Oppo Research
Usually, trying to keep up with facts leaves me no time to contemplate theories. Not that I have anything against theories, as long as we are careful to distinguish between fact and theory. However, sometimes a question arises on its own and persists. This is one of those times.
Obviously, oppo research was responsible for this series of October surprises, from an eleven-year old outtake about Trump's unwelcome kissing and groping to a claim by a victim of having been groped by Trump on a plane thirty-five years ago. I have zero problem with any of that. Oppo research is SOP in political campaigns and every nominee in a general Presidential election campaign.dreams of an October surprise that media will blare on a loop.
However, we did have a rather long (it seemed) Republican primary with about twenty Republican candidates, one of whom actually shares a surname and a considerable amount of DNA with Billy Bush! (I think! you know! the candidate! I mean!) That same candidate also has a lot of experience with Rovian tactics, having worked up close and personal with The Karl himself during more than one Presidential campaign. And said candidate had money up the yin yang to do oppo research, his own money, family money, big, big donor money, some say even Nazi money. And he was only one member of a laughably large Republican Presidential primary field. Day after day, Trump taunted them, insulted them, belittled them, providing plenty of motivation for retaliation by any or all of them.
It wasn't as though Trump's womanizing was unfathomable, either. Ditto the possibility of sexual assault. His public record with women shouts "horn dog." As many women can attest, horn dogs, especially those with power and wealth, often "overstep," to put it mildly. Moreover, his first wife's divorce papers, a public record any oppo team worth the name would have found and read, said he forced himself on her. Yet, not one of the Republican primary candidates' oppo teams came up with any of this info now being aired. So, how is this coming out only now? Why didn't one or more primary candidates knock Trump out of the primary? Am I the only one surprised by the apparent laxity of every Republican primary candidate's oppo research?
As far as the women: I believe them. I feel very bad for them. I feel awful that any of this happened to them in the first instance. However, I feel they are being used again. This is not like one woman after another spontaneously finding her power and her voice to accuse Cosby for her own sake. This is Trump and Hillary digging into the past to find these women and persuade them to speak out publicly, whether again, or for the first time, for the benefit of Trump or Hillary. Something about that seems wrong to me.
In any event, this Presidential campaign is the worst of my life in so many ways that I can only once again curse the duopoly that is fast morphing into a monopoly.
Comments
Unfavorable ratings
above 50% for both major party candidates is as unprecedented as the failure of the press to ask relevant questions during the debates, and press interviews.
Is it any surprise the election has devolved to a 10th grade Facebook slut shaming?
As a national whole, we are being given a heaping helping of exactly what we asked for...a stinkin pile of shit.
Some here have suggested we do a shopping strike to send a message to the corporatists. I suggest we turn off our televisions, boycott Facebook, Twitter, and the 24/7 news and titillation conglomerates, and show the media, the advertisers (corporations) that we ...maybe...have a collective brain cell between us, are capable of making a self considered decision about fucking anything not force fed to us by the MSM
I agree (except that I don't recall asking for a pile of poop).
Some years ago, I suggested that we not buy anything at all for a week, even if we have to stock up first. The daughter of a couple who owned a smaller business castigated me for suggesting it, perhaps rightly. However, we could modify the plan to allow purchases from Mom and Pop stores. But no Shoprite, Stop and Shop, Target, Macy's, WalMart's, Bloomie's, etc. for one week.
The press, MSM, establishment lapdogs, whatever, is having
a successful campaign season. It's very profitable for them to have had Trump for so long - they make no secret of it. Now they are using their "news" pages to promote Clinton in the election.
What people of good will need to do is to realize that the corporate press do what they do for profit and if a person wants to learn the truth, such as it may be, that person needs to read sources whose primary purpose is to present events accurately and analyze them in accordance with their political stance which is known to all beforehand.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I fear it's even worse than that.
With most of mass media being owned by huge conglomerates, it's not important that media make money. The political agenda of the conglomerates, things like no regulation and favorable tax laws, are more important to the overall enterprise. So the media arm is in service of that, not in the service of making money by pleasing consumers. Besides, they make money anyway, because their advertisers don't have that many places to go anymore. Just a theory of mine.
You nailed it, Henry.
The mass media is now the PR department for their corporate owners. They're a cost center, but it's an acceptable cost as long as they're getting out the corporate message.
That's been my sense for a while.
Until just now, I would have said I had nothing to back it up. However, my mind works in an odd way and I just now got why I have this theory.
Look at MSNBC, for example. They had low ratings, even among Fox, CNN and themselves. Their best rated show, however, was Olberman's. They fired him (for what exactly?) anyway.
They took Cenk's show away from him when he was second only to Maddow in ratings because the Obama White House complained about him. They told Cenk, "You know we're establishment." They didn't outright fire him, but they wanted to give him a different show. He said he had just built up the ratings of his show. He refused and left. It is possible they took that route because they wanted to be able to say they fired him for low ratings (of the new show), rather than because the White House complained about his criticism of Obama.
When Schultz when he was second in ratings behind Maddow, they started moving his show all around, including to weekends, which was their dead zone then because many people still thought they aired nothing but prison and crime shows on the weekend. Then they started planting stories about how low his ratings were. Their other shows were not even included in the stories, only his. It was obvious. After a few stories about his low ratings, he was gone, too. After Cenk, he was the most critical of Obama, the most pro-union, etc. And he backed Bernie in the primaries.
That is not the behavior of a network that needs ratings to draw advertisers to survive. A network that needs ratings to survive would not have fired the one talking head in their line up who back Bernie when Bernie was on fire. That is the behavior of a network trying to propagandize the public in a certain way. MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal which is owned by Comcast. MSNBC's ad revenues are not needed for the survival of that conglomerate. friends in D.C. are far more important to Comcast.
Well I think you are right. It's more important for monopoly
capital to control the means of mass communication then for them to make a profit on the enterprise. Good point.
When capital has 90%(say) of public communications, it's having a propaganda arm of the global system. Since end stage capitalism tends to secular stagnation and profitable areas for investment are scarce, the corporations are awash in money and even if the press, radio and tv don't bring in profits, owning the message is of utmost importance.
On another topic: Much of the media is hammering the message: "We are now at full employment." With last Friday's unemployment numbers, Big Capital is promoting the message, Full employment!! Good on Obama, I guess(who would have thought?)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Official unemployment only counts the totally unemployed
who are still looking. If you work part-time, piecemeal, part of the gig economy, make minimum wage, or are otherwise underemployed, you are "employed". If you are feeling hopeless, have given up, don't even try to interest the government in your plight any more, you are "not in the labor force".
The percentage of Americans working 30 or more hours per week for a regular paycheck is only 44% of adults of working age.
Sad, huh? http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thank you, duckpin. Full employment, eh? We all know how
administrations can manipulate that number. And gasoline prices were down this summer, another number that has had a correlation in Presidential elections. Hillary's really taking no chances this time around, is she?
During the primaries
the MSM was a constant in their support of everything trump and in ignoring of everything Sanders.
Today the MSM is a constant in everything bad about trump while ignoring any and everything bad about her heinous and are unaware of others candidates in the contest.
The country today is nothing more than 3rd world banana republic. How can these 2 candidates one who should be in jail, the other, you name the adjective, noun, adjective, noun be the candidates that we the people have as choices for the highest office in the land.
The MSM is more like "Mostly Synchronized Media"
I pinch myself everyday yet the picture is still the same, we as a country
are in deep shit.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
We are citizens of a country that has become militarized;
sold out to Big Finance; divided by the bogus identity politics; robbed of fair elections; polluted and then polluted some more; and have become as economically stratified as any country on earth. The 99% have been willfully played for suckers and power has risen to the top as sure as wealth has.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Best summary I've seen. Thank you.
I noticed the same thing. During the primaries,
Trump, was, according to media, unstoppable. No matter what he said, no matter what he did, people were loving him.Wow! What a phenom! At this time, Trump was drawing like 75 people if he went to a state fair and offered free helicopter rides to the kiddoes.
Bernie was running a Presidential campaign without big money, probably for the first time since voters had radios and holding rallies where 20,000 were in the venue and 7000 were standing outside in the cold in overflow. Nothing to see there, even according to NPR's ombudsman.
We've known for a long time that we're flocked, even if we haven't figured out every single way they use to flock us. What we don't know is how to fight them effectively.
And if I understand it correctly
it's all because of the Russkies and pussy. -sigh-
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
ggersh: EEew, gross!
And really quite unnecessary when you could quite easily have written nothing; which would have been a better contribution to civil political discourse.
My apologies to you
we are about to go to war in Syria and people are worried about gross, my bad.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
ggersh: your use of the p-word as a 'joke'
(in a lame attempt to construct a cheap-shot dig at Team HRC) hit me like a fist to my stomach.
Your use of the p-word in this way is not 'civil discourse'.
In this instance, though, it's literal and not a figure of
speech. Though it was bleeped, Trump said he grabbed "pussy" and that is what started a meltdown of his campaign. Also it is the topic of this thread.
Even though I have posted on this board about not using hurtful words, I think this situation is different. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/172098#comment-172098
It's not about calling a man or a woman a pussy to insult him or her. It's a reference what has actually happened in an unprecedented Presidential campaign. If, for example, someone called Obama a "nigger" during a SOTU address, using the n word to describe what happened would be reportage, not racism. Same for saying what happened on the Access Hollywood tape and its aftermath.
Crude but to the point. eom
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
I'll apologize one more time, sorry.
I didn't use the term to try to offend anyone.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
I read your posts. There's no way I thought you were trying to
be offensive.
(What would Lenny Bruce do for a living these days?)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
ggersh: your first apology was not an apology
I didn't say you were 'trying to offend'. This puts your second apology in, or very near, no-pology territory, particulary when you follow that no-pology with more attempted jokes intended to show that you were 'only joking' when you used that offensive word offensively.
Yes, the p-word, like the n-word and the f*g-word, are inherently offensive when used 'as a joke' to demean another human. Use of these words constitutes verbal battery on the persons typified by those words, and causes pain and distress to those persons who have suffered such battery and who will be subjected to it as long as they live.
It is usual for those who have committed this kind of verbal battery to try to deny or minimize their offensive behavior in three ways:
1. 'It was a joke' -- often combined with insulting the confrontor by calling them too sensitive, ie 'What's the matter with you, you can't take a joke?' (In your first apology above, you portrayed me as a pearl-clutching numbskull who doesn't understand that Important Issues are at stake -- a cheap DK ploy, using disparagement to invalidate.)
2. 'I didn't *mean* it! -- Again, dismisses the confrontor. 'I didn't intend to offend, so what's wrong with you that you were offended?'
3. Seek approval and support from others willing to not-see the inherent offensiveness of the words used to verbally battter -- as you did below, when you reiterated your 'it was a joke!' defense.
If you try to say that you didn't imagine that using the p-word would be considered offensive, I won't buy it. A month or two ago, this site went through a week or more of intense discussion about the use of woman-hating language, and this issue has gotten a lot of discussion online in recent years, so I consider it impossible that anyone could be clueless about these issues.
Trump's behavior -- both in the 'Grab'em' video and in the ongoing drama that has begun to play out now that a number of women have come forward to confirm that Trump behaved just as he had described -- means that the issues of women being physically assaulted as they go about their lives, as well as being verbally assaulted by the use of particular words, will be kept front and center of public discourse for some time to come.
Because of this timing, I felt I could not let your cavalier use of the p-word 'as a joke' go by without responding to it and calling it out as 'gross', and as 'not civil discourse'. I still think both descriptors are accurate.
OK CroneWit...
ggersh apologized, now give it a rest.
I was done at 7:20pm, Johhny
Your use was descriptive, not using it as a joke or as
a pejorative. It was accurate. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/191242#comment-191242
Thanks HW
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
If it helps, it almost made
If it helps, it almost made me laugh (not easy at the moment)and seemed a perfect commentary. We need to mock the ludicrous PR and those busily 'social engineering' us all into a hopeless and helpless
corporate/militaryfascist serfdom.Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
More laughing is always good.
Thanks it does help
and laughing is always good, the weight of TPTB on the rubes is quite telling.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Thanks I appreciate that
(Sit down comedy?) In a world gone crazy.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Not as bad as I thought it would be
Both major party candidates are unpopular and distrusted. The Hillary campaign determined to win this time no matter what it takes. Identity politics means not having to talk much about issues that divide the 1 Percent from the 99 Percent. I actually thought the general election would be uglier. Of course it's not over yet!
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
I had to laugh. Hillary went on and on about Trump, the
Obamas and other Hillary surrogates have been going on and on about Trump, but Hillary says, "Negativity is all he has." Good lord, she's been nothing but negative about him and his supporters for weeks.
In the world of the obamas and clintons
they believe they have found trumps achilles heel and will try to milk it til the cow turns blue, for they have nothing else.
I think this whatever we call it will surprise us all, unless the fix is in. The people are wakening up to what the establishment has done. How else can you explain Bernie and the fact trump is still a candidate.
#Jillneverhill
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
"If voting made any difference, they would not let us do it."
Author unknown.
http://www.snopes.com/mark-twain-voting-quote/