RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Trump's Endorsements Should Scare Your Pants Off Print
Saturday, 12 March 2016 09:55

Taibbi writes: "Earlier this week, an African-American protester was sucker-punched by a 78-year-old man in a cowboy hat at a Trump rally in North Carolina. The video went viral, and reporters later tracked down John McGraw, the red-faced Trumpthusiast who'd thrown the punch."

Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. (photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. (photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)


Why Trump's Endorsements Should Scare Your Pants Off

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

12 March 16

 

Collaborators like Ben Carson are just as dangerous as fanatics

arlier this week, an African-American protester was sucker-punched by a 78-year-old man in a cowboy hat at a Trump rally in North Carolina. The video went viral, and reporters later tracked down John McGraw, the red-faced Trumpthusiast who'd thrown the punch. McGraw explained why he'd belted Rakeem Jones:

"Number one, we don't know if he's ISIS," McGraw said.

One has to commend the Inside Edition reporter doing the interview for not bursting out laughing, or dropping to the ground in shock, at this moment. McGraw went on:

"The next time we see him, we might have to kill him," he said. "We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."

That same night, Trump told Anderson Cooper he wasn't backing down from his plan to bar all Muslims from entering the country. "I think Islam hates us," he said, adding, "It's very hard to separate because you don't know who is who. We have to be very vigilant."

These episodes are like a child's game of "telephone," only played with bone-ignorant adults. The game starts when Trump personifies "Islam" under one label, apparently not realizing that this represents an awesomely diverse collection of people who collectively represent about a quarter of the world's population.

How will his plan work? Will he slap an outright ban on everyone who isn't a nun from Liechtenstein? How is American commerce going to work when we cut off incoming travel from the 49 countries that have Muslim majorities? Will the new Trump projection of the globe no longer include the continent of Africa? Will the ban extend to Sunnis and Shiites, or does Trump not know the difference? (Since he was iffy on "Kurds" versus "Quds," I'm guessing the latter.)

Trump's Islam-ban idea fits in perfectly with his strategy for dealing with most problems, which is to physically eliminate anything that makes him even slightly uncomfortable, even at great cost, and even when it would be a million times easier to do ten minutes of reading in search of more targeted solutions.

Remember, Trump says he only wants to close the borders to all Muslims "until we can figure out what's going on." This means he actually believes it will take less time, logistically, to wall off the United States to 1.6 billion people inhabiting every time zone on Earth than it would be to craft a strategy for dealing with a relatively tiny band of religious dingbats roaming Mesopotamia in search of an apocalyptic showdown with the army of Rome.

In reality, "until we can figure out what's going on" means "never," because if Trump had any inclination to "figure it out," he'd do it before he created the mother of all logistical and diplomatic nightmares, not after.

Trump's ignorance is monstrous, but it's nothing compared to that of his supporters, who apparently take "we don't know who is who" to mean that ISIS could be just about anyone not wearing a NASCAR uniform. This is like the Red Scare all over again, only dumber and more racist. We're like a week away from seeing Trumpshirts in Texas or Alabama gang-tackle a college student for eating tabouleh.

Amidst all of this, the Trump endorsements have been coming fast and furious, with pyramid-lover and knife-combat enthusiast Ben Carson being the latest.

Until recently, most of the celebrity Trump-supporters have been exactly the sort of swollen-headed, oxygen-deprived has-beens one would expect to find backing a reality TV spectacle like Trump's campaign. Gary Busey, Hulk Hogan, Mike Ditka, John Daly, Stephen Baldwin, John Rocker and Bobby Knight are all aboard the Trump train. Celebrity white dudes with anger management issues, unite!

Famed ex-centerfielder and not-smart-person Johnny Damon is another recent Trump devotee, citing among other things Trump's "first class" golf courses as a reason for his support. Wrestler Jerry "The King" Lawler, most famous for his faux-showdowns with the late Andy Kaufman, says supporting Trump is "great." This is funny because there is a growing theory on the Internet that Trump is actually Kaufman's foul-mouthed alter ego Tony Clifton, exhumed for one last bold, brilliant prank. And beyond that there has been a list of assorted freaks and weirdos from the political margins, from Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan to Michael Savage to Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin (whose endorsement speech seemed at times like a public service ad about the dangers of household inhalants) who have cast their lot with the Trumpster.

But the more troubling pattern came when the so-called "establishment" endorsements started to flow in. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who appeared to be blinking a cry for help in Morse code during Trump's Super Tuesday victory speech, was the first and most craven of the Trump-converts from the GOP mainstream. Christie brought with him one of his own former supporters, Maine's Paul LePage, making it two sitting governors now in Trump's tent.

Then there was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a major Iraq War supporter who apparently doesn't mind sharing a stage with that war's most ardent GOP critic. Even Trump joked at the Sessions announcement, "I hate to say it, but I'm becoming mainstream."

NASCAR CEO Brian France, who is not the most loathsome sports official alive only because God keeps forgetting to hit Roger Goodell with lightning, was another relatively important "mainstream" endorsement. Criticized for his announcement, France claimed he didn't know what Trump stood for. "I don't even know all [his] policies, truthfully," he said.

The significance of all of these endorsements can't be understated. The way you build a truly vicious nationalist movement is to wed a relatively small core of belligerent idiots to a much larger group of opportunists and spineless fellow travelers whose primary function is to turn a blind eye to things. We may not have that many outright Nazis in America, but we have plenty of cowards and bootlickers, and once those fleshy dominoes start tumbling into the Trump camp, the game is up.

People like Chris Christie and Paul LePage and Jeff Sessions surely know what Donald Trump is all about. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn't be debasing themselves by endorsing him. After all, they didn't, at least not until he became the practically inevitable nominee.

These are just half-smart politicians who think they see the writing on the wall and are making a move sooner rather than later, so they can nail down better jobs later on, or maybe just a line of communication. Christie, who if you haven't heard yet was once a federal prosecutor, is probably gunning for the attorney general job. And LePage practically came out and said he was looking for a post after his endorsement, explaining that he believed Trump would make a great president "if he puts together a good team." Hint hint!

As for Carson, it took about two seconds after he endorsed Trump for this formerly proud-seeming man to start humiliating himself. He explained the seeming incongruity of jumping in with a race-baiting blowhard by saying that he was supporting a Donald Trump not visible to the rest of the world.

"There are two Donald Trumps. There's the Donald Trump that you see on television and who gets out in front of big audiences, and there's the Donald Trump behind the scenes," he said. "They're two different people. One's very much an entertainer, the other is a thinking individual." Carson added, devastatingly to himself and what is left of his reputation, that this other, unseen Trump was "cerebral."

Once you go down the road of calling Donald Trump cerebral, you'll probably put up with just about anything.

These people will rationalize their support by telling themselves that they can do more to keep this Trump thing from going off the rails by influencing it from within, but in reality it doesn't work like that. Godwin's law notwithstanding, once you kiss the ring, you're a non-factor, a good German. And you won't say anything the next time some whooping fanatic belts an "ISIS suspect" at a rally.

All along, Beltway pundits have insisted that Trump could never win because there just aren't enough people in America who are that stupid. What those people missed is that there are always plenty of otherwise sane people who tend to fold and hop in line at the first show of strength.

Christie was the first of the major politicians, and there will be more. The next step will probably be a series of defections in the media and among the corporate donor class. They won't be fanatics. But like Christie on stage on Super Tuesday, they'll keep their mouths shut. And that will be enough.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Senate Republicans: Do Your Job Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7122"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 11 March 2016 15:11

Warren writes: "There's a vacancy on the most important court in America, and the message from Senate Republicans is crystal clear: forget the Constitution."

Elizabeth Warren. (photo: ElizabethWarren.com)
Elizabeth Warren. (photo: ElizabethWarren.com)


Senate Republicans: Do Your Job

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

11 March 16

 

ello,

There’s a vacancy on the most important court in America, and the message from Senate Republicans is crystal clear: forget the Constitution.

In fact, their response to one of the most solemn and consequential tasks that our government performs is to pretend that the Supreme Court vacancy – and President Obama himself – do not exist.

But this isn’t a new problem, and it’s not isolated to one Supreme Court seat. For seven years, Republican senators have bowed to extremists who reject President Obama’s legitimacy and abuse the Senate rules in an all-out effort to cripple the Administration and paralyze the federal courts.

In 2013, only one year into the President’s second term, Republican leaders flatly rejected the President’s authority to confirm any judges to fill any of three open seats on the second-highest court in the country. Democrats had to change the filibuster rules to move nominees forward. Once Republicans took over the Senate in 2015, judicial confirmations nearly ground to a halt.

The same is true for non-judicial nominees. Republicans have held up the President’s nominees to run the Department of Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency, largely on the suspicion that those highly-qualified individuals might actually help those agencies do their work. Republicans have held up nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans regularly hold up the confirmation of dozens of ambassadors, undermining our national security and our relationships with other nations.

Last year, Republicans blocked confirmation of the Attorney General, the highest law enforcement official in the country, for 166 days. That’s longer than it took the Senate to consider the prior seven Attorneys General combined.

The message from Senate Republicans couldn’t be clearer: no matter how much it damages the nation, no matter how much it undermines our courts, no matter how much it cripples our government or lays waste to our Constitution, they will not acknowledge the legitimacy of our democratically-elected President.

For too long, Senate Republicans have wanted it both ways. They want to nullify the Obama Presidency while claiming that they can govern responsibly. That game is over. Extremist candidates motivated by bigotry and resentment are on the verge of winning the Republican Party’s nomination for President, and Republican Senators must now make a decision.

Because here’s the deal: extremists might not like it, but Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008 by nine million votes and won re-election in 2012 by five million votes. There were no recounts or hanging chads, no stuffing the ballot box or tampering with voting machines, no intervention from the Supreme Court. President Obama was elected the legitimate President seven years ago, and he is the legitimate President right now.

So if it’s true that some Republican Senators are finally ready to stand up to the extremism that denies the legitimacy of this President and of the Constitution, I say to them: do your job. Vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Vote on District Court judges and Circuit Court judges. Vote on ambassadors. Vote on agency leaders and counterterrorism officials.

If Senate Republicans want to stop extremism in their party, they can start by showing the American people that they respect the President and the Constitution enough to do their job in the United States Senate.

Thanks for being a part of this,
Elizabeth

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Miami Democratic Debate Proves Both Campaigns Don't Think It's Over Print
Friday, 11 March 2016 11:49

Galindez writes: "It was by far the most spirited debate of the cycle. It was Bernie Sanders' best debate, and could add to the momentum generated by his win in Michigan."

Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton at the Democratic debate in Florida. (photo: RMV/REX/Shutterstock)
Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton at the Democratic debate in Florida. (photo: RMV/REX/Shutterstock)


Miami Democratic Debate Proves Both Campaigns Don't Think It's Over

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

11 March 16

 

hen Hillary Clinton launched another misleading attack on Bernie Sanders, she was signaling that her campaign does not think they have the nomination wrapped up. If the Clinton campaign thought they had the nomination in hand they would not do anything to jeopardize winning over Sanders supporters.

It was by far the most spirited debate of the cycle. It was Bernie Sanders’ best debate, and could add to the momentum generated by his win in Michigan. Some point to his positions on Cuba as a reason Sanders lost the debate. They are wrong, and fail to see the generational divide in the Cuban community. When President Obama eased the sanctions with Cuba and restored diplomatic relations, Cubans under 65 supported the move.

Florida International University has polled Miami-area Cuban Americans since 1991. In its most recent survey, a slight majority of them supported lifting the embargo and a large majority, 68%, favored reopening diplomatic relations.

Older Cuban Americans, many of whom left Cuba in the years immediately after Fidel Castro’s revolution, still supported the embargo, the poll found; those younger than 65 did not. And let’s remember, the hard line anti-Castro Cubans will be choosing between Marco, Ted, and The Donald next Tuesday.

So once again the corporate media, with their lazy analysis, is peddling the outdated narrative that Cuban Americans are anti-Castro and would not support a candidate who wants to normalize relations and lift the embargo. Times have changed, and Bernie Sanders got it right.

On the environment, Sanders called on Clinton to join him in supporting a carbon tax and ending fracking. I have not heard any response from Clinton to his challenge.

Sanders renewed his call for Clinton to release the transcripts to her speeches to Goldman Sachs, saying they must have been great speeches to warrant the hundreds of thousands of dollars she received. Clinton’s response has always been that she will release the transcripts when all of the other presidential candidates release theirs. Bernie threw his arms in the air and said, “Here are the transcripts to my speeches to Wall Street – there are none.”

Time after time, Sanders put Clinton on the defensive. On the few occasions when Bernie was attacked, he easily deflected the attacks. Clinton returned to her auto bailout claim that has already been debunked by the media and fact checkers. Doubling down, she tried to tie Bernie to the Koch brothers. Anyone who knows Bernie knows that nobody has fought the Kochs harder than he has.

On immigration, they both scored points, and then both agreed to not deport children or illegal immigrants with no criminal record. I thought Bernie was more direct and believable when making the pledge. Hillary’s claim about Bernie voting for indefinite detention and support for the minutemen was similar to her auto bailout claim. On the minutemen, it was an amendment to a bigger bill that was deemed meaningless. It was designed to kill the bill, but was just ignored by Democrats because it was nothing more than a resolution and had no authority.

Hillary Clinton’s best moments were when she was defending herself from questions by the moderators on Benghazi and her emails. I didn’t see her lay out a vision for where she will take the country.

Overall, Bernie showed the country why he is doing so well in blue states. He forcefully laid out a true progressive agenda and forced Hillary to try to tell Democrats why the policies they believe in are not achievable. The crowd rose to its feet at the end, when Senator Sanders laid out his agenda and said, “That is why I am running for President!”

There is only one candidate that will motivate the blue team to turn out in November.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How We Got Trumped by the Media Print
Friday, 11 March 2016 09:46

Nichols writes: "Major media outlets are now so obsessed with Trump's candidacy - and so addicted to the clicks and ratings associated with the spectacle it has created - that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, and thus are neglecting the deeper issues and concerns shaping this electoral season."

Donald Trump in the spin room after the February 13, 2016 CBS News Republican presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina. (photo: Rainier Ehrhardt/AP)
Donald Trump in the spin room after the February 13, 2016 CBS News Republican presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina. (photo: Rainier Ehrhardt/AP)


How We Got Trumped by the Media

By John Nichols, The Nation

11 March 16

 

They’re so obsessed with the Donald that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, much less the important issues.

he mainstream media’s obsessive coverage of Donald Trump is warping not just a Republican presidential race that is spiraling out of control, but a Democratic contest that is of equal consequence. And that’s not the worst of it. Major media outlets are now so obsessed with Trump’s candidacy—and so addicted to the clicks and ratings associated with the spectacle it has created—that they can barely be bothered to cover the other candidates, and thus are neglecting the deeper issues and concerns shaping this electoral season.

“Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, and Trump” is how veteran political observer Larry Sabato has summed up coverage of the campaign. By late February, the billionaire had, according to figures cited by The Economist, enjoyed 10 times as much attention on network evening newscasts as Florida Senator Marco Rubio. This overwhelming over-coverage of Trump’s candidacy has made “The Donald” the defining figure in the GOP competition. As Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! put it: “Trump doesn’t even have to go out on the road—he’s piped into everyone’s home.”

But Trumpmania has also redefined the Democratic race. The Republican front-runner has sucked up so much media oxygen that the Democratic contest is gasping for air. The GOP’s turnout is way up, while Democratic turnout is down. Only in a handful of caucus and primary states where the Bernie Sanders campaign has surged is turnout holding steady—or, in some cases, exceeding levels reached in the 2008 competition between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

On Super Tuesday, Democratic primary turnout was down roughly a third from 2008 levels. Barriers created by voter-ID laws and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act were undoubtedly factors in several states. And it’s hard to compare the 2008 and 2016 Democratic races, since 2008 came after the catastrophic Bush years and was energized by the historic candidacy of Barack Obama. But the decline this year nonetheless has Democrats fretting. There are worries about reports from the Super Tuesday state of Massachusetts, where Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin noted that nearly 20,000 Democrats dropped their party registration in order to vote in the Republican primary.

These turnout patterns frustrate the Democrats. Their party has a serious race on its hands—as the March 8 upset win for Sanders in Michigan confirmed—between candidates who are engaged in a great debate about who better represents the progressive ideals of the grassroots activists who have forced open the current discussions about inequality, failed trade policies, mass incarceration, and climate change. Why isn’t a contest that features an insurgent candidate mounting a vigorous populist challenge to a former secretary of state with strong support from party leaders and key constituencies attracting more votes than a Republican contest where the candidates argue about the size of their… hands?

Anyone who understands how the modern media shape the narrative, as opposed to simply reporting on it, knows the answer. As of late February, the wrangling between Trump and his top two rivals (Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz) was given twice as much time on network TV as the Clinton-Sanders contest.

That’s especially unfair to Sanders, whose challenge to the billionaire class that owns so much of our media has been dismissed and neglected—even as his poll numbers have risen. In December, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters cited Tyndall Report data for 2015, which charted 234 total network minutes for Trump compared with just 10 for Sanders (despite the fact that the candidates were polling roughly equally in their respective contests) and declared that “the network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump.”

What’s bad for individual candidates is even worse for the democratic discourse. The saturation coverage of Trump has obscured the real story of 2016: Americans are strikingly agitated not just about politics and governance, but about an economic “recovery” that never seems to reach them, about real under- and unemployment figures that far exceed the official numbers, about wage stagnation that has continued for decades, and about the prospect that they are one trade deal or economic downturn away from losing it all.

Grassroots Republicans and Democrats know that the deck is stacked against them. They recognize that the choices being made by Wall Street and Washington threaten to increase their burdens and narrow their opportunities. And they see too little evidence that social divisions and environmental challenges are being addressed.

No 2016 candidate polls as highly as the notion that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The latest Associated Press/GfK polls show that 68 percent of voters think the United States is off course. This is not a partisan view: Democrats as well as Republicans share a concern that the government isn’t making the right choices, let alone the right preparations, for the future. Yet the media fail to open up these deeper discussions about inequality and economic instability; nor do they encourage candidates or parties to speak realistically about how the digital revolution, automation, and globalization are making the “new economy” look an awful lot like the old Gilded Age.

The past 20 years have seen radical changes in the American media: the pandemic downsizing of newsrooms, sweeping layoffs of journalists, and a desperation for clicks and ratings that guarantees that civic and democratic values will always be trumped by commercial and entertainment demands. CBS chief Les Moonves says of the ratings and revenue bonanza associated with the Trump moment: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Moonves is right: Media coverage that’s all about Trump, and misses the real story of 2016, is terrible for America.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bernie Is a Movement, and That Movement Cannot Be Stopped Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Thursday, 10 March 2016 14:51

"If there was any doubt before, there can be no longer: Bernie Sanders is a movement, and that movement will not and cannot be stopped."

Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Bernie Is a Movement, and That Movement Cannot Be Stopped

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

10 March 16

 

f there was any doubt before tonight, there can be no longer: Bernie Sanders is a movement, and that movement will not and cannot be stopped. Despite the Democratic National Committee, the big Democratic donors, the SuperPAC; despite the pollsters and pundits and the Washington insiders and political operatives -- despite an establishment that doesn't want to recognize what has happened to America and why this movement is essential to reclaiming our democracy and economy -- Bernie will prevail and the political revolution will grow. Americans are joining up and joining together. Sooner or later – hopefully, sooner rather than later -- we will succeed.

What do you think?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 Next > End >>

Page 2115 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN