Pretty good summary but only valid for white americans no? Where do you put the blacks and hispanic that represent a large proportion (as much as the whites like it or not...).
Cheers,
Trumped
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
- Status
Pretty good summary but only valid for white americans no? Where do you put the blacks and hispanic that represent a large proportion (as much as the whites like it or not...).
Cheers,
The people's opinions of Trump are based on the Mainstream Media's interpretation of facts. Everything is down to good guy/bad guy based on a few public pronouncements. Nothing in depth really about what they are really about. Also, nothng in the Canadian media as to why so-called fringe candidate seem to be getting a lot of support.
The US mainstream media is corporate owned, and you get the corporate message. Corporations now have more sway with the US government than ordinary electors. Many people now know that they are being screwed by corporatism, including being screwed by the big banks that are too big to fail. The standard of living in the US has been falling now for at least the last 30 years. People are waking up to that fact, and what you are seeing now is a revolt against mainstream politics. In 1933, FDR warned the US oligarchs that he would destroy them if they didn't share the wealth with the US people. They did after that. Wiht Obama, impossible as the corporations and banks behind the scenes own him.
The US is still, however, a democracy. That democracy is manipulated by the MSM in order to get the correct leader, already chosen by the corporatists who run the US government. So they bring things down to the very simple level that most people can understand: white hat/black hat. Only now, mainstream media is losing its viewrship in great numbers as people turn to internet media, as its' apparent to many that MSM is just propaganda for the richest 1%.
Sanders and Trump are a reflection of that revolt. Trump, as a brilliant salesman, and knows what to say to strir the masses. Hillary fumbles about , trying to explain the $600,000 she got from Goldman Sachs. Hillary has less and less credibility, and the fact that she got a boost from the superdelegates has a lot of people turned off the Democratic Party. It is telling that a lot of US republicains are swithing to Hillary are neocons, like Robert Kagan. Thats because Hillary is a neocon in her own right and Trump isn't. Hillary's foreign policy record is dismal: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. Nothing but a series of failures. Expect more of this if she wins, and expect a confrontation with Russia and possibly China.
The US mainstream media is corporate owned, and you get the corporate message. Corporations now have more sway with the US government than ordinary electors. Many people now know that they are being screwed by corporatism, including being screwed by the big banks that are too big to fail. The standard of living in the US has been falling now for at least the last 30 years. People are waking up to that fact, and what you are seeing now is a revolt against mainstream politics. In 1933, FDR warned the US oligarchs that he would destroy them if they didn't share the wealth with the US people. They did after that. Wiht Obama, impossible as the corporations and banks behind the scenes own him.
The US is still, however, a democracy. That democracy is manipulated by the MSM in order to get the correct leader, already chosen by the corporatists who run the US government. So they bring things down to the very simple level that most people can understand: white hat/black hat. Only now, mainstream media is losing its viewrship in great numbers as people turn to internet media, as its' apparent to many that MSM is just propaganda for the richest 1%.
Sanders and Trump are a reflection of that revolt. Trump, as a brilliant salesman, and knows what to say to strir the masses. Hillary fumbles about , trying to explain the $600,000 she got from Goldman Sachs. Hillary has less and less credibility, and the fact that she got a boost from the superdelegates has a lot of people turned off the Democratic Party. It is telling that a lot of US republicains are swithing to Hillary are neocons, like Robert Kagan. Thats because Hillary is a neocon in her own right and Trump isn't. Hillary's foreign policy record is dismal: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. Nothing but a series of failures. Expect more of this if she wins, and expect a confrontation with Russia and possibly China.
If the conspiracy theory is that the mainstream media tried to sink Trump, they did a piss poor job: they gave him the equivalent of $2 billion in free publicity.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/1...tures/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/1...tures/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
We are witnessing the marriage of reality TV and politics. The media is not really thinking critically any more, it's all about webpage hits and viewership and they are promoting Trump even without an agenda to do so. It's what the media has become. They do not report the news, they have become tools of the news. Or news tools.
I think you are correct, ESQ. On the Democrat side we have a potential Felon. On the Republican side, we have a self absorbed Billionaire who changes his position weekly. It's all for the media ratings. To hell with the direction of the Country or World for that matter.
I don't think media is necessarily worse than it has been in the past. Yellow journalism first golden age was in the 19th century, and news archives from 20th century are full of biases, prejudices and blatant lies, sometimes to influence people but most of the time just to sell papers and make money. There are still great pieces of reporting done in this day and age: just in the last years, we had the sponsorship scandal, wikileaks, the Snowden/NSA disclosures, the Panama papers, etc.
But what we're seeing here with the Trump media circus, it's the media - not because of a big conspiracy but simply because they want all the clicks and all the money - basically campaigning for a candidate, for free. Every word of Trump is reported, when the other candidates scrambled to get a quote, good or bad, published, printed, shared or giffed. The primary/caucus rules are a complicated process for many Americans, with rules and delegates allocation changing from state to state: when they're asking people in a poll who they will vote for, and the average joe has only heard about Trump and nobody else because the guy's face is everywhere, of course is gonna say "i dunno.. trump?", and then suddenly you have Trump leading the polls.
Now, that doesn't mean Republican voters were delighted with the non-Trump candidates. A real solid candidate would never have lost to Trump. The "never trump" republicans didn't like anybody enough to rally around him or her.
And I agree with you: every word of Trump was reported because it's a saga, a media circus, a reality show unraveling. It would be about Sanders or anyone else, it wouldn't be any better. It's exactly what you say: the marriage of reality TV and politics.
It's not a case of corrupt or biased media. We're witnessing a case of irresponsible media, who does not offer a fair and balanced coverage of major candidates.
Did you know 14% of presidents are assassinated? What are Trumps chances of making it through one term?
Yeah, but I can't imagine security was great in Lincoln and McKinley's time
What can very realistically happen in the next 5-6 months, though, is protests, and not the peaceful kind. We already had a glimpse of that in March in Chicago.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...f-in-chicago-amid-protests-violence-and-chaos
And Trump added fuel to the fire. With the protests we've seen in recent years (the Zimmerman fiasco, Ferguson, Baltimore, Occupy movement and concerns over inequalities and the 1%), many people are ticking time bombs.
Right--but not just reality tv but the web in general. It seems pretty clear that "technology" has outpaced our collective critical acumen; as a culture we have not figured out how to process the internet's deconstruction of authority and knowledge. In some ways there is a tremendous upside, as we have seen the rise of the citizen-journalist who can speak truth to power. But the cost is a proliferation of websites and bloggers that speak power to truth, abandoning a tradition of objectivity and fact-based empiricism that goes back to the founding of the United States and substituting instead a reckless insistence that we're all entitled not only to our own opinions but our own facts. If a website says it, it must be true. So that nutcase in Texas running for the Ed board claimed that she had it on "good authority" that Obama was once a prostitute to pay for his drug habit; we all know that the "good authority" was someone posting with great conviction on an internet forum or blog or website. We tend to gravitate to the information/news/truth sources that speak to our own political or ideological values, and we just get angrier and angrier at the "other side." One result is that many doubt even the most basic of truths. No amount of evidence, compiled by established authorities, will convince skeptics, who are fed endless nonsense by an agenda-driven web culture.
Oh--and a minor correction. Four out of 43 men who have been president have been assassinated, so less than 10%, and only one in the last century. But lots of assassination attempts, and lots of crazies in the world.
I thought we had seen the last of Grandpa Munster, but much like the Dracula character that inspired Grandpa, it's hard to kill him:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-path-entry/
Trump may need to drive a wooden stake through Grandpa's heart to get rid of him:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/8970...ns-heres-9-times-they-looked-spookily-similar
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-path-entry/
Trump may need to drive a wooden stake through Grandpa's heart to get rid of him:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/8970...ns-heres-9-times-they-looked-spookily-similar
Congratulations to Donald on getting to the # of delegates needed to get the nomination
Whether you like him or not, he wasn't given a chance in hell when this whole process started.....
I still don't think he will defeat Hilary, but the people have spoken and the incumbents better be scared now
If he picks Chris Christie as his running mate, now that will be quite interesting :whip:
Best Regards
Smuler
Whether you like him or not, he wasn't given a chance in hell when this whole process started.....
I still don't think he will defeat Hilary, but the people have spoken and the incumbents better be scared now
If he picks Chris Christie as his running mate, now that will be quite interesting :whip:
Best Regards
Smuler
And hillarious!!!! I can't wait for the jokes! :lol::lol::lol:
Honestly, i was kinda hoping for Sarah Palin, whom i consider a lot more qualified than Trump ever will be. But there's another reason why he won't name her as his running mate: she's more popular than he is.
- Status
Similar threads
