BREAKING: Bernie Sanders gets it right!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2018

Harari's great apes get it wrong:
Last evening, speaking on CNN, Sanders got it right.

He spoke with Erin Burnett about the war in Yemen. Midway through the 7 PM hour, she started it off like this:
BURNETT (12/12/18): New tonight, defying President Trump, the GOP-led Senate voting against the president, moving forward to end American support for the Saudi crown prince's war in Yemen. It is an unprecedented vote and it's a major rebuke of Trump's full-throated constant support of the Saudi crown prince...
Manu Rajuexplained that this had been a preliminary vote. Then, Burnett brought Bernie Sanders on, and he got it right:
BURNETT: Outfront now, one of the cosponsors of the Senate resolution rebuking Trump today, Senator Bernie Sanders. And Senator, I appreciate your time.

Look, the vote overwhelming, 60 to 39, bipartisan, defiance of the president and his personal repeated embrace of the Saudi crown prince. Are you confident you have enough votes for this Yemen resolution to ultimately be passed?

SANDERS: Well, I am not much into speculation, but I think we're in pretty good shape. We have, as you indicated, a bipartisan support, and the reason for that is that Democrats and Republicans and the American people are thoroughly mortified by what we're seeing in Yemen, which is now the worst humanitarian disaster on earth.

We're talking about 85,000 children having starved to death over the last three years, according to the United Nations.
Millions of people in that country are now facing imminent starvation. 10,000 cholera cases every single week.

And I think what the Congress is now saying is that we do not want to continue participating with Saudi Arabia in that war as a result—which the famine came about as a result of the Saudi intervention. We want out.

[...]

But the main thing right now is that the United States has got to end its participation in the war in Yemen, instead of supporting more and more bombs falling onto that horrific situation. What we have got to do is bring the warring parties together, stop the war, and start working with the United Nations on humanitarian help for a very -- a country which is suffering terribly.
And so on. This morning, Nicholas Kristof's column makes way for a photograph which shows the ways of the world. To consider that photo, click here.

We bring you this news for a reason. The word "Yemen" wasn't mentioned on Rachel's TV show last night.

The word wasn't mentioned on Lawrence's show, nor on Brian's program. At 6 PM Eastern, the word "Yemen" wasn't mentioned on The Beat.

Chris Hayes did a full segment on Yemen. One hour earlier, Yemen was fleetingly mentioned on Hardball just once. If you blinked, you missed it.

We're calling the roll for a reason. In these ways, we learn about the actual values of the grinning, smiling chimps and baboons who serve us our tribal porridge each night on our favorite corporate channel.

They're selling us the chase after Trump. They're too empty to develop an actual politics, and so, instead of that, they're yelling this:

"Lock him up!"

In the twenty-one years we've been doing this site, we think the current chase after Trump is the only stampede we've ever seen which begins to rise to the level of the 20-month War Against Gore which sent George Bush to the White House. For sheer inanity, we'd say this chase has almost reached that level.

In our view, Donald J. Trump is a deeply disordered and dangerous person. He's always had terrible values, including back in the day when the networks were happily making big bucks off his terrible values.

We assume he may be mentally ill. We assume he may have cognitive problems. We assume he could start a foreign or domestic war. But we also think the current chase is about as fake as it gets.

The current chase strikes us as insane. Consider what's at stake in this brain-damaged chase, all summed up in this chunk from a front-page report in today's Washington Post:
ELLISON AND FARHI (12/12/18): Prosecutors also allege that Pecker and AMI played a key role in the effort to silence Daniels. One month before the election in 2016, after an agent for Daniels informed National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard that Daniels intended to tell her story publicly, Pecker and Howard contacted Cohen. Soon after, Cohen negotiated a $130,000 deal to buy Daniels’s silence.

Theodore Boutrous, a First Amendment attorney at Gibson Dunn who briefly represented McDougal, said the relationship between Trump’s associate and the tabloid publisher “was a shockingly creative plan meant to change the way American citizens voted. That is an important and serious violation of the law.”

Boutrous, who began looking into the National Enquirer’s role in protecting Trump in October 2016, said he always believed the tabloid “had teamed up with Donald Trump and his campaign to stop Ms. McDougal from speaking out, solely to protect Mr. Trump and help him get elected president. That seemed outrageous and illegal.”
Try to understand the braindead way this story is being told:

First, no one ever "silenced" Daniels or McDougal. No one "bought their silence." Either one could have "spoken out" any time she chose.

Here's the problem. Neither Daniels nor McDougal wanted to "tell her story." Each of these soulless hustlers wanted to tell her story for a big pile of cash.

One says she had a love affair with a married man with a new baby. She even told Anderson that she paraded through the new mother's bedroom at one point.

The other one says she had sex with Trump on one occasion, back in 2006. It's blindingly obvious that she did so in hopes of landing a spot on The Apprentice.

People don't go to jail in this country for doing things like that. But these two slimeballs engaged in this conduct, then wanted to get majorly paid for telling the world about it.

More to the point, they wanted to "tell their stories" in the middle of a White House election. And all those great apes on your cable screens think this is a good, noble thing!

(This includes all the former thugs from the Southern District of New York who now drawl all over the cable screen all night.)

Just look what the great ape Boutros says in that Post excerpt. He says the attempt to buy these two idiots off "was a shockingly creative plan meant to change the way American citizens voted."

He actually wants the American people casting their votes around bullshit like this! But this is who and what these great apes are. It's what they've always been.

They wanted to discuss Bill Clinton's ten acts of oral sex. After that, they wanted to discuss the stupid claims they invented about Al Gore's deeply troubling wardrobe, along with the stupid, invented paraphrased comments they pretended he'd actually said.

It's how these apes actually think! They wanted to talk about Hillary's emails. They wanted to drag Gennifer Flowers back onto the front page again.

Professor Harari has called them "great apes," and that's what they've always been. He says they run on "gossip" and "fiction." Does it look to you like he's wrong?

Our tribe's alpha ape was grinning last night. She didn't mention Yemen, not once. In fact, she hasn't said the word on her TV show all year.

Instead, she chuckles and grins and cons you good. As we've said, she's exceptionally skilled at the one key task—she's skilled at selling the car.

We liberals are playing this game like great apes. It's who and what we've always been, and there's no way this pursuit of impeachment will end well.

Take a look at Kristof's column. On the bright side, we can turn to our darling Rachel tonight knowing that child won't be there.

63 comments:

  1. Queue the poorly reasoned hysterics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby handled the poorly reasoned hysterics just fine.

      Delete
  2. “...our favorite corporate channel.

    They're selling us the chase after Trump. They're too empty to develop an actual politics, and so, instead of that, they're yelling this:

    “Lock him up!"

    Odd that Somerby would criticize a “corporate channel” for failing to develop a politics. Politics are developed and run by...politicians.

    Besides, “lock him up” *is* a politics. Just not one Somerby agrees with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sophistry. The question being raised -- and legitimately so -- is whether there are things of substance that the aforementioned "corporate channel" could talk about.

      Delete
  3. "In our view, Donald J. Trump is a deeply disordered and dangerous person."

    Yeah, I know: the Trump WAR, the fascist takeover, and no November.

    Isn't it time to unroll another set of predictions, Bob? Please do, I enjoyed the last one.


    As for the Saudi/Yemen shit: you and your beloved dembots in the goebbelsian media live for drama. But in reality, the president has one set of priorities, the senate another, and this is exactly how the US government is supposed to operate. Checks and balances, remember?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 85,000 starving children to this moronic ass is "the Saudi/Yemen shit"...smh

      I have the response already "brainwashed...lib-zombie...blah blah blah...deathcult...blah blah blah..."

      Delete
    2. Don't feed the troll.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 13, 2018 at 3:46 PM

      Here is another response for you:

      Everyone already knows Mao and those like him are idiot trolls. You are just making it worse by feeding his ego, thus perpetuating his raison d'etre which is to get suckers like you to respond to his unremarkable observations.

      Mao talking about the process of generating responses to comments

      Delete
    4. "I have the response already "brainwashed...lib-zombie..."

      You got it, dembot. I'm so happy that my message is finally getting through.

      Delete
  4. "The word "Yemen" wasn't mentioned on Rachel's TV show last night."

    What Somerby means is that the words "Bernie Sanders" weren't mentioned by Rachel or the others. The war in Yemen didn't start last night. The famine didn't start. The cholera didn't start. A preliminary (repeat, preliminary) vote was taken suggesting that some senators might eventually go on the record opposing support for the Saudis in Yemen. A procedural vote is hardly breaking news. Bernie is talking about it because he is running for President. Beyond that, nothing of significance happened. Maybe something will happen, but people will support a preliminary vote who won't support the actual measure.

    It isn't surprising that Bernie Sanders confuses these empty gestures with actual accomplishment. He has never been able to get much of anything passed during his long years in the Senate. He is all about symbolic gestures. Those children in Yemen deserve real help. Maybe they will get it, maybe not. But in the meantime, more posturing by Sanders isn't going to do it.

    If Somerby is so desperately worried about those kids in Yemen, why hasn't he been calling for more coverage of Trump's pick for UN Ambassador -- the person responsible for helping the UN provide humanitarian aid to Yemen?

    Then Somerby goes on a long tirade about how this legitimate coverage of Trump's flawed presidency is somehow a chase, a hounding like that of Al Gore. It isn't. These are real stories, of substance, and they are continuous because the president is a crook and the new discoveries of malfeasance never end. Somerby is on the wrong side of history with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “We assume he may be mentally ill. We assume he may have cognitive problems. We assume he could start a foreign or domestic war. “

    And we, meaning I, assume Trump has committed and probably still is committing crimes.

    But “we” mustn’t investigate them. That shows an “empty politics”.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It still looks like Somerby odd defense of Trump and Trump voters arises because Somerby himself voted for Trump and is trying to justify the harm he has done to the country as a result. I think he originally supported Sanders (as he stated in this blog), couldn't vote for Hillary because of his dislike of her (and his problems generally with women), so he voted for Trump figuring that he wouldn't actually win. Now he is trying to convince everyone that Trump isn't that bad, that he deserves a chance, that he is being hounded or railroaded, that he is just a poor man with mental problems who needs support, not impeachment, or whatever will assuage his guilty conscience and about the damage his vote helped inflict on our country.

    Children of immigrants are still separated from their parents. When was the last time Somerby said anything about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In our view, Donald J. Trump is a deeply disordered and dangerous person. He's always had terrible values, including back in the day when the networks were happily making big bucks off his terrible values.

      We assume he may be mentally ill. We assume he may have cognitive problems. We assume he could start a foreign or domestic war."

      Somerby continually says exactly this type of stuff and still people come on here and act like he is defending Donald trump. I don't think he defends trump at all, I think somerby just feels like the current "chase" as he calls it is not the way to go about bringing him down.

      Delete
    2. Why would a media critic be interested in “bringing Trump down?”

      Delete
    3. Trump has already started a war against immigrants, legal and illegal. He has also started wars in individual families over who did and didn't vote for him. He has declared war on Obama and Democrats in general, undoing everything they have done previously. He is also engaged in a trade war was China. Does a war have to involve explosives before you recognize it?

      He is defending Trump when he dismisses the efforts of Mueller's team and media coverage of such investigations as "a chase," as if there were nothing to investigate, or as if the crimes uncovered were not newsworthy. He defends Trump when the media points out that his repeated lies are indeed lies, insisting instead that some softer term by used. He defends Trump when he insists that Trump's minions be assumed blameless, innocent, railroaded, until proven guilty in a court of law. That would no doubt be his standard for Trump's crimes as well. He keeps insisting that rather than call Trump a criminal, he should be considered mentally ill (absent any diagnosis and maligning those who are actually mentally ill by attributing criminality to illness).

      Of course Somerby is defending Trump. Just as he defended Christie during bridgegate and Moore from his accusers (some as young as 14 at the time of Moore's assault).

      Somerby even defends Trump from Stormy Daniels. He keeps reminding us that Trump denied having sex with her (just as he denies everything at first), that it was only one time (as if that makes it not adultery or not sex or something), and claims that she sought payment (she didn't, she accepted hush money after being threatened).

      Why does Somerby keep defending these conservative wrongdoers? You don't hear him ever defending liberal wrongdoers. Where was Weiner's defense? Where was Al Franken's defense? He's probably just as nice a person as Roseanne Barr, who Somerby did defend.

      Why would a liberal/progressive media critic be so invested in defending conservatives from the media, especially when the media seems to be just doing its job?

      Delete
    4. I don't know why he does what he does. Maybe it's just that the crimes of which you speak are not worse than Obama or Clinton's crimes for example. That we go on chases at the expense of more important topics. That we spend an inordinate amount of time on them and that that isn't smart or rational or in the least, good for the country long term.

      Delete
    5. How many people were indicted as a result of Obama or Clinton's investigations?

      Politically motivated, ginned up investigations have happened in the past and those were "chases" but Somerby needs to tell the difference between something like Whitewater and investigation of real crimes, as in Watergate and the current investigations. He is treating them as if they were all the same and they are not.

      Delete
    6. "as if there were nothing to investigate, or as if the crimes uncovered were not newsworthy."

      Not that much news though don't you think? Don't you think Yemen should be discussed proportionally? I mean, we're merely talking about campaign finance violations.

      "real crimes, as in Watergate and the current investigations. He is treating them as if they were all the same and they are not."

      It's just campaign finance violations. It's nothing like what Obama did for example.

      Delete
    7. I think you've wandered into the wrong blog. No one here thinks that Obama committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has cornered the market on those. Campaign finance violations are only one small piece of this great big criminal pie that Trump has served up to this nation.

      Delete
    8. He done a lot of shitty things but not like Obama. And the news coverage of which Somerby speaks is about campaign finance violations. It just seems like overkill.

      Delete
    9. Obama was a maniac. I guess the drone strikes were not exactly "crimes". But think all the dead. So, so many innocent dead that he killed. That and the mass spying on Americans. Going into Libya with congressional approval? wtf? The massive abuse of the rule of law. So, so many dead from Obama's blatant human rights violations. It was all much worse that paying off some hooker. Just as a comparison.

      Why would you get all upset about campaign finance violations after Obama did so much damage in our names?

      Paying off a hooker is like a joke in comparison.

      Delete
    10. @5:11
      Yes, if only the GOP had controlled Congress, they would have investigated all those human rights violations.

      Oh, wait...

      Delete
    11. No they wouldn't have and didn't because neither party is concerned with human rights. Obama's human rights violations were a continuation of Bush's. They both put money and power over human rights every time. Both parties. That is what would be discussed in a rational world on a show like Maddow's. Not red versus blue but power versus weak, corruption versus non-corruption. They have you believing that the two parties are different. One is noble and the other bereft - and some Hannity viewer just like you believes the same thing with the good and evil character reversed. It's a scam. You are no different from a Hannity viewer concerned about campaign finance "crimes". Haha. It's just that there are much worse things going on and the differences between the two parties are exaggerated by Maddow and the rest leaving truly important events, and therefore truths, unexamined and unknown to many of us. They turned it into a sporting match or show when it's not.

      Delete
    12. @5:54
      Refer to this, a starting point to debunk your idea that “both parties are the same:”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_opponents_of_the_Iraq_War

      This list includes your incoming speaker of the House.

      I vote for the party that created and supports Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the ACA, and supports the right of workers to unionize, and believes in climate change, and believes in protecting the environment, etc. That party is the Democrats. The GOP oppose every one of those things. Your “both sides” argument is the ticket to the destruction of all those things. IMHO.

      Delete
    13. If you think Trump isn't using drones, you are kidding yourself.

      Delete
    14. I'm not saying Trump isn't using drones - I'm saying Obama did and it is (both are) worse and more important than campaign finance violations involving paying off a stripper - which is what is dominating news tonight on tv and every night on tv. If you think Trump is using drones, don't you think that would be more important and interesting a subject for Maddow to discuss tonight?

      Yes, thanks 5:54 I understand but those differences are marginal. The rhetoric is different but the policies are basically the same on the big issues. I vote for Democrats too based on those marginal differences but it is true both parties have maintained policies that promote atrocious foreign policy, endless war, acquiescence to big banks and the military industrial complex, healthcare fraud, predatory lending, spying on citizens, free-trade, huge deficits etc. The similarities overshadow the differences enormously. Obama hardly changed “the trajectory of America” as was his goal. He continued a unfettered slaughter abroad in our names, yours and mine.

      And we are worried on the news night after night, hour after hour, about Dumbass paying off a stripper.

      Delete
    15. 5:54 - I appreciate what you say. That there are differences. I just think the similarities would be worth exploring but can't because the differences are over-emphasized.

      Delete
    16. Trump has done far more than payoff two women he slept with. The damage Trump is doing to our country is serious. People can discuss both, but remember that (1) Trump is supporting the bombing there, (2) Yemen is not part of the US or an ally of the US, and (3) the best way to help Yemen is to support the UN, not Trump. Obama is no longer president and not worth talking about. Trump is the responsible party. Not only is he hurting Yemen, but also our nation and it has nothing to do with strippers but with criminality, disrespect for democracy and disregard for the American people.

      Delete
    17. That is exactly Somerby's point. The important issues have nothing to do with strippers which is what MSNBC chooses to spend their time on, not Yemen or more important elements of corruption that both parties unquestionably steward and serve. That's all. It's not that big a deal. He's pointing out the obvious really but commenters here think he is crazy or corrupt in pointing out what you say. We voted in Trump, he is supporting the bombing there in our names. Why would Maddow never talk about that? That is interesting and little bit disgusting. I'm glad to see her called out in it.

      Delete
    18. "Now he is trying to convince everyone that Trump isn't that bad, that he deserves a chance, that he is being hounded or railroaded, that HE IS JUST A POOR MAN with mental problems who needs support, not impeachment, or whatever will assuage his guilty conscience and about the damage his vote helped inflict on our country."

      At least give Somerby credit for being 100% correct about the part of his quote I have capitalized.

      Delete
    19. You have quoted me, not Somerby.

      Delete
  7. “the former thugs from the Southern District of New York”

    Interesting take. Quite sober and well-founded. A perfectly rational view.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “She cons you good”

    Just because she didn’t mention Yemen is no evidence that she is conning anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maddow is an annoying, self serving hack, and has been since at least her days at air America

      Delete
    2. Ah yes. Ad hominem arguments are always the strongest.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, except she is not self-serving. She's servicing the US establishment, globalist-neocon establishment.

      Delete
    4. 4:11,
      Projection from a Conservative. That practically never happens all the time.

      Delete
  9. “Chris Hayes did a full segment on Yemen.”

    Yes, he did. And he spoke with Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has been leading the effort to change US policy in Yemen.

    It was a rather good segment. It was a chance for Somerby to discuss the way the war in Yemen is actually being covered over at MSNBC, rather than just how it isn’t being covered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean "how it isn't being covered everywhere, by everyone, all the time."

      Delete
  10. Now that AMI has admitted their intent to help the Trump campaign and did so illegally, should they, along with Michael Cohen, receive the Nation’s Highest Honors?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "More to the point, they wanted to "tell their stories" in the middle of a White House election. And all those great apes on your cable screens think this is a good, noble thing!"

    Somerby identifies with Trump as the victim of these women who forced him to have sex with them, then blasted his deeds across the media. Oh, wait, they didn't do that.

    Somerby says the women wanted to get paid big bucks for NOT TELLING their story during the election. Both affairs happened in 2006. Is he suggesting that these women cleverly understood that Trump would run for president in 2015, laid a trap for him, and sprung it just when he won the nomination?

    Stormy Daniels was telling her story. She told it at parties and once on a talk show. That caused a tabloid to approach her for an interview, which fell through. Then five years later, Trump was worried that these women he had slept with might come forward and complicate his defense against the women he had assaulted (27 of them and counting), presenting a picture of him as a philanderer just when he needed the votes of Evangelicals and women. So he approached them and tried to shut them up.

    Why couldn't they tell their stories. Daniels was telling hers, repeatedly. It was embarrassing Trump. McDougal was being loyal to him -- she had the longer lasting affair and perhaps cared for him. He offered them both NDAs and a pile of money, then refused to sign himself. But they could be sued for $4 million if they opened their mouths. Then Trump began telling lies about them -- lies they couldn't refute without being sued. How fair is that? How free were they to talk then? McDougal was never paid. Daniels gave her money back. Her lawsuit was to remove the restraints on her. Daniels was threated (according to her). Somerby, being omniscient, calls her claims made up, echoing Trump. Why isn't Somerby worried about believing a liar instead of someone who has never demonstrably told a lie? Because Somerby is a bro -- he believes any man over any woman, no matter how much of a liar the man is and no matter how plausible the story is that the woman has told.

    More than that, Somerby has gone out of his way to malign Stormy Daniels (saying very little about McDougal) and he has ignored everything Daniels has said, answering none of those assertions and only repeating Trump's side of the story.

    Why would any liberal/progressive man do that? I believe it is because (1) Somerby is not particularly liberal or progressive, (2) Somerby doesn't like women much, (3) in his paranoid fever dreams Somerby fears some woman will grab hold of her scissors and shave his beard and he will no longer be a man, cause that's what women do if you let them.

    Whatever the rationale, Somerby clearly has it in for Stormy. I used to think it was because of his prudish Catholic upbringing, but now I think he is scared by her large body parts. A primal fear of being smothered compels him to keep Stormy in her place, else no man is safe -- even Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "On the bright side, we can turn to our darling Rachel tonight knowing that child won't be there."

    Bernie obviously speaks for that child. Will he be there, or will he be busy in New Hampshire or Iowa?

    ReplyDelete
  13. In retropspect, Melissa Harris-Perry looks better and better for having "the guts," as Trump would tweet, to ditch MSNBC rather than have her show railroaded into being another chase chaser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harris-Perry is sold to us liberals as one of our smartest media players! Young liberals tune to this program thinking they’re seeing a really smart program. Where once we pitied Hannity’s viewers, today our heart goes out to those liberals. Most likely, they don’t know that corporate players at The One True Channel are selling them a badly mis-labeled product.

      Delete
    2. Anyone who expects the corporate-owned media to not do what's best for the corporation which owns them, is a naive idiot, at best.

      Delete
  14. If Sen. Chris Murphy has led the fight against war in Yemen, why is Somerby giving all the credit to Sanders? We know why Sanders would claim leadership. Somerby is supposed to be a media critic, not a cheerleader for Sanders.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What's happening in yemen is bad, but Somerby raises it today and chastises Rachel as a distraction from the implications of Cohen's sentencing and Trump's crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. “In the twenty-one years we've been doing this site, we think the current chase after Trump is the only stampede we've ever seen which begins to rise to the level of the 20-month War Against Gore which sent George Bush to the White House.”

    Apparently, Somerby was AWOL for the War Against Obama (since that was waged mostly by media outlets that Somerby ignores) and he seems to have forgotten the 30-year War Against Bill and Hillary, from both sides of the media world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “Gore’s clothing looks funny”, said a couple of twits in op-Eds or on TV.

    “Trump and his circle have committed crimes and violations of their oath of office, and quite a few of his associates are indicted and/or in jail pursuant to charges filed by federal courts and duly appointed law enforcement officials of the United States.”

    Nope. Can’t see any difference there. The press coverage is completely equivalent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It’s a disgrace that the campaign finance law doesn’t provide an exception when the campaign is trying to hide consensual sex. Lobby Congress to change the law, for the good of us all!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "We're calling the roll for a reason. In these ways, we learn about the actual values of the grinning, smiling chimps and baboons who serve us our tribal porridge each night on our favorite corporate channel."

    So then which corporate channel has vaulues that Bob agrees with?

    ReplyDelete
  20. There's a long list of things that have been thought to undermine the likelihood of a candidate's electability as POTUS. This is a world (like a great part of the world) where "logic" is not a deciding factor. For example, it was thought a divorced person was unelectable, until Reagan and now Trump. A Catholic was thought to have impaired electability. Al Smith was attacked, and lost; the issue came up with Kennedy. A homosexual might be elected before an avowed atheist. It's no surprise that it's considered a big deal that Trump, adulterously, screwed a porn star and had an affair with a Playboy Playmate - whether it should matter or whether revelation of this would have impacted the election outcome is debatable. Paying them hush money is probably more newsworthy, and the argument is made (and guilty plea entered) on the basis that the payments were illegal campaign contributions. The public likes gossip, particularly about sex. There's a tendency for hysteria to erupt over some relatively trivial thing. Love him or hate him, Trump has a certain charisma, especially when he started running for the 2016 election, he became a news magnet. What should really count with respect to candidates is: what will the effect be if the candidate is elected? what are the chances his or her policies will be put in effect if elected? what actually are his policies? what would the effect be if the policies were put in effect? who would be helped and who would be hurt if that happened, and how? A lot of this stuff is too boring or complicated so it's not discussed (tons of horse race stuff though), and it's not all the fault of the media and pols. It's human nature. It would help if we could foresee the future with certainty, but we can't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a well-known fact that they sell presidents (and politicians in general) like shampoo.

      But Donald The Spectacular is different. He wasn't elected for a nice smile, or for a virtuous 'character', or for heroism in killing gooks.

      He was elected, miraculously, by the invisible segment of the US population, people who do honest work every day. He was elected to fulfill his campaign promises.

      And that's why the liberal establishment is overwhelmed by hatred. It's quite understandable: against all the civilized norms, the Morlocks have crawled out to the surface, and now the nice Elois have to burden their beautiful minds and deal with it...

      Delete
    2. Donald the spectacular??...who is this guy???

      Delete
    3. Mao, I think you have a subjective, simplistic, unskeptical take on this, probably not supported by evidence, at least not any that you have presented. There are valid reasons why someone might not share your view on this without deserving to be called a 'scumbag.'

      Delete
    4. I support Trump's goal of providing reparations for slavery to African-Americans. As a person who is not an asshole, why wouldn't I?

      Delete
    5. "There are valid reasons why someone might not share your view on this without deserving to be called a 'scumbag.'"

      Say, what? Are you replying to voices inside your head? And, y'know, when voices inside your head start calling you 'scumbag', that's a real bad sign...

      Delete
    6. Mao, doesn't seem you are sane.

      Delete
    7. Sorry but to a majority, Trump has zero charisma.

      Delete
  21. Remember when Somerby was attacking Mika and Joe? Now it appears they got themselves on Trump's enemies list and were the targets of a blackmail scheme hatched by Jared and Pecker. See: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/revealed-jared-kushner-key-player-trumps-national-enquirer-blackmail-scheme-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski/

    I find myself wondering how Somerby knew that it was time to attack Mike and Joe. He clearly had some marching orders. How exactly does he sync his own blog attacks with the goals and needs of our deranged president?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you wonder if it is clear?

      Delete
  22. I have been casting spells for many years and I have helped many people, I might be able to help you too. I am honest, and I genuinely care for all the clients who choose me to cast a spell for them.


    If you have any questions about Love, Money, curse, protection, bad luck, divorce, court cases, or about me please call or email me. I really want you to feel comfortable before moving forward with any spells, or other services. I will take the time to explain things to you and provide you with honest advice, to what is best for your situation. I will not pressure you into having a spell cast, I will leave that decision up to you, and when or if you decide to move forward, I might be able to help you.
    I will respect your Privacy. I will not seek to obtain any of your personal information beyond what you might voluntarily offer and all information you might give me including emails, phone numbers and photos will remain private and confidential.
    I perform my Rituals only at night between the hours of 0.00 - 0.59 (South African time) lasting 1 hour but of course, this depends on the nature of the ritual, some rituals might take hours and can also become necessary to be performed at specials places like; flowing streams, cemeteries and other places dictated by the gods.
    I do not want anyone to be under any illusions about my spells and its numerous rituals. Real and effective Voodoo is no child's play, it is expensive because, after the rituals, I will have to destroy all the materials involved by fire and the ashes scattered over a flowing stream or river.
    You will get what you seek.But please understand this might take a lot of time and that individual results may vary. contact +27663492930, greatogudugu@gmail.com

    Herbal cure for Following DISEASES,this is not scam is 100% Real.

    -HPV
    -DIABETES
    -PENIS ENLARGEMENT AND WEAK ERECTION
    -VIRGINA PROBLEM
    -WHOOPING COUGH
    - HEPATITIS B
    -FORDYCE SPOT
    -COLD SORE
    -ALS
    -LOWER RESPIRATORY INFECTION
    -LOW SPERM COUNT
    -MRSA(METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS
    -ZIKA VIRUS
    -HIV
    -STROKE
    -IMPOTENCE
    -PILE
    -HYPERTENSION
    -LOW SPERM COUNT
    -MENOPAUSE DISEASE
    -ASTHMA
    -CANCER
    -BARENESS/INFERTILITY
    -PCOS
    -SHINGLES
    -VIRAL HEPATITIS/HEPATITIS B
    -FIBROID
    -ASTHMA
    -SICKLE CELL
    -TINNITUS
    -BARENESS/INFERTILITY
    -DIARRHEA and so on...

    ReplyDelete