Media Meltdown Sinking Hillary

[babe]

So anyway, folks, some people don't know the difference between the people who constitute American Leadership in the mainstream..... quite accurately assembled in the Council On Foreign Relations, and fringe leadership like extremists right or left.

The link I posted above is a good read, it shows an ideological divide going on in America going from a standard bell curve to a bimodal curve with significant division, and discusses how that is possibly affecting our governance and resulting in a failure to make necessary changes which would keep us on track and developing in the economic realm.

For sure, civil unrest or race war is not good for Mainstreet. The CFR set is, essentially, our American Mainstreet.

I was wondering why the RNC was not flexible enough to get in front of the Trump wave to begin with, and I'm wondering now if the Mainstreet set is going to finally get in front of the Trump wave. And, for Red, yes, that will be a rejection for progressive politics in the short run. But in the long run it will keep the progressive wagon on the roll.

 

[Siro]

I don't see the point of debating with babe. Any source that doesn't confirm his conspiracy is "biased" and must be disregarded. Anything that can be construed as confirmation is "information". Typical conspiracy theorist irrationality. Just live with the fact he'll call you ignorant and let him rant on.

 

[Red]

So here's a reason why Trump may be getting the nod from real communitarian leadership. The Progressives have just gone off the charts and we need to get back to some kind of normal. And Trump is the kind of dealmaker they can work with. Yes, he has gotten in front of the segment of Americans that is not at peace with Progressivism, including a lot of ordinary mainstream people who just think some things we've been doing don't make much sense.

But business needs to go on. Every businessman wants continuity on that. Obama and Huillary look disturbing, and we're not doing so good. Common sense leadership is called for.

Here's Harvard economist discussion the malaise in America the root problem. . .

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hbs-...arization-trust-michael-porter-104219596.html

The divisive political rhetoric is the culprit.

So here's the answer: Trump. He's not a real consiervative, no reason to see any goblins in him. He's an ordinary common sense sort of goofball with a lot of charm for his common speech style..... but even more charming to real American ownership interests because he is a dealmaker, meaning he is someone who will listen to them.

The ideological extremists of the Progressive sort, the Obamas and Hillarys, have just done poorly for Mainstreet.

Yeah, the Harvard professor hit on something: politics is the art of compromise. It's the lack of that that caused me to observe in one of the Trump threads that, when the GOP controls Congress, but does not win the White House, they just stop playing politics, the art of compromise. Remember when Mitch McConnell said following Obama's election that the GOP would simply not work with him? Well, they meant it. But, that's my own bias speaking I'm sure. And I'm sure when he blamed the rhetoric, he was thinking of Trump as much as Hillary or Obama....

 

[Red]

I don't see the point of debating with babe. Any source that doesn't confirm his conspiracy is "biased" and must be disregarded. Anything that can be construed as confirmation is "information". Typical conspiracy theorist irrationality. Just live with the fact he'll call you ignorant and let him rant on.

I know that. I guess I like beating my head against the wind. I'll be glad when the election is over and we can start the civil war. Somewhat, but not entirely, comic sans.....

 

[Jonah]

That Breitbart is cheerleading for Trump is undeniable. The head of Trump’s campaign, Steve Bannon, is the chairman of Breitbart News. He only took a leave of absence to work for Trump. Bannon and Trump are simpatico, natural compadres, and have been for at least a year now. It’s fine to read Breitbart and even post their links, but everyone should at least be aware that there is not another news organization in the country more in the tank for a particular candidate than Breitbart is for Trump.

 

[babe]

That Breitbart is cheerleading for Trump is undeniable. The head of Trump’s campaign, Steve Bannon, is the chairman of Breitbart News. He only took a leave of absence to work for Trump. Bannon and Trump are simpatico, natural compadres, and have been for at least a year now. It’s fine to read Breitbart and even post their links, but everyone should at least be aware that there is not another news organization in the country more in the tank for a particular candidate than Breitbart is for Trump.

Probably more objective than a lot of media sources, though. There's the whole thing about objective material, facts, and stuff.

Mark Levine says he's voting for Trump but will continue to criticize. Hannity listens politely to callers who are Dem cheerleaders and is good natured in his questions, even if he has to repeat them and never gets a direct answer. Glenn Beck says he won't vote for Trump because he's another fascist with no regard for the Constitution.

What have you got to demonstrate mainstream media objectivity, anyway? CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYTimes? Ownership of these have been wining and dining Hillary for twenty years. I first heard Hillary on a PBS TV program that really pandered to her hubby as the bright and morning star in the 1980s. They were already Rockefeller proteges and members of the CFR during the Arkansas days.

What I'm watching for as the subject of this thread is the emergence of overt Trump bias, effectively handing the Presidency over to him as the Dems scramble because Hillary is in all kinds of trouble.

 

[Boris]

You know what the media is like in are country?

Hate Christians hate native whites coddle minorities hate the flag hate are world security hate Texans hate Trump

 

[str8line]

So here's the answer: Trump. He's not a real consiervative, no reason to see any goblins in him. He's an ordinary common sense sort of goofball with a lot of charm for his common speech style..... but even more charming to real American ownership interests because he is a dealmaker, meaning he is someone who will listen to them.

I wonder what there is in your past that allows someone with the ability to form a coherent sentence to profess an admiration of any kind for Trump.

 

[Gameface]

I wonder what there is in your past that allows someone with the ability to form a coherent sentence to profess an admiration of any kind for Trump.

And to say he has a lot of charm? WTF? The guy makes my skin crawl. To characterise him as a goofball in light of his racist and misogynistic comments? It's like I'm taking crazy pills. How can Trump be a candidate for the U.S. Presidency?

 

[str8line]

And to say he has a lot of charm? WTF? The guy makes my skin crawl. To characterise him as a goofball in light of his racist and misogynistic comments? It's like I'm taking crazy pills. How can Trump be a candidate for the U.S. Presidency?

You know how beautiful people attract beautiful people and have beautiful babies? Unfortunately we have reached the point where stupid people attracting stupid people and having stupid babies has come home to roost.

 

[Miggs]

LOL wut Boris?

 

[Jonah]

Probably more objective than a lot of media sources, though. There's the whole thing about objective material, facts, and stuff.

Mark Levine says he's voting for Trump but will continue to criticize. Hannity listens politely to callers who are Dem cheerleaders and is good natured in his questions, even if he has to repeat them and never gets a direct answer. Glenn Beck says he won't vote for Trump because he's another fascist with no regard for the Constitution.

What have you got to demonstrate mainstream media objectivity, anyway? CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYTimes? Ownership of these have been wining and dining Hillary for twenty years. I first heart Hillary on a PBS TV program that really pandered to her hubby as the bright and morning star in the 1980s. They were already Rockefeller proteges and members of the CFR during the Arkansas days.

I’ve never claimed the mainstream media is objective. Plenty of evidence it leans slightly left, at least if we limit the left bias to reporters and editors and not ownership. Research does show most working journalists, as well as students that aspire to careers in journalism, are more inclined to hold liberal views and support liberal causes. The liberal bias of reporters is countervailed, however, to an extent, by an ownership bias for profit and preserving the status quo.

What I'm watching for as the subject of this thread is the emergence of overt Trump bias, effectively handing the Presidency over to him as the Dems scramble because Hillary is in all kinds of trouble.

Your theory of an emerging media bias in favor of Trump, as outlined in your OP, seems to be based on three assumptions: ownership has accepted Trump as part of the establishment, has judged Obama/Clinton as too extreme, and believes Clinton’s campaign is in shambles and therefore primed to be rejected in favor of Trump.

Almost any mainstream politician is accepted as part of the establishment, it doesn’t matter if they’re liberal or conservative, e.g., Obama, Clinton, Biden, McCain, Romney, Paul Ryan, are all establishment, whereas populist candidates (Trump, Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan), and even those that become president (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter), are never really accepted by the establishment. Populism is an outpouring of anger at the establishment and a sense of betrayal by the elites. Populists are anti-establishment by definition. Maybe you don't view Trump as a populist?

Obama and Clinton are pragmatic liberals. They are seen as mainstream, and have been portrayed as such by the media for many years in the case of Obama and for decades for Clinton. There’s no rational reason for this to suddenly change in the weeks leading up to the election. Sorry babe, you’re just projecting your own extremist views of Clinton and Obama with this assumption.

Clinton has had a rough couple of weeks, she’s lost most of her lead in national polls as well as in state polls in important swing states, but it’s still way too early to say her campaign is in shambles. The first debate is less than ten days away. With a strong showing she could easily bounce back ahead of Trump. I don’t think many in the media view the election as already in the bag for Trump. Right now it’s close to a toss up with Clinton still a slight favorite.

 

[babe]

I’ve never claimed the mainstream media is objective. Plenty of evidence it leans slightly left, at least if we limit the left bias to reporters and editors and not ownership. Research does show most working journalists, as well as students that aspire to careers in journalism, are more inclined to hold liberal views and support liberal causes. The liberal bias of reporters is countervailed, however, to an extent, by an ownership bias for profit and preserving the status quo.


Your theory of an emerging media bias in favor of Trump, as outlined in your OP, seems to be based on three assumptions: ownership has accepted Trump as part of the establishment, has judged Obama/Clinton as too extreme, and believes Clinton’s campaign is in shambles and therefore primed to be rejected in favor of Trump.

Almost any mainstream politician is accepted as part of the establishment, it doesn’t matter if they’re liberal or conservative, e.g., Obama, Clinton, Biden, McCain, Romney, Paul Ryan, are all establishment, whereas populist candidates (Trump, Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan), and even those that become president (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter), are never really accepted by the establishment. Populism is an outpouring of anger at the establishment and a sense of betrayal by the elites. Populists are anti-establishment by definition. Maybe you don't view Trump as a populist?

Obama and Clinton are pragmatic liberals. They are seen as mainstream, and have been portrayed as such by the media for many years in the case of Obama and for decades for Clinton. There’s no rational reason for this to suddenly change in the weeks leading up to the election. Sorry babe, you’re just projecting your own extremist views of Clinton and Obama with this assumption.

Clinton has had a rough couple of weeks, she’s lost most of her lead in national polls as well as in state polls in important swing states, but it’s still way too early to say her campaign is in shambles. The first debate is less than ten days away. With a strong showing she could easily bounce back ahead of Trump. I don’t think many in the media view the election as already in the bag for Trump. Right now it’s close to a toss up with Clinton still a slight favorite.

No, despite the fumings of Mark Levine and other "true conservatives" who wanted a return to a Constitutional, representative republic, and all the media about nationalism and populism, I don't believe Trump is a populist or a nationalist. He is clearly, to me, an elitist and a fascist who will get along just fine with our "establishment" folks, after all the electioneering is done.

I don't believe Hillary or Obama are "mainstream", but they are smart. They know how to play anyone, even the establishment dupes.

I know, as in I have read it in the words of the relevant decision makers, that part of the objective in globalism or global fascism, is to reduce America to a comproble governance entity along with whatever element of governance any other place on earth has. For folks with that aim, a silly alinskyite or two can be useful. But in no way is this the ideal of Marxism being developed. It is the ideal of professional managers hired by efficiency-minded successful folks who happen to have found an avenue of influence.

It does amount to eliminating the obstacles of "limited government" once embraced by American dreamers and thinkers, if never thouroughly put into practice throughout the history of America.

So, in short, while the RNC is carefully weeding out the non-compliant reformers in their ranks and shoring up the legislative control, and preparing to advance with more liberal judges seated where it counts, the smart money will go to Trump for a few years while leadership reviews the way forward. In no way will Trump be a problem to them.

 

[babe]

Anyway, I think Trump is pretty smart, smart enough to know how to exploit any available resources, conservative or liberal, to win.

Here's some more recent polling data, which appear to be chronicling the shift I began to expect a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN11M2A4 : about a week old, showed "tightening".

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-14/ohio-poll : brand new.... shows Trump up 5 pts where Reuters had Ohio going to Clinton just a week ago.

 

[babe]

I wonder what there is in your past that allows someone with the ability to form a coherent sentence to profess an admiration of any kind for Trump.

I studied economics and philosophy and behavioral psychology while I was still an impressionable teen ager, and before I came into contact with University Professors who couldn't leave their biases at home. . . . . hence I can do my own thinking, and am not dependent on you in any way, socially speaking, and I can even feel sorry for someone who can not tolerate genuine discussions of complex real-world issues or the personalities and characteristics of other humans.

 

[babe]

Polls Sept 15

I am hearing media reports of Trump taking leads in many "swing" states, and even being up in national polling.... about 8 percent better than just a week ago. It does not appear to be because "Mainstream Media" is giving him a better press, but because he is taking advantage of their stupid coverage to good advantage, including references to that stupidity in his speeches, and getting them all twisted in their story line and so looking even stupider.

Well, I would like to think that our media giants have some brains on board. My whole theory of a coming Trump coronation in the Media is based on the presence of those brains.

Can it really be true that Trump is smarter than those folks in MSMland?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

 

[babe]

So the RCP poll now has Trump up in FL, OH, GA, IA, AZ. With NC and NV in play with Clinton leading by less than 1%.

Some say the scattered Republicans are coming home to roost after all. Some say there is an across the board shift in the data.

But still no brave endorsements for Trump from editorial staffs on major newspapers, and still no positive press for Trump in the TV media. These sorts of gains are what I hypothesized in starting this thread.

 

[babe]

Saddles and Humps

Long-time Dean of Chemistry at the University of Utah Henry E. Eyring resorted to common Western landscapes to develop reaction rate equations. To get from one state to another in "the way things are" he'd figure the energy difference, and the reaction path. A saddle point or mountain pass with lower energy could enable a reaction to proceed, a hump or a mountain to cross could prevent the change from happening.

I am analyzing the 2016 election on the same basis. It's too much of an uphill push to go to a Hillary Presidency, that result will destabilize the organization of things we have. Hillary is too corrupt to be respected. Her dedication to the progressive agenda will give that line of ideals a bad name for years to come. A Hillary Presidency will be a liability for the people who have supported her in that line of development.

A Trump Presidency will give globalism a new lease on life, it will be a breath of fresh sir that will give the model legs.

The problem is, how to we get from here to there. The road to HillaryLand might be uphill, over a very small saddle, but it is a place with all kinds of sheer falls.

The Road to TrumpLand is over a pretty steep mountain, but once we get there, it will be a great place for building globalism and international governance efficiencies. Trump is nothing if he is not the man for the job.

He is exactly the man needed. Why won't sensible, successful leadership recognize that?

Because he is not "their boy", no smiling shoeshine beamish boy. But his history is that he does the deals it takes to do the job that needs doing.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Long-time Dean of Chemistry at the University of Utah Henry E. Eyring resorted to common Western landscapes to develop reaction rate equations. To get from one state to another in "the way things are" he'd figure the energy difference, and the reaction path. A saddle point or mountain pass with lower energy could enable a reaction to proceed, a hump or a mountain to cross could prevent the change from happening.

I am analyzing the 2016 election on the same basis. It's too much of an uphill push to go to a Hillary Presidency, that result will destabilize the organization of things we have. Hillary is too corrupt to be respected. Her dedication to the progressive agenda will give that line of ideals a bad name for years to come. A Hillary Presidency will be a liability for the people who have supported her in that line of development.

A Trump Presidency will give globalism a new lease on life, it will be a breath of fresh sir that will give the model legs.

The problem is, how to we get from here to there. The road to HillaryLand might be uphill, over a very small saddle, but it is a place with all kinds of sheer falls.

The Road to TrumpLand is over a pretty steep mountain, but once we get there, it will be a great place for building globalism and international governance efficiencies. Trump is nothing if he is not the man for the job.

He is exactly the man needed. Why won't sensible, successful leadership recognize that?

Because he is not "their boy", no smiling shoeshine beamish boy. But his history is that he does the deals it takes to do the job that needs doing.

 

[babe]

I'm sympathetic with your problems, Joe, really.

At a certain age, in most human beings, the mass of believed facts, principles, and relationships of logic does sorta lock down and become unmanageable. Thus we all are in danger of becoming old fogeys in one way or another.

A bong can help. But I don't need it. I have an active imagination. Now, if in your own situation it helps, go for it.