DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump wants to reopen Alcatraz

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-reopen-alcatraz-prison-231829516.html


I don't have a problem with more prisons if we need them... But this place is a wreck. I have no idea what it would take to rehab it. But it's gotta be a ton. Unless he's saying, no rehab, just start using it again.. I would think the kitchen facilities are toast (no pun) and bathroom/shower facilities as well. HVAC gotta be over and done with.

So, put a prison in the desert or something, but this may be a dumb idea.

Wasn't it closed because it was too expensive to operate?

It is open. It’s operated by the National park system. You know the same Park system that the Nazi SS Elon just gutted.

I meant as a prison.

Google AI confirmed that Alcatraz was closed in the 60's because it was too costly to run/maintain. It's infrastructure was also deteriorating, making a return to service even more costly.

Yes, it was deemed too expensive to operate. Funny thing is, it brings in about $60 million a year to the park service that runs it. It's a money maker.

This thinking is why Trump keeps filing Bankruptcy. Dude can't run a business except to run it into the ground. Why on earth people thought he was the right guy to put in charge of the economy I'll never understand.

Of course it will have to be enlarged and rebuilt first....................

Trump says he will reopen 'enlarged and rebuilt' Alcatraz prison

Alcatraz Island hasn't been used as a federal penitentiary since 1963. It had a capacity of roughly 300 people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...arged-rebuilt-alcatraz-prison-rcna204743

Someone hurry up and call DOGE!

It was a piece of red meat intended to end the media discussion about Trump not having to follow his oath of office.

See Hollywood taxes as well.

Trump was getting hammered in the media, and needed to distract the media minions.

Thank you.

But did it really? The media reports on several stories at the same time. Many people can walk and chew gum at the same time. Are you trying to say that the Alcatraz story or the Hollywood story is preventing the media from reporting on his claim he doesn't know if he needs to uphold the constitution?

It seems as though you're suggesting that the media should only focus on part of what trump does and says while ignoring the rest. I understand it like keeping a scorecard at a baseball game but every at bat counts.

I read Woofers post more like this: the latest example of Trump's usual misdirection modus operandi. Flood the zone, dominate the headlines, own the narrative.

I mean, we've been seeing it for the last 15 years. Why it still seems to work is a mystery to me.

I don't think it actually works as much as trump and some others think it does. I see it as paying attention to many things at the same time not not really taking the focus off of the more important things.

I will say that it seems people don't care about the important things as much as they should. I mean trump said he didn't know if he had to defend the constitution and there are far more responses on this thread than that one. But all that goes to show is they didn't care about that even before he flooded the zone with idiocy.

For myself I think making a lot of noise about a lot of stuff lets Trump supporters like Peen and many many others tune everything out. Add in some over the top comments about Hitler, everything gets dismissed.

I think focusing on real tangible actions and the consequenses of those actions is more impactful than commenting on every dumb thing he says. Whether he's flooding the zone or just spouting dumb stuff because he can't help it .... there is literally no point on commenting or giving a very large about what he SAYS any time at all. As I said - just my perspective. However I do know from Term 1 - getting knickers in a twist about 'everything' does zero to persuade the general populace who aren't really paying that much attention.

And I do think you pointed out part of the problem which lies more in perception than reality. Firstly is that trumpian train of thought that implies just because you reported what he said means you have your "nickers in a twist". That's simply a tactic used to get you to be quiet about all the stupidity being spouted from his mouth. I do see example of what you're saying but that seems to be more of the exception to the rule than the rule itself.

But I do remember about people warning that trump was going to invoke much of Project 2025. How we should not dismiss some of the things he was saying that sounded crazy because this would be his second term and there were no longer guardrails to hold him back. How he would appoint people with very little qualifications simply because they were loyal to him. We warned about the "real tangible actions and the consequences of those actions" to come.

It turns out all of that was correct.

And the fact is when you look at the margin of victory in the presidential election, it's not " the general populace" you need to convince. It's just the ones that are paying attention. I think it's safe to say that the average American voter doesn't pay that much attention to anything newsworthy. And you say that during term one people weren't paying much attention. And yet he lost his re-election bid.

Clem understands what is going on.

Anytime they spend talking about Alcatraz or Hollywood is not spent on the more important subject of Trumps reluctance to follow the oath of Office.

Now, if you go to a right leaning media source, the Trump narrative will be about Alcatraz or Hollywood.

A left leaning media source will have more time spent on Trumps Sunday interview.

Trump provides a "buffet" of crazy fodder for the media to cover.

Stated more plainly; I suspect there was greater coverage on Fox or OAN about Alcatraz/Hollywood than on MSNBC.

To that degree I think you have a point. But let me ask you this. Do you think FOX News would concentrate more about his Sunday interview had he not have talked about Alcatraz? I mean concentrate on the important points like what he said about the constitution? You don't think they would have skirted around it anyway? What you seem to be describing is what FOX News always does as a general rule. And as a side note, do you think the average FOX News viewer is going to vote democrat anyway?

I mean I get it. He does throw out a lot of fodder for the media to feed on. And it's probably my fault for thinking that the average American voter can actually differentiate what's important and what's not. It does appear they concentrate on bright shiny objects more so than substance and importance. So after careful consideration I must concede I think you guys are right.