Trump's America, March 2017: Using His Inside VOICE

i will, after one last Friend of Trumputin i left out -- steve schwarzman

https://aheadofthe.news/is-trump-advisor-steve-schwarzman-ceo-of-blackstone-group-the-missing-link-in-the-trumprosneft-scandal/

nothing to see here folks!

Apparently the write doesn't believe in apostrophes.

*writer

We could write and tell them had their source story not been scrubbed from the HuffPo website:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-trump-advisor-steve-schwarzman-ceo-of-blackstone_us_58a0340de4b080bf74f03d62?

Meantime...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/03/news/economy/donald-trump-manufacturing-jobs/index.html

I found the quote at the end to be the most telling.

at a glance this seems entirely unbelievable:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837633820417482754

I mean, the president, reading? beggars belief. but then I looked on Amazon and saw that this book is a whopping 112 pages long. so maybe, just maybe, he sat still long enough for someone to read it to him.

found it weird tha the book was written in Russian

What's annoying, and probably fatally dangerous for our society as far as we're concerned, is that our media and news system is owned by what, 6 corporations? That have no legal or business obligation to make sure our country doesn't fall apart, or our lives don't turn to shit, beyond what's profitable for them.

Such a blow to learn that all of the independent media outlets have apparently been acquired by Kraft and Lockheed Martin, I need to sit down for a minute.

Jon Favreau‏
@jonfavs
Again, I'd love to hear one innocent explanation for why all these senior Trump officials met with Russian officials and then lied about it.

@adamjohnsonNYC
They met w/ Russians because they're ideologically in sync and lied about it b/c it would look bad. Not saying i believe it but there you go

Hurrrr, what's the reach of these independent media outlets, and how much credibility do they have in the public's mind, especially when they write about things that counter mainstream narratives? Due to what I wrote above, their practical impact is effectively 0, especially when it inspires apparent readers to criticize people who should be in alignment.

xp

ruh roh:

https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/837679008179445761

this is going to fuel so many stupid stupid internet and cable TV fires.

WaPo has done outstanding work and it didn't change a goddamn mind. I'm not sure what your point is. Corporate media, indie media – a Trump voter isn't reading it.

WaPo has done outstanding work and it didn't change a goddamn mind. I'm not sure what your point is. Corporate media, indie media – a Trump voter isn't reading it.

― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, March 3, 2017 3:12 PM (five seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

One news outlet, one time, on one occasion, isn't going to counter decades of hearing the same messages over and over again, and having it appear to be objective reality.

as much of a giant buzzkill as they are to my hopes that a Trump-connected conspiracy is thisclose to being unraveled, I do appreciate ShariVari's posts here as a means to help me clarify my thinking. I do still have a hard time wrapping my head around why the Trump team would really need to be involved in any of the hacking/subterfuge in the first place. Russia's goal of destabilizing the US either through tainting an HRC presidency or better yet through helping a Trump presidency happen, wouldn't seem to require any actual participation of the Trump campaign. I'm not even sure how it would be necessary to have dirt on Team Trump to keep them in line. but then again, there are all of these connections and meetings that have repeatedly been insufficiently explained away. and the push to ease sanctions in the convention platform still rings a lot of alarm bells. maybe Alfred's right, maybe it is just money. it's usually money.

One news outlet, one time, on one occasion, isn't going to counter decades of hearing the same messages over and over again, and having it appear to be objective reality.

― larry appleton, Friday, March 3, 2017 10:15 AM

do you read anything other than this thread?

WaPo has done outstanding work and it didn't change a goddamn mind. I'm not sure what your point is. Corporate media, indie media – a Trump voter isn't reading it.

I feel like again and again people are confusing "Trump voter" with "Trump supporter." The lunatics who spend all night tweeting about Pizzagate? Those people aren't changing their minds. But that's a very small portion of people who voted for Trump. Most Trump voters are like, well, most voters; they don't pay much attention to politics and have vague impressions of who people are and what they're like. A constant drumbeat of Trump is a crook, Trump is a crook, Trump is a crook DOES change those people's minds.

The larger issue is simple tribalism. Logical arguments and airtight exposes of corruption aren't going to have any discernible impact upon people who reject facts and experts. The basic mindset among the hardcore-est of the hardcore Trumpists is 'anything our team does is cool, anything your team does is criminal'. It helps to keep this in mind anytime we find ourselves getting sputtery over the naked hypocrisy of GOPers giving their own a pass to engage in behavior that they believe a libruhl should be jailed over. It's never about the act itself but rather the perpetrator.

Any dirt they have on Trump could just be their behavior insurance to make sure he doesn't ever start throwing them under the bus in a sudden series of tweets somewhere down the line.

xposts

I'm not convinced there is a relationship between Trump and Russia with the instability of USA the goal, at least not on Trump's end; he's just not that savvy. But I do think there was a significant relationship between Russia and Trump Inc. - loans, business, Ukraine stuff via pals and surrogates - that he unfortunately carried with him into the White House, and which doesn't instantly vanish after surprise victory election day.

This remains key:

In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Trump's businesses "see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
"And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia. There's indeed a lot of money coming for new-builds and resale reflecting a trend in the Russian economy and, of course, the weak dollar versus the ruble," he said.

Again, this is all pre-White House, just run of the mill Russian cooperation/involvement/possibly corruption. But it all ported over with him into Washington, not least because he stupidly, loyally pulled all the dead weight schemers in with him. It might all be a coincidence. Russian meddling and Trump's above and below ground business ties, but that does not make it less sketchy or worthy of investigation.

I feel like again and again people are confusing "Trump voter" with "Trump supporter." The lunatics who spend all night tweeting about Pizzagate? Those people aren't changing their minds. But that's a very small portion of people who voted for Trump. Most Trump voters are like, well, most voters; they don't pay much attention to politics and have vague impressions of who people are and what they're like. A constant drumbeat of Trump is a crook, Trump is a crook, Trump is a crook DOES change those people's minds.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, March 3, 2017 10:29 AM (

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/what-stood-out-to-you-in-president-trump-speech.html

Hillaryco did a great job defeating themselves

If your left leg is atrophied and somebody shoots you in the right leg, it's okay to cite both of them as contributing reasons that you lost a race.

gettin' fatigued by the 13 steps

3. Aggrieved former Clinton apparatchiks *connect the dots* in a manner eerily reminiscent of right-wing Glenn Beck-esque prognostication circa 2009....

6. Pointing out these glaring flaws in the latest anti-Russia frenzy is immediately construed by cynics as “defending Trump” or “defending Sessions” when it most assuredly is not. At least in my own case, it’s a defense of not getting enraptured by irrational hysterics to further short-term political aims....

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/the-basic-formula-for-every-shocking-russia-trump-revelation-e9ae390d9f05#.wtxmxywu6

Please say you're not adding Michael fucking Tracey to your Henwood/Greenwald aggregator feed.

Whatevs. I personally don't care whether it's connections to Russia, Rwanda, Romania, or, heck, rutabagas that takes some of these mousefuckers down. They can and should be assaulted on all fronts, all the time.

Oh, come the fuck on with that 'Glenn Beck-esque connecting the dots' comparison. People may be stretching but they aren't writing the names of Trump's cabinet on a blackboard and Will Shortzing them into sinister acronyms of acrostics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/what-stood-out-to-you-in-president-trump-speech.html

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

Which is not to say eephus is wrong - people react based on what they see.

Please say you're not adding Michael fucking Tracey

My advantage over you sportsfans is i don't know who these writers are.

There's desperation to find something that's objectively damaging to the Trump administration, and people latch onto anything right away because they want to stop him by any means for the more legitimate reasons (in which they feel their hands are tied).

A portion of it is also getting to hold them to the standards of evidence that they used against Clinton and Obama for years. Because there's always that "if even a iota of this were happening with the Obama administration republicans would would be going nuts" element that makes democrats resentful.

And even if each specific thing that comes out seems overblown by itself to whatever degree, when you step back you have to look at the smoke/fire thing. Conspiracy theories usually require MUCH flimsier reaching to get to a conclusion that's convenient for the opposition.

overblow everything, obstruct everything, investigate everything, only way to go imo

qualmsey's list <3

QUALMSLEY

otm

yeah, i don't object to that strategy

we'll still be royally fuct for 4 years of course

I get the reasoning and I certainly don't want to get my hopes up here but the difference between this and Benghazi or Emailgate or whatever is that Trump is such a singularly corrupt and dishonest figure, who flaunts his own ability to grift people and avoid paying taxes as something that "makes him smart". He had to settle a fraud suit shortly before entering office and is brazenly using his position for self-enrichment. Him and his staff have been revealed to have actually done practically every single thing they ever accused the Democrats of, and then some. His entire life philosophy seems to be "if you can get away with it, do it", which has paid off given how he's always proven to be above the law, no matter how fraudulent his enterprises are. The man deserves no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

My advantage over you sportsfans is i don't know who these writers are.

Did you just use sportsfan as an insult, sportsfan?

I'm not convinced there is a relationship between Trump and Russia with the instability of USA the goal, at least not on Trump's end; he's just not that savvy. But I do think there was a significant relationship between Russia and Trump Inc. - loans, business, Ukraine stuff via pals and surrogates - that he unfortunately carried with him into the White House, and which doesn't instantly vanish after surprise victory election day.

again, the taxes are so key here too. as someone pointed out on the previous thread, it's hard to imagine that if there wasn't anything amiss about Trump's returns he would have made them public long ago because it would make a perfect burn to the media and Dems who are so adamant on seeing them.

so Boente apparently has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor - since no deputy AG has yet been approved by the Senate

seems unlikely but idk

have we been invaded yet

The attorney general got caught lying under oath about meeting with the Russian ambassador, he was going to be in charge of an investigation into meetings with Russians, and he initially wasn't going to recuse himself. This scandal was 100% rational, even with the most charitable interpretation of all the facts.

So shut the fuck up about Glenn Beck.

sorry I forgot

good mourning!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?postshare=4171488559952243&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.3d68bcd64e78

i just hope we don't get ahead of ourselves here. obama's white house had contact with the russians, too, you know

Yeah, but Obama didn't have decades of pre-presidential history with Russia, and Obama wasn't on record as saying nothing but flattering things about Russia and/or Putin, and Obama's cabinet wasn't comprised largely of people with ties to Russia or who had contact with Russia prior to his being elected. It's apples and orange people.

I think the issue here is that all such contacts with foreign governments be fully disclosed and official records kept of what was discussed, which has not been the case in this administration. Also, campaigns should not be cutting deals with foreign nations prior to taking office and if Congress asks you about stuff, you don't outright lie to them. Evade a bit maybe, but not just say no when the truthful answer is yes.

important to remember that these contacts all took place before Trump became president. That is the problem.

did rachel maddow really say "bull-pucky"?

could it be?

could it be that this is THE classic equivocating josh marshall post?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-innocent-explanation

[1300+ words laying out his theory]

...Now, here are three problems I identify with this theory.

1. There are more than a few facts that are very weird and difficult to explain and what I've laid out here doesn't really provide a satisfying explanation. That's a big problem.

Y'all should read Osnos-Remnick-Yaffa's article on Russia in this week's New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war