Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

I found this episode really enlightening - discussing the roles of the women in Trump’s life and how they shaped him/were shaped by him. Spoiler: He’s got both mommy and grandmother issues. I feel like I understand the guy better, but that’s not reassuring in any way - in fact, quite the opposite. 

https://crooked.com/podcast/sugar-were-cohen-down-with-nina-burleigh/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck Putin

https://news.gallup.com/poll/247100/majority-americans-consider-russia-critical-threat.aspx

Majority of Americans Now Consider Russia a Critical Threat

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Russia's military power deemed critical threat by 52% in U.S.
  • Russia tops list of countries Americans' deem chief U.S. enemy
  • Russia's favorable rating drops to another post-Soviet Union low

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Russia's already negative image among Americans only worsened over the past year, with a majority for the first time saying that Russia's military power poses a threat to U.S. vital interests and a third identifying Russia as the United States' chief enemy. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans viewing Russia unfavorably edged up a point to 73%. Each of these negative perceptions of Russia marks a record high in Gallup's trends.

The Feb. 1-10 poll coincided the Trump Administration's Feb. 1 announcement that the U.S. is pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over concerns Russia hasn't complied with the arms control agreement. In the survey, 52% of Americans rated the military power of Russia as a "critical threat" to U.S. vital interests. This is up from 39% in the prior measure in 2016 and from 18% in the initial 2004 reading.

447B2FFF-E161-41A2-8981-AC8E23A95E1C_zps

Although sizeable segments of Republicans and Democrats view Russia's military as a critical threat, the figure is higher among Democrats (65%) than Republicans (46%).

Russia Displaces North Korea as U.S. Arch Rival

Americans are now more likely to name Russia than any other country as the nation they think is the United States' greatest enemy. Russia has displaced North Korea in the top spot, as mentions of Russia swelled from 19% in 2018 to 32% today. Meanwhile, mentions of North Korea plummeted from 51% to 14% following last year's dialogue between the two countries over denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

C20869DF-A600-495B-BE84-91AC574C8806_zps

China is also more likely to be seen as a top adversary this year, with 21% citing it versus 11% in 2018, pushing China into the No. 2 position while North Korea has fallen to No. 3. Iran, mentioned by 9%, continues to rank fourth, as it did in 2018.

Gallup has asked Americans to name the country they consider to be the United States' greatest enemy 12 times since 2001. Russia ranked first in 2015, but with only 18% mentioning it. Besides North Korea, other countries cycling through the top spot include Iraq, Iran and China.

As recently as 2016 there was no difference between the parties in mentions of Russia as the top enemy. However, as federal investigations into Russia's possible involvement with Donald Trump's presidential campaign have revealed Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election, views have grown more partisan. Nearly half of Democrats (46%) versus 14% of Republicans now view Russia as the country's top enemy.

1611ED6E-994D-419D-B479-85CC3B638CEF_zps

While Russia is the top choice of Democrats by a wide margin over North Korea (mentioned by 17% of Democrats), Republicans are more likely to name both China (22%) and Iran (19%) as the top enemy than name Russia, while 12% name North Korea.

Russia in Prolonged Period of Poor Ratings

After nearly two decades of mostly positive favorable ratings in the U.S. following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Russia has consistently sparked more negative than positive ratings since 2013.

Russia's U.S. favorable rating was 44% in February 2013, but dipped further in 2014 to 34%, after Russia had offered the former U.S. intelligence contractor-turned leaker, Edward Snowden, asylum. As Gallup noted at the time, Russia's deteriorating image may also have reflected growing U.S.-Russia tensions over the Syrian civil war, as well as controversy over aspects of the 2014 Winter Olympics which Russia hosted.

Positive views of Russia have since dropped below 30% while more than 70% of Americans have rated it unfavorably. The 24% viewing it favorably today includes low levels of all party groups: 30% of Republicans, 23% of independents and 17% of Democrats.

A376CA89-369A-4D02-8AA2-425371C51D75_zps

Bottom Line

Even before Russian state television this weekend identified which U.S. military installations would be targeted should Russia launch nuclear strikes on the U.S., Americans had grown increasingly wary of Russia. This trend has continued under Trump, but it started during Barack Obama's presidency.

Today, Democrats are more critical than Republicans of Russia, but even most Republicans view Russia unfavorably and half consider its military a vital threat. It remains to be seen if this broad agreement influences how Americans react to both the Mueller report concerning alleged Russian interference in U.S. elections and to future Trump policies dealing with Moscow and U.S. national defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when I think this whole thing can’t get any more trashy...



I can’t WAIT to see what nincompoop in Trump World tried to pull this caper off and whose identity they stole to submit the nomination.

“Oh look! Jimmy Carter nominated Donald Trump??? There sure seem to be a lot of misspellings, random capitalizations, and grammatical errors. And the entire thing is written in.....Sharpie????? I think we may need to verify this one.”

NICE TRY, ERIC
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross posting because this article is outstanding.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

Hemmer argues that Fox—which, as the most watched cable news network, generates about $2.7 billion a year for its parent company, 21st Century Fox—acts as a force multiplier for Trump, solidifying his hold over the Republican Party and intensifying his support. “Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature,” she says. “It’s a radicalization model.” For both Trump and Fox, “fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.” As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead. All day long, Trump retweets claims made on the network; his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has largely stopped holding press conferences, but she has made some thirty appearances on such shows as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” Trump, Hemmer says, has “almost become a programmer.”

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

buT MUh MeDiA biAS

From the article 

 

When Shine assumed command at Fox, the 2016 campaign was nearing its end, and Trump and Clinton were all but tied. That fall, a FoxNews.com reporter had a story that put the network’s journalistic integrity to the test. Diana Falzone, who often covered the entertainment industry, had obtained proof that Trump had engaged in a sexual relationship in 2006 with a pornographic film actress calling herself Stormy Daniels. Falzone had worked on the story since March, and by October she had confirmed it with Daniels through her manager at the time, Gina Rodriguez, and with Daniels’s former husband, Mike Moz, who described multiple calls from Trump. Falzone had also amassed e-mails between Daniels’s attorney and Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen, detailing a proposed cash settlement, accompanied by a nondisclosure agreement. Falzone had even seen the contract.

 

But Falzone’s story didn’t run—it kept being passed off from one editor to the next. After getting one noncommittal answer after another from her editors, Falzone at last heard from LaCorte, who was then the head of FoxNews.com. Falzone told colleagues that LaCorte said to her, “Good reporting, kiddo. But Rupert wants Donald Trump to win. So just let it go.” LaCorte denies telling Falzone this, but one of Falzone’s colleagues confirms having heard her account at the time.

Despite the discouragement, Falzone kept investigating, and discovered that the National Enquirer, in partnership with Trump, had made a “catch and kill” deal with Daniels—buying the exclusive rights to her story in order to bury it. Falzone pitched this story to Fox, too, but it went nowhere. News of Trump’s payoffs to silence Daniels, and Cohen’s criminal attempts to conceal them as legal fees, remained unknown to the public until the Wall Street Journal broke the story, a year after Trump became President.

In January, 2017, Fox demoted Falzone without explanation. That May, she sued the network. Her attorney, Nancy Erika Smith, declined to comment but acknowledged that a settlement has been reached; it includes a nondisclosure agreement that bars Falzone from talking about her work at Fox.

 

After the Journal story broke, Oliver Darcy, a senior media reporter for CNN, published a piece revealing that Fox had killed a Stormy Daniels story. LaCorte, who by then had left Fox but was still being paid by the company, told Mediaite that he’d made the call without talking to superiors. The story simply hadn’t “passed muster,” he claimed, adding, “I didn’t do it to protect Donald Trump.” Nik Richie, a blogger who had broken the first story about Daniels, tweeted, “This is complete bullshit. Ken you are such a LIAR. This story got killed by @FoxNews at the highest level. I know, because I was one of your sources.”

Richie told me, “Fox News was culpable. I voted for Trump, and I like Fox, but they did their own ‘catch and kill’ on the story to protect him.” He said that he’d worked closely with Falzone on the article, and that “she did her homework—she had it.” He says he warned her that Fox would never run it, but “when they killed it she was devastated.” Richie believes that the story “would have swayed the election.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much in this article:

 

During a recent dinner with reporters, the incendiary right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, who has been feuding with Trump over his immigration policy, said that the President told her that “Murdoch calls me every day.” She recalled that, “back when Trump was still speaking to me,” she complained to him that Fox was no longer inviting her to appear. She said that Trump told her, “Do you want me to call Murdoch and tell him to put you on?” Coulter accepted Trump’s offer. He may have called Hannity, not Murdoch, she says, but in any case she was invited back on Fox “within twelve hours.”

[snip]

 

According to Media Matters, in the first year after Mueller was appointed Hannity alone aired four hundred and eighty-six segments attacking the federal criminal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election; thirty-eight per cent of those segments claimed that law-enforcement officials had broken the law. In recent weeks, Hannity has spoken of “a coup,” and a guest on Laura Ingraham’s program, the lawyer Joseph diGenova, declared, “It’s going to be total war. And, as I say to my friends, I do two things—I vote and I buy guns.”

 

Jerry Taylor, the co-founder of the Niskanen Center, a think tank in Washington for moderates, says, “In a hypothetical world without Fox News, if President Trump were to be hit hard by the Mueller report, it would be the end of him. But, with Fox News covering his back with the Republican base, he has a fighting chance, because he has something no other President in American history has ever had at his disposal—a servile propaganda operation.” 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

so how is Fox News, run by an Australian, any different than what the Russians did with facebook?  it's even more direct isn't it?

The difference is Fox News does it overtly.  You can look up through public records Fox News’ top two owners were Rupert Murdoch and a Saudi Arabian prince during the 2016 election. 

The Russians operated both overtly and covertly.  Overtly through RT/Sputnik and covertly through Wikileaks, Facebook, and Twitter using fake American accounts and bots.  Russia also echoed its messaging through a bunch of grey propaganda sites like Zerohedge and Drudge.

The Kremlin also engaged in criminal behavior through the hacking and espionage of American citizens.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No difference.  Would be glorious to see them taken down as well as AMI and the NRA in all this.  As well as all the assholes they have incriminating stuff on.  McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Jordan, Nunes and all the other Trump defenders are compromised by something besides voters.  Time to shine light on all of that and clear out our vulnerabilities.  Even if it is just voters they fear, then that's despicable enough, selling the constitution down the river to retain office? 

I would not be surprised to see another special counsel come from all this that investigates Murdoch, Sinclair, AMI, NRA and any others who are spreading propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2019 at 10:13 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Something to consider after today’s Castro-esque rant at CPAC:  How should the media treat Trump on the campaign trail if he runs in 2020? 

Do they broadcast his rallies?  How should they approach his coverage?  What 2016 mistakes should they avoid this go around? 

Every time he lies, they should say he lied. Every single time. If they broadcast his rallies, there should be a running total at the bottom of the screen that tics up every time.

Number of Lies: 1

Number of Lies: 2

Number of Lies: 3

etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

No difference.  Would be glorious to see them taken down as well as AMI and the NRA in all this.  As well as all the assholes they have incriminating stuff on.  McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Jordan, Nunes and all the other Trump defenders are compromised by something besides voters.  Time to shine light on all of that and clear out our vulnerabilities.  Even if it is just voters they fear, then that's despicable enough, selling the constitution down the river to retain office? 

I would not be surprised to see another special counsel come from all this that investigates Murdoch, Sinclair, AMI, NRA and any others who are spreading propaganda.

It’s a fine line because you’re flirting with the freedom of speech.  No doubt the bad actors (foreign and domestic) have weaponized the first amendment against our democracy but I wouldn’t go down the criminal/litigation road unless actual crimes were committed.  

Recalling back to the Yuri Bezmenoz videos, “the beauty of active measures is it isn’t a crime”. 

The best we can do is inoculate the population from it through activism based on public education and reporting.  Make a public and private effort to call out and marginalize the bad actors.  This is what the intelligence community has been doing with the Russians for the last few years.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a fine line because you’re flirting with the freedom of speech.  No doubt the bad actors foreign and domestic have weaponized the first amendment against our democracy but I wouldn’t go down the criminal/litigation road unless actual crimes were committed.  

Recalling back to the Yuri Bezmenoz videos, “the beauty of active measures is it isn’t a crime”. 

The best we can do is inoculate the population from it through activism based on public education and reporting.  Make a public and private effort to call out and marginalize the bad actors.  This is what the intelligence community has been doing with the Russians for the last few years.

It is a fine line, but at what point is it yelling fire in a theater?  Especially when there is no fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s a fine line because you’re flirting with the freedom of speech.  No doubt the bad actors foreign and domestic have weaponized the first amendment against our democracy but I wouldn’t go down the criminal/litigation road unless actual crimes were committed.  

Recalling back to the Yuri Bezmenoz videos, “the beauty of active measures is it isn’t a crime”. 

The best we can do is inoculate the population from it through activism based on public education and reporting.  Make a public and private effort to call out and marginalize the bad actors.  This is what the intelligence community has been doing with the Russians for the last few years.

I agree somewhat.  What I want is transparency.  The waters have been muddied by all this "fake news" crap.   I just want it brought to light and if it's not done voluntarily, then investigate.  Let the people decide.  Maybe some new concepts on freedom of speech and press come out to help prevent this from happening again.  It is a tricky thing, but if we as a country don't slow down this train, it will just keep running unchecked, using more false propaganda and blackmail pressure to achieve their goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The best we can do is inoculate the population from it through activism based on public education and reporting.  Make a public and private effort to call out and marginalize the bad actors.  This is what the intelligence community has been doing with the Russians for the last few years.

Some Americans won't inoculate against measles, how do you expect them to protect themselves from political propaganda?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

I agree somewhat.  What I want is transparency.  The waters have been muddied by all this "fake news" crap.   I just want it brought to light and if it's not done voluntarily, then investigate.  Let the people decide.  Maybe some new concepts on freedom of speech and press come out to help prevent this from happening again.  It is a tricky thing, but if we as a country don't slow down this train, it will just keep running unchecked, using more false propaganda and blackmail pressure to achieve their goals. 

Yeah, I’m all for that.  The issue you run into when information has become this weaponized is who will people trust?  

The government?  The newspapers? The president? Their Facebook friends?  The professors? The “experts”?  Dan Bongino? 

The first goal of the attack is eliminate these outlets as reliable sources of information and destroy objective truth.

That’s why the Mueller report is so important.

It’s also why Trump/Fox News’/Giuliani and the GOP’s effort to preemptively discredit Mueller is so treacherous and really just another assault in a larger effort to destroy objective truth. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...