Hello. The other day, as Donald Trump’s hush-money-bribing, election-tampering, money-laundering, and general scumbaggery trial was about to begin, Tom the Butcher asked me a question that initially sounded stupid and naive.
I just read that the New York Stock Exchange has instituted a proceeding to change the stock symbol for Trump Media & Technology Group from DJT to DJzzzzzzzzzzz.
I had wanted to discuss the new and not improved version of Scrabble with Loser Ed Gordon, but he died before I could talk to him about it. I hope its release did not hasten his demise.
Gene, I'm a long time reader and admirer but I am kind of baffled by the fact that you keep raising this question (framed in different ways) of why would anyone support Trump? I feel nauseous every time I think of him, but there are people who still support him and we are in danger of having him as our next president. Many people are talking about what leads to the level of support he still enjoys. A very quick search of the Internet found the following:
Agreed. Volumes have been written. To me, it comes down to the art of propaganda and general con-artistry. He is a master of it, like the most successful televangelists. He takes the pulse, then feeds people's worst instincts to make them feel good about themselves. He has perpetrated the second greatest con in recorded history.
If we are lucky, he will be remembered as the 21st Century's Joe McCarthy.
If we are unlucky, he will be remembered as the 21st Century's Joseph Goebbels.
Thinking again, that his persona gives a free pass to the worst intuitions of sexism with violence, misogyny, xenophobia with violence, environmental recidivism, dangerous skepticism of science, and socially abhorrent lawmaking with 50-year reversals of civil rights.
I was thinking of whole further categories of reasons why Trump is unacceptable. He broke the Iran Treaty and threw them
into Russia’s arms. He blew off a coalition of 17 countries Rex Tillerson had made to monitor Syria post-ISIS, and now the region is a militant playground. His appearance is absurd. Makes Boris Johnson look good. And he has the wealth to have an aged elan, if he knew what it was.
In regard to the poll. None of the choices fit the folks I know who will vote for the presumed Republican candidate who I prefer not to name. They will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of what that individual represents/stands for. They are devoted Republicans.
So you do know the current administration is censoring media on a large and systematic scale. The Trump administration did not do so. I stand by what I said.
Hmmmm. Has Trump used the government to censor the media, social and otherwise? If so, I have not heard about it. But I have heard about the current administration's doing so.
MANY times, Trump has issued threatening tweets not only to media organizations (threatening them with economic hassles, lawsuits, taxation threats) but to individual journalists . He has rather explicitly encouraged his followers to harass individual journalists. He has called explicitly for more laws to restrain the press. He has had the White House ban several major news organizations' reporters (CNN, Washington Post) when he was angry at what they wrote about them. His administration fired the head of Voice of America, which promotes democracy around the world, and installed a loyalist with orders to broadcast only pro-Trump propaganda.
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June. I sure as heck hope you aren't a journalist.
I did notice a total lack of response on your part to the details of first amendmendment violations by the previous administration, posted by our esteemed Empress, about which you claimed you had never heard. I sure as heck hope you aren't a journalist.
I do live, at the moment, in rural America. Google is OK here. Not the best source necessarily. Anyway, please follow the SCOTUS case . If you have trouble finding it,
look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June. This isn't new News, by any means. Just new to you.
I’m well aware of this case, thank you! It’s gotten a little distorted, apolitical legal analysts and republican politicians have come to different conclusions. Would you agree that there is a difference between “please remove these provable lies that can cause harm”, and “throw these reporters out because they were critical of me”? And, even if neither is ideal coming from the federal government, one is far more clearly dangerous censorship? One is an ask, the other is a tell. One is an objection for being false, the other an objection for being not flattering. In other words, one is labeled “fuji” and the other “valencia”. Good day, fellow rural resident.
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
Yes, aliens told me. Right after I was kidnapped, but before I was returned. Have you not followed the SCOTUS case on censorship by the current government? They may have a decision as early as June. Quit the condescension, Dale, and start paying attention.
Put down your talking points and look at reality. There is no censorship except in your oxygen-deprived bubble and echo chambers. Has the government in any way forced the removal of any content ? The government has an important role and responsibility to engage with private platforms, and not just on public health, but on issues of terrorism, and extremism and violence, on issues of taking down illegal content like child sexual abuse material. When there are foreign, state sponsored disinformation campaigns, the government is uniquely positioned to let the platforms know about them. If your sensibilities are offended by the government acting in the interest of the majority of the American public by pointing out lies and mis- and dis- information to social media platforms who do an abysmal job of content moderation in the interest of profit ---tough shit.
For the better part of 10 years I checked out right wing claims on politics and policies, particularly, policies on climate change and healthcare. While I found many interesting things in my research, without exception I found the claims to be either hyperbole, fiction or falsehood. I became familiar with many of the techniques of right-wing propaganda. Following is a partial list:
Taking one fact from a report and using it out of context
Using an exception to prove the rule
Cherry-picking
"Experts" who have advanced degrees that have nothing to do with the subject matter being studied
Besmirching legitimate subject matter experts with allegations that are either wildly inflated or totally false
" Research Institutions" that are fronts for major corporations or trade groups
"Reliable sources" that weeks, months or years later were found to be fabrications
Eventually I realized that the right-wing echo chamber had me wasting a lot of time. For every false claim I could debunk, the right-wing would throw out ten more. I realized that I was wrestling with a pig: I was getting cover in shit and the pig was enjoying it. I decided that I had accumulated a sample of claims that was sufficient to support the conclusion that right-wing media are factories that manufacture fake facts to fit the attitudes of their owners and audience.
Priscilla, I recognize the tactics of the right-wing echo chamber in your posts and citation. I can smell what you're peddling. Take your bullshit somewhere else.
It's not new News. Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
I did. A link to a summary of the case is below. Do you think that Eric Schmitt's contentions are valid? Do you agree with the SCOTUS lifting the injunctions granted by the Fifth Circuit? Do you agree with the objections voiced by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch to the lifting of the injunction?
Wikipedia. Look at reporting by Substack and Free Press and Matt Taibbi. Not going to argue with you. I said the Trump administration did not censor the media. I said SCOTUS is hearing a case about government censorship by the current administration. What I said is true.
I deleted my previous comment because, after more reading, I decided that I do want to dispute your opinion, your facts, your world view. I smelled a troll as soon as I read your first posting, but decided not to jump to conclusions, which I note is the exact opposite of your behavior. I looked at your references. I was not impressed, either with their accuracy or their tone.
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
Ever seen the scene in Team America: World Police that contains an analysis of the relationship of D*cks, A-holes and P*ssies. Supporters would probably place 45 in the D rather than the A category.
Reading on the can: before the ubiquity of toilet paper, wealthier men were known to give the sons they were sending off in the world books of poetry to read - and then immediately reuse the pages.
I was going to say that newspapers and Sears catalogs were well-known to be provided in outhouses before actual TP was invented (or for those who couldn't afford it, I guess).
I forget where I originally read that - I think in a Ben Franklin biography. (And yes, the odds are greater than zero I read it while on the can myself, but if so the book was not sacrificed.)
I just read that the New York Stock Exchange has instituted a proceeding to change the stock symbol for Trump Media & Technology Group from DJT to DJzzzzzzzzzzz.
I had wanted to discuss the new and not improved version of Scrabble with Loser Ed Gordon, but he died before I could talk to him about it. I hope its release did not hasten his demise.
Gene, I'm a long time reader and admirer but I am kind of baffled by the fact that you keep raising this question (framed in different ways) of why would anyone support Trump? I feel nauseous every time I think of him, but there are people who still support him and we are in danger of having him as our next president. Many people are talking about what leads to the level of support he still enjoys. A very quick search of the Internet found the following:
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supporters
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/trump-supporters-republican-approval-cnn-town-hall/674142/
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_0b000918-edcd-11ee-b56c-0347974ddc89.html
The Daily Show's Jordan Klepper has also done multiple pieces on Trump supporters.
Maybe I'm wrong, and your question is more complex than I'm assuming. What am I missing?
Agreed. Volumes have been written. To me, it comes down to the art of propaganda and general con-artistry. He is a master of it, like the most successful televangelists. He takes the pulse, then feeds people's worst instincts to make them feel good about themselves. He has perpetrated the second greatest con in recorded history.
If we are lucky, he will be remembered as the 21st Century's Joe McCarthy.
If we are unlucky, he will be remembered as the 21st Century's Joseph Goebbels.
How about baseball player “Germany” Schaefer, who stole first base? Read all about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Schaefer
Yes to the last two posters. That’s why I selected “stupid.” If they are any of the other things, they are also stupid.
Scallops have eyes?
They're blue, too! Lots and lots of bright blue eyes, all the way around the edge of their shells.
Yup. Lots of mollusks do. Even clams, to an extent. Just remember as you eat them that they’re not staring at you in judgement. Probably.
Well dang.
In the tweets: where are the mispellings, or the dementia-induced made up words?
Re dementia: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/04/14?ct=v&cti=1881786
Considering his "covfefe," I'd say the latter. Btw, I noticed that "mispelling" is self-referential, like "noun" and "fifteen-lettered."
I swear I typed in misspelling, but autocorrect underlined it and told me it was wrong.
Now it’s not. You’d think I’d know by now better than to let a piece of software intimidate me.
Thinking again, that his persona gives a free pass to the worst intuitions of sexism with violence, misogyny, xenophobia with violence, environmental recidivism, dangerous skepticism of science, and socially abhorrent lawmaking with 50-year reversals of civil rights.
I was thinking of whole further categories of reasons why Trump is unacceptable. He broke the Iran Treaty and threw them
into Russia’s arms. He blew off a coalition of 17 countries Rex Tillerson had made to monitor Syria post-ISIS, and now the region is a militant playground. His appearance is absurd. Makes Boris Johnson look good. And he has the wealth to have an aged elan, if he knew what it was.
In regard to the poll. None of the choices fit the folks I know who will vote for the presumed Republican candidate who I prefer not to name. They will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of what that individual represents/stands for. They are devoted Republicans.
What I said is true. Large-scale, systematic censorship by the current administration (not by the Trump administration) is being heard by SCOTUS.
Your cup of Flavor Aid is ready.
So you do know the current administration is censoring media on a large and systematic scale. The Trump administration did not do so. I stand by what I said.
Hmmmm. Has Trump used the government to censor the media, social and otherwise? If so, I have not heard about it. But I have heard about the current administration's doing so.
MANY times, Trump has issued threatening tweets not only to media organizations (threatening them with economic hassles, lawsuits, taxation threats) but to individual journalists . He has rather explicitly encouraged his followers to harass individual journalists. He has called explicitly for more laws to restrain the press. He has had the White House ban several major news organizations' reporters (CNN, Washington Post) when he was angry at what they wrote about them. His administration fired the head of Voice of America, which promotes democracy around the world, and installed a loyalist with orders to broadcast only pro-Trump propaganda.
For a start.
It might be useful to know that Ms. Estes is an antivaxxer and conspiracy theorist.
https://substack.com/profile/18959302-priscilla-estes
So any responses will fall on deaf ears.
I took the bait. She seems to have one note, and it’s off-key.
It’s more of a quarter note, but it is indeed dissonant.
She just really believes in the constitutional right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
And a flatulent note at that.
Bless her heart.
So she is not only a conspiracy theorist, but apparently also a troll.
oh, my! You do leap to conclusions, don't you? Deaf ears are the problem. Or were you being sarcastic? Hard to tell these days.
Conclusions based on your posts. It wasn't much of a leap.
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June. I sure as heck hope you aren't a journalist.
I did notice a total lack of response on your part to the details of first amendmendment violations by the previous administration, posted by our esteemed Empress, about which you claimed you had never heard. I sure as heck hope you aren't a journalist.
A link or two to reputable sources would be most appreciated. Or did some someone just tell you ?
Does google not work in your neck of the woods?
I do live, at the moment, in rural America. Google is OK here. Not the best source necessarily. Anyway, please follow the SCOTUS case . If you have trouble finding it,
look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June. This isn't new News, by any means. Just new to you.
I’m well aware of this case, thank you! It’s gotten a little distorted, apolitical legal analysts and republican politicians have come to different conclusions. Would you agree that there is a difference between “please remove these provable lies that can cause harm”, and “throw these reporters out because they were critical of me”? And, even if neither is ideal coming from the federal government, one is far more clearly dangerous censorship? One is an ask, the other is a tell. One is an objection for being false, the other an objection for being not flattering. In other words, one is labeled “fuji” and the other “valencia”. Good day, fellow rural resident.
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
Yes, aliens told me. Right after I was kidnapped, but before I was returned. Have you not followed the SCOTUS case on censorship by the current government? They may have a decision as early as June. Quit the condescension, Dale, and start paying attention.
Put down your talking points and look at reality. There is no censorship except in your oxygen-deprived bubble and echo chambers. Has the government in any way forced the removal of any content ? The government has an important role and responsibility to engage with private platforms, and not just on public health, but on issues of terrorism, and extremism and violence, on issues of taking down illegal content like child sexual abuse material. When there are foreign, state sponsored disinformation campaigns, the government is uniquely positioned to let the platforms know about them. If your sensibilities are offended by the government acting in the interest of the majority of the American public by pointing out lies and mis- and dis- information to social media platforms who do an abysmal job of content moderation in the interest of profit ---tough shit.
For the better part of 10 years I checked out right wing claims on politics and policies, particularly, policies on climate change and healthcare. While I found many interesting things in my research, without exception I found the claims to be either hyperbole, fiction or falsehood. I became familiar with many of the techniques of right-wing propaganda. Following is a partial list:
Taking one fact from a report and using it out of context
Using an exception to prove the rule
Cherry-picking
"Experts" who have advanced degrees that have nothing to do with the subject matter being studied
Besmirching legitimate subject matter experts with allegations that are either wildly inflated or totally false
" Research Institutions" that are fronts for major corporations or trade groups
"Reliable sources" that weeks, months or years later were found to be fabrications
Eventually I realized that the right-wing echo chamber had me wasting a lot of time. For every false claim I could debunk, the right-wing would throw out ten more. I realized that I was wrestling with a pig: I was getting cover in shit and the pig was enjoying it. I decided that I had accumulated a sample of claims that was sufficient to support the conclusion that right-wing media are factories that manufacture fake facts to fit the attitudes of their owners and audience.
Priscilla, I recognize the tactics of the right-wing echo chamber in your posts and citation. I can smell what you're peddling. Take your bullshit somewhere else.
Please tell us where or from whom you heard that the current administration is censoring media.
It's not new News. Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
I did. A link to a summary of the case is below. Do you think that Eric Schmitt's contentions are valid? Do you agree with the SCOTUS lifting the injunctions granted by the Fifth Circuit? Do you agree with the objections voiced by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch to the lifting of the injunction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri
Wikipedia. Look at reporting by Substack and Free Press and Matt Taibbi. Not going to argue with you. I said the Trump administration did not censor the media. I said SCOTUS is hearing a case about government censorship by the current administration. What I said is true.
I deleted my previous comment because, after more reading, I decided that I do want to dispute your opinion, your facts, your world view. I smelled a troll as soon as I read your first posting, but decided not to jump to conclusions, which I note is the exact opposite of your behavior. I looked at your references. I was not impressed, either with their accuracy or their tone.
Where did you "hear" about it?
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-washington-post-reporters-banned-from-white-house-2019-9
I could go on.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/white-house-bans-cnn-reporter-jim-acosta-after-a-confrontation-with-trump-.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/07/25/cnn-reporter-kaitlan-collins-banned-white-house-press-conference/838576002/
Look up Murthy v. Missouri. That is the name of the case pending in SCOTUS involving media censorship by the current administration. They may have a ruling as early as June.
When it comes to tRump supporters, Forrest Gump had it right: "Stupid is as stupid does."
Ever seen the scene in Team America: World Police that contains an analysis of the relationship of D*cks, A-holes and P*ssies. Supporters would probably place 45 in the D rather than the A category.
Reading on the can: before the ubiquity of toilet paper, wealthier men were known to give the sons they were sending off in the world books of poetry to read - and then immediately reuse the pages.
I was going to say that newspapers and Sears catalogs were well-known to be provided in outhouses before actual TP was invented (or for those who couldn't afford it, I guess).
I forget where I originally read that - I think in a Ben Franklin biography. (And yes, the odds are greater than zero I read it while on the can myself, but if so the book was not sacrificed.)