The Trump Crime Family
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
Yes it is important Sambuca. America is (sorry was) the leader of the free world. The nationalism of Trump will have terrible consequence.
Teasing with fucking Poutine while the world is celebrating the end of world war 1 is an absolute fuck you to the free world. It's a shame.
Do not be surprise to see the collapse of the market soon. Why? Because the market is based on the population confidence that the world is at peace. That all is calm and cool.
We all knew Trump was an ignorant bully ass hole. I so much wish he will stop proving it!
Cheers,
Teasing with fucking Poutine while the world is celebrating the end of world war 1 is an absolute fuck you to the free world. It's a shame.
Do not be surprise to see the collapse of the market soon. Why? Because the market is based on the population confidence that the world is at peace. That all is calm and cool.
We all knew Trump was an ignorant bully ass hole. I so much wish he will stop proving it!
Cheers,
I put Macron's statements in the context that France and Europe are in the midst of a transnational experience that is going horribly wrong. You, I and others can debate EU policies, but we don't live there. More importantly, the fundamental problem is that political decisions do not have democratic buy-in from the various peoples of Europe. Europeans have no say in matters decided by EU leaders. They have no recourse and cannot easily reject such policies at the ballot box.
It's also problematic that two major European populist and nationalist issues immigration and trade dovetail Trump's policies. I don't think Trump caused the eruption of these issues in Europe and the ensuing national discontent. I do think he is the symbolic figurehead of these movements though. Therefore, liberal Euro politicians and media have to and must denounce Trump in subtle and not so subtle ways.
It would appear Asian leaders (perhaps with the unique exception of China) are more pragmatic.
It's also problematic that two major European populist and nationalist issues immigration and trade dovetail Trump's policies. I don't think Trump caused the eruption of these issues in Europe and the ensuing national discontent. I do think he is the symbolic figurehead of these movements though. Therefore, liberal Euro politicians and media have to and must denounce Trump in subtle and not so subtle ways.
It would appear Asian leaders (perhaps with the unique exception of China) are more pragmatic.
It's easy to forget that Reagan was widely mocked in Europe as a warmonger and a dolt that would lead the world into World War III. In reality, he (and Maggie) rejuvenated Europe's commitment to free markets and had a hand in bringing down the Berlin Wall and the figurative Iron Curtain.
You are trying to deny who is a valid Conservative commentator and who is not. This usually digresses to a self-serving exercise.
I tend to think all the Cable News Networks hold sway over their commentators and reporters. So much so that a commentator's message changes in the odd case they change networks. Scarborough is now not as Conservative as he campaigned in the Florida Panhandle. He also has the credibility problem of sleeping with his Liberal co-host. Nicole Wallace is now just a bubble head reading a script. I believe she was a Bush talking head more so than a strong political mind.
I would say your list is more right of center than Conservative. I'm not even sure I can understand Jennifer Rubin on any level.
I think Conservative radio (I don't care for it) only works because it was a refuge from television news dominated by New York-Washington media elites until Fox News was created in 1996. By the way, podcasts, are the new frontier where you get some interesting mixes of conservative, libertarian and independent thought that can defy current party labels. I wouldn't be surprised as this medium gets more popular the Left will try to stigmatize these podcast commentators.
So from what I understand, sambuca, your belief is all cable news people just repeat what their owners want them to say? Is for that opinion pieces or news reporting as well? You seem to think all interactions are purely based on power, so It's just straight moral relativism all the way down for you?
Podcasts are going to be "stigmatized" how? If someone has a libertarian slant and that is identified is that stigmatization?
Podcasts are going to be "stigmatized" how? If someone has a libertarian slant and that is identified is that stigmatization?
On the earlier point, I agree. Nationalism predates Trump in Europe and in the US. He didn't invent it. He is encouraging it and having a major power do so is not good for world stability. (And you do know we got extremely close to WWIII during Reagan's first term because his rhetoric was putting everyone on edge.)
These are my exact words "I tend to think all the Cable News Networks hold sway over their commentators and reporters." The operative phrase is "hold sway" which means to have great power or influence over a particular person. So I'll go with influence. Are you going to argue that the people running cable news networks don't have influence over their on-air personalities? Are we really having this conversation?
I've seen the same commentators tone down their Conservatism or Liberalism depending on the network they appear. We could call the influence network branding if you would prefer.
On your last question, I'm not talking about podcasts being stigmatized. I'm talking about specific political podcast commentators who gain popularity could be stigmatized for their views. Quoting Rumpleforeskiin "While it appears that the news section runs liberal, fake conservatives like the talking donkeys Limbaugh et al see telling the truth as liberal." This is an example of stigmatizing a commentator. In fact, "white nationalist" is my favorite attempt to stigmatize anyone Conservative who opposes our current immigration system, granting amnesty and certain sanctuary city policies.
Of COURSE the people running the organizations have influence. Why do you think the news is so pro-status quo and pro conventional narrative?
But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either you think reporters are capable of reporting or you don't. That they have biases and blind spots is a given. Do you think this makes it impossible for news reporters to report facts or not?
Commentators are going to have an opinion yes, and while I agree they might tone it down or dial it up depending on the forum I don't find it changes radically. Ross Douthat isn't going to sound radically different if he stops writing for the New York Times and goes to Fox. He might feel freer to be more confrontational but he isn't going to wholesale re-invent his position. Megan Kelly didn't radically change her views when she went to NBC, although she no longer just repeated Fox talking points.
I'm sorry you find the fact that people use words to describe things stigmatizing. It may be a shock to know this, but that is something that happens in politics. People try to define their own positions and other people's. I mean, do you think "pro-life" is a neutral term?
But yes, people who proclaim certain policy positions will be denounced or praised for those policy positions. I am not sure what you think is supposed to happen?
You are allowed to make the case for why you think opposing amnesty is a reasonable, non-racist position. People are allowed to argue it isn't. People are also allowed to look at the other evidence of actions when describing situations.
i.e.- IF avowed white supremacists share all your policy positions, then the burden to show those aren't white nationalist positions goes up. I'm not sure why you find that such a problem.
But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Either you think reporters are capable of reporting or you don't. That they have biases and blind spots is a given. Do you think this makes it impossible for news reporters to report facts or not?
Commentators are going to have an opinion yes, and while I agree they might tone it down or dial it up depending on the forum I don't find it changes radically. Ross Douthat isn't going to sound radically different if he stops writing for the New York Times and goes to Fox. He might feel freer to be more confrontational but he isn't going to wholesale re-invent his position. Megan Kelly didn't radically change her views when she went to NBC, although she no longer just repeated Fox talking points.
I'm sorry you find the fact that people use words to describe things stigmatizing. It may be a shock to know this, but that is something that happens in politics. People try to define their own positions and other people's. I mean, do you think "pro-life" is a neutral term?
But yes, people who proclaim certain policy positions will be denounced or praised for those policy positions. I am not sure what you think is supposed to happen?
You are allowed to make the case for why you think opposing amnesty is a reasonable, non-racist position. People are allowed to argue it isn't. People are also allowed to look at the other evidence of actions when describing situations.
i.e.- IF avowed white supremacists share all your policy positions, then the burden to show those aren't white nationalist positions goes up. I'm not sure why you find that such a problem.
He's not only the laughingstock of the 'free world' but the rest of the world also. The likes of Putin, Kim & others probably chuckle it up on a daily basis whenever they see him say or tweet his usual daily nonsense.
When he got elected i knew he'd be bad. Very bad. But to be honest i never thought it would be so damn worse than i could have ever imagined!
By the way thanks for posting that article. It's a very well written article & what the author wrote is quite true.
I'm very skeptical of those allegations. It wouldn't surprise me if Roger Stone or someone on the right is responsible for the accusations against Avenatti. Possibly the same shady characters behind some of the bogus allegations vs. Sen. Al Franken.
Since you are on a warpath to disagree with me (that's fine) and dissect every word and sentence (funny, I mentioned that in our very first discussion), I think we digress far beyond the original discussion.
My original point was Rumple's list of tolerable Conservative commentators aren't all that Conservative. Also, Corporate media doesn't run down the middle. The network brands are sharply demarcated politically and do not have commentators that deviate too far to the other side of the spectrum.
In all fairness, you were going to find that article that made the case that 80% of editors and publishers were Conservative.
Valcazar, as I have said many times here, why would anyone want to deny the U.S. an immigration system similar to Canada's? I suspect most of the posters here who vehemently disagree with Trump's immigration policies here are generally Americans (not Canadians) who lean for the Democrats.
I have many friends who are Moderates or Independents who actually hate Trump, but begrudgingly say "yeah, our immigration system is fucked up." I believe we've had some anti-Trumpers here agree that U.S. immigration policies were a mess.
I have many friends who are Moderates or Independents who actually hate Trump, but begrudgingly say "yeah, our immigration system is fucked up." I believe we've had some anti-Trumpers here agree that U.S. immigration policies were a mess.
George Will is not conservative? David Brooks is not conservative? David Gergen is not conservative? (Did someone tell GW Bush that before he hired him?) And on and on and on.
If you're definition of "conservative" is white nationalist, then yes, these men are not conservative.
Yes Trump is an ass, yes he should not be allowed on Twitter. For the left wing Americans it must be difficult for you since he still has about a 40% approval rating. For the Canadians who bitch and complain on this thread, do you not think Canada also has a POS failed drama teacher or did the media not explain that yet to you.
He has been accused of groping, spending us into the poor house, made a worldwide fool of himself, most of his campaign promises were lies but not one peep.
This post is to agrue with the 80% conservative editors... If that was true Trudeau would have been kicked out of office.
He has been accused of groping, spending us into the poor house, made a worldwide fool of himself, most of his campaign promises were lies but not one peep.
This post is to agrue with the 80% conservative editors... If that was true Trudeau would have been kicked out of office.
George Will is a articulate Conservative. Charles Krauthammer before is untimely death was an articulate Conservative. You did not mention them initially.
You mentioned David Brooks and David Gergen who are certainly articulate but they are not really Conservatives. David Brooks described himself in this way “Being a moderate does not mean picking something mushy in the middle, but picking out the strong policies at either end, because politics is essentially about balance, getting the balance right.”
David Gergen besides working for Republicans also worked for Bill Clinton. Here is an excerpt from a Rolling Stone bio "A relative liberal in the conservative Reagan administration, he becomes a relative conservative in the liberal Clinton administration. Gergen, the centrist, remains stable as the political culture pivots around him."
Rumple, we need you to hone your debating skills to a level more commensurate with Valcazar. There's too many Trump haters and emotional Left on this thread who simply repeat something they hear and then dig in as if that makes it so. And God forbid (yes, I believe in God) that they stand corrected. I know, I know. If you can't believe the media, who can you believe. Well buddy, you got the power of the most comprehensive information machine at your finger tips.
So do me the tiniest favor, don't cherry pick your faux Conservative commentators and make proclamations about their virtue and credibility. It can be quite unbecoming.
This is the Harvard study from earlier in the year that gauged America's mood on immigration.
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/har...ll-voters-support-reducing-immigration-levels
And to think today, I had to listen to Kamala Harris compare ICE to the KKK. This isn't dividing the country? This isn't using a lawful enforcement agency as a political chip?
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/har...ll-voters-support-reducing-immigration-levels
And to think today, I had to listen to Kamala Harris compare ICE to the KKK. This isn't dividing the country? This isn't using a lawful enforcement agency as a political chip?
Sorry, pal, "conservative" does not mean "white nationalist" as you and the Trumpists seem to believe.
I suppose the Federalist Society is not conservative. (Perhaps you'd like to undermine your credibility just a bit more?)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/politics/conservative-lawyers-trump.html
Similar threads
