Jump to content

US Politics. Trump Crossing the Dnieper. Alea Iacta Est.


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed.  Trade wars invariably make bad situations worse.

Trade wars are like punching yourself in the head to show how tough you are. Tariffs are paid by the people in the country that imposes them. Just like hitting yourself in the head, only you feel the pain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gertrude said:

It's not a transcript, as we know, so perhaps there was a lot more ass-kissing or awkward pauses, exchanging of recipes, whatever and it got condensed with only the most noteworthy or blatant points being recorded. 

The point is "what is left out" tends to be damaging.  It usually isn't just ass-kissing or awkward pauses - Trump was happy to include the former.  When Nixon did this what was left out was very, very relevant.  I wouldn't expect anything different from Trump.

10 hours ago, Maithanet said:

But I think that kind of dichotomy isn't sustainable, and that Hannity/Carlson won't put up with Shepard et al marching to a totally different beat.  If it really comes down to which "talent" is replaceable, I think they'll replace the entire news team before they let Hannity and Carlson leave.

Hm, not sure about that.  Hannity has always kind of been out on an island on the network once he got rid of Deputy Dog (RIP Alan Colmes).  I've never agreed with the notion that Murdoch - or the douchebag son of his that's taking over - are hard ideologues.  They saw a gap in the market and they filled it.  If they get the sense, or more importantly numbers, that defending Trump isn't working out, I think they'll be fine letting that ride.  Of course, there is a lot of endogeneity there, so it's unlikely.

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

Fox dragged behind the base on Trump during the primary and when the base picked him and he bullied Fox they fell into line. It won't necessarily translate into the base abandoning him even if Fox do turn on him.

Yes, this is an accurate description of what actually went on.  FNC didn't want anything to do with Trump until it was clear he was gonna be the nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 I've never agreed with the notion that Murdoch - or the douchebag son of his that's taking over - are hard ideologues.  They saw a gap in the market and they filled it.  If they get the sense, or more importantly numbers, that defending Trump isn't working out, I think they'll be fine letting that ride.  Of course, there is a lot of endogeneity there, so it's unlikely.

I'm pretty sure that Rupert Murdoch has explicitly said that his prime interest is spreading his beliefs. Also pretty sure that all of the innumerable media outlets and newspapers and such that he owns go for hard right news. Hence why every editor at his 170+ newspapers pushed hard for the Iraq War, for example.

They don't do it for the money. Without earning one more cent than they have now that family will be wealthy forever. (Unless someone in the family shows a Donald Trump level talent for losing money. And even then, the rich don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. For example there's Donald Trump, who had banks that kept bailing out because he owed them so much money that if he went down so would they.)

Yeah, the Murdochs aren't going to hitch up to Trump so tightly that they go down with the ship, they don't do that. Their goal (or at least Rupert's goal, rumor has it that some of his sons aren't as ideological as he) is to push the world around to his point of view and values. And that's about more than money. The Camerons and Gingrichs and W. Bushes of the world will come and go, and at least as long as old Rupert is around, he'll work with them and prop them up and push them to move according to his vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 12:53 PM, Gaston de Foix said:

Name the political opponent Trump has been able to have arrested?

So we have to wait until he does this to say it's a problem? The fucker is flirting with it closer and closer everyday. Besides, Mr. Rhetoric, the point wasn't what Trump tweeted. The point was about the definition of treason. Go lick some more boots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I'm pretty sure that Rupert Murdoch has explicitly said that his prime interest is spreading his beliefs. Also pretty sure that all of the innumerable media outlets and newspapers and such that he owns go for hard right news. Hence why every editor at his 170+ newspapers pushed hard for the Iraq War, for example.

I'm pretty sure magnates - or any public figure - don't admit they're in it for the money.  As for the Iraq War, seriously?  The NYT was gung-ho about it.  Of course his papers pushed it.

39 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

They don't do it for the money. Without earning one more cent than they have now that family will be wealthy forever.

M'kay.  Because once people get money, they always wanna stop getting more money.  C'mon man.

41 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Their goal (or at least Rupert's goal, rumor has it that some of his sons aren't as ideological as he) is to push the world around to his point of view and values. And that's about more than money. The Camerons and Gingrichs and W. Bushes of the world will come and go, and at least as long as old Rupert is around, he'll work with them and prop them up and push them to move according to his vision.

Sure, here's my qualifier.  I'm not denying that Rupert was/is a right-wing douchebag that was intent on bringing that to the US and in the process completely destroying our electoral system at least -- and now our entire political system.  What I'm saying is his and his douchenozzle sons will be expedient in the process of doing so.  When they thought Trump was just a sideshow - which is what I thought too so no judging there - they mostly ridiculed him.  When they realized he was their meal-ticket, they fell in line right quick.  That's how it'll be again, as it's always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can separate ideology from profit motive with Rupert, since a large part of his ideology is for things that will make him more money.

The two motives are an ouroboros 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bernie should drop out.  And this is an unfortunate but..easy way to do so.  Will he?  Of course not.  He thinks he's the only one capable of somehow enacting his ludicrous agenda.  Classic hubris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think Bernie should drop out.  And this is an unfortunate but..easy way to do so.  Will he?  Of course not.  He thinks he's the only one capable of somehow enacting his ludicrous agenda.  Classic hubris.

The Greeks had a word for this. It was called

SOCIALISM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't think you can separate ideology from profit motive with Rupert, since a large part of his ideology is for things that will make him more money.

The two motives are an ouroboros 

Well, I didn't know what the fuck ouroboros meant before this post, so thanks for that googling, but I feel I should clarify and/or emphasize my own position.  YES, I think you can separate ideology from profit motive when it comes to the Murdochs.  The latter outweighs the former, every time all the time.  Sorry, I think it's naive to think otherwise.  Rupert's political history demonstrates this, in terms of who he's willing to support for his own benefit at a certain time.

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The Greeks had a word for this. It was called

SOCIALISM.

THIS IS SPARTA!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Gerard Butler gets called an eternal badass, but every time I kick a motherfucker into my death pit I get called a murderer. Sexism at its finest.

BREAK THE GLASS CEILING BY KICKING A MUTHAFUCKER THROUGH IT!

Oh, sorry, you came here for intelligent political discourse? Um, yeah, sorry, I got nothin.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, I didn't know what the fuck ouroboros meant before this post, so thanks for that googling, but I feel I should clarify and/or emphasize my own position.  YES, I think you can separate ideology from profit motive when it comes to the Murdochs.  The latter outweighs the former, every time all the time.  Sorry, I think it's naive to think otherwise.  Rupert's political history demonstrates this, in terms of who he's willing to support for his own benefit at a certain time.

THIS IS SPARTA!!!

I think we're talking slightly across purposes, the reason I don't think you can divide them is because if his ideology is at odds with profit he will change his ideology to align. There might be cases where he appears to put ideology ahead of profit but those are simply where he's looking more long term and views it as an investment in longer term profit. I don't think this is disagreeing with you really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

There might be cases where he appears to put ideology ahead of profit but those are simply where he's looking more long term and views it as an investment in longer term profit. I don't think this is disagreeing with you really.

No, it's not.  I entirely agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is a Nickelback fan?
 

Quote

A video posted by Donald Trump has been removed from Twitter after a copyright claim by the rock band Nickelback.

The video took aim at the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, opening with a clip of him saying he had never discussed business dealings with his son Hunter.

...

In Trump’s edit, Kroeger’s photograph is replaced by one taken in 2014 that shows both the Bidens on a golf course with Devon Archer, a colleague of Hunter who is labelled in the edit as a “Ukraine gas exec”.

Within 12 hours of the video being posted to Twitter, however, it had been removed and replaced with the notice: “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

Just when you thought this administration couldn't go any lower...

(Although good on Nickelback getting it removed). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

DEMoCRATS ARE TANKING the economy! IT'S WHY I don't build there! I won't build in MIAMI! BEcause of the TANKING! The corrupt NEWS MEDIA............. .........

want us to not do it, folks! THAT'S WHY, because of the TANking. I said "WOW! Will you just look at? Just the way it, with the numbers!" and they all say "Mr. President"- I love it when they say- Don't you? We love the Presidency here don't we? Gotta respect THE OFFICE. Gotta HAVE reshpekt. They're very DISrespectful, the DEMOCRATS HAVE NO RESPECT! NONE, DO THEY?

Lol. I had a thought last night. What would a Jacelyn Trump review of the original trilogy look like? There’s a lot to chew on there with those treasonous rebels and Vader’s lack of loyalty.

14 hours ago, Mexal said:

Didn't you read, it's because of all the impeachment talk by the nasty Dems, not the terrible manufacturing report that's exacerbated by continuing tariffs.

You’re a tariff!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...