Archive

Posts Tagged ‘collusion’

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 26, 2019 3 comments

I would have preferred to post on topics more consequential than an initial public summary of the now infamous Mueller Report, but it seems (based on the comments section) there is a demand for this sort of writing. And this is fine by me, because posts like the current one are much easier to write than carefully thought ones about issues which actually matter. So, let us first talk with a bit about how it all started. While the exact incident which started this sadly comic endeavor is a matter of some dispute, the timing is much clearer. What we today know as “RussiaGate” started in the summer of 2016, but its origins go back a few months before that to the time when the DNC or somebody associated with that organization paid a certain Christopher Steele to write a damming dossier about Trump. FYI- this part of the origin story is no longer controversial.

The DNC, as some of you might remember, is the same stupid organization who conspired with the corporate media to highlight buffoons such as Trump and Carson (pied-piper candidates) to make it easier for HRC to win in the general election. I wonder how that “strategy” worked out. Anyway, the dumbfuck known as Christopher Steele was hired because he pretended to be a “Russia expert”. As it turns out, Steele was talking out of his behind, because other than a few years of being posted in Russia many years ago- his grasp on his alleged area of “expertise” was non-existent. And you do not have to just believe me on this.. read the dossier. To make a long story short, the entire dossier is full of speculation, hearsay, made-up bullshit and just plain lies. Some readers might wonder.. how can I be so sure that dossier is full of bullshit.

Well.. because if even a fraction of its most salacious accusations were true, at least half the Trump family would have been jailed over a year ago and Trump would have resigned or been impeached by now. But they are not and Trump has neither resigned or been impeached. In case you don’t have time to read that “dossier”, some of the accusations included such gems such as: Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague for “secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers.” and Kremlin had kompromat of Trump defiling a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show.” It turns out that these accusations were either totally made up or were wild exaggerations.

Michael Cohen was found guilty of perjury, lying to banks, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws but not of going to Prague or conspiring with any “Russians” to influence the 2016 election. Did I mention that the Mueller investigation did not file any indictment against Carter Page? And there is no proof of the “Kremlin” or “Putin” having sexual Kompromat on Trump. So.. the whole dossier was largely full of bullshit. At this stage, I expect MikeCA to tell me how a few of the accusations in that dossier could be interpreted as correct. Well.. it does not take a genius with expertise in “Russia” to do a few internet searches that point to Trump’s interest in building or licensing his brand name to a few luxury condo complexes in Moscow. Trump being interested in making a fast buck and sticking his name onto architectural abominations is as predictable as dogs sniffing the behinds of other dogs. In any case, he did not expect to win in 2016.

I am not going to bore you with all the details of how things went down after that initial dossier was shopped around various news outlets and senators (including John McCain) once it became obvious that Trump was going to win the republican party nomination. Matt Taibbi has written a far more detailed account of how this bullshit drama unfolded. Aaron Maté has a pretty good analysis of the how the whole “collusion” theory has fallen apart. Branko Marcetic has a good piece about how “RussiaGate” helped rehabilitate previously discredited necons and the national “security apparatus. It is also telling that some corporate media outlets, like Vanity Fair,who were cheerleading the Mueller investigation as late as last week are now starting to publish posts which are far more somber about the Mueller Report and the future of similar investigations.

Heck.. even NYT is now starting to publish pieces which talk about the long-term deleterious effects of the media’s role in hyping RussiaGate on the national psyche. And before I forget, here is a piece by Michael Tracey about how democratic politicians and sympathetic media spent all their energies fanning this fake scandal when they could have put that same effort in uncovering the numerous real scandals of the Trump administration. I am sure that readers will see many more pieces such as these in coming weeks, as corporate media outlets try to back-paddle from their previous positions on Russiagate. FYI- Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and a handful of others were among the very few who consistently maintained that RussiaGate was a fake scandal which would not result in Trump being impeached or resigning.

They also correctly predicted that RussiaGate would end up vindicating Trump’s rants about how the “Deep State” was trying to screw him over- in addition to making it far harder for subsequent real charges of malfeasance to stick to him. And that is where things seem to be headed. It is very likely that all those investigations of Trump and his family by SDNY and a few other DAs sympathetic to democratic establishment will be seen as continuation of the ‘witchunt’ against Trump. WSo.. what has this investigation achieved thus far, apart from making Trump seem sympathetic and justified in his paranoia against establishment types?

Well.. for starters, it has done wonders for the bottom line of cynical cable news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. Con artists such as Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon (and many others) owe a good art of their recent viewership numbers to peddling this scam. Many NeoCons such as David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and many others who were relegated to dustbin of history after the Iraq war turned out to be a disaster have now been rehabilitated. Incompetent sociopaths such Comey, Hayden, Clapper and Brennan have also been rehabilitated as senior public intellectuals. And it gets worse. Gullible partisan democratic voters have been swindled out of billions by montebanks who sold them fiction masquerading as investigative journalism. Late-night “comics” cannot make “jokes” which do not involve fantasies of Trump getting arrested or impeached.

In summary, the Mueller investigation and the artificial hype surrounding it have done a lot of long-term damage to the credibility of american journalism.. well.. whatever was left of it after 2003. In the next post on this topic, I will show you how establishment democrats peddled and promoted RussiaGate to avoid any self-analysis after their anointed candidate was defeated by that orange buffoon in 2016. As somebody on Twitter quipped- What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate.

What do you think? Comments?

Establishment Democrats and their Obsession with ‘Bipartisanship’

December 21, 2017 11 comments

As some of you might know- I am not a big fan of Christmas, and the holiday season in general, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I find this whole thing to be highly disingenuous given that it is clearly a consumerist holiday which pretends to be about something “higher”. Other holidays such as Halloween are far more honest about what they are, namely crass consumerism and drunk girls dressed like whores. Secondly, I detest any holiday which requires stores and restaurants to be closed for even a single day of the week. What is the whole point of a celebration if you cannot get a nice lunch or dinner at the restaurant of your choice?

Also, most public places seem to be filled with too many screaming kids during the holiday season. Then there is the issue of office buildings being subject to yet another round of poorly thought “upgrades” and “repairs” during this season. All in all, this is why I have not written posts on any profound topics within the last couple of days. And today will be no different, as this post is about a fairly mediocre topic that I had considered writing about a couple of times in the last few years. I decided to finally write about it because of the supposed opposition by establishment democrats to the blatant corporate giveaway aka the Republican Tax Reforms of 2017.

Some of you might say- “but, isn’t it good that establishment democrats were finally united in their opposition to this corporate giveaway by the republicans?” Well.. that is a superficial way of seeing things. A little digging under the surface reveals that more than a few democrats opposed corporate giveaways for reasons other than it being a bad idea. Rather, they seemed to be more upset that the bill passed today did not care about their input. In other words, more than a few establishment democrats would have been perfectly happy with supporting a similar corporate giveaway as long it was not that obvious and blatant. And this brings me to why establishment democrats are so obsessed with ‘bipartisanship’ for the passage of major legislation.

Conventional “wisdom”, aka bullshit spewed by paid shills in the mass media, suggests that establishment democrats care about ‘bipartisanship’ because they are “good and decent” human beings who care about maintaining the “civility” of discourse, due “process” and “dignity” of institutions. But is that really the case? Establishment democrats had no problem passing multiple rounds of corporate deregulation in 1980s and 1990s, welfare “reform” in the 1990s, opposing single payer healthcare in 1990s and 2000s, cheerleading for many “free trade” treaties and agreements, supporting the endless losing war on “terror” since 2001 and voting for any defense budget regardless of cost.

In other words, establishment democrats have been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of policies and institutions which immiserate the bulk of their voters. But what does this have to do with their obsession with ‘bipartisanship’? Well.. think about all the legislation and policies which the democrats did not pass because it supposedly lacked “bipartisan” support. Do you see a common theme running through such legislation and policies? In case you did not, establishment democrats most often talk about ‘bipartisanship’ as an excuse to not pass legislation or policies which would benefit the majority of their voters. A smaller, but still significant, percentage of ‘bipartisanship’ talk is also used to justify their support for pro-corporate legislation and policies.

But why is that so? Why do establishment democrats pretend to care so much about maintaining “bipartisanship”? What do they get from attempting to keeping up that charade? Who are they trying to deceive? The answers to this question start become obvious once you start looking the how the two main political parties in USA are funded. To make a long story short, there is almost complete overlap between the list of major financial contributors to both the republican and democratic party. While there a few standout exceptions, it is fair to say that both parties and their elected representatives are beholden to corporate and non-corporate financial backers who also provide cushy post-political jobs to legislators who further their interests.

While this explains why democrats are so willing to work with republicans on legislation and policies that screw over almost everybody else who voted for them, how does it explain them invoking ‘bipartisanship’ far more often than republicans? To understand that, we have to consider another factor- namely, the profile of those who vote for each party. Since the passage of civil-right regulations by democrats in the mid-1960s, they have not been able to win the majority of white voters in almost every national election and most regional ones. Now, we can spend thousands of words trying to explain the stupidity of many classes of white voters voting for republicans- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead, let us focus on who votes for democrats, especially establishment democrats.

To make a long story short, establishment democrats get most of their votes from the following constituencies: non-whites, poorer whites especially women, younger whites, whites with professional degrees and university education- especially women and truly well-off whites. As you might have noticed, the bulk of their voting constituencies stand to benefit from progressive legislation such as raising the minimum wage, single payer government healthcare, inexpensive tax-funded higher education, rules against corporate monopolies etc. Establishment democrats therefore have to at least put up a facade of being devoted to the causes of the so-called 99%. But how can they put up that facade and then weasel away from those promises- one election after the other?

This is where the concept of “bipartisanship” becomes so central for establishment democrats. They can use that concept, again and again, to explain to their voter-base why they are incapable of passing legislation which would improve their lives. Increase in minimum wage.. sorry, we could not reach a bipartisan agreement on it, Medicare for all.. sorry, there was not bipartisan support for that idea, taxpayer funded university education.. sorry, there was too much opposition from republicans and so on. On the other hand, they can still participate in republican initiated gutting of the social safety net, repealing regulations and rules that hinder corporate excess and pretty much anything demanded by their corporate backers- because they are “common sense reforms” and the results of “bipartisanship”.

Readers might have noticed that this particular scam by the democratic establishment is not working as well as it used to, especially after 2008. A significant percentage of their voter-base now sees through this bullshit and has stopped voting in elections or switched their vote in protest. That is why the democratic party lost so many state level seats, governorships, house, senate and presidency since their last high-point in 2008. That is why a Jewish guy in his mid-70s came so close to beating the anointed democratic candidate of the establishment in 2016 democratic primaries. A similar process among the republican voterbase is key to understanding why Trump won the republican primaries and then the presidency in the 2016 elections.

So let us call ‘bipartisanship’ by its real name- collusion against the interests of the majority of their respective voterbases.

What do you think? Comments?