Friday, 19 August 2016

What Are Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, and Steve Bannon Really Up To?

quote [ The theory making the rounds is that Trump’s latest campaign reshuffle isn’t really about trying to win the election. In bringing in Steve Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, and recruiting Roger Ailes, the disgraced former head of Fox News, as an adviser, Trump is making a business play: he’s laying the groundwork for a new conservative media empire to challenge Fox. ]

The way Trump is running this campaign has made many guess that he doesn't want to win.

He is ignoring the electoral map, seemingly not trying to change red to blue or defending red from the blue. Having rallies in states he has no possibility of winning

'Rally effect' convinces Trump to deny Clinton lead seen in polls

"Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, talks with Rachel Maddow about the remarkable lead polls show Hillary Clinton has over Donald Trump, and the "rally effect" that has Trump and his supporters convinced the polls are wrong. Duration: 9:01"

http://on.msnbc.com/2b50Et3

The pollster in this piece makes the guess Trump just likes the applause and this is just ego...well the ego I don't doubt, but Trump is not an idiot, he is a first rate huckster. So good in fact he wound up winning the GOP nomination for president...wow.

That is where and when things changed. What happened here is hard to tell. The two weeks surrounding the conventions are a blur...ending with the Khan gold star fiasco. But that is where the stars started to come together.

The most powerful man in Media just found himself without a job.

Instanly there is speculation not whether he will land on his feet but rather will this be the end of Fox News the biggest and most popular network on TV.

Roger Ailes Is Fired And Fox News Is On The Verge Of Complete Collapse

"Fox News continues to deny it, but it appears that Roger Ailes has been fired from the network. Ailes's termination could lead to a collapse of the network as key Fox talent all have clauses in their contracts that allow them to leave if Ailes departs Fox News"

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/19/roger-ailes-fired-fox-news-verge-complete-collapse.html

Shortly after this...

NYTimes: Roger Ailes Will Be An Advisor To Donald Trump

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/16/1560728/-Breaking-Roger-Ailes-Will-Be-An-Advisor-To-Donald-Trump

Now I am pretty sure how this went down....The phone rings in Trump Tower and the voice say I have a deal for you.

The next piece of the puzzle.....

"Steve Bannon runs the new vast right-wing conspiracy—and he wants to take down both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/


Now ignore the electoral map...instead see media markets... This makes sense.

[SFW] [politics] [+1]
[by bbqkink@8:01pmGMT]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 11:37pm GMT on 19th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
It's like people keep posting his bullshit for him as free press...
bbqkink said[2] @ 11:52pm GMT on 19th Aug
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

a Taboo is placed upon the name, such that Voldemort or his followers may trace anyone who utters it.

Grow the hell up he is the Republican nominee for president. He will actually get electoral votes unlike you know who. You act like the 100 or so people here on SE will make a difference in this election not the millions who watch him 24/7 on mainstream media this even though 1/2 of the folks here aren't even US citizens.
lilmookieesquire said @ 8:54am GMT on 20th Aug
I live and vote in California. If HRC can't win California she has lost the election elsewhere. The thing is, I have no idea why Inwould vote for her besides "she is not trump".

Let me spell it out.

I want to know what the fuck her actual platform is.

Every post about Trump moves the spotlight from her platform.

If she's going to be president, the most important thing to know is her platform. IDGAF what Trump is spewing out this week because it's a distraction.

Your own post basically suggests that
bbqkink said[1] @ 12:56pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:-1 Bad]
filtered comment under your threshold
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:25pm GMT on 20th Aug
My point is that you/we/the media should be focusing on her campaign and the issues. Trump is the distraction. The more we focus on trump the less Hilary has to deliver and the more she can deliver to the interests funding her as opposed to delivering actual liberal reforms. Mostly because the Neo-liberals/new-left aren't liberal. Bill Clinton's strategy of moving right of center was a brilliant short term strategy but a shithouse long-term one.

And that's fine. It's valid. Especially for republicans. But I think the responsible thing to do is to shift the focus from trump to Hilary's positions- and every trump post taking him seriously, does the opposite of that.

And that's also fine- but I'll downmod them because I think it's playing into the narrative that seems to be moving the country center-right.
bbqkink said[2] @ 10:37pm GMT on 20th Aug
What you are seeing is politics 101.

If your opponent is of choleric temper, irritate him. Sun Tzu

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. Sun Tzu


Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself
Napoleon Bonaparte

Hillary hasn't had a news conference in months...there is a reason for it..as a mater of fact several. One of the biggest is the Olympics are on nobody is paying any attention. They will be over soon. Labor day is when all hell breaks lose. You will be sick of it by November.

(And why the fuck are you downvoting the very thing you asked for. Seems to becoming a habit around here, don't like the answer.... downvote. even like in your case, it is the answer to the question you asked.)
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:45am GMT on 21st Aug
I explained in the comments. I'm not talking about Posting HRC platform. Discussing it. Media coverage. Posts. That's positive and beneficial pressure.

I don't mean I want to see it on SE every 5 posts.

But I see no value to posting Trump stuff.

Is that not a fair position? I mean I understand HRC has an actual platform. I just mean, why are we posting and talking about trump when HRC's platform is the actual real one that will take place.

That's my point, I hope it is fair and I hope I've illustrated it clearly enough.

If you want to argue that Imm jumping the gun and Trump is still a threat and we need to do everything to defeat him- that's fair. I mean I disagree, but that is a valid viewpoint.

But the more I see of his candidacy, the more it looks like it's going to fold and make HRC the presumptive president.

I think SP's position that he actively likes HRC is fine. I don't understand the connection between enthusiasm for her and thinking as one's self as liberal (and obviously one doesn't have to be a progressive hippie lovers socialist) but it's obviously a fair position and I respect that for what it is.

But this is exactly what I want and why I'm making a stink. I think this website and you people are fairly neat-o and I'm holding you guys to a higher level than the main stream media (even if I'm being a dick about it)
bbqkink said @ 2:20pm GMT on 21st Aug
But I see no value to posting Trump stuff.

Well this post as a lot more about Roger Aisle than Trump. This about a behind the scenes move by right wing media powerhouses. It is a lot of speculation but there is also a lot of smoke.

About Hillary's positions...They unlike Trumps are well written out and thoughtful. you can look them up. The only think we could discus here is..will she actually do them of are they political bullshit to get elected.

Now why haven't we heard her stump speech talk about all the positive things she will do if elected...we the truth is they have...https://hillaryspeeches.com/tag/transcript/

But she is making them locally in targeted communities not taking question from nation media but from local newspapers...targeting her exposure.

But this neat-o place need to discus all sides of issues not just what makes us fell good. I hear a lot abut the green party..but 100% of it is about Stein running for president. That is not going to even effect the race, but is she the only green running for office...where are all of the mayors and state Representatives races with green candidates. Are the ever going to be a viable party or are they always going to be the butt of presidential jokes.

The election is about to change. the Olympics are over labor day is upon us and the little monsters are back in school...politics is about to turn into a bloodsport the debates start in a couple of weeks...it will be a lot different.
steele said @ 12:00am GMT on 20th Aug
I'm reminded of the boy who cried wolf.
sanepride said @ 12:57am GMT on 20th Aug
Except in this case there really is a wolf.
lilmookieesquire said @ 8:35am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
There was a wolf in that story too.
bbqkink said @ 2:51am GMT on 21st Aug
The winter came, and the villagers were cold and hungry, and many died, for there were no sheep.
steele said @ 1:36am GMT on 20th Aug
We'll see, that's the problem; Some days y'all are saying he's a wolf, some days he's a buffoon, some days he's evil incarnate, other days he doesn't even want the job. The villagers aren't impressed by the cries anymore.
sanepride said @ 2:18am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
My point isn't to categorize Trump, on any given day he may be any or all of the above. The point is that he remains an extant menace who could still potentially become POTUS. Some of us do consider this a much greater evil.
steele said @ 2:22pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2 Underrated]
You've left my conversation and gone off to start your own. What you're saying is completely irrelevant to the villagers and why they're losing interest.

Mookie's right, y'all are basically running his PR campaign for him. You're so oversaturating the Not Trump angle that come november he will actually have a chance.

And guess who will be blamed? :P

Stein2016 - She's not Hillary either.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:31pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
To be fair, though, I am being a jerk about it.
sanepride said @ 3:46am GMT on 21st Aug
Seems to be a popular approach.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:38am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Good]
I think everyone else has been fairly lovely. Sorry if I was too harsh with the downmods. In hindsite I regret that those downmods might have limited discussion. My intention was to discourage trump posts (down mods) and promote actual conversation about HRC (via comments).

And I don't mean I want to know your personal reasons for voting and have you defend them. I mean I just wanted everyone's input (via post) on HRC's positions.

This isn't about you are BBQ (despite the downmods) but about me wanting SE to have That kind of conversation- beyond "omg trump is so bad".

And I think we kind of are starting to? Maybe?

I really have to apologize if it came off as personal. I like you (both) and I wouldn't be typing this all out if I didn't think you weren't the kind of guy to consider other points of view (more than myself perhaps)

And I'm not saying HRC posts are on your guys or anything. Mostly I just want to move the narrative beyond trump's dump of the week. I want the spotlight on HRC because I think it's a defensible position- and frankly, maybe some people can defend it and maybe some people like me need to hear/see/read it.

It's entirely possible that I'm not giving her a fair chance.
sanepride said @ 2:32pm GMT on 21st Aug
Now that sounds like the mookie I love and respect. I'm traveling this weekend, when I have access to my keyboard I'll post my case for an (qualified but) enthusiastic vote for HRC, here or in a newer thread.
lilmookieesquire said @ 7:57pm GMT on 21st Aug
I appreciate that. Don't mind me, I'm super grumpy lately but the point still stands and I'd love to discuss it with you guys.
sanepride said @ 3:28pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:-1 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold
steele said @ 3:42pm GMT on 20th Aug
You act as if this is only happening our humble little forum :P
sanepride said @ 4:02pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:30pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Which is why I downmod- because we can control
The narrative here.

And ya- there's plenty you can do. Like flying out swing states, phone banking and other things like that. But Hilary, to me, is a candidate I resign myself to, not someone I have any enthusiasm about.

A -1 trump mod is just legitimizing the narrative. I'd prefer a "-1 we should be talking about Hilary's positions" mod of we were going to do that.
sanepride said @ 10:43pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Classy Pr0n]
I'd love to elaborate on the positive issues that have influenced my choice but frankly I don't see the point, they're been pretty much dismissed as mere distractions from what many here consider to be more pressing economic issues - issues that are unlikely to be resolved by even a President Sanders or Stein in the current political environment. So even though I can muster some enthusiasm, why try to share it and just be shot down by people who are obviously much smarter than me?
bbqkink said @ 11:06pm GMT on 20th Aug
because we can control The narrative here.


I am having a hard time remembering why I missed this place so much...it has changed a lot. Reminds a lot of reddit, and that is a shame.
sanepride said @ 11:16pm GMT on 20th Aug
When it comes to political discussion we are a far cry from the diversity and depth of discussion on old SE.
This is a very narrow group.
bbqkink said[3] @ 11:20pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
I do miss it.

I wish numbers would actual post a little more even. The old SE had conservatives who were willing to get in there as well. People were open to any opinion.

++++

I once had a death threat by one of the not so "silent majority" as a lefty pink commie swine and here I don't make the purity test as a progressive....roll another one just like the other one....God I feel old.
Bob Denver said @ 7:48am GMT on 21st Aug
"I wish numbers would actual post a little more even."

Islam is the religion of peace!
That usually works like a duck-call.
bbqkink said @ 2:37pm GMT on 21st Aug
Ya I am never going to agree with the rhetoric, but it introduces it into the discussion. And if people around here like it or not a lot of the populace is having that discussion...and if we don't hear it we will never know what your crazy uncle is talking about at Thanksgiving
arrowhen said @ 3:20pm GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Informative]
The problem with numbers is that he's not actually interested in discussion. He just pastes in more talking points and then switches to clumsy insults when he runs out of those.
bbqkink said @ 4:09pm GMT on 21st Aug
Ya you are right...he was just the only right winger who I could think of...does Donnie still show up?
sanepride said @ 11:01pm GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Donnie is around, King of the Hill has what I would call moderate conservative views (at least by current standards), Morris is fairly right-wing for a Canadian, and then we've got the hit-and-runs - coffeejoejava, fish, and numbers.
arrowhen said @ 1:15am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Funsightful]
So... you want more diversity and depth of discussion, but you don't want to contribute any because you don't like being disagreed with?
bbqkink said[2] @ 1:39am GMT on 21st Aug
By my count that was his 5th comment in this thread...I didn't see him downvote anyone because they disagree with him. I did see him complain because in a category called politics there are people talking like we shouldn't mention someone who is running for and has a chance to win the most powerful position on the fucking planet....lets not talk about the racist, egomaniac and he might go away...instead lets talk about a fantasy where some who doesn't have the organization to even get on the ballot will save us all, because we have the magic dust fairy tale crap...sorry could hold that back any longer.
sanepride said @ 4:01am GMT on 21st Aug
As a rule I don't downmod comments I disagree with, no matter how strongly (with obvious exceptions for blatant bigotry).
bbqkink said @ 4:26am GMT on 21st Aug
Ya the downmod used to be to make a comment go away because it was unfit for the forum. now it is being used instead of words to disagree with content.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:01am GMT on 21st Aug
No. Sorry. That's not the only reason why downmods exist. Otherwise there wouldn't be downmod topics. And I'm not just Downmodding you. I've also UP modded you. And I've also written fairly long comments explaining my position for almost each one.

I'd hardly call my downvoted dismissive.
bbqkink said @ 2:33pm GMT on 21st Aug
I want to know what the fuck her actual platform is.

Then read the damn thing....
kylemcbitch said @ 2:46am GMT on 22nd Aug
I went on, at length as to why I downmodded you. If that isn't adding to a discussion instead of taking it away... I don't know what to say?

A downmod isn't just to say "I dont want to see this/dont want anyone to see this" it is also saying "I don't agree with this strongly." It's a dick move to downmod and not explain, which so far has not been happening. So, I guess... suck it up?
sanepride said @ 3:24am GMT on 21st Aug
That's a very interesting interpretation of my comment.
arrowhen said @ 4:16am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Funsightful]
You said: "When it comes to political discussion we are a far cry from the diversity and depth of discussion on old SE."

You also said: "I'd love to elaborate on the positive issues that have influenced my choice but frankly I don't see the point..."

It seems to me that elaborating on the positive issues that have influenced your choice would be a pretty obvious way to increase the diversity and depth of political discussion here.

But you don't want to do that, because: "...why try to share it and just be shot down by people who are obviously much smarter than me?"

Where is the flaw in my interpretation?
sanepride said @ 3:25pm GMT on 21st Aug
Seems pretty clear that political discussion here is dominated by a particular group (including the site administrator) and that dissenting views are often countered by downmods, snark, and suggested reading lists. How does that encourage diversity and depth?
arrowhen said @ 5:31pm GMT on 21st Aug
You say that like downmodding and snark haven't been part of SE political discussion since time immemorial.
sanepride said @ 6:14pm GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Good]
Sure they have, but along with substantive debate, not replacing it. Also we're missing the voices on the right.
But in response to mookie's polite request I'll elaborate on my views when I return from my nice weekend getaway and we'll see how that goes.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:25am GMT on 21st Aug
It doesn't sound to me like you'd love to.

I think I've been very far from dismissive. It seems to me I've literally asked for conversation about the issues.

I mean I don't need or want you to be the standard bearer for HEC. I'm just interested in her platform.

And while everyone here is smarter than us, maybe we could learn some new things or our opinions could change with discussion.

That's why I think it's worth discussing.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:04am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
sanepride said @ 2:58pm GMT on 21st Aug [Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold
lilmookieesquire said @ 8:55am GMT on 20th Aug
Maybe you should be more worried about the platform of the person you are voting for.
sanepride said @ 3:51pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
I've made my choice based on positive, issue-driven reasons and I'm quite comfortable with it. That said, I can respect the well-considered choices others have made. I'm not touting the candidate I'm voting for, or lecturing anybody over their candidate. I'm figuring minds are made up here. I'm not expecting agreement or even respect here for my choice, just maybe some small courteous acknowledgement that my choice is as legitimate and considered as anyone's.
As for Trump, while posts like this may be gratuitous, they are still valid and unlikely to have any more impact than posts about how corrupt Hillary is or how great Jill Stein is. The only difference is that only two of these people have a chance of becoming President, and thereby actually impacting our lives for the next 4 -8 years.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:46pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
And I think that's fine. I just don't think you're a progressive liberal, and that's okay. At no point have I ever said Hilary is a bad candidate, I just don't think she's an actual liberal. I liken her to a 1980s republican with a better, much more humane, social-political platform.

I think she'll make a fine president and is conservative enough to maybe get things done by working with republicans (I don't think she has obama's issues with being liked/working together- she's not an idealist)

But I'd like to hear more about her platform than trump posts.

I live in California so I might not vote for her- but if I lived in a swing state I would absolutely vote for her. But again, she is someone I'd tolerate as president. I personally don't understand enthusiasm for her beyond "she's not trump".
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:48pm GMT on 20th Aug
And this is the exact comment I really appreciate. Thank you. I want to hear what people are voting FOR- not against.

I'd upmod this +100 if I could.
sanepride said @ 3:58am GMT on 21st Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
If there was a post of positive reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton (other than voting against Trump) I wonder how it would be received.
bbqkink said @ 4:28am GMT on 21st Aug
bbqkink said[1] @ 7:56am on 20th Aug [Score:-1 Bad] - mod/reply | edit
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:49am GMT on 21st Aug
Please consider rereading the actual comment "If there was a post of positive reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton (other than voting against Trump) I wonder how it would be received." -Sanepride

(Honestly, probably not that great. But the point isn't about everyone liking her positions but discussing the likely position of whom I assume is going to be the president)
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:58am GMT on 21st Aug
I actually really am as well.
bbqkink said @ 1:01pm GMT on 20th Aug
Maybe you should be very worried about this platform instead.

https://www.gop.com/platform/
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:33pm GMT on 20th Aug [Score:2]
No. I'm not. Because trump isn't going to be president and in ten years that will probably be the cherrypicked democrats platform anyway.
bbqkink said @ 10:46pm GMT on 20th Aug
Then you are a bigger fool than I thought. Shit happens he could win.

And once again that disgusting habit of yours of downvoting anything you disagree with...you realize you downvoted both the Democratic and Republican platform don't you? Are you still living in fairyland where somebody else wins other than Trump or Clinton?
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:57am GMT on 21st Aug
Freedom to downmod bro.

I've explained why I downmodded and what I want (posts and discussions vs a url but that's a decent start.)

Do I seem like I'm in lala land? I want to discuss HRC's platform. Does that sound like I think someone else is going to win?

I didn't down vote the entire democratic platform. I downvoted a url to her website.

I mean I think I've clearly outlined a reasonable position. Sanepride seems to understand what I mean (even if he disagrees) I mean I've been on SE for like 14years? Do I randomly downmod things I don't agree with? I think I've outlined my point fairly well.

Saying I have disgusting ha it's of Downmodding positions I don't agree with seems to be ignoring 14 years of my modding history and seems fairly emotionally charged. I don't fancy I've done anything "disgusting".
bbqkink said @ 2:30pm GMT on 21st Aug
You don't downvote when somebody tells you it is going to rain just because you want to have a picnic.

If you think what the person just said is bullshit, say it is bullshit don't downvote bad porn unless it is bad porn.

"seems to be ignoring 14 years of my modding history"

No it is noting your recent history and is a piss poor way to express your point of view.
arrowhen said @ 3:14pm GMT on 21st Aug
You don't downnvote when somebody tells you it is going to rain just because you want to have a picnic.

No, but when they tell me for the hundredth time it's going to rain, or call me a stupid asshole for wanting a picnic, I'm not gonna feel bad about downmodding them without including an explanatory essay.
bbqkink said[1] @ 4:07pm GMT on 21st Aug
If you got a problem with the forecast say hey this is stupid anybody can see the sun is going to shine don't say -1bad.

There is a reason when a comment is downvoted it fades...you are saying it doesn't belong here not that you disagree with it.
bbqkink said @ 9:28pm GMT on 19th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Side story...

Zika hits Soutbeach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-governor-confirms-zika-transmission-in-miami-beach_us_57b74cbce4b03d5136884cf9?7wefze6dr1fm3g14i

This could have electoral consequences. When rich people are scared shit happens.
knumbknutz said @ 2:05am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Funsightful]
What are they up too? Vacuming up huge amounts of untraceable bribes (sorry....campaign contributions) out of shell corps disguised as pacs and offshoring it as fast as their accountants will let them. The one thing that could really fuck this up for them is actually winning, then they would have to pay off their backers. He's gotta be pissed by now that after all the crazy shit he has spewed out his piehole that he is still not at the "beyond all sense of doubt" point of losing in the polls right now. Probably keeps his ass up at night worrying about it
Pandafaust said @ 2:33am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence
Kama-Kiri said @ 6:14am GMT on 20th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Trump wasn't planning to win, he wasn't planning to lose. He wasn't planning, period. He'd go out and do his thing and see what happened.

People seem forget Trump has zero political experience.

He's also unwilling to let other people tell him what to do, fair enough he's managed to get so far by listening only to himself... but winning US presidential elections requires precise and massive machinery that Trump's campaign hasn't spent the necessary time and resources to build.
lilmookieesquire said @ 6:27pm GMT on 20th Aug
It's like I'm taking crazy pills over here.
sanepride said @ 3:04am GMT on 20th Aug
A good point, but of course malice and incompetence are not mutually exclusive, as I learned from my last boss.
conception said @ 8:20pm GMT on 19th Aug
https://medium.com/@MMFlint/is-trump-purposely-sabotaging-his-campaign-91b11fe07a91#.2ex0tglzy

"Friends,

Donald Trump never actually wanted to be President of the United States. I know this for a fact. I’m not going to say how I know it. I’m not saying that Trump and I shared the same agent or lawyer or stylist or, if we did, that that would have anything to do with anything. And I’m certainly not saying that I ever overheard anything at those agencies or in the hallways of NBC or anywhere else. But there are certain people reading this right now, they know who they are, and they know that every word in the following paragraphs actually happened.

Trump was unhappy with his deal as host and star of his hit NBC show, “The Apprentice” (and “The Celebrity Apprentice”). Simply put, he wanted more money. He had floated the idea before of possibly running for president in the hopes that the attention from that would make his negotiating position stronger. But he knew, as the self-proclaimed king of the dealmakers, that saying you’re going to do something is bupkus — DOING it is what makes the bastards sit up and pay attention.

Trump had begun talking to other networks about moving his show. This was another way to get leverage — the fear of losing him to someone else — and when he “quietly” met with the head of one of those networks, and word got around, his hand was strengthened. He knew then that it was time to play his Big Card.

He decided to run for President.

Of course he wouldn’t really have to RUN for President — just make the announcement, hold a few mega-rallies that would be packed with tens of thousands of fans, and wait for the first opinion polls to come in showing him — what else! — in first place! And then he would get whatever deal he wanted, worth millions more than what he was currently being paid."...
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 10:29pm GMT on 19th Aug
Seriously, Moore can eat a dick.

This one is for you, bbq. ;)

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
bbqkink said[1] @ 10:52pm GMT on 19th Aug
Still both things can be true at the same time. And the only reason this got any notice at all is that it is a Democratic operative saying it.

But at this point the only way Trump can win is if Hillary steps on her dick.
conception said @ 4:10pm GMT on 22nd Aug
Sure, Moore is often a terrible human being.

But, I think it's pretty easy to see how he could write both. They were more than a month apart. When the first one was written, Trump was steadily gaining ground on Clinton. In fact, around July 31st, he was beating her in the polls. And then he had a meltdown and two weeks later it looks like it's going to be a landslide against him. It's pretty easy to have an about-face within the context of a really quite an astonishing turn of events. Especially if in the time between the two pieces being written he talked to some insiders.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 9:57pm GMT on 19th Aug
Given his followers' belief that "the media" is why Trump is losing, making a media outlet that'll cater to their prejudices the way Fox News did to the right wing republicans, at best we're going to get another flavor of Alex Jones audience, and at worst... Well, given their rhetoric, I wouldn't be surprised if armed compounds became a thing.

I find it very odd how many Trump supporters loathe the media, yet it's the media's coverage of him that catapulted him into the nomination without him having to spend a dime. The trope of 'twisting his words' is troublesome, since all they have to do is quote him to horrify most listeners. It's also ironic as well as sickening the view they often take to the first amendment. They seem willing to inflict their own version of "rightthink" on reporters, often with violence, which should be in contrast to what they actually claim to stand for.
bbqkink said @ 12:25am GMT on 20th Aug
The putting the media in pens, then putting them on public ridicule is a bit much. It is actually dangerous.
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 3:33am GMT on 20th Aug
Between that and the chants of "lock her up," the phase "two minute hate" springs to mind...
bbqkink said @ 11:37pm GMT on 20th Aug
And God forbid if my little hypothesis here is true...can you imagine what that network would look like? To me this is even more scary than Trump winning...I see what efect Fox has had....then I visualize the Brighbart/Trump network ran by Roger Ailes...that is...frighting.

Alt-Right + Conspiracy + Authoritarianism 24/7
bbqkink said @ 11:59pm GMT on 20th Aug
It has already started....

Trump cites racist's group in new campaign ad

"Rachel Maddow reviews the history of some elitist, racist movements in the U.S. and the role of eugenicist John Tanton in those movements, and notes that his Center for Immigration Studies is cited Donald Trump's new campaign ad."


http://on.msnbc.com/2b7rMay
HoZay said @ 11:14pm GMT on 19th Aug
Maybe he's just had so much winning, he's gotten bored with winning.
bbqkink said[1] @ 12:57am GMT on 21st Aug
Side story.....

The Forgotten Government Plan to Round Up Muslims

"In the ’80s, terror led the government to consider something far more extreme than Donald Trump’s ban."

The 40-page memo described a government contingency plan for rounding up thousands of legal alien residents of eight specified nationalities: Libya, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan and Morocco. Emergency legal measures would be deployed—rescinding the right to bond, claiming the privilege of confidential evidence, excluding the public from deportation hearings, among others.



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/secret-plans-detention-internment-camps-1980s-deportation-arab-muslim-immigrants-214177?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.
home | about | subscribe | search | help not logged in | log in / register


Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
1 ScoobySnacks
2 HoZay
3 Paracetamol
4 lilmookieesquire
5 Ankylosaur