What's new
By:

Media Meltdown Sinking Hillary

B

babe

Well-Known Member
This is the beginning of the end for Hillary. . . . the mainstream media is going to desert her.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html

As I've noted elsewhere, Donald J. Trump met with the President of the Council of Foreign Relations before announcing his candidacy, and came out profusely praising the influential leader of America's ruling class. During the Republican Primaries, Trump enjoyed positive press from FOX, and now FOX is leading the sinking of Hillary. But it's not just the Republican mainstream moderate press element, there is an increasing tempo of other media leaders actually letting negative Hillary news out as well.

Mark Levin says he's voting for Trump. After being absolutely pro-Cruz and refusing to indulge in blandishments of the "progressive populist" Trump, for not being a true constitutional conservative, Levin says that while he'll continue to speak the truth about Trump, he will vote for him because Hillary is unfit for the office.

Trump, meanwhile, is stuffing the campaign lines Hillary has developed against him right back down her throat, perhaps the real cause of those coughing fits Hillary is prone to. Hillary's health is failing, and now her campaign financed by ten million plus donations from Saudi Arabia and other Arabian peninsula oil sheikdoms is failing. Nothing she is saying against Trump is sticking. The racist allegations tangent to the Steve Bannon appointment as campaign manager has been turned upside down. Visiting Mexico and a great campaign stump speech on immigration in Arizona later that day have shored up support from the Latinos. The Mexicans want jobs, too. Not slave-wage jobs but good jobs building a great wall, on government contracts. An America with ordered immigration means that those who come here legally will prosper, actually. And a Trump relationship with Mexico will definitively put an end to the drug cartels, and stabilize the Mexican economy on real industrial and agricultural jobs. A strong Trump-Mexico pact will prosper both countries.

The black vote is also ramping up to support Trump because he is communicating real hope for the blacks. Calling him a racist is countered by abundant TV footage where he is praised by Jesse Jackson and Union leaders for employing a better percentage of blacks in his projects than most other employers. Rebuilding American industry and productive jobs will float a lot of blacks in the inner cities into the new jobs.

Mark Levine criticizes Trump for his "isolationist" trade tariffs being like the Smoot-Hawley Act that helped start the 1930s depression according to some economists, but Trump is not really that stupid. All he is going to do is make the trade fair for US producers. I worked for a company once that was threatened by Chinese production subsidized by Chinese government incentives. The owner of the company.... one of those billionaire New Yorkers..... won the case before the World Trade Organization, which imposed a 20% tariff on Chinese product. The determination of the tariff was calculated to erase the advantage given by the incentives, making US production price-competitive. Even though labor and electricity costs are higher here, we had more capital-intensive facilities which made US workers more productive. The poor Chinese workers were dying like flies in clouds of toxic gases, and we had very effective scrubbers keeping the place clean, and equipment that made one worker equal to forty Chinese slaves.

Believe it or not, Trump is smarter than Levine, and Hillary.

And believe it or not, despite the nominal pretension of the CFR leadership to be horrified with Trump, the CFR is going to get him elected.

Trump will not end progressivism or the basic fabric of American politics. He will not take us out of the UN or any of the UN agenda basics. What has happened is that our communitarian leadership has appraised the sentiments of the American public, and has decided to return to the successful tactics of the past century plus.... progressive gradualism responsive to public sentiment. Obama and the Democratic extremists have been judged, weighed in the balance, and found just too wild for the sensibilities of our community leadership class.
 
Last edited:
Boris said:
But why does the CFR want America to bring jobs back home?
Click to expand...

OK.

The Council of Foreign Relations is not one-dimensional. It's not a solid block of sentiment on anything. As a whole, it is comprised of invited "leaders" of communities and professionals who have appeared to be useful for their influence in their communities. Successful, as in very successful folks. Media professionals, entertainment professionals, and leaders in many critically influential lines of commerce and industry.

But it also has "leadership", and essentially is lead by world-class successful people. It has been a nest of influence throughout most of the progressive era of American and world history.

These are people who know how to get out in front of the frothing masses, the incipient revolutions, and ride the waves. They put their fingers in the air sometimes to see which way the wind is blowing in society.

They will change their tactics sometimes to maintain some marginal control of our communities.

Yes, they have been exploiting the cheap labor overseas by creating beneficial circumstances for themselves in international trade agreements. Now they will create beneficial circumstances for themselves in stabilizing the American and European communities, temporarily at least.

They apparently have chosen Trump to become an American symbol, maybe a New World Order symbol for the great World Depression that is about to grip all of us into a downward economic spiral. Maybe they realize it's time for a different sort of management. Certainly they realize that if they don't install a manageable symbol of their own, the people might just install their own man.
 
He visited Mexico and then later had a "great" campaign speech? What universe are you living in? That did not gain him ANY latino support. That was a **** show! He gave a ridiculous speech about how he was going to deport 2 million illegal immigrants his first hour in office, or something like that and then shouted "NO AMNESTY" over and over.

Latinos want good jobs building a great wall? To refer to some potential wall along our southern boarder as a "great wall" is an insult to THE Great Wall. First, walls are kind of obsolete technology. Second, if a wall is built (it won't be, if he gets elected or not) I doubt anyone would look at and have the word "great" come to mind. Unless they say, "Oh great, a stupid wall."

And how exactly is Trump going to stop the cartels in Mexico? Is he going to wave his yuge hands at them and scare them right out of their multi-billion dollar business?

This OP is one of the most bizarre things you've ever posted babe, and that's a mind boggling accomplishment.
 
Gameface said:
He visited Mexico and then later had a "great" campaign speech? What universe are you living in? That did not gain him ANY latino support. That was a **** show! He gave a ridiculous speech about how he was going to deport 2 million illegal immigrants his first hour in office, or something like that and then shouted "NO AMNESTY" over and over.

Latinos want good jobs building a great wall? To refer to some potential wall along our southern boarder as a "great wall" is an insult to THE Great Wall. First, walls are kind of obsolete technology. Second, if a wall is built (it won't be, if he gets elected or not) I doubt anyone would look at and have the word "great" come to mind. Unless they say, "Oh great, a stupid wall."

And how exactly is Trump going to stop the cartels in Mexico? Is he going to wave his yuge hands at them and scare them right out of their multi-billion dollar business?

This OP is one of the most bizarre things you've ever posted babe, and that's a mind boggling accomplishment.
Click to expand...

General Patton didn't believe in walls. He said defensive structures always fail, and concentrated on offense. Fast, unbelievable offense

The Bush Family has roots going back before the American Revolution profiting from drug trade somehow. Yeah it was opium back then, all that "snuff" gentleme carried in little tin boxes and pinched between their fingers and stuffed into their noses. Can't say how much of the US Constitution founders' thinking was due to that.
But when GWB called Vicente Fox his "blood brother", it was pretty clear the drug cartels had clear sailing.

And Obama actually has been running guns to help the cartels, and holding the door while the drug runners scurry past. He fires border guards who try to do anything about it. I remember seeing a Mexican border agent intercept a runner back in 2002 near El Paso, at a small crossing station. I never saw a man look dead already like that runner. But Obama fired two American guards who tried to do the same thing a few years ago at the same crossing.

So Trump and the present Pres agreeing to clip the cartels sounds good to me. I hope he really does it.

Trump will actually moderate his rhetoric, and will go to an actually effective method to restore order to the border. He will work with Mexico in doing some things that will address the fundamental economics of the immigrants. He will impose a minimum wage on immigrant labor at a level that will incentivize Americans to do the work, too. He will create a "wall" of revenue streams and benefit denials on illegals in the United States, synergized with creating jobs through corporate incentives that eliminate the advantages of American slave-holder corporations making a living off the Mexican immigrants.

lol. I have a hard time seeing him staff Trump Towers bedsheet changers and cashiers and poker dealers with Americans, but if anyone knows all about the economics of illegal workers, I'm sure he does. And I'm pretty sure the Latinos in Vegas are shrewd enough to know that Trump will do good things for them.

So, of course, I'd never consider something worth writing unless it pushes the conversation into uncharted waters. But I've doubted Trump's motives to the extent that I have said Trump is the Chump willing to shamelessly run interference with the Republicans so Hillary can cruise to a 40% victory like Bill did thanks to Perot. However, I've found further information that shores up the expectation that Trump, if he schmoozed Hillary and winked at her while making that deal, has always had killer instincts for being a winner in every deal. Of all people, he could have seen Hillary's swoons over a year ago while she and Bill were hanging out with him in Florida.

Now it's looking more like he just got tired of all the gov stupidity he was seeing, and decided to do something about it. I mean really do something about it to "Make American Great Again".

For sure, he covered his bet by paying his dues at the CFR.
 
Wait...wait lol

Mark Levin and Fox are your examples? Hahahahaha

That's like using Rachel Maddow and MSNBC as examples of "the media" abandoning Trump.
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
Wait...wait lol

Mark Levin and Fox are your examples? Hahahahaha

That's like using Rachel Maddow and MSNBC as examples of "the media" abandoning Clinton.
Click to expand...

laugh all you want. I know you will be a slow learner.

It's gonna be bitter feuding in the newsrooms, but ownership will bear sway.
 
babe said:
laugh all you want. I know you will be a slow learner.

It's gonna be bitter feuding in the newsrooms, but ownership will bear sway.
Click to expand...

Slow learner? Haha, you might have a point when liberal leaning sources start to hammer her. But Fox has been hammering the left for years now. It's not a new development.

As for ownership, they have a vested interest in propagandizing both sides of the isle. That won't suddenly change.
 
Stoked said:
Wait...wait lol

Mark Levin and Fox are your examples? Hahahahaha

That's like using Rachel Maddow and MSNBC as examples of "the media" abandoning Clinton.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you meant "...abandoning Trump." And I agree with you. I see no signs of what Babe thinks is happening.
 
Tell us more about the blacks.

I don't think that anybody that says "the blacks" is going to win their votes. Just a hunch
 
♪alt13 said:
Tell us more about the blacks.

I don't think that anybody that says "the blacks" is going to win their votes. Just a hunch
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for anyone's votes. Did Trump use that subject expressed that way? I use the words that way because it's a natural grouping when discussing some significant differences between racial identitities.

I might feel more comfortable calling myself "black". Does that mean I can use the N word with impunity?
 
babe said:
I'm not asking for anyone's votes. Did Trump use that subject expressed that way? I use the words that way because it's a natural grouping when discussing some significant differences between racial identitities.

I might feel more comfortable calling myself "black". Does that mean I can use the N word with impunity?
Click to expand...

Please change username to blackbabe.
 
babe said:
I'm not asking for anyone's votes. Did Trump use that subject expressed that way? I use the words that way because it's a natural grouping when discussing some significant differences between racial identitities.

I might feel more comfortable calling myself "black". Does that mean I can use the N word with impunity?
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtBl0-24LGE
 
I admit, it was more than a hunch. Here's a graph

blog_trump_poll_black.jpg


(To be fair the margin of error was probably like +-3% so Trump could be as low as -2% with the blacks :) )
 
♪alt13 said:
Tell us more about the blacks.

I don't think that anybody that says "the blacks" is going to win their votes. Just a hunch
Click to expand...

babe said:
I'm not asking for anyone's votes. Did Trump use that subject expressed that way? I use the words that way because it's a natural grouping when discussing some significant differences between racial identitities.

I might feel more comfortable calling myself "black". Does that mean I can use the N word with impunity?
Click to expand...

Use of the word "the" in conjunction with black people is a blunt way to turn an entire race into the other. The usage has racial history in the same way "the Jews" has anti-Semitic history. In the South "the blacks" has been used by separatists ever since "the negroes" and "the coloreds" became too obviously unacceptable. It's a simple-minded us versus them way of dividing people. Using black people and white people or just blacks and whites is the more natural way to group people when race or racial data is the topic. Why purposely use the language of separatists when neutral and less divisive terms are available and understood as the common and preferable usage?
 
@"theracialists"

I really don't think pandering to racialists or people who are all hyped up on racial issues is an important or necessary thing to do, for me or "The Donald". Even carefully determining the most acceptable words to use and pointedly speaking correctly isn't going to fix the hurt that exists in the minds of people who are expecting to be treated right.

people are people. I don't see any reason to even refer to, say skin color or hair color or heritage or any tribal grouping.

thanks, @alt13 for the great newsclips. Trump does talk that way, and he does harbor questions about the damn birth certificate too. So do I. Obama isn't referring to the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. I haven't followed "the birther" offerings about Kenya or his parents enough to think I know what they say, but I definitely note that a lot of liberal rhetorians do the otherness language about "the birthers" and even "the poor", and almost anyone else they imagine they are trying to help with government handouts, except "the fetuses" they don't care to recognize as human.

I'll take Jonah's information under advisement and accept the fact that there are people who are willing to take offense at careless speech generally. I don't think Trump is really big on racialness, and like a lot of careless people has not developed careful rhetoric.
 
I'll have to get the recent polls in here, and if there has been any "meltdown" of media support for Hillary perhaps there have been a few people who have piled on the Trump bandwagon. We'll see. The reference polls are the ones done more than a week ago. As I understand it, Trump was getting twice the vote Bush or McCain or Romney got from minorities of all kinds, for those racialists who care to discuss the divisions of mankind they create and think are important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top