NYT Wrong On Brexit

Opinion/Editorial

  If the New York Times editorial board was to ever pull their leftist heads out of their asses it certainly wasn't going to be with their lead oped this morning entitled "The Security Consequences of Brexit."

 It begins "Apart from creating economic turmoil, Britain’s calamitous vote to leave the European Union could have no less profound foreign policy consequences, weakening the interlocking web of Western institutions and alliances that have helped guarantee international peace and stability for 70 years.

 Wrong answer NYT NATO is the organization dumb asses.

This is also a testing moment for President Obama, who has been understandably preoccupied with building alliances in Asia, but must once again make Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance a priority and find ways to rebuild consensus and chart a united path forward. Otherwise, the major beneficiaries will be Russia and China, both challenging the established Western-led order.

Since World War II, the United States, aided principally by Britain, has worked to reduce the potential for international conflict, with particular success in Europe; encourage democratic governance; promote free markets; and lift billions of people out of poverty. This was achieved by working with its allies to establish multiple reinforcing institutions, including NATO, the military alliance that now has 28 members; the E.U., the economic alliance that will have 27 members when Britain leaves; the World Bank; and the International Monetary Fund. In short, together America and Europe wrote the rules and norms by which much of the world now lives."

  Congrats to Great Britain for leaving the EU.

 More bs "The policies pursued by the West have sometimes been flawed and sometimes failed, but the system that linked America and Europe in a common defense and common political cause ended the Cold War, reunited Germany, built a new Europe and sought in one way or another to address every other major threat. A crucial brick in that system is now in danger of being removed.

This stunning development comes at a time when these institutions were already under stress and when many people on both sides of the Atlantic had grown complacent about the relationship and its reinforcing commitments. Europe is economically battered, overwhelmed by refugees fleeing chaos in the Middle East and fearful of attacks within its borders by the Islamic State and other terrorists.

Compounding the problem is Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Ruthlessly playing a weak hand, he has worked hard to undermine NATO and challenge the post-Cold War order by invading Ukraine, funding right-wing groups in France and elsewhere and recklessly brandishing his military power from the Baltics to Syria. European countries have struggled to remain united on issues ranging from NATO’s budget to how best to respond to Mr. Putin."

  Now the NYT blames the right internationally LMAO.

  It ends "Meanwhile, China, a rising power that sometimes makes common cause with Russia, has been challenging the United States by expanding its control over the South China Sea and establishing its own Asian regional development bank as a means of wielding economic influence.

Britain’s departure must be negotiated with the E.U. and could take as long as two years. Even with this break, Britain would remain in NATO, but less as a leading European power than as a more inward-looking nation consumed with national politics. That would mean a Britain less able or willing to address the economic and security challenges of Europe as a whole and less inclined to support American-led responses to crises across the globe. The referendum could also inspire nationalist forces elsewhere in Europe to step up their own assault on European integration.

The vote is a setback for President Obama, who urged Britain to remain in the E.U. when he visited London in April. On Friday, he insisted that Britain and the E.U. would both remain America’s indispensable partners. Other administration officials promised to work closely with Britain to ease the E.U. transition.

It’s hard to imagine that Europe could once again deteriorate into rival nation-states and that Europe and America could drift apart. Even so, Mr. Obama must work with Germany and France, the other two European powers, to understand the forces behind the Brexit vote, address the grievances that produced such a result and reaffirm and strengthen the alliance and its common agenda. Next month’s NATO summit meeting is an opportunity to begin that process."

  If Britain leaving the European Union is a set back for Obama its a victory for everyone around the world

Ditz Wrong On Trump

Oped Columnist

  This morning I'm posting about the not so popular Maureen "the Ditz" Dowd and her piece of crap entitled "Trump in the Dumps" going after GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump.

  It begins "Washington — HE won’t pivot. So I have to.

Having seen Donald Trump as a braggadocious but benign celebrity in New York for decades, I did not regard him as the apotheosis of evil. He seemed more like a toon, a cocky huckster swanning around Gotham with a statuesque woman on his arm and skyscrapers stamped with his brand. I certainly never would have predicted that the Trump name would be uttered in the same breath as Hitler, Mussolini and scary menace, even on such pop culture staples as “The Bachelorette.”

Trump jumped into the race with an eruption of bigotry, ranting about Mexican rapists and a Muslim ban. But privately, he assured people that these were merely opening bids in the negotiation; that he was really the same pragmatic New Yorker he had always been; that he would be a flexible, wheeling-and-dealing president, not a crazy nihilist like Ted Cruz or a mean racist like George Wallace. He yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

Trump was applying his business cunning, Twitter snarkiness and bendy relationship with the truth to his new role as a Republican pol. The opposition was unappetizing: Cruz, a creepy, calculating ideologue; Marco Rubio, a hungry lightweight jettisoning his old positions and mentor; Chris Christie, a vindictive bully; Jeb Bush, a past-his-sell-by-date scion.

  Now all of a sudden Trump is a bigot to you ditz.
 It goes on "When Trump pulled back the curtain on how Washington Republicans had been stringing their voters along for years with bold promises, like repealing Obamacare, that they knew had no chance, it was a rare opportunity to see them called out. And when Trump was blunt about how cheaply you could buy and sell politicians in both parties, it made this town squirm.

His obnoxious use of ethnicity only exposed the fact that Republicans had been using bigotry against minorities and gays to whip up voters for decades. The G.O.P. would love to drop Trump now because it prefers a candidate in the party’s more subtle racist traditions. (Or even a candidate savvy enough to heap disdain on the 47 percent of government freeloaders at a ritzy fund-raiser without having a bartender tape it and leak it.)

The neocons calling Trump a fascist would certainly prefer a more militaristic candidate. Trump realized the Iraq war was misbegotten long before much of the media cognoscenti in New York, and he was willing to hold W. accountable for being asleep at the switch before 9/11 and using a bait-and-switch on Iraq. Even though he ranted about the press, he was also far more available to the media than the cloaked Hillary Clinton, who has yet to give a news conference this year. But he undermines his accessibility when he incites nastiness against reporters at his rallies and revokes The Washington Post’s credentials for a headline he doesn’t like.

Before his campaign became infused with racial grievance, victimhood and violence, Trump told me, “I have fun with life and I understand life and I want to make life better for people.” If he had those better angels, he didn’t listen to them. Seduced by the roar of the angry crowd, Trump kept dishing out racially offensive comments about “my African-American,” a black man he spotted at a California rally; the “Mexican” judge on the Trump University case; and the “Afghan” who committed the atrocities in Orlando. Mitt Romney is right that Trump’s rhetoric causes “trickle-down racism” and misogyny. The Washington Post had a front-page story on Friday about the vulgarities freely directed at Hillary Clinton by men and women at Trump rallies.

Trump told me he could act like the toniest member of high society when he wanted, and he would as soon as he dispatched his G.O.P. rivals. He said his narcissism would not hinder him as he morphed into a leader. But he can’t stop lashing out and doesn’t get why that turns people against him. Everything is filtered through his ego. He reacted to Orlando not as a tragedy so much as a chance to brag about “the congrats” he got for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.”

   Nastiness because reporters try to use their liberal bullshit biases and Trump will have none of it.

  She goes on "The presumptive but now tenuous nominee seemed bereft at a Dallas rally on Thursday night when he could no longer brag about his polls, which are shattering records for negativity. Finally, on Friday, Trump couldn’t stop himself from tweeting out a poll, even though it was one that showed him behind Hillary.

Trump has made his campaign all about his ability to win. So if he stops winning, what’s his raison d’être?

Trump’s pledges to release his tax returns and to surround himself with an A-team fell through. A month after his hostile takeover of the Republican party, he’s got a skeletal operation a few floors below his office suite in Trump Tower.

Trump shocked himself by shooting to the top of the Republican heap. It was like watching a bank robber sneak into a bank, only to find all the doors unlocked. But like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin, Trump refused to study up on policy. So he has been unable to marry his often canny political instincts with some actual knowledge.

He has made some fair points. A lot of our allies do take advantage of us. Our trade deals have left swaths of America devastated. And it was a positive move to propose a meeting with the N.R.A. on gun control for people on the terrorist watch list. But his fair points are getting outnumbered by egregious statements and nutty insinuations, like suggesting that President Obama is tolerant of ISIS attacks, an echo of the kooky birther campaign that he led, suggesting that Obama wasn’t qualified to be president.

Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president."

 And your Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President how she belongs in prison wearing a federal jumpsuit

NYT Everything Is Race Race Race.......

Editorial

 

 Its one thing to be passionate and to care about an issue in the political arena but to be overwhelmed but to be transfixiated with it means you've gone too far.
 This is the case with the New York Times editorial board this morning "The G.O.P.’s Latino Crucible" is a good example of transfixiation.
 It begins "Republican leaders laid out a blueprint for the revival of their party after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. “If Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies,” the so-called autopsy report warned, noting that Mr. Romney had received 27 percent of the Latino vote, down from George W. Bush’s 44 percent in 2004. Quoting Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader from Texas, the report cautioned, “You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you.”

Yet now, Republicans are doing just that. Donald Trump has emerged as the party’s standard-bearer while scapegoating Latinos and other minorities to stoke the fears and resentment of working-class white voters. Mr. Trump insists he will win Latino votes, yet he began his campaign by promising to build a wall along the border with Mexico to block out the people Mexico is “sending” to the United States, claiming: “They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He recently created another wave of consternation by accusing an American-born federal judge of being biased because of his Mexican ancestry."

  More of the race bullshit in elections.

  It goes on "The Trump candidacy has put other Republican candidates in a bind. They can tie their lot to his immigrant-bashing campaign and hope that voter-suppression tactics will blunt the growing segments of the electorate galvanized by the prospect of defeating him. Or they can disavow him, recognizing that further alienating nonwhite voters will do severe damage to the party in the long run.

Besides being self-defeating, vilifying groups of people is morally abhorrent. Republicans are signaling to millions of citizens and aspiring Americans: You’re not welcome here; this is not your home.This hostility has invigorated a decades-long effort by Latinos and other groups to increase political participation. More than 27 million Latinos will be eligible to vote in November, a 60 percent increase from a decade ago. Civic groups and Spanish-language media are making a huge push to register voters and get permanent residents to become citizens in swing states, hoping to unlock the power of a voting bloc that has historically had low turnout.

“If I were a Republican Party leader at the state level, I’d be looking at how this could affect me now, but also at the long game,” said Mindy Romero, the director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the University of California, Davis."

  Its not immigration bashing its not wanting ILLEGAL immigrants here period NYT.

  Goes on "California’s political evolution offers a lesson for Republicans. In 1994, Pete Wilson, then the governor, championed a ballot initiative to bar unauthorized immigrants from public services as he ran for re-election in a tight race. He won, and the initiative, known as Proposition 187, passed. But the highly divisive campaign over the measure, which was thrown out by the courts, set off a surge of political participation by Latinos that has kept the Democratic Party dominant in the state ever since.

Republican leaders in other states watched California with alarm. While some have tried to make the party more inclusive, the prevailing tactic has been to underhandedly discourage minority voters. Texas and Arizona are among the states where Republican-led legislatures have passed voter identification laws and otherwise tightened voting rules under the specious guise of preventing fraud.

Whites now make up 70 percent of the electorate, down from 85 percent in 1980. Demographers project that by 2060, whites will make up 46 percent of the voting pool, while the Latino bloc will have grown from the current 13 percent to 27 percent. Given those trends, it’s astounding that the Republican Party has taken a harder line on immigration.

“It’s a self-defeating strategy in the long term,” said Representative Joaquín Castro, a Democrat from Texas. “But the focus for a lot of politicians here is the short term. A lot of them don’t think they’ll be in politics in 20 years.”

That seems to be the calculation of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican. Mr. McCain, who faces a strong Democratic opponent in November, has grudgingly opted to back Mr. Trump. Most Republicans in competitive races appear inclined to do the same. A rare exception is Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, who announced last week that he could not in good conscience support Mr. Trump “regardless of the political impact on my candidacy or the Republican Party.”Maybe things will change after the November election, said Representative Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona. “The way to push back on all this is to have an absolute victory at the ballot box and force the Republican Party to have a conversation about what it needs to do in order to survive,” he said. Of course, that is the same conversation they had, and then ignored, in 2012.

 The NYT will never end its bullshit quest to include race or political correctness into every nook and cranny in our culture

 

NYT Still Doesn't Realize $$$ In Politics Is Free Speech

Opinion/Editorial

  God forbid if anyone would go against the first amendment clause "freedom of the press" the New York Times would go absolutely nuts as well as the rest of the left wing unhinged media. I mean it's bad enough we put up with all the liberal biases.
  But it's ok when the holier than thou NYT editorial board comes out and has a bitchfest about as they put it Big $$$ in politics especially in a election year.
  They are running their mouths this morning "Big Money Rearranges Its Election" they feel that big money runis politics as long as it doesn't effect their liberal agenda.
  The rant begins "Like practiced horseplayers at a racetrack, wealthy campaign donors are adjusting their bets as the primary season ends and the political field narrows. This is particularly true of Republican megadonors who cannot abide Donald Trump and are thus doubling down on keeping G.O.P. control of the Senate as a firewall against a possible Democratic president, while investing heavily in keeping statehouses in Republican hands.

One constant is the vast amount of money sluicing through the political system in what is certain to be the most expensive election in the nation’s history. Experts estimate that campaign spending, which has risen inexorably in recent years, will easily surpass the $6.28 billion record set in the 2012 federal elections and could conceivably reach $9 billion, much of it for political advertising.

Both parties are busy exploiting the power of barely regulated super PACs to accept unlimited six- and seven-figure donations for candidates. At the same time, campaigns are concealing the names of other rich donors in “dark-money” operations palmed off as tax exempt “social welfare” agencies supposedly dedicated to doing good, not to bare-knuckle politics.

Prominent among the Republican super-spenders shying away from Donald Trump are the billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch, whose political machine has invested $42 million-plus to keep control of the Senate. Other Republican contributors have also indicated a preference for spending on lesser races down the line rather than on the presidential campaign.

Some superstar check writers like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, have no problem with Mr. Trump’s erratic policy proposals, bluster, and past vows to self-fund. Mr. Adelson is talking of a $100 million effort to boost Mr. Trump’s performance in the finale against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump, having flip-flopped on a primary promise to shun wealthy donors, now seems only too happy to accept a pledge by Mr. Adelson and others to raise as much as $1 billion for his campaign.

 Oh so both parties are doing it oh I see but we know all you blowhards there at the NYT turn a blind eye to certain political ideals.

  It goes on "For now, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, leads the fund-raising pack with a money machine that has sucked in more than $80 million in super PAC support. Democrats are not shying away from the big-check power of super PACs, creating a new $50 million operation started by major labor unions and the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton is campaigning on proposals to rein in the runaway money race. She says it undermines American politics.

What voters think of all this as the price of a particularly raucous display of democracy remains to be seen. But the power of money in politics has grown so much since the 2010 Citizens United decision that its presence is felt ever deeper down the ballot. Ominously, there has been a flood of special-interest money into state judicial races that raises questions about whether judges’ decisions might be affected, according to a Brennan Center for Justice study. The toughest race in Kansas this year is being waged by furious conservative Republicans aiming to oust four members of the state Supreme Court because of their decisions striking down the G.O.P. Legislature’s shortchanging of the state constitution’s school-aid requirements.Shrewd big-money campaigns financed by the Koch brothers and others have upended the Democrats’ one-time dominance of state legislatures. There are now Republican majorities in 70 percent of two-party statehouses. That success, in turn, has created a farm system for the G.O.P.’s current control of Congress. There, the twin powers of big money and statehouse gerrymandering have made incumbents of both parties unbeatable 90 percent of the time, compounding the gridlock voters complain about. For all the job security, big donors are expected to drive this year’s congressional election spending well beyond the $3.8 billion record set two years ago. Much of this money will surely be wasted, further enriching the new breed of fat-cat campaign operatives, and further alienating voters with toxic advertising. But some of it may tip key races.As the money torrent rises, it’s no coincidence that for the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires (268 of 534 House members), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republican control of the agenda has snuffed out Democratic proposals to control or at least disclose the true extent of the wealth now driving elections. Theoretically, this election should be a forum for dealing with this open invitation to political corruption. Unfortunately, big money’s main effect on the campaign so far has been a frenzied pace to raise and spend more of it.

  Shrewd $$ but its not shrewd for liberals to give to their bullshit causes all this according to the NYT holier than thou editorial board.