Megyn Kelly tried to warn Donald Trump, 13 months ago, that his sexist remarks about women would become an issue. He refused to listen — preferring to attack the messenger instead. Or maybe Trump was simply unable to comprehend that his long history of insulting women in crude terms might not seem funny to voters who live outside the Fox News bubble.
But Trump’s flailing attempt to respond to Hillary Clinton’s charge, in Monday’s debate, that he has a pattern of sexist comments about women stretching back decades, suggests that the candidate might have been better off listening to Kelly than to his current adviser, her former boss Roger Ailes.
In August 2015, Kelly’s first question for Trump in the first debate of the Republican primary campaign noted that while his supporters love that “you speak your mind, and you don’t use a politician’s filter,” his insult-comic approach “is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women.”
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals,’” Kelly continued. “Your Twitter account –” and here, without waiting to hear her question, Trump interrupted Kelly, leaning into his mic to say, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”
After being forced to wait more than 15 seconds for the partisan audience in the Fox News debate hall to finish laughing at Trump’s dig at the liberal comedian, Kelly pointed out that his defense was both untrue and beside the point.
“No it wasn’t,” she said. “For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be ‘a pretty picture’ to see her on her knees.”
“Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?” she asked. “And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Trump, visibly irritated, replied by dismissing his insults as jokes — “It’s fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time” — and trained his anger back on the female anchor for not taking them that way. “What I say is what I say, and honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry,” he said. “I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me — but I wouldn’t do that.”
Trump, of course, was just getting started, launching a multimedia assault on the Fox News anchor over the coming days and months in which he seemed to illustrate her point, hinting on Twitter that she was “a bimbo” and suggesting to CNN that she might have been angry with him because of her menstrual cycle.
I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016
We know now how prescient Kelly was. Clinton, on Monday night, replied to a question about Trump saying she did not have “a presidential look” by quoting the same litany of insults he has used against women who criticized him, and then mentioning his public humiliation of the former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado.
Despite having 13 months between the two debates to come up with a better answer, Trump had none.
That one of his debate coaches is Ailes, the Fox News creator who was recently forced out of the network for the alleged sexual harassment of many women, including Kelly, might have something to do with it.
On Monday night, all Trump had to offer were the very same excuses: first dismissing his remarks as “said in entertainment,” and then falsely claiming his words were aimed solely at a comedian he feuded with over the airwaves a decade ago.
“Somebody who’s been very vicious to me, Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough things to her,” Trump admitted, before immediately excusing himself. “I think everybody would agree that she deserves it,” he said, apparently referring to the minority of Americans glued to Fox News, “and nobody feels sorry for her.”
In sharp contrast to the Fox News primary debate, when his jab at O’Donnell delighted the partisan crowd, his reference to her on Monday night fell flat, with even Trump’s planted cheering section in the hall failing to laugh. It also baffled millions of debate viewers who were unaware of Trump’s long-running spat with the comedian and sparked curiosity about what she could have said about him that was so “vicious” that he would refer to it 10 years later, in a job interview to be president of the United States.
top google searches in Islamic State: who is Rosie O'Donnell?
— Eric (@ericschmerick) September 27, 2016
I'm not even 100% sure who @Rosie is but she must be pretty bad ass for trump to hate her that much
— Mikaela Ziegler (@Mikaela_Ziegler) September 27, 2016
In response, the comedian shared video on Twitter of her mockery of Trump on the December 20, 2006, edition of the daytime television show “The View,” which, as she said, he “can’t seem to get over.”
https://t.co/EvxYa7A4bL — the 5 mins orange anus can't seem to get over — tell the truth – shame the donald #ImWithHer
— Rosie (@Rosie) September 27, 2016
The clip reveals that what O’Donnell did to so enrage Trump was to scoff at him for holding a press conference to announce that he would not be taking away the title of Miss USA from a young woman who was caught drinking and taking drugs at a nightclub. After doing a broad impression of Trump, O’Donnell said: “He annoys me on a multitude of levels. He’s the moral authority: left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair, had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America.”
She then went on to skewer Trump for inheriting wealth from his father and using bankruptcy laws to repeatedly bail himself out and not pay his creditors. “This is not a self-made man,” she said. “I just think that this man is like sort of one of those, you know, snake-oil salesmen,” she added.
Oddly enough, the archival video also shows that the segment after O’Donnell’s riff was a chat with then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Trump himself had appeared on “The View” as a guest earlier that year, alongside his daughter Ivanka, and joked that “if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”
Given that Kelly originally asked Trump last year if his tirades about women who criticized him — an enemies list that also includes Gail Collins, Arianna Huffington, and Bette Midler — suggested that he might not have “the temperament of a man we should elect as president,” it is remarkable to look back now at just how much energy he devoted to nursing that grudge against O’Donnell in public at the time. (It is also worth noting that Trump’s claim during the debate on Monday that he has “a much better temperament” than Clinton did prompt audible laughter in the debate hall, and from undecided voters in at least one focus group.)
Some of his comments were made in showbiz venues, like “Entertainment Tonight” and the “Late Show,” but, remarkably, Trump was also interviewed about the spat on all three major cable news networks — speaking on Fox with Bill O’Reilly, on MSNBC with Don Imus, and on CNN with Larry King and then Anderson Cooper, who will moderate next week’s presidential debate.
Foreign diplomats might soon be studying Trump’s cascade of television appearances in the months following O’Donnell’s mockery for tips on how to take advantage of an American president with such incredibly thin skin.
Those clips are also worth watching now as a sort of time capsule reminder of a moment in the not-too-distant past when Trump was firmly established as an entertainer — with him ranting about O’Donnell mocking his hair on MSNBC, for instance, even as the on-screen news ticker refers to George W. Bush deploying more troops to Iraq and U.S. forces detaining Iranians in Kurdistan.
The same video evidence also offers clues as to how Trump turned a career of self-promotion for his entertainment and real estate ventures into a public profile that convinced millions of Americans to consider putting him in charge of our government. The contemporary reports show how enthusiastically broadcast journalists treated the tabloid subject of the developer’s personal life as significant news worthy of airtime.
The following year, Trump continued to attack O’Donnell, even though, he admitted, she had by then refused to say anything more about him. During a return engagement on Larry King’s CNN talk show, Trump claimed the comedian “ate like a pig” at one of his weddings.
During a lecture on the real estate business for the adult-education Learning Annex, he fantasized about hitting her “big pig face right smack in the middle of the eyes.” He then told the same audience that he had done something heroic by standing up to O’Donnell, because she had bullied him. “When you deal with a bully, which is what she is,” he said, “when you deal with a bully, and I learned it in high school, you’ve got to hit a bully really hard, really strong, right between the eyes.”
A full five years later, on the video blog Trump used to promote both “The Apprentice” and his possible candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the grudge was still driving him to devote energy to trashing O’Donnell.
In the days following this week’s debate, having walked into the very trap Kelly had warned him Clinton would set, Trump was forced further on the defensive over his remarks about Machado. The former beauty queen, in several media appearances arranged by the Clinton campaign, recalled how Trump mocked her for gaining weight after winning the pageant he owned by calling her “fatty,” and “Miss Eating Machine.”
The Clinton campaign even released two social-media ads featuring Machado.
Trump on Alicia, 1996: "Miss Piggy."
This morning: "She gained a massive amount of weight…it was a real problem." pic.twitter.com/0wrISjJe6z
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 27, 2016
CNN dug out its own footage of the publicity stunt Trump staged in 1997, in which he surprised Machado by inviting dozens of camera crews and photographers to watch her work out in an effort to lose weight.
Completing the circle, on Tuesday Machado was interviewed, sympathetically, by Kelly, who began by noting that “the Trump campaign can’t really deny that he harassed you over your weight, because it’s on camera.”
Kelly also reminded Machado that she told the Washington Post in 1997 that she did have an eating disorder before Trump mocked her — a condition perhaps inspired by the taunting of a Trump-like figure, Osmel Sousa, who ran the Miss Venezuela contest she won before Miss Universe. In subsequent interviews, however, Machado insisted that Trump’s taunting had scarred her for years afterward, and convinced her that someone so cruel to women should not be president.
Top photo: Megyn Kelly looked at co-moderator Chris Wallace before a Republican primary debate in Iowa that Donald Trump skipped in January after clashing with her at a debate five months earlier.
The only bubble here is the one this author lives in.
Reminds me of Kim Jong-un
When Trumps in complete control of any situation as he is as Machado’s pageant boss he really enjoys being a mendacious bully and thats a horrible trait for anyone in a powerful place like the US presidency.
If I had a choice between Hillary or Celibacy, it would be Celibacy hands down.
I wondered what Rosie O’Donnell could possibly have said or done to make Trump nurse a sniveling grudge for a **DECADE**. Thanks for posting the video — O’Donnell’s comb-over and Trump(tm) pouty drawl was hilarious. His TEN YEARS of increasingly vicious reaction makes him look completely unhinged.
Andrew Raposa: who is this asshole Robert Mackey who goes on and on and says nothing. Together with these other writers who nobody knows and talk shit all the time. What has happened to the original intercept that held so much early promise for truth and exposition in journalism? Will someone tell Greenwald that nobody gives a fuck about what is happening in Brazil!
What part of this “election” does not scream CARNIVAL?! It’s a carnival, a distraction.
Ignore it and vote third party.
No thanks
This Fort Myers doctor is offering a free testosterone test to any man voting for Clinton. Check it out, Nate:
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/33284979/testosterone-linked-to-clinton-voters-says-to-fort-myers-doctors-ad
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race … we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/
Quite a statement from USA Today, exposing themselves as pawns. For them to characterize Trump the way they do but then to say they will remain down the middle with their coverage of the election is difficult to reconcile at best.
Trump would be dangerous they say, yet they are unwilling to do anything to stop him. And then in a true chickenshit maneuver they don’t actually endorse Clinton. They kid themselves that this is what being neutral looks like as if telling everyone not to vote Trump is anything but an endorsement of Clinton — just own it.
It is pathetic that so many people think that Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton are opposition candidates to each other.
They both represent the same predatory corporate disdain.
Sure, Trump is deliberately obnoxious and blatantly indifferent,
but Clinton is clearly connected to the slaughter of, at least,
hundreds of thousands of people – women, children, and men
and the destruction of the environment around the planet.
It is something which she proudly promotes, again and again, like
some predatory robot which has been programmed to make
pretty sounds while it destroys communities both near and far.
Neither of these two and their party-with-two-names are deserving
of any attention beyond house-arrest.
They are both liars and arrogantly manipulative of their victims.
The most peculiar aspect of their shared perversity in this
corporate owned campaign is that Trump has, on a few occasions,
actually said things about foreign policy which sound intelligent,
but, as with Clinton, these words cannot be taken at face value
because they are at odds with the shared corporatism which both
of these predators hold most dear.
Their words are clatter which is the result of fluctuations in wind direction
as it blows over the rusted remnants of a bombed out junk yard –
which they will enlarge as they gain more power.
It is what they and their two-faced party do.
They are opposition candidates. Indisputable fact. They differ significantly on most issues.
No, they don’t. Last time I checked, one made his living off of being a businessman.
She destroyed the environment too? That’s a new one.
Very original
Yep, but Trump’s lying is pathological and exploitative. Clinton’s is mostly defensive. Look no further than Politifact for proof of the extent of Trump’s lies (http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/).
Must you always speak in such generalities with qualifications up the wazoo!? You piqued my interest with this one though. Which Trump foreign policy aspects sound intelligent?
I’d work on this a little before the next Poetry Slam.
” Last time I checked, one made his living off of being a businessman. ”
He makes his living off his daddy’s apartment buildings.
Trump U, Trump steaks, vodka … bwahahaha
Clark pretty much nailed it; two sides of the same base coin.
By your endorsement of this claim, I’m even more assured of its untruth.
Yeah, it was just despicable when he called that victim of workplace sexual harassment a “narcissistic loony toon” and referred to another as “trailer trash.” And then when he said of an entire group of women victims who had been sexually harassed and assaulted, “I’m tired of all these whiny women!” And then when his campaign adviser called his strategy to tarnish his accusers the “nuts and sluts” strategy? My god!
I mean, what a deplorable…wait, what’s that? Oh, I’m sorry, those were all quotes about women from Hillary Clinton, never mind. In that case, The Intercept must never report on it or mention it ever again. Apologies.
An Unimpeachable Argument
We’ve got the second coming of Hitler and somehow impeachment is still of the table.
If even 1% of what they say about Trump is true, then the man should be impeached the day he takes office, yet everyone is afraid to say the “I” word.
Like keyboard commandos, the part of the brain that controls the mouth seems to be completely disconnected from the part of the brain that controls the hands and feet. Words and actions are 180 degrees opposed.
If Bill Clinton can be impeached without the world ending, then Trump can be pre-impeached.
Who has the guts to say that Trump is so bad that he should be impeached the day he takes office? From the sound of things the vote in congress should be close to unanimous.
If you really believe the sky is falling then start acting like it.
Pretending to get the vapors doesn’t count.
Just read through some of the brew ha ha over whether this article is any good. Ummm, it is.
I think maybe Glenn Greenwald mentioned this in a response to comment on one of his pieces: that, you can’t assume what you know everyone else already knows. It’s hard to remember that all the time.
Beating a dead horse is unfortunately necessary in media and entertainment.
Way off topic but hammer the point: how many times has Eddie Van Halen played the “eruption solo” live pretty much verbatim over and over for the past 40 yrs now… and yet someone is hearing it and is inspired by it for the very first time. So goddamn boring. No wonder artists use drugs — to include journalists as artists!
“Beating a dead horse is unfortunately necessary in media and entertainment.”
Hence the torrent of derision that flows through ‘Steno Bob’ Mackey’s comments.
The first pass on Mackey should be enough to make an alert reader cringe.
At least Eddie is very good at what he does.
Trump “didn’t want to embarrass her” . .. that’s got to count for something, bob.
I thought Mrs. Clinton’s inspired bright red pant suit momentarily discombobulated Mr. Trump. *If you look at the split screen, he looks like a slit-eyed gekko-hued lizard trying to get a bead.
p.s. you don’t have to turn on the red light … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsV7iLaBbqk
Regarding the graphic header:
I sincerely wish that was my hand on Megyn Kelly’s shoulder; so cute, so so so cute. Love her short hair; want to pull it… gently of course.
Right DJT? Right on! High five! Woohoo!
And how bout that Ivanka…? Hell Yeah! I mean…
Dude that’s your daughter.
Well, not voting for either corrupt, corporate candidate. I follow Jimmy Dore on YouTube and he has given the most perceptive commentaries on both of them, and why he, like me, is voting for Jill Stein. In my case, again. After the primary rigging against Sen Sanders, media bias, corporate papers and cable onboard, and electoral fraud, the DemocRAT Party has lost my support, up and down the ticket. The system is totally broken and the oligarchy is in place.
Even the Washington Post ran an article that admitted that what Trump said was far less evil than what Bill Clinton actually did. When Bill Clinton was impeached, Hillary stood by him and attacked Bill’s victims as “Bimbos.” They had an entire squad led by Hillary to deal with “Bimbo Eruptions.” If you want the full story, you can go to Youtube and search for Clinton’s War on Women.
If you needed further evidence of MSM hypocrisy and bias, Roger Ailes was forced out at Fox News for accusations of sexual harassment much less severe than those committed by the Clintons.
Meanwhile, in other news. TPP is dead until a new president revives it, McConnell says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/mcconnell-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-dead-until-a-president-revives-it/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_pp-911bill-920pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Looks like Trump won that one too.
Thank you Donald.
usually like your writing, and i dont support trump. but why cant trump comment on these women’s looks and they can comment on his looks? read some of their latest tweets. if some of those tweets was a man he would be called every thing from sexist tomisogynistic
It struck me that to support Clinton, her journalist court jesters such as Mckay will engage in “Sucking Henry Kissinger’s Dick Jourmalism”. The court jesters will appropriate any vicious right winger such as Kissinger and Megyn Kelly and give them a kind of note worthy status if they did something
that aided Clinton. Witness the embrace of Clinton supporters of the worst neocons such as Kagan.
Right wingers such as Kelly appropriate leftists perspective and ideals when it serves their purposes. Kelly who about two weeks before the debates engaged in utter slander against Planned Parenthood suddenly pimps herself as some aggreived feminist over Trumps remarks about women. Foxnews could care
less if Trump is a sexist–Kelly’s remarks were meant to attack Trump out the primaries in favor of other chosen candidates such as the fool Bush.
In fact, Kelly and Ailes misread the right wing base and gave Trump the mantle of anti-pc and outsider to the gop establishment candidates. I would argue it was in fact Kelly’s first question which handed the base to Trump with her phony liberal persona.
But what the heck–the court jesters are re-inventing Hillary so why not Kelly. The court jesters will ally themselves with anybody to serve Hillary.
A few random thoughts about this latest Mac Attack.
1. Meghan Kelly has leveraged her good looks to become a prominent entertainer on Fox news (Helen Thomas would never have made it in the front door at Fox news).
2. As much as the progressive left would like to believe that its gender politics is the wave of the future, Trump’s behavior is being measured by the very different standard of his base and target demographic. Trump does not care one jot what the Feminazis have to say about him.
3. As the Women’s vote is crucial, much has been said in the mainstream media about the candidates standing with Women voters. As a lead up to the debate, many prominent opinion pieces attempted to parse the ever-fluid women’s vote by focusing on various sub-categories including: age, education, race, marital status, and income. Only half of all women polled believe that Hillary is a good role model – this figure was down from 70% in 2007. The New York times did its own poll with categories that included women who had been harassed and feel that they have been undervalued in the marketplace (However, it predictably did not ask questions about women who habitually enable their husband’s serial sexual misconduct.). All of these pre-debate articles were written with an eye to shaping the debate’s process and affecting its outcomes.
4. Alicia Machado is another woman who used her natural good looks (sex appeal) to advance her brand in a venue that has a long history of propagating standards for beauty and femininity that best sells products (again sex sells). Although the commodification of sex appeal is not gender specific, it is designed to reflect patterns of sexual orientation in the global market place. As heterosexuals comprise the overwhelming majority of potential consumers, beauty pageants present a spectacle that appeals to that demographic. Ms. Machado can be seen beaming with complicit pleasure as Trump employs sexual innuendo to advance their respective brands in express homage to the aforementioned standards of beauty and femininity. Like those who allowed Cosby to get away with serial rape for decades, Ms. Machado remained silent for years in exchange for a Trump Bump to her career. To now claim that Trump “scarred her” with appeal enhancing criticisms is nothing shot of hypocritical opportunism.
Rosie O’Donnell is another entertainer whose openly gay life style was packaged and sold as an edgy compliment to Whoopie Goldgerg’s race-centrist perspective on the View. Rosie had already made her bones selling products to American consumers when she had her own show. In his book entitled “Media Literacy,” Donaldo Pereira Macedo explains that the Rosie O’Donnell show was “the most advertising friendly show to exist since the days of direct corporate sponsorship.” Like Oprah before her, Rosie allowed herself to be used a pitchman for products on a show whose production and content was intended to maximize market share in a way that would allow for the commodification of corporate friendly opinions in the process. Rosie drew first blood when she made Trump’s character the target of public derision in Dec 2006 on the nationally syndicated show “the view.” She accused him of having the “moral compass of a twenty year old.” As the View’s own corporate friendly opinions were/are just complimentary filler for advertising content, O’Donnel’s professional activities were identical to those of Trump for which she found fault. Controversy sells as it eats up the market share of a particular time slot on national television. Of course, nobody bothers to even recount O’Donell’s brand enhancing vitriol when questioning Trump’s suitability as America’s Corporate Pitchman in Chief.
Could Clinton’s and Netanyahu’s common love of ‘Hamilton’ aid the cause of Mideast peace?
That, my fellow readers, was the headline of a Washington Post piece tonight. Hilarity and mockery, of course, ensued.
The headline is now changed.
(Who the fuck entertains such idiocy, much less publishes it to the world?)
Related or side: Ian Bremmer (think it was him) noted that Netanyahu seems to care less who wins the U.S. election DJT or HRC. Wonder why?
Perhaps all three love Hamilton and want to support the musical; because wasn’t the lead in that from Puerto Rico and wasn’t he using that to raise awareness for their dire situation? They all three care and want to support P.R.
Who knows?
Shana Tova Umetukha!
Holy shit. That’s virtual desecration of Ben Bradlee’s and Katharine Graham’s graves.
Did the article also mention Netanyahu being booed when he attended a Saturday night showing of “Hamilton”?:
http://pagesix.com/2016/09/25/benjamin-netanyahu-booed-by-audience-at-hamilton/
–It is a Disgrace the kind of corrupt puppets the establishment have been able to place in front of the(our) usa population, that not one of these two candidates are legitimately honorable to be POTUS that while perpetrating criminality with impunity still remain cloaked/dress in honorability, yet (from all that is right) being subverters.
A must watch video of what Yannis varoufakis says of the character of the puppet hillary clinton.
https://youtu.be/umFg1GHEsqM
I’m posting this off topic bit here because this article has the most traffic at the moment. Anyone visiting here at The Intercept who might be able to support this request or know someone who might, please check it out.
Lawyer’s View: Recent Days at Standing Rock
Passed it on to my friends who have done legal work for other tribes in the region.
Its painful for most people to think, did you know the democratic party was the party to defend slave owners, republicans wrote the civil rights act 1967 both parties are hijacked, some suggested reading for you Robert list of cognitive bias…Wikipedia, however its still accurate.
Pretty funny to see you try to act smart and mention wikipedia while in the same sentence make a major mistake about the civil rights act (64 not 67).
Raphael–the slave owning thing was 100’s of years ago. Since the 1960’s it’s been the Democrats who championed Civil Rights not Republicans. Time for you to catch up on your history reading.
Hillary is a wife of a bitch, but she’s our wife of a bitch.
Source?
Why are some women so thin skinned? I get pounded everyday by my wife, daughters, and everybody on the internet. It is just life. Get over it.
Perhaps there is a causal relationship between these two sentences?
Yes, clearly it’s the women involved here who have the thin skin rather than the candidate who creates a decade long vendetta over a joke from comedian.
Imagine Bill Clinton standing above Monica in her blue dress: Now that is a Presidential look Trump will never rise to.
Bill Clinton has been much maligned by people such as yourself, what really happened with Monica is that after a disagreeable meal at the White House Bill told the hard of hearing Monica to ‘sack my cook’.
If we are going to assume that Trump’s disrespect for particular women means he is disgustingly misogynistic, then we must also conclude that Hillary Clinton is disgustingly racist for calling certain black men superpredators. It is indeed true that Trump and Clinton are both too prejudiced to be president, but actually their joint inability to curb their egotism is the greatest danger for us all.
Also, Trump in real terms is conspicuously helping a woman become president. I believe he’s doing this quite deliberately because he is and always has been controlled opposition only.
You know, the members of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy are perfectly correct when they point out that Hillary’s treatment of the women allegedly involved with Bill in his (alleged, of course) sexual misadventures or (allegedly) victimized by him has been simply abominable.
If Trump’s treatment of specific women is evidence of misogyny (of course it is!), so is hers.
Maisie, why do you think Trump is “controlled opposition?” You’ve asserted this a number of times and it doesn’t make sense to me. I can certainly understand why the Dims would prefer a moronic buffoon to run against, but it’s hard to see why the moronic, but massively narcissistic, Trump would be willing to play that game. He’s built his whole “brand” on portraying himself as a winner.
I guess one of the main things that make me think the establishment duopoly as a whole (which manifestly desires Clinton) is using Trump as controlled opposition is that it is awfully (I would say ‘too damn’) convenient for them that he is playing not just a stereotypical fantasy candidate for ultraconservatives and bigots – a reactionary stereotype with whom to easily contrast the corporatist warmonger Clinton thus rendering her less monstrous by comparison in the politically correct mainstream – he is also giving anti-establishmentarianism itself an awful reputation, which can only please the elite to no end.
I contend that he was allowed by the ruling class (of which he’s a part) to ‘make a good go of it,’ providing he throws the thing ultimately. The establishment of course wants the charade to look good so they don’t have to manipulate too many vote counts on the day. It’s possible Trump is not in on it (he is pretty dopey), but I still believe this is certainly how he is being used by his handlers – and the fact that he doesn’t prepare for anything indicates to me not simply an arrogance but a highly suspicious lack of interest in actually winning.
Trump is viciously brutal as a businessman, but he makes no real effort to destroy Clinton that I can see outside goofy pandering to a base that hilariously thinks Clinton is left-wing. My intuition says the establishment is doing all this as theater, to simulate democracy where there is only an oligarchy. Clinton has been crowned already by the powers that be, and Trump has been helpful toward this end not in spite of his behavior but because of it, I reckon.
I must qualify all this with the statement that it is largely my opinion only, but one I can’t shake.
I forgot to mention that this has already been massive publicity for Trump’s businesses, which may be all he was after since he makes no real effort to even pretend to grasp statesmanship. He may also be doing this partly as a favor to the Clintons, with whom he has been friends for many years.
That’s much easier for me to believe. Because he is as dopey as they come, the ultimate useful idiot, if that’s how he’s being used.
I think he’s such an arrogant imbecile that he doesn’t think he has to prepare for anything, that his natural brilliance will carry the day. Hey! It worked in the Repugnican primaries.
Hillary has apologized and explained that one-time remark. Trump has never apologized for the hundreds of misogynistic remarks he has made and continues to make today. BIG difference.
I watched the clip for the first time and it’s remarkable in its mildness.
Mr Trump has a truly big problem in this area – made clearer by seeing what really happened, as opposed to the overblown mountains of rhetoric spewed at the time (and every subsequent time) of the original”spat”.
In addition, his initial surprise at the mention of Ms Machado and when he kept that segment going by asking more questions, he again shows that he possesses no filters and the mentality of a child.
Obviously, if he respected women enough to listen to them, as well as heed their advice, we wouldn’t have stories like this one.
2016 candidate stories this year are fairly awful considering the quality of the candidates. Then there is the quality of the media – television “news” shows, in particular. So be it.
Another day, another Robert Mackey article on Trump that is met with mind-numbing responses from lazy commenters. They fall into a predictable few categories:
Deflection, Defensiveness, and Moronic Insults
* barabbas: Maybe Hellary Clinton should have listened to the voice of Jesus instead of LUCIFER
* nuf said: Let’s talk about Hillary’s long-standing marriage to a serial rapist.
toidiY sselesU: Oy veh, hear, hear. I just can’t believe I allowed myself and suffered to read, word for word, this putrid shit.
False Equivalence and “Trump as the Lesser of Two Evils”
* photosymbiosis: If Trump did win, it would cause so much chaos in the halls of American power that the whole imperial project would likely grind to a halt, saving the rest of the world from the horrors of Hillary Clinton’s ultra-aggressive regime-change new-Cold-War with Russia and China bullshit.
* Doug Salzmann, responding to photsymbiosis: Shorter: Killary is not a lesser evil.
* landlocked: HRC and The Donald are just two sides of the same coin; in one way or another it’s all about power and $ for them- or serving the power brokers and monied interests.
* Arth: [Trump and Hillary] both fall into the same bucket of deplorables…
The “You Should be Reporting on Peace in the Middle East!” response
* Pedinska: And here you are, ranting about Donald, ranting about O’Donnell mocking his hair, while more important issues such as the candidates’ positions on, oh, say, Syria/Honduras/Libya never cross your screen news ticker.
* Jamie: Yet nowhere do we find out that Hillary led the charge for wars in the Ukraine, Libya and Syria — where untold thousands of women have been killed or raped.
* john anderson: anyway … let’s not worry about Syria and nuclear first strike and get back to the pressing issue of DONALD’S BIRTHERISM and HILLARY’S DAD’S COLORED FABRIC BUSINESS
We Already Know this news, so don’t cover it!!
* rrheard: Look, there may be a lot of journalistic endeavors where this tabloidish pap might have some value in getting out the word that Trump is a horrible misogynistic creep…But pretty sure The Intercept’s readership is well aware of it. So the question becomes, why in the double f*ck does Mr. Mackey continue to pen this crap i.e. of what value is it to The Intercept’s general readership?
* Pedinska: And/or the enthusiasm of online journalists dedicated to prismatic social media type hot takes on his well-established misogyny as “news” worthy of bandwidth, as the case may be. :-s
The Billionaire’s Conspiracy
* photosymbiosis: Don’t be too hard on Mackey – I’m starting to think that it’s just a reflection of billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s media agenda….If this is what Omidyar is up to, then recruiting a few “alternative journalists” to establish credibility for his media operation would be a clever tactic.
* Jamie: The intercept has been completely astroturfed by its owner Pierre Omidyar:
My Hypothesis of the Real Reason Behind these Lame Comments
My hypothesis is that most of you don’t actually take issue with the contents of Mr. Mackey’s articles (do you even read them?) but hate the implications of his only criticizing Trump. To you, it represents a tacit endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which REALLY pisses you off. After all, you either like Trump or hate BOTH candidates and therefore it irritates you that Mr. Mackey’s reporting topics don’t coincide with your views. In a way, Mackey seems to go against the grain of TI’s convention wisdom, which frankly has been very quiet on picking and choosing between the political candidates in this election. And if I’ve learned anything around here, some of you truly dislike differing viewpoints. Of course, this wouldn’t be so bad if you could actually form an actual rebuttal to his pieces and engage in conversation like an adult. Therein lies the dead giveaway that is the foundation of my hypothesis: not a single one of you took any exception to the adequacy of Mr. Mackey’s article. You didn’t point out any factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies, misleading information, or anything of the sort. You could make a master list of logically fallacious comments out of these responses. Some of you even called it “tabloid journalism” but seem to have forgotten that Trump is a Tabloid Candidate. Tabloid-like actions beget articles talking about such. Nor could you argue that this was irrelevant since Trump’s misogyny was literally a point of contention during the debate. Instead, your responses were childish deflection, defensiveness, insults, insinuation, and stupidity. And since the same few people respond to Mackey’s articles each time in a similar manner, it has created an echo chamber of sorts that validates your comments in perpetuity.
The only commenters I saw that actually demonstrated some willingness to buck this trend were Mona, Kitt, and avelna2001, so kudos to them.
What many of you really want to see is Hillary to get more of her own comeuppance. In a way, its asking for the same false equivalence that many of you supposedly loathe. At least some of you are transparent enough to explicitly share your belief that Trump is better than Clinton. Others seem to kind of tip-toe around the periphery, either too afraid to admit it or are so deluded into thinking that this contest hasn’t boiled down to just the two candidates in the debate, but also third party candidates that for all intents and purposes have been relegated to spoiler status.
The excuse that I find to be most contrived is those who pretend Mr. Mackey’s reporting represents some zero-sum game where by writing this piece, he missed his chance to author a Pulitzer-winner on a topic that Pedinska or rrheard deemed acceptable. After all, since they know Trump is a misogynist, everyone must!! Yet aren’t you among the commenters singing Glenn’s praises when he basically beats a few disparate dead horses in a million different ways!?
e.g., Glenn: look at THIS hypocrite! And the TI crowd goes wild!!
I for one, liked this article. It is a historical dive into Trump’s misogyny that included lots of actual video and helped me understand why in the hell Trump mentioned Rosie during the debate. It also showed me just how long Trump holds onto grudges. I’m more than willing to discuss the other contents of this article if those of you listed above actually take the time to read it (LOL).
In conclusion, perhaps consider what Kitt said:
tndr (Too Nate, didn’t read.)
Ha, I like it!
Doug, Nate has finally gone too far. He must be banned. This insult cannot stand. He indicts a whole buncha you, but says *I* deserve “kudos” for “bucking”some trend.
He’s spewed a lot of shit in his time, but issuing me a compliment is profoundly distressing. I swear, I did nothing to deserve that.
We may have start a TI crowd-funding effort to pay for your therapy. You can count on me for a couple of 50-minute hours, Mona. ;^)
Don’t let them get you down Mr. Mackey.
Thanks Ben.
Trump-like sniffle
Perhaps give your ol’ pal Mackey one of your cute little Duce comments to make me feel better?
That you like this article, Nate, indicates strongly that it would please the establishment – and it is Mackey’s frequent obsequious establishmentarianism that is why many posters object to the piece’s asinine quality.
Please first define what you consider “establishment” to be.
I mean it in the Oxford dictionary sense of “a group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy or taste, and seen as resisting change.”
Thanks, so I can now better understand your initial comment:
That you like this article, Nate, indicates strongly that it would please the “group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy or taste, and seen as resisting change” – and it is Mackey’s frequent obsequious establishmentarianism that is why many posters object to the piece’s asinine quality.
This suggests that Trump isn’t “establishment.” He may say that and his advocates may repeat it, but does he not exercise power through his wealth and branding, which has given him influence? Also, last time I checked, he brought in establishment characters such as Roger Ailes and Mike Pence. So how is it that my liking this article would please “the establishment”? It’s so broad as to be basically meaningless.
Also, what’s considered establishment is all relative to the context. Commenters on TI are trying to exert influence right? And the majority share similar views and opinions. I think it’s fair to say I’m not one of them. Doesn’t that make you and others part of TI’s “establishment”? Does branding you as such accomplish anything. Nah…
I have never argued any such thing. This is one of the most hopeless comments you have ever posted (that I’ve seen). Don’t try that nonsense with me, Nate.
Save the faux outrage. Your ambiguous and nonsensical comment are to blame. Because if you agree that Trump is indeed “establishment” your original comment makes zero sense as demonstrated below:
That you like this article, Nate, indicates strongly that it would please the establishment
In other words: That Nate likes Mackey’s article – which is critical of Trump, an establishment figure – would please the establishment.
Why would an article critical of the establishment please the establishment. It makes no sense!!
So, you persist in playing. Well, as butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, I’ll slowly unpack the glaringly obvious for you:
1) The establishment (both Republicans and Democrats) wants Clinton to be president, even though the unpredictable Trump is indeed a member of the establishment while pretending not to be.
2) This article caters to what the establishment wants in tabloid fashion.
3) Most commenters here object to the corruption of the establishment (and some mistakenly think Trump is anathema to it), so from myriad directions they point out that the article is no different from the generic Clinton-favoring establishmentarianism that already dominates the mainstream media.
This concession makes it quite clear that your initial comment was anything but glaringly obvious. And if “the establishment” wants Clinton, then why is it even a contest? Trump edged scarily close to Clinton before the first debate. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I already addressed this in my lengthy response. To describe Donald Trump without referencing his tabloid-craziness is to be in denial of the fact that his life is “a product of the tabloids.” (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/tabloids-donald-trump-new-york-post-daily-news-gossip-1980s-1990s-213853). They are inseparable!!
So if Trump is going to talk about Rosie O’Donnell, one of his many foes, during a Presidential Debate (!!) and has attained much of his political success atop derogatory comments towards women, it would be journalistic malpractice to gloss over this. Yet that is exactly what you and others are suggesting Mr. Mackey do because something, something Member of the Establishment, something, something what the establishment wants, something, something generic Clinton-favoring establishmentarianism
Give me a break.
Sure. If The Intercept thing doesn’t work out, there’s always a job waiting for you at the Huffington Post. Click bait will always be in demand.
I…ASKED….FOR… A…DUCE COMMENT!
Now put on your adorable little persona and dance, dammit!!
I’m sorry Benny. I didn’t mean it.
Forgive poor ol’ Mackey; I’m just one journalist and upset at all these incredibly astute comments from the TI Comment Section’s finest contributors. I can almost taste the Cheetoh-stained fingers clacking across their mom’s keyboards.
I don’t wanna go to the Huff Post, I can’t understand a darn thing Arianna says and I hear their staff pees in a cup and throws it at you. And god help me if I had to interact with H.A. Goodman.
BM please – what am I to do!?
It’s too bad that Zelda was exposed by The Intercept and forced to retire, as she could have given poor ol’ Mackey some really useful career advice. I’m not very good at these sort of things, but here goes.
Study the agenda of the most powerful factions and individuals you can find. Then write stories which will advance that agenda. Use social media to draw their attention to your stories. You may not be rewarded immediately, but eventually doors will magically start to open for you. You may already know all this, but if so, I have no further advice that can be of any use to you. Your own talent and hard work must accomplish the rest.
Tour de force Nate, tour de force.
@ Nate
I read every article in its entirety before I choose to comment. As far as your theory above, at least with regard to me since you included me, I’d only repeat my very straightforward argument which is precisely how I feel about these sorts of articles.
In short, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with Mr. Mackey, or the accuracy of the content. I concede it is accurate. The point being, it is well known Trump is a misogynistic hypocritical creep.
I don’t deny Mr. Mackey’s journalistic right to write about whatever he chooses, nor how often. I simply don’t understand, given my perception of the TI readership’s interests, education level, and general level of engagement with the world, what exactly is the point of Mackey’s fixation on Trump’s deplorable qualities, which are well known facts.
So it follows:
1) No amount of articles about Trump’s misogyny is increasing the TI readership’s awareness of those facts;
2) Restating those facts, or additional instances of his misogyny ad nauseam is going to sway any voters, because 1 of two things is likely true;
a) anybody here aware of Trump’s misogyny will not be voting for Trump, nor voting for Hillary Clinton against Trump strictly on the basis of his misogyny, or
b) anybody aware of Trump’s misogyny and still willing to vote for Trump isn’t going to be swayed to vote for Hillary by more of these articles.
Now one could argue that I don’t understand the composition of TI’s readership and that there actually are many “undecideds” who are not in fact aware of Trump’s misogyny and could be swayed by these articles to vote for Hillary Clinton and/or against Donald Trump. In which case fair enough, that may be Mackey’s thinking.
But, again, it isn’t like there aren’t a ridiculous amount of mainstream media outlets documenting precisely these same stories about Trump’s deplorable qualities, and given The Intercept’s stated mission of strong adversarial investigative journalism, the question remains–why is any Intercept journalist wasting much time on the quality, degree or instances of Trump’s misogyny? Particularly in light of the fact it is both a well known fact and being exhaustively covered by every other media endeavor in America.
I personally don’t care who anybody votes for or why (or who Mackey supports for whatever reason). What I do care about is that The Intercept continues to produce high quality journalism on topics that are important, and that aren’t being covered by the rest of the media world. And when it comes to Trump (or Hillary Clinton for that matter), I’m not sure The Intercept’s coverage (with a few exceptions) of the election is adding much to “the debate”.
You are free to disagree with me, on the above, but please don’t theorize about my motivations when I have stated them clearly. I simply find these types of articles pointless under the circumstances, inconsistent with The Intercept’s mission, and quite frankly repetitive and boring.
So going forward, I will simply refrain from reading any more of Mackey’s pablum on this topic, and refrain from commenting on them as well. Particularly in light of the fact, he seems uninterested in engaging The Intercept’s readership on why he finds this particular topic particular newsworthy or worth his time in light of the fact almost every other media outlet in America is running these sorts of stories, and quite effectively.
Sorry for the typo.
As you acknowledge later, you are not the arbiter of this. And it did increase my understanding of Trump’s misogyny.
You are acting like TI is a club, with a distinct membership of which you are intimately familiar. It’s not true. I’ve seen TI articles hit the front page of /r/politics on Reddit and the comments simply do not resemble the discourse here. TI’s comments section is very insular.
Mackey’s work isn’t ground-breaking stuff, true. But it doesn’t have to be. He is a fantastic synthesizer of information. Your last sentence though, I absolutely agree with. TI’s collective coverage of the Presidential election has simply been underwhelming. You essentially have Mackey’s pieces against Trump, Fang’s usual pieces on lobbying, and a couple interspersed Zilani pieces on other stuff. The best piece I’ve seen so far was the interview of Jill Stein.
That’s fair rrheard. I don’t like people guessing my motivations so I shouldn’t have lumped you (and a couple others) in with the horde. I respect your ability to articulate your views and apologize if I misrepresented you in the process of summarizing the comments.
When Murtaza started at TI he engaged commenters a lot. It has since subsided and I really cannot blame him. Some commenters are just simply mean-spirited and don’t deserve the time of day. So I can understand why Mackey and others may avoid engaging commenters. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he reads them.
@ Nate
No worries. No apology necessary.
I think your counterarguments were fair enough, and we can agree to disagree on this one.
I don’t happen to find much value in these types of pieces at this point in the election. I’ll concede others may. I’ll also concede that without some data analytics on TI’s readership’s overall interest in these sorts of articles, I can’t speak with any degree of mathematical certainty as to what other readers prefer. Was just giving my sense of those preferences based on my longevity here and familiarity with comments section, and extrapolating from there. Not trying to infer that my opinion had any sort of scientific basis or anything, just my opinion and general sense of what they value over time extrapolated out from the comments section.
That’s a great post rrheard.
My feelings are similar: a new Mackey article on Trump, hoo boy, what else is there to say anymore? And can’t I find this stuff anywhere anyway?
Looks like you spent some time on that, Nate.
You must have liked the article.
But look at your historical dive into Steno Bob’s cesspool.
That’s why we think things through, first, Nate.
It should make more sense after puberty.
Yep, that’s exactly what I said. You’re one sharp cookie.
Is there anything in particular that I’m supposed to look at?
Your conclusion fails to relate to the premise. I can see you spent little time on that, “nuf said.”
Nice burn bruh!
Donald Trump’s only path to victory remains with the black vote. He must focus this last month on continuing to cut into the Democrats’ hold of the black vote.
He must explain that Hillary Clinton is still part of the problem for black lives. Her use of the term “implicit bias” during Monday’s debate demonstrates further use of a “colorblindness” approach to black community’s problems. The Democrats’ “colorblindness” approach enable barriers that keep black youth from maximizing their full potential. This “colorblindness” approach is more hypocritical than those Clinton says are oppressing blacks.
An “implicit bias colorblindness” approach does not create conditions for black boys and girls to contribute and prosper. For more than 50 years the Democratic Party have use a monopoly of the black vote to create a “rigged” caste system that benefit just the gatekeepers who psychobabble poverty stricken black residents with “colorblindness” code words like “implicit bias.”
Donald Trump must continue to make a case for a “race specific” economic inclusion agenda. He says he wants “school choice,” safe and affordable black neighborhoods, 21st century job training programs, and inner-city business and manufacturing development to create “good-paying” jobs.
The Democratic Party that “betrayed” the black community (black homicide, unemployment, poverty), understand the importance of the black vote. Their strategy for the last month remains “using gatekeepers to force blacks to the election polls to vote for Hillary.”
Mr. Trump said specifically that he fully understands the African-American community has suffered from discrimination,” Donald Trump has called for “a civil-rights agenda for our time . . .” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dieNd5h_qpw
what? trump fat shaming my girls and wants me to vote for him? Hell No.
Clinton campaign accuses Trump of breaking Cuba embargo
The New Cold Warriors are still at it.
I would have broken that embargo myself, long ago, if I could have handled the consequences as easily as Trump could. It is/was the embargo that is/was criminal, immoral and stupid, not breaking it.
The whole thing with Cuba is beyond absurd. Rachel Maddow breathlessly “reporting” that Newseek is covering how Trump did business in…Cuba!11!1!11! (Twitter clip — I don’t watch her -, or any cable “news” — at all any more.)
Rachel is a poster girl for the DLC Democrats. This is a perfect issue for her: she gets to bash Trump while playing her very serious “national security liberal” (her description, not mine) role.
Mona,
Why do you feel that you have to justify how you got the breaking news?
When I relax after work and when I choose to keep both hands free, I am not embarrassed to admit that I still watch the RMS. I am more ashamed of Rachel than I am of my willingness to let her into my living room for 48 minutes.
The commenters at TI are a pretty sophisticated group of people.
By your own writings, we have come to understand you a little.
Why do you think stating that one doesn’t watch cable news is in any way equivalent to justifying the ways one does get news?
Maybe some of the commenters at TI aren’t as sophisticated as they thing they are.
Its not about the embargo. Its about Trump screaming about law and order flouting the law. Im pretty sure he wasnt defying the embargo for ideological reasons.
Wrong again, Gil. Of course it wasn’t for ideological reasons, but it absolutely was about the embargo, and not primarily about “law and order.” That “law and order” trope only started showing up from Clitnonistas later today, after all the mockery had set in.
Huh? Did you read the article you linked to Mona, or does the phrase “first and foremost” mean something different to you?
” First and foremost, it would have been illegal for Trump’s enterprise to spend money in Cuba under a U.S. economic embargo.”
If that’s not enough for you watch the Maddow clip:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/first-look-at-post-debate-ppp-polling-numbers-775381059566
The focus is clearly on the illegality of what Trump did, that he tried to hide it by making it look like a charity and lastly that he hypocritically spoke to a group of Cuban Americans shortly after this took place and promised to be tough on Castro and again just the other day did the same thing.
No where in Maddow’s report does she make any comment on the right or wrong of the embargo itself. She repeatedly speaks of the illegality and the hypocrisy.
You are evading the truth, Gil. That article says nada about “law and order,” but rather is a promotion of nutjob Kurt Eichenwald’s nonsense in Newsweek. And the hypocrisy is about making the deals while having publicly supported the embargo. Eichenwald’s first sentence in the piece that had Rachel all excited reads:
See that, Gil, Eichenwald gets the words “communist” and “Fidel Castro” right in his opening pitch. And as Rachel reports, Hillary’s initial reaction was:
Nada about “law and order.” And Eichenwald includes this bit:
No stuff about “law and order.”
again HUH
first of all the attack you and Doug waged was on Maddow and the Clinton campaign, neither of which said anything about communists.
And how is the Clinton campaign saying:
“Trump’s business with Cuba appears to have broken the law, flouted U.S. foreign policy, and is in complete contradiction to Trump’s own repeated, public statements that he had been offered opportunities to invest in Cuba but passed them up. This latest report shows once again that Trump will always put his own business interest ahead of the national interest – and has no trouble lying about it.”
not about Trump breaking the law and his hypocrisy?
Are you really basing your argument on the my writing that Trump screams about law and order when phrase “law and order” doesn’t appear in the article or from Maddow and the Clinton campaign? Wow.
Gil, arguments from incredulity remain fallacious, even with a “Wow” appended. Rachel Maddow did not push a theme that Trump’s issue vis-a-vis his Cuba dealings flouted his “law and order,” position. She didn’t say it explicitly, or in sum and substance.
What she did do, Gil, was shoot off fireworks about this wildly exciting Newsweek piece, a piece by Kurt Eichenwald. I quoted you the first sentence. That’s Kurt.
As I said already, after the mockery and derision arose online today, only then did the Clinton factions begin to protest, no, this is about “law and order” hypocrisy. That phrase began showing up on Twitter this morning, from Clintonites after hilarity had ensued. Like this:
Altho, this is the one that made me giggle, Glenn retweeting Michael Tracy:
She did indeed say in substance that if true, what Trump did was illegal. She said it multiple times. The Clinton report as well cited the illegality. Neither mentioned communism or Castro.
I didn’t watch Maddow, but read the Newsweek piece a couple times and it’s another strong indictment of Trump’s historical disregard for the law.
My one nitpick with Eichenwald’s piece was that it was unclear as to whether Trump’s business actually disguised the transaction as a charity.
From reading the article, the “instructions” suggested that they conceal the payment as a charitable venture but the article doesn’t say whether that in fact occurred. I mean, they had already received an invoice indicating it was not charity so how did they go about making up the charitable aspect? Did they alter accounting records? I guess it is ultimately a moot point since the reimbursement itself is illegal, but I think the article’s piece could have explained this part a little better.
Regardless, I agree with your comments in this string. The legitimacy of the embargo is irrelevant to Trump’s flouting the laws to strengthen his business. Kurt Eichenwald and David A. Fahrenthold are doing some damn fine work unveiling Trump’s shady business dealings.
Trump’s response is also hilarious:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-cuba-228932#ixzz4LkWZw3uB
Typical Trump.
Thanks for the links Nate
oh and another thing she never once in the clip say anything about “national security” as Doug implied.
Doug didn’t imply any such thing WRT to what Maddow said in the clip. I said Maddow describes herself as a “national security liberal.” She does.
Learn the difference between implication and inference.
fine, you inferred it. you inference was wrong.
You’re having a bad night, Gil. Doug is correct — that’s how Rachel Maddow describes herself. Reasonable inferences may be made from that, and Doug made a reasonable one.
You are having a worse night Mona.
Are you really trying to make the argument that because Maddow has described herself (please provide the link) as a ” “national security liberal”. Therefore the thrust of her report on this,must be communism and the “cold war” ? Reasonable people actually look at the facts rather that making accusations based on inference, and reasonable people don’t stick to their false accusation after it has been countered with facts that prove their accusations were false.
You’re familiar with the first law of holes, aren’t you Gil? I’m going to let you google Maddow and “national security liberal” for yourself. Which, Gil, you ought to have done before questioning me and asking for a link. (Hint: Start with Wikipedia, which documents with a link to NYT. But that’s not all.)
As for the rest, I’m content to let readers conclude as they will about your arguments, and their merits, in light of what I and others have documented in this sub-thread.
As I said Mona resonable people dont stick false accusations after they have been proven false. Only delusional people believe anyone but you and i are reading the thread at this point. Soon Lol will be by to call me names but he wont even read the comments.
That’s nice, but not applicable to anyone except you in this sub-thread.
I’m still astonished you skeptically asked for a link without checking yourself first. One would think you learned your lesson after that embarrassing business where you repeatedly refused to accept that The Intercept is a non-profit enterprise until I cited you chapter and verse from easily located information.
Too funny, yes lets pretend that asking for a link is a terrible if the delusion gets you through the day Mona hold on to it . The fact remains your claims about Maddow and the Clinton campaign were false. Not to mention you were caught lying by saying Maddow “breathlessly” reported something you claimed YOU NEVER EVEN WATCHED.
Jesus, Gil, you just keep digging, deeper and deeper. Dude, I didn’t write anything about “the Clinton campaign” and what I wrote about Maddow is true. You put in caps that I never watched Madow, completely overlooking that my initial comment stated that I viewed a “Twitter clip.” See, Gil, modern technology allows talented people to take a televised show and reproduce it — or parts of it– online for others to watch.
You’re reduced from your original claim that all the brouhaha over Trump/Cuba had to do with “law and order,” to claiming I’m “lying” by using the word “breathless” to characterize the nature of Maddow’s reporting.
Seriously, when you first showed up here I thought you were pretty smart and well-informed, and would be an interesting challenge. That you weren’t just a fuckwitted hasbara troll or neoliberal hack like so many who populate this place and are just annoying and/or boring.
I think I may have been wrong.
At any rate, here ya go Gil. Salon is a premier Clinton enclave. This is their headline about that Eichenwald piece Maddow was so fucking excited (pace Gil, breathless) about: “Report: Donald Trump broke Cuba embargo, knowingly conducting illegal business in a Communist country.” Nada about “law and order,” Gill, as with virtually all of the Clintonista enthusiasm over this story, it’s heavy on the commie thing. First sentence:
It’s the commies, Gil, all the way down.
First of all Mona when I first showed up here your first reply to me was that everything I posted was false. You were unsuccessful with your claim then as you are now, and that was just the first of many lies and false accusations.
Maddow wasn’t breathless and Doug’s comment about the Clinton campaigns response to the news being The New Cold Warriors, which you defended was also false.
I see you’ve backed off your , you said law and order and they said illegal nonsense and saying it was reasonable to assume what Maddow said without actually watching or reading what she said. I’m glad, I think that was weak even for you Mona. Although it is not nearly as funny as your attack on my asking for a link. Too funny coming from Ms. if there is no link it doesn’t exist.
Salon is not the Clinton campaign nor is it Maddow. Your characterization of them being the premier Clinton enclave is as ridiculous as it is inapposite.
How many times are you going to demonstrate that you do not or cannot read? In the post to which you replied I wrote:
In all seriousness, do you have a cognitive impairment? You keep doing things like that (I lied about “the Clinton campaign,” then I didn’t, it was Doug, and on and on like that), and seem to actually believe you’ve acquitted yourself well in this sub-thread. There’s really nothing one can say to an individual who is so deluded or incapacitated.
[sigh] Doug, Doug, I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN and only reported what Hillary herself said about the Eichenwald report, which was not about “law and order.” I have, however, pointed out the commie stuff in the Eichenwald report that Rachel was so agog over, and so is the Hillary-worshipping Salon. That is — and as I’ve said — the “Clintonistas” (not the campaign, Doug, the supporters all over) are ranting about commie Cuba vis-a-vis Donald Trump.
That’s a fact.
And Doug, I’ve never said a thing doesn’t exist without a link. Contentious claims need not be accepted without documentation, but for you to repeatedly deny a thing is so, or to express skepticism — when you by now know I do not make claims I cannot support — is dumb. You did it with the non-profit issue, and then again here. That’s stupid on your part Gil — you shouldn’t have publicly questioned it without checking before embarrassing yourself.
You don’t see me questioning a claim I can easily verify of falsify for myself. No one capable in these threads does that, especially not repeatedly. (For example, much as I disdain Craig Summers, I do not publicly doubt his fact claims, because he has a record of being reliable about those — just not the conclusions. By now you should know to treat me and Doug the same way.)
I leave this sub-thread now. At least whatever your cognitive issue is, you can feel all warm and happy because you believe you’ve really ruled here. So bask in it, Gil.
Mona read your post again, you keep referring to me as Doug. I’m concerned about you.
Also you lied again when you wrote: ” I’ve never said a thing doesn’t exist without a link.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/the-new-york-times-and-clinton-campaigns-abject-cowardice-on-israel/#comment-235273
Mona:
“-Mona- ? GilG
May 28 2016, 12:46 a.m.
It’s all been posted.
Link. Or it didn’t happen. If you can paste in fragments, you have a link.
oh and read through that thread I linked to. You will see you see that even after I posted a link you requested multiple times you persisted in saying I didn’t post it. You even brought your false accusation to the top of the thread.
Again proving you’re someone who repeatedly makes false accusations even after the evidence has been presented.
the younger Trump sounded more or less like a super-rich real estate genius with a big ego. now he’s coming across more like a died-in-the-wool misanthropist
he’s said that human beings are the most vicious animals on earth. and while he insults women way more often than men … men have most of that $$$ he wants. so go figure
anyway … let’s not worry about Syria and nuclear first strike and get back to the pressing issue of DONALD’S BIRTHERISM and HILLARY’S DAD’S COLORED FABRIC BUSINESS
it’s possible that trump really just wants to screw the whole election process, and observe the coronation of hillary from a position of total political absurdity
Well reasoned. Great points.
Maybe Hellary Clinton should have listened to the voice of Jesus instead of LUCIFER
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/
Most people who will vote for Mr. Trump are doing so precisely because he is rude and boorish, as a f*** you to the establishment. Those voters are becoming more excited each time Mr. Mackey publishes one of his catnip articles about Mr. Trump.
However, I urge Mr. Mackey to reconsider: although his stories may be cheered by throngs of enthusiastic deplorables, he himself is one of the elite, and likely to be lynched when the mob storms the Bastille. So I wish he would tone these articles down, as he may be sowing the wind, but reaping the whirlwind.
Yup, we, the irredeemable (wow, how did I manage to spell that? well… Google) deplorables, thanks to Hillary, came out of our baskets and we are now watching the both of youse.
I’m having a conversation with a co-worker. Totally out of context. When I say “they both” I am not talking about Trump and Hillary. But we do debate important issues. Note that My co-worker, Mr. K, is not as deplorable as I am.
For added color, Mr. K was born and raised in Shanghai, China.
3:31 PM Arth
they both fall into the same bucket of deplorables
3:32 PMK
you can call her lier
3:33 PMArth
buckets are better than baskets. she should have known that. that’s why i’ll be voting ‘trump’. i’m sure he’s a bucket person not a basket case which is hillary
3:35 PMK
bucket can hold water, basket cannot
3:35 PMArth
exactly, that’s why she got dehydrated and fell on her face. she should keep her head in a bucket. permanently
3:37 PMK
that’s torture, too much
3:38 PMArth
it could keep her head moist
People who think Trump is anti-establishment are morons. Trump cares for nothing but his own aggrandizement. He is a bigot and sexist to boot. He took funds earmarked for small businesses hurt by 9/11, cheated small business people, donated to charities using other peoples money, scammed people stupid enough to believe he wanted to help them get rich with Trump U, and the list goes on and on.
What’s amazing to me is how many Intercept regulars are Trump supporters.
Virtually no one who’s long been in Glenn Greenwald’s readership. And pretty much any prominent site that reports truthfully on Hillary Clinton is going to attract Trumpers. They try like hell to make us allies. Not gonna happen.
“And pretty much any prominent site that reports truthfully on Hillary Clinton is going to attract Trumpers.”
That maybe true but most of these same Trumpers on TI also share Glenn’s view vis-a-vis Trump – Russia as well as Syria and of course Israel.
What does that mean? Are you saying Glenn has a positive view of Donald Trump?
Russia: What is Glenn’s view?
Syria: What is Glenn’s view?
Israel: No. But why don’t you also set forth what you think Glenn’s view on Israel is?
Also, what is Trump’s view on Israel? (Or I guess I should ask: what view, at which time?)
At any rate, the core readership here is most definitely not pro-Trump.
I wrote Trump-Russia. I didn’t say Glenn has a positive view of Russia only that the Trumpers here agreed that the Russia-Trump connection was anti Russian.
I shouldn’t have specified Glenn on Syria but certainly the Trumpers on TI were all over many of the TI articles on Syria for example: https://theintercept.com/2016/08/31/u-s-strategy-to-fight-isis-has-set-off-a-new-conflict-in-syria/?comments=1#comments
It’s not about Trumps view of Israel it’s about the Trumps supporters posting on TI views of Israel.
I don’t know what the core readerships views are but certainly the many of the most frequent posters here are indeed pro Trump.
Well, then, you aren’t left with much of a point. One of our most diehard Trumpers thinks Putin is teh awesome — really has his pulse on the Russian national character and is supported by those great Russian people who love their Leader. Glenn Greenwald would never, remotely, issue such an utterance.
As for Israel, many of the anti-Israel Trumpers hold to bizarre, antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews plotting Zionism purportedly since the 7th century, currency manipulation, and yeah, doncha know, they did 9/11. Again, Glenn Greenwlad would never, not remotely, issue utterances like that.
And here you are, ranting about Donald, ranting about O’Donnell mocking his hair, while more important issues such as the candidates’ positions on, oh, say, Syria/Honduras/Libya never cross your screen news ticker.
And/or the enthusiasm of online journalists dedicated to prismatic social media type hot takes on his well-established misogyny as “news” worthy of bandwidth, as the case may be. :-s
True story – I know it’s true because it happened to me.
Last Tuesday I typed in a question for Hillary at presidentialopenquestions.com. If your up-to-80-characters question (beat THAT Twitter) is voted into the top 30, the next debate’s moderators are going to see it and may decide to perhaps have you phone it in, in real time.
So I enter my question. You know… typical Hillary question. Can’t recall the exact words but the general idea was “given your life-long record of lies and deception why should we (the people) trust you with the US presidency”.
To my surprise, my question is getting lots of votes and, half an hour later, has the third largest number of votes and trending #2. I even called a coworker and shared my screen and, as we were talking about the face Hillary would make IF I ended up actually calling it in at the debate… it… disappears. Just like that. It’s gone. Deleted.
I email them. “You deleted the question that had the third highest number of votes and was trending second at the time. So much for free expression. If such a thing is possible, it’s clearly not your site facilitating it.”
The answer – yes, someone did write back and I don’t believe it was a bot – “Darn! I’m sorry that’s happening. If you send me your questions I would be happy to tell you why it is getting removed from the site.”
Of course, there was nothing to send. My question was gone because it was deleted by ‘them’. And, of course, there was no offer to actually restore it. But… someone was ‘sorry’ so that was good. Right?
Anyways, that’s one little example of how impartial these impartial debate organizers are. As in “you may ask you questions and, if it’s voted by lots of people you may even get to ask it to the candidate IF we don’t delete it”.
I don’t know their motives and maybe they were not trying to protect Hillary but I’m sure Hillary would rather not have such a question asked at the debate. She’d rather talk about Trump racism, sexism… you know… his being such a deplorable and irredeemable excuse for a subhuman being.
Didn’t I hear some young gentleman ask that very question (in slightly different words) at an earlier debate? Obviously it wasn’t the Presidential.
Please keep in mind that this is not a rhetorical question.
And what was the answer? Not rhetorical, I didn’t watch that debate.
Anyways, asked or not before, ‘they’ erased the second or third most voted question at their site. Maybe they felt it was their duty to protect their Hillary.
Look, there may be a lot of journalistic endeavors where this tabloidish pap might have some value in getting out the word that Trump is a horrible misogynistic creep.
But pretty sure The Intercept’s readership is well aware of it. So the question becomes, why in the double f*ck does Mr. Mackey continue to pen this crap i.e. of what value is it to The Intercept’s general readership?
Does it someway inform the TI’s readership differently than the umpteen hundreds of other media outlets worldwide that are doing a real find job of pointing out that Trump is a monumental hypocritical asshole and misogynist prick of the highest order?
Is it just for the clicks that The Intercept and Mr. Mackey know will come from irate readers who think this sort of tabloidish crap is beneath The Intercept’s mission of “investigative journalism”.
Either way I’m about done reading anything Mr. Mackey writes because I’m completely confounded by what his priorities as a journalist really are if he’s engaging in the same horse race, tabloid coverage of this election that every mainstream journalistic endeavor on the planet is engaging in. That’s not why I come to read The Intercept and I’d venture a guess that’s not why most of its readership does.
As I’ve said in the past, “C’mon Mr. Mackey I think you are better than this type of crap reporting.”
Don’t be too hard on Mackey – I’m starting to think that it’s just a reflection of billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s media agenda. Mackey has also been given top billing next to Glenn Greenwald on the Intercept home page; so it looks rather like Greenwald and Poitras and Scahill were used by Omidyar to gain “credibility” for what is really just another corporate American propaganda machine supporting imperial American agendas abroad, a thin veneer of ‘social liberalism’ at home, and not much else. This crap is getting worse than the Guardian, day by day.
The foreign policy reporting in particular has been really, really bad – that Nick Turse article on Niger, not even mentioning the uranium mines the U.S. base was obviously set up to protect? The Murtaza Hussain bits on Syria, basically promoting US State Department propaganda on Syria? Makes me wonder if there wasn’t more than a grain of truth in those stories about the Omidyar Network financing the destabilization and coup in the Ukraine in alliance with the State Department.
If this is what Omidyar is up to, then recruiting a few “alternative journalists” to establish credibility for his media operation would be a clever tactic.
using greenwald to gain credibility is a strange concept, with or without the quotation marks
more likely he’s just been pulling in the internet psycho cross-post endgamers
if i wasn’t so broke i’d get me a bag of cheese puffs and a 12-pack of Nyquil … but i have to save my entertainment budget for Nov 8th
I was wondering if Mackey is just encouraging us to whip him, here, because he isn’t able to make it to SF for the annual Folsom Street Fair.
@ photosymbiosis & Doug Salzmann
I suppose both explanations are plausible. : )
However, that Glenn and the others got duped into being useful idiots in service of some diabolical long-con propaganda plot of Omidyar’s, I find plausible although highly unlikely even if not logically impossible.
As far as Doug’s theory goes, my motto is “have at it with any consenting adult in any way you choose, so long as nobody is physically injured or emotionally abused”, but definitely don’t write shitty news articles as a result of unfulfilled expectations or desires.
“Either way I’m about done reading anything Mr. Mackey writes because I’m completely confounded by what his priorities as a journalist really are …”
Your being over-broad rather in your use of the word ‘journalist’.
“C’mon Mr. Mackey I think you are better than this type of crap reporting.”
Remember a while back when I asked why you bothered to read NYT Bob beyond the headline …
Apology accepted.
Yes, I agree it is bad form, generally, for an attorney to comment on a piece without reading it but, I think, we can stipulate now that the headline will be the sufficient amount of text to be read for anyone wishing to declare with certainty that one has read a NYT Bob Mackey piece.
the headline is the best part, its like eating the top of a cupcake
Actually if the message board is any indication of The Intercepts readership they either are unaware that Trump is a ” horrible misogynistic creep” or they don’t care. As far as I’m concerned there can’t be enough anti-Trump articles.
@ GilG
Fair enough. I guess we can agree to disagree about what the TI readership is aware of or what it isn’t.
The NEXT debate must be about Trump’s Deplorables. Who are the Deplorables and why is this important.
The Deplorables issue is important because the US was established as a white male, protestant Christian, preference country.
It has only been the long arc of history that the words in the Declaration of Independence “all men are created equal” (in the eyes of the law) have begun to be achieved as stated in the US Constitution “to form a more perfect union” .
Trumps message, a dog whistle to the Deplorables, “make America great again” is understood as disrupting the progress of the long arc of history in perfecting the union toward “all men are created equal” for our Posterity to disrupting this progress with a reset toward a white male, protestant Christian, preference country.
The Deplorables are either the soft bigots or the hard bigots.
The soft bigot Trump voters are best understood not as values voters, not even as Tea Party voters, but as nostalgia voters, these voters that are looking back to — they’re culturally and economically disaffected voters that are anxious to hold on to a white conservative Christian culture that’s passing from the scene. Nostalgia voters may be the core of who Trump’s supporters are.
The hard bigot Trump voters are the alt-right who are the most extreme example of a shift on the American right: away from a nostalgic conservative focus on restoring the values of the Founders, and towards a forward-focused nationalism that prioritizes drastic limits on immigration and open hostility to globalism. Trump is not a white nationalist. However, he speaks their language. Moreover, they dig it.
If the NEXT debate does not robustly explore the Deplorables and Trump’s messaging to the Deplorables the debate will have failed to discuss the central issue of the 2016 Presidential election campaign.
If Trump did win, it would cause so much chaos in the halls of American power that the whole imperial project would likely grind to a halt, saving the rest of the world from the horrors of Hillary Clinton’s ultra-aggressive regime-change new-Cold-War with Russia and China bullshit. If we care about world peace, this might be the best outcome.
Sure, it would be rough at home for four years, but think how wonderful it would be to send the Clintonistas down to defeat, just as happened with the Blairites in Britain, creating much space in the Democratic Party for Jeremey Corbyn-type reformers. The dishonest rigging of the Democratic primary by Clinton’s Wall Street supporters and media elites would get its just reward, and a new group of real Democrats would come to the fore.
In addition, a massive third-party vote, including in swing states, would send a message that the American people are fed up with the corrupt Democratic and Republican parties and their atrocious selection process for candidates; the pain of a Donald presidency, while high, would be more bearable than a continuation of the status quo.
Shorter: Killary is not a lesser evil.
You know what I’d like to see? Since we’ve already heard, ad nauseum, about Donald Trump and the stripes and colors he wears, I’d like the Intercept to focus on meaningful ways that us poor suc*ers-as-voters could mobilize to upend the horrid system that we’re trapped in. Surely there’s historic precedent out there that can be written about. We already know how smarmy Mr. Trump is. We don’t need to hear or read more on that topic. By focusing on such “news” the Intercept becomes an extension of the horrid MSM. HRC and The Donald are just two sides of the same coin; in one way or another it’s all about power and $ for them- or serving the power brokers and monied interests.
To the point you try to make about TI and the MSM, which is further down in your comment , I disagree: no, it hasn’t.
One meaningful way to upend this horrid system is to stop referring to that pompous buffoon as The.
DNS is so screwed-up today that I clicked on TI and ended up at The Daily Mirror.
But I can’t find the Page 3 girl.
Meh, Bob, this column is pretty tabloid-ish. Moreover, it’s been known for decades that Donald Trump is a boor, a cretin and is a pig about women. And yet, there were Bill and Hillary yucking it up with him at his third wedding in 2005.
Everyone with any sense knew, well knew, what Donald Trump was by that time.
The cognitive dissonance of the Intercept is astounding. For one they are vigorously campaigning for a candidate, Hillary, who was part of the administrations efforts to capture or kill Edward Snowden — the whistle blower their mediocre site was founded on.
Secondly, this article is junk. The author is worried about celebrity women having their feelings hurt. Yet nowhere do we find out that Hillary led the charge for wars in the Ukraine, Libya and Syria — where untold thousands of women have been killed or raped. The author ignores the huge million dollar payments by Arab nations to Hillary. These nations have an atrocious record on women and gay rights. Women are not allowed even to drive in Saudi Arabia without a man present. Yet the Intercept memory holes this material reality for just Hollywood-type gossip.
The intercept has been completely astroturfed by its owner Pierre Omidyar:
“Billlionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is donating $100,000 to NeverTrump PAC, a fledgling super PAC that registered with the Federal Election Commission on March 4. While Omidyar has made donations to various Democratic candidates and party organizations over the years, this is believed to be his first contribution to a super PAC.”
What a disgrace to Ed Snowden.
I think the authors’ real advice is: “Please get out of the race Donald. My crony boss, Pierre Omidyar, wants a proven corrupt president, for the purpose of bribery, corporate globalism and endless wars of regime change.
I hope Ed Snowden denounces this partisan rag.
Doubtful. Really, really doubtful. For one thing, he tweets links to Intercept stories, this being only one.
For another, he sits on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation with Intercept co-founder, Glenn Greenwald. The two are known to be friends and to have a great deal of mutual respect.
Oh for fuck’s sake, look, I don’t have any use for Mackey’s column today either, but this is absurd:
Bob Mackey is often very good, but sometimes, well, he’s not. And the rest of the site is increasingly excellent.
Mona,
Agree all!
Here Here ! I found, ‘The Penny Stock Chronicles,’ riveting! Maybe even Pulitzer worthy.
“Bob Mackey is often very good, but sometimes, well, he’s not. And the rest of the site is increasingly excellent.”
Mackey couldn’t enter the ticket sales area with Fang or Greenwald on the billing. By design (click-bait) or default (chum), NYT Bob has become the ghost-net in the propeller shaft of the SS Intercept.
Mackey is very good on Israel-Palestine. As well as race issues. It’s this wretched election shit of his that is gag-worthy.
The Intercept in the toilet for H. Clinton? Not hardly. There have been numerous articles here exposing her corruption.
I am 100% sure that Mackey’s #1 concern is Trump’s success so Trump should listen to him and he should follow his advice.
“Trump’s flailing attempt to respond to Hillary Clinton’s charge, in Monday’s debate, that he has a pattern of sexist comments about women stretching back decades, ”
Let’s talk about Hillary’s long-standing marriage to a serial rapist.
Or maybe Hillary’s attacks on Monica Lewinsky.
Or maybe her friendship with Huma Abedin; she finally left her husband but only after a sex pic with him in bed with their child. All those previous sexts were just normal for Wiener.
Hillary is no better for women than trump.
NYT Bob Hackey only appears to be able to write trash.
Oy veh, hear, hear. I just can’t believe I allowed myself and suffered to read, word for word, this putrid shit. Is recycling this kinda detritus and Dreck from the very bottom of the informational food-chain what The Intercept is fast becoming? — this on the model: you are what you eat. Even Trump is not worth so-called journalism this bad, for godsakes. It’s all so trivially true, why bother to restate the fucking obvious? Does The Intercept suppose its readers are so very dumb, they need intellectual enlightenment & moral guidance from a former NYT hack like Mackey? Gimme a break.
The Intercept didn’t write the article that you allowed yourself to suffer through by reading word for word ‘this putrid shit’. Mackey wrote the article. There’s a voluminous load of other articles currently posted on The Intercept that Mackey didn’t write.
While we can agree that this article, and some of the others posted on The Intercept that were written by Mackey, are not of particular interest to what we might like to think of as the general readership of The Intercept, we don’t agree that Bob Mackey is The Intercept. If you’re so disgruntled by one of every ten or so articles that you feel it logical to claim they amount to some giant mathematical bulk of what is published at The Intercept, maybe you should begin asking yourself why you continue to visit The Intercept.
terminals at terminals
“fast becoming” is a present participle, saddled up with an adjective to give it some potency. Get real — your pretentious resort to math while you remain obstinately oblivious to the larger and more sweeping point being made (and not just by me, but by many others here @ TI before me) is miserably infantile. — Please, TI, no more Mackeys or — in my estimation, at least — you risk losing your core patrons. After all, it’s all about quality. Which reminds me — where’s Coram Nobis disappeared to these days? Let’s all hope Benito is not about to defect.
If my point about you like to call your “sweeping point” which is really just you complaining in an “infantile” way about Mackey is so incorrect, why don’t you be the first to back up your “risk losing” threat so you can stop whining, at least publicly, about The Intercept which you yourself labeled in so many words is all about Mackey, and just bail from The Intercept? You could even lobby for “core patrons” to follow your lead!
By the way, did you fucking notice that there are yet another several great posts published on The Intercept today? And if those are of no interest to you, but wouldn’t fit into the card board cut out slit at the top of your Complaint Department Box, there’s a new Mackey post for you to complain about, you know, in case you want to ignore all of the others which were posted.
I care very much for The Intercept and its future — as a powerful intellect, I consider Greenwald the USA’s most precious single asset [sic!], and I revere several of its journos like Lee Fang, and even Peter Maas. Having said that, I consider Robert Mackey a cuckoo busy laying his eggs in another bird’s nest, and it pains me to see his worthless scribble given a degree of prominence here that might almost suggest he is considered by the editor(s) to be GG’s equal. His is a world of Dreck and detritus, GG’s (and Lee Fang’s) a world of principled journalism at its best. OK?