Journalist lowers the boom on the press!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2019

Well worth thinking about:
Matt Taibbi has apparently lowered the boom on the mainstream press.

We base this statement on Ann Marie Lipinski's review of Taibbi's new book, Hate Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another. Her review appeared in the Outlook section of yesterday's Washington Post.

We haven't read Taibbi's book. For that reason, we can't vouch for the quality of its analysis.

That said, we think its themes, as described by Lipinski, are well worth thinking about. After some preliminaries, she starts her description like this:
LIPINKSI (10/20/19): [Taibbi] blast[s] an American media industry he accuses of taking sides and manipulating the audience for profit...

“The subject here is the phasing out of independent journalism, replacing it with deeply politicized programming on both ‘sides,’ ” he writes. “Which ‘side’ is better is immaterial: neither approach is journalism. Fox may have more noxious politics, but MSNBC has become the same kind of consumer product, a political safe space for viewers in ironclad alignment with a political party.”
Is MSNBC really providing that kind of "consumer product?" Is it providing "a political safe space for viewers in ironclad alignment with a political party?”

In many ways, yes, it plainly is. And as Lipinski's overview continues, Taibbi even names Rachel Maddow:
LIPINSKI: Taibbi’s equal-opportunity enmity is announced by his book cover, a red-and-blue diptych featuring photographs of cable gladiators Sean Hannity of Fox News and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. Maddow suffers an especially rough critique for her persistent focus on the Russian collusion story, an approach Taibbi believes was excessive, built not on fact but on innuendo fashioned for liberal viewers, and worthy of Hannity-level shaming. “The two characters do exactly the same work,” he writes. “They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same.”
We pause here for a scripted complaint concerning "moral equivalence." That said, has Maddow's "persistent focus on the Russian collusion story" actually been excessive? Has it really been built on innuendo more than on fact?

In our view, there's no simple answer to those questions, but the single-mindedness of her focus has been undeniable.

For ourselves, we would stress the many topics which get completely ignored as Maddow talks about Russia and (Almost) Nothing Else. We say almost nothing else because Maddow lards her discussions of Russia with consumer product about the past evil deeds of Republican figures associated with Presidents Nixon and Reagan.

Monologues about Ed Meese and Spiro T. Agnew do seem designed to provide the type of "political safe space" in which viewers get to hear endless accounts of all the bad things The Others have done.

Serious topics are dumped, disappeared, in favor of these pleasing morality tales. This strikes us as very bad conduct.

According to Lipinski, Taibbi makes a further accusation. It explains the name of his book:
LIPINSKI: Hate, the author argues, has been promoted by news outlets that cater to “distinct audiences of party zealots” fed a diet of information intended to demonize political opponents—and increase viewership. It’s a model with benign consequences when applied to coverage of rival sports teams, but otherwise corrosive. “In 2016 especially, news reporters began to consciously divide and radicalize audiences,” he writes. “. . . As Trump rode to the White House, we rode to massive profits. The only losers were the American people, who were now more steeped in hate than ever.”
Are news orgs really "promoting hate" when they pander to their specialized audiences? We'd have to see Taibbi's evidence and examples before we ascribed to that view, although there's certainly plenty of tribal loathing and disrespect being pimped all around.

As she continues, Lipinski finds fault with some of Taibbi's assertions:

"Taibbi is right to sound the alarm about the temptations that have tarnished news reports since Donald Trump’s election, resulting in more programming that appears designed to ratify an audience’s political beliefs," she writes. "But he overreaches when he claims that 'the bulk of reporters today are soldiers for one or the other group of long-entrenched political interests in Washington.' "

Actually, we're not entirely sure that Lipinski is describing an "overreach" there. With respect to both Clintons and Candidate Gore, and now with respect to Donald J. Trump, it's certainly true that many reporters have been in thrall to certain political storylines—storylines they pursue with maniacal zeal.

As always, the strength of Taibbi's accusation in this area rests upon the nature of the examples given, assuming Taibbi bothers with examples at all.

Uh-oh! By the end of her review, Lipinski is saying that Taibbi overreaches badly in certain respects. At one point, she even says that Taibbi "admits to a reporting career catering to liberal readers and the 'self-loathing that came with knowing I’d tossed so much red meat to political audiences.' "

We've sometimes had that very reaction to Taibbi's work in the past. We've also sometimes thought that he was given to the type of "entertainmentism" which we find objectionable in Maddow's relentless mugging and clowning and selling-of-self.

Will "the new journalism" ever get old? We've sometimes found ourselves asking that question as we've read Taibbi's past work.

Still and all, it's rare to see a major journalist complaining about the hyperpartisan behavior of the modern guild. And it isn't all happening Over There, though it is all producing big profits.

Is that why cable behaves as it does? No wider discussion will follow from this, but we're glad to see somebody ask.

78 comments:

  1. "Are news orgs really "promoting hate" when they pander to their specialized audiences? We'd have to see Taibbi's evidence and examples before we ascribed to that view..."

    Ha-ha, Bob needs evidence. Thanks for the laugh, dear Bob.

    Were you lobotomized in the morning of 11/9/2016, to be asking for evidence now? Ah, but of course you were...

    ReplyDelete
  2. 11/9/2016.

    Almost 3 years in, and the corporate media still hasn't found the Trump voter who isn't a bigot. I'm starting to think they never will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the black and Latino Trump voters? They are bigots against whites or what?

      Delete
    2. OK, @11:33P, point taken. But if people support a President who’s a bigot, a xenophobe, and a self-admitted assaulter of women, what are they?

      If they support someone who puts children in concentration camps to deter parents from legally seeking asylum in this country, what are they then?

      Don’t you think that at some point people are responsible for the political decisions they make?

      Here’s an easy analogy (and one that doesn’t violate Godwin’s Law).

      What do you call someone who professes no personal animus toward homosexuals but declares that they should all be put to death because God commanded it in the Bible? A homophobe, perhaps?

      Delete
    3. "If they support someone who puts children in concentration camps to deter parents from legally seeking asylum in this country, what are they then?"

      You mean, what are they besides people who responded to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter"?

      Delete
    4. 'Don’t you think that at some point people are responsible for the political decisions they make?'

      That's why I call Somerby a Trumptard !

      Delete
    5. C’mon Centrist. Don’t kid a kidder. You call TDH a Trumptard for two reasons. The first is that you still think the taunt retard is funny. The second is that you follow one of the cardinal rules of the tribalist, namely, “The enemy of my friend is my enemy.”

      Your reasoning goes “TDH criticizes liberals; liberals are my friends; a critic of my friends is their enemy.” Apply cardinal rule and repeat.

      It has the advantage of not requiring thought.

      Delete
    6. I am not a liberal, that's why I call myself a Centrist. I would be fine with criticizing liberals. I am not fine with Somerby's nitpicking, his mistakes (he blames the NYT for low IQ, while himself showing a lack of knowledge of %ages that would embarrass a 6th grader). Nor am I fine with his gallant and lying defenses of Trump, Roy Moore and Ron Johnson.

      Delete
    7. OK, I believe you're not a liberal. Lying about someone you dislike isn't a liberal practice. It's a tribal one though.

      PU|SU.

      Delete
  3. Of Maddow:
    “Serious topics are dumped, disappeared, in favor of these pleasing morality tales.”

    The insinuation is that the Mueller/Russia/election story was unserious, tribally “pleasing”, when it actually may be one of the most important topics of our times. Taibbi has judged it to be a worthless waste of time; he is beyond skeptical, he outright denies there’s any “there” there, so he’s hardly an unbiased reporter in this matter.

    “viewers get to hear endless accounts of all the bad things The Others have done. “

    In other words, reporting on the corruption and abuses of power in the Trump administration is primarily a political thing, and not an important, perhaps crucial, fact-based pursuit.

    There’s also a distinction to be drawn between pure “entertainism” and a serious discussion interspersed with humor in order to make a point. Not everyone can be David Brinkley, who was about as interesting as a sack of potatoes, but his approach isn’t the sole valid one for presenting newsworthy topics. As a former comedian, Somerby must realize that comedy quite often serves an effective, serious purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this post comedy? If not it's tragic.

      "when it actually may be one of the most important topics of our times."

      That is very sad. At this late date, it's insane.

      Maddow had Andrew Yang on the other night and asked him to name the countries whose elections the US had meddled in. (He had mentioned this well-known fact in the debate.)

      You could see afterward on Twitter that many, many Maddow viewers didn't even realize that we had meddled in elections before! They thought he was lying! (he refused to name names just saying that there were many well-known examples which of course there are.)

      So you can see how fat and stupid she keeps her viewers. Going on for months and years about Russian meddling and never letting her viewers understand how much we have meddled in Russian elections and how much we meddle in many other elections, when we aren't just assassinating or overthrowing leaders of other countries with whom we dislike.

      David Brinkley as an analogy would be like a basic eggs and bacon breakfast. Rachel Maddow is like having chocolate ice cream, apple pie and hundreds of Skittles for breakfast. She is junk food. She is really bad for you.

      She is gross.

      Delete
    2. I assume whoever 4:17 is, they are a teenager.

      Delete
    3. @4:17 quotes TDH thusly,

      “viewers get to hear endless accounts of all the bad things The Others have done.“

      And then in a desperate attempt to make a point goes on to paraphrase in this manner:

      In other words, reporting on the corruption and abuses of power in the Trump administration is primarily a political thing, and not an important, perhaps crucial, fact-based pursuit.

      Those are other words, all right. Your words. TDH isn’t talking about Trump’s administration; he’s talking about Nixon’s. TDH is complaining about Maddow’s stories about Ed Meese and Sprio Agnew.

      Is your inability to read for comprehension an isolated problem or a sign of a more general cognitive failure? You might want an appropriate professional to check for you.

      Delete
    4. I assume whoever 4:17 is, they are a teenager.

      Do teenagers know who David Brinkley was?

      Delete
    5. Going on for months and years about Russian meddling and never letting her viewers understand how much we have meddled in Russian elections and how much we meddle in many other elections, when we aren't just assassinating or overthrowing leaders of other countries with whom we dislike.

      I don’t think many people are outraged that Putin meddled in the 2016 election. The anger is directed at the candidate, now President, who actively sought that meddling and has done everything to thwart investigations into his treason and everything to cater to autocrats everywhere, including and especially Putin.

      Trivia question: Of the two dozen larger nations in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, how many has the US not “meddled” with so as to undermine their political and social institutions?

      (The qualification “larger” is meant to exclude island nations you’ve never heard of like St Nevis and Kitts, which is about 100 square miles. Of course, a small area is no guarantee of freedom from interference, as Ronald Reagan proved in Grenada (133 sq.mi.) in 1983.)

      Delete
    6. [2:50:53] "David, you get the last word." LINK

      Delete
    7. LINK

      [QUOTE]
      L.A. Times December 21, 2016

      The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries

      The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

      The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

      That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.... [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    8. Turns out, not only should Ward Churchill not have been fired, he should be the President of the United States.

      Delete
    9. I could have sworn the Right-wing calling the Left the "blame America first crowd" in 2001 was meant to be an insult.

      Q. How many Right-wing accusations are confessions?

      A. All of them, Katie.

      Delete
    10. I think we solved the mystery regarding Trump's story about Muslims celebrating on 9/11. Turns out it wasn't Muslims on a rooftop, but instead something he witnessed at a Republican fund-raiser.

      Delete
    11. "The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University."

      And that's the greatness they want to make America again?
      Hard pass.

      Delete
    12. deadrat, always literal. Here’s what Somerby said:
      “Monologues about Ed Meese and Spiro T. Agnew do seem designed to provide the type of "political safe space" in which viewers get to hear endless accounts of all the bad things The Others have done. ”

      The Meese/Agnew stuff “provide a safe space” where viewers get to hear account of *all* of the bad things The Others have done. You don’t have to look too hard to find Somerby posts criticizing Maddow for reporting on Trump administration corruption as “yay yay yay we like putting the Others in jail.”

      Delete
    13. deadrat, always accurate.

      There, FTFY.

      One thing that monologues about Ed Meese and Spiro T Agnew won’t help anyone do is to hear an account of “*all*” the bad things The Others have done. Those monologues will certainly tell you about “*some*” of the bad things perpetrated by the Nixon administration, but we’re going on half a century ago.

      One thing that objecting to monologues about ancient political history won’t do is make any reasonable person decide that “reporting on the corruption and abuses of power in the Trump administration is … not an important, perhaps crucial, fact-based pursuit.” That reporting is, in fact, important, and shirking that responsibility is what RM does in wasting time on Meese and Agnew.

      TDH does object to Maddow’s glee about the prospect of putting Republican miscreants (forgive my redundancy) in jail. I don’t share his qualms: I want to see them all serve long sentences. But this seems to be merely a matter of personal taste or perhaps of personality

      Delete
    14. The history lessons about Meese and Agnew put the current corruption into a historical context. Somerby sees it as a distraction or waste of time, but given the relative rarity of impeachment and executive branch corruption, it serves to establish a road map for how to handle the present crisis. The fact that both men were Republicans is an accident of history. Theoretically. But history, when relevant to today’s events, is never a distraction.

      Delete
    15. The fact that both men were Republicans is an accident of history.

      That's adorable! No, really, it is.

      It's also makes for a temptation to ignore your opinions altogether, but in the interest of forbearance, let me ask what "historical context" you think a discussion of Ed Meese adds to the "current corruption."

      Take your time. I'll wait.

      Delete
  4. 'although there's certainly plenty of tribal loathing and disrespect being pimped all around.'

    Particularly among Trumptards like TDH who attack liberals

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'For ourselves, we would stress the many topics which get completely ignored'

    You mean gallant defenses of Roy Moore, like yours ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Taibbi is critical of the intelligence community as well as the media.

    The last paragraphs in this piece will sound familiar to readers of this blog.

    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

    Here’s Lee Smith with the media-intelligence agency angle.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/261158/trump-russia-collusion

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/285830/spies-are-the-new-journalists



    ReplyDelete
  7. Am I the only one who thinks a column critiquing a book review of a book the columnist hasn't read is nothing but electron abuse? We used to be warned that this sort of thing led to blindness;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. It doesn't surprise me that Somerby likes Taibbi. Taibbi has been an ongoing Russiagate Skeptic, like Glen Greenwald, who thinks there is no substance to the Mueller investigation, doubting the documented wrongdoing on the part of Trump and his minions. Taibbi pretends to be a skeptic with an open mind, but he ignores the evidence in order to give Trump wiggle room in the minds of those who are hopeful that Trump is actually being conspired against.

    And here comes Somerby, in lock step, giving aid and comfort to the Trumpies by leaving the door open to his possible innocence -- as if the entire intelligence organization of this nation is manufacturing a plot against this obvious simpleton.

    I am sure that any media figure wishing to take such a position on the Mueller investigation would get plenty of encouragement from the power structure, because someone has to fill in the blanks and make the conservative rebuttal sound convincing. Who better than a journalist who is good at maintaining skeptical doubt by training. But at some point there needs to be the willingness to be convinced by what evidence does exist. This is Taibbi's flaw and this is why he remains a tool of the crooks in power on the right.

    History will not treat him kindly because he is a prime example of a dupe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't surprise me that Somerby likes Taibbi.

      But, of course, Somerby doesn’t “like” Taibbi. In fact, Somerby isn’t much of a fan of Taibbi’s work.

      The reviewer (Lipinski) says that Taibbi admits to indulging in tribalism to cater to liberal readers. TDH says

      We've sometimes had that very reaction to Taibbi's work in the past.

      TDH also doesn’t like Taibbi’s habit of turning news into entertainment. TDH writes,

      We've also sometimes thought that he was given to the type of "entertainmentism" which we find objectionable in Maddow's relentless mugging and clowning and selling-of-self.

      How could you possibly have missed this?

      Delete
    2. Bring on the evidence then! Donde estas!?!??

      Delete
    3. Matt Taibbi spent a great deal of time in Russia in the early 90s, when everything was up in the air, very Wild West. He published a magazine that was bro-ey and fratty, he and his compatriots thought they were badasses, which included some hideously racist anti-black pieces. (They distributed this magazine to Moscow nightclubs that had black bouncers and bodyguards, then checked to see that they had read them. They thought this was HILARious.) His partner wrote a braggy memoir about how drunk and druggy they all were, and how cheap it was to hire Russian prostitutes to abuse, humiliate and degrade. Taiibbi had to distance himself from this, that's why he laid low for over a year. American assholes in Moscow behaving abominably.

      You think the KGB wasn't observing and recording all this? You think the women they degraded didn't tell the authorities everything? The KGB (now the FSB) must have a dossier of Kompromat on Taiibbi a foot thick. What an arrogant asshole, how dumb to think he wan't being closely watched in his youthful Moscow days. Youth was no excuse though.

      Delete
    4. 3:07 AM, you're living in a espionage fantasy for Hillbots which starts out with the absurd excuse that it was some seedy Russian click farm that defeated a billion dollar campaign, with the likes of Google's Eric Schmidt and other tech industry wizards on speed dial [LINK], and Donald Trump as the opponent. And now the story is the Republican president, the left alternative press, and, at least a couple of Democratic presidential candidates are being run by Russian intelligence.

      Speaking of Clinton train wrecks, here's an outstanding piece by Matt Taibbi for anyone who might be interested in taking a blunt look at some twentieth century Russian history and getting a clarifying perspective about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of American foreign policy in the 90s. LINK

      Delete
    5. CMike,
      Please, please, please do not ever read the Mueller Report. I'm asking you nicely this time. Don't make me ask again. You'll regret it if you do.

      Delete
    6. 11:08 AM, you are in a fantasy. Like all but maybe 25,000 Americans tops (which may or may not include you among that number), I am not going to read the entire Mueller Report. It's not worth my time. It was a preposterously overhyped investigation, the duration of which was a scandal in and of itself.

      I've read a couple score of pages of the Mueller report and plenty of excerpted passages from summaries of it. Bush and Cheney were guilty of much worse than anything Mueller even hints at Trump having done which demonstrates how unserious the Democratic Party has been these last thirteen years since Reid and Pelosi assumed the leadership of the House and Senate after the 2006 midterms.

      It's time to beat Trump and the Republicans at the polls. To that end using impeachment proceedings might be useful- at least they could be if the likes of Pelosi, Nadler, and Shiff weren't taking the lead on it.

      Year after year the public has been focusing on attacking or defending individual politicians (42. Clinton 43. Bush 44. Obama 45. Trump) instead of policy challenges. Our democracy has become a pretend one guaranteeing corporate control of our lives and the fate of the nation, or rather, the globe.

      [QUOTE] [LINK] As a psychopathic creature, the corporation can neither recognize nor act upon moral reasons to refrain from harming others. Nothing in its legal makeup limits what it can do to others in pursuit of its selfish ends, and it is compelled to cause harm when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.

      Only pragmatic concern for its own interests and the laws of the land constrain the corporation 's predatory instincts, and often that is not enough to stop it from destroying lives, damaging communities, and endangering the planet as a whole.

      Enron's implosion, and the corporate scandals that followed, were, ironically, violations of corporations' own self- interest, as it was shareholders, the very people-indeed, the only people-corporations are legally obliged to serve, who were chief among its victims. Far less exceptional in the world of the corporation are the routine and regular harms caused to others-workers, consumers, communities, the environment-by corporations' psychopathic tendencies.

      These tend to be viewed as inevitable and acceptable consequences of corporate activity-"externalities" in the coolly technical jargon of economics.
      [END QUOTE]

      Delete
    7. Bush and Cheney were guilty of much worse than anything Mueller even hints at Trump having done....

      Well, yeah. They're essentially war criminals. That's your bar for malfeasance now?

      Delete
    8. I'll put aside their war crimes and there are still things they did that are worse than what Mueller came up with on Trump. For instance, [LINK].

      Delete
    9. Where is the evidence of collusion or conspiracy in the Mueller report? What page? What is this evidence that you speak of?

      Delete
    10. CMike,

      Your link takes me to a wikipedia page on the formerly-WPE firing US Attorneys. Are you kidding me with this? As bad as that was, it was at least a legal exercise of executive authority.

      Obstruction of justice, putting kids in concentration camps, and using taxpayer money to extort a foreign country to investigate political opponents all make those firings look like a minor indiscretion. YMMV, of course, and its seems it does.

      Delete
    11. @3:01, Start on page 33 and read carefully from there. Mueller declined to investigate collusion, calling it a term without legal meaning. He investigated conspiracy and coordination, a term he defined to require elements of conspiracy. But, really, do you need any more than Trump's public exhortation to his buddy Putin?

      Delete
    12. There are no facts, that putting your fingers in your ears and repeating, "Nah, nah, I can't hear you" can penetrate.

      Delete
    13. Russia, if you're listening, put CMike on the payroll.

      Delete
    14. CMike,
      25,000 tops?
      Seriously? You think there's that few people outside of your tribe of ignorance?

      Delete
    15. "But, really, do you need any more than Trump's public exhortation to his buddy Putin?"

      Of course. That is am empty sentence that means nothing. Dimwittedness like that is the whole problem.

      So when I start on page 33 what will I find? Proof of conspiracy between Trump and Russia? What exactly are you saying the evidence will show?

      Delete
    16. pg 34

      "While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

      Delete
    17. Pg 36

      The investigation was unable to resolve ______ WikiLeaks’s release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016, the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language.

      Delete
    18. 36-48

      Trump is not even mentioned.

      Delete
    19. Why was I supposed to start on page 33? Up until page 58 now and it's a total goose egg.

      What am I supposed to be looking for? What are you claiming is here? There is nothing here at all connecting Trump to Russia directly.

      Sorry.

      Don't you think of these was, something would have been done about it by now?

      "Start at page 33" lol.

      Delete
    20. Pg 61

      " The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign. "

      You guys are fucking lame. No wonder we lose.

      Delete
    21. Pg 66

      In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

      You guys are dumb, weak liars. You are why we lose.

      Delete
    22. lol? What are you twelve?

      Mueller refused to consider collusion, and defined coordination to be essentially the same as criminal conspiracy. Which he decided was too high a bar, considering that he refused to consider even indicting Trump for anything.

      Trump publicly asks for Russian interference, and it happens two days later, but move along, there's nothing to see here "directly." Donny boy takes a meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton, but what? he merely stumbled into the wrong hospitality suite?

      Don't you think ... something would have been done about it by now?

      Something has been. It's called 18 USC § 1503.

      Delete
    23. Oh my deadrat, so I can see now it is you that has not read the report.

      Wow. All of that is really sad. I guess you just doing the best you can with what you have. Wow.

      Of course we lose when the people to whom you turn to for information allow you to go so far down a dead-end road. Sad.

      Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

      Delete
    24. "there's nothing to see here directly."

      That's not a good argument to bring to an impeachment hearing.

      Delete
    25. deadrat is a victim of contemporary news and opinion formats all of which are very reductionist.

      The whole thing is sad.

      Delete
    26. Ya boys - the Mueller report is a total fucking dud.

      Pg 175

      though members of the IRA had contact with individuals affiliated with the Trump
      Campaign, the indictment does not charge any Trump Campaign official or any other U.S. person
      with participating in the conspiracy. That is because the investigation did not identify evidence
      that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was
      speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy.

      Pg 180

      Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of
      numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or
      claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office evaluated the contacts under several
      sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate
      in the United States. After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges
      under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed in Section IV above

      Alright - case closed.

      Good job helping take the focus off of reforming the party and building a strong message to excite the American people to come out and vote in 2020 you rotten, dumb, fucking turds.


      Good night.

      Delete
    27. What they are is lazy.

      Delete
    28. 'Start at page 33" What a pathetic dipshit.



      Delete
    29. 9:33 what facts are you talking about?

      Delete
    30. "The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law". The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election."

      I believe that is the Russian interference in the election you earlier stated didn't happen.

      As an aside, please remember to stretch (especially your back) before lifting the goalposts and carrying them to a different place. It would be a shame if you pulled something other than Mao's finger.

      Delete
    31. As if it would take a foreign power to get Trump voters to be turned-on by his bigotry.
      Russia is just the latest reason the corporate media is using to make it look like all Conservatives aren't bigots.
      Somerby is right to call them out on it.

      Delete
    32. I never said the Russian interference didn't happen. Who would say that? We don't need the Mueller report to tell us about that. That was known even before the election, that they were actively interfering. Just like we actively interfere in their elections and many other elections.

      You fools are boring losers.

      Delete
    33. I thought you where claiming the Mueller report connected their interference with the Trump administration in some sort of conspiracy

      Delete
    34. "Who would say that? "

      Ha ha ha ha ha. Never met a Conservative, or just wishing you hadn't?

      Delete
    35. It's unbelievable how the DNC has played you for a total sucker.

      Delete
    36. You're a boy.

      Delete
    37. Still I wish you the best. One day you may be able to become a man and stop acting like a child. Stop being suckered.

      Delete
    38. "Who would say that? "

      CMike, Matt Taibbi, Mitch McDonnell, Bill Barr, Sean Hannity, etc, etc, etc.

      Delete
    39. 3:22,
      I'm not a Right-winger (i.e. snowflake), so being called "a boy" by an apologist for a racist, grifting, self-admitted sexual predator is not going to make me cry like a 3-year old.

      All of them, Katie.

      Delete
    40. 1:51's point was that only a ignorant moron would say that.

      3:29 concurred.

      Delete
    41. 3:29
      Sources please.

      Delete
    42. Russia,and not the upfront obvious bigotry of the entire Right-wing?
      Just because it's called "paying" attention, doesn't mean there is a monetary fee.

      Delete
    43. Russia, if you're listening, you don't need the Mueller Report to tie the conspiracy between Trump and Russia.
      Russia, if you're listening, you just need the words of Trump.

      Delete
  9. CMike,
    Good point. If you can't be proud of your ignorance, what can you be proud of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I read as many books as most men do, I would be as dull-witted as they are.

      Delete
    2. Ignorance is Freddie Blassie.

      Delete