions gavel-to-gavel as they used to. With so many more channels available to watch, news programming suffers.

Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that you shared a commentator rather than a hard-hitting investigative journalist. Honestly, I do not care much for the monologue style, but that’s my millennial brain doing the talking. I think PBS’ Newshour is very faithful to the old-style of doing things. My Grandma force fed way too much Jim Lehrer to me in the ’90s. I wonder how Mark Shields and David Brooks’ weekly dialogue compares with Sevareid? I’ve always hated Shields and his floppy cheeks, but Brooks has always given me a great insight into conservative thinking.

TH,
Obviously, I make typographical errors all the time. But please understand, I think a lifetime of intense study would at least teach one how to spell a man’s name. So, please understand why I am slightly incredulous regarding your claims. For what it is worth “a” and “c” are far apart on the keyboard, so this was an error in memory recall rather than an error in finger placement.

Anyway, I would love to hear your opinion of Edward Murrow’s reporting of the McCarthy hearings. Was it an ethical breach for him to editorialize on the matter?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 7:46 PM
Comment #411392

Oops I forgot to finish a sentence, it should read:

“and the day Eldbridge Cleaver returned to the United States

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 17, 2016 7:47 PM
Comment #411393

WP

Make whatever claims you want about the C and A. It is hogwash.

Now about Edward R. Murrow. He was never held in high esteem to me. Maybe he smoked too much.

People tend to claim whatever information is out on the wheel of TV, Media in general etc. tend to fit their own values whatever that may be. For many people they would also claim those people to be in error with their thinking. We all do that on just about every subject that is thrown our way. ERM was someone I did not agree with his assumptions that were put forth. There were other individuals who I felt the same way with. When I learned that they attended certain schools back in the day it that told me that they had a position that I could not agree
with. I always investigated to verify my thinking in this regard. I did my due diligence to check their writings and see if they agree with my way of thinking. I have practiced this behavior for over 60 years. It fits me just fine. This type of behavior is not for other people, or in other words it is I am right and you are wrong. In our present day opinion is expressed very often. I am included in that way of doing things, much like nearly everybody on WB. When someone wants to have something documented who documents the documenter, or who verifies who is right and wrong. People generally do not allow for this type of attitude to be a part of their character.

Whatever anybody else says or does or claims or expresses is their business.

Whatever I like wise do in what I say and express is my business.

It is difficult to makes claims and express thoughts while saying I am right and you are wrong. When an opinion is expressed, that is one way to stay out of a messy argument. And that is what is said on this site quite regularly without stating that it is the opinion of—.

Thank you for allowing me to share this moment of thought.

Posted by: tom humes at December 17, 2016 11:13 PM
Comment #411406

Thank you for your perspective, Tom.

Everyone has his biases even the journalists from long ago that we like to wax nostalgic about. I’m sure Edward R. Murrow and Eric Sevareid were not exceptions. I am a bit perplexed when you say ERM”s attendance at Washington State University automatically means he had a position you could not agree with unless there is something infectious in all higher education that rubs you the wrong way. I do not know anything notable or special about WSU in the early 20th century that would be so offputting.

As for “I am right and you are wrong”. I have always assumed context is enough of an indicator to distinguish my opinions from the facts. I think there is an ongoing problem whereby people dismiss facts that they find uncomfortable as merely the opinion of another. For instance, a slight majority of Republicans stated in a recent poll that they believe Trump won the popular vote. When MSM journalists push back against that belief by citing the published and certified result, the journalists’ words gets dismissed as a biased opinion. To me, it sounds like, “Bah, 2+2=4 is just your opinion, but I think 2+2=5”. I think people are telling pollsters lies like this in order to signal their fealty to Benefactor Trump. To me, it seems a perverse cult of personality.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 18, 2016 12:40 PM
Comment #411412

“Obviously, things have changed over the years and today’s Americans do not have attention spans for a 3 minute monologue every night.”

Interesting that you should write that Warren considering that many Americans have no problem watching and listening to three or more minutes of monologue by the Late-Nite comedians on TV.

Jim Lehrer is great and William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” was perhaps one of the very best venues for debate and discussion in the annals of TV.

Many TV debate and discussion shows today result in political point-making and over-talking each other. I usually learn nothing from them.

I will pass on commenting regarding Edward R. Murrow and his reporting of the McCarthy hearings since hyperbole in extreme was found on both sides.

One should consider that in the early 1950’s America’s leaders and citizens had great concern about Communism. Russia had stolen our nuclear weapons secrets, Communism had taken control of mainland China, and Eastern Europe was being gobbled up by Russia.

At one time I would watch sessions of the British Parliament meetings on TV and found their style of boisterous give and take very informational and entertaining. I love listening to those who can use the English language correctly and who excel in organized debate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 18, 2016 4:40 PM
Comment #411414
Interesting that you should write that Warren considering that many Americans have no problem watching and listening to three or more minutes of monologue by the Late-Nite comedians on TV.

It’s not quite the same when the monologue is punctuated with jokes every 10 seconds.

At one time I would watch sessions of the British Parliament meetings on TV and found their style of boisterous give and take very informational and entertaining. I love listening to those who can use the English language correctly and who excel in organized debate.
I mean this as a compliment, but you are very skilled at finding the perfect insult to through a fellow debater off his game. It happens to me plenty of times. So, it makes sense that you have learned from the best. I have occasionally seen the Prime Minister’s Questions and they are certainly 10x more informational than the daily press briefings we have in this country even if they lack 90% of the cordiality that we have here. Every week MPs are forced to go on the record on what they believe and that is a good thing even if they end up being the rudest people alive when they do it. Debates in the US HoR or Senate end up being nothing other than fanfare and spectacle for people watching at home. It’s mostly parallel monologues rather than a fruitful dialogue.
I will pass on commenting regarding Edward R. Murrow and his reporting of the McCarthy hearings since hyperbole in extreme was found on both sides.

One should consider that in the early 1950’s America’s leaders and citizens had great concern about Communism. Russia had stolen our nuclear weapons secrets, Communism had taken control of mainland China, and Eastern Europe was being gobbled up by Russia.

I think you are on board with the point I wanted to make. Bias and hyperbole are nothing new and news back then was as “slanted” as it is today. Of course, calling it “slanted” is like focusing on the speck in one eye and focussing on the log in other. The mainstream news has its faults, but they are hardly enough justification for the proliferation of alternative media with little to no fidelity to traditional journalistic ethics.

Many TV debate and discussion shows today result in political point-making and over-talking each other. I usually learn nothing from them.
That is a very good description of the 24hr networks. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all have the same problem of finding enough “news” to fill 168 hours each week. It’s not possible without lowering the bar. Getting a few people to yell at each other is a cheap way to fill the time. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 18, 2016 6:30 PM
Comment #411420

I’ve been reading the INSANE crap the left has been spewing ever since the election. Today, once again, the left will loose. They have been loosing ever since Obama got elected and decided to make middle America the enemy. Governorships, Senate and House seats, hundreds of state legislators all lost. The left’s media outlets and newspapers loosing. The Democratic Party is in the death throws of extinction, and the left on WB is still trying to defend their losses and blame anyone or anything except the truth. I love it….we will continue to watch them loose.

The left has never been able to understand Trump and his supporters and never will. The more they whine and cry, the more Trump wins. The supporters of Trump are growing. He has chosen and continues to choose a great cabinet. He will choose great SCOTUS justices. Things are changing in America and the left is beside themselves. Obama said, “elections have consequences”, and yes they do. Eight years ago and again four years ago, we had to listen to the ravings of the left on WB that they had won and to get over it. Well, you had your shot and you drove the American people right into the arms of conservatism. So now I say, get over it, we won, you lost….again. Hillary lost so bad that she got the least amount of electoral votes of any Democrat in decades. She lost in “08”, she lost in “16”, she lost in the 2016 recount, and she’ll lose in the 2016 electoral count.

Posted by: Blaine at December 19, 2016 6:41 AM
Comment #411434

Getting a few people to yell at each other is a cheap way to fill the time. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 18, 2016 6:30 PM

You’re correct Warren. Well done.

“Debates in the US HoR or Senate end up being nothing other than fanfare and spectacle for people watching at home. It’s mostly parallel monologues rather than a fruitful dialogue.”

Goodness, we’re on a roll. Completely agree again. Well done.

The real debates take place in committee rooms, individual offices, restaurants and at parties. The public never sees the sausage making and that’s a damn shame. I want to witness as they toil in shirt sleeves and elbow grease.

The public should witness the political horse-trading, harangue and wrangling it takes to pass legislation. We are already sheltered from too much in our lives, from birth to death, by others acting for us out of concern that the pubic is too fragile.

A Democratic Republic is designed to be governed by our representatives operating in full view of those who elected them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #411435

By the way Warren, watching and listening to Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in Parliament was a real education in debate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #411436

Well, so far, 2 electors have chosen to disobey the voters and cast their votes for someone else. One was a Clinton voter who voted for Trump and was promptly replaced, and the other was a Clinton vote, who cast their vote for Bernie. Clinton is being rejected by her own electors.

Posted by: Blaine at December 19, 2016 4:34 PM
Comment #411445

For Christmas Blaine is getting a Rosetta Stone Russian speaking program.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2016 11:29 AM
Comment #411446

For Christmas Blaine is getting a Rosetta Stone Russian speaking program.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2016 11:29 AM
Comment #411453

phx8, I heard you the first time. If you want to buy and send it to me, I’ll take it.

Posted by: Blaine at December 20, 2016 1:24 PM
Comment #411454

phx8, I heard you the first time. If you want to buy and send it to me, I’ll take it.

Posted by: Blaine at December 20, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #411455

I thought Blaine was a native speaker?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 20, 2016 1:31 PM
Comment #411458

I’m glad to hear that Warren has the ability to “think”, but perhaps he has me mixed up with Elizabeth Warren. I believe she is the “native” speaker.

Posted by: Blaine at December 20, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #411460

Oh Blaine, how could we possibly function without your brilliance?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 20, 2016 2:49 PM
Comment #411462

Yes Warren, I believe someone once told Stephen Daughtery that if “he couldn’t dazzle them with brilliance, he would baffle them with bullshit”. Brilliance is a good thing.

Posted by: Blaine at December 20, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #411464

Well, I am certainly baffled. Congratulations!

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 20, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #411485

It doesn’t really take much these days to baffle a Clinton supporter. They continue to be baffled at Trump’s unprecedented win. After an election, a recount, and an another electoral election, Trump continues to win. They are baffled at Trump’s choices for his cabinet…Trump won the election, and yet he refuses to listen to the left as they tell him who he should have in his cabinet, go figure?

Posted by: Blaine at December 21, 2016 9:59 AM
Comment #411488

With bullshit like that, I must concur.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 21, 2016 11:24 AM
Comment #411489

And judging from your response, you continue to be baffled 😕.

Posted by: Blaine at December 21, 2016 11:35 AM
Comment #411490

LOL. You are so funny!

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 21, 2016 12:01 PM
Comment #411493

I was once very proud of the Republican Party’s record on the cold war, at least in terms of how it ended. We chose a moral high ground, brought years of tyranny to an end peacefully. For some, though, those years of dominance are a golden age now lost, and they want them back.

Those tyrants are going to play on people here, especially Putin, in order to convince America to draw back, so they can retake, remake their old alliances. Putin, in his way, wants the old Soviet Regime, minus, perhaps, the material austerity that made it no fun. Assad wants to be able to pretend the Arab Spring never happened.

People here in America want to pretend that the majority of the 20th Century never happened. They’re keeping two contradictory pictures in their head, or else compartmentalizing their ideal of what America would become from the policy positions of those promising to bring the good old days back.

For the average white person of a certain age, the fifties are the best time of all. A time when White people had unquestionable dominance over society, the inner cities had not yet rotted and sunk into poverty, conformity was at a maximum, Victorian mores had not yet begun to melt away, and men were real men, women were real women, and the churches of America held sway.

For businesses, for Wall Street, for Banks? Not so splendid a time. More regulations, more taxes, and the public was full of survivors of the Great Depression. For your average fundamentalist, it wasn’t such a great time, either. The culture was far more ecumenical and secular, and society was far more cynical about religion than it would be, later on.

For your average rich person? Since the 1920s, they’d see much of their power and wealth redistributed. That’s been a problem they’ve been trying to fix ever since.

The Republican Party has become the party of rollback, but it’s become so confused that it’s gone about the business of rolling back even its own successes. NATO and the Russia Containment policy are threatened by Putin’s move. They don’t care. They cared about opposing Obama more than Putin, becoming big fans of the man After years of red-baiting, now Republicans have flip-flopped and decided the Russkies are our friends! Why? Because that stuck it to Obama, who took America’s alliances seriously.

Unfortunately, you can’t so easily un-indoctrinate a generation of people you made a point of hardening against outside influence and moderation. These are the people who thought Goldwater lost because he didn’t go far enough, who thought Nixon should have gotten away with his criminal acts as President, who praise Reagan out the Ying-Yang but hardly remember all the moderation he did of his right-wing policies

The brake lines have been cut on the GOP. As with any situation where a mind is left alone to think without the benefit of constant real-world feedback, their thinking has mutated, to the point where I don’t think Goldwater or Reagan would recognize what has become of the party. The fact that a guy like Alex Jones is singled out as a good journalist by Trump should be supremely worrisome to any sincere conservative. He actually thinks the CIA wants to assassinate Trump!

There is no way to avoid turning the typical problems that come up in our nation into complete disasters when you have one group of people equally convinced of their own competence and their own information, regardless of what comes up to contradict their self image.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 21, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #411499

Let me be the first to correct SD; first, he was never proud of the Republican Party. In fact, I would venture to say that SD was in diapers during the Cold War. So all he knows about those days was spoon fed to him by liberal professors.

Secondly, SD’s comments are the same old gloom and doom of the left. Never the optimist, always the pessimist. The glass is always half empty. He believes the lies spewed forth by the liberal media and ignorant professors. Like the idea that it was angry old white guys that elected Trump. Stop for a minute SD and actually use your God given brain; the media told us that unless Trump got Hispanics, women, LGBT, and blacks, he would never be able to win the election. So for you to imply angry old white guys elected him, he must have had several other groups who voted for him too.

The only angry ones are the left. You cannot enjoy life because you are so angry 😡. What a sad bunch of people. You know what SD, we survived an a-hole like Obama who had no love or respect for this country or any of its citizens. He did his best to destroy the country and guess what, the American people were wise to him. Unions vote for democrats, but they voted for Trump in droves. Obama made the election about him and his policies, and he was rejected.

Posted by: Blaine at December 21, 2016 5:19 PM
Comment #411509

You cannot learn a language to an acceptable level with Rosetta Stone. It is just for fun. It takes 44 weeks of full time study with real instructors for an adult to get to a reasonable level of fluency in a Slavic language.

Posted by: Christine & John at December 21, 2016 11:38 PM
Comment #418152

This is getting silly, time to stop the witch hunt and move on. http://freedomnews.today/

Posted by: cnk guy at July 14, 2017 12:34 PM
Post a comment