Posts Tagged ‘media’

This blog is courtesy of part of an article by Joshua Holland and Rolling Stone magazine. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-opposing-trump-isnt-like-the-gop-obstructing-obama-w476367

Trump is the first president in history to lack any experience in government, and he frequently makes that clear. His closest advisers include family members, who similarly lack relevant experience and are also running the business he supposedly has nothing to do with; several people who have registered as foreign agents; Sebastion Gorka, whose association with a Hungarian group with Nazi ties is even more alarming than his dubious credentials; and former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon.

So both President Obama and Trump have serious detractors! It’s also true that Democrats and the left express real fear over Trump’s policies, just as Republicans and the right were terrified of Obama’s agenda. But any similarity ends right there.

The “Tea” in “Tea Party” stood for “Taxed Enough Already,” and almost two-thirds of Tea Partiers said that Obama had raised taxes on “most Americans” at a time when he had in fact cut them, repeatedly, for Americans at all income levels. Their top complaint was that government had grown too large, at a time when federal revenues were at their lowest point, as a share of the economy, than at any time since 1950. When asked how much the government collected in tax revenues, their answers averaged 40 percent, when in fact that is double the highest level of taxation since 1970.

More than nine out of 10 Tea Partiers told pollsters that they feared Obama’s policies were “moving the country toward socialism.” Many believed that Obama had kicked off his presidency by going on a “global apology tour,” a claim Politifact called “a persistent and false Republican talking point that we have debunked a number of times.” Many received subsidized health insurance, but hated Obamacare for its “death panels” (Politifact’s 2009 Lie of the Year) and a “government takeover of health care” (2010’s Lie of the Year). Polls found a sharp spike in the number of gun owners who thought the government was going to do away with the right to bear arms with Obama in the White House. Now they are all sobbing in their stock rooms as gun sales have fallen off dramatically. It turns out President Obama was the greatest gun salesman in history!

So far, Trump hasn’t made any effort to work across the aisle or attract moderate Democratic support for his agenda. Congressional Republicans accused Obama of the same thing. They said he’d “rammed” the Affordable Care Act “down their throats.” They claimed, repeatedly, that nobody knew what was in the bill until they voted for it. “We’ve offered to work with the president all year,” said then-House Minority Leader John Boehner in 2010. “We’ve been shut out, shut out and shut out.” But 160 Republican amendments were included in the Senate bill that would eventually become law. Multiple committees held months of hearings, and then the upper chamber debated the measure for 25 hours before passage. Plus the bill was originally written by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and hailed by Republicans. It the main reason President Obama chose it, thinking he would not get as much flack as he was using their plan. But he underestimated the GOP hatred of his presidency.

I could go on: Jade Helm, the claim that Obama was sworn in on the Koran, the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayres ghost-wrote his memoir (a favorite of Donald Trump), etc. The point is that the circumstances around these two presidencies couldn’t possibly be more different, and while both men faced fierce opposition, the resistance to Trump is to a much greater extent grounded in reality, or at least information from credible sources, rather than crackpot Internet rumors.

Yet the political press elides these differences in story after story, instinctively framing the opposition to Trump as just more partisan wrangling, rather than a principled response to an authoritarian demagogue elected by 27 percent of the eligible voting population. It’s bad journalism, and it needs to be called out! These are points I have preached on, if you will allow the phrase, countless times in the past! The original article by Mr. Holland had a whole other section on the downfalls of our current President. I have also ‘preached” on those. But I decided my main point is to try and convince you that the Internet is not a factual place! You need to learn how to fish the waters otherwise all you catch are Carp and Suckerfish! I also know, since my friends, the ones I really want to read this, will say, damn, it is just John again, and will probably not even look at it. But I go to a lot of work to fact check before I present my work to you. Yes I have a different perspective, but a lie is a lie in any language or format, and I try really hard not to lie to you! I can guarantee you your current President has no such aspirations!

 

 

 

Diane Ravich writes;

I posted this article a few days ago with the warning that I could not vouch for the source. I have since checked out the website–WhoWhatWhy–and conclude that it is a highly reputable source for honest investigative journalism. I think if you scan the website, see who writes for it, who edits it, who is on the board of directors, you will agree this is not fake news. Why the FBI Can’t Tell All About Trump — Diane Ravitch’s blog

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation cannot tell us what we need to know about Donald Trump’s contacts with Russia. Why? Because doing so would jeopardize a long-running, ultra-sensitive operation targeting mobsters tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin — and to Trump.

But the Feds’ stonewalling risks something far more dangerous: Failing to resolve a crisis of trust in America’s president. WhoWhatWhy provides the details of a two-month investigation in this 6,500-word exposé.

The FBI apparently knew, directly or indirectly, based upon available facts, that prior to Election Day, Trump and his campaign had personal and business dealings with certain individuals and entities linked to criminal elements — including reputed Russian gangsters — connected to Putin.

The same facts suggest that the FBI knew or should have known enough prior to the election to justify informing the public about its ongoing investigation of potentially compromising relationships between Trump, Putin, and Russian mobsters — even if it meant losing or exposing a valued informant.

***

It will take an agency independent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to expose Donald Trump’s true relationship with Moscow and the role Russia may have played in getting him elected.

Director James Comey recently revealed in a congressional hearing for the first time that the FBI “is investigating … the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

However, a two-month WhoWhatWhy investigation has revealed an important reason the Bureau may be facing undisclosed obstacles to revealing what it knows to the public or to lawmakers.

Our investigation also may explain why the FBI, which was very public about its probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails, never disclosed its investigation of the Trump campaign prior to the election, even though we now know that it commenced last July.

The President, current or past, cannot just order a wiretap. You have to go to a federal judge for starters, who would not take such an order from an individual. Not even the President! So the Justice Department would have to get involved, probably the FBI, and then provide the judge with damning evidence of why the wiretap is needed and legal! Even if you were trying to do an end run by claiming espionage or foreign entity lawbreakers, I am talking about Russians and Trump here, you still have to go through the CIA and them a FISA judge to get the warrant. So there would be a trail as wide as the Mississippi river and almost as long! So it did not happen! You ask Trump where his evidence is; he will not answer the question. You ask his staffers and they have all kinds of answers that are not actually answers. We heard, the papers reported, certain sources known only to the President, etc, so forth, and so on! Now even the President just said last week that he believes a source should be named. Ok Mr. President, lets hear them!

Ok, where did it start, well we actually do know how the story started! Breitbart wrote a story and it got circulated in the West Wing of the White House. So of course Trump saw it, got incensed then tweeted his rage! Now his buddy Bannon, probably sitting on his right shoulder like any good demon would, encouraged him! Not withstanding that this was the very publication he probably still controls! So now they have named it DeepStateGate! Fox news is calling it ObamaGate, and of course Hannity is asking what did Obama know and when did he know it, just like something actually did happen, which the FBI and Justice has already said did not happen. Of course Trump says he does not believe any reports by the FBI or any investigating authority, I mean what the hell, he has a magazine article! Trump is calling for an investigation. So when I claim fake news, this is exactly my point!

Now ask yourself why? Because Trump and gang do not want you spending your time on what he and the Russians might have been up to, or why he will not let us take a look at his taxes? Well no shit! Just invent something to take you eye off the ball, and then kick that ball as far into the muddied pond as you can and hope we forget about it. This was his go to formula during the campaign, and it worked. He basically used his “Foundation” as a personal piggy bank. He and his crew use non-government computers and electronic devices with impunity, yes, the same stuff they were yelling Hillary should be jailed for. When the media finally started reporting real news and not letting him off the hook, he labeled them false news, fake news, and crooked is a word he likes. So consider this. A crook always thinks everyone is trying to steal from him, a liar thinks everyone is a liar, and the list goes on. Why is this so, because people always think other people are just like them. So when someone calls everyone around them that they do not like a liar or a crook, it has always been common knowledge that you are listening to one or the other, or both!

Statement: This is not in bold to make a point, it is because I am old, a lot of my audience has been around for a while, and bold print makes it easier to read! So get off your Huffy Horse and walk along with me!