Open Thread

The Jeffrey Epstein machinations reveal how screwed the media really is. What liars they are, and yes, it’s lying when you strategically choose what to cover and what not to cover and how you cover it. It reveals how they really are a large part of the Praetorian Guard. Acosta himself has said, on record, that he was told to go easy on Epstein because Epstein was above his pay grade and he was associated with intelligence organizations. This is a huge story that goes very deep and is in need of fearless investigative reporting. Instead, what we’re seeing is the tabloidization of this story and I believe it is by design. Focusing the story on Epstein expressing an interest in spreading his seed far and wide and having his head & penis cryogenically preserved for future generations is purposely avoiding the 10,000 lb. elephant in the room. Even Colbert mentioned Epstein the other night during his monologue, but only in this tabloidesque kind of way. I have no doubt he was directed to do so by the producers and higher-ups at his network in a comprehensive effort across all media outlets to contain this story to the ludicrous aspects of it while covering up the potential disastrous fall-out.

Here’s an example. Keep in mind this woman has won a Pulitzer Prize. Now we know why. She can be counted on to manage perceptions for the wealthy elite of this planet. This article has nothing of substance. It is the stuff of tabloid trash.

Jeffrey Epstein Is A Perversely Tragic Figure

If you’re looking for a great series to watch, may I suggest Das Boot. It’s excellent. Riveting. Evocative. Provocative. A German production. A WWII flick that doesn’t focus predominantly on the Holocaust as though that’s all WWII was about. It’s what a sequel should be. I haven’t seen the 1981 movie yet, but I understand it is also excellent. I will be watching it when I finish season one of the sequel. It’s streaming on Hulu, fyi.

Das Boot: Season 1 – Official Trailer – 2019 – Hulu

More validation Tulsi Gabbard is an AIPAC shill trojan horse masquerading as an anti-war progressive. They cover the bases, don’t they? So they can win any which way, be it Biden or Harris or Gabbard or BootyJudge or you name it. See it for what it is.

Yes, Tulsi Gabbard Opposed the Iran Deal

What’s Bernie’s stance in regard to Israel’s meddling in American politics? Does he need to check with Cardi B first before he responds to such inquiries?

Rush – Vital Signs

StewartM, it’s about denial and revisionist history. For the Establishment, Trump is an aberration who got elected for unexplained reasons, not that people were voting against an Establishment which had not only failed them but actively betrayed them. So Obama is part of the Establishment and criticism of him is criticism of them, so not allowed. This is why Establishment mouthpieces are already espousing positions (in an Obama wrapper) which fueled the anger that elected Trump.

Quickie Thoughts on the second rd of debates:

Bernie won the first night, though Warren did well also. Everyone else lost. He was finally the Bernie from 2016 again, and he actually got a chance to speak. This was awesome.

I still don’t trust Warren at all on most things and am surprised Ian and many other lefties do. She strikes me as what she always was, someone who basically is a non-corrupt Rockefeller Republican, except those are all “Democrats” right now, who are fine w/traditional Republican economics but want to ditch the racism, and I don’t think she cares at all about foreign policy or who we blow up, and despite her talking about them non-stop I don’t think she cares about the borders or identity politics at all. I’m not sure she understands why anyone even should care about the environment, except in an abstract, this could eventually cause a problem for humans sense. In her best ways, she’s a watered down Bernie who is making it harder for him to get elected. In her worst ways, she’s a completely different animal who the MSM and DNC & oligarchs are pushing as a way of keeping Bernie from getting enough of the vote to win first ballot and thereby ensure someone they like (Kamala or Biden) or can live with (Warren) gets put in once the superdelegates enter the fray, and then they will go “she is JUST THE SAME AS BERNIE so if you don’t vote for her you are a sexist DEPLORABLE!”

I would not loathe her under other circumstances, but I very MUCH loathe her campaign, tho it is very effective at what it’s trying to accomplish.

Tulsi easily won the second night, by a mile. Give her sufficient chances to get out there and she will smoke most of these people. She wasn’t any better than Bernie or Warren, but everyone else on the second night kinda sucked, so she stood out more due to lack of competition.

Whether it’s too little too late depends on how well they are able to skew the polls and/or smear her. She needs to focus more on the environment and talk more about working class people of all races, and focus more on the cost of war and less on the nuclear war angle because that’s simply not something most Americans are worried about right now and she needs to get people to vote for her to win, but otherwise she did great, as evidenced by picking up 40,000 new unique donors in just a couple of days since then.

Inslee would be my 3rd choice by default, because of highlighting the environment, but he’s going to be gone too because wow, he’s a bad speaker for this level.

A lot of people thought Yang did well. I did not. He seems very likable personally, and he’s good at calling attention to problems, but I don’t like any of his solutions, and worse for him, my attention kept fading while he was talking. That’s not a good sign. He’s got a simple (if wrongheaded) core idea that appeals to people, and he sees like a nice guy, so he might make it further, but

In total opposition to Tom up above, I am not impressed w/Marianne Williamson, but she is INTERESTING to watch during the debates, and one thing I’ve noticed is that she and Kamala have a lot of the same mannerisms and expressions. Facial expressions, how they stand, how they talk, how their voice sounds in certain situations, etc. I don’t know that this means anything, but it’s interesting (to me at least). Other than that, she’s never to be heard from again after this. I still can’t figure out whether she’s just trying to sell books/increase her speaking fees, or whether she’s a flat out con artist who doesn’t care how she profits from this as long as she does (i.e. a Trump2016 imitator), or whether she’s in the race solely to help Trump and/or the neolibs by making the total non-starter of cash reparations an issue. Possibly all of the above. It is also absolutely bizarre that she is pushing for reparations but criticzing Medicare4All as an unwieldy government program. Duh huh what? But, alas for the entertainment value but hurray! in every other way, this is the last we’ll see of her.

Castro absolutely oozes phony sleaze more than just about any other natonal level office seeker I can remember. I’m not saying he IS more phony than most others, just that he’s worse at hiding it.

Lots of people said lots of good stuff if there was any reason at all to believe a word they said, which there isn’t, in most cases (see again, why I’m for Bernie and Tulsi). Most people were completely unmemorable.

Biden staggers on, hoping the percentage of people who aren’t paying any attention and don’t notice he is doddering and will just autocheck “ObamaVP” because the media tells them Obama was great is sufficient to carry him to victory. It might be. But then we get Biden vs Trump. He will no longer be able to hide. Unless Trump is doddering too, this will be a slaughter. (if Trump is also doddering and Biden makes it that far, this will be . . . I think watching THOSE debates would just convince everyone the human race is doomed and it’s time to go)

Kamala was a loser in this one. She got hammered by Tulsi. Wow was she unprepared. Also, smart of Tulsi to pick on the frontrunner that everyone else was NOT picking on, as a way to stand out. Ripping the prosecutor into shreds in debate was impressive for her and cut into one of Kamala’s biggest strengths. (as usual, let me say that Kamala has some good programs and if I actually believed she would fight for them I would be quite interested in her candidacy. Tulsi highlighted exactly why I don’t believe she would fight for them).

Booker . . . again, why believe he will fight for anything except people who give him money? (and as always, my usual yay that he’s vegan and for animal rights; he’s probably a good guy other than as a politician)

Buttigieg speaks well in town halls but is deadly dull in these debates. And I loathe him anyway so I’m happy about this.

I wouldn’t mind having Gillibrand for an attorney but I don’t want her for President and most other people probably won’t, either.

Everyone else? Turn out the lights, the party’s over! Or, in about half their cases, never really began (and in the case of about 4 or 5 or maybe more who were there just to harm Bernie, was never really a party at all).

So frustrating. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even when no links and I don’t think particularly long.

Even when I have the time/energy to post here, there’s no point.

I’m reasonably sure I’m not in automod, since there are people far more inimical to Ian’s views who go through just fine, so all I can do is throw up my hands and assume it’s not meant to be.

Supershort version: I watched the debates. Bernie good, Tulsi good, all others running for prez not so good.

Things like this usually DO go through, so assuming this will. Apparently the mod system likes twitter comments.

George McGovern’s 1972 run for the presidency, and the fallacy that he lost because he was too liberal. I was in my early 20s then. McGovern got the nomination by working the grass roots with a liberal platform. The grass roots worked HARD to get him the nomination. Once he was nominated he threw away the grass roots and made a solid turn to big money, big corporations, et al. The grass roots felt betrayed and walked away. Hence, McGovern did not win. I see, all too often, the meme that McGovern lost because he was too liberal. And that’s being thrown at the progressive democrats now. Wrong. He went establishment and tossed his grass roots base.

Heitzo

McGovern also wasn’t helped by the fact that significant parts of the Democratic coalition worked actively against him (George Meany, etc). I have always said that both the hard hats and the hippies back then ere both right and both wrong, though it was the hard hats who paid the price for their mistake of going to the tender embraces of the Repugs (just ask PATCO, who endorsed Reagan in 1980).

@MojaveWolf

I’m not saying she is good for the country, only that she has harped onto what Trump achieved and is doing it to get her message out by manipulating the News Media to advertise her for free while she focuses her money on rallies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctC0Quf8zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

If Marianne can tap these techniques and sustain it, she will win.

My take on Williamson is that she has the same anti-intellectualism that Trump does, and the same lack of awareness of basic policy, but she is at least much more compassionate than he is.

It remains to be seen if she can connect with voters on an emotional level. If she can, it would be foolish to write her off. I’m not sure the lack of policy understanding would ultimately be a problem. Voters simply don’t care anymore, if they ever really did.

MojaveWolf, thank you for watching the debates so I can feel better about not having done so. I think Kamala Harris has been busily blowing up her candidacy. She comes out strong on something like Medicare for All and gains points for being decisive and progressive. Then she goes and ruins it all and more by walking it back in some wimpy ass fashion because her financial backers and consultants tell her to. Not a good look at all. As for past mistakes, I think everyone has made them. I suppose the difference between Harris and Biden is that he has decades more of them. Not sure that either has shown the least inkling of having learned from any of theirs.

I agree with Chuck Mire. Guns are a sickness. People would be horrified at the idea of human sacrifice in this country, but are their love and sanctification of guns, and the consequences thereof, really any different?

Where are we, Egypt? This is a conflict of interest and Gabbard is not alone in exploiting this and flouting the rules. How is it a conflict of interest? Think about how Congress recently approved Trump’s military budget without any resistance whatsoever at a time, considering the ramifications of climate change, we should be drastically cutting the budget for the worst polluter on the face of the planet, the American military with its panoply of bases in 135 countries and its forever wars happening now and those in the pipeline ready to happen at any moment.

Tulsi Gabbard Violated Military Regulations for Political Gain in Every Campaign Since 2012

Suddenly had the thought I should tell Ian I knew he hadn’t put me in automod and thank him for getting me out; will also elaborate a bit on the why’s I thought various people did well/poorly for Hugh & DC since they didn’t or weren’t able to watch.

Tho first in general– these people were better than MSNBC hosts but still not good, and the format was still awful, and Bernie was hit with attack question after attack question by the mods and constantly attacked by all the low polling candidates who got TONS of time to expressly attack Bernie–I think Delaney was a close 3rd in artime during the first half of the debate talking about why M4All is bad bad bad bad and people want to keep their private insurance–(this clearly worked out to Bernie’s advantage and CNN shifted the focus to Warren during the second half of the debate)– and while Bernie was speaking they kept running graphics on the screen in front of him like “Do you think the middle class should pay higher taxes to fund M4All?” and “Bernie says middle class will pay higher taxes if switch to M4A” and “Do you think people should be forced off their ACA and union plans on to M4A?” and “hospitals may be forced to close down under M4A”–Delaney and the CNN narrators–err, moderators–were both pushing that one. My wife and I were actually laughing at how blatant this was, tho it is worrisome re: possible effects on people.

Bullock and Ryan were more subtle than Delaney but were clearly also there primarily to attack Bernie, though each also said some decent things and I’m sure they would actually like to be President. I think this was true of some other people but I don’t remember what they said or who they were, mostly.

Bernie’s retort to Delaney’s “you can’t know what this policy will do” “yes I can, I wrote the damn bill” was the most memorable line of the night. Also great was his response to CNN mod jerk, very quickly cut off, about how a lot of the for-profit healthcare companies were advertising during the debate and probably responsible for how the mods were framing the questions (and he couldn’t even see the graphics they were running in front of face).

He also finally spoke about class at least sort of the way he did during 2016. He at least convinced me he’s still the same guy and it’s just his campaign staff who are stumbling and shifting focus this time around.

Warren also very ably defended M4A and is a very good speaker, but where Bernie pushes class narratives she pushes the divide and conquer race narrative. She (and most dems) are as bad as Trump on this and to very similar purpose, imo.

On the second night, Tulsi slammed Kamala for having locked up over 1500 people for marijuana offenses and then laughed about it when asked if she had ever smoked pot (yes, she had) and for having hid exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case, and for having kept people incarcerated past their release date for purposes of using free labor (wtf on all three of these; I had known none of this, and how is this happening in Cali?). Kamala’s response was she was awesome and wants to legalize pot now, but she didn’t deny the allegations, just said she did a great job. After the debate, she still didn’t deny the allegations, just said Tulsi had low poll numbers and supported Assad so why should she care about Tulsi? That is such an epic fail response I can’t even begin to describe it. That is apparently STILL her campaign’s response (plus Tulsi is a Russian agent), thus meaning the allegations are 100% true, I presume.

I did not care for Tulsi’s closing statement–it was fine as a thing to say, but as a closing statement I don’t think it helped her at all. Otherwise she was great.

I am not kidding about Biden–he was better than the first debate, even much better, but that is such a low bar–he should not be running and he is not up to this and whoever convinced him to run did him and the country no favors.

and good god, most of the 2d one was boring, and good grief, everyone said “Trump bad” way too much, like it was obligatory to mention by every single candidate, and most of them did it over and over and over; and no, Obama wasn’t attacked much, despite the media trying to pretend he was, though obviously the ACA came up during the M4A debates, and the dems actually stress race way way way more than Trump does and for pretty much the same reason as when he does it, just trying to work up a different audience.

Yo, guys and gals–We all on the same side in the grand scheme of things, and even when we’re on different sides, it’s almost never due to skin color except for people on the right wing fringes who you are giving way too much free advertising, and for people on the left wing fringes who you are actively encouraging. Bad move. As Ian says in another post, if people think the world is different than it is, they will make poor decisions.

MojaveWolf:

Thanks for watching the debates. I guessed it would be a pile-on on the left, particularly Sanders, and it would be painful to watch.

And why is it that the ‘tax thing’ rightwing meme is so goddamn being played up by the mods? Can’t anyone with a ounce of sense realize “hey, if I pay $150 a month more in taxes, but eliminate forever $300 insurance premium plus any copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs when I do need to go to the doctor, the dentist, or the ophthalmologist, I come out *way ahead*?? I think that yes, M4All must be paid for by taxes on everyone, and I say that because if you are also also going to take serious steps to deflate the wealth and power of the top 1 % (all very necessary), you can’t make taxes on the 1 % the sole source of funding health care.

The pre-1964 tax code that taxed the richest among us at 90 % (and an effective rate of 75 %) also–surprisingly–meant that back then the middle class paid the bulk of the total taxes. They paid because 1) the rich were a lot less rich and 2) the middle class was by comparison a lot more rich. That is the scenario you actually want. The Reagan economy scenario of the rich paying the bulk of Federal income taxes is actually not healthy, because what it means is that the rich are far far richer than they were then and everyone else is far poorer.

@StewartM,

Maybe we need some new words to clarify the language with regard to the problem you address.

Taxes paid to government are “govertaxes”.

Tolls, fees, premiums, etc. paid to private companies are “privataxes”.

Premiums esPECially are “privataxes”.

If we can get those words into the general language, then people will understand the arithmetic when we say: ” If your govertaxes go up by $150/month and your privataxes go down by $300/month, your total taxes go down by $150/month.”

Here we are, 35 years later and nothing’s changed really except since that time we’ve doubled the amount of CO2 we’ve dumped into the atmosphere. Doris Day said it, whatever will be will be. It’s man versus the nature that spawned it. Who do you think will win?

The 1984 Climate Change Documentary