25 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-2-16

  1. For the umpteenth time, it appears the lunatic Trump has dealt himself a fatal blow. Yet, like a bloated orange Dracula, he always comes back to life. We still have three more months of this.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. From Rich Lowry at National Review:



    If he’s going to be president, Trump needs to learn how to handle criticism.

    Donald Trump got sound advice the other day. At a rally at Davenport, Iowa, he told the crowd that a prominent supporter had called and urged him not to sweat all the attacks at the Democratic National Convention. “Don’t hit down,” the supporter urged, according to Trump. “You have one person to beat. It’s Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

    By Trump’s account, he conceded the good sense of this, although he noted how he always prefers hitting back — “it makes me feel good.”

    If so, he must have enjoyed his weekend. He spent it attacking not just Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a soldier killed in Iraq who spoke at the DNC, but his wife. In other words, roughly 48 hours after publicly sharing the advice he had gotten not to punch down, Trump delivered a flurry of downward blows the likes of which we haven’t seen from a presidential candidate in memory.

    The old political and media rule is unassailable. When you are the bigger, more famous figure, you only draw more attention to a less prominent critic by engaging. If people hadn’t heard, or heard about, Khan’s short speech against Trump at the DNC before, they probably have now. …

    … This isn’t hard. Trump may figure he needn’t bother because he has weathered so many other controversies that appalled critics on the left and the right. But the playing field is different when he is potentially three months away from being elected president of the United States, as opposed to a Republican primary contender among many others. It is one thing to beat Ted Cruz and his family about the head and shoulders — he’s just another pol — but something else entirely to do it to the parents of an exemplary young man who sacrificed his life protecting others in Iraq. …



  3. From Dennis Prager; I post articles and commentaries not because I always agree with them completely, but because I think they make some compelling points worth pondering — I often listen to Prager on the car radio on my way to work and find him to be persuasive in arguing the case for supporting Trump (though I’m just not there yet 🙂 )


    Hillary is by far the greater threat

    My #NeverTrump colleagues and friends make valid points about Donald Trump. I know: I made them myself during the Republican primaries. But it is vital to understand what happens if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. This country will be so far from what the Founders wanted, so different from what the #NeverTrumpers have always fought for, that it is almost impossible to see how America would recover from her — or any Democrat’s — victory.

    … the Democratic party is now in all but name a socialist party. In fact, it is actually to the left of many European socialist parties. …

    … There will still be a country called the United States, a geographic entity situated between Canada and Mexico, but it will not be the America envisioned by the Founders, or by most Americans until the middle of the 20th century. A few days before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, he promised that if elected, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He has been true to his word. And Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party will continue this fundamental transformation. …

    … With either a Republican or a Democratic Congress, a President Donald Trump could be held in check, if that proves to be necessary. And there is always the possibility that he could be a good president — appointing conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, cutting taxes, and slashing regulations. But no Congress could stop a President Hillary Clinton. She will finish the job her predecessor started: to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Perhaps forever.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I fail to see how an insane, amoral, socially liberal candidate who has praised socialized medicine, Planned Parenthood and perversion and who has proposed a trade war and sharp increases in the Minimum Wage might be a “good president”.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I don’t think Trump has learned to handle criticism — apparently he just kicked a baby out of a rally in Virginia.

    Sometimes when I read conservative commentators from the US, I wonder if we are on the same planet.

    The Democratic party is not socialist. Sure they added a few domestic planks to the platform to appease the Bernie supporters but its still a centrist party and more importantly Hilary is still a corporate lackey and friend of Wall Street. Trump is an egoist and a lackey to no-one but himself.

    Gov’ts of all stripes have always told companies how to treat their employees — including compensation. This is quite centrist endorsed by the left and right around the world. Its about maintaining economic peace by acting as an arbitrator between labor and corporations. Trump of course avoided all sense of responsibility to his employees, contractors, etc by declaring bankruptcy three times. (There used to be a law in Canada that you could not hold political office if you had declared bankruptcy)

    Obama has not fundamentally changed the United States. Sure he’s lowered the deficit and unemployment but thats just good governance and as for social change — he followed the lead of the people and the courts. He’s been a good manager but not a revolutionary change maker. Hilary will continue this and if history is an indication she is to the right of Obama. You may not like some her policies but she will not fundamentally change America (now Bernie on the other hand…..) Trump will change America but we’re not sure how, it will of course depend on his mood and personal needs. Besides, America’s been fundamentally changed by Lincoln and both Roosevelts. Its no longer the nation of the founding fathers — there’s no slaves, there’s income tax, and there’s a massive involvement overseas etc….

    Millennials are not greedy or lazy. Most work far harder for less pay than the boomers. They simply want the same deal as the boomers. Prager sounds a grouchy old man with his criticism here. They view socialism positively because they see that it works in Europe and wonder why it can’t be implemented to some degree over here. They see Canada with universal health care and don’t understand why they can’t have it.

    As for the Supreme Court — you really trust Trump’s judgment here? If my Berlusconi analogy is correct, Trump may be more interested in appointing judges who will render favourable verdicts in any litigation affecting him i.e. bankruptcy and tax law. In other words, he’ll appoint judges who have no principles. Besides the right can’t claim to be the party of personal freedom and then want to ensure the Court will enforce a particular set of morals. Social conservatives are far more effective outside of the court than in in (see abortion rate).

    Trump will be a fundamental change in America — in foreign policy. Since WWII, all US presidents (with the possible exception of Carter) have pursed the same policy — to maintain US dominance, you may argue with the methods and the effectiveness but thats been the policy. Hilary, far hawkish than Obama, will defiantly pursue that tradition with vigour. Trump on the other hand didn’t realize Putin had invaded Ukraine and probably doesn’t care, He’s willing to roll back NATO, ditch allies, and make erratic judgments based on gut and personal interest. If you want to avoid a revolutionary change in foreign policy sticky with Clinton and avoid Trump.


  6. If Hillary is elected the Republicans will fight her as they fought her husband and Obama and will create the “gridlock” which I love. If Trump wins the Trumpkin Republicans will join the Democrats as in the days of Little Bush to enact the liberal laws that Trump favors in order to make Ivanka happy.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Tychicus,

    That’s OK, the internet is forever. 🙂

    And Khan’s ties to the Saudis, Clinton, Clinton Foundation, and the often exploited visa program are already well known going back years. He actually works for the firm that prepares the Clinton’s taxes.


    “Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

    “Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.”

    “Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.”

    “But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.

    The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

    “A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”

    Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.”

    Hmmmmmmmm………………. Indeed.


  8. The piece above is what investigative journalism looks like.

    The piece below show what talking points journalism looks like, and mostly what we’ve seen from the media. It’s a joint effort.


    “But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.

    All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy.

    Earlier on Monday, as CNN host Kate Bolduan stacked a panel with three anti-Trump analysts against Scottie Nell Hughes—the only Trump supporter present—Bolduan admitted she has not done basic research about Khan.

    “I have no idea what you’re talking about, what law firm he’s connected to,” Bolduan, a CNN anchor, plainly admitted on live television on Monday during a discussion with Hughes.

    Hughes was pressing the very easily publicly accessible information that Khan worked at Hogan & Hartson, the firm that would eventually become Hogan Lovells LLP—a firm that as Breitbart News has demonstrated is highly connected with the Clinton apparatus and with the Saudi government. And Bolduan was proving she had no idea what she was talking, quite literally—as her direct quote admits.”

    It’s called research people.


  9. And the double standard. The only difference here is this was committed by the media’s preferred candidate, so she gets a pass.


    “While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention. Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazla’s DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.”

    And Hillary called her and other survivors liars. Yet barely a mention, because it doesn’t jive with their agenda, which isn’t news at all.


    “Via Mediaite, the key bit comes at 5:00 after Brooke Baldwin spends several long minutes nudging Smith in every way she can think of to side with the Khans against Trump. One thing that’s gotten lost in the coverage of Pat Smith is that she’s not the only parent of an American killed in the Benghazi attack to claim that Hillary blamed the Mohammed YouTube video when they met with her privately after the attack. The father of Tyrone Woods once told Glenn Beck that Clinton promised them she’d make sure the man who made the movie would be arrested and prosecuted for it. (And so he was, albeit on supposedly unrelated charges.) A would-be president of the United States threatening criminal punishment for thoughtcrimes, huh? Hillary’s not going to let any Republican out-authoritarian her.

    We all know the answer to Smith’s question. The Khans are on the “right team” in the election; their son is a shining example that Muslims are patriotic too, a message the media is eager to convey; and, unlike Pat Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Khan aren’t a living reminder of one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest fiascos. (Actually they are, although you don’t hear many reminders these days about that Iraq vote Hillary cast in 2002.) You expect partisan media bias if you follow political news but it’s been a trip to watch the press shift from the idea that having a grieving parent speak at a convention is exploitative to the idea that it’s a form of patriotic redemption from tragedy in the span of 10 days. Even here, Baldwin leaves Smith almost exasperated at times because she can’t quite accept that Smith won’t use her bereaved-mom moral authority to come to the Khans’ defense against Trump.

    But let’s not forget this either: Hillary’s smart enough at least not to let herself get dragged into a four-day running war of words with a sympathetic parent who lost their child overseas. Some of Trump’s pain the last few days is bias at work. But not all of it.”

    That’s for sure. Trump needs to learn when to shut up and stop falling into such obvious traps.


  10. So what have we learned this year?
    1. As we always knew, the mainstream media is going to favor the Democrat in the general election, particularly when the Republicans nominate an ignorant gaffe-prone buffoon.
    2. The mainstream media have no interest in vetting said ignorant buffoon in the primaries and are pleased to see him win the Republican nomination.
    3. It was up to Fox News and conservative talk show hosts to educate Republican primary voters about the candidates and they failed miserably, serving as cheerleaders for said buffoon.
    4. Republican primary voters are becoming dumber with each election cycle and may now be approaching the level of Democratic primary voters, though part of the problem is that many Trump voters were Democrats voting in the Republican primaries.

    If the Rs are smart they will in the future opt for 1. More caucuses;
    2. More closed primaries 3. Super delegates.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I just saw a Hillary commercial that contains the first 30-40 seconds of this commercial. It does not show Hillary at all, only Trump. It is the best political commercial I have ever seen.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Maybe we’re just getting the candidates our wayward culture deserves. Sigh.

    If so, that’s a much bigger problem.

    I’m really not sure where it all goes from here.

    Lord, have mercy.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. The real race to watch will be Paul Ryan’s primary. If Ryan is defeated, that will be a sign that there is no place for intelligent conservatives in American politics. It will be left to the socialists and the Trumpkins – sort of like Germany in the 1930s.


  14. And this goes without saying (though I think the GOP will have a much tougher time):

    The Post-Election Fallout Is Going to Be Brutal for the Party That Loses the White House Race



    … In any event, you can add to the stakes of this high-stakes election the fact that the losing party is almost certainly going to go through a struggle for its soul, while the winning party, whatever its internal problems, is distributing patronage and claiming a mandate.


  15. hwesseli- In many ways Obama did transform our country. He made the executive stronger by using Executive Orders more than any predecessor. He managed to get a Conservative majority SCOTUS to push through Obamacare, thus telling citizens they had to buy a certain product. He basically deflated the power of the Congress such that even with a GOP majority in both houses he pretty much got what he wanted. Granted, Both Bushes started the process, thus turning the Reagan successes into forgotten historical legislation.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Executive power ebb and flows. Nixon destroyed it, Reagan rebuilt it and Obama assumed it due to the incompentence of the Republican Congress.

    If thd right wing media wish to keep the Khan story alive, they are making the same error as Trump. Being a lawyer for one of the largest law firms in the world with a multitude of international clients doesn’t change the narrative.


  17. Peter

    a simple google search will show you that it is simply not true that Obama has issued more executive orders than any other President. You all have got to stop relying on Brietbart, Limbaugh and Free Beacon — those “news” organizations and Fox are what got the Republicans to Trumpland, imo.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.