Tuesday, August 1, 2017

That HRC Had Staffer Murdered For Being The Source Of WikiLeaks DNC Material (As Opposed To Being Hacked At Direction Of Putin) Is Fake News Concocted by Trumpers & Approved By Trump

Ed Butowsky is "A Dallas, Texas based financial adviser and frequent Fox Business Network commentator" (per Wikipedia). Rod Wheeler is a private detective and former DC homocide detective ("another black man who doesn't tow the party-line" according to Willis Hart).

As per an 8/1/2017 Slate article "Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide [Seth Rich]". This is a conspiracy theory that says Russia never "hacked" our election. Instead, the DNC WikiLeaked material was downloaded by a disgruntled staffer named Seth Rich who passed it on to Julian Assange.

Later, Rich was murdered at the direction of Hillary Clinton. Because the Clintons have a long history of murdering anyone who crosses them (i.e. the Clinton Body Count, a conspiracy theory that says "Bill Clinton has assassinated fifty or more of his associates").

Russia was absolutely NOT involved according to this conspiracy theory. Could this be what actually happened? Is the Putin directed hackers to steal the DNC's data bullshit? Willis Hart says YES. "Can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites?" the Libertarian blogger asks in a recent post (one among many in which he presents evidence "debunking" the Left's "narrative" that Russian hackers stole the DNC's data).

But it's actually Willis who is buying into fake news. This according to a recent Daily Beast article.

Trump Told Fox News to Frame Dems for Seth Rich Murder, Lawsuit Claims [excerpt] Private investigator Rod Wheeler sued the cable-TV network in federal court on Tuesday, alleging it falsely quoted him in an article saying slain DNC staffer Seth Rich had contact with Julian Assange's rogue publishing operation. Wheeler accuses Fox News regular and pro-Trump money manager Ed Butowsky of coordinating between the channel and the White House in an effort to frame Rich for the leaks and imply Democrats had a hand in his death.

Wheeler's lawsuit includes screenshots of text messages with Butowsky, including an exchange two days before the article was published in which Butowsky wrote: "president [Trump] just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you. But don't feel the pressure". (8/1/2017 article by Andrew Kirell).

This was in regards to a piece (by Fox News contributor and journalist Malia Zimmerman) that Fox later retracted. Because it didn't meet their "standards" (they said). But Sean Hannity picked up the gauntlet. Even after being warned by Fox to drop the story, he continued to push the conspiracy theory.

Sean Hannity (5/23/2017): "For those accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory, you are the biggest phony hypocrites in the entire world. This issue, it's so big now that the entire Russia collusion narrative is hanging by a thread. If... there was a whistleblower within the DNC - a truth-teller that was actually the source for WikiLeaks, not Russia - working with the Trump campaign. These are questions that I have a moral obligation to ask... (Hannity on Seth Rich coverage: "I retracted nothing" by Joe Concha. The Hill, 5/23/17).

My Theory? Putin had Seth Rich murdered so he could frame him for the DNC "leak". Or maybe it was Trump or Trump operatives. Google "Trump murdered Seth Rich" and you'll get results from others theorizing that this is what could have happened.

Although it might have been a random murder. One thing that is certain is that the murder was not directed by HRC. Wheeler's text screenshots prove that theory is fake news. Rod Wheeler "was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC e-mails" (which damaged his reputation). This according to Wheeler's lawyer.

So, can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites? I doubt Willis will be convinced. His spin will be (if he reads this story) that Wheeler IS another black man who tows the party-line. In that, previously Willis thought Wheeler was saying things he liked (confirming the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory) - but now he's saying Fox "fabricated two quotations and attributed them to [me]" (to support their bogus Seth Rich murder narrative in which Trump was involved).

Video: Rod Wheeler appears on The Beat with Ari Melber to explain his lawsuit (8/1/2017). Wheeler claims that Fox News lured him into a plot to help Trump's White House (12:18).

OST #208

Friday, May 26, 2017

Willis Hart 180 Degree Flip Flop: Now He's A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Nutjob!

"My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD" was the absurd and laughable lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart I addressed in my last commentary (OST #206).

Well, the absurdity continues; now the Hartster says gwb's Secret Service detail "already knew that he wasn't a target" (and that's why they let him sit in that classroom reading the goat book for so long. As opposed to immediately hustling him out of there).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even After a) Both of the Twin Towers Had Been Struck, b) it Had Been Determined that More than a Few Other Planes Were Still Unaccounted for, and c) Mr. Bush's Visit to that Grammar School In Florida Had Been Fully Publicized, the Secret Service Allowed President Bush to Remain In that Classroom for Another Fifteen Minutes or so (an Act that if the Official Story Was True, Would Have Put Not Just Bush In Danger but Those Kids as Well).

So yet again, we're either looking at incompetence to a criminal degree or complicity (they didn't get Bush out because they already knew that he wasn't a target). Scary shit, huh? (5/24/2017 at 8:53pm).

So the Secret Service knew that terrorists were going to crash planes into the Twin Towers? That would indicate that the conspiracy was BIG. And yet, nobody has ever squealed. BTW, I have suggested incompetence or complicity, but all I ever got was laughs on Hart's blog (back when I was not banned).

Now he's suggesting the Secret Service let bush sit there reading the goat book because they knew he wasn't a target?! That's a bridge too far for me. I think he was simply stunned. I mean, I think he knew an attack was coming (and wanted it to occur, as per PNAC's desire for "a new Pearl Harbor), but that he didn't know exactly what it would be. That, or he was stunned just because he didn't know when it would happen, and he was thinking "this is it".

"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes". Additionally, the Phoenix FBI "recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools". The worry was that students at such schools might be found to have terrorist connections. According to Dick Durbin, who read an FBI memo on the matter, "that should have been fair warning" (Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11).

Yet, even though these warnings were received (some months before the attacks) NOTHING was done. So, yeah, I'm with Willis on this one. Even though I've held this opinion all along, while Willis has only recently blogged about bush complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Over a decade later!

Although Hart lies and says he has ALWAYS held this opinion. What a bunch of bullshit! As I previously pointed out, NOW he says bush possibly lied about WMD, but when I wrote a comment on his blog saying this, he responded by writing "you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

Now he goes even further than I ever have, suggesting the conspiracy was much bigger! So big that the Secret Service knew bush was not a target! Why wouldn't he be a target? Because there was coordination between the terrorists and bush? I mean, what else could explain this assertion?

And that (coordination between OBL and gwb) is REALLY out there, IMO. This is 9/11 Truther stuff. Is Willis going to next be suggesting that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that it was a missile and not an airplane that hit the Pentagon? (two conspiracy theories I think are complete bullplop, for the record).

Image: Despite being notified by his Secret Service detail that America was under attack, bush decided to finish reading "The Pet Goat". He remained in the classroom for almost another half hour! As opposed to quickly leaving to see if he was needed to make any Commander-in-Chief decisions. Possibly because he guessed that the attacks might be ongoing and he wanted to give the terrorists more time to complete their mission? "It's almost as if they (and, yeah, I'm talking Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) wanted the planes to hit", Willis says.

OST #207

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

On A Liar's Recent Claim That "My Opinion Has Always Been That... George Bush May Indeed Have Lied About WMD"

Can you believe the balls on this f#cking liar? Although he may believe this BULLSHIT, given the fact that nobody reads his blog (but me), so who the hell is he lying to?

I refer to this 100 percent false commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart (the portion where he claims that he has "always" held an opinion that he previously did NOT hold).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that In the Months Just Prior to the 9/11 Attacks, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice Are Both On the Record as Saying that Saddam Hussein Did Not, DID NOT, Have WMD [Youtube Video].

My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD, until there was a smoking-gun, I was much more comfortable saying that the Iraq conflict was more along the lines of a major fuck-up than it was some sinister plot. This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING (the fact that they apparently did a 180 just to start another stupid war). (5/9/2017 at 4:31pm).

So, I know Willis lies because I distinctly recall the conversation I had with him on his blog (several years ago) in which he vigorously defended gwb from my accusation that the former preznit lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

And the Hartster lied back then too. I did give him evidence. The IAEA told bush that Saddam was complying that that they inspections would be completed shortly. And they were finding no WMD (see SWTD #154 for further details).

Now he's claiming that it's ALWAYS been his opinion that gwb may have lied?!! Give me a f*cking break. Either Hart is delusional, is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's, or is lying through his teeth. The proof is on his blog that he did not ALWAYS say gwb may have lied. Fact is, there are numerous other comments and posts in which he disagrees that any lying occurred.

I could dig them up and present them, but I think this one comment is enough to prove that Willis Hart LIES. To his readers (of which there are none) or to himself. I don't know which one. I do know that what he wrote is complete bullplop, however.

As for "This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING", that is bullpucky as well. If that were the case I'd have heard about this on the news. As opposed to Youtube via Willis Hart's blog.

Video: Video WTNPH links to, titled "Awoken: 9/11 - Truth Or Treason". Note that (given the fact that I have a data cap) I have not watched this 2-plus hour video. Maybe later. Not that it matters, as nothing has changed. NOTHING. By which I mean that I am 100 percent certain that there will be no charges forthcoming from the Hague in which this Youtube is cited as evidence against bush. Or a US trial in which bush et al are charged with treason. Nor will anything else that falls far short of that occur. Certainly nothing that would fall into the "this changes everything" category.

OST #206

Monday, April 17, 2017

On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)

Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart agrees with Pat Buchannon on. That a "free boat ride" to America was something slaves should have been (Buchanan) - or actually were (Hart) - grateful for.

Willis Hart: On the Strong Possibility that a Large Chunk of the Blacks that Lincoln, Beecher-Stowe, Stevens, and the Rest of the Colonization Crowd Wanted to Deep-Six Back to Africa Would Have Been Re-Enslaved by the Far More Virulent African Slavers and Worked to Death... Yeah, Lincoln and company didn't seem all that concerned (as long as the black folks were gone, I guess). (4/16/2017 at 11:26am).

So, I guess Hart has never heard of Liberia? A country in Africa that "began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States". This was a country that "declared its independence on 7/26/1847", which was before the beginning of the Civil War. Former slaves journeying to Liberia didn't go there to be re-enslaved, as far as I know.

And, for the record, Lincoln was a supporter of VOLUNTARY colonization (resettling freed Blacks outside the United States, including in Liberia). Although to hear Willis tell it the resettlement was involuntary ("deep-six back to Africa").

Obviously, given these two facts, the Hartster's post is pure bullshit. Free Blacks returning to Africa (which some did) were not re-enslaved by "the far more virulent African slavers". Nor was any free Black "deep sixed" (sent back to Africa involuntarily). Or, I'm not aware of any large scale effort to send any Black person back to Africa against their will.

Wikipedia/Abraham Lincoln and slavery: Lincoln pursued various plans to voluntarily colonize free blacks outside the United States, but none of these had a major effect. ...he firmly opposed compulsory colonization... Historians disagree over whether or not his plans to colonize blacks were sincere or political posturing. Regardless, by the end of his life, Lincoln had come to support black suffrage. ... In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he promoted voting rights for blacks.

It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that racial harmony would be possible in the United States" that he supported colonization. As opposed to wanting to "deep six" Blacks back to Africa because he hated them. He just didn't see a future in which Whites and Blacks lived together in harmony.

Clearly Hart's intense hatred for Abe Lincoln is the driving force behind all his posts about how horrible our 16th president was. Not any anti-racist sentiments. Ironic, given the fact that (on 9/23/2011) Willis wrote that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (OST #130).

Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself quite racist. In fact - what he writes about how horrible it would be for Blacks returning to Africa - sounds to me a LOT like what Pat Buchanan wrote about African Americans who are Americans as a result of their ancestors being kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

Pat Buchanan: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. (A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).

This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 A More Perfect Union speech ("Wright" is a reference to Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright). A commentary that many have interpreted as Buchanan telling descendents of slaves in America that they should be saying "thanks for the free boat ride" their ancestors got (despite the fact that "about 12.5 percent of slaves transported died in the Middle Passage, 4.5 percent died on shore before the date of sale, and one-third died in the process of acclimating to the Americas - a total mortality of about 50 percent").

[Pat Buchanan's commentary said] In essence: Be grateful to God (with his beautiful, piercing blue eyes) that we offered you a free boat ride to paradise, you Black savages. (Re: A Brief for Whitey by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).

America is a paradise that Blacks would not want to leave - AKA be "deep-sixed" to an African hell where they would be worked to death? That sounds a LOT to me like "thanks for the free boat ride". "Thanks for the free boat ride to paradise. I don't want to go back". Even though some did.

But (in the Hartster's mind) Lincoln wanted them gone (and didn't care what happened to them after they were forcibly resettled), because he (Lincoln) was so racist. As opposed to Hart being the racist. Which isn't to say that I agree with re-colonization or resettlement of Blacks. Regardless of how they got here, they had been here for multiple generations (at this point) and this was (and is) their country as well.

I just don't believe that Lincoln's belief/worry that there could never be racial harmony is proof of intense racism. And that Lincoln just wanted Blacks gone and was therefore quite willing to "deep-six" them to an African hell. Hart's guesses are all completely wrong. Or largely wrong. I mean, given the fact that Libera existed at the time and some free Blacks had already left America to return to Africa.

And there is the fact that this idea of Blacks leaving America en masse never really went anywhere. So why the obsession? Just something to bash Lincoln over, I guess.

OST #205

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

On WTNPH's Allegation That It Isn't Trump, But Hillary Clinton Who Has Russia Connections

The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart thinks it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has "Russian Connections". Connections that indicate corruption.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that at or Around the Same Time that Mrs. Clinton's State Department Was Signing Off on the Transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate, Tens of Millions of Dollars Were Flowing in to the Clinton Foundation from Numerous Associates in this Project AND Bill Clinton Received $500,000 for Belting Out Some Bullshit and Platitudinous Speech In Moscow [Link].

No, it isn't a smoking-gun but the fact that Mrs. Clinton didn't report at least $2.35 million of this largess (this money coming from the head-honcho of the project, no less) indicates to me that she was at least concerned about the appearance of it. Speaking of "Russian connections". (3/6/2017 at 5:24pm).

That it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has Russia connections is the exact same allegation that Donald Trump has been making. Most recently via twitter.

I wonder if the Trump-defending Hart LIKED either or both of these tweets? Anyway, the House Intelligence Committee isn't looking into the "Bill and Hillary deal" because it wasn't a Bill and Hillary Deal". According to Newsweek "we really don't need to investigate [the] Uranium deal" because the charges are bogus.

...allegations, first aired in 2015, that the Clinton family benefited from a "pay for play" scheme, whereby U.S. uranium reserves were supposedly transferred to the Russian owners of a mining corporation in return for donations to the Clinton foundation [are] false.

[in] 2010... Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake in mining company Uranium One. Clinton, as [Secretary of State] had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Clinton sat.

Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.

But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption... First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.

Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state. (Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal" by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).

Hillary Clinton might have been "at least concerned about the appearance of it", given the fact that Hillary hating Trump defenders like Willis (who is also a fan of the lying scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.

Poltifact disputes the suggestion that Bill Clinton being paid 500k by Renaissance Capital (a Russian investment bank) in 2010 was a payoff to get HRC to approve the Uranium One deal. Given the fact that "then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent State on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters" [quote via Snopes].

Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... Uranium One is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" Rosatom does now own a 51% controlling share in it). But "Russia cannot export the material from the United States". They're getting the profit, and NOT the uranium. It isn't being "transferred" anywhere (it's staying in the United States).

The real reason for the purchase (as per Politifact) was likely that Russia was "interested in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer". BTW, I'm not saying approving the deal was the right way to go. I'm thinking that it should NOT have been approved. But is as usually is the case when it comes to those who have money and power... they get what they want.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of Clinton corruption via "pay-for-play" or "quid pro quo". As Snopes and Politifact point out. And as the scumbag Peter Schweizer himself admits (Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes).

Which isn't to say HRC isn't guilty of "glaring conflicts of interest". But there is a difference between ignoring conflicts of interest and outright naked corruption, for which there exists the opposite of a "smoking gun" (facts that show HRC wasn't involved/couldn't approve the deal).

Video: Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss Clinton Cash, 4/26/2015. GS: "...an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... 'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which PS replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).

OST #204

Monday, March 27, 2017

On Willis Hart Being So Moronic That He Actually Believes Some of Donald Trump's Critics Think Trump's Sons Killed A Woolly Mammoth, A Saber Toothed Tiger And A Triceratops

The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Some of Donald Trump's Critics Are so Moronic that They Actually Believe that the Dude's Sons Killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger, and a Triceratops [see video below]. Yes sir, that's a special kind of stupid. (3/26/2017 at 4:30pm).

The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).

I don't think that this is a case of people being stupid, it's a case of people not paying attention. Thinking of what they're going to say instead of listening. Or not expecting that the object of the interviewer is to make them look stupid. I mean, I've seen similar pranks on the Tonight Show. Word replacements that people, if they were paying attention, would catch.

My guess at to what is going on? Predictive perceptual signaling, which is a phenomenon in which the brain attempts to predict future perceptual input.

From the Science Brainwaves article "Hearing what you expect to hear"...

Most of us have had the experience of finding a glaring error in some written work that we had previously checked several times. For example when blogging I often find at least one simple error on a post once it has actually been published, despite proofreading it thoroughly before submission. In such circumstances it seems impossible that one can have overlooked such an obvious error.

The reason that such mistakes get missed is that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive. When proof reading something we ourselves have written we know what we were planning to write. We therefore tend to perceive the words we think we put on the page, rather than those that are actually there. (11/9/2014 article by Rob Hoskin PhD, the Neuroscience Department of Sheffield University).

The portion of the article I quoted has to do with seeing words what we expect to see, and not the words that are actually there. But the same applies to spoken words. Clearly the people being interviewed did not expect to hear the words "Woolly Mammoth", "Saber Toothed Tiger" or "Triceratops" because they are expecting "Lion", "Tiger" or "Elephant". And therefore they did not hear the names of extinct animals.

A more likely an explanation than people actually being so stupid as to they think the Trump sons killed extinct animals, no? And that, IMO, is ALL this video proves. That people hear what they expect to hear and not what is actually said. And that people aren't expecting that when an interviewer asks a question, the REAL intent is to prank them.

If the interviewer had said, "wait a minute, did you hear what I said - pay attention", I predict that zero of the people being interviewed would agree that the Trump sons could have killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Triceratops.

BTW, the brain uses predictive perceptual signaling because "in the vast majority of cases expectation improves perception". According to the article "there is ample evidence from behavioural science that being able to predict the content of an upcoming stimulus improves our ability to successfully perceive it".

For more information read the article. Bottom line is, the human brain often deceives us. Also note that nobody in the video repeats what the interviewer said. Nobody says "yes, I agree that Eric and Donald Jr. killing that Woolly Mammoth was bad".

But the Hartster wants SO MUCH to believe that Liberals are this stupid. So he sees this prank and thinks, yeah, these people heard EXACTLY what the interviewer said and agreed that the Trump sons hunted and killed extinct animals. It is a "fact". Which points to Willis being the one that is "so moronic", IMO.

OST #203

Saturday, March 25, 2017

On WTNPH's Belief That Trump Should Get Cred With The Left For Lying

The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.

Willis Hart: On Trump Versus the Left. I find this whole thing a bit perplexing in that if you take the time to look at his positions, he's actually kind of a leftist himself. For example, the dude's a) a protectionist, b) a believer in the graduated income tax (the first $50,000 tax free, as I recall), c) a person who wants an enormous infrastructure project (bigger than Obama's, for Christ!), d) a person who while he denigrated Obamacare has seeming signed on to something virtually identical, and e) someone who wants to establish a brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave.

No, it's not a down-the-line leftist agenda but it's certainly close enough to where you would think that the left could at least work with the guy, no? Oh and, yeah, he eviscerated George W. Bush. That alone should give him some cred. (3/25/2017 at 4:19pm).

Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As Thom Hartmann says, Trump won by running as a Progressive Progressive (in many respects). As Willis points out. But Democrats (and many others) know that Trump lies. He says what he thinks will get him what he wants at the time. He makes promises with no intention of following through, unless doing so is easy.

Like with canceling the TPP. That took no work. All he had to do was not move forward with it. Devising a national health care bill, on the other hand, requires work. Trump promised "repeal and replace" because it got him votes. Then he pushed a garbage bill that he did not understand, then gave up after 18 days (when, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Obama's bill took 18 months).

BTW, Trump did NOT "sign on to something virtually identical". The AHCA (American Health Care Act) was a not a health care bill. It was a tax cut bill. As the NY Times pointed out "the beneficiaries would be the richest Americans who for years have complained that the Affordable Care Act unfairly burdened them with the responsibility of subsidizing insurance for the poor".

The objective of the ACA was providing health care for most Americans (nixed by the Supreme Court which tossed the Medicaid expansion). The objective of the AHCA was CUTTING TAXES [1]. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.

A believer in the graduated income tax? So what? What we know is that Congress will move on tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. Now that "repealing" Obamacare has failed. I'm sure that's at the top of their agenda (What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich).

The enormous infrastructure project is another giveaway to the wealthy, as Trump proposes funding it by giving "$137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects". Also, we're talking about projects on which "tolls or user fees" could be charged. So, we pay (via tax breaks) for investors to build the infrastructure, but they own it and make money off it. Sounds like a great idea. If you're a wealthy investor looking to buy infrastructure (that the government pays you back for via tax credits). Then sit back and collect the profits. Clearly a bad deal for taxpayers and end users (people who will be paying the tolls and user fees), though.

As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", CNN Money describes the proposal as a "gift to the rich [because] 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more". Big surprise.

BTW, even though Willis obviously does not realize it, Trump only "eviscerated" gwb because he thought it would harm Jeb's candidacy. I mean, Trump SUPPORTED the Iraq war (despite his lies). He's on tape saying so (on Howard Stern). Once Jeb dropped out Trump's "lie" accusation (re gwb and WMD) changed to "I don't know" (SWTD #326).

Work with him to give taxpayer money to the already wealthy? WHY the f*uck would Democrats work with Trump to accomplish that? And "cred" comes from ACTION, not words. Words that are mostly lies. If Trump wanted TARGETED tax cuts (nothing for the wealthy), was to do the infrastructure right (raise taxes to pay for it) or offer tax breaks/credits to anyone (not just the well off) for child care/leave? Then yeah, Democrats would work with him. Heck, I think Dems would work with Trump on lowering the corporate income tax (if all loopholes were eliminated and it was estimated that revenues would go up as a result). And he agreed to go after offshore tax havens and inversions (although Trump doesn't know what a corporate inversion is).

But I don't see that happening. Especially given the FACT that if he was to put forward proposals that appealed to Democrats... Ryan and the GOP controlled Congress would turn on him. In any case, that Dems won't work with him is NOT "perplexing", unless you're dumb enough to not realize that Trump lies constantly. But apparently the Willis is dumb enough. Even though he implies he knows Trump is a liar.

On "Trump Is a Liar" Versus "the Media Is Biased and Corrupt"... In a saner time we could have entertained both notions. Not today, though. Not with the Fox Newses, MSNBCs, Salons, Breitbarts, and Huffington Posts of the world delivering what can only be called pure partisan pablum 24/7 and a public that is all-too willing to lap it up. No Sir. (2/23/2017 at 11:15pm).

WTF? Maybe Willis thinks Trump only lies sometimes? I mean, clearly Willis thinks Trump is telling the truth re his A to E list. As opposed to lying. Because that's what he does. Lies about EVERYTHING. Although I think he might be "protectionist". Even though he has his Trump crap manufactured outside the US. And brings in labor on work visas (or illegally) to work in his businesses.

Doesn't mean he couldn't be a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. I mean, following the rules as they are doesn't mean you can't be in favor of changing the rules. Even if the new rules will cost you. MAYBE. But I doubt it. Given the fact that everything else Willis THINKS the Left can work with Trump on - he's lying about.

Trump "actually kind of a leftist himself"? Via his LYING WORDS only. No "Leftist" action except cancelling the TPP (yet). And that didn't require any Leftists to work with him to accomplish. I'm sure some (Bernie Sanders, other members of the Progressive caucus) would have been willing to if it had been necessary.

BTW, the people with DO give Trump cred for lying? That would be his base, AKA the #trumpdupes. Everyone else knows he's a liar who lies about everything. Even most of those who voted for Stein or Johnson. Excepting idiots like the Hartster, who think Trump can be believed on ANYTHING. I guess.

[1] According to estimates made by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the AHCA would resulted in tax breaks totalling 600 billion, most of which would go to the wealthiest Americans. (Poltifact).

Video: Thom Hartmann: If Trump Actually Ran As A Republican, He Wouldn't Have Won The Election! Thom talks about how Donald Trump used populist ideas to gain support among voters. Published 11/17/2016 (5:54).

OST #202