HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JHB » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 22,971

Journal Archives

@bluegal on "why did it take until now for these women to come forward?"

In a series of tweets on Thursday, Frances Langum a.k.a. Bluegal, associate editor at Crooks and Liars and co-host of The Professional Left Podcast, laid out why the women confirming what Trump has bragged about for years are doing so now, and lo and behold, it's not some super-duper conspiracy against the howler monkey.

(1) I notice it's only men asking "why did it take until now for these women to come forward?
(2) It didn't "take until now." Trump lied about these women on national television on Sunday night.
(3) Their coming forward is a RESPONSE to that lie. Not some design to bring down his campaign (he did that on the bus in 2005),
(4) For someone burying the pain of that assault, Trump RE-OPENED their wounds by lying about it during the debate. The pain comes back.
(5) In order to keep some sort of normal life, you silence your memories so you won't feel the pain of what happened to you.
(6) But if the ahole who did that to you essentially brags about it (in the tape) and then lies about it (in debate) the pain roars back.
(7) Trust me, at that point you're re-living the attack in vibrant images. And the pain is very very real. At that point... silence?
(8) Silence is impossible. The only defense is refute the lie. Again, the women are not plotting against Trump. They are responding to him.
(9) But this is what patriarchy never understands. Trump always assumes negative emotions toward him are the fault of the other.....
(10) It was the same today with the @nytimes - he THREATENED to sue them. They responded with "oh yeah? See you in discovery."
(11) and IMMEDIATELY Trump sees himself as the VICTIM of an unfair press. But HE started the fight!
(12) and HE started these revelations of HIS past behavior when he looked at @andersoncooper Sunday Night and said "I never did."
(13) Patriarchs never understand that displaying that hubris? Is the strongest truth serum you can put before your victim.
(14) So when someone asks why these women are knocking on Trump's door now? It's because he invited them. The end.

If you're going to go back that far, then 1860, not 1865

JHB (22,267 posts)
7. Here's what 1860s conservatives thought of Lincoln...

Below is a conservative political cartoon from 1860, after Lincoln won the Republican nomination for president, by cartoonist Louis Maurer, engraved by Currier and Ives.

See if you recognize anything:

also http://elections.harpweek.com/1860/cartoon-1860-large.asp?UniqueID=5&Year=1860

"The Republican Party Going to the Right House"

Lincoln rides in on a (fence) rail, carried by Horace Greely (anti-slavery editor of the New York Tribune), leading his followers into a lunatic asylum.
GREELY: "Hold on to me Abe, and we'll go in here by the unanimous consent of the people."
LINCOLN: "Now my friends I'm almost in, and the millennium is going to begin, so ask what you will and it shall be granted."

Younger Woman: "Oh! what a beautiful man he is, I feel a passionate attraction' every time I see his lovely face."
Bearded Man: "I represent the free love element, and expect to have free license to carry out its principles."
Man with trim beard and hat: "I want religion abolished and the book of Mormon made the standard of morality."
Caricatured black man: "De white man hab no rights dat cullud pussons am bound to spect' I want dat understood."
Older woman: "I want womans rights enforced, and man reduced in subjection to her authority."
Scruffy man with bottle: "I want everybody to have a share of everybody elses property."
Barefoot man: "I want a hotel established by government, where people that aint inclined to work, can board free of expense, and be found in rum and tobacco."
Seedy top-hat man: " I want guaranteed to every Citizen the right to examine every other citizen's pockets without interruption by Policemen."
Man at the end: "I want all the stations houses burned up, and the M.P.s killed, so that the bohoys can run with the machine and have a muss when they please."

Let’s go down the list, shall we?:
Supported by "liberal media": Check
Liberals will embark on profligate giveaways to THOSE PEOPLE? Check.
Flighty, emotional, entranced by charisma/celebrity? Check.
People conservatives consider sexual deviants? Check.
People conservatives consider religious deviants? Check (and how ironic, this particular turn).
Grasping minorities after special rights? Check.
"Feminazis"? Check.
There's a vast army of layabouts, thugs, foreigners, and outright thieves who want to take your hard-earned stuff? Check, check, check, and check.

Based on what the conservatives of the two eras say about their opposition, the heir to the name "Party of Lincoln" these days is plainly the Democratic Party.

The week is young, folks

What parts will he spend the next several days whining about?

Trump Whiner Watch, day 4

The Donnie Snivels is tweeting again, still harping about a beauty contest winner.




Shall we start a betting pool about when he'll finally manage to shut up about it?
(generously defined as not saying anything about her for a whole week)

Please be sure to include a year with your bet date.

Krugman: Trump On Trade

Even so, it seems to be conventional wisdom that Trump did well in the first 15 minutes. And I guess he did if you are impressed by someone talking loudly and confidently about a subject he really doesn’t understand. But really: Trump on trade was ignorance all the way.

There were specifics: China is “devaluing” (not so — it was holding down the yuan five years ago, but these days it’s intervening to keep the yuan up, not down.) There was this, on Mexico:

Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in — automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it.

Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn’t protect against imports — which is why it’s allowed under international trade rules, and not considered a protectionist trade policy. I get that Trump is not an economist — hoo boy, is he not an economist — but this is one of his signature issues, so you might have expected him to learn a few facts.

Jesus, who would have thought the top drinking game cue would be...

...Donald's sniffles?

Anything more than a micro-sip each and you'd be under the table by now.

I was right! Trump's doctor is...

I told you so!

Murdoch's NY Post has more Melania pics today

Not linking, but it's a nude photo shoot with another woman.

I don't care about the photos, but I'm dying to know WHY Rupert's NY tabloid is going this route.

It started as a tactic and turned into an industry

By the 1990s the Republicans had a formula for beating old-school postwar Democrats (call them soft on defense, soft on crime, pandering to "special interests" (unions, minorities, feminists, etc.), "anti-business"). That formula wouldn't work against Bill Clinton, "pro-business" governor from a "right to work" state who didn't follow the "big government" narrative and was willing to go against "special interests" in his own party.

The Bush campaign fought this in two ways: 1) dig up whatever dirt hey could in Arkansas and 2) forget reality and just portray him as the conservative voter's ultimate bogeyman (draft-dodgin' dope-smokin' citizenship-renouncin' Baby Boomer Hippy Bill and his feminazi "partner", Homemaker Hater Hillary). Then, in a classic case of Republican Election Delusion, they were stunned that Bush lost.

Enter Rush Limbaugh: he devoted his radio show to rallying conservatives, saying Clinton was only "technically" president because he won by a plurality, painting him as holding the office of the president illegitimately. So, for the red-meat crowd, anything to remove the pretender from office was legitimate. For the more strategically-minded conservatives, a constant stream of investigations and scandals would be a drag on any Clinton attempt to revisit old Reagan-Bush scandals now that the investigatees no longer in in a position to stall investigators. And it would hamper attempts to reverse some key Reagan-Bush policies.

Add to the mix a media eager to show that it didn't have a "liberal bias" (one news magazine had a "Clinton suck-up watch" to chide any coverage that was seen as too favorable), and who grew up on how Watergate coverage created superstar journalists -- and were eager to get their turn.

So you had a conservative public stoked to believe absolutely anything about the Clintons (and eager to get the juicy details about their perfidy), a growing conservative media counterculture that was willing to supply them with "what's REALLY going on," a political establishment that saw advantage (and, eventually, possible revenge for Watergate) in nonstop attacks and a media that saw a potential career jackpot in becoming the new Woodward and Bernstein. And after the 1994 election ushered conservative true-believers into a House majority under the bomb-throwing banners of Newt and Rush, the brakes weren't just worn out, they were sawed off.

They've been operating under that system ever since.

The Hidden History of the Privatization of Everything

Crossposting from Good Reads

Note From The Editor
Introducing Our Feature Series On Privatization
Josh Marshall
Today TPM is kicking off a richly reported four part series on privatization and the privatization movement in the United States. We’ll begin later this week with a detailed look at the history of the privatization movement, particularly its ideological origins in post-New Deal America, as intellectuals who feared the growth of government searched for ways to limit its growth. Later, their work combined with that of conservative political strategists who saw privatization as a way to eliminate key political constituencies supporting government spending. By the 1980s and 1990s, these principally ideological and political projects came together with a range of corporations, some new and some old, eager for access to the business opportunities privatization had and would continue to create.

From there we will look at public-private partnerships and particular industries like the corrections industry to see how privatization works in practice. Public debate on the issue often focuses on costs and savings. Does privatization really reduce costs to tax payers or simply enrich private businesses? Our series will look closely at that issue. But we will also focus on the way privatization often limits the scope of democratic government itself - taking key public policy decisions away from democratically elected or accountable authorities and handing them over to private corporations, whose methods and practices are either hidden from public view or are actually trade secrets they own.

Part 1
The History of Privatization
How an Ideological and Political Attack on Government Became a Corporate Grab for Gold

Donald Cohen

Rising discontent with government during the 1960’s and 1970’s created fertile ground for privatization advocates like Savas and Robert Poole, founder of the Reason Foundation. Not only did they see opportunity for increased contracting out, but they seized the moment to recast existing municipal practices as living proof that their ideas were correct. Local governments had considerable experience contracting for basic services. San Francisco, for example, began contracting with private companies for trash collection in 1932.

The urban fiscal crises of the 1970s offered the perfect opportunity to create a rationale for contracting out public services. Cities across the country were facing declining revenues as middle class families and manufacturing companies fled to the suburbs and Great Society welfare programs increased costs. The lengthy 1973 recession pushed cities into crisis and toward Savas’ solutions. Privatization was no longer only a right-wing attack on popular government services, but increasingly becoming a managerial response to tight city budgets.

By the end of the 1970s, the table was set. Cities were in fiscal crisis and a new conservative think-tank infrastructure (Reason, Cato, Heritage, ALEC, and others) that embraced privatization as a core strategy to downsize government was ready for a frontal assault.

And then a new president was elected.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »