Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

dr.fuzzenstein

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon

Sorry if this has been posted before, but it explains a lot about Trump supporters.
If anyone else besides me has been wondering about "deep state" hogwash claims, all is explained therein.
Oh and Hillary Clinton's runs a child sex slave ring.
There is basically a campaign of noise, distraction, trolling and misinformation going on the likes of which hasn't been seen in a Western country and is more associated with totalitarian dictatorships.
Can anyone answer me where this insanity is coming from? I'm lost.

aloyisious

Midlife wrote: »

In relation to this, I've been kind of wondering as well how parts of the US seem to wish to make it so hard to vote but it still remains incredibly easy to work illegally.

Surely, an easier task than building the wall is taking on the massive undocumented labour market.

I mean stamp out illegal employment and you don't need a wall. It's no doubt also cheaper to do.

You mean that some industries could do better towards ensuring jobs in the US were solely taken by US workers instead of foreign workers. This would mean any saving made on not having to build a wall would have to be used up in increasing wages so that the US workers could take the jobs they abandoned as not paying enough to keep their families and homes together.

Maybe I've got it wrong but it seems to me that the bosses of firms using cheap labour are at fault by deliberately choosing to employ cheap labour and are partially responsible for the influx of foreign labour who heard there was a staff shortage in the US in service industries. For your thoughts to succeed, those US bosses would have to be persuaded by the Trump Admin to employ only US workers in US jobs. Those employers might include hotel chain bosses alongside actual manufacturing jobs for items made abroad at vastly cheaper costs by low-waged workers and imported into the US.

A bonus might be there'd be no need for tariff-wars, thought that wouldn't be helpful to Don as he needs an enemy to point at when he's talking to his base.

@Dr/Fuzzenstein: My last line above might be the answer you are looking for, Don's need for a bogeyman to point to and prevent people seeing they are being conned. Re western nations, think of Hitler and the jews.

2 Scoops

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry if this has been posted before, but it explains a lot about Trump supporters.

How many people followed those "rogue" twitter accounts claiming to be working in the government and giving the inside scoop on Trump? ( Answer : Millions )

Don't act like that shíte doesn't happen on both sides.

dark crystal

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a poster on the last thread who said a racist outburst would further endear Trump to him. That's the target audience.Trump obviously doesn't give a damn about anything other than the white vote.

Is this a failing on Trump's part? Do African American and Hispanic voters not come out in enough numbers to make a significant difference in key states at election time?

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

Is this a failing on Trump's part? Do African American and Hispanic voters not come out in enough numbers to make a significant difference in key states at election time?

I don't know if they do or not, I don't believe Trump cares. They are not the crowd he is appealing to.

everlast75

Hope hicks boards Air Force One last night.

Another example of obstruction of justice, or all entirely above board?

WinnyThePoo

2 Scoops wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry if this has been posted before, but it explains a lot about Trump supporters.

How many people followed those "rogue" twitter accounts claiming to be working in the government and giving the inside scoop on Trump? ( Answer : Millions )

Don't act like that shíte doesn't happen on both sides.

It really doesn't. Considering you've brought moronic conspiracy theorises to this very thread and tried to claim truth in them. I'm surprised your so offended. I mean you literally brought pizza Gate to this thread under your previous name. All we can do is laugh at people like you.


You have to be a special kind of special to like trump if you have access to the Internet and end up posting dim stuff like above.

VonZan

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It really doesn't. Considering you've brought moronic conspiracy theorises to this very thread and tried to claim truth in them. I'm surprised your so offended. I mean you literally brought pizza Gate to this thread under your previous name. All we can do is laugh at people like you.


You have to be a special kind of special to like trump if you have access to the Internet and end up posting dim stuff like above.

You seem very offended, calling people special because they simply don't agree with you. Your head is in the sand if you think that stuff only happens on one side. That's not very intelligent, is it?

dr.fuzzenstein

Looks like he dug up that old "lock her up" thing again.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lock-her-hillary-clinton-1056282

If this happens I will eat my car.

WinnyThePoo

VonZan wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It really doesn't. Considering you've brought moronic conspiracy theorises to this very thread and tried to claim truth in them. I'm surprised your so offended. I mean you literally brought pizza Gate to this thread under your previous name. All we can do is laugh at people like you.


You have to be a special kind of special to like trump if you have access to the Internet and end up posting dim stuff like above.

You seem very offended, calling people special because they simply don't agree with you. Your head is in the sand if you think that stuff only happens on one side. That's not very intelligent, is it?

Pizza Gate isn't a intelligent conspiracy theory. It's an idiotic conspiracy theory.

You do have to be special to buy into Alex Jones. His target audience ain't the brightest.

Otherwise.. You say this happens on both sides, yet completely fail to show some left wing conspiracy.

I'm certainly not offended. Its perfectly healthy to laugh at conspiracy theorists.

Leroy42

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026069857589227520

I mean Jebus. The man is totally off his rocker. This is a direct attack in the 1st amendment and none of his supporters seem to care and even cheer it on. Yet are totally against even a discussion about the 2nd Amendment.

pixelburp

The problem is - and in many ways Trump is accidentally shining a light on this cancerous cyst of Democracy - the insidious thought of "journalists are scum" has always been part of the political / social landscape of Western democracies. Because as valuable and noble an open press is for holding those in power to account (something the US variant is still clinging onto, just about), it nearly always runs contrary to values of the wannabe (or actual) despot - not to mention the lizard part of peoples' brains that would embrace authoritarianism; the little voice that says "yeah, let this guy handle it all, throw all those unsavoury types I hate behind bars", which is normally shouted down by the logical parts, or indeed a journalist.

Trent Houseboat

Leroy42 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026069857589227520

I mean Jebus. The man is totally off his rocker. This is a direct attack in the 1st amendment and none of his supporters seem to care and even cheer it on. Yet are totally against even a discussion about the 2nd Amendment.

I'm sure all the very fine free speech crusaders will be out in force with their tiki torches and rifles to protest these attacks on a free press.

Leroy42

Has there always been this hatred towards certain sections of the press in the US?

I get it that certain people prefer certain papers/networks etc, we all do of course, but is this outright hostility because of Trump or is Trump simply latching on to it and leveraging it to his advantage?

20Cent

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there always been this hatred towards certain sections of the press in the US?

I get it that certain people prefer certain papers/networks etc, we all do of course, but is this outright hostility because of Trump or is Trump simply latching on to it and leveraging it to his advantage?

Trump has been denegrating the press since he started running. He knows a lot of dirt will come out about himself and needs to remove trust in those reporting the news.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there always been this hatred towards certain sections of the press in the US?

I get it that certain people prefer certain papers/networks etc, we all do of course, but is this outright hostility because of Trump or is Trump simply latching on to it and leveraging it to his advantage?

Personal opinion...

I don't think there has been, at least, certainly not to this level. I don't think Americans have turned to hate the press, but they have become a little less trusting of it. Certainly the press used to be held in higher regard: When Walter Cronkite finished his news broadcasts with "And that's the way it is", people trusted that, indeed, that was the way it was. It's not that he didn't interject his own opinions, but he made a very clear distinguishing between the news he was reporting in a neutral-appearing manner, and what he felt his opinion was based upon the reporting. His Vietnam broadcast in 1968 was basically earth-shattering because he was 'the most trusted man in America'.

Whether we like to admit it or not, however, we do acknowledge internally that as a general rule, the news networks are not the same as they used to be. Can anyone honestly point to anyone on the news networks and say 'He/She is the most trusted person in the US?' Can anyone name a single news host on NBC or Fox? Who is the CBS version of Cronkite today? We all know their commentators, Maddow, O'Reilly and the like, but not because they report the news, but because they opine on the news. Sure, there are still the occasional well-respected shows like 60-Minutes but even when you're watching your favourite all-news network, you realise that they're in it for the ratings and the money. I listen to all-news KCBS in the car, routinely award-winning, and very good. But definitely still has an editorial slant you recognise is tuned into the demographic in the SF area, after all, they want to make money and people will listen to what suits their beliefs. Neutral investigative journalism... well... it's not dying, but it is changing and moving. You won't get much from CNN or Fox, you need to look at a few newspapers. Even middle-of-the-road hosts like Blitzer and Amanpour come across as... 'lightweight'. Do they ever even get out of the studio or interview environment? There is no sense of connection. It's not a phenomenon unique to the US either, see https://gijn.org/2016/02/15/how-the-bbc-abandoned-investigative-reporting/

I don't recall too much vitriol going against the newspapers from anyone. Trump goes off on CNN routinely but the L.A. Times? Chicago Tribune? SF Chronicle? The Chronicle is no great fan of Trump, but has its reporters ever been the target of a Trump rant? Even acknowledging editorial bias, the old-school print media, I think, do get more respect from the US population, even if it's not as popular as the electronic/broadcast stuff.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't recall too much vitriol going against the newspapers from anyone. Trump goes off on CNN routinely but the L.A. Times? Chicago Tribune? SF Chronicle? The Chronicle is no great fan of Trump, but has its reporters ever been the target of a Trump rant? Even acknowledging editorial bias, the old-school print media, I think, do get more respect from the US population, even if it's not as popular as the electronic/broadcast stuff.

Trump regularly calls out the WP and the NYT as fake news. He has certainly focused lately on CNN, but that doesn't take away from how Trump has attacked all the media. Hence he moniker of MSM being bad.

Of course all media comes with a slant, that has always been the case. US reports are always going to slant in favour of the US for example. Same everywhere. But you know that and it isn't that they are lying, such that they focus on certain issues and don't focus on others.

You local station is focused on the local area, that doesn't mean they are Fake News because they don't report on how great Trump/Obama etc are doing.

And that is the question I am asking. Sure CNN etc have a more liberal/left view of things and they are going to see things through that prism. But Trump is not saying that. But it seems to me that recently, and it not something I am sure of, that people have take to not only not likely a particular station/paper, but actually being of the view that those people working for it are actively working against the needs of the US, actively working against the POTUS.

Did people, back during Watergate, deem the WP to be the enemy of the people?

He is saying that the media is actively working against the people of the US. That they are as much a threat to the US as ISIS and NK.

That he spends more time calling out perceived slights from the media than he does in calling out Putin for actually attacking democracy tells you all you need to know about Trump.

batgoat

Further foot in mouth moments for Trump. He just basically landed Don Jnr in it for collusion.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026084333315153924?s=19

everlast75

batgoat wrote: »

Further foot in mouth moments for Trump. He just basically landed Don Jnr in it for collusion.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026084333315153924?s=19

Rumour is Hicks filled him in on what she told Mueller and so he's trying to get out ahead of what is coming (again)

dark crystal

The ever watchable Bill Maher discusses a lot of these topics on his show this week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdIZ9phvWU

"Hillbilly Nuremburg Rally"

His first and last guests are very interesting.

Manic Moran

Of course all media comes with a slant, that has always been the case. US reports are always going to slant in favour of the US for example. Same everywhere. But you know that and it isn't that they are lying, such that they focus on certain issues and don't focus on others.

You local station is focused on the local area, that doesn't mean they are Fake News because they don't report on how great Trump/Obama etc are doing.

I think you missed my point. There is a difference between reporting on matters of local interest, and reporting to suit the local interest. It is possible to do both at the same time. If I thought KCBS were fake news, I wouldn't be listening to it. They are very good at identifying matters of local interest and bringing them to light. Their reporting of a situation is usually pretty good. The analysis, though, I'm less happy with.

For example, you in Ireland are probably familiar with Rep Nunes (R) for his position on the House Intelligence Committee and the memos and so on at the national level. He's mentioned on local news, though, more for his work for his constituents where he is wildly popular in his district for advocating for farmers and water access. The voters in 22nd California, I suspect, care much less about his Trump position than you do. This is fine for a regional station, water access and supply has been a very contentious issue here in California for a few years now. When infrastructure comes on the news, it's BART and High Speed Rail more often than the national interstate system's bridges or Amtrak's woes. When the topic of gun control comes up, it's with relation to California or local laws, not the national debate.

This is fine with me and I would presume most San Francisco Bay Area listeners. Those things affect us a hell of a lot more than the Mueller investigation or Manafort's trial. (Absolutely they get mentioned, often with top billing, but they take up a much lesser proportion of the 24-hour news cycle than CNN national news or whatever)

What I am disappointed in, though, is how it is presented. When the water rights issue comes up and they bring someone on to interview, it's usually an environmental activist or a city planner. I can't recall the last time they brought someone on from the farmer's union. When gun control comes up, it's always a representative from an anti-gun position on the air, never a pro-gun chap. When they interview politicians live on air, it's a Democrat. It's not as if we don't have elected Republicans locally, my representative in the State Assembly actually is one (To my surprise, granted. Catherine Baker).

In effect, my station is very good at telling me the issues which affect me which I may not have otherwise known about. It's very good at putting forward one side of the argument. I have to make a mental note to look up the other side when I get out of the car. If I truly trusted the station to give me the full picture, I would not feel any particular need to do this.

People who listen to the station are, I submit, not stupid. They can identify that they are being fed one side, even whilst they are accepting it. It's not as much a case of overtly not trusting the media as much as a subconscious acknowledgement that the foundations underneath are not as rock-solid as perhaps we might once have thought they were.

This is entirely separate from the whole 'enemy of the people' business which we all agree here to be hogwash, but the question posed related to if there has been a change in the public perception of the media, and I believe there has been. Who do we have today who is equivalent to Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw, people who Americans trusted were far more interested in reporting the news to the best of their ability and who viewed getting ratings as a secondary side benefit? Americans now watch their preferred station for the way something is being reported on, not on what is being reported.

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

Further foot in mouth moments for Trump. He just basically landed Don Jnr in it for collusion.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026084333315153924?s=19

This is the first time we have got evidence of collusion here in this investigation. You asking Russians for details about Hilary before the election? This not good for Trump for admitting his son was asking for help from the Russians. Probably happens a lot but in this climate terrible for him to admit that publically not good.

mcmoustache

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is the first time we have got evidence of collusion here in this investigation. You asking Russians for details about Hilary before the election? This not good for Trump for admitting his son was asking for help from the Russians. Probably happens a lot but in this climate terrible for him to admit that publically not good.

Trump is stupid. I think this should be clear now.



Putin is not stupid. He's rational and messing around in US elections, is a smart thing to do, at least in the short term. Putting Trump in charge of the US is like putting Yeltsin in charge of Russia, only worse. I can't really blame Russia for all this - they've always been doing this as have others, including the US in other countries. The difference now is that it actually worked and is causing big problems to the current geopolitical order.

everlast75

This is interesting to watch.

2 sides of Fox News.

(Spoiler alert- one of these guys is a client of Michael Cohen)


https://youtu.be/LHjFS5f1IT0

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

This is interesting to watch.

2 sides of Fox News.

(Spoiler alert- one of these guys is a client of Michael Cohen)


https://youtu.be/LHjFS5f1IT0

Without clicking, I'm guessing that this is Shep v Hannity. It's an interesting contrast. Shep, despite working for Fox, is a news guy and facts matter to him. Hannity is worse than a blowhard who's full of shít - he simply lies.

Cheerful Spring

mcmoustache wrote: »

Trump is stupid. I think this should be clear now.



Putin is not stupid. He's rational and messing around in US elections, is a smart thing to do, at least in the short term. Putting Trump in charge of the US is like putting Yeltsin in charge of Russia, only worse. I can't really blame Russia for all this - they've always been doing this as have others, including the US in other countries. The difference now is that it actually worked and is causing big problems to the current geopolitical order.

I don't think his stupid he just knows his family was talking to the Russians about Hilary and trying to downplay it on twitter for his fanbase.

While I think this goes on all the time this is I admit collusion with a foreign power to get dirt on an opponent. Trump is admitting his family was colluding with the Russians it's undeniable now this is the first piece of evidence for that now. Trump had to have known about this it's his son after all.

Russians did us a favour exposing Hilary if they hacked the DNC server but asking a foreign power for dirt on a rival is collusion I can't deny that.

listermint

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think his stupid he just knows his family was talking to the Russians about Hilary and trying to downplay it on twitter for his fanbase.

While I think this goes on all the time this is I admit collusion with a foreign power to get dirt on an opponent. Trump is admitting his family was colluding with the Russians it's undeniable now this is the first piece of evidence for that now. Trump had to have known about this it's his son after all.

Russians did us a favour exposing Hilary if they hacked the DNC server but asking a foreign power for dirt on a rival is collusion I can't deny that.

So you think colluding with foreign powers goes on all the time to Stitch up an opponent.


Really ? That's your world is it

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think his stupid he just knows his family was talking to the Russians about Hilary and trying to downplay it on twitter for his fanbase.

While I think this goes on all the time this is I admit collusion with a foreign power to get dirt on an opponent. Trump is admitting his family was colluding with the Russians it's undeniable now this is the first piece of evidence for that now. Trump had to have known about this it's his son after all.

Russians did us a favour exposing Hilary if they hacked the DNC server but asking a foreign power for dirt on a rival is collusion I can't deny that.

Oh dear lord, have you seen what has happened in the past 2 years? The man has destroyed the US international reputation. He has caged children, he has attacked the media on a constant basis and contributed nothing of worth. He's just created chaos. That's not a favour, that's creating long term damage to many people's lives.

Gbear

mcmoustache wrote: »

Without clicking, I'm guessing that this is Shep v Hannity. It's an interesting contrast. Shep, despite working for Fox, is a news guy and facts matter to him. Hannity is worse than a blowhard who's full of shít - he simply lies.

Why is Shepard Smith permitted to continue working at Fox by the powers that be?

It's important that they pretend to balanced and sloganeer about it, but surely actually doing it is of no use to them?

Does he have dirt on a higher up, or are there more actual journalists who aren't shameless prositutes for propaganda behind the scenes than one might think?

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

Oh dear lord, have you seen what has happened in the past 2 years? The man has destroyed the US international reputation. He has caged children, he has attacked the media on a constant basis and contributed nothing of worth. He's just created chaos. That's not a favour, that's creating long term damage to many people's lives.

I have a different take on that personally Trump is isn't doing a bad job from what I see.

Did Trump team collude with Russia now it does seem that's true? That what the opposition wanted to hear they have the evidence now.

Do I think Trump is stupid for talking with Putin no I think he did the right thing? Would Hilary make a better president doubtful she wanted to have a no-fly zone over Syria woman would have got us all killed?