Jump to content

Archived

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

Souriquois

Will Trump cause the collapse of the right-wing noise machine?

Recommended Posts

 

Break out the popcorn. The accusations, denunciations, falsifications and cries of foul are flying all over the media.

 

Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, original statement seems to be that she was pushed to the ground by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. But, evidently, after video of the incident showed nothing of the sort happened, Fields changed her story to say she maintained her balance despite an attempted pushdown. Fields wants an apology from Trump. But Breitbart will not back her up, being the leading pro-Trump network. Breitbart later put out a conspiracy article about the incident.

 

It's hilarious that Fields and others at Breitbart are up-in-arms about the inaccuracy of the article, considering that Breitbart's stock-in-trade has been falsehoods, all along.

 

But the right-wing noise machine consists of far more than Breitbart. There are thousands of local radio right wing talking heads, lead by such right wing heros as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. All the right leaning pundits on TV, many, but hardly all, on Fox, outnumber moderates many times over.

 

Backing up the pundits are a network of think tanks, focus groups and right wing strategists, the magnitude which the left can only dream about. Then there's the vast right wing talk machine communications system which arms all senators, representatives and media pundits with talking points of the day, every day.

 

But Trump's influence is highly divisive. Perhaps he will have enough time to vandalize the Republican brand significantly before his campaign implodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break out the popcorn. The accusations, denunciations, falsifications and cries of foul are flying all over the media.

 

Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, original statement seems to be that she was pushed to the ground by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. But, evidently, after video of the incident showed nothing of the sort happened, Fields changed her story to say she maintained her balance despite an attempted pushdown. Fields wants an apology from Trump. But Breitbart will not back her up, being the leading pro-Trump network. Breitbart later put out a conspiracy article about the incident.

 

It's hilarious that Fields and others at Breitbart are up-in-arms about the inaccuracy of the article, considering that Breitbart's stock-in-trade has been falsehoods, all along.

 

But the right-wing noise machine consists of far more than Breitbart. There are thousands of local radio right wing talking heads, lead by such right wing heros as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. All the right leaning pundits on TV, many, but hardly all, on Fox, outnumber moderates many times over.

 

Backing up the pundits are a network of think tanks, focus groups and right wing strategists, the magnitude which the left can only dream about. Then there's the vast right wing talk machine communications system which arms all senators, representatives and media pundits with talking points of the day, every day.

 

But Trump's influence is highly divisive. Perhaps he will have enough time to vandalize the Republican brand significantly before his campaign implodes.

You may be correct.

 

Although the fissures I am starting to see kind of mirror that of the collapse of the Canadian right-wing noise machine, which is now down to only four newspapers and it's still bleeding money. Before, it had at least 12 papers and a TV station. Might be the beginning of the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break out the popcorn. The accusations, denunciations, falsifications and cries of foul are flying all over the media.

 

Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, original statement seems to be that she was pushed to the ground by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. But, evidently, after video of the incident showed nothing of the sort happened, Fields changed her story to say she maintained her balance despite an attempted pushdown. Fields wants an apology from Trump. But Breitbart will not back her up, being the leading pro-Trump network. Breitbart later put out a conspiracy article about the incident.

 

It's hilarious that Fields and others at Breitbart are up-in-arms about the inaccuracy of the article, considering that Breitbart's stock-in-trade has been falsehoods, all along.

 

But the right-wing noise machine consists of far more than Breitbart. There are thousands of local radio right wing talking heads, lead by such right wing heros as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. All the right leaning pundits on TV, many, but hardly all, on Fox, outnumber moderates many times over.

 

Backing up the pundits are a network of think tanks, focus groups and right wing strategists, the magnitude which the left can only dream about. Then there's the vast right wing talk machine communications system which arms all senators, representatives and media pundits with talking points of the day, every day.

 

But Trump's influence is highly divisive. Perhaps he will have enough time to vandalize the Republican brand significantly before his campaign implodes.

Few things about Trump are good. However....it IS significant that the usual puppetmasters have lost control. Trump ain't getting his talking points from Heritage or his $ from the Kochs. Whatever Rush,Beck,WND says isn't changing stuff. The Dogs got off the leashes. That's a pretty big and unexpected twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are Redwood. This election cycle, the right wing control machine lost authority over the candidates, especially Trump.

 

 

But Trump is hardly a first. Other very wealthy candidates:--

 

~ Ross Perot in 1992. - Deviated significantly from Republican party line

~ Steve Forbes 1996 & 2000. - Also deviated.

~ Mitt Romney 2012. - Ran on orthodox Republican policy but could have run a financially independent campaign, if he chose.

~ John Kerry 2004.

~ Rudy Giuliani 2008.

~ Jon Huntsman 2012.

~ Bill Clinton 1992.

~ Hillary Clinton 2016.

~ George Washington 1789 - Never ran. Nevertheless elected by congress - made his own policy, set many precedents.

 

All the preceding are wealthy enough to ignore party directive at any point in time. Some of them used their wealth as more than just the potential to run on their own, financially independent platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody who blindly follows either left or right is a naive idiot, and probably believes that elected politicians run a country for the benefit of the general population. (they probably also believe that tv wrestling is real).

 

it pisses me off that so few people can see the big picture in that in virtually every modern country, there are 2 major parties and a union movement that sleep in the same bed but in public pretend to be enemies.

 

these 3 organisations are owned and operated by, and answer only to, the handful of rich assholes who own them, and their decisions are based on "what is good for the party owners", rather than "what is good for the general population whom we officially represent".

 

in virtually all modern countries, over 95pct of the wealth and resources are owned by less than 5pct of the population, and it is this elite 5pct that owns the major political parties, as well as owning the media which tells the sheeple what to think and who to vote for.

 

in recent times, another movement who call themselves "greens" and pretend to care about the ecological future of the planet, have emerged, but they are as genuine in their concern for ecology as tv wrestling, or a 3 dollar note. once they gain power, they use the party or movement as a vehicle for their pet hysterical issues, like their obsession about helping the world to overpopulate, which in fact is the main cause of the ecological doom of this planet. if anybody complains, they are branded a "racist" or a "reactionary" or a "looney tune". sometimes these movements start off as genuine, but once they gain momentum and influence, then the hysterical lunatics infiltrate and use the the organisation as a vehicle for hysterical issues, which either have nothing to do with ecology, or in fact are counter productive to ecological common sense, like overpopulation like i said. (can any one of those morons please explain to me how overpopulating will reduce pollution and carbon emissions, illegal dumping of pollutants etc?)

 

the mainstream party owners, who control the media, arent really hysterical in their quest to overpopulate, but want to overpopulate in order to boost their already massive profits, by generating more busines. never mind the indisputable fact that they are shortening the life of the planet by many thousands of years, plus they are destroying the quality of life for todays humans, in that they are also increasing the crime rate and the disharmony between races and cultures, which in turn has increased the rate of terrorism worldwide.

 

donald trump for example, in his wisdom or otherwise, wants to prosecute women who have abortions. in a badly overpopulated world, i figure that is a selfish idea, considering his real motives are to generate more business for him and his fellow rich assholes.

 

can anybody explain to me how overpopulating will save our ecology, and our widlife, and reduct the overcrowding in our cities, and the ensuing rise in crime rate that inevitably will follow?

 

until donald trump came along, i didnt appreciate what a great guy obama is, but i still think he is a puppet of the rich assholes who own him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody who blindly follows either left or right is a naive idiot, and probably believes that elected politicians run a country for the benefit of the general population. (they probably also believe that tv wrestling is real).

 

 

There is no shortage anywhere, of naive idiots, who understand they are sages.

 

Incidentally, nobody here is an advocate for overpopulation. Beyond the nihilism, which, things being the way they are, I can understand, do you have any suggestions?

 

By the way. Welcome to the forum wil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Incidentally, nobody here is an advocate for overpopulation.

 

Right. But there may be disagreement on what constitutes overpopulation and why.

 

If your world societies are badly organized (and they certainly are right now) then we're extremely over-populated already.

 

If you had a more rational organization that used all the science we have to deal with the ecological consequences of our large population, then the earth could easily support ten times as many people as it currently does.

 

But there's zero chance that we'll get that kind of societal organization, I'm sorry to say. Things might get a little better, but only a little, not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last of Canada's right-wing noise machine bit the dust today. The four last newspapers. Yup, they went from having a TV network and newspapers in every city to, dead.

 

Unless you count Ezra Levant's YouTube channel, but nobody watches him (unless for laughs). Apparently he gets more views in Europe than North America (includes the US).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last of Canada's right-wing noise machine bit the dust today.

 

Yay for Canada! No sign here yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If your world societies are badly organized (and they certainly are right now) then we're extremely over-populated already.

 

If you had a more rational organization that used all the science we have to deal with the ecological consequences of our large population, then the earth could easily support ten times as many people as it currently does.

 

But there's zero chance that we'll get that kind of societal organization, I'm sorry to say. Things might get a little better, but only a little, not enough.

 

I agree with every part of the above..

 

To add:

World population now = SEVEN POINT FOUR BILLION. If society could support the physical needs of ten times that ... SEVENTY FOUR BILLION souls, and responsibly recycle its waste and the waste of its industry, etc. It would result in either the filling up of all the empty spaces or, packing people so tight that the resulting loss of freedom and increased regimentation would be inhumane. There are other problems with filling up the empty space of the world, like habitat loss leading to: Extinction ... loss of biodiversity ... loss of pollinators, etc.

 

World population might double or triple with the inefficient, badly organized societies we have now, but the results would be catastrophic.

 

Instead of expanding inward we should be thinking of looking for other worlds to inhabit, to stave off the inevitable extinction that happens to all advanced species on Earth. The only survivors from the distant geological past are either microscopic creatures or cockroaches, ants and the like. The search for inhabitable new worlds would not only be practical but a great adventure in which even those not directly involved, could participate, vicariously. By putting populations on widely spaced worlds, there is far less chance of extinction by supernova, wandering black holes, large asteroids, giant comets, and our own weapons of mass destruction.

 

So far, there is no evidence of any other sentient, technological life in the Universe except us. For 55 years, the SETI program, designed to detect any sign of extraterrestrial intelligence, has found next to nothing. We are the first species on Earth capable of colonizing other worlds and greatly increasing our chances for survival as a species. We need to go for it.

 

http://www.space.com/20657-stephen-hawking-humanity-survival-space.html

Stephen Hawking: Humanity Must Colonize Space to Survive

Famed British cosmologist Stephen Hawking sees only one way for humanity to survive the next millennium: colonize space. And he's probably right.

In a lecture Tuesday in Los Angles, the 71-year-old Stephen Hawking said humanity would likely not survive another 1,000 years "without escaping beyond our fragile planet," according to the Associated Press. Hawking has long been an advocate of space exploration as a way to ensure humanity's survival. Living on a single planet leaves us at risk of self-annihilation through war or accidents, or a cosmic catastrophe like an asteroid strike.

- See more at: http://www.space.com/20657-stephen-hawking-humanity-survival-space.html#sthash.nWMHxaHk.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break out the popcorn. The accusations, denunciations, falsifications and cries of foul are flying all over the media.

 

Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, original statement seems to be that she was pushed to the ground by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. But, evidently, after video of the incident showed nothing of the sort happened, Fields changed her story to say she maintained her balance despite an attempted pushdown. Fields wants an apology from Trump. But Breitbart will not back her up, being the leading pro-Trump network. Breitbart later put out a conspiracy article about the incident.

 

It's hilarious that Fields and others at Breitbart are up-in-arms about the inaccuracy of the article, considering that Breitbart's stock-in-trade has been falsehoods, all along.

 

But the right-wing noise machine consists of far more than Breitbart. There are thousands of local radio right wing talking heads, lead by such right wing heros as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. All the right leaning pundits on TV, many, but hardly all, on Fox, outnumber moderates many times over.

 

Backing up the pundits are a network of think tanks, focus groups and right wing strategists, the magnitude which the left can only dream about. Then there's the vast right wing talk machine communications system which arms all senators, representatives and media pundits with talking points of the day, every day.

 

But Trump's influence is highly divisive. Perhaps he will have enough time to vandalize the Republican brand significantly before his campaign implodes.

Right... mostly Koch funded Heritage which seems to send scripts out weekly.....so...whatever is your Right Wing counter reality.. you hear the same junk. Trump's got a FEW "upside" things.. and this is one. That dog is off the leash and pooping everyplace.

 

The Right wing bosses.. money.. propaganda machine..... all FAILED. The REAL maverick went rogue and they were left with no puppet on the strings. Oops. Sure..... Trump sucks but.....I LOVE how much he turned the GOP game upside down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please please senior Trump, I beg of you, please choose as your running mate Sarah Palin. Who could imagine how that would go down...

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few things about Trump are good. However....it IS significant that the usual puppetmasters have lost control. Trump ain't getting his talking points from Heritage or his $ from the Kochs. Whatever Rush,Beck,WND says isn't changing stuff. The Dogs got off the leashes. That's a pretty big and unexpected twist.

yes, that is one darn good quality!!! about a month ago, I wasn't doing anything and was board, so I sat down and watched an entire Trump speech, which was very much Archie Bunker-like. it was hard to watch, but I loved how he did lambaste fox and the entire political establishment, including all the talking heads. It was great because the crowds applauded thunderously, and I was curios since these people I had formerly thought were supporters of right-wing media.

and they were and maybe still are. and it's a paradox really, however fleeting, it felt so sincere.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no shortage anywhere, of naive idiots, who understand they are sages.

 

Incidentally, nobody here is an advocate for overpopulation. Beyond the nihilism, which, things being the way they are, I can understand, do you have any suggestions?

 

By the way. Welcome to the forum wil.

Yeah. There's a point where cynical can be excess. If it's all hopeless and helpless... there's no remedy. Reality..... not ALL people with money are the same. All people in politics,in media.. not the same. Thank heavens. Sure.. it gets frustrating but .. often there's progress. Historically.. people got MORE civilized. Sometimes it's 3 steps forward and 2 steps back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with every part of the above..

 

To add:

World population now = SEVEN POINT FOUR BILLION. If society could support the physical needs of ten times that ... SEVENTY FOUR BILLION souls, and responsibly recycle its waste and the waste of its industry, etc. It would result in either the filling up of all the empty spaces or, packing people so tight that the resulting loss of freedom and increased regimentation would be inhumane. There are other problems with filling up the empty space of the world, like habitat loss leading to: Extinction ... loss of biodiversity ... loss of pollinators, etc.

 

World population might double or triple with the inefficient, badly organized societies we have now, but the results would be catastrophic.

 

Instead of expanding inward we should be thinking of looking for other worlds to inhabit, to stave off the inevitable extinction that happens to all advanced species on Earth. The only survivors from the distant geological past are either microscopic creatures or cockroaches, ants and the like. The search for inhabitable new worlds would not only be practical but a great adventure in which even those not directly involved, could participate, vicariously. By putting populations on widely spaced worlds, there is far less chance of extinction by supernova, wandering black holes, large asteroids, giant comets, and our own weapons of mass destruction.

 

So far, there is no evidence of any other sentient, technological life in the Universe except us. For 55 years, the SETI program, designed to detect any sign of extraterrestrial intelligence, has found next to nothing. We are the first species on Earth capable of colonizing other worlds and greatly increasing our chances for survival as a species. We need to go for it.

 

http://www.space.com/20657-stephen-hawking-humanity-survival-space.html

I believe we have an evolutionary/DNA mandate to go BEYOND this earth......if possible. We have not put people on Mars. We have not sent recon probes to any planet in the distance that MIGHT be inhabitable. In space... distances are VAST and it's all relative. Odds are there's MANY inhabitable planets...but most are MUCH too distant. After time we MAY identify potential targets. We could then send unmanned probes to planets B,C + D. It could take a LONG time to get back the data. When "just visiting" can be a matter of DECADES.. it's quite a big deal. Then... actually sending off a COLONY.....that's WAY off in the future. We'd need better Tech. we'd need to KNOW about the site. Then we need a rather HUGE space ship... depending on how distant the site is. It's probably a One Way trip. The Colonists will need a LOT of equipment and skills. You can guess at the sheer cost of a spaceship as big as an Aircraft Carrier. You can speculate on also having life support for 50-100 people for a LONG time..... like.....20-40 yr to GET there and another decade to adapt to whatever. It would NOT be a low budget project. That's .....really....a MAJOR problem. While it can be a HUGE step for " life as we know it" ... it's gonna be hard to FUND something that will cost MANY Trillion $....and likely there's no $$$ return on investment. Right now? We sure lack the WILL to do it. A few CENTURIES into the future? Maybe priorities change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. A few centuries in the future, or less, could change much. Blown off course and lost, many of the earliest sea voyages headed into unknown regions, fraught with danger. The Odyssey is a mythical reflection of the realities of how uncertain ocean travel could be back then. But navigation got better, ship-building progressed, geography slowly became more accurate and instruments were developed to plot location. It was all spurred by commerce, war and the desire of "out" groups to start over again.

 

The colonization of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia in the Pacific must have involved one-way voyages. The political and social motives driving these migrations must have been powerful. Who knows how many perished before reaching an inhabitable island?

 

Even now, it is becoming harder to find vital minerals and metals on the the Earth's crust ... All of which can be found, in great abundance on asteroids ... Some of the metals are almost pure. At some point, commercial interests and/or governments will see profit in mining asteroids and/or moons. H3, rare on Earth is abundant on our Moon and necessary for a proven form of fusion generated energy, used in the near future. China is already developing a space program to claim and mine the Moon's H3. If China has some success, the US might wake up and compete, like we did after Sputnik. But there's a lot more at stake on the Moon.

 

Such efforts will probably be the very beginning of commercial ventures in space. Practice will be gained in construction, navigation and techniques of space travel. Life support and prevention of physical deterioration will advance. The largest space ships will probably be built in orbit and have living quarters at the ends of a rotating structure, creating artificial gravity.

 

It may be that travel outside our Solar System may take too long to ever be practical. If it ever is, the trip may, as you said,may be workable for only a one-way-voyage ... These voyages may require many generations ... And then, possibly to a destination only guessed to support human life. Who would be crazy enough to do it? I think volunteers would be so numerous, they could be carefully screened for suitability. True adventure into the vast unknown, will be the lure.

 

On the other hand, modern science, being only about six hundred years old and having perhaps many thousands of years ahead, can be presumed to be in its infancy. There may be ways to overcome what seem now, to be insurmountable problems of distance and speed.

 

But most cosmologists and astrophysicists agree that humanity needs to spread out in the Cosmos to survive, allowing, among other things, scientific progress to continue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advocacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

 

 

Space colonization is not often in the news much and when it is, it's often played for laughs. There's more interest than many people realize.

https://www.dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Space/Colonization.

 

I believe we have an evolutionary/DNA mandate to go BEYOND this earth......if possible.

 

The limitations imposed by the physics in this particular universe may not allow for it. But I agree .... The urge is probably built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two topics, interstellar space and introspection with regards to the human race.

One standard, albeit never much discussed, plants and insects, maybe perhaps, many types of fish.

The single cell in any animal body has no brain, it's response to any change encoded solely in genes, DNA structure, and RNA response.

The Sun, energy, water, oxygen, yadda yadda...

The multicellular organisms, rodents, yadda yadda, the wise owl, the dolphins, the whale, etc.. humans....

 

All of it, curtailed within certain constant constraints. Empathy, love, emotion, morality, science, liberal thought, engineering, all of it, which takes thousands of years, myths, etc... yadda yadda yadda's...

 

prisoners, look what we do in our prisons, young people put into prisons, mistreatment in prisons here in the US, disgraceful it is.

 

And yes, we should be understanding of the environment here, and yes, we should be going beyond this Earth to explore, by definition of who we are.

 

Market this, market that, yadda yadda, etc...

Yes, we all know how that is done. The tomato looks a lot more brilliant all tidied up in this fancy box. Sell the tomato, the same darn tomato, but sell it no matter who the heck farms the fields, sell the fricking tomato

make that fricken tomato fricken sell itself on the shelf, so people, consumers don't have to think, they just buy it. They will buy the tomato all dressed up in cans filled with sodium off the shelf, make it spicy call it hot

sauce, they'll put it on everything, put the damn tomato in glass, or plastic, call it ketchup, make tiny little individual ketchup packets, give em away free with all the burgers and buns, they'll litter the streets, watch where you walk, it might get slick, little tiny packets of ketchup free ketchup for every last little drop of tomato man, who grows tomato before they even get ripe because, tomorrow, there's more tomato fella, more and more, call it simply a vegetable by then, why not...

 

 

Yeah so what. So what if you could burn a better light bulb that takes less energy, so what if you could go solar, completely solar, with everything you do and everywhere you go, and while you're at it conserve precious water, but no, it ain't in the plan, so what.So what about understanding how things work, about how to make a machine that makes water on Mars, or how about how the human brain operates and the mind might construct thoughts, the miracle about how ants and plants operate here on Earth.

 

Free college is impossible, it's impossible man to have healthcare for all, it's impossible to go to Mars, to go beyond and understand the gravity of it all.

History just does not teach, the ants, the skin cells filled with DNA that die and wither sloughed off into the air like a migrant farmer in the end / yadda yadda yadda

 

Yo bitches

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The struggle over social problems and injustice will proceed by itself, but only so long as we escape extinction. To gain some insurance against going the way of the Dodo, we need to colonize other worlds. Just colonizing one other world within our own solar system, perhaps Mars, would give the human species insurance against, for instance, an asteroid strike, or Nuclear holocaust. But to gain survival insurance against cosmic threats like supernovas and their gamma ray bursts, or wandering black holes, we would need to colonize more distant worlds far beyond our sun.

 

Although humankind is deeply flawed, we are the only species known with the technological potential to colonize other worlds. One of our unique flaws is the ability to destroy ourselves on this Earth. This makes us particularly vulnerable. But no mammalian species has escaped extinction nearly as long as many simpler organisms. And there is no substantive evidence, so far, of other sentient, technological beings, anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...