Some common sense thoughts on the Craigslist ad floating around purporting to pay people for showing up at Trump’s Florida “campaign event.”
First off, there have been a tremendous amount of unverified claims from both the left and the right that supporters/protesters are being paid to show up to political events. These claims have been made since the beginning of the last election, since Donald Trump descended down his escalator, and not one instance has been proven.[…]
However, in this case, overtly saying they’re going to pay supporters with gift cards and cash vouchers, at a very public event, is so incredibly dumb it can’t possibly be real.
Most importantly, it’s impossible to know if this ad is real or fake without attending this Saturday’s rally, which we will be doing. And if we see people getting paid to go this rally, we’ll let you know. To be honest, that would be an amazing story.
There are also rumors being circulated that this rally is actually a plot to make Trump protesters look like violent thugs with agitators prepared to attend the rally and stir up trouble. Unless someone has actually seen evidence of such plotting, though, it’s hard to know if it’s true or not. I think skepticism is warranted here as well.
The suggested way of dealing with this is for peaceful protesters to hold their counter-event some distance from the rally itself. While that certainly sounds reasonable, it won’t do anything to stop agent provocateurs from causing trouble in the name of the Resistance movement, and it could render any protest more-or-less invisible, since it will be out of sight of both the Trump supporters and the media. If one were given to conspiracy-style thinking, one might be concerned that this could be propaganda from Trump supporters to help minimize the appearance of dissent, but I wouldn’t know about that…
Kellyanne Conway has been trying to blame her claim of a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on a slip of a tongue, but today we learn that it wasn’t the first time shed made mention of it. So, either the comment was a pre-planned lie, or Conway needs to see a doctor about all the excess oil in her mouth that keeps making her tongue fall off-track.
I’m betting it’s the former option, personally.
As I mentioned previously, neither of the excuses Conway has made for her verbal banana peel make any sense. First she said that she meant to say they were the “masterminds behind the BG Massacre” but how does one “mastermind” a terrorist? You don’t. You mastermind the plot. Her second excuse – that they were the masterminds of the BG Massacre plot” – doesn’t work either as there was no plot by these guys to kill anyone in Bowling Green.
Getting caught in a lie won’t do anything goes to deter her, though. Lying is her natural language, and it helps her
client boss by tossing convenient – if false – excuses to his base so they can better ignore the actual facts.
While some journalists have been saying they have to keep interviewing Conway – that they have to take what the White House gives them. I strongly disagree.
If journalists refuse to interview Conway, Trump will eventually have to start sending out someone else because he needs the mainstream media, whether he likes them or not. If he truly believed he didn’t, he’d stop sending anyone out to speak with them. So legitimate journalists have some leverage here. “Give us some one else, or you’re side of the story goes untold.” Granted, whoever came next might be no better, but s/he could hardly be worse.
Kellyanne Conway said she misspoke “one word” on MSNBC’s “Hardball” last week. But it turns out that she had mentioned the made-up “Bowling Green massacre” at least once before.
Cosmopolitan’s Kristen Mascia reported Monday that Conway brought up the “masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre” in a January 29 telephone interview. Cosmo didn’t print the quote at the time.[…]
“I was trying to mow through a list of fact checking and follow-up questions that day and had little time to follow her down her usual rabbit holes,” Mascia wrote on Facebook Monday.
Later, working with her editors, “we made an editorial choice not to churn out misinformation into the atmosphere without doing proper digging,” she wrote.
— Edel Rodriguez (@edelstudio) February 3, 2017
It seems that there are a number of Republicans who aren’t all that eager to spend money on Trump’s wall, and not just because it’ll be expensive and it’s highly unlikely Mexico would ever “repay” us for it.
One big problem is that not many in Texas actually want the wall. For one thing, it’s not clear how useful it would be, and for another, the “squiggliness” of the border presents its own challenges. As Vox notes:
Trying to literally conform a border wall to this fractal terrain would be ridiculous. Any feasible construction project is going to need to be straighter than the actual border, which is going to mean using the federal government’s eminent domain powers to take privately owned land and basically redraw the border. This has been a flashpoint between Trump and elements of the ideological right in the past, since he’s an enthusiastic proponent of using eminent domain to benefit private economic development projects, which many conservatives regard as unconstitutional.
A border wall — unlike a parking garage for an Atlantic City casino — is pretty clearly meant to serve a public function, so the constitutional issue wouldn’t necessarily arise. Nonetheless, it’s generally the case that people don’t like it when the government comes in and takes their land. And it’s easy to imagine they particularly wouldn’t like it if the government came in to take their land so that the president of the United States could avoid admitting that one of his campaign promises was kind of dumb. Moreover, it’s questionable it even would serve its stated purpose . Unauthorized immigration from Mexico has already slowed to a trickle (indeed, by most estimates more people are leaving than arriving), and the un-walled area in particular has almost no border crossings since it’s in the middle of nowhere.
It’s worth noting that the sections of Texas where fences have been built in the past report that it’s inflicted hardship on the area, and when the Texas Tribune surveyed the state’s 38-member congressional delegation it found that none of them wholeheartedly supported the border wall scheme. (Emphasis their’s)
It’s good to see some members of Congress actually listen to their constituents, and that there are some who recognize what an utter folly Trump’s wall plan is.
The article also discusses some of the financial challenges the wall project will face. Since Trump promised that Mexico is going to pay for it, Representatives and Senators from both parties may be able to use that in varying ways to justify not voting to fund the wall or to balk at using deficit spending to do so.
In a recent Reliable Sources e-mail from CNN Money, Brian Statler asked for feedback on whether journalists should continue interviewing Kellyanne Conway or not. Here is the response I sent him:
Networks should *absolutely* quit interviewing Conway. While it is common for most politicians and their surrogates to try and spin anything negative or controversial to minimize any repercussions, Conway – and to a great extent Sean Spicer – take it to new levels of malignancy, creating false scenarios and impressions that will far outlive any effect a correction might have.
The problem with giving Conway more airtime is that she never contributes anything to understanding a situation, policy or action. Her comments serve only to mislead the American people. Given that the goal of journalism is to expose and clarify the truth, journalists have an obligation to avoid spreading information that seeks to confuse or mislead the public. Since this is essentially the only think Conway does, interviewing her actively thwarts the purpose of journalism and violates the duty of the journalist.
I have little doubt, for example, that within a couple of months – if not sooner – well be hearing from conservative extremists (a better description of what they are than ” alt-right” which really doesn’t mean anyrhing) about the Bowling Green Massacre and how it was so thoroughly covered up to avoid making “Muzzies” look bad that you can hardly find any coverage of it at all.
The proffered excuses for her “mistake” make no sense. The first one I heard was that she meant “Bowling Green terrorists,” but she had called the two men the “masterminds” of the massacre – saying they were the “masterminds of the Bowling Green terrorists” makes no sense, since they were the only two involved. Calling someone a mastermind implies that the person came up with the idea for a larger group. You just don’t call *every* member of a group the “masterminds.” And aying, as she said later, that they were the masterminds behind a Bowling Green massacre plot is even more ridiculous since no such plot existed.
Continuing to give Conway a platform only rewards her for her lies and gives Trump’s followers an excuse to dismiss concerns about his actions, policies and beliefs. Given the administration’s complete disregard for the truth, journalists should be doing all they can to counter the spin, not help spread it.