when you send a diplomat into a war zone, it might get killed. that's a non-issue.
when are we going to talk about how the removal of ghadaffi was a war crime?
--
wait. that's why you're talking about benghazi in the first place. right.
this isn't some russian bureaucrat. this is really the #2 guy in russia. and, sometimes he's the actual #1 guy.
you can react how you'd like. but, understand that this is what the russians think - and a lot of people think they're right.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160531/1040526924/lavrov-gaddafi-war-crime.html
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
j reacts to hillary clinton running in the radical centre
hillary needs to make the choice about what side of the spectrum she wants to run on and then run on it aggressively.
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
if she decides to run as a conservative, and does it with conviction, then she can win some of these red states that everybody thinks are not in play - but she will probably destroy the democratic party's ability to appeal to the left for a generation or longer. is that already accomplished, anyways? i don't think she'll split the left in any meaningful way, because she'll cut too far into the right; if she loses 10% on her left, she'll gain 15% on the center-right. shouldn't tennessee be in play? kentucky? arkansas? that was her husband's map...
if she decides to run on the left, she'll have to concede some space on the right but with the aim of preventing a split. she'd be looking to emulate the obama map.
if i was working on her campaign, i would be a nihilist. i would be solely interested in power and reject ideology as simplistic modernist naivete. so, i would see these options as equally acceptable and judge them solely on their likelihood of success.
i would conclude she should run on the right, in an attempt to take advantage of conservative disillusionment with trump. she can offer a more credible conservative vision than he can. that's a big vacuum with a big reward. while she may lose support on her left, it is so unlikely to migrate to trump that it is not worth worrying about.
if she tries to hug the center, she will be unanimously rejected and lose.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285110-polls-show-tight-clinton-trump-race-in-2016-battlegrounds
j reacts to the lewandowski promotion
this is an old trick.
he didn't get fired. he got promoted.
until he formally drops out, sanders is still a threat. or, it may be considered more tactical to wait until after the convention.
but, the way this election is going to work is that the media is going to rip clinton apart over the emails and present trump as the sane, establishment option - presuming he stops running his mouth off. and, i think they can figure that out. if they can get bush elected, they can get trump elected.
the media coverage at this time in 2000 was not dissimilar to what it is today. it's early. the machinations are still at work.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/cnn-taps-corey-lewandowski-but-is-analyst-or-trump-spokesman.html
see, the way i read this is "cnn looking for excuse to get rid of left-leaning staff".
you can do this a few ways.
1) send an agent provocateur out to start a movement for mass resignation. that way, you don't have to fire anybody. good optics. extra bonus: no severance.
2) start a fight, then come down on the side of lewandowski to make the point.
it's not just cnn. msnbc is doing this, too.
sanders has had no effect. but, trump's popularity amongst key english speaking tv demographics is sparking a shake-up in the way the networks are going to be approaching the coverage.
http://gawker.com/are-cnn-staffers-actually-staging-a-revolt-over-corey-1782673854
he didn't get fired. he got promoted.
until he formally drops out, sanders is still a threat. or, it may be considered more tactical to wait until after the convention.
but, the way this election is going to work is that the media is going to rip clinton apart over the emails and present trump as the sane, establishment option - presuming he stops running his mouth off. and, i think they can figure that out. if they can get bush elected, they can get trump elected.
the media coverage at this time in 2000 was not dissimilar to what it is today. it's early. the machinations are still at work.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/cnn-taps-corey-lewandowski-but-is-analyst-or-trump-spokesman.html
see, the way i read this is "cnn looking for excuse to get rid of left-leaning staff".
you can do this a few ways.
1) send an agent provocateur out to start a movement for mass resignation. that way, you don't have to fire anybody. good optics. extra bonus: no severance.
2) start a fight, then come down on the side of lewandowski to make the point.
it's not just cnn. msnbc is doing this, too.
sanders has had no effect. but, trump's popularity amongst key english speaking tv demographics is sparking a shake-up in the way the networks are going to be approaching the coverage.
http://gawker.com/are-cnn-staffers-actually-staging-a-revolt-over-corey-1782673854
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)