Elerond
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Elerond
-
Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there. If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside. “'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen." When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...
-
-
well, trump is wrong 'bout one thing: the theatre has never been a safe place for those in power. perhaps rosenberg would be better to be speaking 'bout the theatre? *shrug* the theatre has frequent needed be subtle. the theatre has sometimes been subversive. the theatre, sadly, has been a tool of the State or wealthy patrons more often than not, but there is no question the theatre has also been brave, rude, crude, terrible and beautiful. we would weep if we genuine believed there were even a possibility the theatre would need become a safe place for those in power and am glad we live in an age and in a nation where performers can be so open and forthright. if the cast of hamilton offended beyond the pale, then people will stop going to see the show and their message will die. they took a risk. personally, am not believing pence deserved the treatment he received, but am indescribably proud o' an America where nobody is safe from ridicule in the theatre. not tyrants. not businessmen. not journalists. not saints. some will see what happened as evidence o' divisiveness. it is. is also proof o' freedom. thank God. thank America. ... btw, the writers o' hamilton need a history lesson. got the hero and villain largely reversed. HA! Good Fun! I have to say I have never heard the cast of a US theater making such a political statement so openly to a politician ? Has this happened before? For example Finland's independence movement started from theaters in 1800s. If you go to beginning of theater as we now it in ancient Greek you find that lots of their plays had political message and were aimed towards those in power. Also there are lots of examples from the history where theater crews have imprisoned or even killed because they offended those in power.
-
-
-
I fervently hope the right in Europe steamrolls over the sycophants that have no respect for their individual culture. Each country there is a treasure, not something to be sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism. The right you are speaking about don't respect countries individual cultures either. They seem to be more into inventing new cultures that don't seem to be based on any existing culture. In other words they want to destroy European cultural heritage even more than biggest supporters of multiculturalism, just so that they can get in power.
-
-
I am too tired to have this argument ....you win for now But why would you think the EU collapsing is a good thing...can you name just 2 things? It will add Russia's, China's, Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, India's political, military and economical power. It will European's poorer. It will decrease USA's political and military power. So if one supports these things, then EU collapsing can be seen as good thing. But I don't see why France would want to leave EU as all the countries they don't like in the union seem to select governments that are against EU and are on path to leave the union. And Facebook should ban all fake news regardless of the source, so that journalists would again be forced to be journalists and write real news.
-
No many political commentators have admitted they were wrong and want to do a better job around these types of events in the future ....the media is self-regulating volo, no need to worry Good one Bruce. Obola could do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. So you two can continue your old debate, this time just on different sides. :D
-
That picture seems to be more against Trump than in support of him. As one of the reasons why people say they supported Trump was that he is against political correctness and this picture implies that first three members in his administration have been selected because of political correctness and not because of said people's abilities.
-
What I see, people are demanding that democrats will obstruct Trump with every conceivable way like republicans did for Obama (according to them). Any sort cooperation or suggestion of cooperation is seen as betrayal. So next four years are probably at least as entertaining as previous eight.
-
-
Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference. I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits.
-
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more. In comparison to someone like Gary Johnson, Trump had media support, but I didn't expect to have to explain. Both the left wing and right wing media outlets were out against Trump from the start, and as others have pointed out, they're still slow to get why Trump was elected, doubling down on pro right or left talking points. No such thing as bad news fits here. It's like the more the elites tried to slam Trump, the more the independents supported him. So yeah, he won without major media backing of any sort, which was my point. But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.
-
Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1 By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more.
-
As others pointed out, right to protest is not a right to riot. Rioting, vandalism, etc. are crimes and those who participate in those crimes should be punished according to law. But denying people right to protest because some protesters break the law is just same rhetoric where people demand that all guns should be banned because some gun owners us their guns to murder other people.
-
Right to protest is vital part of democratic system, because it gives people that aren't satisfied with results by system ability to express their dissatisfaction and disagreement with direction that system is steering the country. It is one of the reasons why freedom of the speech is one of the most important rights that people have in democracy. So my question is why do you all hate democracy so much?
-
They are only thing that can give any information how different demographics voted, as votes themselves can't be traced back to people who casted them.
-
Those "millenials" (people born 1980s to 2000) that cared to vote majority 55% voted Clinton according to exit polls. But yet again most of them didn't vote. Although millenial white people voted for trump 48% versus 43% to Clinton. But youth turn out for GOP nominee was fourth-lowest since 1972. 8% of millenials that vote voted third party candidate, up form 3% in 2012. 19% of all voters were millenials. Compared to Obama, Clinton lost millenial votes, but Trump didn't gain any compared to Romney, meaning that millenials that Clinton lost voted third party candidate instead of Trump. Had only millennials voted, Clinton would've won the election in a landslide, with 473 electoral votes to Trump's 32.
-
It seems that only demographic segment where Trump lost voters compared to Romney was white women, which may come to bite republicans in future considering that white women is single largest demographic group in US. Even though Clinton and Democrats have clearly lost more support among people, they aren't currently in power and those that are in power are the ones that need to make people happy, their opposition needs only to undermine people in power and offer alternative in election.
-
Rigged system they say States that passed voting restrictions saw decreased turnout, flipped to Trump http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/states-new-voting-restrictions-flip-trump-article-1.2866395?utm_content=buffereb48e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
-
Guardian decided to play the role that Fox has done past 8 years, as Fox can't be trusted anymore to do their job as party that they support is in the control.
-
https://twitter.com/i/moments/796396412325871616 Theory why Clinton didn't win. It also make me think that she is speaking about this forum
