|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Also, I'll ask Trump supporters a question that I want answered honestly. If he has another week like he did after the 2nd debate, can he survive it? I thought he was fine during the debate, but it's been a brutal post-debate. He could not have handled it any worse. I guess I've been out in the woods too much lately, I completely missed there was a second debate.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
Dude, you do know you are in love with the elitist of the elite right.. He's merely playing to his audience. and you're believing it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,741
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,741 |
Get that Grizzly paw out of your ear, listen up and pay attention.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
I am happy you will be voting Ted, good show. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Gotta love the Press. I have been noticing all weekend when
someone is speaking in favor of Trump, the Press refers to them
as "Trump Surrogates".
When they are speaking in favor of Hillary, they are referred to
as "Clinton Allies".
The obvious slant just never ends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
Gotta love the Press. I have been noticing all weekend when
someone is speaking in favor of Trump, the Press refers to them
as "Trump Surrogates".
When they are speaking in favor of Hillary, they are referred to
as "Clinton Allies".
The obvious slant just never ends. I've been hearing trump Surrogates and Clinton Surrogates.. I don't know what you've been listening too.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
Here's another one of the Wikileaks attacks on Clinton http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikil...-breaking-news/I honestly don't know if I should believe this stuff from Wiki or not
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Very interesting.
Wiki has always had the proof of what they say and they claim to have the proof on this too.
WikiLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.
Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.
Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.
WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested:
The Reagan administration officials hoped to secure the release of several U.S. hostages, and then take proceeds from the arms sales to Iran, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.
Sounds familiar?
In Obama’s second term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly to the Libyan rebels, in an effort to topple the Libyan/Gaddafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria in order to fund Al Qaeda, and topple Assad in Syria.
Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria.
Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.
In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Your pagan deity, Ronald Reagan, funded the Muhajadeen which lead to the rise of Osama Bin Laden. How come no one wants to crucify Reagan? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
1) Reagan is dead.
2) He Served 2 terms already.
If he was still alive and would be able to run for a third term do you not think that information would be used against him? Of coarse it would, so why should Hillary be exempt?
Also...two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Reagan did support them AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION and won.
Those boys went bad under Clinton.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
I've taken the time to read a number of stories on this subject. Most of it seems to say that she armed those that were fighting against those that we found objectionable. Which is the oldest trick in the book,, The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend. Works. Until the friend becomes an enemy also, then all hell breaks loose.
So if she was part of the group that sold or gave arms to who she and her people viewed as friends, then they turned out to not be friends, I'm not sure there is any reason to crucify her. We've (the USA) have been doing it for years..
This is playing out because she's running for President and this Julian Assange seems to have it in for her.
Anyway, You'd have a hard time tell me that the FBI and CIA weren't aware of this stuff.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Reagan did support them AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION and won.
Those boys went bad under Clinton.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Supreme Court refuses to rehear immigration case WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to reconsider President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's immigration system following a tie vote in June that blocked its implementation. In practical terms, the 4-4 vote doomed for the remainder of Obama's presidency his goal of providing protection to more than 4 million undocumented parents whose children already have such protection. Even if the Supreme Court had agreed to rehear the case and ultimately ruled in its favor, it would not have happened until 2017 or even 2018, long after Obama had left office. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...calia/91246566/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess.. General comments, not necessarily about the article you linked to: You have to differentiate between what Julian Assange says/what Wikileaks releases and other sites' interpretations of what he says/releases. Sometimes there's a difference. As far as I know, Wikileaks has a perfect track record of getting things right; this is something that Julian Assange has bragged about and I've yet to come across something that disproves that. That doesn't stop some sites that are completely independent from Assange/Wikileaks from sometimes taking liberties with the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess.. General comments, not necessarily about the article you linked to: You have to differentiate between what Julian Assange says/what Wikileaks releases and other sites' interpretations of what he says/releases. Sometimes there's a difference. As far as I know, Wikileaks has a perfect track record of getting things right; this is something that Julian Assange has bragged about and I've yet to come across something that disproves that. That doesn't stop some sites that are completely independent from Assange/Wikileaks from sometimes taking liberties with the facts. Like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,684
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,684 |
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/trump-foundation-money.html State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York By STEVE EDEROCT. 3, 2016 The office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has issued a “notice of violation” to Donald J. Trump’s foundation, ordering it to immediately stop soliciting donations in New York. The letter, which was sent on Friday and released on Monday morning by Mr. Schneiderman’s office, said that its charities bureau had determined that the Donald J. Trump Foundation had been fund-raising in New York this year when it was not registered to do so under state law. “The Trump Foundation must immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York,” wrote James Sheehan, the chief of the charities bureau. Mr. Trump’s foundation has come under increasing scrutiny amid questions about his fulfillment of large charitable pledges and his lack of financial support in recent years. The foundation’s compliance with the rules that govern nonprofit groups has also been a concern. The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Trump’s foundation does not show up on the charity registers in many states and The Washington Post subsequently reported that the foundation did not have the certification necessary to solicit money in New York. “While we remain very concerned about the political motives behind A.G. Schneiderman’s investigation, the Trump Foundation nevertheless intends to cooperate fully with the investigation,” Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, said in a statement on Monday. “Because this is an ongoing legal matter, the Trump Foundation will not comment further at this time.” Mr. Trump has previously deflected criticism about his charitable giving, saying he makes contributions personally and that he has been supportive of his foundation. Mr. Schneiderman’s office is investigating Mr. Trump’s foundation to determine if it is in compliance with state laws, including how it spends its money. In the letter, his office provided notice to Mr. Trump’s foundation that within 15 days it must provide certain documents required to be filed by organizations that solicit contributions, including audited financial statements and annual financial reports. It also must file any “delinquent reports” for past years within that time frame. “The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports” with the charities bureau, Mr. Sheehan said, “shall be deemed a fraud upon the people of the state of New York.” Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat and a supporter of Mr. Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, has also asserted in a separate pending case that Mr. Trump defrauded students who participated in Trump University, his for-profit educational program.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,741
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,741 |
I say you believe the crap you hear from both sides then make your choice about which one SUCKS the least be honest and open about both sides since they both suck.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess.. General comments, not necessarily about the article you linked to: You have to differentiate between what Julian Assange says/what Wikileaks releases and other sites' interpretations of what he says/releases. Sometimes there's a difference. As far as I know, Wikileaks has a perfect track record of getting things right; this is something that Julian Assange has bragged about and I've yet to come across something that disproves that. That doesn't stop some sites that are completely independent from Assange/Wikileaks from sometimes taking liberties with the facts. Like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. pretty much. There's a reason most Americans don't trust mainstream media.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Yea, they went from giving us the News so we can know what is going on and make wise decisions to giving us their slant while promoting their agenda. Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
You are outnumbered by the progressive youth, women, minorities and white "bleeding heart liberals" like myself.  That is who the "Deplorables" will be fighting in the Civil War??? We better just bring bats and pitchforks because guns would look like overkill in the History books!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,481
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,481 |
What's wrong with reinvestment into future minds of America? Nothing, but you can't do it by Sanders proposals because that's not the right way. Having a socialistic program such as paying for everyone's education in the whole United States is economically unfeasible. If we did put such a plan in place there would be a slew of unintended consequences (bad ones) and I don't trust the government to run or plan anything of that size efficiently. What are those unintended consequences? I think the pros outweigh the cons/initial expenditure. The investment in the education of our younger generations will pay off in multiple ways. The more we discredit lowering the cost of education or label the discussions of free higher education as "evil socialism" the more we slam the door on our country being able to progress and grow. Plant the seeds now and enjoy the fruits later. There are TONS of unintended consequences to such a socialistic program. 1. Sharp raise in taxes to pay for programs. Just how much of a raise would remain to be seen. I don't want to make less money than I do now. 2. If taxes are raised to an all time high level that takes away the incentive to work because I'm taking home less pay. 3. Since the government is taking in higher taxes to pay for such a program and manage it, this would not be efficient and there would be shortages. This is one of the main consequences of socialist programs in nature. Once you're "paying" for a program in the way of taxes and one entity is doing central planning, it is impossible for that one government to have all knowledge at once. This is the knowledge problem. 4. Because of the knowledge problem, supply will not match demand correctly. In this case supply may mean professors, number of classes, quality of programs would slip. Also, since direct price would not be used to gauge supply\demand, you're screwed. Instead of relying on the free market, you would be leaving it up to the government to allocate money and resources properly. You really think they can do that? I've never seen them do it yet. 5. You need to read the book called "Socialism" by economist Ludwig Von Mises for more detail. None of this is meant to sound snarky, its just why I think something like this would not work well and what I've learned. These same principles can be applied to universal healthcare as well.
Find what you love and let it kill you.
-Charles Bukowski
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790 |
Deplorables... what a perfectly descriptive word
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/03/16 10:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,156
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,156 |
"Basement dwellers" is so much better!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess.. General comments, not necessarily about the article you linked to: You have to differentiate between what Julian Assange says/what Wikileaks releases and other sites' interpretations of what he says/releases. Sometimes there's a difference. As far as I know, Wikileaks has a perfect track record of getting things right; this is something that Julian Assange has bragged about and I've yet to come across something that disproves that. That doesn't stop some sites that are completely independent from Assange/Wikileaks from sometimes taking liberties with the facts. Like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. Come on, Don't forget FOX.. I mean just because they tell you what you want to hear doesn't make them any better.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
There are no new emails on wikileaks that I can find. But I did read this morning that Assange will be speaking tomorrow via video after cancelling a public appearance from the embassy balcony tomorrow for security reasons. So there might be some new released info tomorrow. Assange does this a lot. Tells you something is up, then turns up with a document proving his "something" but then the document proving things, turns out to be questionable. We'll see I guess.. General comments, not necessarily about the article you linked to: You have to differentiate between what Julian Assange says/what Wikileaks releases and other sites' interpretations of what he says/releases. Sometimes there's a difference. As far as I know, Wikileaks has a perfect track record of getting things right; this is something that Julian Assange has bragged about and I've yet to come across something that disproves that. That doesn't stop some sites that are completely independent from Assange/Wikileaks from sometimes taking liberties with the facts. Like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. Come on, Don't forget FOX.. I mean just because they tell you what you want to hear doesn't make them any better. Pit already brought up FOX, is there a point in reiterating it?
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
Yeah there is,, it's because I didn't see Pits post bringing up Fox..
I guess it's ok to bring up ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN over and over again all over the place but ohh no, don't repeat FOX news LOL
By the way, I'm not totally buying into the media bias against trump thing. I mean the guy is a loon. He does and says things (let's not forget his lunitic tweets) virtually every day that feeds this line to the media.
Then he complains how unfairly they treat him. He's a little baby.
Does MSNBC dislike Trump, Oh yeah,, They do.. Does FOX news LOVE trump,, you bet they do.
But the rest of them (maybe except CNN) pretty much just report the news as it is.
Last edited by Damanshot; 10/04/16 06:14 AM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Come on already, FOX is killing it in viewership! The people know the truth... Fox News topped the cable news rankings once again, bringing in 1.72 million primetime viewers. (Yes, Primetime) CNN came in next with 535,000 primetime total viewers. (Primetime) MSNBC followed in third with total day viewers of 316,000.(Total day) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/cable-news-ratings-q1-2015-cnn-msnbc_n_6984866.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Yeah there is,, it's because I didn't see Pits post bringing up Fox..
I guess it's ok to bring up ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN over and over again all over the place but ohh no, don't repeat FOX news LOL
By the way, I'm not totally buying into the media bias against trump thing. I mean the guy is a loon. He does and says things (let's not forget his lunitic tweets) virtually every day that feeds this line to the media.
Then he complains how unfairly they treat him. He's a little baby.
Does MSNBC dislike Trump, Oh yeah,, They do.. Does FOX news LOVE trump,, you bet they do.
But the rest of them (maybe except CNN) pretty much just report the news as it is.
It's not just about how they cover the presidential race. There's a whole different level of bias that lies deeper than that. Take the Charlotte BLM protests/riots from a couple weeks ago. I happened to follow that pretty closely on what turned out to be the worst night-- I made several posts about that starting from here: https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.ph...man#Post1159598There was much more where that came from. Now I'm not a professional journalist. I'm just a guy with a computer and an internet connection and I poked around on a search engine and social media just like anybody else here could. I had a couple different live streams up at different times and even flipped through different news channels. The way these things are usually covered will give you an idea as to what happened, but only a idea. You will hear something like "protests turn violent" but not a whole lot more detail will be given than that. Video of senseless destruction and the worst violence generally will not be shown unless it matches the world view that they are trying to push. And I know some of that video exists, because I watched some with my own two eyes and it wasn't all that hard to find. In a roundabout way, covering such an event in a full and honest way would benefit Trump on the grounds that people would see what is actually going on. Close up video shows who is doing what and there are some disturbing trends. It's hard to understand how nasty some of these events get unless you actually watch an unedited stream. I actually suspect this is why Trump does so well on internet polls and internet engagement stats. There's a much freer flow of information and stuff like this can't easily be hidden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
So you are telling me that people are tuning in to hear the bull that FOX throws out there and that makes it OK?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,480 |
Trump has benefited from Unprecedented coverage both positive and negative. He feeds off it, he brings it to himself.
Trump causes most of the negative reporting by doing completely insane things.
What idiot says in a news conference that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and he wouldn't loose a vote..
Funny thing is, he's right. He could kill someone and get away with it. What does that say about his voters?
I don't know why I bother, I'm not voting for him or hillary..
Last edited by Damanshot; 10/04/16 08:11 AM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Another humorous portrayal by the media. Type this into a search engine (without quotes; use the real word): "take that s--- to the suburbs" or "take that s--- to the suburbs youtube"
The first clip should be of the sister of Sylville Smith (young man killed by police in Milwaukee, I forget what exactly happened.) It shows a brief CNN clip of a group reciting a prayer and then a short clip of the sister pleading, "Don't bring the violence here and the ignorance here."
Fair enough. But then (not shown in the CNN clip) she goes on to yell, ".... Burning s--- down ain't gonna help nothing! Ya'll burning [censored] down that we need in our community! Take that s--- to the suburbs. Burn their s--- down! We need our s---!...."
Now look, I realize this girl lost her brother and regardless of the circumstances, that is obviously extremely hurtful and emotional. I'm not trying to pick on her. But man, think about if you lived in Milwaukee, or a suburb of Milwaukee, and you watch CNN and see an influential person calling for peace. Makes you feel pretty good, right? Well the reality is she's calling for people to burn down your neighborhood. That is a dangerous discrepancy, in my opinion.
That's just one of many examples and CNN is probably the worst about it. Same station that added 'racial' to Trump's general quotes about profiling to make them sound worse than they really were (completely different context, I think it was actually after the recent Manhattan/New Jersey bombings). Some might think that the only thing to profile on is race, but we would probably all agree that searching an old lady in a manhunt would generally not be the wisest use of limited resources, would we not? Well that is profiling based on two things, neither of which is race or color. But CNN just had to add 'racial' to Trump's general comments about profiling suspicious looking people and it wasn't an honest mistake. It was an attempt to make him look politically untenable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Trump has benefited from Unprecedented coverage both positive and negative. He feeds off it, he brings it to himself.
Trump causes most of the negative reporting by doing completely insane things.
What idiot says in a news conference that he could shoot someone of 5th ave and he wouldn't loose a vote..
Funny thing is, he's right. He could committ murder and get away with it. What does that say about his voters. His 'completely insane things' are usually saying mean things about political opponents and those who enter the political arena, after those people have insulted him first. I believe that anyone, including a presidential candidate, should be able to defend themselves from attacks, verbal or otherwise. There's also some degree of hyperbole and while this piece doesn't mention it, the part about shooting someone on 5th Avenue certainly qualifies. Scott Adams actually just wrote something along these lines. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperamentPresidential Temperament
Do you remember the time someone insulted Donald Trump and then Trump punched him in the nose?
Neither do I. Because nothing like that has ever happened.
Instead, people attack Donald Trump with words (often) and he attacks them back with words. See if the following pattern looks familiar:
1. Person A insults Trump with words. Trump insults back with words.
2. Person B mentions some sort of scandal about Trump. Trump mentions some sort of scandal about Person B.
3. Person C endorses Trump (even if they publicly feuded before) and Trump immediately says something nice about Person C. The feud is instantly over.
See the pattern?
Consider how many times you have seen the pattern repeat with Trump. It seems endless. And consistent. Trump replies to critics with proportional force. His reaction is as predictable as night following day.
The exceptions are his jokey comments about roughing up protesters at his rallies. The rally-goers recognize it as entertainment. I won’t defend his jokes at rallies except to say that it isn’t a temperament problem when you say something as a joke and people recognize it as such. (We see his rally joke-comments out of context on news coverage so they look worse.)
What we have in Trump is the world’s most consistent pattern of behavior. For starters, he only responds to the professional critics, such as the media and other politicians. When Trump responded to the Khan family and to Miss Universe’s attacks, they had entered the political arena. As far as I know, private citizens – even those critical of Trump – have never experienced a personal counter-attack. Trump limits his attacks to the folks in the cage fight with him.
And when Trump counter-attacks, he always responds with equal measure. Words are met with words and scandal mentions are met with scandal mentions. (And maybe a few words.) But always proportionate and immediate.
Does any of that sound dangerous?
What if Trump acted this way to our allies and our adversaries? What then?
Answer: Nothing
Our allies won’t insult Trump, and they won’t publicly mention any his alleged scandals. They will respect the office of the President of the United States no matter what they think of Trump. If Trump’s past behavior predicts his future, he will get along great with allies. Our allies have been fine with every president so far, and they haven’t all been perfect humans. The worst case scenario is that Trump calls some prime minister goofy. We’ll all be used to it by then, including the prime minister in question.
But what about our adversaries? It seems that Trump will get along fine with Putin. And Trump says North Korea is China’s problem. Compare that to Hillary Clinton trying to publicly emasculate Putin (with words) while talking tough about North Korea and forcing them to act tough in response. Clinton seems like the dangerous one here.
Clinton and Trump both talk tough about Iran. That feels like a tie. Trump might talk tougher, but he has a pattern of doing just that to begin any negotiation. Iranians understand negotiating. Clinton has the extra risk of being influenced into military action by lobbyist for the defense industry. That risk is hard to measure, if it exists at all.
China’s ruling party is a bunch of trained engineers who couldn’t be goaded into an over-reaction if you tried. China would expect Trump to be a tough negotiator, but that’s not a cause for war.
From the viewpoint of foreign leaders, Trump is 100% predictable. He responds with proportional force, every time, and right away. The safest situation for the world is when everyone can predict what the United States will do. You can criticize Trump for a lot of things, but he is completely predictable in this particular way.
That’s why it was easy to goad Trump into counter-attacking the Khans. That’s why it was easy to goad him into counter-attacking Miss Universe. But you know what no foreign leader will ever do to Trump?
That sort of [censored].
That stuff only happens in campaigns and in our internal politics.
And if a foreign leader tried something so classless, Trump would respond proportionately. And every American would cheer when he did. It would be a headline for one day.
The riskiest situation for the world is when our adversaries can’t predict our response. That encourages them to be adventurous. With a President Trump, foreign leaders will know that every action creates an equal and measured reaction. Every time, and right away. That’s his unbroken pattern.
With a President Clinton, foreign leaders won’t always know what they will get. For one thing, they won’t know where her allegiances are. Is she serving the people, the Democratic Party, or lobbyists? Will she react with equal force or try to be diplomatic? Uncertainty is risky. Clinton offers more uncertainty. She is complicated. Trump is simple.
I’ll wrap this up by summarizing the alleged risks of each candidate so you can see how they compare on the “scariness” dimension.
Alleged Clinton Risks
Dementia risk (because of age)
Low energy (maybe can’t perform the job)
Temperament (alleged to yell and throw things)
Might allow more terrorists into country via immigration
Influenced by lobbyists to start wars (Eisenhower warned of this)
Drinks alcohol (We don’t know how much or how often)
General brain health is questionable lately
Adversaries won’t know who she serves or how she will react.
Alleged Trump Risks
Dementia risk (because of age)
Trump is “literally Hitler” (This risk is cognitive dissonance, not real)
Con man (Sure, but we’ll be watching him closely)
Temperament (responds proportionately every time)
Race riots (Clinton’s side created this risk by framing Trump as a racist)
Inexperience (But Trump routinely succeeds where he has no experience)
If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is literally an illusion created by his opponents.
One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama has been a successful president in part because the United States was strong enough to take on massive new debt. But that situation can’t last forever. Debt is a good idea until it reaches a point where it is deadly. At the current rate of debt growth, we’re doomed in the long run. That makes the candidate of change the lowest risk, even if you think he might call a few foreign leaders dopey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790 |
Don't let those numbers fool you 40. Younger viewers tune in with phones, tablets, pcs more that TVs. Those are not in these counts. Fox news has an older audience, significantly older.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/04/16 09:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
TVs are being replaced by tablets and phones but people don't believe me. If you're young, why would you need a TV when you can just hang out with friends, go to a bar, or just watch Netflix on your phone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,790 |
Oh I know. I used to watch everything on TV. Now maybe 10%. If it weren't for my grandkids and mother-in-law visiting we'd probably do away with TVs.
And my kids own TVs but watch almost everything online. Only 1 out of 4 of them has ever had cable in their adult lives, ever... they all have internet access though. Can't live today without that.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 10/04/16 09:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Don't let those numbers fool you 40. Younger viewers tune in with phones, tablets, pcs more that TVs. Those are not in these counts. Fox news has an older audience, significantly older. Oh I am not fooled but you certainly are... Fox News Channel aired eight of the top 10 cable news series in adults 25-54 and the top 14 programs in total viewers, led once again by “The O’Reilly Factor.” On the social media front, Fox News was the No. 1 brand on Facebook for engagement, capturing 206 million likes, shares and comments during 2015, according to analytics firm Shareablee. Additionally, FNC finished as the the top brand on Twitter (8 million actions), Instagram (3 million actions) as well as Facebook in engagement among all television news outlets. http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cable-ne...ant-1201666151/
Last edited by 40YEARSWAITING; 10/04/16 09:31 AM.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Countdown to Election Day, #10
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
