It is currently Fri Nov 29, 2024 12:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 514 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92107
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
None of these people are necessarily pro Hillary as much as they are Anti Trump. There needs to be a defining of what Pro is too. Name one person of substance that has openly cheerleader for Hillary in the way that Hannity cheerleader for Trump. Trump actually referenced the dude during a debate several times.
Multiple big name media members were crying when Hillary lost on tv.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:35 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


I hope that you aren't serious.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92107
Location: To the left of my post
I'd say Olbermann is at least the equal of Hannity.

I'm not sure anyone matches Rush though. He's another level.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:41 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.



AL Franken? He is a Senator. Stewart is not in media anymore and left before the start of the campaign. Maddow was in love with Sanders not Hillary and Colbert though he bashes Trump I don't know if he is pro Hillary.

None of them stacks up to Hannity. He vetted VP choices. Do you have anything comparable to that from the "left"?



Look man, you're just going to see things through your bias so there's really no point. Just give me a heads up when someone sings "Hallelujah" for a Republican.


I've never seen someone strongly defended things they say they're against like you do.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:43 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'd say Olbermann is at least the equal of Hannity.

I'm not sure anyone matches Rush though. He's another level.


Is this 2008? Olbermann doesn't have a home and hasn't has one in years.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:47 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:
Just the beginning for him. Hope all of the apologists, defenders, and perpetual equivocaters are paying attention. Just elected and already at it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... again.html


"Pay to play" will be coming later I'm sure with this and other entities that he owns.


Good thing there weren't any concerns about pay-to-play with the Clintons....

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

"It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie."

"Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office."

Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.

On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.

Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.

"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."

Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.

"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.

Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.

Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."

State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal."

Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.

Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.

American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.

By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.

"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.

Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.

Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."

Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."

Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."

Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.

In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.

The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.

Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.

MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.

When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.

Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.

"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.


_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.



AL Franken? He is a Senator. Stewart is not in media anymore and left before the start of the campaign. Maddow was in love with Sanders not Hillary and Colbert though he bashes Trump I don't know if he is pro Hillary.

None of them stacks up to Hannity. He vetted VP choices. Do you have anything comparable to that from the "left"?



Look man, you're just going to see things through your bias so there's really no point. Just give me a heads up when someone sings "Hallelujah" for a Republican.


I've never seen someone strongly defended things they say they're against like you do.


What's the point in ignoring the obvious truth? I've rarely voted Republican in my life, but I'm not living in fantasyland. Do you also consider Tall Midget to be alt-right? :lol:

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
long time guy wrote:
pittmike wrote:
LTG, Jorr's point is the same as many. The left does not have a Limbaugh or Hannity because they do not need them. Rush somewhat and definitely Fox was born by the bias. Murdoch and Ailes purposely started a network to serve the under served right. It is all documented. Their 'fair and balanced' is from their perspective.

Crying that the left has no strong voice is ridiculous. You have the NY Times for chrissake.



None of these people are necessarily pro Hillary as much as they are Anti Trump. There needs to be a defining of what Pro is too. Name one person of substance that has openly cheerleader for Hillary in the way that Hannity cheerleader for Trump. Trump actually referenced the dude during a debate several times.

Hillary Clinton nor the Clintons in general have ever been loved by the media in the way that people on here portray. The left wing media were the ones propping up alternative candidates. They did it in 08 and they also did it this year.


Foe me the subject is not Hillary Vs. Trump and the coverage they experienced. My comments stand left Vs. right regardless of candidate. Sub in Obama/Romney or Bush/Kerry does not matter.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Matthews is O'Reilly, Maddow is Hannity and Maher is Rush. The degree that each is biased is inconsequential. They are in fact voices for one side either way. Much like it would be harder for me to see the right tv sounding biased because they might say what I want to hear you must use perspective to see the left bias. To say it does not exist is asinine.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:08 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.



AL Franken? He is a Senator. Stewart is not in media anymore and left before the start of the campaign. Maddow was in love with Sanders not Hillary and Colbert though he bashes Trump I don't know if he is pro Hillary.

None of them stacks up to Hannity. He vetted VP choices. Do you have anything comparable to that from the "left"?



Look man, you're just going to see things through your bias so there's really no point. Just give me a heads up when someone sings "Hallelujah" for a Republican.


I've never seen someone strongly defended things they say they're against like you do.


What's the point in ignoring the obvious truth? I've rarely voted Republican in my life, but I'm not living in fantasyland. Do you also consider Tall Midget to be alt-right? :lol:


MANY would strongly disagree with what you see as truth. TM is a Berniebro and probably hates Hillary more than you.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:12 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
Matthews is O'Reilly, Maddow is Hannity and Maher is Rush. The degree that each is biased is inconsequential. They are in fact voices for one side either way. Much like it would be harder for me to see the right tv sounding biased because they might say what I want to hear you must use perspective to see the left bias. To say it does not exist is asinine.


Matthews, Maddow and Maher would love to have the audience, money and influence as the people you compared them to.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Matthews is O'Reilly, Maddow is Hannity and Maher is Rush. The degree that each is biased is inconsequential. They are in fact voices for one side either way. Much like it would be harder for me to see the right tv sounding biased because they might say what I want to hear you must use perspective to see the left bias. To say it does not exist is asinine.


Matthews, Maddow and Maher would love to have the audience, money and influence as the people you compared them to.


Audience or not there exists a left serving media that LTG refuses to accept. It is not society's fault no one listened to liberal talk radio. To cite that today's media did not like Clinton as much as Obama is not an example of no left voice in media.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:19 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

What's the point in ignoring the obvious truth? I've rarely voted Republican in my life, but I'm not living in fantasyland. Do you also consider Tall Midget to be alt-right? :lol:


MANY would strongly disagree with what you see as truth. TM is a Berniebro and probably hates Hillary more than you.


To be fair, I also despise Bill Clinton and all other sniveling neoliberals. As Cornel West recently argued, it is the intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology of neoliberalism that operates as the political gateway for Trump's neofascism. To wit:

Cornel West wrote:
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.

The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.

White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.

This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.

What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties.

The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering – be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.

In this sense, Trump’s election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome!

In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.

We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen’s civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence.

As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump’s neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.

For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'd say Olbermann is at least the equal of Hannity.

I'm not sure anyone matches Rush though. He's another level.



i think that the term "mainstream liberal media" is too general of a term. I will agree that the media is predominantly liberal but they are not definitely predominantly centrist. The media is dominated by "Progressive" liberals. That is why they have never been in love with the Clintons. Maddow, Chris Hayes, even O'Donnell were pro Bernie. Matthews was never in love with Hillary. The closest you'd get would probably be Mika Brezinski and even she favored Bernie more.


There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity or Limbaugh in terms of Hillary Love.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Matthews is O'Reilly, Maddow is Hannity and Maher is Rush. The degree that each is biased is inconsequential. They are in fact voices for one side either way. Much like it would be harder for me to see the right tv sounding biased because they might say what I want to hear you must use perspective to see the left bias. To say it does not exist is asinine.


Matthews, Maddow and Maher would love to have the audience, money and influence as the people you compared them to.


Audience or not there exists a left serving media that LTG refuses to accept. It is not society's fault no one listened to liberal talk radio. To cite that today's media did not like Clinton as much as Obama is not an example of no left voice in media.


All the people you listed HATED Hillary. Maddow and Maher were openly supporting Bernie and Matthews has spent a decade criticizing Hillary. He wasn't a Berniebro for the same reason I didn't support him. We both knew he was full of shit.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43583
Chris Matthews is a Center-Right dinosaur.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40652
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I like West when I come across some of his writings. Agree or not he seems to be honest and willing to look past the superficial.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92107
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'd say Olbermann is at least the equal of Hannity.

I'm not sure anyone matches Rush though. He's another level.



i think that the term "mainstream liberal media" is too general of a term. I will agree that the media is predominantly liberal but they are not definitely predominantly centrist. The media is dominated by "Progressive" liberals. That is why they have never been in love with the Clintons. Maddow, Chris Hayes, even O'Donnell were pro Bernie. Matthews was never in love with Hillary. The closest you'd get would probably be Mika Brezinski and even she favored Bernie more.


There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity or Limbaugh in terms of Hillary Love.
A lot of them looked like they had lost a loved one when Hillary lost the election though.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


:lol: What? The only person on that list that you could compare is Maddow.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:33 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Douchebag wrote:
Chris Matthews is a Center-Right dinosaur.


He leans slightly left on social issues.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43583
Nas wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
Chris Matthews is a Center-Right dinosaur.


He leans slightly left on social issues.

That's because he's old and can't stand up straight.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:36 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'd say Olbermann is at least the equal of Hannity.

I'm not sure anyone matches Rush though. He's another level.



i think that the term "mainstream liberal media" is too general of a term. I will agree that the media is predominantly liberal but they are not definitely predominantly centrist. The media is dominated by "Progressive" liberals. That is why they have never been in love with the Clintons. Maddow, Chris Hayes, even O'Donnell were pro Bernie. Matthews was never in love with Hillary. The closest you'd get would probably be Mika Brezinski and even she favored Bernie more.


There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity or Limbaugh in terms of Hillary Love.
A lot of them looked like they had lost a loved one when Hillary lost the election though.


Fox News looked the same way. No one expected him to win (including the Trump campaign) and MANY believe that he will be a disaster. There was shock everywhere.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:36 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
The Washington Post virtually dedicated itself to ensuring Clinton's victory over Sanders and Trump.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

What's the point in ignoring the obvious truth? I've rarely voted Republican in my life, but I'm not living in fantasyland. Do you also consider Tall Midget to be alt-right? :lol:


MANY would strongly disagree with what you see as truth.


Only because of blind partisanship.

If I were in Omaha, Nebraska or Tulsa, Oklahoma I could see myself being forced to defend Clinton against Trumpites, but I don't. I don't know anyone in my circles, including this forum, who was enthusiastic about Trump. I know some who voted for him, but they were reluctant votes. I do, however, know many people who insist on extolling the "virtues" of Hillary Clinton at every turn.

That leads to this part of West's quote Midget posted,
"Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process."

The bottom line is, if you wanted to put a halt to the Clinton brand of neoliberalism, there was no one else.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


:lol: What? The only person on that list that you could compare is Maddow.


Maybe you don't remember Franken on Air America or the fake news shows of Colbert and Stewart in support of neoliberalism.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:38 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
I like West when I come across some of his writings. Agree or not he seems to be honest and willing to look past the superficial.


West is butt hurt and Michael Eric Dyson correctly called him on his bullshit before.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


:lol: What? The only person on that list that you could compare is Maddow.


Maybe you don't remember Franken on Air America or the fake news shows of Colbert and Stewart in support of neoliberalism.


I don't rember Franken, but I've watched Stewart and Colbert most of my adult life. To compare either to Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79590
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


:lol: What? The only person on that list that you could compare is Maddow.


Maybe you don't remember Franken on Air America or the fake news shows of Colbert and Stewart in support of neoliberalism.


I don't rember Franken, but I've watched Stewart and Colbert most of my adult life. To compare either to Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous.


:lol: That's probably because you agree with them.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
I'm pretty sure Maddow gets a lot of her talking points from the DNC. She liked Bernie until he became a threat--at that point she began parroting the establishment critique of his platform.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Donald Trump.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:43 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
long time guy wrote:
There is no liberal equivalent to Hannity and Limbaugh on the left.


Of course there is. There are so many it would be hard to list them all. We could start with Colbert and Stewart and Franken and Maddow, and then just keep going.


:lol: What? The only person on that list that you could compare is Maddow.


Maybe you don't remember Franken on Air America or the fake news shows of Colbert and Stewart in support of neoliberalism.


I don't rember Franken, but I've watched Stewart and Colbert most of my adult life. To compare either to Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous.


Michael Eric Dyson only supported Clinton because he felt obligated to do so, not because he liked her policies.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 514 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group