Trump 31: Parody of a Presidency

[onekidanddone]

Didn't he try to start Infrastructure week several times already? If anybody could use better Infrastructure it would be orange shit stain. His house of cards is blowing in the wind like his yellow hair.

[fraurosena]

If anyone is interested in that report that has got the presidunce's knickers all in a knot, you can read it in this article:

Read the inspector general report used to justify firing Andrew McCabe

Quote

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz just released a long-awaited watchdog report reviewing former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s conduct before the 2016 presidential election.

The report reviews McCabe’s decisions to leak internal deliberations about an investigation to the Clinton Foundation investigation. The Justice Department cited Horowitz’s findings in explaining why they fired McCabe one day before his retirement in March.

Though the IG report is being dropped in the context of a feud between President Donald Trump and his own FBI and Justice Department, it long predates that feud. Horowitz was appointed DOJ’s inspector general back in 2012, under President Barack Obama. He has a good reputation, and IGs traditionally operate with a good amount of independence from their department leaders, serving as watchdogs of sorts.

He opened this review about a week before Trump was sworn in, and many of the complaints he announced he’d look into were loudly voiced by Democrats at the time. (The report has no connection to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Further installments of the report will likely examine Comey’s own conduct in 2016.)

So the IG report isn’t just a plot by Trump to delegitimize the FBI — though the president will likely try to use it for that end. Its release comes after Trump has fired Comey, publicly campaigned for McCabe’s firing, publicly berated Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and tried to co-opt the Justice Department more broadly.

It also comes as Comey has embarked on a nationwide tour to promote his new book. You can read the full report below

[scrollable report]

 

[Howl]

54 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Didn't he try to start Infrastructure week several times already?

Well, yes, that's the joke.  The WH  repeatedly claimed there would be a big Infrastructure Week and then it wouldn't happen.  As noted in the article above, “infrastructure week” ― Washington shorthand for times when the White House has attempted to set a coherent message, only to see it descend into bedlam.

I kept seeing Infrastructure Week referenced in Rick Wilson tweets, and realized that it was an inside joke; with this administration, every week is Infrastructure Week, as defined above. 

[fraurosena]

Tweets have consequences.

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Well, yes, that's the joke.  The WH  repeatedly claimed there would be a big Infrastructure Week and then it wouldn't happen.  As noted in the article above, “infrastructure week” ― Washington shorthand for times when the White House has attempted to set a coherent message, only to see it descend into bedlam.

I kept seeing Infrastructure Week referenced in Rick Wilson tweets, and realized that it was an inside joke; with this administration, every week is Infrastructure Week, as defined above. 

More like infrastructure weak

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Tweets have consequences.

 

Is this related to the Comey trashing?

[GreyhoundFan]

[JMarie]

Why isn't Trump playing golf right now, and why the frick-frack is he on TV talking about Syria?

[onekidanddone]

He just bombed Syria cuz he is a big boy with big boy toys. I caught the last few minutes and listed to him slur his words, sounded like he was talking in a medicated haze.

He thinks this will up his approval rating and distract us from the shit show that is his lawyer. I also expect he may catch some hell from Ann Couter and such.

[JMarie]

34 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

He just bombed Syria cuz he is a big boy with big boy toys. I caught the last few minutes and listed to him slur his words, sounded like he was talking in a medicated haze.

He thinks this will up his approval rating and distract us from the shit show that is his lawyer. I also expect he may catch some hell from Ann Couter and such.

At least he didn't throw in stuff about The Wall and how well he did in the election.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s miserable crew has never been so desperate"

Spoiler

These are desperate times for the quislings of Trump. The cost of collaborating with President Trump in the continued debasement of American democracy is becoming far too high. Fifteen months into his presidency, Trump has seen a national security adviser, a former campaign chairman, a foreign policy adviser and another high-ranking campaign official face charges of serious crimes. This Last week, the president must have felt the walls closing in even more tightly around him when FBI agents searched the home, office and hotel room of his longtime personal lawyer, whom associates call Trump’s “fixer.”

The president’s response to the Michael Cohen search, duly authorized by an independent federal judge, was to reflexively trash law-enforcement officers, undermine the rule of law and slander a Vietnam War hero who has committed his adult life to the service of America. By now, of course, few should be surprised by the depths to which Trump sinks when attacking law enforcement personnel. But this last week provided insight into just how desperate Trump and his courtiers have become in their defenses of an indefensible administration. The president promoted a Fox News show via Twitter that starred a steady stream of sycophants who slandered special counsel Robert S. Muller III.

Mueller, who led a Marine rifle platoon in Vietnam, has been awarded a Bronze Star, two Navy commendations, a Purple Heart and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. After being shot through the leg, the young Princeton grad continued leading his troops in battle. Later he would continue his service in Vietnam even after he was given the opportunity to go home.

Such bravery and dedication to the United States could never have been shown on the battlefield by the miserable crew who lined up to attack the special counsel.

Despite playing tennis, golf and football during his college days, Trump took five deferments, four for college and one for bone spurs in his feet. On the day Trump graduated from college, 40 Americans were killed in Vietnam.

Newt Gingrich, who went on Fox News and compared “the American FBI” to Joseph Stalin and Nazis, also did not serve. And Joe DiGenova, who now spends his days sliming law-enforcement officers who investigate crimes in Washington, took student deferments, even admitting in 2003 that anyone who did the same should seriously consider never seeking public office “when you didn’t serve, when you had a chance to.”

And yet, DiGenova, Gingrich and Sean Hannity — beneficiary of the president’s Twitter news promo — seem all too comfortable attacking an American war hero who has spent his life honorably serving this country in times of war and peace. In fact, Mueller’s record has been so spotless that none other than Gingrich himself tweeted 11 months ago, “Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity. Media should now calm down.”

What a difference a year makes. Gingrich has now joined the chorus of collaborators attacking Mueller. Since most Republicans on Capitol Hill agree with Gingrich’s earlier assessment of Mueller’s exemplary character, one wonders how GOP senators and conservative representatives will respond to these latest desperate and despicable attacks.

Even the most terrified politician must know that Trump and his stooges have reason to be rattled. And an ABC News-Washington Post poll shows that almost 7 in 10 Americans want Mueller to continue his investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Sixty-four percent support the special counsel’s investigation into Trump’s past business dealings. And nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that the special counsel must continue investigating Trump’s payoff to women for the purpose of keeping them quiet during the 2016 election.

Regardless how Mueller’s investigation ends, Trump will one day leave Washington. And when he does, the steady stream of attacks on Justice Department professionals, FBI agents and all the honorable men and women who daily defend Americans against enemies foreign and domestic will forever stain the reputations of Trump’s most shameless apologists. All this for a man who has spent decades showing loyalty to little else but his ravenous pursuit of money and fame.

 

[samira_catlover]

52 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Why isn't Trump playing golf right now, and why the frick-frack is he on TV talking about Syria?

Dear blessed Goddess, I'd set up and support a GoFundMe if I knew HOW, to keep that damned fool busy and AWAY from public policy....

[GreyhoundFan]

Dana Milbank calls this the Tinder presidency: "How does Trump fill his Cabinet? He picks his latest crush."

Spoiler

At his confirmation hearing this last week, Mike Pompeo, President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of state, gave a six-minute opening statement that made no mention of Russia, China, North Korea, Syria or Iran. Here is what Pompeo did say:

“I’m a movie buff. I have a soft spot for my golden retrievers. I love meatballs. . . . I love Revolutionary War history, country music, show tunes and college basketball.”

I half-expected him to say he also likes long walks on the beach, Sunday trips to the farmers market, and cuddling up in front of Netflix.

I wondered: Is Pompeo seeking confirmation as the nation’s top diplomat, or writing an online dating bio?

And then I wondered: Is there a difference?

Early in this second year of the Trump presidency, the administration bears an eerie resemblance to a matchmaking service. As the president cycles through advisers the way other people do contact lenses, the quality that draws him to hire is neither credentials nor competence nor even ideological compatibility but a Trumpian impulse that he has chemistry with the applicant. It’s less like OkCupid, on which people seek prospective partners, than Tinder, where people go for a hookup.

Signs of a Tinder presidency: Of the 23 officials who took the oath of office on Trump’s first weekday in office, 14 are now gone, the Post’s Philip Bump reported. That’s 61 percent. A quarter of Trump’s core Cabinet members have departed. This Last week alone, Trump’s homeland security adviser quit, as did the deputy national security adviser for strategy and the National Security Council spokesman. This came with the arrival of Trump’s third national security adviser in 15 months and his second national economic adviser.

It’s clear why. Trump’s tastes change frequently. Those who do choose to serve this president — never from the A-list of advisers — find it difficult to keep up with the loyalty it requires: not to an ideology or a party, but to an ever-changing array of presidential impulses. To use a Tinderism, Trump is here for a good time, not a long time.

James B. Comey, in his new book, likens Trump to a mob boss: “The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us- ­versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”

Comey writes about “the impostor complex,” also known as impostor syndrome: “All of us labor, to one degree or another, under the belief that if other people really knew us, if they knew us the way we know ourselves, they would think less of us.”

This has been diagnosed before. Trump’s ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, said Trump has one of “the most profound cases of impostor syndrome that has ever existed.” Because Trump’s impostor complex is the size of Trump Tower, no one can affirm all of his ever-shifting impulses. Hence Trump’s perpetual quest for his next Tinderella.

Last year, Trump swiped right — that’s Tinder talk for “yes” — on H.R. McMaster. At the time, he thought generals were sexy. He swiped left — Tinder for “no” — on John Bolton, reportedly because he didn’t like Bolton’s mustache. But then Trump’s tastes on foreign policy took a hawkish swing, and generals are notoriously prudish about starting wars. So Trump swiped right on Bolton, whose hawkishness now outweighs facial hair.

At the National Economic Council, Trump first had a crush on Goldman Sachs expertise, so he swiped right on Gary Cohn. But when Cohn disappointed Trump by disagreeing with him on trade, Trump developed a fondness for TV personalities. He swiped right on Larry Kudlow, who isn’t a trained economist but is willing to swallow his reservations about Trump’s trade policy.

At Veterans Affairs, Trump originally swiped right on David Shulkin, an Obama administration holdover; at the time cross-aisle cooperation had a certain je ne sais quoi. But after White House physician Ronny L. Jackson gave his televised briefing rhapsodizing upon Trump’s unparalleled good health, Trump swiped right on his doctor for VA.

At State, Trump originally swiped right for a wealthy businessman. But it turned out the businessman, Rex Tillerson, had opinions that clashed with Trump’s. Trump swiped left on Tillerson and swiped right on Pompeo, who has less stature but is more discreet about his disagreements with Trump.

Of course, it’s just a matter of time before Pompeo, Jackson, Kudlow and Bolton discover that they, too, can no longer satisfy the president’s latest impulse.

He’s not looking for Mr. Right. To use one of the most common lines on Tinder, he’s just “looking for a partner in crime.”

 

[fraurosena]

Damn, that’s terrible news to wake up to. 

I’ve been seeing a lot of tweets from Congressmen who, although condemning the use of chemical warfare by Assad, are questioning the legality of airstrikes on Syria without Congressional approval, as there was no precipitating attack on America.

News outlets over here are reporting that there are three people wounded and there is some material damage, but that otherwise the bombings don’t seem to have had much effect.

Begs the question, why bomb at all?

Well, because his most senior advisers told him to, of course.

 

[Destiny]

Wait. It's infrastructure week again? That explains all the scandals!

[fraurosena]

I am flabbergasted. Not only Alex Jones (like @Cartmann99 already posted in his own thread) but many more conservative allies are blasting the presidunce over the Syria bombings.

Could this mean... the end for the presidunce? 

Alex Jones: ‘Fuck Trump’ for Blasting Syria

Quote

Many of President Donald Trump’s top media allies blasted him over the decision to launch strikes against Syria on Friday.

In one major conservative media ecosystem after another, the president met opposition, and concern about the financial cost of another foreign intervention, from many of the people who are normally his most vocal cheerleaders.

On Fox News, the strike was met with heavy skepticism by several of the show’s primetime hosts. While close presidential ally Sean Hannity praised Trump’s assertiveness, hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both questioned the decision to strike.

Ingraham sparred with former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, saying she’d learned from her support of the Iraq War that intervention can be incredibly costly.

“I guess it feels good because there are horrible things happening there,” Ingraham said. “But what do we really accomplish here tonight in Syria? This is not why Donald Trump got elected."

Among conservative radio personalities, the reception was equally frosty.

Ann Coulter spent the evening retweeting criticism of the strike, remarking on Twitter that former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe might beat Trump in 2020 “if you promised no more ‘stupid wars.’”

Michael Savage, a popular conservative radio talk show personality, livestreamed himself at dinner blasting the president, saying that America had become “a nation of idiots” in the wake of the attack.

“My opinion is that this is the greatest disaster of the Trump presidency,” Savage said while pointing the camera at a plate of beans.

[Savage's tweet]

Many critics of the strikes noted Trump’s skepticism about foreign wars in general, and the Iraq war in particular, during his presidential run (even as he also pledged to “bomb the shit out of” ISIS).

“This is clearly not something he ran on, and and it’s inconsistent with a lot of things that he’s said over the years,” Carlson said on Fox News before Trump’s announcement.

Trump found even greater hostility in the far-right alternative media ecosystem online, where many of his most bombastic supporters are also staunch anti-interventionists, and have previously condemned his foreign military actions.

Infowars founder Alex Jones, a former libertarian Ron Paul supporter, launched into several conspiratorial rants about the nature of the strike, breaking down in tears and railing against Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

“Fuck Trump, and fuck these fucking people,” Jones said.

[Alex Jones' video]

Are the pundits on the right latching on to this so they can 'legitimately' stop supporting him because they are now aware of irrefutable Cohen evidence? A part of me is rather gleeful at this prospect. Another part of me is wary, because Pence. That suspicious part of me would not be surprised if the GOP and their allies are going to attempt to salvage what they can by getting rid of the presidunce and putting Pence in his place, in the belief it just might diminish the blue wave in November.

Sweet Rufus, I hope the FBI is on to Pence as well.

[fraurosena]

Was Trump’s Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining Presidential War Powers

Quote

President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.

Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria’s violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.

The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide — the president or Congress — whether the United States should attack another country.

Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?

No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country’s soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as “intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,” which is not self-defense.

Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria’s violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying, “The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response.”

However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose “measures” if anyone used chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators as punishment.

Mr. Trump’s attack was different from the United States’ bombings targeting the Islamic State in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.

Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?

Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful absent Security Council authorization.

Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO’s air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international law. Instead, it cited a list of “factors” — like the threat to peace and stability and the danger of a humanitarian disaster — without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful. In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention should not serve as a precedent.

Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?

The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large standing army instead of demobilizing.

In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of “a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense,” as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump said, “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” He also invoked the Syrian refugee crisis and continuing regional instability.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in the Bush administration, wrote that this criteria for what is sufficient to constitute a national interest was even thinner than previous precedents and would seemingly justify almost any unilateral use of force.

“The interests invoked — protecting regional security and in upholding or enforcing important treaty norms — will always be present when the president is considering military intervention,” he wrote. “Taken alone — and they are all we have here — these interests provide no practical limitation on presidential power.”

Did Trump violate the War Powers Resolution?

In 1973, at the end of the Vietnam War, Congress tried to reclaim some of its eroding authority by enacting the War Powers Resolution, overriding President Richard M. Nixon’s veto of the law. It says a president may only introduce forces into hostilities with congressional authorization or if the United States has been attacked. But, confusingly, it also requires presidents to terminate deployments after 60 days if they lack authorization, which could suggest that one-off strikes and brief operations are allowed. Presidents of both parties have acted beyond the statute’s purported constraint about when they may launch an attack, seeing it as unconstitutionally narrow.

Just because other presidents have done it, does that make it legal?

Congress has repeatedly acquiesced to unilateral military deployments by presidents, and courts have generally stayed out of disputes about them, creating an ambiguous situation that has fueled recurring debates.

On Thursday, after news broke of Mr. Trump’s attack, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, wrote on Twitter, “The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution.”

But earlier in the day, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, maintained on MSNBC that Mr. Trump would not need permission from Congress to strike Syria for using chemical weapons, citing as a precedent the Reagan administration’s 1986 airstrikes against Libya after it was linked to the bombing of a Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers.

Notably, in 2013, when President Barack Obama appeared to be on the verge of striking Syria for using chemical weapons, Mr. Trump embraced Mr. Paul’s view, writing on Twitter: “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”

What did the Obama legal team think about the legality of a Syria strike?

After Mr. Obama had warned Syria in 2012 that using chemical weapons in its civil war would cross a “red line,” his legal team produced an unsigned, 17-page memo that worked through whether he would have legal authority to strike if that happened. I described that still-secret memo in my 2015 book, “Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency.”

In the memo, the Obama legal team struggled to come up with a rationale for why a strike against Syria in such a circumstance would be lawful. It suggested pointing to Kosovo as a precedent and came up with potential “factors” to invoke, such as assessments that using force would prevent further use of chemical weapons against civilians and that not taking action would lead to “unconscionable follow‑on consequences.”

Still, while the legal team stopped short of saying it would be legally necessary, it urged Mr. Obama to seek authorization from Congress, a step he had not taken in 2011 before participating in NATO’s air war over Libya.

When Syria did cross Mr. Obama’s red line in 2013, the case his team had anticipated was weakened because NATO decided not to participate in any strike, as the earlier memo had assumed it would do. Still, Mr. Obama’s legal team said that a unilateral strike would be lawful.

In the end, Mr. Obama took its advice and asked Congress to authorize a punitive strike against Syria, even as he insisted that he had “the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.” Congress did not act on his request, and the immediate crisis was instead resolved without strikes after Russia brokered a deal in which Syria agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and give up all its stockpiles — a pledge it apparently broke.

TLDR: Although most laws and regulations would interpret the strike as illegal, there are arguments to be made to the contrary, as there are quite a few precedents wherein such 'illegal' strikes were condoned in the past. In other words, there is no clear-cut answer. 

[Howl]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

That suspicious part of me would not be surprised if the GOP and their allies are going to attempt to salvage what they can by getting rid of the presidunce and putting Pence in his place, in the belief it just might diminish the blue wave in November.

Heh.  Interesting "alt-Right as Deep State" scenario, but there must be some existential despair at the possibility of a blue wave taking over in November.  That said, I'm not totally convinced that the blue wave will happen at the tsunami level, because again, fly-over country is not being accounted for.   An amazing (to me) percentage of Republicans still support Trump, bigly. 

I'm finding these radio/TV hosts lambasting Trump over Syria fascinating; it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Which reminds me...One thing that's been in the back of my mind for awhile is the role that talk radio plays in American life and I think most of us on the left do not have any understanding of its pervasiveness and power. 

Many years ago I had a job as an archaeologist in SW Colorado.  One of the things my company did was supply archaeologists to monitor pipeline construction on Federal land, to see if trenching cut through any cultural features, which were fairly abundant in the area.  The minute lunch break came for the pipeline workers, the radios came out, tuned to Paul Harvey.  Every single day, without fail. It was ritual. 

Paul Harvey is dead and gone, but talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glen Beck, and hundreds (if not thousands) like them at the local level saturate the airwaves everyday and have immense audiences; it's a huge influence across broad swathes of rural (and to some extent, suburban) America.  You can bet that they are 100% Trump, all the time (at least until today). If you listen to that all day and come home to Fox news, you aren't going to be swayed by criticism of the President, because Fake News. 

Bear with me for a minute more.   I went for a bike ride in the country with friends on the Sunday before the 2016 election.  We drove to the little town of Bertram, TX (pop. 1,362) to start our ride. It's ranching country, for the most part, or people living in the country with a few cows to get the ag exemption on property taxes.  We parked by the lovely old elementary school and across the street, at a very modest house, there was a young woman wearing a pink Trump T-shirt, getting into her pink Jeep, with a pink Trump bumper sticker.  When I saw her, I had the weirdest sinking feeling, and a few days later I came to understand why.  It just made the strongest impression on me that most people don't live in my liberal bubble.  Of course, I first learned that when Nixon was re-elected..... 

[fraurosena]

19 minutes ago, Howl said:

Heh.  Interesting "alt-Right as Deep State" scenario, but there must be some existential despair at the possibility of a blue wave taking over in November.  That said, I'm not totally convinced that the blue wave will happen at the tsunami level, because again, fly-over country is not being accounted for.   An amazing (to me) percentage of Republicans still support Trump, bigly. 

I'm finding these radio/TV hosts lambasting Trump over Syria fascinating; it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Which reminds me...One thing that's been in the back of my mind for awhile is the role that talk radio plays in American life and I think most of us on the left do not have any understanding of its pervasiveness and power. 

Many years ago I had a job as an archaeologist in SW Colorado.  One of the things my company did was supply archaeologists to monitor pipeline construction on Federal land, to see if trenching cut through any cultural features, which were fairly abundant in the area.  The minute lunch break came for the pipeline workers, the radios came out, tuned to Paul Harvey.  Every single day, without fail. It was ritual. 

Paul Harvey is dead and gone, but talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glen Beck, and hundreds (if not thousands) like them at the local level saturate the airwaves everyday and have immense audiences; it's a huge influence across broad swathes of rural (and to some extent, suburban) America.  You can bet that they are 100% Trump, all the time (at least until today). If you listen to that all day and come home to Fox news, you aren't going to be swayed by criticism of the President, because Fake News. 

Bear with me for a minute more.   I went for a bike ride in the country with friends on the Sunday before the 2016 election.  We drove to the little town of Bertram, TX (pop. 1,362) to start our ride. It's ranching country, for the most part, or people living in the country with a few cows to get the ag exemption on property taxes.  We parked by the lovely old elementary school and across the street, at a very modest house, there was a young woman wearing a pink Trump T-shirt, getting into her pink Jeep, with a pink Trump bumper sticker.  When I saw her, I had the weirdest sinking feeling, and a few days later I came to understand why.  It just made the strongest impression on me that most people don't live in my liberal bubble.  Of course, I first learned that when Nixon was re-elected..... 

As you probably know, I'm not an American, so maybe it's a silly question, but why aren't there any 'liberal' radiostations?  Or are there, but don't they have much of a following? 

 

[Howl]

7 hours ago, Destiny said:

Wait. It's infrastructure week again? That explains all the scandals!

Which raises the question: When does one Infrastructure Week end and the next begin?

 

27 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

As you probably know, I'm not an American, so maybe it's a silly question, but why aren't there any 'liberal' radio stations?  Or are there, but don't they have much of a following? 

In my experience, National Public Radio (listener supported public radio) is the closest you'll get to neutral news or even anything with a left-leaning stance.   

[apple1]

27 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

As you probably know, I'm not an American, so maybe it's a silly question, but why aren't there any 'liberal' radiostations?  Or are there, but don't they have much of a following? 

 

We have NPR (which I would describe as middle of the road, balanced) on FM. But it's a completely different audience.

In my part of the US, every AM radio station that has any local strength is what @Howl described.

[Howl]

And another thing:  the Scooter Libby pardon.  I was reading the paper this morning, and had a WTAF moment, because with this administration, it's always all connected, so I checked online: Trump pardons Scooter Libby, former top Cheney aide (The Hill)

Quote

Libby’s case has been a cause célèbre for many of Trump’s conservative allies. His lawyer, Victoria Toensing, is married to Joseph DiGenova, who had discussed joining the president’s outside legal team in the Russia investigation. 

 

DiGenova, a former Federal prosecutor, now defends those who are dealing with Federal charges.  He's appeared on Hannity and called for the firing of Rod Rosenstein.  Politico: Attorney diGenova calls for Rosenstein to be fired

Quote

 

Former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova, who was set to join President Donald Trump's legal team, on Wednesday night called for the firing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, telling Fox News that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has an obligation to dismiss his second in command.

DiGenova joins a chorus of commentators and analysts, a group that includes Fox Business commentator Lou Dobbs and others, that is pushing the president to dismantle the investigation into possible collusion between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia...
 

..."Rod Rosenstein is so incompetent, compromised and conflicted that he can no longer serve as the deputy attorney general," diGenova told Fox News’ “Hannity” on Wednesday night.

 

 

[fraurosena]

Thanks for your responses, @Howl and @apple1.

Wouldn't it be a great opportunity then, to start a left-leaning radiostation in those areas? They mightn't have a lot of followers at first, but at least there would be an alternative narrative. And you could build up a following by having popular regional artists playing (maybe even live in the studio) on your shows, for example.

And great catch, @Howl of the DiGenova connection! Now we only need to find his ties to Russia... 

[Howl]

And yes, on the Scooter Libby pardon, there's more (there always is)! From Mother Jones 

Why the Scooter Libby Case—and Trump’s Pardon—Really, Really Matter The president is not offended by obstruction of justice. And he wants everyone to know it.

Crux paragraph:   

Quote

There was no pressing reason for Trump to revive this matter. “I don’t know Mr. Libby, but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly,” the president said in a statement. That was hardly a rousing explanation. But there is this: Libby was prosecuted by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who had been appointed as special counsel in 2003 by a deputy attorney general named…James Comey. Whatever Trump’s intent, the Libby pardon was a raised middle-finger to the fellow who has just compared Trump to a Mafia chieftain. It also sent a troubling signal that this president is not offended by those who stonewall the FBI and special counsels. Get the picture?

 

[Howl]

11 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Wouldn't it be a great opportunity then, to start a left-leaning radiostation in those areas?

There is an NPR affiliate in Cortez, CO (KSJD) that broadcasts from the local community college with mostly regular NPR programming, but 25 years ago that station had the most diverse programming I've ever heard in my life.  They'd play an hour of Mormon-related family content, and then cut to an hour of hard rock, and then switch to a wonderful program called Piano Jazz with Marian McPartland and everything in between.  Really, it was quite awesome and eclectic does not come close to describing the variety of their programming.  Sadly, it's not so eclectic these days. 

Over in Durango, CO, the local NPR affiliate  (KSUT) is in Ignacio, CO,  sponsored by the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe.  They have Native American content and the Music Blend, plus the usual NPR news shows: Morning Edition and then All Things Considered in the evening.   The hour from 8 to 9 am was birthday dedications in the form of  Native chants, and then Music Blend.    One of my favorite programs is Native America Calling, a noon-time live call-in show with a different topic each day relevant to Native Americans. There is a  host, and a guest who is knowledgeable about each day's topic.  You can google any of these stations and listen to content, live or (often) archived.  Other FJers may have their favorite local NPR stations in rural areas.  

Utah has KUER, a public radio station which is one station with numerous translators (broadcasting towers) throughout the state, so there are some tiny remote towns (predominantly Mormon) that have NPR. 

The last time I was in SW Colorado, I noticed that the little town of Dolores (pop. 900) had a commercial FM station (KKDC) playing popular/classic rock blend,  with a lot of local news added in, including broadcasts of high school sports games.  I'd say that station was fairly neutral on the news spectrum, which many would consider left leaning these days. 

So yes, even with internet and cell phones, radio is still hugely influential. 

[fraurosena]

19 minutes ago, Howl said:

There is an NPR affiliate in Cortez, CO (KSJD) that broadcasts from the local community college with mostly regular NPR programming, but 25 years ago that station had the most diverse programming I've ever heard in my life.  They'd play an hour of Mormon-related family content, and then cut to an hour of hard rock, and then switch to a wonderful program called Piano Jazz with Marian McPartland and everything in between.  Really, it was quite awesome and eclectic does not come close to describing the variety of their programming.  Sadly, it's not so eclectic these days. 

Over in Durango, CO, the local NPR affiliate  (KSUT) is in Ignacio, CO,  sponsored by the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribe.  They have Native American content and the Music Blend, plus the usual NPR news shows: Morning Edition and then All Things Considered in the evening.   The hour from 8 to 9 am was birthday dedications in the form of  Native chants, and then Music Blend.    One of my favorite programs is Native America Calling, a noon-time live call-in show with a different topic each day relevant to Native Americans. There is a  host, and a guest who is knowledgeable about each day's topic.  You can google any of these stations and listen to content, live or (often) archived.  Other FJers may have their favorite local NPR stations in rural areas.  

Utah has KUER, a public radio station which is one station with numerous translators (broadcasting towers) throughout the state, so there are some tiny remote towns (predominantly Mormon) that have NPR. 

The last time I was in SW Colorado, I noticed that the little town of Dolores (pop. 900) had a commercial FM station (KKDC) playing popular/classic rock blend,  with a lot of local news added in, including broadcasts of high school sports games.  I'd say that station was fairly neutral on the news spectrum, which many would consider left leaning these days. 

So yes, even with internet and cell phones, radio is still hugely influential. 

Although of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking over here one only listens to the radio when in the car, or when working on a construction site or otherwise outside work. There are local stations, stations that specialize in Dutch language music (decidedly not my taste), golden oldies, popular music, classical music and news/sports radio. But radio stations are never political (an exception may be the news stations, but even then the news only slightly slanted one way or the other, and it they never push for any political party).