America under President Trump

[OftenWrong]

Only the tabloid knows.

[Omni]

so Trump doesnt use his teleprompter in Phoenix and so again he sounds like nothing more that a boring high school bully. I'm sure it appeals to the IQ level of those who filled the room to support him.

[Omni]

Boy if you didn't think Trump could F it up any more than he already has, then his current speech in Phoenix will confirm that he can, and just did. 

[Omni]

Hey where's B_C when you need him. I can't wait to hear the attempts to defend Trump's latest horrendously stupid speech.

[Cum Laude]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

Boy if you didn't think Trump could F it up any more than he already has, then his current speech in Phoenix will confirm that he can, and just did. 

Tearing down statues is easy. Helping poor young  folks to get a thorough education, avoid drugs, gangs, and unwed pregnancy, and moving up into the middle class is difficult. Guess which task your Democratic/Liberal politicians choose?

[dialamah]

I am sad that I have to agree.  

[Michael Hardner]

51 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

Tearing down statues is easy. Helping poor young  folks to get a thorough education, avoid drugs, gangs, and unwed pregnancy, and moving up into the middle class is difficult. Guess which task your Democratic/Liberal politicians choose?

Both.  Republicans laissez-faire.

[Cum Laude]

Not both. Democrats have let down the poor blacks they pretend to represent. Example - Chicago - Democrat controlled since....forever. Have a nice day though.

[Michael Hardner]

The alternative is what?  No help, no funding for programs, no effort.  Everything fixes itself.

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The alternative is what?  No help, no funding for programs, no effort.  Everything fixes itself.

 

Chicago used to be America's #2 city. Detroit...#3. T'wasn't always post Gran Torino.

[Cum Laude]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

I am sad that I have to agree.  

The decline of the United States of America began long ago. In the late 19th century and early 20th century immigrants were needed for labor. They were needed to replace generations of Americans lost in the Civil War, and their lost potential progeny. A divided nation, then 2 nations, and finally one disappearing nation. What we have today is a country that’s only sources of unification are the long and deep tentacles of the state that can barely keep things together, and a depressingly banal commonality in consumption patterns, e.g., NB/NFL jerseys, iPhones, Papa John’s pizza, Crocs, Justin Timberlake downloads, Disneyworld vacations, New Era caps, advertising events masquerading as football games (NFL), and on and on. There are simply no profound bonds. No national patrimony. No hereditary bonds. Fewer and Fewer care about the nation, its institutions, its binding document, its experiment as an independent nation escaped from the clutches of both king and church, and centralized governments, and European designs. We have a country populated by comfortable imbeciles. I share no blood, no history, no ideas, no love, and no care for a great many of them. Neither they with me. The state will do everything to keep the ship steady. To force people to believe that they are one, that they must share the same ideas. I’m apathetic, I just want it all to go away. It’s a lost cause. No dignity in pretending otherwise.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

Not both. Democrats have let down the poor blacks they pretend to represent. Example - Chicago - Democrat controlled since....forever. Have a nice day though.

I think its both. There certainly aren't any Republicans/Conservatives going out of their way to change a culture that pursues wealth at all other cost, but mostly at the cost of education and health of the lower economic group while distracting them with stupid and petty issues - like bathroom bills.  Which is what you are accusing the Democrats/Liberals of, is it not?

[Cum Laude]

20 hours ago, Omni said:

Boy if you didn't think Trump could F it up any more than he already has, then his current speech in Phoenix will confirm that he can, and just did. 

You are falling hook, line, and sinker for how the oligarchs want you to think. Please wise up and leave the boring sarcasm at the door and try to understand the system that controls you.

Globalist-Oligarchs are a handful in number. Do they conspire? You bet they do. Plus they lobby governments for favorable legislation and trade agreements, they contribute to politicians, they buy them and sell them like cattle.

The objective was to put in place and maintain a multi-national regime to safe-guard multi-national investments and supply lines. This means moving factories and jobs to China and Mexico and India. Trade agreements and the WTO didn’t get there by happenstance.

As for names, for starters look to Hillary’s donor lists. Look to who goes to the Davos get-togethers. Look to the people that control the Fortune 500.

There are people in that set that make no bones about it, they call themselves “globalist”. There are publications like Economist Magazine that shill for them. The greatly enlightened bi-coastal clerisy that administer this system call themselves “cosmopolitan”. They pretend that nation-states are so yesterday, that nations are the preserve of imbeciles. They’ll find out in the fullness of time that they are wrong. They’ll learn that nations provide what they need to survive. But for the present, they act on behalf of their masters and they call the shots.

I lived my life in the belly of the corporate world. I’ve seen entire departments of skilled white-collar workers get the boots because their work was sent to India. I’ve seen people go to India to train their replacements. They do this to not get a reputation as a whiner. You’re supposed to swallow whatever shit they dole out without complaint. You want to be able to get another job. You want no problems with getting your severance payment. You want a good reference.

The Oligarchs know what they’re doing and they don’t. They’ve set up a global system of production and consumption for their own wealth and income but that is unworkable, that is upright only for the time being because of central bank and government treasury interventions.

For now the Globalist set have massively increased their wealth. It has to be noted that it was at the expense of a huge multitude of American workers. But this is not sustainable because the economy they’re created is not sustainable. 20 trillion in US federal debt is testament to this, the present day policy of NIRP and ZIRP is also, ever lengthening terms for auto leases is also. There are many indicators. All these are methamphetamine and crack-cocaine for the financial system.

Financial markets are the overlay to the real economy. If the real economy doesn’t work, then neither do financial markets.

[Cum Laude]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I think its both. There certainly aren't any Republicans/Conservatives going out of their way to change a culture that pursues wealth at all other cost, but mostly at the cost of education and health of the lower economic group while distracting them with stupid and petty issues - like bathroom bills.  Which is what you are accusing the Democrats/Liberals of, is it not?

Far left democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanual, doesn't mind making a great living collecting his salary on public dollars. Yet he cuts close to 1000 public school employees while sending his kids to private schools. The hypocrisy of the left is rich. It's too bad CNN and MSNBC don't focus on real issues.

[dialamah]

57 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

Far left democratic mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanual, doesn't mind making a great living collecting his salary on public dollars. Yet he cuts close to 1000 public school employees while sending his kids to private schools. The hypocrisy of the left is rich. It's too bad CNN and MSNBC don't focus on real issues.

Yes, many/most politicians on both sides of the aisle are hypocrites who are paid public money, and shaft the little guy.   If you think this behavior is limited to democrats, you aren't paying attention.

[Cum Laude]

53 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, many/most politicians on both sides of the aisle are hypocrites who are paid public money, and shaft the little guy.   If you think this behavior is limited to democrats, you aren't paying attention.

Oh, I'm paying attention. It's the limousine democrats who claim to work for the poor. Yet they do nothing more than court their votes.

[dialamah]

Just now, Cum Laude said:

Oh, I'm paying attention. It's the limousine democrats who claim to work for the poor. Yet they do nothing more than court their votes.

I see.  So you aren't really non-partisan:  Democrats/Liberals = bad, Republicans/Conservatives = good.  Too bad, I thought you had some interesting things to say but if you are just another "My side, right or wrong!", I'm no longer interested.

Ciao.

 

[Cum Laude]

Just now, dialamah said:

I see.  So you aren't really non-partisan:  Democrats/Liberals = bad, Republicans/Conservatives = good.  Too bad, I thought you had some interesting things to say but if you are just another "My side, right or wrong!", I'm no longer interested.

Ciao.

 

ahh, your reasoning is rather thin. I can't stnd the uniparty system, but the Dems pretend to care for the small guy, and people like you swallow it whole. Harry Reid as vehemently against illegal immigration until he realized it a majority of the illegals would vote for the Dems. I wish you had something interesting to say besides CNN pablum.

[Cum Laude]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 2:47 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Both.  Republicans laissez-faire.

I know you are a big believer in the MSM, especially CNN and MSNBC, but anyone can write up a dossier to order, which will be impossible to disprove. The MSM is largely over that farce; their new tack is “look at the difference between Trump’s scripted speeches and his rallies”. Because if he seems different reading someone else’s words from a teleprompter, that “proves” mental instability, or something.“The Russians” are over. It did not work. We are back to “Trump is mentally ill”.
I saw the exact story, not covering the content of his Afghanistan speech, but discussing the way he delivered it, in comparison to his latest rally, on two news programs. One was on PBS.
What are the odds, the reporters for each station decided, independently, to abandon the topic of the Afghanistan speech, you know, what we used to call “reporting”, and instead do opinion pieces on his style? Almost as if they were getting the order from somewhere on high.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

I know you are a big believer in the MSM, especially CNN and MSNBC, but anyone can write up a dossier to order, which will be impossible to disprove. The MSM is largely over that farce; their new tack is “look at the difference between Trump’s scripted speeches and his rallies”. Because if he seems different reading someone else’s words from a teleprompter, that “proves” mental instability, or something.“The Russians” are over. It did not work. We are back to “Trump is mentally ill”.
I saw the exact story, not covering the content of his Afghanistan speech, but discussing the way he delivered it, in comparison to his latest rally, on two news programs. One was on PBS.
What are the odds, the reporters for each station decided, independently, to abandon the topic of the Afghanistan speech, you know, what we used to call “reporting”, and instead do opinion pieces on his style? Almost as if they were getting the order from somewhere on high.

I'm not sure how the topic switched over to the MSM.  Some of what you said makes sense, some doesn't.  The tone of the two Trump speeches was markedly different, and you don't need an order "on high" to make that your first observation.  Also, you seem to have missed the laudatory and optimistic viewpoint on the latter speech.  

[Cum Laude]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure how the topic switched over to the MSM.  Some of what you said makes sense, some doesn't.  The tone of the two Trump speeches was markedly different, and you don't need an order "on high" to make that your first observation.  Also, you seem to have missed the laudatory and optimistic viewpoint on the latter speech.  

I think you comprehend where I was going. To change it a bit, it just occurred to me that eventually empires are forced into using Bernie Madoff’s techniques for managing suckers’ expectations – until the scheme collapses, of course. Madoff gave his investors tremendous “returns” on their investments when, in reality, he was simply “feeding” them back their own capital. Very Hannibal Lecter-like. So the empire steals real resources from as many as it can (some are clever and avoid this confiscation) and then “feeds” it back to them as putatively unearned “benefits”.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

What are the odds, the reporters for each station decided, independently, to abandon the topic of the Afghanistan speech, you know, what we used to call “reporting”, and instead do opinion pieces on his style? Almost as if they were getting the order from somewhere on high.

The media is big business, and as such media air time can be purchased by the highest bidder. You got enough money, you can get Wolf Blitzer et al to cover a story practically any way you want. Today the media is not about reporting news objectively without bias. It's a paid-for platform to catapult the propaganda.

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's a paid-for platform to catapult the propaganda.

There is actually a well-understood business model driving content, which involves selling ad time for ratings.  If you know of examples where news stories are produced and aired as you say, please post it.  That's not to say all the usual failings of humans and organizations don't come into play but my experience is that many people negate the obvious and transparent factors.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Trump has used his constitutional authority to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

This will drive the snowflakes and Dreamers nuts, so of course it is a great thing !

http://www.startribune.com/trump-pardons-ex-sheriff-convicted-of-defying-judge-s-order/441785213/

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is actually a well-understood business model driving content, which involves selling ad time for ratings.  If you know of examples where news stories are produced and aired as you say, please post it.  That's not to say all the usual failings of humans and organizations don't come into play but my experience is that many people negate the obvious and transparent factors.

I'm not talking about ads, I mean actual content. There are countless examples, I'm sure. The idea of paying the media to push/ promote an agenda is certainly nothing new. Why do you doubt it?

Here are some examples, a google search on "news media paid for agenda".

Foundations plan to pay news media to cover radical UN agenda
The United Nations Foundation created by billionaire Ted Turner, along with a branch of media giant Thomson Reuters, is starting to train a squadron of journalists and subsidize media content in 33 countries—including the U.S. and Britain--in a planned $6 million effort to popularize the bulky and sweeping U.N.-sponsored Sustainable Development Goals, prior to a global U.N. summit this September, where U.N. organizers hope they will be endorsed by world leaders.
The subsidy approach, U.N. Foundation's Sherinian said, was “not dissimilar” to the funding that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has provided for sveral years to the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian, to publish what amounts to sponsored news about economic development issues, including the Foundation's campaign to extirpate AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Pundit paid to push administration agenda
Government watchdogs, media groups and lawmakers are raising new questions about White House efforts to shape news coverage after revelations Friday that the administration paid syndicated pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind Act.
The story comes on the heels of an internal government report blasting the Office of National Drug Control Policy for distributing commercials that were broadcast as news reports. The Department of Education also paid a public relations firm to produce commercials last year that were aired by stations across the country as news items.

Agenda-setting theory
Agenda-setting theory describes the "ability [of the news media] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." With agenda setting being a social science theory, it also attempts to make predictions. That is, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently, the audience will regard the issue as more important. Agenda-setting theory was formally developed by Max McCombs and Donald Shaw in a study on the 1968 American presidential election. In the 1968 "Chapel Hill study", McCombs and Shaw demonstrated a strong correlation coefficient (r > .9) between what 100 residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina thought was the most important election issue and what the local and national news media reported was the most important issue.

Link

Public Opinion, the Press, and Public Policy