Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/katrina-pierson-claims-obama-invaded-afghanistan-creating-problem.html

Already infamous for her tenuous grasp on reality, Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson went on CNN this morning and told Victor Blackwell,

“Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.”

No. No, we don’t remember that at all. President Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. Barack Obama did not become president until 2009. When Bush invaded Afghanistan, Obama was an Illinois State Senator.

Take a peek if you have the stomach for it:

(vid at link)

Like the rest of us, Blackwell, who does inhabit our shared reality, asked,

“You’re saying Barack Obama took the country into Afghanistan post-2009?”

Pierson responded, “That was Obama’s war, yes.”

Oh boy.

We are used to a reconstructed history from Republicans, like Obama being blamed for 9/11 or the response to Katrina, but if Trump wants support from anybody but right wing crazies, he and his spokespersons (and rapidly diminishing number of apologists) are going to have to do better than this.

When a Trump adviser said recently of Pierson’s fact-free interviews, “I think we’re fixing it, I guarantee you that won’t happen again with her, that’s for sure.”

Yeah. I think that conversation hasn’t taken place yet.

..extraordinary.

It's like they watched that Eric Bolling vid from a few years back and tried to one up it.

You just can't trust a Muslim who isn't American to be president.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/katrina-pierson-claims-obama-invaded-afghanistan-creating-problem.html

Already infamous for her tenuous grasp on reality, Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson went on CNN this morning and told Victor Blackwell,

“Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.”

No. No, we don’t remember that at all. President Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. Barack Obama did not become president until 2009. When Bush invaded Afghanistan, Obama was an Illinois State Senator.

Take a peek if you have the stomach for it:

(vid at link)

Like the rest of us, Blackwell, who does inhabit our shared reality, asked,

“You’re saying Barack Obama took the country into Afghanistan post-2009?”

Pierson responded, “That was Obama’s war, yes.”

Oh boy.

We are used to a reconstructed history from Republicans, like Obama being blamed for 9/11 or the response to Katrina, but if Trump wants support from anybody but right wing crazies, he and his spokespersons (and rapidly diminishing number of apologists) are going to have to do better than this.

When a Trump adviser said recently of Pierson’s fact-free interviews, “I think we’re fixing it, I guarantee you that won’t happen again with her, that’s for sure.”

Yeah. I think that conversation hasn’t taken place yet.

..extraordinary.

It's like they watched that Eric Bolling vid from a few years back and tried to one up it.

And these are the people who vote to help determine our nation's future. And there are always more of them than you think.

That was...hard to watch/believe lol. I'd love to know who in Trump's campaign decided to hire her lmao.

**Edit: Who am I kidding? It was the Donald!

 d-usa wrote:
Having succeeded at polling worse with African-Anericans than any other recent GOP candidate, Trump now tanks the Latino vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/12/donald-trump-is-now-doing-worse-with-hispanic-voters-than-any-republican-since-1996/?ref=yfp

Must be some mistake. No GOP candidate would ever alienate a section of American soceity who are by their nature, natural conservatives...

Seriously, though, it's an old point, but the GOP's handling of Latino voters these past years has to be one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds in political history...

Holy feth, how did the GOP do this to people who should be their natural supporters and one of the USA's fastest growing demographics...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Holy feth, how did the GOP do this to people who should be their natural supporters and one of the USA's fastest growing demographics...

The GOP did it by vilifying them, insulting them, and blaming half of the US's problems on them and/or the country they came from.

The sad part is, this was brought up after the 2012 elections. A GOP analyst was talking about the Latino vote and said something like "we just need to educate them to help them realize we have the same values." While that may be true, could that statement have been any more condescending?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Holy feth, how did the GOP do this to people who should be their natural supporters and one of the USA's fastest growing demographics...

The GOP did it by vilifying them, insulting them, and blaming half of the US's problems on them and/or the country they came from.

The sad part is, this was brought up after the 2012 elections. A GOP analyst was talking about the Latino vote and said something like "we just need to educate them to help them realize we have the same values." While that may be true, could that statement have been any more condescending?

The scary thing is, I honestly thought the GOP had cracked the code. The Bush family in Florida and their close links to Latino civic society, and of course Marco Rubio. I remember saying to myself, and nodding in approval, that the GOP were playing the long game, courting the Latino vote, and being politically smart., and sometime in the future, they would reap the rewards...

Even I get it wrong from time to time...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The scary thing is, I honestly thought the GOP had cracked the code. The Bush family in Florida and their close links to Latino civic society, and of course Marco Rubio. I remember saying to myself, and nodding in approval, that the GOP were playing the long game, courting the Latino vote, and being politically smart., and sometime in the future, they would reap the rewards...

Even I get it wrong from time to time...

This is the problem with a "big tent" party. On one side you have the pragmatic types who want to grow the party and include as many different types of people as possible but are witless in how they say things, and on the other side you have the North Carolina types spitting bile at anyone who offends their sensibilities. Then there is the third side of the party, who enjoy spamming the self-destruct button while laughing manically and twirling their mustaches.

I tell you, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The scary thing is, I honestly thought the GOP had cracked the code. The Bush family in Florida and their close links to Latino civic society, and of course Marco Rubio. I remember saying to myself, and nodding in approval, that the GOP were playing the long game, courting the Latino vote, and being politically smart., and sometime in the future, they would reap the rewards...

In Florida, maybe. But in the other states? Not so much. The GOP's hardline rhetoric on illegal immigration creates an image of a GOP that is completely unfeeling and uncaring of those who come from south of the border. Even those here legally end up getting tarred with the same brush of intolerance and hate that the rhetoric creates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

I tell you, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

Amusingly, I wonder if it would be spinning right back to the Democratic Party ("The Republican Party left me").

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I tell you, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

Amusingly, I wonder if it would be spinning right back to the Democratic Party ("The Republican Party left me").

No, the Democrats have gone even farther left than when he was around. I think he'd be more active trying to reform the Republicans but seriously lamenting the evangelicals and those in talk radio/Fox for their general attitude.

 r_squared wrote:
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if the whole Trump Clinton Democrat conspiracy doesn't actually have some legs.

There's two possibilities. The first is that the Republican base picked an incompetent, bigoted liar and somewhere around 80 to 90% of Republican voters will vote for him in November, knowing full well that he's an incompetent, bigoted liar.

The second possibility is that Democrats cunningly tricked the Republican base in to nominating Donald Trump by having Trump say a lot of stupid, bigoted lies which voters then supported. And now that Trump is desperately saying more and more stupid, bigoted lies to try and throw the election, and yet 80 to 90% of Republican voters are still voting for him.

Either way it doesn't really say many positive things about the bulk of Republican supporters.


Avik Roy has been one of the leading intellectuals in conservative US politics for a long time now, and he sums up the state of the party very nicely - “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
AS has the Democratic Party. If the Republicans weren't running Mr. Pants on His Head, it would be nonstop stories about Chicago style corruption right now between the Clintons, the Clinton Initiative, and the Clinton Foundation.

And here it is again - accusations. Lots of investigations, occasionally something as shocking as an email in which there's a request to find a job in the State Dept for a Clinton Foundation staffer. And that's enough to call it Chicago style corruption, because feth evidence and reason when we need to claim 'both sides'.

 sebster wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if the whole Trump Clinton Democrat conspiracy doesn't actually have some legs.

There's two possibilities. The first is that the Republican base picked an incompetent, bigoted liar and somewhere around 80 to 90% of Republican voters will vote for him in November, knowing full well that he's an incompetent, bigoted liar.

The second possibility is that Democrats cunningly tricked the Republican base in to nominating Donald Trump by having Trump say a lot of stupid, bigoted lies which voters then supported. And now that Trump is desperately saying more and more stupid, bigoted lies to try and throw the election, and yet 80 to 90% of Republican voters are still voting for him.

Either way it doesn't really say many positive things about the bulk of Republican supporters.


Avik Roy has been one of the leading intellectuals in conservative US politics for a long time now, and he sums up the state of the party very nicely - “We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
AS has the Democratic Party. If the Republicans weren't running Mr. Pants on His Head, it would be nonstop stories about Chicago style corruption right now between the Clintons, the Clinton Initiative, and the Clinton Foundation.

And here it is again - accusations. Lots of investigations, occasionally something as shocking as an email in which there's a request to find a job in the State Dept for a Clinton Foundation staffer. And that's enough to call it Chicago style corruption, because feth evidence and reason when we need to claim 'both sides'.

Pretty much that, you wouldn't be calling that chicago corruption if you have actually seen it and know what the machine is

Yes. The "Trump is a Democrat plant" is a really pointless conspiracy. Either the Republicans are supporting the bigot, or they're supporting someone else's bigot. The end result of either scenario bears little relevant difference. The bigot is still a bigot, and he still got the support of the Republican party (at least in so far as he is the nominee and everyone has accepted it).

The part of the Avik Roy article article that most hit home for me coming from a staunchly conservative family;

They cannot admit that their party’s voters are motivated far more by white identity politics than by conservative ideals.

...

“[Trump] tapped into something that was latent in the Republican Party and conservative movement — but a lot of people in the conservative movement didn’t notice,” Roy concludes, glumly.

Why does someone else always manage to find a better way to say the things I want to say (usually by being less wordy).

 whembly wrote:
For what it's worth, Hillary Clinton would drag her party more towards the center once elected, if the GOP retains control of at least one of the houses in Congress.

In terms of policy positions and voting records Clinton and Obama are pretty close to identical, in terms of the left-right scale of politics.

Obama is slightly left of centre. Clinton is slightly left of centre. The actual left of the party is Sanders and Warren. The rising profile of those two, and the adoration they're getting in some circles shows there is a developing (recovering?) activist left wing within the Democratic party. And that means there's a chance that at some in the future that they will put more people like Sanders and Warren in to congress and drag the Democrats further to the left. But right now that isn't the case.

Because you just have to compare this to the Republican party, when the establishment, supposedly moderate leaders are people like Paul Ryan, who is far more radical in his politics than Bernie Sanders.

 Breotan wrote:
I tell you, Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.

I don't understand the conservative obsession with Reagan in any way. This was a guy who nearly tripled the deficit, vastly increased the size of the federal government, created the EITC, backed what became Al Qaeda, raised the debt ceiling 17 times, gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and illegally sold weapons to Iran. It's just mind boggling, the level of cognitive dissonance involved in that particular hero worship.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's been ample speculation that Hillary made promises to Goldman Sachs and Wall St companies that she would support them and not pass legislation that cracks down on some of their problematic business practices. Bernie Sanders called for Clinton to release those transcripts so the public could see what Hillary was telling them that made it worth paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And there it is again, 'there's been speculation'. For lots of people the simple act of someone accusing Clinton of something, of anything, is sufficient.

And this was always a very silly attack. Getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech sounds outrageous and so lots of people jumped to some weird, conspiratorial conclusions. But six figures for speeches is a common rate for high profile speakers, especially when dealing with industry sectors that are flush with cash.

Her husband made an average of more than $200k per speech to Wall St. OMG what could a former president be promising these people?! Nothing, obviously, he's a former president. That's just the going rate when event organisers can sell tables at those speeches for $30 grand.

Sarah Palin has taken $100k for speaking to Wall St. She not only has nothing to promise Wall St, she can barely even talk. But that's the going rate for high profile speakers.

Former Presidents still have a lot of pull with a lot of people. I don't disagree with the overall point but lets not pretend former Presidents bring nothing to the table either.

They bring only the finest of cheeses and meats.

 jmurph wrote:
Anybody take a look at this?

I was talking about this in the context of his Detroit speech the other day. That speech wasn't for the Trump base, whom Trump has probably quite rightly assessed as unlikely to tune in to any kind of economic policy discussion. That speech and the greater Trump economic plan is for the donor class of the Republican party, whom Trump is currently trying to get a lot of donations out of. So he promises them the wealthy their lower tax rates and no more inheritance tax. This is in direct contrast to all of his populist stuff, but does anyone really expect Trump to spend his time in the Whitehouse looking after the working classes?

And he cites to the Economic Policy Institute! It's like HRC citing the Cato Institute or something.

"Donald Trump’s recent speech in Pennsylvania about globalization and U.S. trade policy cited my research nearly 20 times. As a result, people have asked me if I agree with his trade policy prescriptions. The simple answer is no."

"Like many of Trump’s statements and plans, this reflects a terrible mix of ignorance and hubris."

I could go on to quote the specifics of Scott's disagreement with Trump, but I don't really agree with Scott's arguments and posting them would make it sound like I was suggesting those arguments. And I also don't want to spend any time saying why Scott's arguments are wrong, because that makes it sound like I agree with Trump.
http://www.epi.org/publication/why-negotiating-great-trade-deals-is-not-the-answer/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Why does someone else always manage to find a better way to say the things I want to say (usually by being less wordy).

It happens to me all the time. It happens here on this forum. I'll read a comment on here and spend a couple of minutes bashing out a a three paragraph essay in response, only to see someone else has already posted a one line response that is not only briefer, its also a more complete answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't understand the conservative obsession with Reagan in any way. This was a guy who nearly tripled the deficit, vastly increased the size of the federal government, created the EITC, backed what became Al Qaeda, raised the debt ceiling 17 times, gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and illegally sold weapons to Iran. It's just mind boggling, the level of cognitive dissonance involved in that particular hero worship.

It'd be pretty embarrassing to have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican president to cheer about. There's been a lot of effort to re-invent the legacy of GW Bush, but it's all still in living memory so it just doesn't work. GHW Bush was a one term president, you can't have your party hero as a guy who won 50%. That takes you to Reagan. If they accept the actual legacy of Reagan administration then they're hardly going to cheer about Ford or Nixon, and that takes you back to Eisenhower.

So really it's easier to play make believe about Reagan.

Democrats did something similar with JFK for a long time, celebrating a guy who's actual policies were abhorrent to the modern Democratic party. But once Clinton came along and was a successful president, there seemed to be a lot more freedom to talk about how JFK wasn't really what modern Democrats actually wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Former Presidents still have a lot of pull with a lot of people. I don't disagree with the overall point but lets not pretend former Presidents bring nothing to the table either.

Sure, but as a conspiracy what does that give you? The idea that they'd pay Bill Clinton $200k per speech as a covert payment so that he'd encourage other people who are still in power to do stuff? It's very silly.

Meanwhile, Kim Kardashian used to be paid in excess of $500k to turn up at a nightclub for a couple of hours. What were those nightclub owners really paying her for? What promises was she making them for when she takes the Whitehouse?!

 sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, Kim Kardashian used to be paid in excess of $500k to turn up at a nightclub for a couple of hours. What were those nightclub owners really paying her for?

I assume it's like the unwritten rule of the road.

You shouldn't vote for someone based on how much other countries like them, of course, and I don't even think it really means much in terms of international diplomacy - most state dept work is executed by officials in the same way no matter who is in the Whitehouse, but it still makes for interesting reading.

That Merkel greece rating though and anyone else not find it surprising that the only two countries that sorta like putin are greece and china?

I find it odd that Hungary has such a (comparatively) high opinion of Putin.

 Ustrello wrote:
That Merkel greece rating though

It's getting so you can't even bankrupt someone's country without them getting all gakky about it

My country (China) apparently loves both Trump and Putin. Time to go back into the shame-box.

Chinese state run newspapers have been having more fun than usual this election by covering Trump as further evidence that democracy is bad. They tend to run stories that put democratic nations in a negative light, but Trump has been providing them with a lot of material which they have happily been covering. For exampe one opinion piece had this to say about Trump and the United States:

The article that I linked to wrote:What is at stake? Is it Trump's often nonsensical and barmy rhetorical rants? Or, is it yet again the phony, money-centric system of democracy that defines the United States?

The answer is the latter.

This news coverage may generating name recognition that Hillary does not have and might be why my country has the highest approval rating of the man.

 the Signless wrote:
Chinese state run newspapers have been having more fun than usual this election by covering Trump as further evidence that democracy is bad.

Well, they're not wrong.

Churchill's thoughts on the matter do come to mind XD

According to this article on BoingBoing, Trump could be right about the election being fixed.

http://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/if-the-2016-election-is-hacked.html

But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)

... hmmmmm....


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=0

KIEV, Ukraine — On a leafy side street off Independence Square in Kiev is an office used for years by Donald J. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, when he consulted for Ukraine’s ruling political party. His furniture and personal items were still there as recently as May.

And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies that helped members of Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle finance their lavish lifestyles, including a palatial presidential residence with a private zoo, golf course and tennis court. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.

elsewhere ;

http://www.people.com/article/ivanka-trump-wendi-deng-murdoch-croatia

Ivanka Trump is taking a break from the campaign trail to vacation with friends.

The daughter of GOP nominee Donald Trump shared a scenic snap with Wendi Deng Murdoch, the ex-wife of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, from Dubrovnik, Croatia.

Trump, 34, was spotted with husband Jared Kushner in the city's old town, seemingly taking a couple's vacation without their three children – Arabella, 5, Joseph, 2, and Theodore, 4 months.

Deng Murdoch was actually responsible for setting up Trump and Kushner.




"Everything she has is available to her friends, which, believe me, is not common," Trump told Vogue earlier this summer of her friend. "There's nothing that doesn't interest her, and she can hit five topics in a 35-second conversation. It's really a whirlwind with Wendi. I can't recall the last time I had a conversation with her that didn't conclude with her connecting me to four people who might become great friends or great business opportunities."

That's Murdoch's ex wife who was/is dating Putin :

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/rupert-murdochs-ex-wife-wendi-deng-is-dating-vladimir-putin-w200077

Katrina Pierson seems like an ideal rep for Trump.

After the surge when al Qaeda was in ashes. Entering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — remember we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan creating another problem.

Half Trump's target demo won't know that's not true, 30% will believe that (again) it was "audio echoes" and they were misunderstood - again, even though this time that clearly wasn't the case - and the other 20% won't care what he says because both sides are bad.

Also, it looks like George Soros was hacked, again likely by Russia. Interesting seeing people in the comments cheer on a state-sponsored cyber attack on their own country, because that's somehow a win for their "team".

we deserve Trump

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/katrina-pierson-claims-obama-invaded-afghanistan-creating-problem.html

I saw that one. Absolutely cringeworthy. I could barely watch the crazy lady. It's like listening to Grandpa Simpson when he's off his meds.

"Now let me tell you another story that is long, rambling, and has no point whatsoever..."