When deciding which candidates to support, one looks to see positive endorsements, i.e., support and contributions from people and organizations whom one respects. But negative endorsements (i.e, if they are supported by people and organizations one detests) can also be useful

And on the latter score, we see Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg get big donations form Wall Street executives and Harris also gets from the pharmaceutical industry executives even after she claims she rejects them.

I am not surprised about Biden and Harris because they are the Democratic party establishment candidates and so cater to the big business interests but the news about Buttigieg is disappointing.

Once again, we see the New York Times falling over itself to paint Trump in as good a light as possible, like it did earlier when it refused to use the term ‘racist’ to describe his nakedly racist tweets. It is part of its long-standing policy of deference to the powerful and wealthy.

Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions. https://t.co/ynjgtT66yI

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) August 6, 2019

[Read more…]

Robert Mackey connects the dots that form a deadly triangle.

Indeed, the steady drumbeat of invasion rhetoric from the network and the president over the past two years suggests that they are locked in a feedback loop, working together to generate an ever-intensifying level of paranoia and frenzy in their shared fan base.

Brandon Friedman looked at the El Paso shooter’s manifesto and draws straight lines between his words and Fox News and Trump.

Using the El Paso terrorist's manifesto, I connected the dots for folks still having trouble doing that.

This is just the first page. pic.twitter.com/mQcW3doGNF

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) August 4, 2019

The husband of devoted Trump aide and supporter Kellyanne Conway knows exactly how this latest mass murder atrocity will play out when it comes to Trump’s response.

1. Trump will go on TV and give a speech. On paper, the speech may say some of the right things. It will look somewhat presidential. There’s an off chance it might even be good (grading on a curve).
2. But the problem will be that it was given by Trump, who’s incapable of sincere empathy. So it’ll be hard to believe that he believes the words he said. And his speech won’t address his own hateful, racist rhetoric.
3. So he’ll be roundly criticized for that. And he’ll also be criticized on policy grounds, because whatever he says on that score will not suffice for many people.
4. He’ll see and hear all this criticism on TV, and he’ll stew. And stew. He’ll grow angry and resentful that he was forced to give the speech in the first place.
5. Finally, perhaps within 24 or 48 hours, the narcissistic pressure will break the dam, and his anger and frustration will gush forward.
6. He’ll tweet, otherwise say, or do something that’ll completely undo whatever positive benefit came from the speech.
7. We’ve seen this movie before how many times?

Conway is right. Trump obviously does not care at all about the victims of his inciting rhetoric. He will only care about how people are so ungrateful for not fawning over his obviously phony gestures of sympathy.

How can the leaders of two nations who are both inveterate and known liars and backstabbers negotiate a workable deal? It is hard to make a deal if you think the other party will renege on it at the first opportunity, even to the extent of not honoring any commitment that they themselves publicly make in the negotiations.

We may soon find out.

New British prime minister Boris Johnson has been described as dissembling, dishonest, dark, and duplicitous, qualities that he shares with Donald Trump. So while there may well be a genuine ‘special relationship’ between the two of them as individuals, I am curious about how they will arrive at deals since neither party can be trusted an inch to negotiate in good faith.
[Read more…]