Bob Ness Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 39 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: I think whatever they were doing has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its overall influence. The IRA's activity is entirely consistent with being a run-of-the-mill commercial clickbait operation, and considering it as a fully weaponized chaos-sowing influence campaign by an international adversary seems to me an extraordinary claim which has yet to be supported by the requisite evidence. It has been established that much of the activity in question was disseminated in already highly partisan circles, and so in effect was only amplifying memes to persons who have been already convinced/decided. The total activity, in relation to the social media activity in toto, is statistical insignificant. In terms of total votes going here or there that may be true or untrue. Probably no one knows without data from polling machines. That's like say the shot went astray so no harm no foul. The attempt is significant, the outcome uncertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 24 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: So what's happening in court come April? Haha try to keep up here Ron! https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/02/19/florida-loses-appeals-court-ruling-on-felon-voting-law-1262200 Could be catastrophic for the Republicans. Fortunately for them the Democrats are their opponents. Basically it's almost impossible for the Republicans to win a presidential election without both Texas and Florida. It'd be like the Dems losing California. Florida usually is decided by very few votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 42 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: I think whatever they were doing has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its overall influence. The IRA's activity is entirely consistent with being a run-of-the-mill commercial clickbait operation, and considering it as a fully weaponized chaos-sowing influence campaign by an international adversary seems to me an extraordinary claim which has yet to be supported by the requisite evidence. It has been established that much of the activity in question was disseminated in already highly partisan circles, and so in effect was only amplifying memes to persons who have been already convinced/decided. The total activity, in relation to the social media activity in toto, is statistical insignificant. Geez... You're still overgeneralizing from that small scale 2017 Twitter study, eh? I already explained previously on this very thread why your favorite study has limited significance for interpreting the broad-based Russian cyber ops in the 2016 elections. Your study analyzed the interactions of a small sample of highly partisan Twitter users in late 2017. How, for example, is that relevant to the 2016 Russian strategy of using fake Facebook accounts to convince black voters not to go to the polls in 2016-- which played a significant role in Trump's election? How does your 2017 Twitter study explain the impact of Russian trolls with Facebook identities like "Heart of Texas" posting xenophobic ads about Mexican murderers, or photo-shopped pics of Hillary with Osama Bin Laden? Explain. Did you ever study the vast database of the 35,000 2016 Russian Facebook ads released by Congress that I posted for you on this thread? Have you studied the details of the July 2019 Senate Select Committee Report on Russian interference in our 2016 elections? (Chaired by Trumpster Richard Burr (R-NC) Take a look. New Senate Intelligence report shows “extensive” Russia 2016 election interference It also notes that Russia targeted voting systems in all 50 states. https://www.vox.com/2019/7/25/8930616/senate-intelligence-report-russia-50-states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob Ness said: Haha try to keep up here Ron! https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/02/19/florida-loses-appeals-court-ruling-on-felon-voting-law-1262200 Could be catastrophic for the Republicans. Fortunately for them the Democrats are their opponents. Basically it's almost impossible for the Republicans to win a presidential election without both Texas and Florida. It'd be like the Dems losing California. Florida usually is decided by very few votes. I remember hanging chads and the not so supreme court stealing the 2000 election from Al Gore Rhythm who invented the interweb. I realize the importance of Florida. I'd actually read something somewhere about Florida felons voting rights but not how it could affect this election. I didn't see anything in the Politico article about April. It mentions the possibility of the case going to the not so supreme court, eventually. I think we all know how that would turn out these days. Is the case scheduled to go back to court in April, possibly allowing these people to vote in the November election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Couteau Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 David Talbot just posted this on Facebook: "The Turning Point. That's what Bernie's crushing victory in Nevada was. More than twice the vote of his closest competitor Joe Biden. And when you add his winning vote to Elizabeth Warren's percentage, the two progressive candidates account for a super majority of Nevada's diverse voters. Mayor Pete, who came in a distant third, aggressively attacked Sanders as a polarizing figure in his post-caucus speech. But Sanders, in his celebratory speech, made clear he has an all-encompassing vision of America. His movement is bringing together Americans with hope, not dividing us by fear like Trump. And the faces of Bernie's ecstatic young supporters at his Texas victory rally said it all. Young Americans have put their faith and trust in this 78-year-old crusader as their only hope to steer the country away from the dark cataclysm that they fear awaits them. Whether it's the widening wealth gap, a broken healthcare system, a racist and unfair criminal justice system, a higher education increasingly priced out of reach, and most of all a global environment that grows deadlier by the day... only Sanders speaks to all this pain and fear with the kind of conviction that makes people (especially the young) believe that he will actually make things better. Meanwhile, do you hear the sound of that creaking battleship as it pivots in a different direction? That's our media institutions beginning to realize that Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party and even the nation. Suddenly Bernie can't be overlooked or dismissed as a spoiler. CNN stacked its panel today with Bernie sympathizers (or at least understanders of his massive appeal) -- like Van Jones, Jess McIntosh, and newcomer Alexandra Rojas. Of course old Beltway warhorses like Gloria Borger are still in the CNN stall, predictably dumping on Bernie. But today the cable network made room for other voices, ones more attuned to the political moment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: I remember hanging chads and the not so supreme court stealing the 2000 election from Al Gore Rhythm who invented the interweb. I realize the importance of Florida. I'd actually read something somewhere about Florida felons voting rights but not how it could affect this election. I didn't see anything in the Politico article about April. It mentions the possibility of the case going to the not so supreme court, eventually. I think we all know how that would turn out these days. Is the case scheduled to go back to court in April, possibly allowing these people to vote in the November election? Possibly. It's pretty complicated but the court could rule they can vote in upcoming election. One thing you won't hear much about is whether Florida is able to actually comply with what DeSantis is proposing. I don't believe they have an actual method to account for the multitudes of possible provisions of a sentence even if the Court agrees to the idea that all other terms of a sentence and incarceration and probation must be completed before reenfranchisement. That could defeat the Republicans right there. Edited February 23, 2020 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 23, 2020 Author Share Posted February 23, 2020 This is why MSNBC is a wolf in sheep's clothing. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders_n_5e51ad62c5b629695f5b64d7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Berube Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: This is why MSNBC is a wolf in sheep's clothing. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders_n_5e51ad62c5b629695f5b64d7 Wow, I was shocked by the title alone, and I'm used to the MSM. This feels like another furtherance of the MSM's overt support of Wall Street to me, its more obvious now than ever before in my life. Russia gate distracted the country from the very real conspiracy of the Clinton faction and the DNC preventing Sanders from the 2016 nomination, but now in 2020... Everywhere you look on the MSM, they are freaking out again over Sanders. Here is a CNN editorial title on the front page "Opinion: Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders -- immediately " Part of me hopes Bernie gets the nomination and on November 1st, he switches to Independent or creates another party if he wins, the democrats (Tulsi and a couple others excluded in my opinion) are no longer the party of JFK/FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 55 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said: Wow, I was shocked by the title alone, and I'm used to the MSM. This feels like another furtherance of the MSM's overt support of Wall Street to me, its more obvious now than ever before in my life. Russia gate distracted the country from the very real conspiracy of the Clinton faction and the DNC preventing Sanders from the 2016 nomination, but now in 2020... Everywhere you look on the MSM, they are freaking out again over Sanders. Here is a CNN editorial title on the front page "Opinion: Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders -- immediately " Part of me hopes Bernie gets the nomination and on November 1st, he switches to Independent or creates another party if he wins, the democrats (Tulsi and a couple others excluded in my opinion) are no longer the party of JFK/FDR. The hostility of the Democratic establishment (and, of course, the corporate MSM) to Bernie Sanders is simply astonishing. Here's a true story from this weekend. I'll try not to embellish this. I have had an account at the Democratic Underground for the past decade, and have occasionally posted comments there over the years. Almost all of the "Trending" threads there lately have been selected from the anti-Bernie crowd-- especially the Biden and Buttigieg supporters. The day after the historic Las Vegas debate, someone posted a "Trending" thread praising Elizabeth Warren for demanding to see Bernie's medical records. (I've been registered there as an Elizabeth Warren supporter.) I posted a comment saying that, as a Warren supporter, I was "frankly disappointed" that Elisabeth Warren was now joining in the Buttigieg/MSM smear campaign about Bernie's health. I reminded people of the scurrilous 2016 pre-election memes about Hillary having serious health problems. A Biden supporter at DU responded to my comment by saying, "Let me get this straight. You're a Warren supporter and you don't want her to attack Bernie?!" I replied, "Some of us don't believe in taking the low road to get elected-- i.e., that the end justifies the means." I was abruptly suspended from the DU forum for posting those two comments and my comments defending Bernie Sanders were deleted. 🙁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 Why Democrats Are Bound for Disaster Win, lose or draw, there’s no legitimacy in America anymore. Continue reading the main story By Frank Bruni in The New York Times Opinion Columnist Feb. 21, 2020 I’ll let you in on a little secret about media coverage of prime-time political debates: What happens in the first half, even the first quarter, gets much more attention than what happens as the night drags on. We all have deadlines bearing down on us and must produce our stories immediately after the debate’s end, so we start formulating thoughts and fashioning sentences before then. If there are fireworks early in the event, we say a cheer of gratitude and let them light up our commentary. So it was with Mike Bloomberg’s miserable performance in Las Vegas. He established his awfulness right off the bat. We ran with it. I know I did. But in the case of this debate, what happened at the bitter end was probably most meaningful. All six candidates onstage were asked to envision a situation — utterly plausible this year — in which none of them went into the Democratic convention in Milwaukee in July with a majority of pledged delegates and, therefore, an unequivocal claim to the nomination. Should the politician with a plurality of delegates be the nominee? Only Bernie Sanders, who currently has the best shot at being that person, said yes. The others said no. That would mean a brokered convention, in which the votes of uncommitted “superdelegates” or alliances formed among certain candidates are necessary to put someone over the top. And it would be a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which is deep into a bad dream already, because it would invite further cynicism, second-guessing, cries of illegitimacy and irresolution in a country that’s paralyzed by all of that. Something unsettling is going on in American politics — in America, period — and the chaotic Democratic race exemplifies it. The rules are all blurry. The processes are all suspect. Or at least they’re seen that way, so more and more judgments are up for debate and more and more defeats are prone to dispute. President Trump is a prime player in this, but it didn’t start with him and isn’t confined to him. He’s exploiting and accelerating a crisis of faith in traditions and institutions, not causing it. He’s improvising, and he’s hardly alone. Everywhere I look: incipient or latent pandemonium. The Iowa caucuses were a mess that motivated some candidates to press self-aggrandizing grievances. Bloomberg’s rivals argue (understandably) that he’s using his billions to game the system and pervert the whole shebang. And in a reprise of four years ago, Sanders’s supporters fume that the media, the Democratic National Committee and other supposed pillars of the establishment are conspiring against him in some underhanded, corrupt way. I’m no soothsayer, but I foresee intensifying quarrels over whether whoever is leading the field deserves to be in that position and whether his or her competitors got a raw deal. It’s 2016 all over again, except maybe worse. Back then both Sanders and Trump, who was braced to lose, insisted that the process was rigged. Sanders’s supporters questioned the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Democratic primary before Clinton’s supporters questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s victory in the general election. There were good reasons all around, but it was striking nonetheless how fervently the disappointed rejected the denouement. It was also corrosive. I’m not recommending a pliant surrender to injustice, but I see more value in plotting carefully for the next fight than in raging boundlessly over the last one. At some point, doesn’t everyone have to move on? Not anymore. In Washington, there’s the prospect of impeachment beyond impeachment, of new hearings to supplement the old ones, of additional evidence that will spiritually nullify the president’s ludicrous acquittal by the Senate. John Bolton continues his national-security version of a strip tease; he’s both a man of — and a metaphor for — an era in which nothing finishes, everything festers and all can be revisited and revised. Bill Barr junks sentence recommendations. Trump commutes sentences. There are investigations into investigators. Cries of cheating and fraudulence fly in every direction. I blame the internet, because I like to and because it’s true. I mean that I blame the way it encourages people to choose their own information and curate their own reality, so that no official pronouncement competes with a pet theory. I blame a national epidemic of selfishness, too. It seems to me that fewer and fewer people are easily moved off their particular worries, their special wants. Any outcome that displeases them is ipso facto a bastardized one. “The refusal to grant victors legitimacy bundles together so much about America today: the coarseness of our discourse; the blind tribalism coloring our debates; the elevation of individualism far above common purpose; the ethos that everybody should and can feel like a winner on every day,” I wrote during the last presidential election, and I wondered then if this were a passing phase. Nope. It’s the context — aggravated if anything — for the current race for the Democratic nomination, which features a scrum of sharp-elbowed aspirants, room galore for recriminations and the very, very real possibility of a brokered convention. Imagine that Sanders — with a plurality but not a majority of delegates — loses the nomination that way. He and many of his supporters would probably say that Democratic voters had been betrayed, and they wouldn’t be wrong. They could be furious enough to abandon the party’s pick, to the advantage of Trump. Now imagine the opposite: Although Sanders lacks a majority, Democrats who aren’t on his train feel too intimidated not to ride it, and so rules and dynamics set up expressly to make sure that the nominee represents as close to a party consensus as possible aren’t properly applied. His nomination would be deemed unjust in some quarters, straining party unity. What would salvage either set of circumstances is the acceptance and acknowledgment by Democrats who don’t get what they want that perpetually sore feelings serve little purpose. But that perspective — that maturity — is in retreat. We certainly can’t expect it from Trump if (please oh please) he’s defeated in November. He’ll manufacture any and every argument to say that he was robbed. And in a country in which the messy guts of our institutions are increasingly conspicuous and the merchants of cynicism grow ever bolder, he’ll find takers aplenty. After all, getting worked up is so much less tedious than getting along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: This is why MSNBC is a wolf in sheep's clothing. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders_n_5e51ad62c5b629695f5b64d7 This article says it all. IMO Chris Mathews has always been a ... well ... read the article Jim Di links us to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Berube Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: I was abruptly suspended from the DU forum for posting those two comments and my comments defending Bernie Sanders were deleted. 🙁 That's actually kind of scary William. The political climate is in such a poor state of affairs and only showing signs like this of getting worse. Also, one of the co-founders of DU is Dave Allsopp. Robert, anything about familial connections to Joesph Alsop? I couldn't help but wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said: Wow, I was shocked by the title alone, and I'm used to the MSM. This feels like another furtherance of the MSM's overt support of Wall Street to me, its more obvious now than ever before in my life. Russia gate distracted the country from the very real conspiracy of the Clinton faction and the DNC preventing Sanders from the 2016 nomination, but now in 2020... Everywhere you look on the MSM, they are freaking out again over Sanders. Here is a CNN editorial title on the front page "Opinion: Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders -- immediately " Part of me hopes Bernie gets the nomination and on November 1st, he switches to Independent or creates another party if he wins, the democrats (Tulsi and a couple others excluded in my opinion) are no longer the party of JFK/FDR. DB I spotted that editorial link on CNN this morning also. The writer is obviously elevating and promoting Bloomberg as the only other viable democratic party candidate. Doing his part to create this specific false reality perception in the eyes of his readers. With the unprecedented massive amounts of money Bloomberg is throwing into just the nomination ( approaching half a BILLION? ! ) you have to believe that some of this tempting gold mine could very well be going to certain political writers who have report publishing access MSM connections. This specific planted false perception article raises the possibility question. Bloomberg's frantic push for the nomination with a crazy out-of-this world high financial commitment begs rational suspicion. One senses there is a larger picture fear going on here. My guess is that it is our top 1% ruling class fearing losing control to a progressive agenda Dem candidate and most importantly losing control of the Supreme Court and other court realms. Bloomberg and his fellow billionaires have done much better under Trump than any other president in U.S. history. Why try to replace him? A false flag operation? I have stated that the Dem candidate the super wealthy ruling class feared most of all was Elizabeth Warren. And they have already won in getting her out of the picture. Warren would beat Trump in the women vote guaranteed. That's over half the battle. Imagine 50 to 75 million American women watching nationally televised debates between Warren and Trump? Just from the visual physical contrast alone (Trump the overweight sexist bully versus the thin and moral school teacher looking Warren ) Warren would win the majority of their votes instantly. Especially if at least one major TV network would scroll at the bottom of the screen Trump's most women disparaging misogynist statements from thousands over the years such as "grab em by the pu$$y, my bad sex behavior accusers aren't my type, they're all XXXXX, and on and on. Sanders has always had a loyal base and their numbers stay the same. With so many other Dem candidates splitting the primary votes, Sanders base just happens to be the majority vote garnering one. If Biden ( and maybe Buttigeig ? ) finally drops out...I would hope Warren stays in to pick up some of their base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) Daniel Estulin, described in the article as a 24-year veteran of Russian military counterintelligence , explains how Putin, Trump and Xi will after Trump's re-election meet in a Yalta-like setting to impose world-wide rule, in other words a world-wide dictatorship. I have always believed since Trump was elected that this was the ultimate goal. Now it is confirmed. https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/xi-jingping-trump-and-putin-are-on-the-same-team/?fbclid=IwAR3SpTn92wcjttO59vnlm6gYGCoFf-_-ewaS5ZtEAT2bJPzI5fp_x661ATc Edited February 23, 2020 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said: Why Democrats Are Bound for Disaster Win, lose or draw, there’s no legitimacy in America anymore. Continue reading the main story By Frank Bruni in The New York Times Opinion Columnist Feb. 21, 2020 I’ll let you in on a little secret about media coverage of prime-time political debates: What happens in the first half, even the first quarter, gets much more attention than what happens as the night drags on. We all have deadlines bearing down on us and must produce our stories immediately after the debate’s end, so we start formulating thoughts and fashioning sentences before then. If there are fireworks early in the event, we say a cheer of gratitude and let them light up our commentary. So it was with Mike Bloomberg’s miserable performance in Las Vegas. He established his awfulness right off the bat. We ran with it. I know I did. But in the case of this debate, what happened at the bitter end was probably most meaningful. All six candidates onstage were asked to envision a situation — utterly plausible this year — in which none of them went into the Democratic convention in Milwaukee in July with a majority of pledged delegates and, therefore, an unequivocal claim to the nomination. Should the politician with a plurality of delegates be the nominee? Only Bernie Sanders, who currently has the best shot at being that person, said yes. The others said no. That would mean a brokered convention, in which the votes of uncommitted “superdelegates” or alliances formed among certain candidates are necessary to put someone over the top. And it would be a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which is deep into a bad dream already, because it would invite further cynicism, second-guessing, cries of illegitimacy and irresolution in a country that’s paralyzed by all of that. Something unsettling is going on in American politics — in America, period — and the chaotic Democratic race exemplifies it. The rules are all blurry. The processes are all suspect. Or at least they’re seen that way, so more and more judgments are up for debate and more and more defeats are prone to dispute. President Trump is a prime player in this, but it didn’t start with him and isn’t confined to him. He’s exploiting and accelerating a crisis of faith in traditions and institutions, not causing it. He’s improvising, and he’s hardly alone. Everywhere I look: incipient or latent pandemonium. The Iowa caucuses were a mess that motivated some candidates to press self-aggrandizing grievances. Bloomberg’s rivals argue (understandably) that he’s using his billions to game the system and pervert the whole shebang. And in a reprise of four years ago, Sanders’s supporters fume that the media, the Democratic National Committee and other supposed pillars of the establishment are conspiring against him in some underhanded, corrupt way. I’m no soothsayer, but I foresee intensifying quarrels over whether whoever is leading the field deserves to be in that position and whether his or her competitors got a raw deal. It’s 2016 all over again, except maybe worse. Back then both Sanders and Trump, who was braced to lose, insisted that the process was rigged. Sanders’s supporters questioned the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Democratic primary before Clinton’s supporters questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s victory in the general election. There were good reasons all around, but it was striking nonetheless how fervently the disappointed rejected the denouement. It was also corrosive. I’m not recommending a pliant surrender to injustice, but I see more value in plotting carefully for the next fight than in raging boundlessly over the last one. At some point, doesn’t everyone have to move on? Not anymore. In Washington, there’s the prospect of impeachment beyond impeachment, of new hearings to supplement the old ones, of additional evidence that will spiritually nullify the president’s ludicrous acquittal by the Senate. John Bolton continues his national-security version of a strip tease; he’s both a man of — and a metaphor for — an era in which nothing finishes, everything festers and all can be revisited and revised. Bill Barr junks sentence recommendations. Trump commutes sentences. There are investigations into investigators. Cries of cheating and fraudulence fly in every direction. I blame the internet, because I like to and because it’s true. I mean that I blame the way it encourages people to choose their own information and curate their own reality, so that no official pronouncement competes with a pet theory. I blame a national epidemic of selfishness, too. It seems to me that fewer and fewer people are easily moved off their particular worries, their special wants. Any outcome that displeases them is ipso facto a bastardized one. “The refusal to grant victors legitimacy bundles together so much about America today: the coarseness of our discourse; the blind tribalism coloring our debates; the elevation of individualism far above common purpose; the ethos that everybody should and can feel like a winner on every day,” I wrote during the last presidential election, and I wondered then if this were a passing phase. Nope. It’s the context — aggravated if anything — for the current race for the Democratic nomination, which features a scrum of sharp-elbowed aspirants, room galore for recriminations and the very, very real possibility of a brokered convention. Imagine that Sanders — with a plurality but not a majority of delegates — loses the nomination that way. He and many of his supporters would probably say that Democratic voters had been betrayed, and they wouldn’t be wrong. They could be furious enough to abandon the party’s pick, to the advantage of Trump. Now imagine the opposite: Although Sanders lacks a majority, Democrats who aren’t on his train feel too intimidated not to ride it, and so rules and dynamics set up expressly to make sure that the nominee represents as close to a party consensus as possible aren’t properly applied. His nomination would be deemed unjust in some quarters, straining party unity. What would salvage either set of circumstances is the acceptance and acknowledgment by Democrats who don’t get what they want that perpetually sore feelings serve little purpose. But that perspective — that maturity — is in retreat. We certainly can’t expect it from Trump if (please oh please) he’s defeated in November. He’ll manufacture any and every argument to say that he was robbed. And in a country in which the messy guts of our institutions are increasingly conspicuous and the merchants of cynicism grow ever bolder, he’ll find takers aplenty. After all, getting worked up is so much less tedious than getting along. Coherent summary by Mr. Bruni. However, imo, he seems to lambast the Democrats and Democrat voters as much as Trump and his power enablers almost equally for our bad current state of affairs. My take is that our wealthiest 1% representing Republicans are way more responsible for this fractured political situation of the Democrats and our country as a whole. Our ever more powerful wealthiest corporate powers to be have been attacking and dividing the left and middle class since Reagan times with a war mentality and massive unlimited funding for such projects as incessant right wing liberal bashing radio propaganda reaching and successfully inflaming 10's of millions of already angry Americans 24/7 for years. The creation of Fox News. Never ending dirty tricks political activities. The blocking of left wing or even moderate Supreme Court justices. And topped off now with the most outrageously aggressive and effective political divider and inflamer in American history ( BY FAR ) ...Donald Trump. Edited February 23, 2020 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now