I think I hurt my feet every way there is to hurt your feet playing soccer today. I got stepped on. I re-cracked the big toe that is already black and broken, I had a full power foot-to-foot (no ball) collision, I badly bruised one of my heels, I jammed some of my little toes on a scoring try, and I developed a blister.
It was fun.
And I scored with my belly, which is not something I can remember doing before.
I was never a defender when I played as kid, and I don’t feel like I know what I’m doing when forced to play the position, but I seemed to do it very well today. It does involve a lot more contact and my feet aren’t exactly pleased about it.
I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said “I can’t think when my feet hurt.”
He was a smart man.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292126-michele-bachmann-advising-trump-on-for
eign-policy
Well, what did she say about Iowa?
I love the reporting in this story. Bachmann is advising Trump, but she has not endorsed his candidacy.
This campaign is weird.
The former Congressmember’s insistence that the Rapture is imminent makes it more likely for her to advise Trump to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East and elsewhere. With Armageddon coming, what do have to lose? Might as well send the unbelievers to hell with our God Bombs, and then the godbotherers could gain their rapid ascendance to paradise as the proportional response comes from the filthy sinners.
Feel better.
Heal.
This is who they are:
This is who they’ve always been.
Pro-life is a FARCE.
………………………………….
Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world, study finds
As the Republican-led state legislature has slashed funding to reproductive healthcare clinics, the maternal mortality rate doubled over just a two-year period
The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world.
The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000 – or about 27%.
But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain “in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval”.
From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texas’s estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies.
No other state saw a comparable increase.
In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texas’s reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the state’s family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services – such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams – to only half as many women as before.
At the same time, Texas eliminated all Planned Parenthood clinics – whether or not they provided abortion services – from the state program that provides poor women with preventive healthcare. Previously, Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas offered cancer screenings and contraception to more than 130,000 women.
Well, you know how it is: they just love fetuses, but for life outside the womb, fuck them, they’re on their own.
Thank you for the post – and you are spot-on — that is who they really are.
The US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any Western democracy. And ACA has not moved the dial, either. Complex etiology.
I’m having problems locating the full study, but this link has some worthwhile details of another contemporaneous study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160810113704.htm
Among its details:
“…The study found that earlier estimates significantly underreported maternal deaths, largely because of delays in some states’ adoption of a ‘pregnancy question’ on standard death certificates. Because of those delays and resulting discrepancies, the U.S. has not published an official maternal mortality rate since 2007, the researchers said…”.
What both studies show is that Texas and California are outliers, Texas for its large increase in reported maternal deaths and California as the State with the best success in reducing reported maternal deaths.
This adds to the lengthening list of evidences that the measurable success of the ACA is being undermined by the nearly two dozen States which are choosing to actively sabotage the Law. Republican leaders in these States want people to be sick and in pain. They want people to die in greater numbers. It helps them make the political case for repealing the Law.
It’s shocking. It takes partisanship to particularly obscene levels. It should not be treated as business as usual.
How exactly does that link support you? Under-reporting before 2007, and then suddenly, when ACA is enacted, they begin reporting accurately just to make it look bad? Er, maybe it was to actually KNOW the correct numbers? (How long has ACA been in effect?)
Extraordinary claims need something besides bolding, I think. I’d be very interested to read some of what you are referencing.
Texas has not implemented expansion of Medicaid eligibility, and and has done its best to undermine the private health insurance exchange which it declines to administer. Over 1.3 million Texans are being denied health insurance by their State Legislature and Governor.
California has expanded Medicaid eligibility even more substantially than originally outlined in the ACA. The more than four million Californians who have gained Medi-Cal insurance are now being joined by undocumented children, who became eligible for Medi-Cal coverage in May thru a law passed by the State. California is also running its own private health insurance exchange, and the State and many of its Counties are administering aggressive marketing campaigns in multiple languages for both Covered California and Medi-Cal in continuous efforts to wrangle in the remaining uninsured.
Current estimates are that 72 percent of Californians uninsured before ACA implementations have now gained health insurance.
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/breaking-news/ci_30259950/obamacare-72-percent-previously-uninsured-cali
fornians-now-have
Over one-third of those still uninsured in California are undocumented adults, who are currently ineligible for ACA benefits.
“…lengthening list of evidences that the measurable success of the ACA is being undermined by the nearly two dozen States which are choosing to actively sabotage the Law.”
That claim you made.
Any success occurring in participating states remains totally measurable by comparing before and after, no? Non-participating states would not be in the data.
And I included the info on poor historical recordings of maternal deaths in order to remind us that measuring national progress or regression on that health marker is a highly imperfect science.
So is assigning cause. Look up Texas and its behavior with Planned Parenthood.
Since 2011….http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464728393/texas-tries-to-repair-damage-wrought-upon-family-planning-cl
inics
Texas’ attacks on Planned Parenthood and refusal to expand Medicaid are two sides of the same coin. They’re almost certainly both causative of the increases in maternal deaths. Particularly when contrasted with California’s sharply different policies and health outcomes, it seems to me the burden is on Texas (and, apparently, you) to provide an alternative explanation.
Center, you have to compare apples to apples. What changed in Texas to accelerate maternal mortality? No ACA Medicaid expansion before or after so it is NOT a consideration.
Medical reporting got more complex, so some deaths were captured that might not have been prior to 2007. (your link.)
And in 2011 the Texas lege began its war on PP, which was responsible for a lot of family planning options for poors.
The pro-life movement has become a group of men, politicians, and co-dependent women dedicated to the proposition that when a rapist rapes a woman, they stay raped. That when a family member rapes another family member, they stay silent. And that any woman who dares have sex with a man is stuck with a slut label unless she is the obedient wife.
It did not start out that way. In 1975 Wisconsin, it was the refuge of Catholic women who had recently had miscarriages and could not understand why any woman would want an abortion. Catholic because the Catholic Church had made opposition to abortion a political issue within a year of Rowe v. Wade.
The unholy alliance in 1978 between the segregationists and the Catholic anti-abortion movement to elect Ronald Reagan caused that transmogrification because segregationists also tend to be misogynists.
My husband, age 58, and my eldest son, age 29, are playing in an adult soccer league game as I type this. My husband was hoping they have lots of subs today so he won’t have to play an entire game.
It’s a great way for son and father to bond, as long as no one gets hurt.
Well, for this 46 year old, it hurts even when I don’t get hurt.
But, yeah, it’s a lot of fun.
I’ve scored with my belly.
My wife is into chubby guys.
Well at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that you left in on the field.
And you can add a belly goal to the completed items on your bucket list.
Terrific news, Martin. And scoring from the back line? Way to go.
Soak those feet, Brother.
Mark Kirk on Iran payment: Obama acting like ‘drug dealer in chief’
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 2:45 PM ET, Sun August 21, 2016
Washington (CNN) – Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk criticized President Barack Obama for delivering money to the Iranian government in coordination with the release of Americans being held prisoner there — saying he was “acting like the drug dealer in chief.”
The comments came in a sit-down last week with the editorial board of The State Journal-Register, according to the Illinois paper’s political writer.
I eagerly look forward Kirk being made an ex-Senator by the Duckworth campaign and Illinois voters. This metaphor he used here is racist as hell.
Yep.
I hope his opponent has a strong answer about Kirk’s cluelessness.
So Mark Kirk is using the racist dogwhistle “drug dealer in chief” to describe a situation that has nothing at all to do with drugs. Desperate man, isn’t he.
The critical fact wingnuts determinedly try to disappear with propaganda about Obama “giving” or “paying” it (including as “ransom”) to Iran.
And it’s my understanding that releasing those previously seized funds is just fulfilling the U.S.’s obligations under terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, in response to Iran having fulfilled its obligations that the release was conditioned on in the agreement. You’d have a hard time teasing that info from the media’s he said/she said credulous “reporting” of the wingnut demagogue accusations, though.
There’s is simply no limit to the dishonesty the wingnuts will stoop to; routinely aided and abetted by the Useless Corporate Media’s dereliction of duty in enabling-by-not-clearly-refuting the nonsense.
Here are three headlines on the subject:
“Obama administration says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners”
“U.S. Concedes $400 Million Payment to Iran Was Delayed as Prisoner `Leverage'”
“Obama administration defends $400 million payment to Iran, says it wasn’t ransom”
Care to guess which media outlets ran those headlines?
Fox News
NYT
Chicago Trib
In that order.
I am shocked that Fox was not the one that used the word “ransom” in their headline – they must have been off their game that day.
My subject line was actually at least semi-consciously intended to model appropriate headline-writing behavior for the Useless Corporate Media, i.e.,
It’s. Iran’s. Money
Any putative “news” report that does not make that crystal clear high up is egregious journalistic malpractice.
So, of course, it’s all you see from the Useless Corporate Media.
It was effectively a ransom. Nice money thats yours Iran, hate to see it disappear with those prisoners.
Im fine with that. Ive long been critical of the US refusal to pay ransoms and to criminaluze private efforts to do so by families.
“Ransom” is a word. (You could look it up!)
Returning anyone’s own money to them as part of fulfillment, by both sides, of an existing agreement is not “ransom”.
It just isn’t.
Sorry, but I find it idiotic (else dishonest, more likely the case with rightwing propagandists) to pretend otherwise.
Its splitting hairs. It doesnt matter two shits who the money ‘belonged’ to. The admin used it as incentive and they knew Iran would spin it as a ransom and the timing would look like ransom.
Iran‘s “spin[ning] it as a ransom”?
Hadn’t heard that.
Got evidence?
Wingnuts OTOH, are madly spinning it as “ransom”, with assist from the Useless Corporate Media (and now, evidently, you!).
But, again, words have meanings, and “ransom” is a word.
And, again, it makes all the shits there are or have ever been in the world “who the money ‘belonged to'” in determining whether it can reasonably be called “ransom”.
They are missing Ailes.
time from that fount of Beltway Village bilgewater and horserace-obsessed CW, the often-awful Cokie Roberts on NPR this a.m., saying Trump had “embarrassed” Obama into “coming off vacation” to visit Louisiana flood zones.
Completely omitting the critically salient fact that Louisiana’s Governor Edwards had specifically requested that both stay away so response agencies could do their jobs unencumbered, infrastructure could be restored first, etc.
A fact noted and linked by several commenters in the thread here where that first came up.
It’s a sad thing when blog commenters are more reliably responsible “journalists” than supposedly professional, nationally prominent “reporters”/”analysts”!
Nice, unsubtle racist subtext, Sen. Kirk!
Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss: Despite media assertions Russia is behind DNC hack, US government does not say so
At this point, the sole purpose of the story is to argue there is a data point that supports the Clinton campaign’s allegation that Putin has his hand in the Trump campaign. That allegation neither sells with the public nor brings squishy left-leaning Clinton supporters back on board. What it does is threaten the Clinton campaign’s credibility on other foreign policy issues and leads to the suspicion that the election will be used as a mandate for a new Cold War with Russia.
And an opportunity to pull out the McCarthy memes for anyone looking askance at the DEM Wurlitzer.
Been hearing its possible Trump was also hacked. Not sure if that was supposedly successful.
As a reminder, at this moment WikiLeaks has taken direct action in an effort to elect Donald Trump President.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-donald-trump-tax-returns/
That doesn’t look like it will change.
In fact, Assange has said WikiLeaks is intentionally holding back on releasing what he claims are the most damaging internal DNC documents in his possession in order to do so right before the election.
Assange is not a friend of open government. He’s not a friend for those who want to increase press freedoms and reduce state-sponsored violence.
Assange is bargaining with the US government with whatever power he can muster because he knows that the US Attorney for the Southern District of Virginia (the CIA’s own court) has a working grand jury trying to get him extradited to the US to stand trial for the leak that Chelsea Manning delivered to him. His position is that he is a publisher no different than the New York Times, which handled the Snowden leaks and that the US government seeks to shut his operations down.
What the US media (and even British media) report that Assange says and what he says in videos and through official statements of Wikileaks can be different.
Whether he ultimately is a friend of open government or not remains to be seen, but I would take any declaration of intentions with a big grain of salt as to whether it will actually happen.
Given what the “less damaging” leaked DNC documents showed about the internal institutional culture, there needed to be some accountability for Democrats who have been donating to the DNC on trust.
One of the very interesting things about Watergate is that we never learned exactly what the Nixon administration scored at the DNC headquarters. It would have been a much different case if what they learned were plans to sandbag the McGovern campaign.
See specific apparent example of exactly that in my reply just below yours to same cfdj comment.
that I can find. You [my emphasis added throughout]:
Following your link, all I could find in the linked article that seemed at all relevant to your statement above was this:
OK, so far so good. That does at least document CNN’s writer attributing to Assange the intent to “damage” Clinton’s campaign (which still falls far short of your claims I quoted above).
However, you should be familiar enough with my disdain for Corporate Media by now to guess that I would not be trustful of CNN’s characterization absent quotation of Assange saying that.
So I followed the link CNN embedded in the quote above from your link, finding only this (at all relevant to your statement I quoted):
My conclusions:
What CNN linked in support of their claim that Assange expressed intent to “damage” Clinton’s campaign falls far short of actually supporting that characterization.
And even that unsupported CNN claim falls far short of supporting all the specific elements of your quite aggressively broad and detailed claim (see, especially, underlined bits).
So from where I sit, unless your claim is based on something other than what you linked (apparently) in support of it (in which case, that’s what would have been better to link as supporting evidence), your claim looks pretty egregiously over-reaching and embellished (as does CNN’s!).
I see a bunch of data points here:
Bottom lines: if WikiLeaks does as it says it is planning to do, then they will have taken actions which directly damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign and help Donald Trump in his attempt to gain the Presidency. That’s the clear effect. Claiming that we don’t know what Assange’s intent is seems preposterously evasive.
This is made particularly troubling by the fact that Trump is taking particularly terrible campaign positions on the very issues Assange and WikiLeaks claim to care about: increasing press freedoms and reducing state-sponsored violence.
There are lots of straws on this camel’s back.
Which seems odd since I put it as clearly and succinctly as I know how in my subject line.
You made some very specific claims.
You linked an article, which pretty clearly seems to imply it contains the factual evidence in support of your claims.
It doesn’t.
Nor does the article linked in the article that you linked support the only statement it contains that seems relevant to your claims.
The point isn’t whether your critique of Assange is “right” or not (so this response, doubling down on that critique with more or re-stated accusations/argument, but still no documentation for the claims questioned, is mis-directed).
It’s that you hadn’t actually made the case you seemed to think you had already won, because the evidence you entered into the record didn’t actually support much (if any) of what you claimed.
I suppose you could call it a “process” critique.
In which context, it’s odd that you’d write this, still without supporting evidence, when it was one of the specifics I pointed out was CNN’s characterization of Assange’s intent that they attributed to him, but that neither you nor they had documented him saying was his intent, as CNN claimed he had:
So far, documentary evidence that that’s “his personal assessment” is notable for its absence here, though you and CNN have both made that claim. If it’s true, why aren’t you quoting Assange saying it (or linking to CNN et. al doing so)? To a critical thinker, the fact that you/CNN characterize his intent instead of quoting him stating the intent you/they are claiming he’s stated is a big red flag.
Jus’ sayin’.
Since some of your critique centers on a mistrust of the mainstream media, here, try a piece from The Intercept which uses citations from Wikileaks and Assange to make its opening point:
https:/theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point
“What Julian Assange’s War on Hillary Clinton Says About WikiLeaks
Robert Mackey
Aug. 6 2016, 12:04 p.m.
IN RECENT MONTHS, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed has started to look more like the stream of an opposition research firm working mainly to undermine Hillary Clinton than the updates of a non-partisan platform for whistleblowers.”
And then we go later in the article and find the most preposterous claim from Assange:
“…His recent focus on “crushing” Clinton but not Trump has led some to ask Assange if he is worried about helping to elect someone who might be even more hostile to him — let alone to the causes of justice and peace that have motivated Wikileaks’ previous disclosures. Asked recently by Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” if he does prefer Trump over Clinton, Assange replied, “You’re asking me, do I prefer cholera or gonorrhea?”…”.
What makes this preposterous is that, through his very purposeful actions, Assange is trying to get cholera elected. I found it remarkable that Goodman let him off the hook after getting this evasive answer.
The reporting concludes with this:
“…Although the DNC leaks have so far failed to derail Clinton’s campaign, Assange has hinted in recent interviews that he has more material on the candidate that he plans to release soon. While it is unclear why Assange would hold on to any secrets that might torpedo Clinton, if he has something like that, the fear of a WikiLeaks-powered October surprise must still haunt the dreams of her advisors.”
This search for Assange’s internal motiviations just comes off as willfully dense to me. By his actions, he is attempting to damage the Democratic Party and derail Hillary’s campaign. His absence of attempts to reveal damaging information about the RNC and Trump, and his attempt to fib about that fact under questioning by Maher, reveals something about his motivations.
The Internet is full of Assange’s statements of his personal animus for Clinton; they’re not an invention of reporters. Let’s employ Occam’s Razor, shall we?
shall we?
With respect to the point I actually made, this is little/no improvement, just more characterizing and imputing to Assange of motive/intent, with no documentation of him having expressed that intent (including from your Intercept excerpts).
What this sadly reminds me of is analogously (imo) having been accused of being “objectively pro-Saddam” by wingnuts and faux-patriots during the Bush admin’s PR campaign leading up to its War Crime of invading Iraq.
Also, your whole anti-Assange campaign seems pretty off-target to me.
Whether Assange is trying to get Trump elected, whether the Russians were the original hackers, whether, if so, it was government or free-lance hacking, etc., etc., seems to me to also miss the point with respect to what the Dems and the Clinton campaign ought to be focused on. Regardless of source or motivation, the facts are the facts, and what they reveal is not pretty. The Dems/DNC/Clinton campaign would do much better to just acknowledge and address fixing that instead of casting diversionary aspersions re: perpetrator of the hacks or source/motivation of the leaks. The two quite valid points I heard Assange make in interviews (including, I think, in your original linked CNN story) were: 1) nobody has questioned that the leaked emails are legit, real, accurate; and 2) the point I just made above, i.e., that the Dems should be focused on addressing and fixing the misconduct (especially including preventing such misconduct in the future) that those leaks revealed — and probably apologizing for it! — instead of attempting kill-the-messenger diversions.
Chaffing is what it’s called. Odd that air warfare terms are used in this sense. PR flaks chaff to supply false targets.
I assert quite willingly and directly that I am taking much more interest in the Assange issue than are the Clinton campaign or the DNC. That’s quite apparent. They’re barely talking about Assange at all, and their discussions of possible Russian involvement in the DNC hack are not their invention; it’s forwarding the preponderance of the reported views of security experts inside and outside the government. It’s a wise hedge against future revelations by placing the revelations in some context. I think it is quite necessary to place these revelations in context, and it would be campaign malpractice of the highest order to fail to do so.
in drawing conclusions as to whether the DNC has addressed the issues revealed in the emails, literally every senior staffer involved in the controversial emails has been forced out of DNC leadership entirely, including the Chair. That seems to me to be an extremely high level of accountability. I am curious what would more fully comprise “acknowledg(ing) and address(ing) fixing that”.
are Javert, weirdly obsessed with Jean Valjean/Assange’s stolen loaf of bread.
Except I’m not really buying that. Seen/heard too much from Clinton camp suggesting that they, too, are in diversion/distraction mode about the revelations.
Firing some perps/scapegoats is also window-dressing unless combined with real structural/institutional reforms credibly aimed at deterring future occurrences.
Nor do I find avoidance of “campaign malpractice” a very compelling rationale for such deflective behavior.
So what you’re saying is that the wholesale decapitation of DNC leadership, and a direct apology and statement of acknowledgement and accountability by the new DNC Chair, are insubstantial.
I love the way you’ve presumed that there are no institutional reforms taking place at the DNC. That assumes facts not in evidence.
How in the hell could the most senior staff of an organization be appropriately described as “scapegoats”? I disagree with this assertion.
Nope.
What I’m saying is in fact what I said! Those measures (to the extent you haven’t over-stated them — would be interesting to see linked documentation of what you consider to constitute what you described there) do not constitute and are not adequate substitutes for robust, meaningful structural/institutional reforms to deter recurrences.
Nope. But I love the way you’ve wrongly presumed what I presumed. “That assumes facts not in evidence[!]” I do remain to be convinced that any reforms instituted will be adequate. Robust would be even better than merely “adequate”.
How in the hell could you in good faith truncate “perps/scapegoats” (= what I actually wrote) to just “scapegoats”? “I disagree with this assertion.”
I’m also probably through with this subthread, as from my perspective it seems to have strayed far afield from the objection I originally raised (and which still looks quite valid to me and largely unanswered by you) into arguing over your obsession with prosecuting Assange, or other relatively minor distinctions. Which, as I think I’ve made clear by now, looks like very much a side issue of quite limited importance, and not all that interesting to me.
Not saying I won’t read anything you might offer in response. Just would be surprised to find enough motivation from it to continue this further.
I’m with you that the discussion is played out, but wanted to respond to a couple of requests you made.
Additionally, I agree that continued institutional improvements must be made. But these were substantial accountability measures:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-apologizes-email-leak_us_57962efee4b01180b52f990b
Donna Brazile Apologizes For DNC Email Leak
Brazile said the emails “do not reflect the spirit of the party.”
07/25/2016 11:30 am ET | Updated Jul 25, 2016
PHILADELPHIA ― Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, apologized Monday for the party’s email leak.
“With a humble heart, I want to say something as your vice chair. I sincerely apologize, my friends, for those of you who took offense and were offended, for those of you who feel betrayed and were betrayed by the ridiculous and insensitive and inappropriate emails released from the Democratic Party,” Brazile said during a black caucus meeting at the Democratic National Convention…
…Brazile released her official apology on Monday evening:
On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not ― and will not ― tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/02/democratic-national-committee-ceo-am
y-dacey-resigns-in-wake-of-email-breach
Top Democratic National Committee officials resign in wake of email breach
By Abby Phillip and Katie Zezima
August 2
DENVER — Three top officials at the Democratic National Committee will leave their posts this week amid the controversy over the release of a cache of hacked emails from the committee…
…The release of the emails sparked a firestorm on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, leading Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to announce her resignation…
Chief executive Amy Dacey, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and Communications Director Luis Miranda will leave the DNC just days after a new leader took the helm…
…With the release of the WikiLeaks emails…Dacey was implicated in one of the most damaging exchanges, in which Marshall appeared to speculate about how Sanders’s Jewish heritage could be used against him…
Was aware of those measures. Remember hearing Brazile’s statement at the time.
“wholesale decapitation of DNC leadership” does seem a bit over-stated for tossing 4 officials overboard, imo, with Brazile’s claim that “the DNC is taking appropriate [but unspecified] action to ensure it never happens again” falling somewhere short of breathtakingly reassuring as well.
But I appreciate the info.
If I’d been treated as badly as Assange I’d be pissed off as well.
There’s a difference between being “pissed off” and attempting to manipulate the electorate so that Donald Trump is elected President.
And I don’t blame the United States government for being pissed off at Assange, either. He did conspire to break our laws. And that lawbreaking has been destructive to many things, including to people and issues I believe you care about. The closing of Guantanamo, for instance.
8/16/2016
Is Donald Trump Rigging the Election?: A Theory with Circumstantial Evidence
Let us say, and why not, that Donald Trump is not merely a blithering madman. In fact, let us say, just for a moment, a thought experiment, if you will, that the real reason that Trump is campaigning for president the way he has isn’t merely ego and bluster and neediness. Let us entertain the notion that what’s really going on is that Trump has already set in motion the rigging of the 2016 presidential election. If we do that, then everything he is currently saying and doing makes perverse sense. The big con, then, isn’t Trump running for president in order to do something else that’s more lucrative (like start a TV network). No, the grift is that he’s running as if he’s going to win because he knows he’s going to win.
The most obvious strategy here is preemptively accusing Democrats and the campaign of Hillary Clinton of election fraud to cover up his own imminent fraud. Most importantly, Trump did this in Pennsylvania, where he said, “The only way we can lose, in my opinion — I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on…She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.” Clinton right now is leading Trump in the polls in Pennsylvania, which would make a thoughtful man at least pause before outright alleging “cheating.”
According to Verified Voting, Pennsylvania would be one of the easiest states to hack the vote because the vast majority of its counties currently have “direct recording electronic voting machines” without “voter verified paper audit trail printers.” So electronic voting occurs without a paper trail in “certain sections of the state.” Rhetorically, Trump is setting up his “win” by making sure it seems inevitable. Yes, you could say he’s just sour grape-ing it in advance and delegitimizing a Clinton victory. Or he could be making sure that when he wins despite the polls, he can say that he was right all along and any allegations of fraud against him are defying something that he had predicted months before the election.
Is this a stretch? Of course it is. But we’re in such a bizarro election landscape right now, where a completely inexperienced candidate refuses to release his taxes and lies constantly, demonstrably, and confidently, all while speaking incoherently and irrationally, and 35-45% of Americans still support him, that nothing is off the table.
Take, for instance, Trump’s refusal to buy any ad time, despite the fact that his campaign has raked in a large amount of donations. Obviously, it would cost a great deal of money to buy the silence and skills of anyone involved in rigging the election. And why, for instance, would Trump be campaigning in states that he simply has no chance of winning, like Oregon and Connecticut? He’s got to make it seem as if his appearances there turned the tide in his favor when the mailed-in votes of Oregon are changed and the paper ballots in Connecticut are messed with. Trump has derided get-out-the-vote efforts and has minimal staff. Again, in the context of a fixed election, it actually makes sense.
One other piece of the puzzle is, of course, Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, and his ties to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, a close ally of Vladimir Putin. While Manafort was on his payroll, Yanukovych was what one writer called “a serial election fraudster,” stealing presidential and parliamentary elections over the years. So perhaps Manafort offers a Russian connection to how one rigs an election.
Yes. He’s making excuses for a campaign of voter suppression later, likely using the alt-right gun nuts. Now, that is going to be a stochastic fraud campaign with incitement and dogwhistles, but the legal framework is there with all of the Voter ID laws. Courts can overturn them, but state governments and legislatures can take the appoach that North Carolina has with its order not to gerrymander–legislative nullification. That provides the fig leaf for official voter suppression and the context for voter intimidation by Trumpist toughs. It’s 1875 all over again, and you can see the signs of it in Texas.
I dont even get the endorphin rush from intense activity. I dont get this at all but Im glad your having fun. You deserve a little r and r.
Well, this is barbaric. The end result of Policing for Profit
Ramen noodles supplanting cigarettes as currency among prisoners
The rise of ramen as currency in prison signals “punitive frugality,” indicating that the burden and cost of care is shifting away from prison systems and onto prisoners and their support networks, said Gibson-Light, who will present his research at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).
“Punitive frugality is not a formal prison policy, but rather an observable trend in prison administration practice in institutions throughout the country,” Gibson-Light said.
“Throughout the nation, we can observe prison cost-cutting and cost-shifting as well as changes in the informal economic practices of inmates,” he said. “Services are cut back and many costs are passed on to inmates in an effort to respond to calls to remain both tough on crime and cost effective.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/asa-rns081616.php