TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
They were biased against him because his personality and ... (Thanks it's been called what it is) Gas lighting ability ... Was something that needed to be pointed out because there were serious danger signs. You say personality doesn't matter. It does. It matters very much. They were biased against him when he tried to spin what he said into something they were doing to him. Because it was not true - and they were against him doing that. They reported the truth and he didn't like it. Biased media!
 
Last edited:
How is Trump so similar to Obama and Bush and the Clintons? He is appointing an Orwellian cabinet of farcical proportions.

You are trying to convince us he's the same. I don't see evidence of that at all.

The press reported his documented behaviour, and they were called biased.
 
I took journalism courses in my 20's. I once wrote an entertainment article about a semi-popular rock band that played a gig in town, for a college paper. I interviewed them in a coffee shop. That was the extent of my groupie "journalism". So, not much. But we did watch Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" and read about Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message". I think those concepts have reached their pinnacle in Trump. With Clinton, free press would've had more wiggle room yet.
 
yeah. And some body said that the Russians hacked US computers to support Trump in the election. So Obama told the CIA to check - and you know what? The CIA announced within hours it had proof that the Russians had done it. Isn't that amazing?
Within hours. And, boy, they don't come more neutral than the CIA. Right?
But, duh, if the Russians were doing it, how come the CIA didn't know it at the time? Isn't that it's job? This whole episode smells.
And the press did not just report honestly during the campaign. It fed soft and friendly questions to Clinton. And it didn't mention her questionable connections and background.
AS for an orwellian cabinet, I can't remember any time the U.S. had anything different.
No, Clinton and Trump are both feeding the same beasts - just as Bush and obama did.

The dangerous part is that voters for Trump were looking for something different. I wonder
what they'll do when they find they aren't getting it.
 
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with either Trump or Clinton. All the major news media in the U.S. are owned by a handful of extremely wealthy people. The same is true of Canada. (except for the CBC). Conrad
Black is a liar, and he uses his press to lie. One of the world's top military analysts is a Canadian, Gwynn Dyer. But he no longer appears in any newspaper in Canada. everything you read in a Canadian or U.S. newspaper is filtered by billionaires. It's propaganda. There are no exceptions.
That even extends to magazines. Black's wife, a woman of vicious views but of no insight and one with no knowledge of foreign or domestic affairs appears regularly in MacLean's magazine. That tell your something about MacLean's.
 
I should add that a free press thoughout history has been the case of only a very few newspapers. The modern press has been dishonest since its birth about the 1880s. Something of freedom lingered in a very few papers - like the New York Times - until 1980 or so. Today, the only daily I would trust is Israel's Haaretz.
 
Suspicions of Russian involvement was being reported throughout the campaign. Trump's earlier campaign manager was reported to have ties. Putin using the alt-right trolls was also discussed. It was discussed at the UN level with regard to a worldwide surge of white nationalism. Assange's possible involvement and biasing of wiki leaks was also discussed. All before Trump was elected. And Trump blew it all off. He gaslighted. He complained how unfair it was to mention him and Russia in the same sentence - afterall, "it could've been someone sitting on their bed who weighs 400 lbs." gas lighting example. Haha. Funny. What a crazy thing to suggest. Russia. Pfft. And that is what you are doing by saying it was never discussed and Obama suddenly came out with this. I remember discussing the far right and Russia with you earlier - you think they are less sinister than the U.S., hmm? and the racism which you, Graeme, claimed was not a problem, nor was the sexism. It was only a distraction from real issues you said. No! It was a divide and conquer tool to rile the angry masses and those things are real issues - because we cannot as a people solve any issues if we are still fighting over racism and sexism. That was not being instigated by the MSM. It was through the small but mighty back channels on the net that mainstream people didn't know were there. Until Hillary called them out. The "alt-right". So, we can't trust the media, we can't trust intelligence (and Trump's too smart for his briefings), we can't trust the UN. It is not so much that we can't entirely - sure question but don't dismiss all of it - but that people want to put the world into doubt and disarray and divide everyone - what for? for laughs? What is concerning to me is that there are people who would rather further discredit with lies, than repair what is wrong with the broken parts of the institutions.
 
Last edited:
Russia is the big threat? Does it have military bases and missiles surroundiing the U.S.? Does it have the largest military budget in the world? Is there a Russian exceptionalism like there is American exceptionalism - the belief that the U.S. has to right to rule the world?
It's quite possible the Russians interfered with the election. That sort of thing is quite common between nations, and the U.S. is no slouch at it. It also simply overthrows governments it doesn't like, and installs dictators.
The danger here is that millions of Americans voted for Trump because they are very, very angry at greed and lying of politicians like Clinton. The U.S. is a tinderbox. waiting to explode. Leaping onto Russia as an excuse for hitting at Trump could cause very, very serious violence in the U.S.
Obama is handling this one badly.
As for the alt-right , it really has little to do with Trump or Obama. The U.S. has been profoundly racist and has been so for a wide range of races since it was founded.

The greatest problem of the US, along with racism, is a philosophy that manipulates people for whoever controls the state. It's also racism. And its the greed and the indifference to the general population represented by the Clintons and the Trumps that are very likely soon to go 'bang'.
Oh, I might that another problem is the indifference of the churches. They've had two thousand years, and nowhere have even tried to establish a Christian society. And note that much of the 'jump for Jesus' vote in the U.S went for Trump.
 
Unfortunately even if it was proven that Russia did tamper with the election, and a new election were called, half of the United States (the republicans), would scream foul very loudly as if it were a plot to discredit Trump. It's gotten to the point that winning surpasses espionage if you are on the winning side, with no regard to the implications that if proven true, the United States constitution is a sham.
If the democrats really did win the election and it were to be enforced, I believe the powers that be know that this would spark a major revolt among the people. Trump would have to be deposed in another way that would be acceptable on both sides, such as natural causes.
 
And no-one should be hoping for that. Drumpf is an idiot and a farce, but I think Pence is actively evil.
 
Ri wonder if he truely is an idiot. Or if he is instead a master communicator. He certainly has the press runningg circles
 
Kimmio said:
Is there such a thing as Russian exceptionalism? Do they think themselves exceptional as much as the US does the same? Yes, Graeme. I think so.
Click to expand...

Basic description of sol in some sources ... an entity that believes only it is cognizant ... and yet will not extend itself to learn otherwise ... sort of like a human fault-line ... a nass Tye thingy!

AS consequence if you believe you process ... in the company of scattered souls don't say anything they already know ... causes strange reactions that reveal much!
 
Lastpointe said:
Ri wonder if he truely is an idiot. Or if he is instead a master communicator. He certainly has the press runningg circles
Click to expand...
He's no idiot. If he were he couldn't have even gotten nominated to run. He is extraordinarily manipulative - he's a wheeler dealer. A player. A top level poker player. He's intelligent and intuitive and that is why his unconventional and unpredictable - unstable - tactics are worrying for someone who is head of state. Still I wonder how so many voted for him. I wonder everyday.

It would be fine if he were still a real estate investor and reality TV host. I have no big problem with him using his 'skills' for that because it doesn't involve most of the world. Being intelligent and being trustworthy are not the same. He doesn't really care he's in it for the thrill.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
If he were he couldn't have even gotten nominated to run.
Click to expand...


Let's see how Leitch does before we say that. If she becomes Conservative leader, then I'd say he'd have as good a chance. Haven't seen any polls of party members to know what her odds are, though.
 
Kimmio - Obama has publicly announced that the U.S. has the right to invade anybody for any or no reason. It has the right to kill people without being at war. And it does all the above quite frequently. I admit that's not unique. Similar rights have been acted on by Russia, The U.S., the British Empire, the French Empire,every empire that ever was. God gless the Queen.
And please understand that so far as the needs of the American people are concerned there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. He is a billionaire who looks after himself and only himself. Clinton is a servant to billionaires to do the same for them.
 
Well, I disagree with you Graeme. Strongly. I disagree with your assessment that personality doesn't factor into it or is inconsequential. I disagree that having billionaires try to influence a person is the same as a person being a billionairre in the president's seat. At least, if what you say is true, she kept at arms length from billionaires and could keep any sort of mad power in check to some extent. Trump is the wildcard here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top