Bonnot OG Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 The attack ads here for the race for governor are just so viscous, it's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 9 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Anti-Gillespie Ad In Virginia's Governor's Race Pulls Out All the Stops /Yipe! //Guess ya'll kind of asked for it https://postimg.org/image/bcrbojvgp/ That's nuts. Glad it's not coming from Northam himself. That's not the way to get white people to vote for you which is what he'll need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Yes, Fox News causes brain damage. I live in the sort of place where I can’t walk into a McDonalds without frickin’ Fox News being on. And I can’t decide what’s more damaging to my well being. The fries or Fox News. https://www.aeaweb.org/research/fox-news-cable-bias-impact-on-swaying-voters-right Quote In a paper that appeared in the September issue of the American Economic Review, Ali Yurukoglu examined the impact that politically slanted cable news outlets like Fox News or MSNBC were having on American voters’ political tastes. He and co-author Gregory Martin found that Fox News’ influence was significant enough to pull voters to the right and potentially change the outcome of a tight election. What’s more, the conservative media outlet’s influence grew as its coverage became more partisan. ........................................................ The Republican tax plan is held together by duct tape and kite string. Sounds like one of my fix it projects. They last don’t last long. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/wapo-republican-tax-plan-will-be-temporary/ Quote This is going to be a helluva tax bill that Republicans plan to unveil on Thursday. In addition to the motley collection of spit and duct tape already holding it together, House leaders have tossed in yet another last-minute switcheroo: Quote The entire noise machine will be dedicated to the proposition that a temporary cut will be a huge economic boost. In fact, why stop there? Maybe the new party line will be that this is even better than a permanent cut.¹ Quote ¹For reasons to be invented later and then hastily confirmed by Greg Mankiw and John Taylor. I too wonder what kind of ass pullery Taylor will come up with. ......................................................................................... On 11/1/2017 at 7:43 PM, Martell Spy said: Trump apparently wants to name his tax reform plan the “Cut Cut Cut Act” Congress approached Trump due to his branding expertise. This is what they got. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/1/16592690/trump-tax-cut-cut-cut-act Yes, Donald Trump isn’t the super competent all knowing business guy. He’s a slimy snake oil salesman. He thinks he can sell just about anything with the right marketing spin. Who cares about details when you think you can bamboozle people with a bunch marketing hype? The cheese dickery is strong with this one. And it seems he's not even a very good slimy snake oil salesman. .................................................................................... Call me crazy, but I’m starting to get the suspicion that the Orange One isn’t great with details.https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/1/16593138/trump-new-york-city-attack-courts Quote In his first public remarks after the terrorist attack in New York City on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump simultaneously managed to both insult the US criminal justice system and propose something that sounded scarily like a crackdown on basic civil liberties — all within the span of just a few minutes. Quote Moreover, the US already tried to set up an alternative system — the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that George W. Bush established after 9/11 — and it was a disaster. Military courts are well equipped to try US service members who violate military laws, but aren’t set up to deal with complex and wide-ranging constitutional and classification issues raised by major terrorism prosecution. This makes them slower and puts verdicts on less sure legal footing. In the same time span that civilian courts convicted 620 individuals on terrorism charges, military commissions convicted a grand total of eight people. “The Guantanamo Military Commissions are a failed experiment,” Marine Gen. John G. Baker, the chief defense counsel at the Guantanamo Bay war court, said in a September speech. “Considering the gravity and importance of these cases, that failure is one that hurts us all.” Conservative sorts of people might be under the impression that we have all forgotten about this nonsense under Dubya. They’d be wrong. Conservatives: We know what you did last summer. Quote t would be bad enough if Trump were saying this on his own. But Sen. John McCain, perhaps Trump’s fiercest critic in the Republican Party, argued for suspending the constitutional rights of the suspect in the New York case, saying that he “should not be read Miranda rights,” as “enemy combatants are not entitled to them.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, another Trump-skeptical Republican, took a similar line, saying “the moment you read someone their Miranda rights there is an impediment to interrogation.” Yeah, so much for conservative concern for civil liberties and free speech and all that. Perhaps people like Milo Shit For Brains, need to be invited to have a nice tall glass of shut the hell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 A shame that Hope Hicks isn't up until in a couple of weeks. If paranoia really is as rampant in the WH as they say, the fear of your own communications director wearing a wire should be add an interesting spice to the administration's workday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 I guess FB thought adds being paid for in rubles was no big deal. Quote The House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday released a batch of ads that demonstrate how Russia attempted to sow discord in the U.S. during the 2016 election. Some of the social media posts aimed to exploit and further inflame religious and racial tensions in the country surrounding groups such as Black Lives Matter and Muslim-Americans. Some of the ads show Russian-linked Facebook communities promoting events by opposing groups on the same day. Facebook revealed this month that Russian actors potentially linked to the Kremlin spent $100,000 on political advertisements on the site during last year's presidential campaign. The social media company has handed over information about the ads to Congress and to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the Justice Department's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/358265-10-social-media-ads-promoted-by-russian-linked-groups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Mexal said: That's nuts. Glad it's not coming from Northam himself. That's not the way to get white people to vote for you which is what he'll need. I agree, though I think it should be about more than just about getting white people to vote for a certain candidate. That add is divisive for the sake of division. I know the left feel their anger is righteous, but it is becoming ugly and intolerant. What is the message here, if you vote for a republican (or don’t vote for a democrat) then you are a nazi/racist/domestic terrorist/fascist or some other horrible label? This kind of drawing-a-line-in-the-sand mentality will benefit no one, perhaps the democrats least of all; if the last voting cycle is any indication. It’s a dangerous game to play, especially since the left are all too keen to eat their own in the name of political correctness and diversity, as displayed in the last U.S. politics thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Lets all remember that regardless of the Mueller's Russia investigation, Congressional Republicans are willingly colluding with Trump to hide his probable financial crimes, and Mueller turning over these stones is another reason why Trump is furious with the investigation. Quote For nearly a year now, congressional Republicans have been helping Donald Trump cover up something shady in his personal finances and doing so without having any real idea what it is that’s being covered up. The specter of “collusion” — whatever that means exactly — has hung over the Trump/Russia inquiry from day one. But accounts of Trump’s thinking about the investigation never reveal any trepidation that he’s going to be caught on tape talking to KGB operatives. And congressional Republicans seem reasonably confident that whatever went down during the campaign, Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster have Trump implementing a “normal” Republican hawkish foreign policy rather than a bizarre Trumpy one advocating for swapping Estonia for the right to develop a golf course in Crimea or whatever. What Trump worries about, according to many different accounts of his thinking, is what he always worries about — money and the prospect that the impunity for misconduct that he, like many other rich businessmen, has enjoyed throughout his career may not withstand the exacting scrutiny of a special counsel investigation. A Monday evening Associated Press account of Trump’s reaction to the day’s news said he “has become increasingly concerned that the Mueller probe could be moving beyond Russia to an investigation into his personal dealings,” citing “two people familiar with the president’s thinking.” A Washington Post article with three bylines says that “Trump is also increasingly agitated by the expansion of Mueller’s probe into financial issues beyond the 2016 campaign.” These remarks hark back to a July 19 interview with the New York Times in which Trump called any probing of his business affairs a “red line” that special counsel Robert Mueller shouldn’t cross. And that in turn reminds us of the larger White House effort to build a propaganda case in favor of firing Mueller. Of course, in a sane world, we really shouldn’t need a special counsel investigation prompted by the firing of an FBI director who was investigating Russian election meddling to get a serious look at the president’s finances. A halfway decent president would voluntarily make meaningful disclosures. And a Congress with even a basic sense of self-preservation would force a president who refuses to make them to do so. Unfortunately, at the moment, America has neither. We have Trump. We have Mueller. And we have a cover-up in which Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and basically every single House and Senate Republican is complicit, even though they have no way to know what they are covering up. George W. Bush put his personal wealth in a blind trust. Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm. Barack Obama held all his assets in simple diversified index funds. There is a way in which a modern president with a modicum of integrity conducts himself, and Trump has refused to do it. Rather than liquidate his assets and put the proceeds in a trust, Trump has simply turned over day-to-day management of the family business to his two older sons — sons who continue to serve as surrogates and part of his political operation, even while his oldest daughter and her husband serve as top White House aides. Ivanka Trump is reeling in Chinese trademarks while Eric and Donald Jr. do real estate deals in India. Trump is billing the Secret Service six figures for the privilege of renting golf carts at his golf courses. People with interests before the government can — and do — pay direct cash bribes to the president by joining his Mar-a-Lago club or holding events at his hotel in Washington, DC. And that’s just what we know about. Donald Trump likes to claim in public that his tax policies are not going to enrich him personally. For a normal president, a claim like that would be relatively easy to assess based on looking at his tax situation in prior years. For Trump, it’s impossible since he’s declined to release his tax returns to the public. Or, rather, it’s perfectly obvious that Trump is lying — but that’s an inference you have to make based on general principles (Trump lies constantly) rather than on specific knowledge of his tax situation. When asked about this by Gayle King on the October 20 edition CBS This Morning, Speaker Ryan treated it all as a big joke. “I don’t know the answer to your question, Gayle! Heh!” Ryan laughed, tossing his hands in the air in mock frustration. “I don’t know exactly how his businesses are structured!” Unlike Ryan, I am genuinely frustrated that I can’t see what’s in Trump’s tax returns. And the reason I can’t see it that even though House Democrats keep introducing measures that would force Trump to disclose, Ryan keeps blocking the votes. He’s done it again, and again, and again. Faced with a president whose business interests pose unprecedented opportunities for corruption and conflicts of interest, Ryan has chosen to actively abet an unprecedented level of financial opacity. And in doing so, he’s received the support of basically all of his Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate. It’s appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Shit, the day has just begun, and the president of the USA has already called for the NY terrorist to get the "DEATH PENALTY!" on Twitter. But on the other hand, Rick Perry has just claimed that the use of fossil fuels will help prevent sexual assault, so it's gonna be a tight race for 'Today's Dumbest' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: I think Trump would do many things to help those he viewed as loyal and worthy. But I don't think he'd ever sacrifice himself. Trump taking one for the team? Never. He'd expect the ultimate display of loyalty, which is one of the team taking one for him. I agree for the most part, but I do think he’d sacrifice himself to save Ivanka, if not all of his children. For me, that makes Jared an open question. That said, @DanteGabriel, your time to shine as The Kush might be coming soon on the Spicey and the Mooch show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 41 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: I agree, though I think it should be about more than just about getting white people to vote for a certain candidate. That add is divisive for the sake of division. I know the left feel their anger is righteous, but it is becoming ugly and intolerant. What is the message here, if you vote for a republican (or don’t vote for a democrat) then you are a nazi/racist/domestic terrorist/fascist or some other horrible label? This kind of drawing-a-line-in-the-sand mentality will benefit no one, perhaps the democrats least of all; if the last voting cycle is any indication. It’s a dangerous game to play, especially since the left are all too keen to eat their own in the name of political correctness and diversity, as displayed in the last U.S. politics thread. I agree with you in regards to white people. I'm just saying, it's divisive instead of inclusive and the Democratic party is making these fights too much about identity, which caters to minorities but feeds into the fears of the white electorate. It's just the wrong message. I wish they'd remember what Obama did. 26 minutes ago, denstorebog said: Shit, the day has just begun, and the president of the USA has already called for the NY terrorist to get the "DEATH PENALTY!" on Twitter. He's a fucking idiot. How the hell are they going to panel an impartial jury now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Mexal said: I agree with you in regards to white people. I'm just saying, it's divisive instead of inclusive and the Democratic party is making these fights too much about identity, which caters to minorities but feeds into the fears of the white electorate. It's just the wrong message. I wish they'd remember what Obama did. Keep in mind that was developed by a relatively small PAC, and they had a small ad buy (I think it was 30k). They were relying on being controversial and getting free air time to get their ad out there. They succeeded in that, although it remains to be seen if this type of offensive, ultranegative ad works for Democrats as well as it does for Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 On 10/31/2017 at 8:13 PM, The Anti-Targ said: I guess you also have to decide whether their denial is a genuinely held belief, or more so that they can outwardly claim a clear conscience about mass murder and that all they want is a homeland for the master race, as well as separate home lands for the lesser races of course. I think a handful of people might genuinely believe the holocaust never happened, but for the most part IMO the deniers don't believe their own bullshit and they are just using it for propaganda and rhetoric. I'll start believing them about their genuinely held denial if and when they pass independently conducted polygraph tests. Until then, I don't believe their denialism. Well, you sure lost me there as a psychologist suggesting polygraph tests because polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, and I wouldn't believe their results on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 What. The. Fuck. Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC - by Donna Brazile. First of all, I'm shocked - shocked I tell you! - that there is gambling going on in this establishment. Second, why in the name of fuck is this story dropping 5 days before gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Mexal said: That's nuts. Glad it's not coming from Northam himself. That's not the way to get white people to vote for you which is what he'll need. 1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said: I agree, though I think it should be about more than just about getting white people to vote for a certain candidate. That add is divisive for the sake of division. I know the left feel their anger is righteous, but it is becoming ugly and intolerant. What is the message here, if you vote for a republican (or don’t vote for a democrat) then you are a nazi/racist/domestic terrorist/fascist or some other horrible label? This kind of drawing-a-line-in-the-sand mentality will benefit no one, perhaps the democrats least of all; if the last voting cycle is any indication. It’s a dangerous game to play, especially since the left are all too keen to eat their own in the name of political correctness and diversity, as displayed in the last U.S. politics thread. Yeah, it's pretty damn ugly. Apparently the ad was pulled after the NYC Truck/Terror attack, so at least it's no longer airing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Some lowlights from Brazile's "Politico" article. A good portion discusses the already-known Hillary Victory Fund. What is less well-known is how deeply in debt the DNC was after Obama's 2012 campaign, exactly how shoddily DWS managed the DNC - she kept the monthly burn rate at around $4-5 million, which Brazile explains is about double what it should be in non-election years, and was a terrible fundraiser. Then the kicker: When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America. The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer. When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 35 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said: What. The. Fuck. Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC - by Donna Brazile. First of all, I'm shocked - shocked I tell you! - that there is gambling going on in this establishment. Second, why in the name of fuck is this story dropping 5 days before gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey?? Saw that. Clinton's campaign was so shady. DNC has done a terrible job over the last 10 years. Tax bill information has been released. No idea how it manages to fit within the $1.5 trillion budget constraint. Lots of info in here so would suggest you read rather than me post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 I’m sure the Sanders coalition will take this news well….. Seriously though, Clinton deserved to lose. It’s just a shame who she lost too. Also, the Clinton Victory Fund was one of the worst ideas ever, as I’ve said for close to two years now. She completely depleted Democrats at the state and local levels at a time when the party desperately needs to rebuild at those levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Mexal said: Saw that. Clinton's campaign was so shady. DNC has done a terrible job over the last 10 years. Tax bill information has been released. No idea how it manages to fit within the $1.5 trillion budget constraint. Lots of info in here so would suggest you read rather than me post here. some good news: doubling the standard deduction means a lot less middle class people will itemize they left the retirement contributions alone and want to get rid of the home mortgage deduction, but if they are doubling the standard deduction, most middle class taxpayers wont be affected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Still absorbing what we know of the tax plan (need to really get into legislative language - the reporting is obviously not complete). The individual stuff is actually not where the action is (except for the repeal of the estate tax). The action, as best I can tell, is on the business stuff. Winners: Anyone conducting a business in pass-through form (other than a lawyer, doctor or other professional services business - though hold that thought because it looks like the presumption is rebuttable based on reporting). Real estate investors. The energy sector Manufacturing businesses Wealthy people in red states US companies with cash accumulated in foreign subsidiaries Losers: Companies paying executives more than $1 million per year (but waiting for the loopholes) Services businesses Foreign parented companies doing business through US subs in the US (I think - the reporting is crap on the international front) Wealthy people in blue states More to come. There is a lot here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.