Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks here about the Trump campaign’s numerous dealings with the Russian government.
Everything he says is in the public record. Nothing is merely rumor or speculation.
Schiff says what Trump did, what he admits to doing, is not OK.
I couldn’t agree more.
The bar for ethical behavior by a presidential candidate just dropped several notches. Can it go any lower?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This IS brilliant and eloquent. I’ve watched it in full many times. If I were teaching high school government again, I’d use it in my class. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of those who might only have seen edited excerpts.
LikeLike
This is the most important speech, is an historical one which will be remembered!
This honorable man has put words to the breakdown in ethics which pervades the legislature. Don’t miss it, and pass it on to your contacts.
LikeLike
Here is the address that you can put into your email,
Send it far and wide.
LikeLike
Schiff ‘nailed it.”
I DON’T THINK what 45 and his gangsters did is OKAY. In fact, it violates everything Our Constitution is about.
America has definitely “slipped” in the “morality” area and for what … power and money for the Oligarchs. SICK. America has to find it’s moral compass and it’s not via “telling females what they can do with their own bodies.” Far too many people have confused “morality and religion” as well as “justice and the law.”
I heard the author of SHOUT the other night. It is NOT okay for males to foist themselves on females. And I don’t care how sorry they are afterwards. Their “sorry” makes no difference to me or the victim, no matter how innocent that person’s “said intentions” were. I find this to be reprehensible.
When we allow “CHILD & HUMAN” Trafficking to go on …. nothing is okay. America is getting its KARMA right now. It’s been “brewing” for years and years. This stuff doesn’t happen overnight.
And btw, I am not okay with the Super Dele-“Gates” and the DNC nor am I okay with the entire GOP: Greedy Oppressive P*****.
LikeLike
Although it might go down as one of the greatest oratorical speeches in Congressional history. We have been there done that last week. That speech probably is responsible for stemming the tide of Public Opinion toward Trump, that Barr and Trump hoped to accomplish.
The question was never whether there was a hey Vlad this is Donald moment; as much as it was what explains Trump’s attitude and subsequent actions.
It is not a crime to approach the Ambassador of a foreign hostile power requesting a back channel, as it is not a crime to be negotiating a Business deal with a Foreign hostile power. As it is not a crime to seek the reversal of sanctions even before you come to the office.
The question is; are you acting in your personal self-interest or the interest of the nation.
That too is a difficult call to make. Even though we know what the answer is.
It is however behavior that would never be tolerated by an Employer.
Fire him
LikeLike
Of the many despicable actions of Trump, the one I find most bizarre is that he was negotiating to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the Presidential campaign and refused to disclose it. He even insisted that he had no dealings—none!—with Russia. Lie. This after telling a rally of deplorable that Russians come to him and buy apartments from him, and they pay $40 million, $50 million!”Why shouldn’t I like them?” He said. Only Putin’s pals get to take that kind of money out of the country.
LikeLike
It’s hard to believe he is STILL president after all his lies and other actions!
LikeLike
Kas, America is SICK. I hope it’s not terminal. I worry.
I blame the two party system as well the oligarchs who seem to never seem to have enough. This “PAY TO PLAY” politics is literally killing us and this must stop.
Every time I get an email from some political hack, the only thing that is asked for is MONEY. I also wonder who puts together those stupid questionnaires meant to “scare and then siphon more money” from us, “the people.” And this happens even when the sender writes, “Not asking for money.”
Down with “Citizens United.” When outside money can influence local elections, something is definitely wrong.
LikeLike
Part of America’s sickness is the Koch/Gates oligarchy.
SETDA has a template that compares states, “The Digital Instructional Materials Map”, which brings ALEC to mind.
ALEC is elected officials allied with multiple industries. SETDA is state department of education employees working as a collective in concert with the ed tech industry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so strategically keeping a lower profile while pulling the more devastating puppet strings: very Wizard of OZ
LikeLike
Dmitri, my Russian control agent, insisted I comment on this.
It’s a simple and straightforward fact: being a grotesque con man, bigot and xenophobe (which Trump inarguably is, among other things) is not the same as committing treason/conspiring with a foreign state to steal an election.
Yet the McResistance – with Schiff, a Lockheed Democrat, one of its poster boys – refuses to grasp that distinction, and continues to double and triple down on a discredited conspiracy theory.
I know none of you will admit it to yourselves, let alone publicly, but by squandering over two years on what Glenn Greenwald accurately described as a scam and a fraud, to say nothing refusing to let this go now, you help inoculate Trump against things he actually is doing.
Be honest with yourselves: would Saint Santa Claus Mueller remain silent while Barr grossly mis-characterizes his report? That’s just more wishful thinking. I know there is willful amnesia about all the gross journalistic malpractice on this story, but please recall that Mueller was very quick to slap down Buzzfeed when it set everyone’s hair on fire with a totally false story about Trump instructing Cohen to lie to Congress.
Is there material that’s embarrassing and/or politically damaging to Trump in Mueller’s report? Possibly/ probably.
Should the full report be released, and are Trump and his DoJ playing games with that? Of course.
But that’s a very different matter from the initial charge of the investigation (initiated by the totally fabulistic and discredited Steele dossier), which was about a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russian state to steal the election.
In Mueller’s words, there was “no evidence” of that charge. Not “evidence that doesn’t quite rise to the level of a criminal indictment” but “no evidence.”
In fact, the McResistance has accomplished the almost impossible: it’s made Donald J. Trump’s statements about Fake News credible, and now allows him to play the role of victim to those outside his political base. If you think that’s ridiculous, I suggest you follow the news reports in the coming months about the gross malfeasance of the FBI, the mainstream media and others in this disgraceful episode.
Let it go. By holding on to this discredited conspiracy theory, you’re making Hair Furor stronger, not weaker.
LikeLike
Thank you. And to add to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1410&v=RtH5wf5_LcY
LikeLike
Do these two people attacking Diane Ravitch for criticizing Trump too harshly still believe that Trump is no worse than HRC would have been?
Everyone who engages with them should understand that as far as I can tell, these two posters still believe that Trump’s presidency is no worse — and our country is absolutely no worse off — than we would have been if HRC had been elected and appointed two Supreme Court Justices instead of Trump.
Once you understand that everything they say is based on their absolute need to support the lie that Trump’s Presidency is no worse than if the Democrat had won, you can understand why they attack Diane Ravitch and anyone else who criticizes Trump too much.
Nothing must challenge their world view that they were absolutely correct when they told us that Trump is no worse than HRC.
No evidence will convince them, just like no evidence convinces the rabid Trump supporters you see at his rallies.
Just ask them if they still believe Trump is no worse than HRC and if they still believe our country is no worse off being led by Trump than if HRC was President.
If they still believe Trump is no worse than HRC, then obviously they will defend him from a lot of the most serious criticisms no matter what the evidence shows.
LikeLike
^^^the mischaracterization of the Steele dossier above is typical of what the intention of these posts are about. To hear this hypocrisy from the same folks who were ready to lock up HRC is truly beyond belief. As I said below – if these posts aren’t being made by rabid Trump supporters, then they are certainly doing a brilliant imitation of them. Just like they did throughout 2016 when they were repeating ugly nasty innuendoes about HRC.
Remember dienne77 says the DNC “rigged” the primary and she doesn’t care about evidence that would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
As Lloyd points out, they have one standard of proof when they smear Democrats with their lies and a very different standard when they attack anyone criticizing Trump. Hypocrites.
LikeLike
Again, NYC: you are correct and right to be completely outraged.
The area where we differ is in the area of public perception (my slant, at least). What Trump and much of the media did was to narrow down the scope of the investigation. “No Collusion” was his battle cry. It used to drive me crazy that the news outlets and heads wouldn’t speak up and say, “That’s only part of the investigation, people. There’s a lot more involved here”.
But they didn’t speak up. They perpetuated it. And, as a result, Trump gets a pass because the investigation didn’t implicate him on that one specific point. And a lot of people want it to end there.
I’m not saying it should be that way. I’m saying that it’s what I’m seeing and hearing with my own eyes and ears from people I know, read, and hear from. Not everyone I run into thinks the same as I. They’re not interested in hearing about the broader scope of the investigation.
As I said in my first post: I hesitated before pressing the button. But I think it’s an important point to make because a second term under this man is, in my world, unthinkable. I think it’s a topic worthy of consideration and debate.
LikeLike
I understand what you are trying to say but I think the Democratic Party needs to be like Adam Schiff and stand up for what is right and call out what is wrong.
“And, as a result, Trump gets a pass because the investigation didn’t implicate him on that one specific point. And a lot of people want it to end there.”
It seems like the minority of Americans who “want it to end there” would be voting for Trump anyway or are one of the people we have seen above who dishonestly claim that the entire investigation was only about “collusion” and insist that Trump is completely exonerated by the Mueller report.
I think it is about time Democrats start standing up for what is RIGHT. Just like Schiff. if we are going to go down, I certainly want it to be because our party told the truth and were not shut down by rabidly dishonest self-described progressives who give passes to right wing racist and xenophobic Republicans but insist that the entire Democratic party is corrupt.
Our candidates can have differences of opinions. But if we act like those here defending what is indefensible who despise Adam Schiff with all their heart and spend their time telling lies about HRC and the supposedly “rigged” 2016 primary (lies which Bernie himself has never said), then we don’t deserve to win.
We need to stand up for honesty and marginalize the Trump enablers like those on here who specialize in the most blatant hypocrisy I have ever seen.
That anyone who keeps posting that the DNC “rigged” the primary for HRC dares to demand more evidence before anyone is allowed to criticize Trump about his corrupt dealings with Russia should tell you what those people are about. We don’t need to please them. We need to marginalize them and their lies. They were not marginalized in the 2016 campaign and their lies became what the majority of Americans believed. They believed then that Trump was no different than the Democrats.
And that is what they continue to believe. At least, they have never admitted being wrong. And they certainly pop up to attack and criticize every time Diane Ravitch is too mean to the man they insisted was no worse than the Democrat.
Until they admit they were wrong, we can all assume their guiding principle is to prove to America that they were right and Trump is still not any worse than a Democrat.
LikeLike
My goodness, you are both [deleted initial thought out of respect to Diane]. Let me make it simple for your simplistic minds: Individual-1 ran for president to enrich himself and his kids. He was willing to sell out the nation and look the other way as Putin and his cronies did what they could to disrupt the nation and sow additional discord. Both succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. And dupes like you two willingly become part of the plan. Simple enough for you?
LikeLike
Facts and evidence, please, not hysteria and name-calling.
And you see, you’ve gone and done it, yet again: conflated allegations of Russian social media activity in the election (which remain unproven, and ludicrous regarding their impact) with a conspiracy with the Russian government to steal the election (which has proven to be baseless).
Have you no intellectual self-respect, that you continue to scream out these fallacies, and have you no idea how weak and pathetic it looks to those outside your echo chamber?
No, I guess not.
LikeLike
The Russian use of meddling using our social media before and up to the election has been proven without a doubt.
Every US intelligence agency (I think that number is 17) said it happened and the evidence it happened exists, has been studied and documented.
For instance, “How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
There’s even a book out about how the Russian’s did it that was published by Oxford’s University Press.
AND, “Congress just published all the Russian Facebook ads used to try and influence the 2016 election”
https://www.recode.net/2018/5/10/17339864/congress-russia-advertisements-facebook-donald-trump-president
LikeLike
Michael,
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I do believe there was a meeting at Trump Tower with Don Jr., Steve Bannon, and other top officials of the Trump campaign “to get dirt on Hillary,” or so Don said. That’s a matter of public record. The Russian attorney they met with talked about the Magnitsky Act (lifting sanctions) and didn’t give them the dirt they hoped for.
Trump publicly asked the Russian government to find Hillary’s missing emails and the very next day Wikileaks began releasing emails hacked from John Podesta.
Trump publicly said that he sold apartments to Russians for $40 million, $50 million, so he likes Russians. What kind of Russians have that kind of money? Friends of Putin. That is, if you take the time to read about Russian politics, which I do.
Trump was compelled reluctantly to fire Mike Flynn as his National Security Advisor because of Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials.
The contact between the Trump campaign and Russians were numerous; I can’t remember another presidential campaign in my lifetime where the campaign was so involved with agents of a hostile foreign power.
Trump said during the campaign that he didn’t know any Russians, but that was not true, because he held the Miss Universe contest in Moscow and tried to meet Putin, who didn’t show.
Trump did not deny that he was trying to get permission from the Russian government to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the campaign, but he never told that to the public.
Other than you and Dienne, there is no question that the Russian government hacked into the election to help Trump.
Your insistence that none of this happened is bizarre. What it means I can’t say, but we can make a guess based on Trump’s deferential behavior towards Putin, his insistence on holding meetings with Putin without anyone from the White House or the State Department, only Putin’s interpreters. Very odd.
And then there was that meeting of heads of state, where Putin and MBS rushed to say hello to one another, shook hands happily and left Trump standing there like the idiot he is, ignored.
LikeLike
Not a single one of Mueller’s indictments had anything to do with collusion with the Russian state, which was the purpose of the investigation to begin with, along with more than two years of hysterical, contradictory and preposterous news reports.
Shall we remember a few? Well, there were the pee-pee tapes, and Cuban embassy death rays, and Putin using sex toys and Pokemon Go to “Sow Discord,” and pimply-faced Trump campaign volunteers with high school Model UN on their resumes as go-betweens with Russian intelligence operatives, and other low-level campaign officials being offered 20%, multi-billion dollar stakes in Rosneft…
After two years of investigation, and sainthood conferred by the McResistance, Mueller found no evidence of collusion with Russia, and your (and others) long lists of innuendo, conflations, mis-directions, deflections and non sequiturs does not change that.
In fact, it’s living proof of Mark Twain’s comment that it’s much easier to con people than to convince them they’ve been conned. That’s true of Trump die hards, and Russiagate Truthers, as well.
So, yeah, Trump is a lying sleaze. Do you think endlessly repeating that is going to unseat him? It didn’t do much for Hillary in 2016.
But the worst thing is that in the future, even credible accusations about things Trump actually has done are going to be viewed skeptically, if not rejected outright, by voters who are not part of Trump’s base, and that’s going to be a major part of his very plausible (if not likely) re-election next year.
The Gods of Irony are cruel, aren’t they, when the very thing that you convinced yourselves would magically rid you of that Orange Demon, is what helps keep him with us?
You can thank the bad faith of certain actors (Schiff, who actually read the Steele Report into the Congressional record, most certainly among them), and madness of crowds. Even ostensibly well-informed and educated crowds.
But I’ve come to expect the McResistance to prefer staying wrapped in its media echo chamber and cocoon of fear, loathing and moral self-congratulation, rather than actually fighting Trump and Trumpismo.
However, if you think about it, it might just explain why corporate media focused on Russiagate so disproportionately: they could pretend to be against Trump (while pushing the start of a new Cold War, getting liberals to feel snuggly with the FBI and spy agencies, rehabilitating the Neo Cons who lied us into Iraq, all while generating a lot of advertising and clicks), while distracting everyone from what Trump is actually doing.
So, congratulations, all you “The Walls Are Closing In” Russiagate Truthers: your imperviousness to facts that contradict/refute your disproved “thesis” (which is fundamentally based on the magical thinking that Russiagate = impeachment = reversion to that pre-election status quo we remember so fondly) may just help re-elect Hair Furor.
LikeLike
OK, I take it back. You’re a moron. Not even worth going over this. Did you even watch (and listen) to Rep. Schiff’s statement?
LikeLike
GregB
I am with you. I argue with morons all day. And I know one when I see one.
Nobody ever accused me of liking corporate Democrats. Llyod thought I should rot in hell for attacking Obama as viciously as I did and he never heard the worst things I said. He couldn’t if I put them online I would not be able to get on a plane again. Similarly Bill and Hill.
But the Nihilism of some on the left makes me yearn to debate on the Building Trades Facebook pages. At least most of them are proud of being Trumpanzees. The most infuriating are those that claim to be Bernie supporters and object to every position he stands for.
Repeat after me. The President of the United States is in the employ of the people of the United States. There is not an employee in the land who could have done what he did with a Competing Business. None of which may have risen to the level of prosecutable crimes. That employee would be terminated with a boot up his ass on the way out the door immediately. The Congress of the United States is our Human Resources department and if they can not get the job done it is up to the Boss to step in and toss them both out.
And you can add the actions after the election that had nothing to do with his clearly Treasonous behavior before the election. Actions that are clearly authoritarian abuses of the office.
LikeLike
If “Llyod” is Lloyd, the only human impersonator he wants “to rot in hell” is MAGA, Moscow’s Agent Governing America. This Lloyd has never said he wants someone to rot in hell except probably MAGA.
Besides, you don’t rot in Dante’s Inferno. The worst level of hell is freezing cold temperatures with half of your body stuck in ice. MAGA can’t rot down there if Dante is right.
LikeLike
Are you actually talking about Donald Trump when you wrote, “There is not an employee in the land who could have done what he did with a Competing Business.”
Trump inherited his wealth and his business from his father who then had to bail him out after more than one failure and that was when he father was still alive.
After Trump’s father died, he failed again and to make him go away, his siblings loaned (gave) him some of the money they inherited from their family.
Trump was bailed out by his father more than once.
Trump was bailed out by his siblings once.
Trump was bailed out with almost a billion dollars in corporate welfare.
Trump was bailed out through six bankruptcies that cost U.S. banks and business partners all over the world another billion dollars.
Trump has also bailed out by the Russians.
https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-1/
He owes hundreds of millions of dollars to China
He owes hundreds of millions of dollars to Deutsch Bank.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-still-owes-lenders-including-deutsche-bank-as-much-as-480-million-2018-05-16
And that is just the tip of the story of how Donald Trump lied and cheated every step of the way to hold on to his gold plated lifestyle.
“The Bottom Line
“Donald J. Trump has launched an empire, based largely on his name. Taking on large loans, Trump constructed many luxury hotels, apartments, and casinos, which have become iconic monuments to the excess and exuberance of the 1980s. However, Trump’s businesses have faced four (they missed two) bankruptcies throughout the years. The most recent one was in 2009 when Trump Entertainment Resorts was ravaged by the 2008 recession. Though he has faced near financial ruin and multiple business bankruptcies, Trump’s branded products and real estate licenses remain popular and have helped to land him on the Forbes 400 for several decades.”
https://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-rich/
WIthout the empire his father had build, Donald Trump would be nobody unless he was a mob boss running illegal betting parlors. One of the tricks to generate wealth is to use other people’s money and Trump has burned up a lot of cash that never belonged to him.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that Mueller was not aware of secret meeting(s) at a Trump Tower and other possible connections between Don Jr. and Russian officials. It’s very likely the possibility that Mueller decided not to choose them as the core of his investigation, due to the term of ‘collusion.’ It’s really difficult to prove whether a particular candidate knowingly worked with foreign government representative(s)– to deliberately tarnish the opponent’s electability, discourage particular voting blocs to show up at the poll, fix the election turnout, etc. I wouldn’t doubt that Russian hackers got involved in all of these behind the scene, since they were clearly reported in Mueller’s report. But that is not the same as Trump and/or his aides directly/indirectly asked them to do. All four Americans –Paul Manafort(fraud/forgery), Michael Cohen(lying to the FBI), George Papadopoulos(lying to the FBI), Roger Stone(false statements, witness tampering, etc), respectively,–were indicted on the ground different from election collusion.
While I still see Adam Schiff’s point legitimate and taken, I cannot tone down my criticism of him for joining in the chorus of promoting ‘conspiracy narrative’ through mainstream media such as CNN and MSNBC. There’s no doubt in my mind that he clearly involved in the latter, overemphasizing Trump-Russia election conspiracy, rather than looking into other important parts of his records that deem suspicious for any impeachable offense.
All I can say about Schiff and other Republican committee members is that they have their own points. But it doesn’t go further than that. At this point, I cannot see which side is more right than wrong.
LikeLike
This might end up more like the Chennault Affair than Watergate. LBJ knew it was happening (he was bugging the South Vietnamese embassy) but no one had the goods to connect it directly to Nixon until 2017, 49 years later.
LikeLike
Does everyone here realize that the same two people who kept screaming about Hillary Clinton being corrupt throughout 2016 — without offering evidence of one shred of any “illegal” actions she did — are now insisting that despite all the evidence of Trump’s corruption, he is cleared of “collusion” — a word dreamed up by right wing propagandists and perpetuated by the willing idiots that keep repeating it.
Trump didn’t “collude” — he just got lots of help from Russians after inviting them into Trump Tower for a meeting with top campaign officials after they offered to help him win an election by offering dirt on his opponent!
Trump didn’t “collude” — he just lied about the meeting his top campaign officials had with Russians offering to help his campaign.
Trump didn’t “collude” — he just “suggested” that the FBI stop investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia and fired the FBI director who didn’t follow his “suggestion.”
Funny, Hillary Clinton was cleared of “collusion”, too! So why did these exact same people defending Trump keep attacking her and insisting that having Trump as President could not be any worse than having the evil HRC.
Their hypocrisy is exactly the same hypocrisy of the far right wing Republicans. I don’t believe for a minute that any person who runs as a Democrat is going to be good enough for them.
It seems as if Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they’d insist that there was no “collusion” so it’s okay. But they sounded just like the Trump acolytes screaming “lock her up” whenever she who must not be named is mentioned.
Their hypocrisy is no longer funny — it is dangerous and is enabling. It is astonishing that to them, Trump is a joke (“orange haired”) and any of his tendencies toward pre-fasicm must never be criticized because “no collusion, just like their great leader says”.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse
Slow down. Of course, I was referring to Trump. Rot in hell was a Metaphor for the unflattering things you might have said as I attacked Obama and Clinton prior to the election. Both of whom I voted for.
The example of an employee. Was a comparison between Trump negotiating a personal Business deal with a hostile foreign power and behavior that no employer would tolerate from a mid-level employee. An employee who was negotiating with a hostile competitor for personal gain would be fired on the spot.
But thanks for the Trump history that I didn’t need. I am a
New Yorker well aware of-the sleazebag.
LikeLike
I voted for both Clintons and Obama because they were a glass half full instead of one that was empty and leaked.
LikeLike
If I left anything out about Trump’s dark side (I don’t think he has anything but a dark side), please let me know so the next time I share that info with someone, the list will be longer. Thanks.
LikeLike
In hindsight, the left made a huge strategic error. They went full tilt to protect Mueller’s work. The GOP/DINO’s may have set up the moves that provoked the drive to defend. The outcome has been devastating.
As lawyers say, never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to. Without knowing the content of Mueller’s report, protecting it was poorly conceived.
Mueller’s sealed indictments …what’s in them or, did they even exist?
Anything come out of the NRA’s involvement in Trump’s election? Or, was the sum total of that, a red (or other colors) haired, Russian honey pot?
LikeLike
Linda,
I agree with this comment about how Trump’s Attorney General is desperately trying to protect Trump and hide the damaging information in the Mueller report. You are absolutely correct that the Republicans are terrified of anyone reading about all the contacts that the Trump campaign had with Russia and the effort the Trump made to obstruct justice to protect himself and the corruption that was throughout his campaign.
Thank you for pointing that out. You are absolutely correct that “the left” was naive to believe that a Republican Attorney General would not be so corrupt to put his party over the rule of law. We didn’t realize how deep the rot and corruption of the Republican party is.
But you always seemed to know! Thank you! Next time we will believe you that the Republican party rot and corruption is deeper than anyone ever suspected.
LikeLike
What is maddening is all of the clues that were there and spun differently. (1) Mueller’s recommended light sentences were spun as rewards for really damaging info. (2) The spin- Mueller’s report takes down Trump and sealed indictments that Barr won’t be able to rescind protect Mueller’s work. (3) And now, to keep the play in action, the SDNY court, is where justice will prevail.
Bad consequences are only for the 99%.
LikeLike
Advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome (ATDS): a mass social disorder and form of collective hysteria, found primarily among specific demographics (white, urban, upper middle class) in or near coastal cities of the United States, which has affected certain parts of the US electorate since the fall of 2016.
Symptoms of ATDS include fear, panic and easily-manipulated paranoia, irrational and contradictory accusations, ad hominem attacks on those who depart from orthodox beliefs, refusal and/or inability to deal with facts that contradict those accusations, moving the goalposts when ones opinions are disproved, erroneous and fallacious use of argumentation, susceptibility to propaganda and magical thinking.
While no general treatment for this condition has yet been developed, it is thought that avoidance of mainstream mass media, the reading of history and adherence to the basic rules of logic and evidence can be helpful.
“… they (people) lose their minds in herds, and only regain their senses one by one.” Charles Mackay, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”
Dmitri requests that I urge you all to have a nice weekend.
Likewise, Hair Furor and his minions ask that you keep going with the Russiagate Trutherism, since they find it most helpful.
They additionally ask that you try taking your hysteria and moral sanctimony outside of the Acela Corridor, and see how well it plays…
LikeLike
Michael,
I await the day when you become outraged by Trump’s assaults on civil rights, the rule of law, the environment, and the integrity of government. I haven’t lost hope that it might happen.
LikeLike
I am outraged by those very same things, Diane.
Where we differ is that I disagree that holding fast to discredited conspiracy theories is an effective way to oppose him, and that in fact he is helped by an opposition that insists on doubling down on them.
LikeLike
Diane, i think we’ve probably taken this as far as we can for the time being (and this is not the first time we’ve gone at it with this topic), but that does not detract from my respect for your publishing my comments – more than can be said for the NY Times and others – and maintaining an open forum.
Needless to say, you will always have my admiration and gratitude for what you’ve done to change the terms of debate regarding education.
LikeLike
“Where we differ is that I disagree that holding fast to discredited conspiracy theories is an effective way to oppose him…”
Please show me anywhere, any time that I have held “fast to discredited conspiracy theories” or where Rep. Schiff did so in his statement. You infer arguments onto others that they don’t even make. That’s I posit you are a moron or, to be charitable, disingenuous and just looking for a fight to justify a “I told you so” false argument. I repeat, Individual-1 conducted a con on his minions to enrich himself with their support. He just never believed he’d be elected. There is no question whatsoever that he curried favor with Russians in that quest. And he’s done all that he can hide or obfuscate that information from the public.
LikeLike
My paranoid speculation- the build-ups to the big reveals- the events that will topple the GOP- are intentionally constructed so that the public will lose hope. Trump mockingly asked- how’s that hope working for you.
We could fill Carnegie Hall with promises of comeuppance. Remember Erik Prince and the Seychelles meeting? The Lori Laughlin daughters, not booted from USC. (One of them was on a trustee’s yacht at the time the indictments came down.)
Colonialism thrives in hopelessness.
Diane deserves all of the respect in the world. Nothing deters nor distracts her from building an alternative to oligarchy.
LikeLike
In his heart, Trump wants to be a lawless, autocratic thug like Putin. This is collusion, and it should terrify us. Trump is on Team Tyrant, not Team Democracy. The Left, weaned on America bashing, cannot wrap its mind around the notion that most governments are far worse than our own. Old habits die hard.
LikeLike
A fair share of governments in 3rd world nations are worse than the U.S. The U.S. was better before Gates staffed the Department of Ed with his people, before the fossil fuel industry’s people staffed the Dept. of Energy, military contractors and those from the defense industry staffed the Dept. off Defense, Wall Streeters staffers the Dept. of Treasury, etc.
In sum total, America had a government similar to a developed nation before the Koch’s and Murdoch took over.
LikeLike
I think Angela Merkel is also a fan of this speech. Check out look in her eye:
https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/barack-obama-besucht-merkel-so-wohnt-der-ex-praesident-heute-in-berlin-61064786.bild.html
LikeLike
We have a dual political system with two bars for ethical behavior set at different levels.
The bar for Democrats is set so low, there is only one inch between the rough spiked concrete and the bar. Unless you are thinner than one inch, there is no way to go under it without getting stuck and cut to ribbons. The slightest accusations and allegations of wrongdoing without any trial or proof is all it takes to be found guilty and end up ruined.
The bar for Republicans is set higher than the top of Mt. Everest and any corrupt member of the GOP can walk under that bar without any worry that even the hair on top of their heads will come anywhere close to the bar.
When the media crucifies a Democrat with unproven allegations, that is NOT fake news
When the media reveals verifiable facts with solid evidence that a member of the GOP has done something wrong, that is all FAKE news.
LikeLike
One by one, the Democratic candidates are being destroyed by rumor and innuendo, all to protect the worst, most immoral, most unethical, stupidest president in history. I no longer capitalize the word “president” because it is dishonored by the one who holds the title
LikeLike
One of the upsides of public ignorance is that much of this slime is not registering with many voters. As I found in my 2018 campaign work, many people never listen to the news. If the Dems mobilize an army of volunteers for the next election, they can bypass the media with direct in-person communication about the candidates. This is very potent. Teachers, I urge you to go out and teach the public in 2020.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
Your description is spot on. And the people who insist on those two bars being set at totally different levels are untrustworthy and they often post on here pretending not to be rabid Trump enablers when that is exactly what they are.
They can hear what Adam Schiff said and repeat “no collusion!” because of course, if there isn’t “collusion” (whatever that is) it doesn’t matter what corrupt actions Trump did.
But all during 2016 they absolutely insisted that HRC was corrupt because she listened to Colin Powell’s advice on what he did for e-mails.
Pure hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Meanwhile Ivanka and Jared—those two brilliant foreign policy experts—conduct high-level government business on their private cell phone and Instagram.
Lock them up.
LikeLike
Look at the hypocrisy of those who spent all of 2016 posting on this blog that Trump was no worse than the evil corrupt Democrat.
Lloyd was spot on that they have one standard for those supposedly evil and corrupt Democrats and another for “if you can’t prove collusion they are innocent!” Republicans.
So they attack Adam Schiff because no one may criticize any of Trump’s actions because “no collusion”.
And they attacked HRC even though they never had one shred of evidence to support their non-stop lying that having Trump would absolutely positively not be any worse than having a Democrat. They have yet to acknowledge they were wrong.
In fact, I believe all this rabid defense of Trump and their truly ugly attacks on anyone who dares mention the outrageously corrupt behavior in the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia is because they don’t want to admit they were wrong.
Maybe if they held themselves to the standard they keep insisting everyone who posts on here meet when it comes to criticizing Trump. I’d believe they were something other than far right wing trolls. If they aren’t far right trolls, they are certainly doing a brilliant imitation of them.
I wish they would tell us whether they acknowledge they were wrong about Trump being no worse than having a Democrat. Because if they are STILL insisting that they were absolutely right about that, then you know that every comment they make is in service to not ever wanting to admit they made a mistake.
Anyone who still says we are no worse off because Trump defeated HRC is not to be trusted. They sound exactly like the people at Trump rallies yelling “lock her up” and enabling his fascist tendencies.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
Look at that we agree!
LikeLike
We have a president who uses and abuses his office to enrich himself and his family. He has no empathy. He’s cruel and crass. He lies. He admits to abusing women. He degrades people who have served their country. He attacks citizens of this country on Twitter. He is completely devoid of any morality. He foments division. He cheats. He turns his back on our allies. He condones the behavior of autocrats. Every day he leads us down the road to fascism. He is a despot. Even if he never spoke to a Russian in his life, do these qualities make him fit to be president? Just imagine if he were your son. Would you be proud of him? Would you be proud to call him your own? The immorality and corruption we are allowing to happen in this country in our political officials is frightening. I’m not saying we’ve never had corruption but we’ve never seen the OVERT destruction of our institutions from the inside. Wow. Is this really what we want? I’m beginning to believe that the only way people will wake up is when their rights are taken away, when they have no job, when they feel the full force of a cruel, inhumane and despotic government in their own lives. We’re on the road. Only then will revolution come, and it won’t be pretty.
LikeLike
Agreed to everything you said, Mamie. Thank you!!!
LikeLike
It took me awhile to press the “Post comment” button on this one.
I’m in complete agreement with everything negative that’s been said here about Donald Trump. For me, this is a, “You ain’t got nuttin’ on me, copper. I’m clean! See..?” If I’ve ever seen one.
He’s a crook.
But I think you’re missing Michael Fiorillo‘s point. Possibly because he’s being a little forceful about it? What Michael is saying is that staying on the “collusion” point, politically, might very well bring even more voters to Trumps’ side in the next election. And it weakens the resistance to the so many other terrible actions perpetuated during his tenure.
I know people who, having sat on the fence, are now done with this investigation. And every time it’s brought up again they start rolling their eyes. Although it does matter whether they’re right or wrong, the general public perception is what’s MOST important, in this horrible scenario, imho.
I agree with every word of Mr Schiffs’ speech. But I’m terribly concerned about the voting publics’ reaction to Democrats sticking to the Russia connection. A lot of swing voters see that as water under the bridge and a win for Trump. The more it’s brought up the more they’ll think that they can’t trust the Democrats. And we just cannot let Donald Trump serve another term.
Sorry to anyone who thinks I’m a Trump apologist. Nothing could be further from the truth. He’s terrible. I’m from New York City and I know a lot about Mr. Trump. Now it’s just magnified 1000 fold. I just want to be smart about this next election.
And I’m totally in agreement about the margin for error between Republicans and Democrats. It just seems that the Republicans are more pragmatic. That’s how they get away with so much more.
LikeLike
No one except far right propagandists and the faux progressives who rabidly smear democrats based on far less evidence than Mueller had on Trump use the word “collusion”. The Russians were helping elect Trump and the Trump campaign knew it and didn’t report it. And then Trump lied about having any contacts with Russia. And he obstructed justice – including firing Comey for not listening to his “suggestion” to stop investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia.
Yours and the far right’s propaganda line about “no collusion” is simply a means to distract from that truth that Schiff talks about. Schiff never mentioned “collusion”. Trump enablers always do.
No one talks about collusion but Trump and his enablers – the very same people who insisted that Trump was no worse than HRC. Given that they seem to still believe that, their opinions should be of value only to rabid Trump apologists who agree with them.
LikeLike
“Yours and the far right’s propaganda line about “no collusion” is simply a means to distract from that truth that Schiff talks about.”
The propaganda line is not “mine”. I’m in agreement with you. If you don’t see or won’t hear that, then more’s the pity. You’re alienating an ally.
I’m talking specifically about public perception (not mine) and how it might effect the next presidential election. And that public perception is fed largely (and effectively) by the propaganda machine that you’re rightfully railing against. Not by yours truly, thank you very much.
LikeLike
The public does NOT believe that the Mueller report completely exonorated Trump as polls have shown. Most Americans heard what Schiff said and felt the same way.
Do you believe that Trump was no worse than HRC? And do you still believe it? Because these attacks on reasonable people like Adam Schiff and Diane Ravitch come from the people who have never admitted they were wrong about Trump being no worse than HRC.
That should tell you something about how much they care about facts and evidence.
LikeLike
Forget it, gitapik, you can’t argue with True Believers, especially ones who’ve never shown an interest in honest debate.
So, good luck, Russiagate Truthers: I hope your outrage and moral vanity help get you through Trump’s second term, which your ATDS and doubling down on discredited conspiracy theories are helping to bring about.
And since you’re likely to blame the likes of me (and no doubt Bernie Sanders, too), for Trump’s reelection, let me help you by stating unequivocally that I, Michael Fiorillo – Russian Dupe/Bot/Apologist//Putin Fan Boi/Witch – hereby preemptively accepts responsiblity for Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020.
There: now find an effigy to stick pins in, and feel free to add me to your daily TrumpHate/Liberal Virtue Affirmation rituals. Conducting those rituals right before Rachel Maddow goes on the air works best.
Yeah, that’ll cure the ill’in…
A final piece of advice: in the future, as we find ourselves in the miasma of Trump’s second term, you might want to consider that fear and loathing (to say nothing of self-delusion and magical thinking) are poor counselors.
LikeLike
Michael, I don’t think gitapik shares your view. gitapik is offering his opinion that the public is getting tired of hearing about Mueller. gitapik is not telling people who believe that the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia and his actions to cover it up are no different from “truthers” who say Obama’s birth certificate is fake.
Everyone please notice that Michael Fiorillo still did not acknowledge that he was wrong to believe that Donald Trump is no worse than HRC would have been.
So remember this ugly and nasty attack on us.
Michael has warned us.
It is okay to post that the DNC conspired with HRC to rig the entire 2016 democratic primary. It is okay to say that that HRC was the most corrupt and dishonest and dangerous democrat who was absolutely positively no better than having Trump in office. It is okay to post that the DNC will be rigging the primary again in 2020.
But it is not okay to praise a speech like the one Adam Schiff made or think it is great.
It is not okay to be concerned about the Trump campaign’s many contacts with representatives from Russia, including inviting Russians offering dirt to a meeting with the very top campaign officials. It is not okay to be concerned after Trump “suggests” to his FBI director that he stop investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia and then fires him because he won’t listen to his “suggestion”. It is not okay to point out that Trump lied throughout the campaign about his contacts with Russia and went so far as to draft a lie for his son to tell about that meeting in Trump Tower. It is not okay to be concerned that Trump’s Attorney General allowed Trump to claim the report “exonerated” him and that the Attorney General won’t let any Democrat see the report even if they have top security clearances.
Because if we express concern the way Adam Schiff did, Michael has warned us he will mischaracterize our concern and imply we are all deranged people who believe Trump and Putin personally conspired to hatch out this plan to take over the Presidency, and Michael will mischaracterize our concern and imply we are deranged people who just won’t stop talking about that pee pee tape and “collusion” (even thought the only people who keep mentioning “collusion” are Trump, his rabid fans, and people like Michael who believe Trump is no worse than the Democrats)
Remember, this is the man whose attacks and smears of the DNC and HRC are far more “deranged” than anything that Adam Schiff said in his very temperate speech pointing out all that is wrong with Trump.
Michael, in this entire rant, you did not once acknowledge you were wrong about Trump being no worse than HRC.
I truly believe that you have some kind of psychological need to defend Trump that is directly connected to your inability to acknowledge that you were wrong in in 2016 when you kept posting that Trump’s election would be no worse for this country than HRC’s would have been. You have some weird need to believe your derangement about HRC was correct because Trump isn’t as bad as we all know he is.
If you didn’t have that need, then you could simply say “I was wrong, Trump is worse than I thought and it would have been better to have two Supreme Court Justices who were not Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, not to mention the federal courts packed with far right judges.”
And I happen to think it is cowardly of you to make these vicious attacks on people here without making it clear that YOU — not the public but YOU — still believe that Trump is no worse than HRC would have been.
I made a mistake in 1980 when I voted for John Anderson and talked about Jimmy Carter with the same irrational hatred that you talked about HRC because I just knew that Reagan was no worse than the corrupt, awful, dishonest Jimmy Carter.
I came to see that I was wrong. I made a mistake. When you are able to acknowledge your mistake in 2016, your posts on here will probably be more relevant. I think you have many good points to make about education and politics. But your psychological need to avoid admitting you made a mistake makes all your vicious attacks on Trump critics ring hollow and deranged.
Trump can’t ever admit his mistakes and that is part of his illness and part of his insecurity. Instead, he just attacks and attacks. You should be better than that.
LikeLike
My point, Michael, is that my point is not of much value to those who are entrenched in their beliefs (or who wish not to HAVE any beliefs).
Personally, I think he’s guilty as sin. It’s just that he’s sly. He knows how to maneuver. Decades of practice at it have made him a master. It might be clear as day to many of us…but there are so many who have been fooled.
It’s the general public perception that matters, ime. I’d like to believe what NYC public school parent is saying about how the majority of the public believes in what Schiff is saying. I know I do. I will happily say I was wrong if something groundbreaking comes out that was purposely hidden. But I’m leery of public opinion polls. Right and left.
The alarms started going off in my world when right leaning and centrist co-workers and others I’ve spoken with showed relief in what they thought (and/or WANTED to think) was the “definitive answer” from Barr. And then derision or exasperation when the issue would be brought up again.
I can’t blame anyone for being upset about this state of affairs. I am very upset. I just wish we’d stop fighting each other. Divided we fall. It’s one of the areas where Republicans seem to have the upper hand in a realistic sense: they stick together. Even with this aberration of a president, they’re still not breaking ranks.
LikeLike
gitapik,
Can you really read Michael’s post — in which he calls Diane Ravitch and others here “Russia truthers” and writes that we keep “doubling down on discredited conspiracy theories” and believe he has any interest in a reasonable discussion like the one you want to have?
Until you recognize that everything Michael posts is about holding on to his belief that he was absolutely correct that Trump was absolutely, positively no worse than the Democratic candidate in 2016, your attempt to reason with him will go nowhere.
It really doesn’t matter when you are dealing with people like him. No matter what we say, he will post in 2020 that Trump is no worse than the “deranged” Democrats who believe in “conspiracy theories” and are “Russia truthers”. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is and I have no faith that even Bernie would suddenly not meet their standards. They just want to destroy and have no interest in reasonable debate. What kind of person claims that Diane Ravitch and the people here who thought Schiff’s speech was very good are “doubling down on discredited conspiracy theories”? Michael is not being truthful and that should tell you a lot about whether it makes any sense to appeal to people like him.
If the Democrats need to please people like Michael in order to win, then our country is about to fall apart.
If we need to please the people who are still insisting that having these 4 years of Trump is absolutely no worse than having an “evil corrupt” Democrat, then the Democrats are either going to lose or win by legitimizing people like Michael who should be marginalized and not legitimized.
The polls show that the majority of Americans did not believe the Mueller report exonerated Trump like Trump claimed it did and like Barr tried very hard to imply with his letter. They want the report released. And it won’t be released if people like Michael keep saying to Americans “shut up about the Mueller report you conspiracy theorists” and we are stupid enough to listen to him.
I think Michael is one of the minority of Americans – which includes the most racist right wing Americans – who believes Trump when he says he was totally exonerated by Mueller.
In 1980, I voted for John Anderson because I believed Reagan was no worse than the evil Jimmy Carter. If it was 1983 and I spent all my time attacking Democratic critics of Ronald Reagan and insisting that Reagan was no worse than the evil and corrupt Jimmy Carter and the rest of the Democrats and all criticisms of Reagan were “conspiracy theories” then you would know that I still believed I was right to make sure that Carter was defeated because of my certainty that Reagan was no worse.
If it was 1983 and every single time a Democrat criticized Reagan I felt the need to chime in and say “shut up about Reagan let’s talk about how the corrupt Jimmy Carter and the Democrats are so awful” then you’d know that I was not to be reasoned with.
If I constantly attacked anyone who dared to criticize Reagan as a “conspiracy theorist” and “truther” and kept telling them to shut up, you would absolutely know that I was not to be reasoned with.
Basically, Michael doesn’t have a problem with offering conspiracy theory attacks on Democrats. He is fine with them. But he isn’t fine with legitimate criticism of Trump, which he mischaracterizes as “conspiracy theories”. How is that any different than the rabid Trump supporters? It isn’t. Michael is spewing right wing propaganda.
LikeLike
gitapik,
“So, you’d give the Devil benefit of law?”
“Yes, and what would you do, cut a giant road through the law to get the Devil?”
“I’d cut down every law in England to get the Devil.”
“Oh, and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the land all being flat?… Yes, I’d give the Devil Benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
That’s some dialogue from Robert Bolt’s famous play about Sir Robert More, “A Man For All Seasons.” I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.
You say Trump is guilty. And so he is.
But of what, exactly? Treason and collusion with Russia? Apparently not, at least according to the man who just a few weeks ago was literally beatified by a mainstream media that spent over two years throwing every professional journalistic practice out the window. Because Trump.
And don’t forget, the charge of collusion – treason, really – was the wellspring for all the accusations (many of them little more than ravings) that have followed, and literally none of which have been documented to the public.
Of all the people on this thread, you seem to be among the few who at least grasps the inexcusably bad politics that follow from the dangerous and reckless accusations this fixation with Russia entails.
Sure, consumed without any context, the things Schiff said are true. But those words came from a man who as recently as two weeks ago was saying that he had evidence of collusion, and is one of the most egregious Russiagate grifters.
The way to overturn the 2016 election is to have a Democratic Party that offers something other than “We’re not Trump!” Things like universal concrete material benefits (which Russiagat is a distraction from) particularly for the working class; grasping at discredited “Russia did it” narratives gets Trump re-elected.
LikeLike
I remember the posts here during the primaries followed by the elections. I voted for Bernie. I disagreed with the Hillary bashers (and voted for her) but was angered by the DNC’s maneuvering.
I also remember Anderson subverting Carter (knowingly or not), the only president in our history to not involve us in or perpetuate a war. I have friends who voted for Anderson. I was disappointed but never expected an apology. They voted as they thought best.
I’m interested in communicating. Try to stay away from being “right”. Sometimes we have to get past the delivery in order to get the message. Whether Michael rubs you the wrong way or not ( and I’ve disagreed with him in the past), I have to say that I agree with this:
The Democratic Party needs to develop and communicate a tangible platform that will help the working and middle class. In all areas of the country. That’s what needs to be front and center. It’s not good enough to point fingers at this point. If there’s a way to expose wrong doing on the part of Trump and Co, lets let it happen methodically, quietly, and in the background. Time enough to come back to it later when it could be more effectively employed in a fully developed format. For now it’s about showing the public that they can be much better, being served under a new administration.
LikeLike
This is a long post so I’ll say one thing that I hope people will read. AOC. Think about how AOC talks about the Democrats. Think about how AOC has disagreements with them. But think about how AOC sounds nothing like Michael nor does she attack Schiff with ugly and dishonest words like “Russiagate grifter”. Neither did Bernie. There is something unhinged about Michael now and how he sounds exactly like far right internet trolls defending Trump and attacking Trump critics. Michael looks to tear down Democrats and undermine them with lies and dishonesty. AOC looks to make the Democrats better.
I voted for Bernie in the primary, too. But HRC was offering one of the most comprehensive programs to help the working and middle class of any Democrat in the general election in the last 20 years. One thing that I found most awful is that the “deplorables” comment — which was hugely taken out of context — was part of a longer statement in which HRC specifically pointed out that there were people who were NOT drawn to Trump’s xenophobic and racist call-outs but instead had been left behind by the democrats. Her policies were offering something to them. You should read the entire speech someday because she made a great point.
Obama didn’t offer policies. Trump didn’t offer policies. George W. Bush didn’t offer policies. And yet they won. Dukakis did and he lost. Al Gore did and he lost. HRC did and she lost. They lost because they were dishonestly mischaracterized with lies the way Michael Fiorillo just mischaracterized Adam Schiff. You’d think Schiff was evil the way Michael is filled with hatred toward him. That is not normal. Neither is Michael’s hatred of the DNC and the unhinged claim that the entire primary was “rigged”. If you and Michael cannot acknowledge that Bernie Sanders lost because African-American voters in the southern states preferred Hillary, then your racism is showing. Sanders spent so much time appealing to white working class voters and his supporters spent so much time claiming that talking about the racism that African-Americans experience is “identity politics”. Easy to say when you are white. Easy to say when you don’t really care if Trump wins because his racism and xenophobia is something to laugh at instead of having your children terrified of. African-American voters in southern states preferred HRC and she won them and a few (not most) angry white Bernie Sanders supporters threw a tantrum and chose to join Trump in mischaracterizing HRC as one of the most evil and corrupt candidates in history. Remember, she was no better than Trump. They STILL believe it.
When I voted for Anderson I was filled with anger at the Democrats as well. But once Reagan started on his destruction of the great society programs, I could see what Reagan did and I got it. Michael doesn’t get it. He is still defending Trump beyond all reason. He is still attacking Democrats beyond all reason. That is not what people who understand the danger of Trump do. They might have a conversation the way you do. They would sound like AOC.
They do NOT smear the Democrats with lies. And that is Michael’s modus operandi. He smears Schiff and HRC and the entire DNC with some of the ugliest lies and he has the chutzpah to attack if anyone even mentions all the corrupt things about Trump. Think about it.
Michael called Adam Schiff “one of the most egregious Russiagate grifters.” Michael and those like him who defend Trump reserve words like “grifter” for Democrats. They attack the character of Democrats — they are corrupt, they rig primaries, they are grifters. Michael has completely mischaracterized what Diane Ravitch and others have said about Trump. Meanwhile he asks what Trump is guilty of and notice he only posts what Trump is NOT guilty of. Michael can’t bear to actually mention all the other things in Schiff’s speech that Trump did do — only what Trump is supposedly not guilty of. (I notice Michael conveniently left out obstruction of justice). I suggest you ask Michael to come up with a list of things that Trump is guilty of or that are corrupt that he did. I would bet money that Michael will take a pass on that since he is too busy bashing the character and honesty of Democrats.
I challenge the lie that the Democrats are ONLY attacking Trump. How dare any push the outright falsehood that the Democrats running in the primary — whether you like them or hate them — are only criticizing Trump and offering no policies. So why is Michael claiming they are? Schiff’s speech was made by a Democratic Congressman whose DUTY it is to provide oversight so that Trump’s corruption doesn’t destroy our democracy.
Schiff isn’t running for President. He is doing his duty and Schiff doing his duty unhinges Michael. There is only one reason. Because any belief that Trump is just as bad as everyone knew he is cannot be said. Not even by a Congressman who isn’t running for President whose job it is to provide oversight.
Remember, Diane Ravitch is not “FIXATED” on Russia as Michael dishonestly insists. She believes that the wrongdoing that the Trump campaign did and Trump’s obstruction of justice to cover it up is worth discussing in one post and Michael becomes unhinged. Think about it.
Michael has mischaracterized Diane and Schiff and other people who express concern about the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia just like he mischaracterized HRC and mischaracterized a slew of Democrats.
I read his post above and I mourn that you think he can be reasoned with. His rants sound exactly like Devin Nunes and the worst right wing Republicans. He expresses no concern at all about Trump’s dealings with Russia because the Mueller report apparently cleared him of everything!
When someone spends all his time attacking critics of Trump with mischaracterizations of what they are saying, and absolutely refuses to say anything bad about Trump but defends his actions and claims that Mueller completely exonerated him, then he is no different than a right wing troll. And I have never seen a right wing troll who can have a serious discussion of issues. Have you?
AOC. She is the future. She is wiser than older folks who may share some of her beliefs. And she has never sounded like Michael.
LikeLike
NYC- I agree with the majority of what you wrote.
I’ll isolate the piece I disagree with.
Describing Bernie supporters as “throwing a tantrum” is a biased statement. Young people, usually Democratic, are notorious for not voting. They rallied behind Bernie. I doubt they thought Hillary was vile. They thought she was the same old, same old and, it wasn’t compelling enough to lead them to vote. I hope they know they were wrong.
Please consider assigning blame for HRC’s loss to the Center for American Progress. They told Democrats, a significant number who are fair weather voters, that Hillary was going to win, so Dems stayed home (including Black voters). The campaign featured an “independent” billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, at the convention. Campaign staffers acknowledged the goal was the GOP cross-over voters to replace traditional Democrat-leaning segments.
LikeLike
Robby Mook is the poster child for neoliberalism- campaign manager for Hillary and Howard Dean (school privatizer). The Harvard Institute of Politics and Harvard Kennedy School picked him up after
the sputter of the talking circuit rounds that he and Lewindowski supposedly had planned.
Selecting the son of two venture capitalists, a guy who went to the most expensive school in Cincinnati and who got his job in DC. as a political reward from Obama wasn’t the best choice to run the HRC campaign in an economically depressed state of blue collar workers.
Establishment Dems are not going to change. Neera Tanden still runs CAP. Palmieri wrote a book. Podesta, interviewed recently, appeared blasé about the Mueller conclusions.
No consequences for the well-connected. Bill and Hillary are starting their talking tour, soon.
BTW- trotting out the wife of a Wall Streeter, the poor performing Chelsea Clinton, to attract the vote of young people was ill advised.
LikeLike
I agree with the points made above. However, all that simply made HRC a more (some would say only very slightly more) progressive version of Barack Obama. Her platform was far more progressive than the one Obama offered. People just believed she was a corrupt liar and voted for the party whose policies were the most anti-worker and anti-middle class in recent history.
So why the kind of posts we saw on here in 2016 about how evil and corrupt HRC was — no better than Trump! — from Michael and others that – coincidentally I’m sure — just happen to mirror almost exactly the kind of totally false characterization of HRC as some kind of over the top corrupt person?
Why turn on Adam Schiff? Why lie and pretend that Diane Ravitch or any of the 20 or so democratic candidates who want to run in the primary have been nothing but talking about Trump and have not been offering any plans? Of course they have.
HRC did a lot more than talk about Trump. She offered a more comprehensive — and progressive! — platform than any Democrat who has run in the general election since LBJ. It didn’t matter because the only thing people remembered was that she was corrupt, just like Michael says so many Democrats like Adam Schiff are.
Michael referred to Schiff as “egregious Russiagate grifters” — are you kidding me? If you all ENABLE people like Michael by taking then seriously the way the media did during the 2016 campaign, then the Democrats will lose. Period. And anyone who insists the democrats were or are not offering ideas or talking only about Trump is simply repeating the propaganda the right gets the left to repeat.
HRC offered ideas. They got lost in all the undermining and attacks from Trump and and progressives like Michael whose echoing of every right wing anti-Hillary meme gave it credibility it didn’t deserve.
There is nothing honest in how Michael talks. It is nasty and dishonest and the only reason I can imagine for him to do that is that deep down all he wants to do is destroy the Democrats. Don’t believe me? Look at how AOC won’t repeat it. Look at how AOC talks. She doesn’t want to destroy. She wants to make them better.
AOC doesn’t blame CAP or Robby Mook or Chelsea because they aren’t to blame. The fact that every exit poll showed that HRC was considered to be just as corrupt as Trump is what put Trump over the line in electoral college votes. Just like people thought Al Gore and John Kerry were liars and Dukakis was a terrible robot.
Obama offered nothing like different but he won twice because the public did not believe he was corrupt the way they were convinced by propaganda that Al Gore and Kerry and HRC were. Think about it.
We can offer the detailed ideas of Elizabeth Warren and she won’t win if voters are convinced that she is a liar who only got ahead by lying about here Native American background. Is it her fault? I’m sure Michael would be happy to join in blaming her for her corruption and saying all she does it attack Trump who just is so innocent.
In short, elections are about one thing: CHARACTER.
And the far right attacks every Democrat’s character, and they have already started on AOC. You think if the moderate Dems were helping the far right the way Michael helps the far right that AOC could survive? The mainstream media writing article after article where “even the Democrats know how xxxxxx and awful AOC is”???
CHARACTER. The Republicans only win when angry Democrats do their dirty work by attacking the party’s nominee on their character. Just like Michael does. Not on issues. On character.
HRC’s supporters didn’t join in when the right wing propaganda started attacking Obama’s character. That’s why those attacks had no power.
LikeLike
NYC PSP,
The lesson here is that a very large proportion of voters don’t vote issues. They vote values and emotions. Guns, gays, and abortion. There is a segment of voters who vote racist and xenophobic. There are some who believe anything as long as the candidate is anti-abortion. We have forgotten how deep racism and hatred are embedded in our society.
LikeLike
“They vote values and emotions”.
My take exactly.
And as such, they’re easy prey for the propaganda machine, which is so well tooled.
We can’t change that. What we can do is increase public awareness and get more people out to vote. Similar to what Bernie did.
And to make any of that work, of course, our candidates need to make realistic proposals that will benefit and make sense to the voters.
LikeLike
It has always puzzled me why people vote against their pocketbook. They elect politicians in their state (and Trump) who want to cut their benefits. They apparently think that’s fine so long as they pledge to put down and exclude the Other.
LikeLike
“They apparently think that’s fine so long as they pledge to put down and exclude the Other.”
I think that’s a huge part of it.
Create and perpetuate the perception a “common enemy” that’s eroding the American way of life. “The Welfare State”. “Lazy union teachers”. “Illegal Aliens”. The list goes on and on. Anything to distract from the reality of the situation.
Then create the illusion of “renewed prosperity” once that/those anti-American value villains are eradicated.
Put those weapons into the hands of a first rate PR firm and a successful television personality with little to no scruples and you’re off to the races.
LikeLike
To those with this mindset, the enemy will never be eradicated. There will always be Others.
LikeLike
NYC-
No disagreement with your points.
Adding, a successful campaign counters the opposition. Available campaign cash was not an issue in the race.
Facing formidable, no ethics, opposition is either surmountable or, its not.
Buttieg has good oratorical skills as does Bernie. At this stage of the game I think either of them could beat Trump. CAP will never embrace Bernie. If they steer Buttieg’s advancement, I expect a ton of unforced errors and little success in 2020.
I know you disagree but, if Bernie hadn’t been in the picture in 2016, IMO, Hillary would have lost by more votes than she did.
LikeLike
Biden is most certainly a corporate centrist Democrat.
LikeLike
“Biden is most certainly a corporate centrist Democrat.”
As are the Clintons. And Obama. And…well…a whole LOT of our Democratic reps.
It was a strategic step by the party after Bush Senior was elected following two terms of right wing Reagonomics. Democrats felt the need to move more towards the center in order to win the next election and it was a successful maneuver. Bill Clinton went on to serve two terms.
And we have stayed with that philosophy ever since. And as has been said; it’s highly doubtful that the DNC wants anything to change in that regard.
As much as I hate to admit it, I’m don’t think this country is going to be moving significantly back towards the left anytime soon. With so much money concentrated in the hands of so few, the deck is stacked against us. But how I would LOVE to be proved wrong on that one.
LikeLike
I agree with all the points here. However, Linda, I’m not blaming Bernie. I’m glad he ran. I’m blaming those few disaffected Bernie* voters who were aiding and abetting the far right when they used the kind of outright lies and character smears against HRC that we just saw Michael Fiorelli use against Adam Schiff. (*It’s possible I’m wrong and they just pretend to be Bernie voters to give themselves more credibility when they would have eventually turned on him, too had he won the primary).
Michael claims he has to use lies and smears against Adam Schiff and call Democrats “egregious Russiagate grifters” to help defeat Trump. That’s as honest as any of his other over the top attacks.
My warning is this — if Michael Fiorelli and others like him are allowed to continue to use dishonest, lying, outrageously nasty character attacks on Democrats and we do not marginalize them in the same way we marginalize Alex Jones and the racists at the Charlottesville rally, then Trump will win.
Those who smear Democrats like Schiff with out and out lies and ugly attacks are not trying to defeat Trump. Their only goal is to tear down the Democratic party and just like in 2016, they are so filled with deranged hatred against the Democrats and so certain of their self-righteousness in making sure anyone but the Democrats win — even if it is Trump – and they will say and do anything to make that happen. that’s why they sound so different than AOC who often disagrees and criticizes Dems but doesn’t spew lies and character attacks.
We need to marginalize people like Michael, not take them seriously. Thinking that someone filled with such irrational hatred will ever be satisfied is like thinking if you just appear on the Rush Limbaugh show you can convince he and his audience about how wrong their views are.
Marginalize them. People who intentionally deceive (hey, didn’t you know Mueller completely cleared Trump of any wrongdoing and didn’t you know that the Democrats are the ones who say “collusion” all the time and didn’t you know the DNC “rigged” the entire primary and plans to do it again in 2020 and didn’t you know Adam Schiff is a grifter?) do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Taking them seriously is what the media did in 2016 and what too many voters who just “knew’ that HRC was as corrupt if not more corrupt than Trump did. They should have been marginalized the way Lyndon LaRouche and his rabid supporters were. That has to happen first, THEN the message that the Democrats are offering will resonate.
LikeLike
^^And I hope it was clear I mean marginalize only those who spew dishonest attacks like calling Schiff a grifter and claiming the DNC rigged the entire primary and will again etc., etc.. I am not talking about marginalizing those offering the valuable criticism that needs to be listened to.
AOC needs to be listened to. Bernie needs to be listened to. gitapik needs to be listened to. Linda needs to be listened to. Those voices are necessary and MUST be heard and in fact, those voices or similar were heard in 2016 and influenced the platform of the Democrats in a way they never had before.
But if someone spews lies and character attacks against Democrats AND tries to shut down any well-documented criticisms of Trumps’ character, they should be marginalized. They should be marginalized by the Democrats because the right wing Trump campaign will be taking them very seriously and giving them all the publicity they want.
LikeLike
NYC-
You’re right.
There are attacks from those claiming to be Dems who, in reality, always pull the lever, Republican.
And, there is Gates who steers the Democratic Party to oligarchy.
It’s not surprising that the unethical pretend to be what they are not.
With justice, America will be freed of the colonialism of the richest 0.1%.
LikeLike
You’re completely misrepresenting what I’m saying.
My point is (and has been from the start) my concern that, should we continue to focus on Russiagate, it could strengthen Trumps’ possibility of winning a second term.
I don’t know how much clearer I can be than that. A second term under this man would be a nightmare even worse than the one we’re enduring now.
Am I “right”? I don’t know. But it’s what I am concerned about and I have every right in the world to express that opinion.
And you have every right to disagree with me. But to call me a wolf in sheep’s clothing goes beyond the pale. Frankly, you’re being as insulting and demeaning to me as Michael was to you.
I want this to stop NYC. I know who I am, as do my friends and associates. I’m as straight up as they come. Stop misrepresenting me. This blog is a haven to me as an educator and a human being. I am used to showing and giving respect here. I want it to remain that way.
LikeLike
gitapik-
Without weighing in on Russiagate, your call for respect raises questions about how to counter Trump’s defenders. Clearly his opponents, the members of his party and, his wannabe allies (e.g Neilsen and John Kelly) find being respectful is a losing strategy.
Don’t the barbarians at the gate, Charles and David Koch, Bill Gates, and John Arnold win, when their opponents are respectful? Assuming that Eli Broad is reassessing his commitment to privatized public education, IMO, it was because of protests at his museums, his reputation tarnished, etc.
My preference is for NYC psp’s approach. No affront unchallenged.
Identify the target…bring the heat that matches ….
LikeLike
I hear you there, Linda.
For me it’s somewhat similar to working with a class of kids who don’t like authority figures and the rules they represent. So much of what I’ve seen in my classes are mirrored in social interactions outside of the job.
If I begin from a place of mutually expected respect and then someone takes advantage of me; then I’m in the right (both in my eyes and those of the rest of the class) to take action and call him/her out. (“Oooh….he busted you, Joey”). There are no pretenses. Everyone has their chance and chooses to either work constructively with each other or not.
On the other hand, if I don’t give anyone a chance to state their case and opinion and just say, “My way or the highway, Jack. Your ideas and values are worthless”, then it’s gonna be a very, very long year.
Nobody listens to anyone who starts from a place of disrespect. I know I don’t. Gates and Co lost my respect a long time ago. They’re as transparent as a newly washed window. I’ve been an active part of the resistance for a long time.
LikeLike
There’s a time for respect and a time for outrage. A strike is a set of demands, not respect. Power concedes nothing willingly. It is important to humiliate whenever possible the billionaires and financiers who are greedily destroying the middle class and the poor. They deserve no respect. Neither does Trump. He’s ruining our country.
LikeLike
I’m in complete agreement with you Diane, and have been for years.
LikeLike
Thank you. I try to be respectful and civil at all times. But there are times when respect becomes servility. And that’s the time to fight for respect.
LikeLike
I understand, respect, and do relate to that, Diane.
I don’t equate my interactions and attitude towards Michael with my feelings and actions related to the democracy busting billionaires/Trump.
There’s no question about what their motives and desired ends are. They are malignant. And there’s no way I can reason with them and possibly change what they’re doing. So I resist, fight, and spread the word, as I’ve been doing since before I even signed on to this blog.
Michael’s been here for a long time, Diane. Some, but not all, of what he’s said through the years regarding education has rung true to me. So I listen to him. Something on this thread did, too. So I give/gave him a fair shake. It’s not a sign of weakness. It’s about starting from a point of respect. Where it goes from there is nowhere near as cut and dried.
LikeLike
Understood.
LikeLike
This response to repub disregard of trump devolution of our government and laws is spot on. More demo leaders should state why trump is and should be unacceptable in our government. We aren’t a government of one person and affiliation to one person, we are of and for the people. People and persons who betray, disregard and tear down our protection of our citizens, needs to be replaced.
LikeLike
To all you Russiagate Truthers and proud sufferers of ATDS, I must now admit that I was wrong, and apologize.
Adam Schiff – you know, the Russiagate grifter who gave us one of “one of the greatest oratorical speeches in congressional history” – is not a “Lockheed Democrat.”
He’s a “Raytheon Democrat.” (https://www.politicalpartytime/party/36073)
Ka-ching!
LikeLike
That link’s a dud, Michael. Nothing there.
I think you’re an intelligent guy with good points. I listen to you. Don’t always agree…but I always pay attention.
A lot of people can’t get past your delivery. It can come across as demeaning. As a result, they don’t pay attention to what you’re trying to say, which can end up undermining the communication.
Not sure whether that matters to you or not.
What’s up w that link anyway?
LikeLike
Yes, I see the link went nowhere.
Try googling “Raytheon PAC fundraiser, Adam Schiff, Beyonce”
The link should have taken you to a fundraising invitation, sponsored by the Raytheon Corporation – one of the largest defense contractors, and a direct beneficiary of the New Cold War that the likes of Schiff are promoting – for Adam Schiff.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m still waiting to see if you are as outraged by Trump’s destruction of civil rights, the environment, the wilderness, the western alliance, our relations with our allies, and the integrity of the Justice Department as you are by every Democrat. You want perfection and flawless actions from every Democrat but you are not exercised by the lawlessness, greed, and moral turpitude of our federal officials.
Your curious double standard will help to re-elect Trump in 2020.
LikeLike
gitapik,
Yes, I am being very aggressive and sarcastic in my argumentation, for two related reasons.
One is my utter bewilderment and frustration with how decent, smart and otherwise well-informed people (which includes close friends and family members) can so eagerly get swept up in such a net of fear and loathing, and be so receptive to efforts targeting outside enemies to explain scary and confusing and seemingly inexplicable events.
It also leads people to look for quick, easy, simple fixes, which charlatans are happy to provide. And it makes it easier for vested interests – the Donor Class wing of the Democratic Party, corporate media, factions within the National Security State – to cynically and opportunistically do pump the story, for their own purposes.
It’s also been revealing to see the intolerance toward unorthodox opinions on this topic, among people who otherwise pride themselves on their open-mindedness. You may criticize my tone, and it may ultimately be self-defeating, but I think you’ll admit that any dissension from Russiagate orthodoxy – simple things like asking for evidence to support the wild accusations being made – has invariably been met with insults – Putin dupe, closet Trump supporter, etc. – and refusal to debate honestly. It’s been years of that, and it’s past time to call bs on it.
The second reason is tactical (if ultimately self-defeating): the wall of denial and wishful thinking regarding all this needs to be breached, and this was my way of doing it.
The consequences of this episode will be far-reaching, and almost all bad: Trump is given political advantage, over two years that could have been spent actually organizing to fight Trump is instead squandered on hysteria and magical thinking, the liberal/left opportunistically allies itself with some of the worst institutional forces in the country and signs on to Cold War 2.0 (Because Trump), journalistic standards and ethics are discarded (Because Trump) and the media, which could have educated the public about the full spectrum of Trump’s awfulness, is now held in even lower repute. And rightfully so, given its gross malpractice with this story.
If I’m being a jerk about it, that’s a risk I’m willing to take, in order to puncture that bubble. Because reason and appeals to evidence (which I still insist on using) have just bounced off those walls for over two years, and if the political folly (and danger) of this whole episode is not beginning to dawn on people, just Because Trump, then there’s even less hope than I thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a strong feeling that this was (and is) the direction from which you were approaching these topics, Michael.
Sometimes the content of a debate is so combustible that it doesn’t matter how you frame your thoughts. I think we can say that’s true in this thread but only up to a point. The fact that you laid it out as openly as you just did, in my mind at least, opens the door for discussion.
You aren’t the first person that I’ve heard this from. And yes: for years.
We tend to form strange alliances (both actual and ideologically) when an enemy arises that is so in need of defeat. Our alliance with Russia was crucial in defeating Hitler and the Nazi party. But it has had far reaching implications in the decades since, leading up to where we are, now.
I’m cautious about my opinions of politics and politicians. So much of it is far removed from my personal experience and, therefore, so easily manipulated by those who have the means to will to do so.
But sifting through it all, we do have to come up with some kind of conclusion in order to be informed citizens and effective voters.
As has been said; you’re not going to find perfection on either side of the aislesl of Capitol Hill or anywhere else. Especially with our pay to play political system. I’m not happy about some of the alliances that my representatives have, but I do have to categorize things in terms of what I see as important.
Regardless of his other dealings, I think Mr. Schiff’s speech was relevant and spoke truth to power. Whether it’s effective or not is a whole another story and, in my mind at least, the crux of this debate.
I’m sure there will be more to be said on this issue. I’m going to enjoy the beautiful day for awhile, now.
LikeLike
You aren’t being a “jerk”, Michael, you are being a hypocrite.
You smear Democrats with the worst kind of innuendo without a shred of evidence.
I could write exactly the same of your comments all through 2016 and right up to now, except you direct those innuendos and attacks toward Democrats:
I don’t understand how you “can so eagerly get swept up in such a net of fear and loathing, and be so receptive to efforts targeting outside enemies to explain scary and confusing and seemingly inexplicable events.”
“I think you’ll admit that any dissension from “HRC is no better than Trump” orthodoxy – simple things like asking for evidence to support the wild accusations being made – has invariably been met with insults”
Look in the mirror.
LikeLike
Seriously, gitapik, you are just encouraging Michael.
Can you imagine if every time the name Bernie Sanders or AOC came up, I attacked their character, called them “grifters”, and self-righteously justified that by linking to the stories about how Bernie Sanders’ wife made a lot of money bankrupting a college and how the NRA backed Sanders (and remember, nothing that happened since Bernie was a favorite of the NRA matters because Michael says that going back decades to smear someone must be done)? Can you imagine if over and over again I linked to Bernie’s comments that “there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American” to mischaracterize Bernie as a long time unrepentent racist who pretended to care about African-Americans when the only people Bernie cared about were white racists who Bernie insists are not racist at all even if they refuse to vote for an African-american candidate entirely because of their race?
Can you imagine if I jumped on the right wing propaganda bandwagon the way Michael does and linked to a stay about how AOC’s boyfriend got rich because AOC’s PAC paid him thousands of dollars?
Can you imagine if I decided not to discuss issues but instead spent all my time making character attacks because some candidate I didn’t like made a misstep and I decided that justified me making outrageously dishonest claims about then being entirely corrupt and no better than Trump?
What if I “warned” people like Michael does that if the racist Bernie wins the primary, it will be the fault of people who like Bernie for voting for a racist like Bernie who is loved by the NRA?
Would you really take me as seriously as you are taking Michael? Would you really not marginalize me if all I did was post links to every single right wing propaganda meme about how corrupt AOC and Bernie are and offer outright lies about their corrupt character?
I certainly would marginalize anyone who posted ugly smears against AOC and Bernie just like I expect those who post ugly smears against Democrats like Schiff should be marginalized instead of enabled.
Would you really enable me if I made those kinds of ugly and nasty comments about Bernie and AOC? Why enable those kinds of lies? It does not help, it only hurts (at least in my opinion).
That is exactly what happened in 2016. Those people were enabled to repeat things that were absolutely not true. I doubt you would have condoned it if they were doing the same thing about Bernie or AOC or tried to “understand” their point of view.
As I say, you and Linda and Bernie and AOC need to be heard. But people who use lies and dishonesty to smear democrats and defend Trump should not be enabled.
LikeLike
^^In short, you enable the media to put those lies into the mainstream once you call the people offering them – like Michael – “intelligent guys with good points”.
Imagine if we have a primary where one of the candidates and his or her supporters repeat non-stop Bernie Sanders comment about the the white voters who won’t vote for African-American candidates and everyone in the media starts saying “wow, intelligent people are all saying that Bernie Sanders is very racist and we need to recognize the good points they make and understand what Bernie is doing that it so racist and wonder if he might really be as racist as those intelligent guys keep saying he is”. Over and over again.
That would go a long way to defeating Bernie if that is the intention. And I’m sure people who decide that another candidate is better than Bernie can self-righteously convince themselves they are doing good by promoting these character attacks that Bernie is a racist. And I’m sure that everyone who took these people seriously and convinced enough voters that yes, Bernie does seem to have some racist tendencies and we were absolutely right to raise those serious questions about his character will blame Bernie himself for his going down to defeat. He should not have been such a racist guy and maybe he would have won. Bernie should have offered real solutions instead of making racist comments all the time. It’s all Bernie’s fault that so many voters think he is a racist. Maybe next time the Democrats will run a candidate who talks about issues instead of making racist comments all the time and pandering to white working class racists instead of offering policies that help everyone. Too bad Bernie was such a terrible racist candidate – we better get someone better next time.
I don’t want to enable that kind of campaign. Especially after I saw the huge damage it did in 2016.
LikeLike
MIchael, why do you reserve your vitriol for Democrats while Trump is systematically destroying the federal government.
You symbolize the left tendency to form a circular firing squad. No one is good enough to meet your standards but your hatred is directed only at Democrats.
LikeLike
What people like Michael Fiorillo spew in social media sites is a great way to divide and conquer. How do we know he isn’t working for the Russians or really a hardcore supporter of MAGA man pretending to be a Democrat so he can infiltrate and set about destroying the opposition to MAGA man from within?
LikeLike
Lloyd,
If he isn’t a hard core supporter of MAGA man, he is certainly doing a brilliant impersonation of one.
LikeLike
Labels, name calling, etc only perpetuate the argument and widen the divide in the discussion. They serve no constructive purpose, regardless of who “started it”.
I engage Michael so that he’ll cite sources, back up his statements, and answer questions like Diane’s (why focus exclusively on the Dems?) in a tone that’s not combative and/or defensive.
I’m also in agreement with him on some points. A sure indicator of intelligence on his part, lol.
LikeLike
How many times have you had a meaningful, open-minded discussion with a hardcore MAGA man supporter? The last time I even attempted to reason with one of these bricks, the man almost foamed at the mouth as he changed the subject like most Alt-Right talking heads to, Hannity, Jones, Limbaugh, and started ranting about how Hillary had the father of her grandson murdered. Huh, I never even heard of that conspiracy theory, and when I attempted to look it up later, I couldn’t even find it through a Google search.
I think the nation has gone beyond civilized and is much closer to a shooting Civil War as the soft middle shrinks and the two sides harden their resolve. Three black churches were burned in the last few days!
MAGA man’s supporters want a white-ruled, racist, fascist nation and from all the numbers I keep seeing that seems to be between 32 and 40 percent of the population.
The other side I belong to runs about 58-percent in support of the U.S. Constitution and its rule-of-law as defined by our Constitutional Republic.
It all boils down to the US Constitution vs MAGA man’s millions and the Republican Party.
LikeLike
Hey, Lloyd.
I’ve had discussions with MAGA men and women, ranging from a politely respectful, “I put up with Obama now it’s youre turn” to a “What’re you some kinda f*#kin’ libtard?!”
If that’s where Michael (or anyone) is at, it’ll come out soon enough. Meet it head on with no yelling and screaming. Cut the rhetoric and be respectfully direct. If the person you’re talking to refuses to meet you on those grounds…
What’s worse is that it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Just sucks that team USA’s leader has jumped so full onto the bandwagon.
LikeLike
I have had discussions with MAGA man’s supporters and most of them talk softly but refuse to budge no matter what evidence is presented to them from reliable sources. They always … always … deflect and change the subject and always support their thinking by referring to sources that are not reliable or reputable and many times their sources come from anonymous sources on the internet, someone who said what MAGA man’s lovers want to think.
At least the MAGA man supporter that started to call the non-follower a libtard was being honest. The rest of them were thinking the same thing even if they didn’t say it, because that way they convince themselves they are holding the moral high ground.
However, that said, MAGA man has lost some of his supporters.
For instance, “‘Trump troubadour’ (Kraig Moss) loses trust in president over health care: ‘I feel betrayed’
Moss said, “”Trust is something that takes a lifetime to achieve and one day to lose, and you just don’t flip a switch and get the trust back,” he said. “There’s no halfway, ‘Well, I trust him on this, I don’t trust him on that.’ Once a man shows his true colors, once a man shows that he can’t be trusted on one issue, it just, it goes right across the board.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-troubadour-loses-trust-president-health-care-feel/story?id=46371982
And it appears that Kraig Moss is not alone.
Poll shows Trump appears to be losing core voters with nonstop tweets, rhetoric, antics.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-shows-trump-appears-to-be-losing-somewhat-supporters-with-antics-2018-12
LikeLike
Trump is leading the nationalist movement worldwide. Racism, xenophobia are ascendant, thanks to the US leader.
LikeLike
So you would “engage me” if I were spewing the lies above about Bernie and AOC? Because you agree with me that racism is bad?
This seems no different than the Republicans saying that the marchers in Charlotte and other racist groups need to be heard and ” engaged with” which legitimizes those racists. Sorry but I believe one of the worst things about the Republican Party is how they legitimize the far right and keep insisting they are worth listening to. The people who are worth listening to are AOC and Bernie and those non-deplorable working class Trump supporters who were left behind that HRC talked about in her speech.
Not the people who spew propaganda and lies. Do not legitimize them because they don’t deserve it any more than the most racist Trump supporters deserve it.
LikeLike
There’s a reason why he remains on this forum, NYC.
And yes: I would “engage you”. If for no other reason than to get past the rhetorical bs and expose yours (or anyone’s) true motives. It’s the way I am and I won’t apologize for it. I’ve been extensively trained in negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Both prior to and during my career as a teacher of special ed in the NYCDOE.
LikeLike
^^^sorry I apologize for my tone. You should of course feel free to engage with Michael as much as you want. I just implore you to remember how much legitimacy that gave these attacks in the 2016 election. And if someone tries to destroy Bernie Sanders’ character with dishonest attacks I hope you won’t legitimize those attacks either.
Real criticism is honest not full of the same right wing propaganda the Republicans use
LikeLike
A propaganda spewing Republican or a politically disillusioned human being. Could be either. Or both or more. Won’t know until we have an honest discussion.
I’m no fool, NYC. I’ve been around. Hopefully that’ll continue for a while. 😉
LikeLike
In my very biased and uneducated opinion, politically disillusioned human beings would not have any reason to mischaracterize the Mueller report as exonerating Trump and would have no reason to repeat the Republican talking points to slime Adam Schiff. I think they’d be ranting against both sides equally.
But I respect your reasons for engaging and I wish you well. Thanks for this interesting conversation!
LikeLike
Me too.
I don’t think Michael’s exhonerating Trump. I think he’s pointing out that the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and it’s exploded in our face.
Even if he’s not saying that, I think that’s exactly what’s happened and Trump and Co couldn’t be happier.
LikeLike
Unfortunately MIchael is obsessed with making that one point.
Although I disagreed with Hillary’s education policy, I don’t see the reason to excoriate her again and again. She was well qualified to be president. Trump is an idiot and is engaged in destroying the federal government and the western alliance, making us an international pariah. Our allies now are the world’s worst dictator. I would have preferred her a million million billion times to Trump. He is ruining our nation and encouraging fascism around the world.
LikeLike
No argument from me on any of this, Diane. The choice between Hillary and Trump was a no brainer for me.
Why no full disclosure? Obviously he’s hiding something.
Why keep vilifying her? Deflection.
How and why is he getting away with it? There are a lot of theories about that.
Bottom line for me is that we need to present a better alternative. As pathetic as that may sound. But maybe that also means that it should be easy.
LikeLike
“How and why is he getting away with it?”
I think the answer to that question is easy. Following the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution and all legislation passed since the U.S. became a nation, the Republican Party and its leadership are protecting MAGA man by providing interference.
The gears of justice turn slowly and too many times justice is never served because of highly paid slick lawyers who will do and say anything to win. MAGA man has used this to his advantage for all of his adult life. In fact, Mr. Bone Spurs manipulated the system even when he was still in college, and he got away with it.
That is why he lies so much and has been involved in thousands of court cases. He wins almost all the time and when he loses he almost always settles out of court and the settlement includes a binding non-disclosure agreement.
LikeLike
I come from a family of lawyers. My dad and I were once looking for lumber dealers in the yellow pages. We landed in the “Lawyers” section. With complete disgust and disdain, he turned page after page of names and phone numbers and said, “How many of these guys do you think really want to do what’s right, by the rule of law?”.
A lot of people think Trump’s stupid. Maybe he is, but he knows how to play the game. And part of that is to know how to work the legal system.
I wish I had the answer to all this. All I know is that we have to do our utmost to keep him out of office for a second term.
LikeLike
The entire Mueller report should be released, uncensored. If it exonerates Trump, as he says, why not release it?
Same for his tax returns. What is he hiding? Why is entire Republican Party helping him conceal his tax returns?
Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.
LikeLike
gitapik says:
“I think he’s pointing out that the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and it’s exploded in our face.”
Say what??? We didn’t “put our eggs in one basket”! We believed that serious charges against Trump should be investigated! Because we are a democracy and not yet the fascist state that Trump and apparently a lot of self-described left wingers are fine with. And in fact, it has NOT exploded in our faces!
Saying Democrats “put our eggs in one basket” and “it’s exploded in our faces” is nothing more than right wing propaganda and I thought you were much too thoughtful to be repeating right wing propaganda without recognizing it as such. I thought you were much too thoughtful to actually push the lie that the Mueller report somehow exonerated Trump, which is of course, the only reason that anyone could possibly think that it “exploded in our faces”.
We know for a fact that Mueller found clear evidence of obstruction of justice. Clear evidence does not mean “conviction”, but it certainly should mean that more people than Trump’s handpicked Attorney General should be deciding.
And it sure seems that what bothers the people pushing the right wing propaganda that we “put all our eggs in one basket” and it “exploded in our faces” is that Adam Schiff made a speech in which he entirely explained without a doubt to all thinking people exactly why what Mueller found did not “explode in our faces”.
gitapik, maybe you should stop worrying so much about appearances and not offending people who want so much to believe that Trump has been unfairly prosecuted and the Democrats are the evil ones, and start thinking about what is right and what is wrong.
If you really believe that the Mueller report “exploded in our faces” as you just posted, then you can only believe it entirely exonerates Trump. Because anyone who believed there was evidence of obstruction of justice would not say such a thing.
So I think your biases may be showing.
LikeLike
One thing should be clear. The FBI investigation of Russian aid to the Trump campaign began in July 2016, before the Steele dossier surfaced. That connection concerned the FBI. It was not initiated by Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party or the Obama administration.
LikeLike
“One thing should be clear. The FBI investigation of Russian aid to the Trump campaign began in July 2016, before the Steele dossier surfaced. That connection concerned the FBI. It was not initiated by Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party or the Obama administration.”
A crucial point. And one that I don’t think was made crystal clear throughout the investigation for the general public to understand.
LikeLike
On a recent showon FOX, Chris Wallace interrupted the crazed ravings of panelists to point out that the FBI investigation began before the Steele dossier. As for claims that the FBI was pro-HRC, that’s ludicrous.
LikeLike
On FOX of all places? That’s encouraging to say the least.
LikeLike
Chris Wallace works at FOX but has journalistic ethics.
LikeLike
As well they should have investigated. It would have been a cover-up by the FBI not to investigate given all the red flags.
What is never mentioned in the right wing lies about this mythical “pro-HRC FBI” that never existed is that the FBI went overboard to protect Trump. When the NY Times ran entirely inaccurate headlines just days before the election, saying that the FBI had completely exonerated Trump, the FBI did not correct the record. That leak came from pro-Trump FBI agents and the people at the FBI who were not rabidly pro-Trump did not try to smear Trump by issuing a correction.
The many actions that the Mueller report surely details are improper. Whether they rise to a provable “crime” is arguable but certainly the obstruction of justice evidence indicates that the Trump administration wanted those questionable actions covered up.
It what universe does supporting an investigation that should be entirely supported by everyone who believes in democracy get mischaracterized as Dems “put all their eggs in one basket and it’s exploded in our face.”??
And why would someone bring that up in a post about the great speech Adam Schiff made listing all the reasons the Mueller report was important?
LikeLike
For the record, the Steele dossier had not yet been made public in July of 2016, but was in the possession of the FBI, and was used as the pretext to get a FISA warrant issued against Carter Page.
And I have a question about the political framing at the root of much of this: the Steele report was paid for first by Republican opponents of Trump, and then the Clinton campaign. From its first public release, reports claimed that it relied on sources inside the Russian government.
That being the factual and undisputed case, why was the Steele report not viewed as the Clinton campaign colluding with Russia to affect the election?
I’m not saying that’s what it was (it was instead typical, if grotesque, contemporary politics, oppo research that was not so very different from what Trump, Jr. was doing with Velnitskaya in Trump Tower).
The intentions of both parties were not so very different (though the Dems were slicker about it, putting more steps between the campaign and its dirt-seeking than Trump did) yet look how differently they were framed.
Another thing Trump is likely to go to town on in the coming months.
LikeLike
Michael,
This is tiresome.
Either you are nitpicking Democratic candidates who don’t meet your standards or lashing out at anyone who dares to associate the Trump campaign with Russia. Why do you defend Trump?
Do you want to explain the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer? Or defend Don Jr.’s email saying he was eager to get dirt on Hillary from Russian agents? Or why Mike Flynn lost his job? Or why Mike Flynn and Jill Stein sat at Putin’s table at the dinner celebrating RT, the Russian government propaganda outlet?
Surely there is an innocent explanation.
LikeLike
You didn’t answer my question Diane, which is pertinent to the entire topic: if the Steele dossier relied in part on information from sources within the Russian government- a widely reported and uncontested point – why has the political framing only focused on collusion/conspiracy on the part of the Trump campaign?
Please explain how/why they are so fundamentally different. And answering “Because Trump” is not a valid answer.
Now, in a (probably futile) effort to keep the Russiagate Dead-Enders heads from exploding in fallacious sanctimony, let me again say that I am not accusing the the Clinton campaign of colluding/conspiring with elements in the Russian state; I’m asking why two fundamentally similar episodes of current political practice – opposition research – were framed so differently?
And, for the record (not that it matters to the True Believers) I did (very grudgingly) vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and thought others should do likewise, while pointing her out her weaknesses and shortcomings as a candidate. Those arguments about her shortcomings were validated by her loss to a reality TV host who was the most unpopular candidate of all time.
LikeLike
“If you really believe that the Mueller report “exploded in our faces” as you just posted, then you can only believe it entirely exonerates Trump.”
That’s a pretty big leap there, NYC. That and a few of your other conclusions regarding my political leanings and moral character.
I’m talking public perception and the way it’s been and is continued to be manipulated. Based on what I see, read, and hear both personally and through the media. I’ve already said as much more than a few times in these posts but you seem to want to think otherwise. In fact, I’ve flat out stated that I believe Trump’s a crook, a manipulator, and guilty as sin.
Not everyone who thinks, speaks, and communicates shades or volumes differently than you is hiding something or guilty of treason.
LikeLike
Who said anything about being “guilty of treason”?
Here is what you posted:
“I don’t think Michael’s exhonerating Trump. I think he’s pointing out that the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and it’s exploded in our face.
Even if he’s not saying that, I think that’s exactly what’s happened and Trump and Co couldn’t be happier.”
End of quote
If I misinterpreted your second sentence, then I apologize. I read it as you saying that even if Michael is not saying this, YOU think that’s exactly what happened. You think the Dems put all their eggs in one basket and it’s exploded in our face.
That’s not “public” perception, that’s your perception. And it’s an odd perception given that polls show that the public does not believe Trump was exonerated. And to me, the way you wrote that implied that the Dems supported Mueller for only political reasons. How else can I interpret your comment that you believe the Dems “put all their eggs in one basket”? We didn’t put our eggs anywhere. We supported what is right. And we still support what is right. We aren’t trying to stop people like Schiff from talking because we are fearful that if he tells the truth it will lose us votes! The truth is important whether it hurts the Dems or not politically. We should not be cowed by those who make this about putting eggs in baskets when it has never been about that.
And for Dems to agree with the mischaracterization that Michael makes of the Mueller report would be an abandonment of what is right. And to mischaracterize doing what is right or being happy that Adam Schiff made his speech as “putting all our eggs in one basket that exploded in our faces” is not just factually incorrect, but just happens to be exactly what Trump and his right wing Republican enablers are saying.
LikeLike
See my definition of ATDS, re-read this thread, then look in the mirror.
And wow, talk about Othering (gitapik excepted)…
LikeLike
Michael,
Thanks for the clarification on the link and content.
You and I have agreement on some points, not the least of which is the way in which Trumps’ in your face horrendous behavior has taken the spotlight off of other people and their political/social issues. Makes me think that it’s being done purposely.
I’ve followed this thread closely. Diane has been courteous and direct, as always. I think it would be a good thing if you would address her question: Why focus exclusively on the Dems? Of course you’re going to find inconsistencies and problems there. But to leave out even a glancing reference to the abomination who’s “representing” us on the world stage (and his supporters in Congress) makes people (myself included) question your intent.
Being up front about our ideals, who we are, and what we wish to achieve is a strong point of this blog.
LikeLike
It will be easy to tear down every candidate in the Democratic field. All have flaws. If we search for the perfect candidate, we won’t find him or her.
LikeLike
Diane, as I’ve previously said, if it wasn’t folly to spend over two years holding fast to this cartoon image of Trump as some kind of Russian asset and Manchurian Candidate, despite the weak/non-existant/contrary evidence, then it certainly is now.
The narrative of Trump as a Russian asset and that it would lead to his impeachment was always implausible, despite the wishful thinking of many; for at least the past year, it has become increasingly preposterous. Yet it monopolized news coverage.
Did you ever ask yourself, “Since so many of these allegations go nowhere, are disproven, and are then conveniently forgotten” far too many to list in this thread – “then who benefits from their cknstatng repetition?”
Indeed, Qui Bono (aside from Trump) from over two years of non-stop, hair-on-fire coverage, that went nowhere?
Now that Russiagate has been exposed as the self-interested conspiracy theory that it always was, its primary hustlers (Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Crowdstrike, among others) should be held accountable in the court of public opinion.
They have done infinitely more to enable and strengthen Trump than those few Russiagte skeptics on the Left could have ever done.
Please remember, despite the enforced amnesia surrounding this story, that just two week’s before the release of the Barr summary, Brennan was all over TV predicting the imminent arrest of Jared and Ivanka.
Madness. Absolute, collective madness. And madness that served the interests of those almost entirely opposed to the politics and values of the people who succumbed to it.
Insisting on that narrative, and looking to the Adam Schiff’s of the world to save the Republic, as a practical political matter, only aids Trump.
In fact, I have support for that claim. You’ll notice that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership had the good sense to stay away from Russiagate during the 2018 midterm campaigns. That’s because outside of the Acela Corridor and other media centers, voters are much more in interested in things that materially affect their lives. Russia-as-a-threat didn’t even appear among the top 20 issues when voters were polled.
Of course, Pelosi’s, et. al., studious avoidance of Russiagate during the 2018 elections also suggests that they never seriously believed it either, and have cynically and opportunistically (if mistakenly, in my nsho) been using it simply as a media club against Trump, one which he will successfully turn on them during the campaign.
Like I said before, fear and loathing (to say nothing of wishful thinking) are very poor counselors. Those who would have us succumb to them for their own selfish purposes are not our allies, and should be exposed.
If you want to defeat Trumpismo, and not just Trump, discard the magical thinking, and think about how to defeat him politically. That means talking to people, even people who live and think differently than you, and offering them something other than, “Trump is Putin’s Lover (remember that little homophobic chestnut, which apparenty was OK Because Trump) and we’re not Trump.”
It also means exposing and defeating those who would distract us from that, which includes many if not all of the Russiagate players.
Russiagate has already failed, disastrously, and it’s time to start recovering from it. That means calling BS on the hustlers who keep pushing it.
LikeLike
Notice how Michael has presented an utterly false narrative — that we have done nothing for the past 2 years but claim that Trump is a Russian asset and Manchurian candidate. According to this right wing propaganda that Michael is repeating here, the only purpose of the Mueller investigation was to determine whether or not Trump was indeed a Russian asset and Manchurian candidate. It is apparently a yes or no question. Since the answer is “no, Trump isn’t a Manchurian candidate”, and that’s what Michael implies is what all of us have been saying was true for the last 2 years, we have all been shown to be dupes.
Michael, I will try one last time to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. The Mueller investigation was never about whether Trump was or was not a Manchurian candidate. For you to mischaracterize it that way is dishonest and I have no idea why you would be dishonest like that. But you are.
The Mueller investigation was to look at Russian interference in the 2016 election. It was not “yes or no is Trump a Manchurian candidate, oh the answer is no so it’s a nothing burger”. It was not an attempt to drum up something to “get” Trump. That’s right wing propaganda.
What Mueller seemed to have found is that the Russians did interfere on behalf of Trump, and that the top Trump officials were more than willing to meet with Russians offering to help them. It also found evidence that Trump obstructed justice to cover that up. Including firing the FBI director for not following a suggestion to stop the investigation. Including dictating a completely false letter about what the meeting in Trump Tower was all about. Including numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and people with ties to Russian intelligence.
In fact, we do not know ALL that was found because Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General has insisted that it be vetted.
No one except right wing Republicans would agree with you that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump.
No one except right wing Republicans and their enablers would agree with you that the only important question was whether Trump was a Russian asset or a Manchurian candidate or not. As if being compromised or accepting illegal help from a foreign government and covering it up is perfectly fine as long as you aren’t a “Manchurian Candidate”.
You actually contradicted your own point when you pointed out that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats didn’t run on “Trump is the Manchurian Candidate” issue in 2018.
Democrats have been fighting Trump on many fronts. It is insulting and condescending for you to accuse us of putting all our eggs in one basket when no one has ever done that. But you seem determined to forbid any discussion of the Mueller report and the wrongdoing that happened in the campaign and after to cover up Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. This blog can talk about that AND do what even you had to acknowledge the Democrats did in 2018 and they are doing in 2019 and they did in 2017 and talk about OTHER issues as well.
I think you are the only one here who is obsessed with Russiagate. You are obsessed with convincing us that the Mueller report proved that Trump and his campaign never did anything wrong with regards to Russia. Just because most of us understand that the Mueller report says no such thing is no reason for you to mischaracterize our concern about that into some crazed conspiracy theories similar to the crazy conspiracy theories about democrats and the DNC that you were spouting all during the 2016 election.
LikeLike
Michael Fiorillo (MF) is dishonest because the man he wants as his father, best friend, man cave buddy, his role model (etc.) is dishonest all the time.
I’m talking about MAGA man, Moscow’s Agent Governing America also known as Donald Trump.
I wonder if MF is really one of the chaos agents working for Putin.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
I don’t know about that, but there was a glaring red flag in Michael’s post:
“It also means exposing and defeating those who would distract us from that, which includes many if not all of the Russiagate players.”
This does seem to eerily mirror William Barr and Trump’s newfound desire to investigate those ‘treasonous” people who dared to investigate him!
“Russiagate players”?? I wonder who exactly Michael means when he says they must be “DEFEATED”. I’m guessing they are all Democrats, of course. No need to defeat any Republicans.
It is very scary to hear this kind of proto- fascist talk so I do hope that MF is a troll and that he is not so blinded by hatred of Democrats that he is now repeating the very same proto-fascist talking points that every right wing Republican coincidentally has been saying today.
Somehow Trump and his people talk about “locking up” their political adversaries and that doesn’t seem to bother Michael. But Michael definitely wants to “defeat” the unnamed “Russiagate players”.
Michael, why don’t you name those who you demand be “defeated” and we’ll pretend not to notice that the only people you demand to be defeated are Democrats.
LikeLike
Saying that I’m the one obsessed with Trump and Russia is a good one. In the psychology textbooks, it’s known as Projection.
Haven’t you been watching CNN and MSNBC, and reading the Times and Washington Post in recent years? All Russia, all the time… the week that Trump and the Republicans passed a tax law that created the largest upward redistribution of wealth in US history, it went virtually unmentioned by the likes of Rachel Maddow and other members of the McResistance.
Anyway, for those Russiagate Truthers who are feeling nostalgic about the good times and warm feelings generated by your fantasies of how the Mueller investigation would reverse the 2016 election (without the bother of having to defeat Trump politically): cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jUvfZj-Fm0
LikeLike
Whoops, wrong link/unavailable…
https://m.www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0&t=4s
If that doesn’t work, try googling “supercuts, trump is finished”
LikeLike
Michael says:
“the week that Trump and the Republicans passed a tax law that created the largest upward redistribution of wealth in US history…”
But Michael, you spent all of 2016 telling us that electing Trump wasn’t any worse than electing the Democrat! You sure have some chutzpah because you got exactly what you wished. Talk about killing your parents and then blaming your parents for not bailing you out of your murder charge. You got exactly what you wanted – Trump elected because you didn’t want a Democrat President who could have stopped that tax cut. Those tax cuts are the fault of everyone who believed you when you insisted there was no difference and didn’t vote for the Democrat.
By the way, here is a link to a few times that Rachel Maddow and MSNBC reported on those tax cuts:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gop-tax-bill-set-to-make-rich-richer-at-everyone-else-s-expense-1120316995621
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/senator-warren-gop-tax-bill-a-double-punch-to-middle-class-1097040963648
What I find most suspicious about you, Michael, is that you don’t have a problem with Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General not releasing the Mueller report. You have accepted this right wing Republican’s false characterization of the report as the absolute truth just like the racist and xenophobic Trump supporters cheering him on at his rallies believe every word out of his mouth.
Even your favorite newspaper The Guardian knows that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/mueller-report-is-a-warning-britain-wont-listen-russian-interference
Michael, you have never once acknowledge that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. You clearly don’t believe it. Since you have proven yourself absolutely unwilling to admit that or acknowledge any Russian involvement at all, all the rest of your “suggestions” about how the democrats should act ring completely hollow. You choose the facts you want to believe and you accuse people of doing things they have never done so you can attack Democrats.
I only wish you had taken your own advice in 2016 and hadn’t attacked HRC and the DNC far more viciously and nastily and dishonestly than Diane Ravitch has ever criticized Trump. I don’t expect you to apologize for insisting that Donald Trump was absolutely positive no worse than HRC. But given the ugly untruthful things you accused the democrats of back then, I find your lecturing to Diane on how to wait for evidence before saying anything negative about the great wonderful Trump to be the very definition of chutzpah.
I sure got tired of hearing you lecturing us in 2016 and telling us over and over again that Trump was absolutely no worse than HRC. It is absolutely clear to me that you still believe Trump is no worse than HRC with all your heart just like you believe with all your heart that Russia absolutely, positively had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 election and anyone who says so needs to be punished. Funny, that’s exactly what Trump and Barr have made their talking points! I’m sure your parroting their talking points is strictly coincidental.
I find you to be one of the worst purveyors of right wing propaganda.
But I have to respect your chutzpah.
LikeLike