Friday 4th of October 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

did someone say "sexy" politics?....

Rapper Sean 'Diddy' Combs, known for collaborating with top Democrats for decades, was charged with sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and other felonies in mid-September.

Diddy allegedly hosted and recorded wild sex orgies, dubbed "freak offs", with drugged up guests and prostitutes, which apparently brings him into the same cohort with convicted sex offenders billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and film producer Harvey Weinstein.

What's Known About Diddy's Backing of Top Democrats?

"Thank you, Diddy, for hosting this town hall last night," Kamala Harris tweeted in April 2020, thanking the rapper for hosting a political event dedicated to COVID-19.

In 2020 Diddy endorsed Joe Biden and signed a letter urging the then-presidential candidate to choose a Black female running mate – a reference to Harris. Diddy also launched political organization "Our Black Party" in support of Biden and Harris in October 2020.

In November 2008 Combs took part in the "Last Chance for Change Rally" in support of then presidential candidate Barack Obama.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention Diddy interviewed both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

 

RUSSIAN PENSIONERS CALL OUT P. DIDDY

The elderly women note that the disgraced rapper had close ties with former US President Barack Obama. pic.twitter.com/CyK8OeWnpq

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) October 2, 2024

 

Could Diddy's Scandal Affect Democrats and Harris?

Republicans have not missed the opportunity to bring the Dems' cordial ties to the accused sex trafficker into spotlight. Previously, a number top Democrats came under fire for cozying up with Epstein and receiving hefty donations from Weinstein.

The politicization of the scandal has led to confusion: Donald Trump posted and then deleted a fake image of Kamala Harris with Combs.

Democrats managed to survive earlier Epstein and Weinstein scandals by denying any knowledge of wrongdoing. Democrats publicly disavowed Weinstein in 2017 and donated his campaign contributions to charities whereas Epstein's abrupt suicide in 2019 left most of questions about his connections with top Dems unanswered.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20241002/could-diddys-freak-offs-cast-shadow-on-kamala-harris-campaign-1120389113.html

 

 

Through JD Vance, Donald Trump's economic policies could outlive his reign

 

The real-time reviews from the man who picked him were effusive: "JD crushed it!" Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social page about the man running to be his vice-president. 

While not everyone will agree in quite those terms, the debate was arguably JD Vance's best moment since he accepted the Republican Party's nomination.

It's been a rocky couple of months for him since then.

His previous politically tone-deaf remarks on "childless cat ladies" resurfaced and put him on the defensive. It was seized upon by two of the most powerful childless ladies in the world when they endorsed Kamala Harris for president: Taylor Swift and Oprah.

The senator from Ohio has also repeatedly stumbled on the campaign trail and appears to struggle in bread-and-butter retail politics, as best illustrated by his awkward interaction at a donut shop.

He came into the debate less popular than the Democratic candidate, Tim Walz. 

But Walz struggled in his biggest moment. He seemed nervous from the start, stumbled over his words, and did not appear ready for prime time.

Vance, though, rewarded the trust Trump had placed in him.

He looked the part: healthy, relaxed, and surprisingly more amiable than snarky.

He was articulate and managed to communicate Trump's policies more effectively than Trump did in his own debate against Harris.

While Trump was easily goaded by Harris into defending such inane topics as the crowd sizes at his rallies, time and again, Vance deftly pulled the debate back to topics he sees as Republican strengths, like immigration.

He had some weaker moments. Vance struggled to explain the party's position on abortion rights, and his failure to acknowledge Trump's 2020 election loss suggests that he's still scared of earning the ire of the former president.

But his robust defence of Trump's position on international trade was one of the most interesting aspects of this debate.

Vance was gushing: "For the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, we're not doing it anymore. We're bringing American manufacturing back."

He's right to suggest that, on this issue, Trump has transformed American politics.

Trump's tariffs and tax cuts

For decades, America's political parties had gradually opened the country to freer international trade.

Almost all economists agree that lowering trade barriers leads to lower prices. That's a good thing for consumers.

But it's come at a destabilising cost, with many traditional American manufacturing jobs effectively moved offshore.

While American consumers, on average, might receive a small marginal benefit from a Chinese-made toaster being a couple of bucks cheaper, the American worker who loses their job when their toaster factory closes may be financially destroyed. The community that hosted that factory is hollowed out.

For the past eight years, Trump has campaigned effectively on that societal cost.

His message to the so-called "rust belt" states in the Midwest, which have felt the impacts most keenly, has been a promise to bring those jobs home.

Trump's preferred mechanism is tariffs on imports, which he slapped first on China but then extended to many other countries on a range of different goods.

Imposing a tax on those imports makes them more expensive, which is bad news for consumers buying those products but good news for American companies making the same products, because it makes it easier for them to compete.

Key trade partners were aghast the tariffs, and many implemented retaliatory tariffs on US goods. But if they were hoping Trump's defeat would see a reversion to the previous status quo, they were mistaken.

President Joe Biden has adopted a policy that seems equally sceptical of the benefits of international trade. He's continued the Trump-era tariffs on China and gone further. He's also prioritising workers over consumers.

Where the Democrats have gone even further is by directly supporting local industries with new government subsidies to support green energy projects and computer chip manufacturing.

Trump's response is to push for further corporate tax cuts for companies that make their products in the US while lobbing even higher tariffs on products coming from overseas.

It's a different mechanism, but Vance made clear that the Republicans were focused on supporting and protecting local businesses and no longer wedded to the orthodoxy of free trade leading to better outcomes.

A future MAGA flag-bearer

This election is shaping up to be extraordinarily tight. If Trump wins, his power over the party will be near absolute.

But he has said that if he loses, he doubts he'll be running again. 

hat leaves 40-year-old Vance as the frontrunner to become the standard bearer for the MAGA wing of the party. He may have previously compared Trump to Adolf Hitler, but he now has the Trump seal of approval.

While Trump's primary season success speaks to his hold on the Republican Party, it's likely that traditional conservative Republicans will attempt to wrestle back control if the party is unsuccessful this year.

Those who support neoliberal economics, like free markets and trade, want their party back. Vance might be the biggest obstacle standing in their way.

Vice-presidential debates have never seriously impacted a presidential election, and although Walz would have disappointed many with his shaky and at times bumbling performance, there was nothing so egregious that it's likely to have shifted too many votes.

What may be more significant was Vance's authoritative control of the limelight. 

A sign that with him as the flag-bearer, MAGA control of the Republican Party may outlive Trump, and with it, an America that continues to shun free trade.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-03/us-election-vice-president-debate-analysis/104425740

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

zelensky's liability....

To summarize that honest news-video: Ukraine’s leader Volodmyr Zelensky and his top lieutenants are now expecting to set up in The West (the U.S. empire) a ‘government in exile’, which, if this happens before America’s November 5th Presidential and congressional elections, could sink the Biden/Harris re-electoral campaign’s chances and maybe the entire neoconservative Democratic Party itself, because of the hundreds of billions of dollars that — under the Democratic Party’s leadership of the U.S. — has been added into the now $35 trillion+ U.S. federal debt in order to keep this particular U.S. colony, Ukraine, within the U.S. empire, of which Ukraine has been a part ever since the Democratic Party’s U.S. President Obama’s brilliantly executed February 2014 coup in Ukraine, which installed in Ukraine a rabidly anti-Russian regime. All of this information — not merely the impending defeat of NATO in Ukraine, but their stooge Zelensky’s likely imminent escape to The West (the U.S. empire) — has been, and is being, hidden from the publics, in these self-declared but fake ‘democracies’.

In the only debate between the two U.S. Vice Presidential candidates, which occurred on 1 October 2014, even the very word “Ukraine” did not appear — the questioners (the two hosts) excluded it from the ‘debate’. Also excluded from the ‘debate’, by the questioners, was the word “Gaza,” though the Democratic candidate did mention it on one occasion, referring to “ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” And, of course, he avoided giving any indication that the ongoing ethnic cleansing — if not genocide — to get rid of the 2.3 million Gazans, is being carried out by Israeli troops with tens of billions of dollars in U.S. weapons and satellite intelligence that has been donated by U.S. taxpayers to Israel’s Government, and which operation both of America’s political Parties endorse and have never made America’s supply of these weapons and intelligence conditional upon the termination of that ethnic-cleansing or even genocide operation. So, this actual U.S.-and-Israel ethnic-cleansing and-or genocide in Gaza was ignored even by that Vice Presidential candidate who hypocritically used the anodyne phrase “ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” and the American audience are therefore left none the wiser about what ‘our’ Government is actually doing to Gazans and why. And, of course, the questioners did uncritically embed into their questions the standard lies by the U.S. Government, such as by saying “the U.S. still considers it [Iran] the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world,” though the fact is that virtually all Islamic terroism throughout the world is carried out by Sunni fundamentalists and not at all by Shia Muslims, and none by Iranians. So, it’s just one lie after another that the U.S. empire’s media spread to their audiences, as being instead credit-worthy facts, which are embedded even into the very questions that are being discussed. And, of course, the word “Palestinians” (and “Palestine” etc.) was likewise never even once mentioned in the entire nearly two-hour ‘debate’. So: what is there to choose between, when it is merely Democratic Party neoconservatives versus Republican Party neoconservatives (such as in the then Republican-led lie-based invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003)?

As regards the one-and-only U.S. Presidential candidates’ ‘debate that occurred on September 10th between Trump and Harris, I had personally suggested to the main questioner, David Muir, eight hours before that debate, the following question:

“Might it be worth a preemptive blitz nuclear attack against Russia &/or China if that’s what’s needed in order for the U.S. to retain its position as the most powerful nation?”

It was not asked.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/10/02/censoring-the-truth-out-of-the-news/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.