Home Main Forums DNC/Third-way/Leaks/Crimes & Misdemeanors (Did anyone else see this?) John Podesta joins The Washington Post as a contribu

  • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
    Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

    (Did anyone else see this?) John Podesta joins The Washington Post as a contribu

    John Podesta joins The Washington Post as a contributing columnist

    By WashPostPR February 23
    The Washington Post today announced that John Podesta will join the Opinion section as a contributing columnist. Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, will provide commentary and analysis on the intersection of politics and policy, the Trump administration and the future of the Democratic Party.

    “No one knows more about how Washington works, how the White House operates, and how policy ideas are translated into reality than John Podesta,” said Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. “His long experience in Congress, inside two Democratic White Houses and on the front lines of numerous presidential campaigns, will offer readers vital insight into Washington and politics at the start of a new era.”


    Cheshire smile

    MrMickeysMom, OzoneTom, The Crone and 2 othersdreamnightwind, Enthusiast like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
24 replies
  • 8 months ago #1
    • StupidRedhead (2246 posts)
      Profile photo of StupidRedhead Banned

      1. yep, saw it.

      There is also a Brian Podesta, a Jane Podesta and a Don Podesta all affiliated with the Washington Post.

      • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
        Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

        3. Did you post on it? If this is a dupe, I'll delete. But I coudn't find it

        anywhere. But I could have easily missed it. Except for the past few days I don’t spend much, if any, time posting here. Or reading for that matter. It takes about a month for this site to load on my computer and I often spend more time waiting than reading.



        • StupidRedhead (2246 posts)
          Profile photo of StupidRedhead Banned

          4. No, I didn't post on it here. It was a video blogger

          discussing it along with the rest of the Podesta family and their connections to the WAPO and other organizations.

          • Mom Cat (14367 posts)
            Profile photo of Mom Cat Donor

            5. I missed that. The whole clan, huh?

                 NEVER FORGET      BERNIE WON!          
            • StupidRedhead (2246 posts)
              Profile photo of StupidRedhead Banned

              6. Not the entrie clan, but several of them.

          • FanBoy (7985 posts)
            Profile photo of FanBoy

            10. I didn't know about the others; I'd guess the reason = WAPO = intel hx =

            Podesta clan = same background


    • Enthusiast (10167 posts)
      Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

      2. Good! Now we can trust the editorial content.


      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat, 1848
      • The Crone (3157 posts)
        Profile photo of The Crone Banned

        7. Bwhahahaha! n/t

        "Let us not seek the Republican answer nor the Democratic answer but the right answer." John F. Kennedy   America is the only country that has real   lemons in its furniture polish, and artificial lemon flavoring  in its lemonade!
    • OzoneTom (860 posts)
      Profile photo of OzoneTom Donor

      8. I remember seeing it a while back in another forum

      But it makes sense in this one — so many decent notices scroll down between visits in the main forums on busy days.

      BTW, welcome to JPR — I’ve read many of your contributions at c99p!

      Pleased to have matching hands and feet.
      • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
        Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

        9. Hi. Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I missed the story actually when it

        first broke. It made me laugh because it isn’t like it wasn’t pretty obvious that the WP was in the bag for the Clinton Creature even before the primary. and eventually they didn’t even try to hide it, like with that Capehart kerfuffle. Podesta was one of the biggest stinkers in Clinton’s entire campaign staff. That act alone says the WP isn’t really interested in honest journalism.

        We seem to have gone so far down the rabbit hole I don’t know if any of it even matters anymore. The inmates truly are running the asylum and they don’t even give a damn that we know that they think we’re ‘expendable’.  They would truly love to cull the herd, so to speak.


        EDIT: Clint/Clinton






        • FanBoy (7985 posts)
          Profile photo of FanBoy

          11. culling the herd would drive up the price of labor. better to just further

          impoverish us by sucking our blood, but keep us alive through the process.

          also provides jobs “helping the suffering masses” for their enablers in the top 10%

          • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
            Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

            12. Culling the herd would make one of their lifelong dreams come true, killing off

            all the ‘useless eaters’ they can.

            • FanBoy (7985 posts)
              Profile photo of FanBoy

              13. except it drives up the price of labor; unless you think the real 'useless

              eaters’ are going to clean their own toilets and sewers and build their own planes.

              oh, yeah, robots will do it all

              and who’s going to build them?

              other robots in an infinite regress


              contrary to the ‘biz press’ there’s still quite a bit of real work done by labor


              • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
                Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

                14. Where did you ever get the idea that I said that they'd eliminate EVERYBODY but

                their own kind? Now you’re going to extremes. They will always keep enough prols around to do the dirty work and the prols will do it to survive.


                • FanBoy (7985 posts)
                  Profile photo of FanBoy

                  15. as i said; fewer proles drives up the price of labor. supply demand thing

                  I didn’t say anything about eliminating labor

                  you said it; I said reducing the supply of labor drives up the price of labor

                  • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
                    Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

                    17. They're inventing their own labor. They've got machines flipping burgers now.

                    And if it’s so important to you that you need win an argument based on something that was never said in the first place, go ahead and enjoy. I even tried explaining to you that:

                    They will always keep enough prols around to do the dirty work and the prols will do it to survive.

                    Since that wasn’t good enough, and to let this poor dying horse be laid to rest, we’ll say YOU WIN!!! I bow down to your superior knowledge and ability to turn entire remarks into something that was never said.

                    P.S,. This might help you in the future.

                    select from a large quantity; obtain from a variety of sources.
                    “anecdotes culled from Greek and Roman history”
                    synonyms: select, choose, pick, take, obtain, glean
                    “anecdotes culled from Greek history”
                    a selective slaughter of wild animals.

                    To ‘cull the herd’ doesn’t mean kill off everything, it means to keep the number down to a ‘manageable’ level.

                    Now, have you got anything of note to contribute on the subject of John Podesta and the WP?

                    EDIT: Added question mark

                    • FanBoy (7985 posts)
                      Profile photo of FanBoy

                      18. Labor that's "manufactured" by capital offers no profit, but don't let your

                      lack of comprehension of the argument interfere with your condescension.

                      • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
                        Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

                        19. What a ridiculous assertion. Those robots DO end up paying for themselves.

                        Robots don’t ask for raises. They don’t need health insurance. They don’t demand paid vacations or sick pay or any other benefits. They’re not late for work. They don’t report workplace violations. Robots are a win-win for the business owner. And once they’re all in place all you need is one or two people for maintenance.

                        Learn to think son. Take into consideration the WHOLE PICTURE, not just your need to act like you know what you’re talking about. Stating that automation offers no profit to a business owner is so wrong it should be embarrassing. Anyway, it would be for most people.

                      • FanBoy (7985 posts)
                        Profile photo of FanBoy

                        20. capital pays full price for a robot made by other capitalists.

                        learn to think yourself.

                      • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
                        Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

                        21. And once they're paid for all that needed is maintenance. No healthcare

                        coverage, no raises, no benefits or vacation, no worries about OSHA and other government organization that monitor safety just to name a few items . They’re a corporatists wet dream.

                        Robots won’t just take our jobs – they’ll make the rich even richer                                                                          ]Robotics and artificial intelligence will continue to improve – but without political change such as a tax, the outcome will range from bad to apocalyptic



                        If Robots Take Our Jobs, What Will Humans Do All Day By Erin Wildermuth

                        Shifts in our economy accompanied every one of these technologies. The mass use of robot labor, however, would revolutionize many countries. Forget about losing jobs to Mexico or China. Forget about older workers staying employed, illegal immigrants or the shift to a service economy. Robots — efficient, complacent robots that don’t take lunch breaks, don’t ask questions and don’t require a paycheck — would perform nearly every low-income job. Any attempt to legislate against the robots would be akin to Bastiat’s famous farce where candlestick makers demand the sun be blocked to protect their industry.

                        The beginning stages of this revolution are already in motion. Many manufacturing companies have started using automated machines. Slaughterhouses are slated to follow in their footsteps. Individual, electronic menus and credit-card machines are being used alongside waiters in bars and restaurants. Lowe’s, Target and Amazon are just a few of the companies experimenting with robots in positions traditionally held by people. The Bank of England’s chief economist predicts that robots will replace 80 million US workers over the next 20 to 30 years.

                        What would be the economic outcome of this new paradigm? Production would boom. Prices would certainly fall. But the unemployed would not be able to afford even the least lavish of luxury goods. Some economists argue that the labor market would respond as it always has: A booming cycle of creative destruction will see robots replace workers in some jobs while new jobs in different sectors are created for displaced human workers.

                        Others are not so sure. Dr. Nils Nilsson of Stanford University worries that our increasingly intelligent and precise robot class will eat up not only current jobs but also many of the new jobs they create. Massachusetts Institute of Technology business researchers Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue that this is already happening. Throughout much of the Industrial Age economy, they posit, productivity and wages have risen together. Since around the 1980s, productivity has risen while incomes remain stagnant. They postulate that this decoupling — often blamed on the rise of China, immigration and free-trade policies — is in fact the result of a second Machine Age.


                        What is wrong with people like you? Is it because you have yours that you don’t give a damn about anyone else? Is it because you are invested someway in the success of robotics replacing humans? Or are you one of those, who like millions of others, were stupid enough to believe Clinton when he said we would become a wealthy nation based on a SERVICE ECONOMY??? You see how that worked out, don’t ya?

                        Oh, and who is going to make those robots???? Why other robots, of course.

                        Here’s the best advice you’ve had in a long time. You really need to quit making smart ass remarks about other people’s intelligence because it is blazingly obvious that MENSA isn’t beating down YOUR door to get you to sign up.

                      • AmandaMatthews (100 posts)
                        Profile photo of AmandaMatthews

                        22. …

                        The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It’s Automation.


                        When Greg Hayes, the chief executive of United Technologies, agreed to invest $16 million in one of its Carrier factories as part of a Trump deal to keep some jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to Mexico, he said the money would go toward automation.

                        “What that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs,” he said on CNBC.

                        Take the steel industry. It lost 400,000 people, 75 percent of its work force, between 1962 and 2005. But its shipments did not decline, according to a study published in the American Economic Review last year. The reason was a new technology called the minimill. Its effect remained strong even after controlling for management practices; job losses in the Midwest; international trade; and unionization rates, found the authors of the study, Allan Collard-Wexler of Duke and Jan De Loecker of Princeton.

                        Another analysis, from Ball State University, attributed roughly 13 percent of manufacturing job losses to trade and the rest to enhanced productivity because of automation. Apparel making was hit hardest by trade, it said, and computer and electronics manufacturing was hit hardest by technological advances.

                        Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers — particularly men without college degrees doing manual labor — have not recovered.


                        The changes are not just affecting manual labor: Computers are rapidly learning to do some white-collar and service-sector work, too. Existing technology could automate 45 percent of activities people are paid to do, according to a July report by McKinsey. Work that requires creativity, management of people or caregiving is least at risk.



                        Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t (yet)
                        By Michael Chui, James Manyika, and Mehdi Miremadi


                        In manufacturing, for example, performing physical activities or operating machinery in a predictable environment represents one-third of the workers’ overall time. The activities range from packaging products to loading materials on production equipment to welding to maintaining equipment. Because of the prevalence of such predictable physical work, some 59 percent of all manufacturing activities could be automated, given technical considerations. The overall technical feasibility, however, masks considerable variance. Within manufacturing, 90 percent of what welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers do, for example, has the technical potential for automation, but for customer-service representatives that feasibility is below 30 percent. The potential varies among companies as well. Our work with manufacturers reveals a wide range of adoption levels—from companies with inconsistent or little use of automation all the way to quite sophisticated users.

                        Manufacturing, for all its technical potential, is only the second most readily automatable sector in the US economy. A service sector occupies the top spot: accommodations and food service, where almost half of all labor time involves predictable physical activities and the operation of machinery—including preparing, cooking, or serving food; cleaning food-preparation areas; preparing hot and cold beverages; and collecting dirty dishes. According to our analysis, 73 percent of the activities workers perform in food service and accommodations have the potential for automation, based on technical considerations.

                        Some of this potential is familiar. Automats, or automated cafeterias, for example, have long been in use. Now restaurants are testing new, more sophisticated concepts, like self-service ordering or even robotic servers. Solutions such as Momentum Machines’ hamburger-cooking robot, which can reportedly assemble and cook 360 burgers an hour, could automate a number of cooking and food-preparation activities. But while the technical potential for automating them might be high, the business case must take into account both the benefits and the costs of automation, as well as the labor-supply dynamics discussed earlier. For some of these activities, current wage rates are among the lowest in the United States, reflecting both the skills required and the size of the available labor supply. Since restaurant employees who cook earn an average of about $10 an hour, a business case based solely on reducing labor costs may be unconvincing.

                        Retailing is another sector with a high technical potential for automation. We estimate that 53 percent of its activities are automatable, though, as in manufacturing, much depends on the specific occupation within the sector. Retailers can take advantage of efficient, technology-driven stock management and logistics, for example. Packaging objects for shipping and stocking merchandise are among the most frequent physical activities in retailing, and they have a high technical potential for automation. So do maintaining records of sales, gathering customer or product information, and other data-collection activities. But retailing also requires cognitive and social skills. Advising customers which cuts of meat or what color shoes to buy requires judgment and emotional intelligence. We calculate that 47 percent of a retail salesperson’s activities have the technical potential to be automated—far less than the 86 percent possible for the sector’s bookkeepers, accountants, and auditing clerks.

                        As we noted above, however, just because an activity can be automated doesn’t mean that it will be—broader economic factors are at play. The jobs of bookkeepers, accountants, and auditing clerks, for example, require skills and training, so they are scarcer than basic cooks. But the activities they perform cost less to automate, requiring mostly software and a basic computer.



                      • FanBoy (7985 posts)
                        Profile photo of FanBoy

                        23. …

                        you don’t get it and your sources explain why

                        as do your nasty personal attacks

                        no profit in machines simply ‘paying for themselves’

                        and ps: most low-wage jobs don’t have health care, vacations, or any of the other perks you list

    • Post Removed (854 posts)
      Profile photo of Post Removed Donor

      16. Well why would they? When supposed berie supporters don't want you to

    • MrMickeysMom (1743 posts)
      Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

      24. Time to mention Panama Papers, tying the Podesta Group…

      ‘Panama Papers’ Implicate Client of Clinton-Linked Lobbying Firm
      I know Amanda already read it, as evidenced by her excellent comments at the bottom…

      Podesta Group registered to lobby for bank subsidiary weeks before tax haven leak

      Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif