Tag: Trump

  • A dog whistle for the internet age

    Vox explains Pepe the Frog.

    Pepe the Frog has been around the internet for years. Just a year ago he was so innocuous that celebrities like Katy Perry could tweet him without fear of backlash. But more recently, Pepe has morphed into something more insidious — a symbol embraced by the white nationalist alt-right, many of whom hang out on the forums where Pepe first originated years ago.

    Pepe the Frog, in other words, is a dog whistle for the internet age, when the memes candidates post circulate far more broadly than any speech they ever make. Donald Trump Jr. says he didn’t have any idea what the frog meant. But his father, more than any other presidential candidate, has embraced the ethos of the rumor swamps of the internet. The trolls who love him back, in turn, have turned Pepe the Frog into his mascot.

    Trump is basically the 4chan candidate.

    Like so many stories on the internet, this tale begins with 4chan, the vast, anonymous forum that first popularized Pepe and, eight years later, tied him to white nationalism.

    The forum — which Vox’s Timothy Lee once described as the “Mos Eisley cantina of the internet” — spawned the hacker collective Anonymous and hosted leaked celebrity nude photos. It was one place where Gamergate activists organized. But because 4chan was a message board based around images long before communicating with images on social media was common, it’s also been the birthplace for many memes, including LOLCats, Rickrolling, and, yes, Pepe the frog.

    Pepe started out in a comic about stoner dudes. For awhile Pepe was mainstreamish, so naturally people had to subvert that, because something something transgression, dude. Pepe was reclaimed.

    The main effect was that it revived Pepe on 4chan — and, at times, as part of offensive images — at a time when the site was becoming a hub for Trump support and members of the alt-right.

    The alt-right movement — a coalition of white supremacists and reactionaries who believe in rejecting democracy — has provided such visible support for Trump that Hillary Clinton devoted an entire speech to it.

    They also hate women, you know. Don’t leave that part out – lots of people are women.

    There are some intellectuals in the alt right, who write essays as opposed to posting images on message boards.

    But the alt-right also includes what BuzzFeed’s Joseph Bernstein dubbed the chanterculture,” which, he wrote, “combines age-old racist and sexist rhetoric with bleeding-edge meme culture and technology,” mixing opposition to growing racial and gender equality with irony so heavy that it can be hard to tell if they’re really serious. Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur and Gamergate supporter, is the most prominent member of this branch of the alt-right.

    Those are the ones we’re so unpleasantly familiar with.

    There was a Trump as Pepe item posted a year ago, but nobody cared.

    At the time, this got almost no attention. Trump was still one of 17 contenders for the Republican nomination

    Oh god…remember that? I choked up reading that sentence beginning. A year ago he was just one of the pack and nobody thought he would win. Remember that? It makes me so nostalgic I can hardly bear it.

    Trump himself hasn’t addressed the Pepe controversy. His son Donald Jr. said on Good Morning America: “I’ve never even heard of Pepe the Frog. I mean, bet you 90 percent of your viewers have never heard of Pepe the Frog. … I thought it was a frog in a wig. I thought it was funny.”

    But the “Deplorables” meme wasn’t the only time recently that Donald Trump Jr. has seemed to nod to white supremacists. He referenced warming up the gas chamber in a recent interview (later saying he was talking about “corporal punishment”), he retweeted a white supremacist, and he appeared on a radio show with a white supremacist who has praised slavery. His tweet comparing Syrian refugees to Skittles was widely criticized but backed by the campaign.

    This pattern suggests that at the very least, Trump is being influenced by people who understand exactly what a Pepe meme symbolizes now.

    There’s a case to be made that thinking this deeply about Pepe memes plays directly into the trolls’ hands: What trolls, whether Gamergaters, Trump supporters, or both, want is to get a rise out of the audience, and to get attention. With Pepe, they’ve likely succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, even if they represent a tiny fraction of the electorate — and even if they’re in it to troll, not to vote.

    Truth. They love being noticed. They’re goons who post images on message boards all day, so naturally they’re thrilled to be noticed.

    [W]hile internet trolls have always existed, they’re usually something an ordinary campaign would desperately avoid. The Trump campaign, on the other hand, doesn’t care whom it’s empowering. The only reason most of us are even aware of an obscure political meme from 4chan is that Trump promoted it in the first place, way back in October.

    This was a choice. It’s not as if Trump is the only cultural figure the alt-righters of 4chan have claimed as their own. They’re also very fond of Taylor Swift, whom they see as their “Aryan goddess.” But Swift’s reputation has not suffered, because she doesn’t retweet praise from white supremacists. The reason Trump’s campaign has become associated with racists, xenophobes, and the alt-right is that he’s stood by and let it happen.

    Because he’s a bad man.

  • A classic bait-and-switch

    And then there’s the Trump “University” fraud.

    The New Yorker was on it in June:

    Following the release, earlier this week, of testimony filed in a federal lawsuit against Trump University, the United States is facing a high-stakes social-science experiment. Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant ripoff, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?

    It’s certainly coming way too close. Why isn’t fraud and theft a disqualifier? Can we do something about that? Before 2020?

    If anyone still has any doubt about the troubling nature of Donald Trump’s record, he or she should be obliged to read the affidavit of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for Trump University. Schnackenberg’s testimony was one of the documents unsealed by a judge in the class-action suit, which was brought in California by some of Trump University’s disgruntled former attendees.

    Schnackenberg, who worked in Trump’s office at 40 Wall Street, testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit concludes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”

    That’s bottom-dwelling, that is. This very rich man fools vulnerable people into wasting their money to make him richer. He’s a heartless thief and liar, and we could be stuck with him.

  • He stepped on a lot of people

    CNN on some of the small companies Donald Trump cheated.

    “It was like we won the lottery,” Beth Rosser remembers. Her dad, Forest Jenkins, had just secured a $200,000 contract to work at the biggest prize in Atlantic City: Donald Trump’s Taj Mahal.

    His company installed toilet partitions — not exactly glamorous, but important nonetheless. It was 1988, and a six-figure contract was huge.

    They were all excited…but the check never arrived.

    “We weren’t this big company,” remembers Rosser, who now runs the company with her brother, Steven. “We didn’t have tons of money in an account somewhere to cover things.”

    Jenkins says his dad, who built the company from nothing, nearly lost everything.

    The Taj Mahal, the most expensive casino ever built in Atlantic City filed for bankruptcy in 1991, just two years after its glitzy grand opening. The bankruptcy meant companies like Triad Building Specialties didn’t get paid.

    After years of fighting through bankruptcy court, the Jenkins ended up with just 30 cents on the dollar. Their company was owed $231,000, according to the bankruptcy claim filed in the case. The Jenkins family received $70,000.

    Dozens of contractors who worked on the project got stiffed.

    “It’s 27 years later. I grit my teeth every time I see him on television blustering about what a wonderful businessman he is,” Rosser says. “He stepped on a lot of people.”

    CNN reached out to the Trump campaign about each of the business deals mentioned in this story. Those calls went unanswered.

    And that’s what we’re on the brink of electing president – a lying cheating thief and bully. A crook. The guy who ties the heroine to the railroad tracks.

    The Edward J. Friel Company built cabinets for Trump’s first Atlantic City casino in the early 1980s. The company was awarded a $400,000 contract to build cabinets for the slot machines at Trump Plaza.

    After the work was completed and approved by the general contractor, Friel expected a payment of $84,000, which would have covered the final expenses and all of the profit. But Friel says Trump bought out the construction contract from the general contractor, Perini Corporation, and then refused to make the payment.

    His father tried to collect, but eventually gave up.

    After struggling to stay afloat, the Edward J. Friel Company filed for bankruptcy several years later.

    “He was devastated. The fact that we had seen such a huge future in Atlantic City for his business that all of a sudden because of one deal … his business in Atlantic City was done,” Friel says.

    Done because of Trump. People want to make that scum president.

  • Trump is not a normal candidate

    Dan Rather on Facebook:

    Donald Trump’s disdain, mockery, and antagonism of the press, whose freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and whose presence has provided ballast to our democracy since its inception, raises very serious questions about his fitness for the presidency of the United States.

    For a long while, these thoughts have been coursing through my veins with concern and disbelief, and yet my abiding loyalty to the notion of fair, accurate and unbiased journalism held me in check from saying it out loud – much as I suspect it has muzzled the true feelings of many of my colleagues. But we must remember that Donald Trump knows this and cynically plays the press corps’ deep desire for fairness to his undeserved benefit. The latest, barring the traveling press from covering an event and using them as ridicule in a speech, are but the most recent chapters in a novel full of outrageous acts. And this sentiment apparently extends to members of his own family as witnessed by his daughter Ivanka’s actions in an interview with Cosmo.

    I am well aware that I will be met with bile and venom for saying this, called a communist, a liberal in bed with Hillary Clinton, a washed-up joke. To quote Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Let others attack my motives. My conscience is clean. This is not about partisan politics, about who is right on immigration or gun control. This is about the very machinery that has allowed our American experiment to persist and thrive, a machinery which is far more fragile than we would like to believe.

    Trump’s relationship with the press is at the heart of so much that is troubling about his candidacy – the secrecy, the lack of transparency on something as normal as tax returns, the flaunting of the very rules by which we elect our leaders, the appeasement of hate groups. And his embrace of Roger Ailes and Breitbart, institutions who have polluted press freedoms, is a further dangerous sign of decay.

    Flouting! Not flaunting, flouting.

    Also the embrace of Ailes and Breitbart is disgusting for more reasons than the press freedoms one. They’re both hate-mongers and lie-peddlers, and Ailes at least is a relentless sexual harasser and misogynist. Trump has profound, gross, blatant contempt for women, of a kind that just is not normal in politics at this level. That by itself should be reason enough for his complete failure, yet he’s closing the gap between him and Clinton. I’m trying to prepare myself to live in his United States, and I just can’t see a way to do it.

    And yet when presented with this challenge, too much of the press has been cowed into inaction. This is a man who can be fact-checked into obscurity by any second grader with an Internet connection. And yet when he issues a mealy-mouth non-apology about President Obama’s obvious pedigree as an American, here we are with too many in the press not acknowledging his years of lies (check your Twitter feeds about how the New York Times initially covered this event). All of this of course sets the stage for Trump to lie again about somehow birtherism being Clinton’s fault.

    I fear that this mindset will infect the debates. Trump is already setting the stage for that. If you are moderating and are not going to fact check him, you might as well just roll campaign speeches live – far too many of which have been shown on television without being subjected to journalistic context. If these debates will be debates in name only, another opportunity for Trump to flaunt flout fairness by spewing his venom and bullshine, I say cancel them.

    Enough is enough. It is a reality that every reporter must come to grips with. Trump is not a normal candidate. This is not a normal election. He will set a precedent that other demagogues will study and follow. Fear, combined with the lure of ratings, views, clicks and profits, have hypnotized too much of the press into inaction and false equivalency for far too long. I am optimistic the trance is being broken. Fear not the Internet trolls. Fear instead the judgement of history.

    I wish I were optimistic. I’m not. If it hasn’t been broken already, why would it be broken now? Why would anyone wait this long? I’m not optimistic; I’m terrified.

  • Just because it’s going to be a dumpster fire

    GQ talked to five voters who have somehow managed not to decide which is worse, Trump or Clinton. Anonymous “Politics reporter, 42, Washington, D.C.:

    I’ve struggled with this the entire election season. Some days I’m really tortured by it, and some days it’s, like, laughable. But I’ve never really felt this way as an adult human. And it’s really—it’s messing with me.

    I cannot stomach Hillary Clinton. I just can’t get with her. Maybe because I know too much. I find so much of her world hypocritical, reprehensible. I think the rest of the country sort of gives her a pass, like, “Oh, she’s always been attacked by Republicans, it’s not that big a deal, email shmemail!” But I’m like, “WHAT! This is a huge deal.”

    The rest of the country? Apart from the huge segment that has always detested Hillary Clinton, mostly for bad reasons, you mean? If the rest of the country gives her a pass, why has there been so much time wasted on the emails? Why did Matt Lauer burn up half her time talking about the fucking emails and then interrupt her to tell her to hurry up for the whole rest of the interview?

    And no, it’s not a huge deal, especially given the fact that Trump has lied and stolen and cheated his way through life.

    But he’s not too sure about Trump either. He likes his “blow everything up” approach, but not so much his “saying, “What do you have to lose?” to African-Americans. Like, WHAT? What?”

    He wants to vote for him though – because he’ll be so much more fun.

    I think I would just have to sort of give in to my chaos theory of Trump and just hope that he surrounds himself with the right people enough that it’s not a total disaster? Or Hillary would have to do a really convincing and honest come-to-Jesus with the media. A real press conference.

    I cover this stuff every day. So for me, four years of Trump, selfishly, sounds a lot more enticing, just because it’s going to be a dumpster fire. And a Clinton administration would be more of what we’re seeing now, which is carefully orchestrated speeches, behind-the-scenes Wealthy McWealthysons going in and out of the White House, and really horrible transparency with the press.

    So Trump would not be rich people in the White House? Or really horrible transparency with the press? I’ll give him the “carefully orchestrated speeches” part – I agree that Trump’s speeches would not be carefully orchestrated, or thoughtful, or intelligent, however many clever people he found to write them. What I don’t agree with, though, is the idea that ignorant chaotic speeches are preferable to “carefully orchestrated” ones.

    I also, of course, disagree sharply with his longing for the dumpster fire.

  • Item 1 should be a deal-breaker all by itself

    Daniel Dale tweets a list of things Trump said in one interview today.

     

  • No

    Do not elect this man to anything ever.

  • What did these geniuses expect?

    Trump’s take on sexual assault in the military is, predictably, that it’s the fault of the damn fools who thought the military shouldn’t exclude women on account of how women are not some weird aberrant species.

    Speaking at a candidates’ forum, Mr. Trump defended one of his Twitter posts from 2013 concerning the high number of sexual assaults in the military, and said that he had been “absolutely correct” in posting a message that said, “What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?”

    Right. So by the same token…the military should be all white, because white guys will inevitably get violent if non-white guys are allowed. By the same token, the military should be all straight, because we know the straight white guys will beat up them dangerous faggots. And so on. We should always reserve everything for straight white Christian guys, because if we don’t, the straight white Christian guys will get violent.

    “We couldn’t run a military without women,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He noted that an argument that the proximity of women was to blame for sexual assault could be applied to women on college campuses and in workplaces, where they are also assaulted. “Quite frankly, it’s absurd,” he said.

    Even Lindsey Graham says Trump is being absurd.

  • You have to call the guy a liar

    Apparently the news media are determined to help Trump win.

    The NBC presidential forum on Wednesday night in Manhattan brought together the candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump to try to determine who has the strength, preparation and presence of mind to lead during a time of crisis.

    It sure wasn’t Matt Lauer.

    I’m not familiar with Matt Lauer. Apparently he’s on one of those morning tv chatter shows. Why get someone like that to interview candidates for president? Shouldn’t it be a journalist, or even an academic, rather than a chat show host?

    Mr. Lauer interviewed the candidates in turn for a half-hour each. He began by asking Mrs. Clinton to defend her use of a private email server as Secretary of State. And asking again. And again.

    Roughly a third of his questioning dealt with the emails — a matter certainly connected to national security, but also a staple issue of this year’s campaign-trail reporting. It suggested, as the rest of the forum confirmed, that Mr. Lauer was steadiest handling issues familiar to anyone with a passing knowledge of the morning politics headlines.

    That emphasis left relatively little time for the forum’s foreign-policy and military subjects. Mr. Lauer and the audience asked about complex topics — the Middle East, terrorism, veterans’ affairs — and Mr. Lauer pressed for simple answers. “As briefly as you can,” he injected when an audience member asked how Mrs. Clinton would decide whether to deploy troops against the Islamic State.

    That’s infuriating. The email issue isn’t that important and wasn’t really her fault to begin with, and it’s been covered endlessly. Trump on the other hand is an actual crook and fraud, and a liar and bully, and a cheat and a thief – and that hasn’t been covered anywhere near enough. But apparently the talk show host spent so much time on the email non-issue that he didn’t leave Clinton enough time to talk about the substance.

    There’s a difference between an interviewer who has questions and one who has knowledge, and Mr. Lauer illustrated it. He seemed to be plowing through a checklist, not listening in the moment in a way that led to productive follow-ups. Short on time, he repeatedly interrupted Mrs. Clinton in a way he didn’t with Mr. Trump. (“Let me finish,” she protested at one point.)

    He interrupted her but not Trump. Unbelievable.

    Does this country know how to tie its own god damn shoes? Are determined to sleepwalk into fascism just for the fun of it?

    Candidates should expect to be challenged. They’re applying for a challenging job. But where Mr. Lauer treated Mrs. Clinton like someone running for president, he treated Mr. Trump like someone running to figure out how to be president, eventually.

    That interview was the apotheosis of this presidential campaign’s forced marriage of entertainment and news. The host of NBC’s morning show interviewed the former star of its reality show “The Apprentice,” and the whole thing played out as farce.

    Why? Why? Why? Why are we doing it this way? What next – the hosts of America’s Got Talent?

    Mr. Lauer’s questioning of Mr. Trump was like watching one student quiz another to prep for a test neither had done the reading for. The host asked soft open-ended questions that invited the candidate to answer with word clouds.

    Mr. Lauer prefaced one question by saying that “nobody would expect you” to have read deeply into foreign policy before running for president. He asked Mr. Trump if he would be “prepared on Day 1,” a yes-or-no question that will elicit only one answer from any candidate not about to drop out.

    Yeah good point – don’t worry about foreign policy, Donny! Plenty of time to study up on that when you’re sitting on the White House toilet.

    Mr. Lauer, fortunately, is not going to moderate a presidential debate. But Fox News’s Chris Wallace is, and he recently said that he does not consider it his job to truth-squad candidates as a moderator. Let’s not mistake who this helps most: the fact-checking website PolitiFact has found far more false statements from Mr. Trump than from Mrs. Clinton.

    Why would a journalist be allergic to verifying the truth? On an MSNBC panel, Chris Matthews guessed that Mr. Lauer didn’t correct Mr. Trump on Iraq because of perceptions. “You have to call the guy a liar when you do that,” he said. “That’s the difficult thing for a Matt Lauer to do, because it sounds like an opinion.”

    But it’s not. When a candidate says he didn’t say something that he did, that’s a matter of fact. Here’s what an opinion looks like: It’s a travesty to be steamrolled by a candidate because you’re worried that doing your job will look bad.

    To put it in military terms, weakness is an invitation to attack. Going into the debates, what we saw at NBC’s forum should make you very, very worried about our first line of defense.

    I guess they want a fascist. A lying, thieving, cheating, racist, misogynist fascist – what could possibly go wrong?

  • Trump cheats people who work for him

    Trump had a policy team in DC but it faded away because he refused to pay people. How presidential!

    The Trump campaign built a large policy shop in Washington that has now largely melted away because of neglect, mismanagement and promises of pay that were never honored. Many of the team’s former members say the campaign leadership never took the Washington office seriously and let it wither away after squeezing it dry.

    He cheats people. It’s what he does. He’s a crook and he cheats people.

    Trump has never acknowledged the policy shop based in Washington that has been doing huge amounts of grunt work for months without recognition or compensation.

    Since April, advisers never named in campaign press releases have been working in an Alexandria-based office, writing policy memos, organizing briefings, managing surrogates and placing op-eds. They put in long hours before and during the Republican National Convention to help the campaign look like a professional operation.

    But then it collapsed in August, because promised checks never appeared. Trump stiffed them. He’s a crook who cheats people out of money he owes them because they worked for him.

    Three former members, all of whom quit in August, told me that as early as April they were promised financial compensation but were later told that they would have to work as volunteers. They say the leaders of the shop, Rick Dearborn and John Mashburn, told many staffers that money was on the way but then were unable to deliver.

    Trump cheated them.

    The last straw for some came in early August, when the Washington policy shop held two marathon work sessions designed to plan out how to get Trump ready for the policy portions of the upcoming presidential debates. The Washington policy team came up with detailed plans about who would brief Trump on specific policy topics over the course of several weeks.

    But after Dearborn worked his staff overtime to get the recommendations, the campaign leadership decided to go in a different direction. “The New York office realized that their candidate would not be receptive to that level of intense preparation,” one former adviser said.

    No of course he wouldn’t. He has zero intellectual curiosity, so naturally he wouldn’t want serious briefings. He doesn’t want to know anything, he just wants to shout at audiences and get cheers in response.

    The Trump campaign doesn’t appear to think policy depth is a required quality for a presidential candidate or a presidential campaign to succeed. That may prove to be right, but those who gave their time to work for Trump’s Washington shop didn’t know that upfront. They do now.

    “If people are going to vote for Trump, it’s not going to be for policy. That’s not who Trump is; that’s not the campaign,” said one former adviser.

    Of course it’s not. Trump is a reality tv personality, not a policy expert. He thinks of the presidency as the ultimate reality tv performance.

  • It seems more than coincidental

    That little slip-up where Trump appears to have bribed Florida’s Attorney General to decide not to investigate his not-university – that slip-up seems to be getting more journalistic attention. The Boston Globe for instance:

    “A minor issue,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told NBC.

    That’s disingenuous spin of the first order. It’s also illegal. The Donald J. Trump Foundation, which is organized under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code, clearly violated its tax-exempt status by making the contribution — a fact brought to light in March by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. But this is more than an accounting error. There’s a whiff of scandal that demands full attention from voters who might otherwise be trying to make their post-Labor Day peace with the fact that Trump is now the Republican standard-bearer.

    Whiff? More like stench.

    It seems more than coincidental that the donation from the foundation was made on Sept. 17, 2013, four days after reports emerged that Bondi’s office was mulling an investigation of fraud charges against Trump University. Bondi never pressed ahead with any probe, and endorsed Trump’s candidacy.

    Stenchy enough?

    I’ve never liked Bill Clinton’s breezy dismissal of the problem with taking money from bankers and corporations. I hate it that he said “Money shouldn’t buy you influence but it should buy you access.” I hate the way both Clintons have milked their White House tenure for enormous speaking fees. But I’m not aware of anything as stenchy as this apparent bribe to an AG to quash an investigation – and I know they’ve never done anything as stenchy as setting up a disgustingly fraudulent university to winkle money out of desperate, naïve people. They’re not crooks the way Trump is – yet he has the gall to call her “Crooked Hillary.”

    Trump has slammed Hillary Clinton about potential conflicts of interest involving Clinton Foundation donors when she was secretary of state. And this page has called on Clinton to shut down the foundation if she is elected. But there is no indication that the Clinton Foundation has misreported donations or made illegal political contributions.

    Besides, Trump’s explanation defies belief: Presumably, a real estate tycoon running on his business acumen understands the tax code. And the Huffington Post reported that Trump held a fund-raiser in 2014 for Bondi, after she had decided not to investigate.

    Yet there must be trillions of words out there about Clinton’s emails, compared to a few thousand about this skeevy mess.

    It’s messed up.

  • She decided not to pursue the case

    David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post last week:

    Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump’s company said, after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.

    The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.

    Sigh. Trump gave the Attorney General money, and she dropped the investigation into fraud allegations against his fraudulent not-university. Why isn’t this an issue?

    The sequence began when Bondi herself solicited a donation from Trump. That solicitation was reported this year by the Associated Press. That request came as Bondi was considering allegations that Trump University — a real estate seminar business — had defrauded customers in Florida.

    Let me get this straight. She was the Attorney General. She was considering fraud allegations against Trump’s ridiculous “university.” She asked him for money.

    He gave her the money. She dropped the case.

    How is that not obviously grossly corrupt? What is the matter with everyone?

    Paul Waldman did a piece for the Post on Trump’s corruption yesterday, which is where I saw the link to the Farenthold piece.

    In the heat of a presidential campaign, you’d think that a story about one party’s nominee giving a large contribution to a state attorney general who promptly shut down an inquiry into that nominee’s scam “university” would be enormous news. But we continue to hear almost nothing about what happened between Donald Trump and Florida attorney general Pam Bondi.

    …The story re-emerged last week when The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold reported that Trump paid a penalty to the IRS after his foundation made an illegal contribution to Bondi’s PAC. While the Trump organization characterizes that as a bureaucratic oversight, the basic facts are that Bondi’s office had received multiple complaints from Floridians who said they were cheated by Trump University; while they were looking into it and considering whether to join a lawsuit over Trump University filed by the attorney general of New York State, Bondi called Trump and asked him for a $25,000 donation; shortly after getting the check, Bondi’s office dropped the inquiry.

    Maybe it was all just a mistake, Waldman says, but we can’t tell, because nobody is digging into it.

    And the comparison with stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails or the Clinton Foundation is extremely instructive. Whenever we get some new development in any of those Clinton stories, you see blanket coverage — every cable network, every network news program, every newspaper investigates it at length. And even when the new information serves to exonerate Clinton rather than implicate her in wrongdoing, the coverage still emphasizes that the whole thing just “raises questions” about her integrity.

    There are lots of reporters covering the Clinton stories all the time; Trump not so much.

    When it comes to Trump, on the other hand, we’ve seen a very different pattern. Here’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.

    The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core. It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.

    But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering. Here’s a partial list:

    • Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money
    • Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses
    • Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.
    • The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money
    • The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture(a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins
    • Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did
    • Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work
    • Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work
    • Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination

    And there’s more! I’ve blogged about some of that list, trying to do my little bit to boost the exposure of those stories…but, I admit, I blog more about the gruesome things he says.

    Maybe journalists are thinking it’s “fair and balanced” this way? Clinton isn’t the hateful racist shithead that Trump is, so to be fair and even things out they blow up her emails and speaking fees to match the size of his shitheadism? While mostly ignoring his horrendous business practices over the past forty years? People shafted right and left? In other words Trump is vastly worse than she is in multiple areas, so they help him out by neglecting most of his bad shit – to make it fair and balanced.

    Sick, isn’t it.

  • México jamás pagaría por un muro

    Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto isn’t helping Trump with his story about that pesky wall and who is picking up the tab for it. Trump says they didn’t talk about paying the bill, but Peña Nieto says they did.

    “Who pays for the wall? We didn’t discuss,” Trump had said when asked by a reporter during a news conference following their meeting in Mexico City. “We did discuss the wall. We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That’ll be for a later date.”
    But Peña Nieto later claimed the two had discussed the wall and who would pay for it — and he had “made it clear” to Trump it wouldn’t be Mexico.

    So that’s embarrassing.

    In subsequent interviews in Mexico, Peña Nieto reiterated his version of events. He told CNN affiliate Televisa in an interview late Wednesday some of the positions Trump has taken “are a threat to Mexico.”

    He also told the outlet he was very clear with Trump about the subject of a wall at the border and insisted Mexico would not pay for it and he made Trump aware that the people of Mexico had been “very insulted.”

    A triumph of diplomacy, in short.

    He tweeted it again today.

    So Trump has been lying again – and doing it very ineptly and in the open. Why wouldn’t we want someone like that as president?!

    Trump’s claim that they didn’t discuss who would pay for the wall — despite his call for Mexico to finance it being a central theme of his campaign and one he frequently uses to fire up his supporters — appeared to be a noteworthy omission from Wednesday’s conversation when he mentioned it at their joint appearance.

    The cost is one that Peña Nieto has previously refused to shoulder, just one of many issues where the two men have clashed. Peña Nieto, who has previously compared Trump to Adolf Hitler, greeted him courteously and said he was committed to working with whomever Americans elect as their next president in November.

    But turning the tables on Trump, he gave the billionaire an earful on trade, said illegal immigration from Mexico to the US peaked years ago and complained of the torrent of guns that he said crossed the border and worsened Mexico’s drug wars.

    Wait wait wait wait – that can’t be right. The US can’t be any kind of problem for Mexico – that would be a violation of nature.

  • Trump’s big day

    Trump is in full racist-xenophobic mode. He gave another “O come all ye racists” speech in Phoenix last night, thrilling his fans and making everyone else want to expel their dinners.

    Mr. Trump added new detail to the idea of a special “deportation force” to carry out his plans. He once suggested that this force would be like the military units that deported more than a million immigrants, mostly Mexicans, during Operation Wetback in 1954. Mr. Trump has previously spoken with admiration of President Eisenhower for his carrying-out of that blitz.

    Yeahhhhhh, that’ll be a good look.

    Mr. Trump’s very first promise in his remarks on Wednesday night was a reiteration of his plan for a “great wall along the southern border.” The Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, said that in their meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday afternoon, he told Mr. Trump that his country would not pay for the wall. But that did not move Mr. Trump, who said on Wednesday night, to great cheers from the Phoenix audience, that “Mexico will pay for the wall.”

    As was previously reported, that kind of border defense would be a major logistical challenge and extremely expensive for whoever pays the bill.

    Trump doesn’t pay his own bills, so it makes sense that he would want to force Mexico to pay for his wall.

    While he was in Mexico earlier in the day, he put a lid on the making Mexico pay for it thing.

    Standing beside President Peña Nieto, Mr. Trump indicated that he had pulled a punch and chosen not to discuss his campaign promise to compel Mexico to pay for the wall. Yet Mr. Peña Nieto saw it somewhat differently, saying later on Twitter that at the start of their meeting, “I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.”

    Mr. Peña Nieto did not dispute Mr. Trump at their news conference, however, and Mexican officials said that the two men did not dwell on the wall and that their meeting was conciliatory. Still, campaign advisers to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, accused Mr. Trump of lying, and the Trump campaign issued a statement saying that the meeting was “not a negotiation” and that “it is unsurprising that they hold two different views on this issue.”

    In Phoenix, Mr. Trump responded to Mr. Peña Nieto with the hectoring language that has long been part of his strategy to whip up his crowds.

    “Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me — 100 percent — they don’t know it yet, but they will pay for the wall,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re great people, and great leaders, but they will pay for the wall.”

    Typical bully. He mumbles and looks the other way when he’s next to the target, but when he’s hundreds of miles away, it’s back to boasts and threats.

  • A licence to bully and harass

    The BBC introduces a story on online abuse directed at a BBC reporter:

    While covering a Donald Trump rally, BBC reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan received a barrage of online abuse, some of it racist. Here she explains what happened, and how it sheds light on an ugly side to the US presidential race.

    The abuse was sexist as well as racist,  yet for some reason the BBC editor who wrote that first paragraph didn’t mention the sexism. Example # 40 billion-whatever that sexism flies under the radar for a lot of people.

    As is part of my job, I was live tweeting from the event, over the course of the evening. I’d spoken to several supporters to find out why they loved their candidate, and was sharing a flavour of the rally through a range of pictures.

    Note what she said there – tweeting is part of her job.

    As I sat in the press pen, I took some photos of the arena. The seats were filling up, but some sections by me were empty. I took four pictures and posted them on Twitter. I thought nothing of it. I do this sort of live coverage of events all the time.

    It’s part of the job.

    Then her notifications exploded.

    A local talk show host had shared my tweet, insinuating I’d doctored the images.

    I’d done nothing of the sort, but that didn’t stop the torrent of abuse which followed.

    “This is obviously an attempt to undermine Trump.”

    “Go back to sleep filthy journalist,” read one of the messages.

    I was accused of being a Hillary Clinton propagandist, of posting from my “ugly ass” and of being a “servant” of the mainstream media.

    One person even suggested I should be arrested and tried for treason.

    I carried on with my job, sharing photos and video of the speakers and supporters.

    But the talk show host, and others continued to bait me online, accusing me of lying, which of course I was not.

    Earlier in the night, my colleague had posted a video, also pointing out that 40 minutes from the start of the rally, the arena was “far from full”, yet he was not subjected to the same vitriol.

    “Propaganda whore.” “Bitch.” The insults kept flying.

    It felt like a virtual mob was hur[t]ling toward me. The language was rude, some of it was sexist, and in one case racist.

    One person told her to go back to India and called her degenerate; that account was suspended.

    Trump worked up the crowd by talking smack about journalists.

    This sentiment has grown as the campaign has progressed. Supporters I’ve met in recent weeks have told me they are unhappy with a narrative they believe paints their candidate in an unfairly negative light.

    For some, it’s become a licence to bully and harass. At a recent rally, writer Jared Yates Sexton tweeted how Trump supporters there had talked about beating up reporters.

    “Guy just said he thought Trump would lock up dishonest press after election,” he wrote “‘You got to do something’ his friend says.”

    Earlier this year Julia Ioffe, a reporter with GQ magazine who wrote an article about Melania Trump, received online abuse, including death threats.

    The tone of the abuse was anti-Semitic. Some of the tweets directed at her included superimposed images of her at a concentration camp, with the title “CampTrump”.

    At the time, Mr Trump was asked on CNN to condemn the threats. He refused to, saying he hadn’t read the piece.

    Of course he refused to condemn threats. He makes them himself. He made his piles of money partly by threatening people who wanted him to pay what he owed them.

    At a rally in December, Mr Trump described NBC’s Katy Tur as a “third-rate journalist.” He didn’t hold back, as over a number of days, he called her a liar, and said her tweets were “disgraceful”.

    The response from his supporters online was more alarming for Tur, who at one point needed Secret Service protection.

    Some of the tweets she received incited violence: “MAYBE A FEW JOURNALISTS DO NEED TO BE WHACKED,” said one.

    “MAYBE THEN THEYD STOP BEI[N]G BIASED HACKS. KILL EM ALL STARTING W/ KATY TUR,” were the words in another.

    Fascism on the move.

  • Guest post: Guess who some of those other racist developers were

    Guest post by James Garnett

    Today on cnn.com I see that Donald Trump gave a speech in which he says that he will “fix the inner cities”. He complained about violence and shootings, declaring “we, as a society, cannot tolerate this level of violence and suffering”. It seems like he thinks that the problem of “the inner cities” is violence, and moreover that his solution is probably stricter sentencing, prison terms, etc.

    But what really is the “problem” of the inner cities in America’s larger metropolitan areas? Surely there are many causes, but one that seems to be consistent is poverty. Violence always naturally follows where poverty takes root. It didn’t used to be like that, though—poverty was not always endemic in urban areas. So what happened?

    Bill O’Reilly’s hometown of Levittown can shed some light on that. Levittown was a development for returning veterans after WWII, promising affordable homes away from the city center, but with one catch: only white people were allowed to purchase the homes. This was laid out, explicitly, in the purchase contracts. Remember, these were affordable homes that people could own, rather than continuing to rent in the cities. So of course, there was urban flight of the white population from the population center, towards Levittown. If you were black, then even if you had the ability to obtain a mortgage to buy a home in Levittown, they wouldn’t sell to you. So you stayed downtown, renting, and not just any rents, either—high rents, with sometimes onerous conditions upon them.

    Over time, those homes in Levittown (which is approaching 40 years old, I believe) grew in value. Equity accumulated. They are apparently quite pricey now, and those families that were lucky enough to buy in when they were affordable are now fundamentally wealthy. Meanwhile, the people left behind in the cities remain just as poor, or poorer, than they were before. They were denied the opportunity to accumulate 40 years of equity, simply because of racist policies by developers.

    And guess who some of those other racist developers were, who denied housing to minorities? People like Donald Trump’s father, who built a real estate empire in the same way that Levittown was built.

    That’s right, Trump: YOU and yours broke the inner cities. And now you claim that you, and only you, can fix the problem? By imposing stricter laws? How is that going to address the problem of poverty and denial of access to ways to develop real wealth—the problem that YOU caused?

  • For the little people, for the real people

    Of course. Nigel Farage teams up with Trump to give the Two Worst White Assholes show.

    Farage won cheers by sticking to his time-honed rhetoric of slightly shaggy populism, low on specifics but heavy with generalist calls to national pride and taking back control.

    “I think that you have a fantastic opportunity here,” he told the crowd. “With this campaign, you can go out, you can beat the pollsters, you can beat the commentators, you can beat Washington. And you’ll do it by doing what we did for Brexit in Britain.

    “My advice for you – if you want change in this country, you’d better get your walking boots on, you’d better get out there campaigning. And remember, anything is possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment.”

    Yeah, the establishment! Which Trump and Farage are totally on the outside of, peering in famished like little toilet-lickers from Dickens.

    Also familiar to Farage-watchers was the seamless glossing over of contradictions. Here was a privately educated former City trader standing alongside a hereditary tycoon to announce that Brexit was “for the little people, for the real people”.

    Because the real Establishment is…erm…people who drink weird coffee.

    Power to the people!

  • A new way to shout “witch”

    Amanda Marcotte picks up on a new and, of course, revolting theme in Trump’s campaign: the evil of ambitious white women who neglect to have ten children and thus hand the world over to the teeming Hordes of Color.

    Donald Trump has a new obsession: comparing Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. During a Monday speech, Trump denounced the “massive immigration” to Germany under Merkel, for which he blames crime rising “to levels that no one thought would they would ever see.” He followed up this speech with press releases and a hashtag aimed at equating Clinton and Merkel.

    The choice is an odd one on its surface because most Americans don’t have an opinion about Merkel, even when they know who she is. But as Alice Ollstein of Think Progress persuasively argued on Wednesday, the meme makes more sense when one considers that white supremacists definitely know who Merkel is, because they hate her:

    To white nationalist communities that fervently support Trump, Merkel has been a popular villain. Sites like the Daily Stormer, the White Genocide Project, American Renaissance, and The White Resister have posted constantly about her since the Syrian refugee crisis began escalating earlier this year. They have accused her of making a “deliberate attempt to turn Germany from a majority White country into a minority White country.” They have called her a “crazy childless bitch,” an “anti-White traitor,” and “a patron saint of terrorists.” They have asked, in articles about Merkel, “Why would you allow a woman to run a country, unless you were doing it as a joke?”

    So I guess Trump’s people, browsing through these wholesome materials, suggested the Merkel-Clinton theme by way of responsibly terrifying all the racist men out there. Seems legit.

    If blatant white supremacy is not acceptable in mainstream conservative circles, opposition to feminism is completely standard on the right. By mainstreaming this “white genocide” hysteria in terms that focus less on immigration and more on attacking “Western” women for having too much ambition and too few children, these arguments have made their way into respectable conservative circles.

    “A new genre of declinist literature, ranging from anxious to apocalyptic, has appeared to warn of the coming population implosion and the loss of Europe to more fertile, faithful Muslims,” Michelle Goldberg wrote in her 2010 book “The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World.” She cites Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” and Pat Buchanan’s “The Death of the West” as books that raise the alarm about “Westerners” and their supposedly low birth rates. Both books focus heavily on blaming women for this purported decline.

    Well they have to blame women, don’t they. Men can’t have the babies! Plus women are such selfish bitches anyway.

    It’s impossible to know what Trump is thinking, but the campaign’s clear cooperation in putting out this message through press releases and tweets suggests this “Clinton=Merkel” narrative is very intentional. As ambitious women who haven’t had many children — Merkel has none and Clinton only has one — they make easy villains for those who fret about “white genocide” or “demographic winter.”

    Trump is as usual playing with fire here. But the wider conservative movement shares the blame. For years now, mainstream conservatives, including Romney, have been elevating this theory that feminism is undermining the republic by discouraging breeding.

    Women are also to blame for global warming, because we use too much electricity washing all those diapers.

  • Trump’s candidacy is music to their ears

    Someone who uncritically swallows the claim that J D Vance explains why the white working class loves Trump, apparently without noticing its extreme thinness: Rod Dreher at the American Conservative, who interviews Vance.

    RD: A friend who moved to West Virginia a couple of years ago tells me that she’s never seen poverty and hopelessness like what’s common there. And she says you can drive through the poorest parts of the state, and see nothing but TRUMP signs. Reading “Hillbilly Elegy” tells me why. Explain it to people who haven’t yet read your book. 

    J.D. VANCE: The simple answer is that these people–my people–are really struggling, and there hasn’t been a single political candidate who speaks to those struggles in a long time.  Donald Trump at least tries.

    What many don’t understand is how truly desperate these places are, and we’re not talking about small enclaves or a few towns–we’re talking about multiple states where a significant chunk of the white working class struggles to get by.  Heroin addiction is rampant.  In my medium-sized Ohio county last year, deaths from drug addiction outnumbered deaths from natural causes.  The average kid will live in multiple homes over the course of her life, experience a constant cycle of growing close to a “stepdad” only to see him walk out on the family, know multiple drug users personally, maybe live in a foster home for a bit (or at least in the home of an unofficial foster like an aunt or grandparent), watch friends and family get arrested, and on and on.  And on top of that is the economic struggle, from the factories shuttering their doors to the Main Streets with nothing but cash-for-gold stores and pawn shops.

    But what does Trump have to do with that? Why is that a reason to vote for and support Trump?

    The two political parties have offered essentially nothing to these people for a few decades.  From the Left, they get some smug condescension, an exasperation that the white working class votes against their economic interests because of social issues, a la Thomas Frank (more on that below).  Maybe they get a few handouts, but many don’t want handouts to begin with. 

    From the Right, they’ve gotten the basic Republican policy platform of tax cuts, free trade, deregulation, and paeans to the noble businessman and economic growth.  Whatever the merits of better tax policy and growth (and I believe there are many), the simple fact is that these policies have done little to address a very real social crisis.  More importantly, these policies are culturally tone deaf: nobody from southern Ohio wants to hear about the nobility of the factory owner who just fired their brother.

    Trump’s candidacy is music to their ears.  He criticizes the factories shipping jobs overseas.  His apocalyptic tone matches their lived experiences on the ground.  He seems to love to annoy the elites, which is something a lot of people wish they could do but can’t because they lack a platform.  

    That is pathetic. The only item that makes any sense is “He criticizes the factories shipping jobs overseas,” and does Vance seriously think Trump would do anything about factories shipping jobs overseas? All that’s left is annoying the elites, and that’s not good enough. It’s childish.

    This is incredibly thin stuff, and it’s annoying that there’s a media stampede to take it seriously.