What drives the anti-anti-Trump left?

here's some more on The Hill, its owner, and Solomon.

Funny how nan lambastes WaPo because Bezos owns it (though there is no evidence of Bezos meddling with the paper) while she references The Hill constantly, even though its owner is far, far more problematic:

James “Jimmy” Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill newspaper, is not a widely known media executive, but he is one of the era’s most consequential.

Finkelstein resides at the nexus of President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Solomon, the now-former executive at The Hill and current Fox News contributor who pushed conspiracy theories about Ukraine into the public conversation.

While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga.

Beyond his relationship with Solomon, Trump, and Giuliani, Finkelstein was Solomon’s direct supervisor at The Hill and created the conditions which permitted Solomon to publish his conspiratorial stories without the traditional oversight implemented at news outlets. And he has kept a watchful eye on the newspaper’s coverage to ensure it is not too critical of the President.


As one former veteran employee of The Hill told CNN Business, “Solomon is a symptom of the larger problem of Jimmy Finkelstein.”


Finkelstein has been friends with Trump for decades. In fact, according to a former employee at The Hill, he “boasts that he’s a close friend” of the President. “Getting a phone call from Trump would fill him with joy,” the former employee told CNN Business.

Trump himself has also privately acknowledged his relationship with Finkelstein. During an Oval Office interview with The Hill, according to a person with direct knowledge of the incident, Trump asked one of the outlet’s staffers to send along his greetings to Finkelstein. “Tell Jimmy I said hello,” Trump told the staffer.

Finkelstein’s wife, Pamela Gross, who worked at CNN but left in 2017, is close with Melania Trump. Gross threw a baby shower for Melania Trump, according to a person familiar with the event.

“Whenever we couldn’t book a guest, John [Solomon] would call Jimmy [Finkelstein], Jimmy would call Rudy [Giuliani], and Rudy would come in or Skype.”

Finkelstein and Gross are also both close with Giuliani, who currently serves as Trump’s personal attorney. Finkelstein often hosts social gatherings at his Hamptons home and, according to a person familiar with the matter, Giuliani and his girlfriend spent multiple weekends at the residence this past summer.


So when Giuliani attempted to dig up political dirt on Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, a natural place for him to disseminate the information was The Hill. And the natural person at The Hill to go to was Solomon, who had been personally hired by Finkelstein.

Giuliani told The New York Times that he shared his Ukraine information with Solomon, though it’s unclear how much of it if any Solomon used. Other media reports have shed additional light on how closely the two collaborated. One report from The Daily Beast revealed that Giuliani had even obtained a full draft of an unpublished story by Solomon before publication. Giuliani told The Daily Beast the copy was not provided by Solomon, but he wouldn’t say how he obtained it.

Yesterday's hearing pretty much established that (despite Nunes' best efforts) the "Ukraine meddled" story is a fable, most likely pushed by Putin.

nohero said:

Yesterday's hearing pretty much established that (despite Nunes' best efforts) the "Ukraine meddled" story is a fable, most likely pushed by Putin.

"All I can think of when I see Nunes now is that he's suing a cow on Twitter."
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1196889776173043712 

Yesterday, on Chris Hayes' show, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries asked "Does Devin Nunes have any credibility after continuing to embarrass himself?"

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-rep-hakeem-jeffries-does-nunes-have-any-credibility-after-continuing-to-embarrass-himself/

Nunes lied yesterday when he said Volker and Morrison weren't GOP witnesses. 

nunes' opening statement today was his wildest yet.

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

Putting aside the smear on Tulsi, there is actually some rational language in the piece that speaks to some of our other prolific posters.

[ Excerpt of rational language ]

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

 The concluding paragraph:

Many leftists can imagine a bigger risk than the Establishment neutralizing Trump before he can bring the system down. Yet somehow, the emergency of his growing authoritarianism has not concentrated every mind, and the election of Trump has not dispelled the fantasy that his destruction of the center and the center-left will lead ultimately to a better world.

Many of Trump's leading allies (Stephen Miller, et. al.) hope for the destruction of the entire Left and Democracy as well.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

Putting aside the smear on Tulsi, there is actually some rational language in the piece that speaks to some of our other prolific posters.

[ Excerpt of rational language ]

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

Said by someone who supported Trump. 

1. Paul SurovellSeptember 29, 2016 at 23:44

   Another mystery is why Trump has failed to cite David Plouffe’s condemnation of the HRC campaign in 2008 for circulating a photo of Obama dressed in Kenyan garb:

   “Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of ‘shameful offensive fear-mongering’ by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.”

   https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/27/trumps-missed-debate-opportunities/

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

Putting aside the smear on Tulsi, there is actually some rational language in the piece that speaks to some of our other prolific posters.

[ Excerpt of rational language ]

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

Said by someone who supported Trump. 

1. Paul SurovellSeptember 29, 2016 at 23:44

   Another mystery is why Trump has failed to cite David Plouffe’s condemnation of the HRC campaign in 2008 for circulating a photo of Obama dressed in Kenyan garb:

   “Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of ‘shameful offensive fear-mongering’ by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.”

   https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/27/trumps-missed-debate-opportunities/

 A petty smear by a petty anonymous smear artist.

Can you defend your comment?  

You were glad that Trump was elected. 

cramer said:

Can you defend your comment?  

You were glad that Trump was elected. 

 Another petty smear by a petty anonymous smear artist.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

Putting aside the smear on Tulsi, there is actually some rational language in the piece that speaks to some of our other prolific posters.

[ Excerpt of rational language ]

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

Click to Read More

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

 Doesn't this acknowledge Russian interference with the election?

Steve said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

here's a good piece on the anti-anti-Trumpers, and how Tulsi is inching towards being the 2020 version of Jill Stein.

As you read the piece, think about how accurately it describes a couple of our more prolific posters.

Putting aside the smear on Tulsi, there is actually some rational language in the piece that speaks to some of our other prolific posters.

[ Excerpt of rational language ]

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

Click to Read More

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms. Russia has helped amplify their
ideas because it suits Russia’s agenda — Moscow generated and promoted
the most strident anti-Clinton voices on the left in 2016 and seems to
view left-wing opposition to the Democrats as a lever upon which it can
usefully lean. That fact does not by itself implicate their arguments;
if the Russians happened to find reason to promote arguments any of us
have made, we’d resent people suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin
line.

 Doesn't this acknowledge Russian interference with the election?

 Yes, which is expected, because the author is a hard-core Russiagate Truther, which is why the rest of what he says

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms . . . if the Russians happened to find
reason to promote arguments any of us have made, we’d resent people
suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin line.

is so important.

Well, I think this is the whole point of the term "useful idiots". Right?

paulsurovell said:

...

 Yes, which is expected, because the author is a hard-core Russiagate Truther, which is why the rest of what he says

The fact that anti-anti-Trump leftists have interests that coincide with
Russia’s compounds the dynamic. There is zero reason to suspect any of
them have covert ties of any kind with Russia. Their arguments are
perfectly explainable in normal terms . . . if the Russians happened to find
reason to promote arguments any of us have made, we’d resent people
suggesting we were toeing the Kremlin line.

is so important.

I'm just catching up with this thread and wish Michael Tracey posted on MOL. 

Trump has been impeached for an attempt to misuse taxpayer money to hurt a political opponent.

That's what they routinely do in authoritarian countries.

nan said:

I'm just catching up with this thread and wish Michael Tracey posted on MOL. 

 me too, cause I doubt he could handle the questions he'd get from here. 

drummerboy said:

 me too, cause I doubt he could handle the questions he'd get from here. 

 I think he could handle them fine.  I don't think he would have the patience to deal with some of the personalities.  

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 me too, cause I doubt he could handle the questions he'd get from here. 

 I think he could handle them fine.  I don't think he would have the patience to deal with some of the personalities.  

 nah - he wouldn't handle them at all, because he is clearly a poor thinker.

I have no idea who Michael Tracey is but I would argue that Trump should be opposed in every way.

A counterclockwise turn on the anti-anti-Trump wheel.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 me too, cause I doubt he could handle the questions he'd get from here. 

 I think he could handle them fine.  I don't think he would have the patience to deal with some of the personalities.  

 nah - he wouldn't handle them at all, because he is clearly a poor thinker.

 Exactly my point and I think Michael Tracey is insightful. 

"This is not what brings us to Michael Tracey today, however. It is Tracey's ongoing efforts to downplay the threat of fascism and white nationalism in America that deserves some attention:"

https://thebanter.substack.com/p/michael-tracey-is-a-perfect-example

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 me too, cause I doubt he could handle the questions he'd get from here. 

 I think he could handle them fine.  I don't think he would have the patience to deal with some of the personalities.  

 Based on the thread you posted, he can’t be bothered to respond to anyone. There’s a very good exchange in the thread, bringing up salient points and positions pro and against Michael Tracey’s position, and he doesn’t engage at all, except to reply to his own post.

cramer said:

"This is not what brings us to Michael Tracey today, however. It is Tracey's ongoing efforts to downplay the threat of fascism and white nationalism in America that deserves some attention:"

https://thebanter.substack.com/p/michael-tracey-is-a-perfect-example

 I am again struck how that piece perfectly describes the posting habits of a couple of people here. These self described independent thinkers just regurgitate a set of talking points, and pretend they are some independently derived truth.

When I first started seeing these talking points, I gave the posters some credit for coming up with these arguments on their own, because I wasn't all that aware of the anti-anti-Trump infrastructure. As time has gone on though, they've pretty much lost all credibility with me.

cramer said:

"This is not what brings us to Michael Tracey today, however. It is Tracey's ongoing efforts to downplay the threat of fascism and white nationalism in America that deserves some attention:"

https://thebanter.substack.com/p/michael-tracey-is-a-perfect-example

 Of course, The Daily Banter does not like him.  My impression of them is that they hate anyone left of center. In the article, they specifically attack Tracey and lots of others like Matt Taibbi, Greenwald, David Sirota (which means Bernie Sanders), etc.  

They are unashamed apologists for the Muller report which Tracey has attacked from the beginning. They try to smear Tracey by bringing up his incident with Maxine Waters.  Maybe embarrassing, but not even close to an in-depth critique.  Gives the signal that this is probably doing to be a superficial smear piece and that is what it turns out to be. 

Here they are attacking Tracey because he's not freaking out about the rise of White Nationalism.  They totally distort what he has said and put words in his mouth to try to make him seem like he supports Nazis and White Nationalism.  

The writer, by the way, seems totally ignorant about the rise of Nazis in Ukraine and the US involvement with that.  Tracey and the other people he seems to hate and ridicule (Tabbi, Greenwald, et al) understand that situation much better and thus have come to their current viewpoints.  The writer of this piece is seriously uneducated and seems basically furious that Tracey wants to take a more measured and critical approach, rather than jump on this guy's hysteria. 

drummerboy said:

 I am again struck how that piece perfectly describes the posting habits of a couple of people here. These self described independent thinkers just regurgitate a set of talking points, and pretend they are some independently derived truth.

When I first started seeing these talking points, I gave the posters some credit for coming up with these arguments on their own, because I wasn't all that aware of the anti-anti-Trump infrastructure. As time has gone on though, they've pretty much lost all credibility with me.

 I am again struck how some posters continue to bash and insult others and never include specific examples of what they are attacking.  

As time has gone on though, they've pretty much lost all credibility with me. 

nan said:

cramer said:

"This is not what brings us to Michael Tracey today, however. It is Tracey's ongoing efforts to downplay the threat of fascism and white nationalism in America that deserves some attention:"

https://thebanter.substack.com/p/michael-tracey-is-a-perfect-example

Here they are attacking Tracey because he's not freaking out about the rise of White Nationalism.   

 This is what Tracey said. Does it describe any posters on MOL or anyone in the MSM - has anyone  "fixated endlessly on an exaggerated threat of Nazis?"

"Every time I say this, "both sides" freak out but it doesn't make it any less true: Liberals and leftists who fixate endlessly on an exaggerated threat of "Nazis" are the mirror image of right-wingers who fixate endlessly on the exaggerated threat of "Radical Islamic Terror"

nan said:

drummerboy said:

 I am again struck how that piece perfectly describes the posting habits of a couple of people here. These self described independent thinkers just regurgitate a set of talking points, and pretend they are some independently derived truth.

When I first started seeing these talking points, I gave the posters some credit for coming up with these arguments on their own, because I wasn't all that aware of the anti-anti-Trump infrastructure. As time has gone on though, they've pretty much lost all credibility with me.

 I am again struck how some posters continue to bash and insult others and never include specific examples of what they are attacking.  

As time has gone on though, they've pretty much lost all credibility with me. 

 har har har

I call you out on specific pieces of b.s. at least once a day, but you're impervious to facts.

cramer said:

 This is what Tracey said. Does it describe any posters on MOL or anyone in the MSM - has anyone  "fixated endlessly on an exaggerated threat of Nazis?"

"Every time I say this, "both sides" freak out but it doesn't make it any less true: Liberals and leftists who fixate endlessly on an exaggerated threat of "Nazis" are the mirror image of right-wingers who fixate endlessly on the exaggerated threat of "Radical Islamic Terror"

The article accuses Michael Tracy of not being alarmed enough about White Nationalists. So, I guess they prove his point.