Political Roundtable Part X

[keynote]

I have already acknowledged that the connections are circumstantial and mostly guilt-by-association type stuff. I said so several pages ago. But I maintain that the Clinton Foundation has deep ties with his law firm. The firm donated $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. They have given the Clintons tax advice for 12 years. They employed Loretta Lynch.

Fair enough.

Now how much of this is relevant to Mr. Kahn himself is yet to be determined. It's notable that they took down the web page.

"They"? Are you referring to the website for Khan's solo proprietorship, or Hogan Lovells' website? If it's the former: it's only notable if you think it's notable, absent any actual facts to support its noteworthiness.

[Induveca]

I'm kinda blown away by what appears to be the right wing tenor of the political opinions of people w/ whom I so often agree about the Washington Wizards.

It's hard for me to imagine having even one positive response to Donald Trump, for example -- and I'd have said the same thing a couple of years ago; i.e. he seemed like a complete jerk to me well before he decided to enter politics. Hence, it's incomprehensible to me that people could view him in a positive light as potentially the POTUS.

As for the conspiratorial rhetoric, especially in re: Mr. Khan, truly I don't understand it at all. I don't care whom he worked for. I don't even care how he got his convention spotlight. What he said was important. And the part of it directed at Trump was based on the guy's rhetoric and nothing else.

There were many ways Donald Trump would have engaged the issue that would have been useful to his candidacy, or at least less negative to it than what he did. His reactions to Khan are themselves sufficient indication (to me at least) that it'd be easy to get his goat. I find it hard to see that as a good quality for a President.

PIF, I agree with you completely. It honestly speaks to the toxicity of both candidates.

I can't bring myself to root for Clinton, far far far too much baggage and political corruption between her/Bill.

Trump I can at least define, and understand. I'm forced to deal with guys like him a lot. He's an abrasive loudmouth NYC business magnate screaming a lot of common sense. I don't see any "evil", I see an old school egomaniacal/ultra-competitive jerk of a NY businessman who wants to win in everything he does.

Which is more likely to force change in DC, any change? Sadly these two are my horrific options.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Which is more likely to force change in DC, any change? Sadly these two are my horrific options.

If it was just forced change you wanted, any change, you should have supported the dude below. He doesn't what he wants, when he wants to, like kissing his daughter.

Watch on YouTube

This still amuses me to this day.

[AFM]

I only read Breitbart because otherwise I get my info from CNN and The Washington Post. I don't even consider myself conservative, I just think it's best to get both sides of an issue. I don't watch Fox News for obvious reasons.

I use Google news feed, which frequently links to Breitbart and other conservative sites. I like the news feed because it rotates sources (including foreign news sources) and stories and can be customized (then I guess all your news interests go directly to the NSA).

I used to do that actually. Keynote, I used to read the WSJ, I had a free subscription at one point, but it ran out.

[AFM]

Can one of the mods change my username to "right wing patsy"?

[nate33]

Wow.... mainstream media are negative on Trump, and from this Nate concludes that they are "completely controlled by the Democrats." This is a straightforward analogue of the far-left position that the mainstream media are no more than a mouthpiece for international capitalism. Which is, itself, not all that far from the position of long-ago Fascism that an international cabal of Jews and Bolsheviks control newspapers (and banks, and ....).

The media ARE a mouthpiece for international capitalism, globalism and elitism.

There used to be international capitalists/globalists on either side of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats had essentially the same economic platform of driving down the cost of labor while ceding power to banks and financial institutions who donated. They disagreed on mostly irrelevant social issues which they leveraged to create the appearance of political competition. There were some globalist media outlets (Fox, WSJ) who favored Republican social issues and a lot more globalist media outlets who favored Democrat social issues, but at least there was the appearance of balance.

Along comes Trump, who is manifestly NOT a globalist, and we can see the media's true colors. Fox and WSJ have joined the left-leaning newspapers and they are all uniformly against Trump. I'm sure most of you will argue that they should be against Trump because Trump is evil, but the fact is, roughly half of the electorate is on Trump's side so he is, by definition, just as centrist as Clinton. There is obviously merit to Trump's political stance of populist/nationalism since half of the country agrees with him. But the media doesn't see it that way because they're all globalists.

Just take a good look at that image I posted. Dozens of media outlets all used the exact same, unique term to describe Trump's speech: "dark". That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because a DNC operative emails all of the media outlets and asks them to do so. How can a Trump supporter take the media seriously when they know this stuff is happening?

I'm not saying the media lies. I'm saying they only tell half the story because they absolutely have an agenda of getting Clinton elected. They wake up in the morning and try to figure out how to distort the news of the day in a light that is most favorable to Clinton and least favorable to Trump. This is why we get more coverage of Trump joking about Russia than we get of Clinton allowing national security secrets to be compromised and then covering it up. This is why we get sympathetic stories about the parents of a Muslim soldier who died in the line of duty, but no equivalent sympathetic reporting from parents of people killed by illegal immigrants. This is why we get the media bending over backwards to blame the Florida nightclub attack on a disgruntled homosexual and not a Muslim terrorist. This is why we get no coverage of Obama and Clinton ignoring immigration law and permitting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay and receive welfare benefits, but we get detailed coverage of Trump's "religious ban". This is why we get Reuters changing their polling formula right after Trump takes a lead, and then retroactively changing their polling history to eliminate that lead and put Clinton back on top. This is why there never is an independent analysis about the high welfare costs of Central American immigrants even though it's the primary issue of the election. The data exists and I have posted it here, but you don't read it in the Washington Post.

[nate33]

Trump I can at least define, and understand. I'm forced to deal with guys like him a lot. He's an abrasive loudmouth NYC business magnate screaming a lot of common sense. I don't see any "evil", I see an old school egomaniacal/ultra-competitive jerk of a NY businessman who wants to win in everything he does.

I think this is a fair description.

[gtn130]

I'm not saying the media lies. I'm saying they only tell half the story because they absolutely have an agenda of getting Clinton elected. They wake up in the morning and try to figure out how to distort the news of the day in a light that is most favorable to Clinton and least favorable to Trump. This is why we get more coverage of Trump joking about Russia than we get of Clinton allowing national security secrets to be compromised and then covering it up. This is why we get sympathetic stories about the parents of a Muslim soldier who died in the line of duty, but no equivalent sympathetic reporting from parents of people killed by illegal immigrants. This is why we get the media bending over backwards to blame the Florida nightclub attack on a disgruntled homosexual and not a Muslim terrorist. This is why we get no coverage of Obama and Clinton ignoring immigration law and permitting hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay and receive welfare benefits, but we get detailed coverage of Trump's "religious ban". This is why we get Reuters changing their polling formula right after Trump takes a lead, and then retroactively changing their polling history to eliminate that lead and put Clinton back on top. This is why there never is an independent analysis about the high welfare costs of Central American immigrants even though it's the primary issue of the election. The data exists and I have posted it here, but you don't read it in the Washington Post.

This is an exaggeration but there is truth here. The reason for this, though, is that people genuinely believe a Trump presidency could compromise our national security, economy and basic freedom. You think people are conspiring to elect Crooked Hillary, but people are mostly just afraid of Trump and the damage he would cause.

The funny thing, though, about your pronouncement about liberal media conspiracy is that Trump has said "we're gonna open up those libel laws" in order to sue the NYT when it reports negatively about him as president. Your candidate is effectively saying he wants to do away with freedom of the press, and you're here worried about The Liberal Media™ saying the word "dark" too much.

[montestewart]

Just take a good look at that image I posted. Dozens of media outlets all used the exact same, unique term to describe Trump's speech: "dark". That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because a DNC operative emails all of the media outlets and asks them to do so. How can a Trump supporter take the media seriously when they know this stuff is happening?

Within the last year people on CNN and elsewhere all fell in love with doubled down and it became the latest trite cliche that spread like wildfire. Print and television journalism lacks original writing, and they constantly copy each others' terms and phrasing. It doesn't take the DNC to make that happen. Dark is a short word that makes for a good if unoriginal headline.

Sometimes I think people just feel more secure in a world filled with conspiracies than they do in a world filled with incompetence and apathy.

[gtn130]

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

But yeah, Nate, we need to worry about CNN and ABC conspiring to say mean things about Trump!

[AFM]

Can't someone hack Trump's computer? I need to know what's in his taxes, you know, the ones he won't release.

Payments in Russian rubles perhaps?

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Just take a good look at that image I posted. Dozens of media outlets all used the exact same, unique term to describe Trump's speech: "dark". That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because a DNC operative emails all of the media outlets and asks them to do so. How can a Trump supporter take the media seriously when they know this stuff is happening?

Within the last year people on CNN and elsewhere all fell in love with doubled down and it became the latest trite cliche that spread like wildfire. Print and television journalism lacks original writing, and they constantly copy each others' terms and phrasing. It doesn't take the DNC to make that happen. Dark is a short word that makes for a good if unoriginal headline.

Sometimes I think people just feel more secure in a world filled with conspiracies than they do in a world filled with incompetence and apathy.

C'mon montestewart, you usually give fair counterpoints, but you can't spin this one. Those headlines all took place within the next 36 hours following Trump's speech It was unquestionably coordinated. This isn't a matter of a certain phrase being steadily absorbed into the vernacular.

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

Is this real? Are they really demonstrating eating chicken with a fork and knife live on TV?

[Zonkerbl]

Breitbart lost the right to call itself a news agency when it got Shirley Sherrod fired by deliberately reediting a video to manufacture a lie about what she said.

You can't possibly make any claim to legitimacy after doing something like that. Stop reading Breitbart. Cite something else.

I don't know what will qualify as an "unbiased" news agency to you Nate. But Breitbart ain't it.

[gtn130]

Just to recap, Nate is condemning The Liberal Media™ for being biased, yet is supporting the candidate who is actively and deliberately campaigning to dismantle the free press.

[montestewart]

Just take a good look at that image I posted. Dozens of media outlets all used the exact same, unique term to describe Trump's speech: "dark". That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because a DNC operative emails all of the media outlets and asks them to do so. How can a Trump supporter take the media seriously when they know this stuff is happening?

Within the last year people on CNN and elsewhere all fell in love with doubled down and it became the latest trite cliche that spread like wildfire. Print and television journalism lacks original writing, and they constantly copy each others' terms and phrasing. It doesn't take the DNC to make that happen. Dark is a short word that makes for a good if unoriginal headline.

Sometimes I think people just feel more secure in a world filled with conspiracies than they do in a world filled with incompetence and apathy.

C'mon montestewart, you usually give fair counterpoints, but you can't spin this one. Those headlines all took place within the next 36 hours following Trump's speech It was unquestionably coordinated. This isn't a matter of a certain phrase being steadily absorbed into the vernacular.

I didn't say that the phrase was steadily absorbed, I said it spread like wildfire. I recall through the years when new words/terms were introduced into U.S. vocabularies, like junta or detente or al Qaeda, and the networks would quickly settle on a pronunciation. If it changed, it changed quickly for all of them.

I live in DC and have known numerous people in the news business through the years, and the description is pretty uniform: highly imitative traits, lack of originality, with an occasional effort by outlets to distinguish themselves form the others. With all that in mind, and lacking anything more than the widespread use of the word dark (which I can see as a fair and generic descriptor) as evidence, I'm inclined to go with what seems the more likely explanation. And I will add that I already noticed the use of the word, and my reaction to it was the same as whenever cliches permeate the hacks. Mix it up a little, ominous, inflammatory, whatever.

[nate33]

Breitbart lost the right to call itself a news agency when it got Shirley Sherrod fired by deliberately reediting a video to manufacture a lie about what she said.

You can't possibly make any claim to legitimacy after doing something like that. Stop reading Breitbart. Cite something else.

I don't know what will qualify as an "unbiased" news agency to you Nate. But Breitbart ain't it.

NBC edited the police dispatch recording of the Zimmerman/Martin incident to make Zimmerman seem like a racist, which essentially launched the BLM movement, leading to riots in many cities and the execution of several cops. Does NBC have legitimacy?

[nate33]

Within the last year people on CNN and elsewhere all fell in love with doubled down and it became the latest trite cliche that spread like wildfire. Print and television journalism lacks original writing, and they constantly copy each others' terms and phrasing. It doesn't take the DNC to make that happen. Dark is a short word that makes for a good if unoriginal headline.

Sometimes I think people just feel more secure in a world filled with conspiracies than they do in a world filled with incompetence and apathy.

C'mon montestewart, you usually give fair counterpoints, but you can't spin this one. Those headlines all took place within the next 36 hours following Trump's speech It was unquestionably coordinated. This isn't a matter of a certain phrase being steadily absorbed into the vernacular.

I didn't say that the phrase was steadily absorbed, I said it spread like wildfire. I recall through the years when new words/terms were introduced into U.S. vocabularies, like junta or detente or al Qaeda, and the networks would quickly settle on a pronunciation. If it changed, it changed quickly for all of them.

I live in DC and have known numerous people in the news business through the years, and the description is pretty uniform: highly imitative traits, lack of originality, with an occasional effort by outlets to distinguish themselves form the others. With all that in mind, and lacking anything more than the widespread use of the word dark (which I can see as a fair and generic descriptor) as evidence, I'm inclined to go with what seems the more likely explanation. And I will add that I already noticed the use of the word, and my reaction to it was the same as whenever cliches permeate the hacks. Mix it up a little, ominous, inflammatory, whatever.

Sorry, montestewart. It just doesn't pass the smell test. You don't get dozens of headlines with the exact same (and relatively obscure) adjective all at the same time without intentional coordination.

[nate33]

On another topic:

Donald J. Trump all but erased his enormous financial disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign on Tuesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.

Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $64 million through a joint digital and direct mail effort in July, according to his campaign, the bulk of it from small donors. All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton, and ended with an enormous pool of $74 million in cash on hand, suggesting he might now have the resources to compete with Mrs. Clinton in the closing stretch of the campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/trump-fundraising.html

Very encouraging for the Trump campaign. They've held even with Clinton in the polls so far while spending virtually no money (compared to about $200M spent by Clinton). If they have equivalent resources for the stretch run, things could get interesting. At the very least, they should be able to install a competent ground game in the swing states.