Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Why would you wish death on him?

 

Anyway, in news that could either make conservatives groan or cheer, Trump is planning on going to Davos later this month. Some staffers are saying that it's going to be the equivalent of unleashing a stink bomb at the elietes. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/trump-davos-switzerland-economic-forum-331063

 

I'm sure conservatives and some liberals would cheer Trump doing a stink bomb there, but it could be a double edged sword depending on the news that comes out of that.

Posted (edited)

 

Anyway, in news that could either make conservatives groan or cheer, Trump is planning on going to Davos later this month. Some staffers are saying that it's going to be the equivalent of unleashing a stink bomb at the elietes. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/trump-davos-switzerland-economic-forum-331063

 

 

 

Somehow I think those expecting him to shake things up at Davos will be gravely disappointed. Given my knowledge of his antics one would have to try pretty damn hard to convince me otherwise that ultimately Trump seeks the approval of Koch brothers-types, to say nothing of the mainstream media itself in spite of vociferous claims to the contrary.

Edited by Agiel
Quote
“Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.”
 
-Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>>
Quote

"The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete."

-Rod Serling

 

Posted

 

 

And now Bannon steps down from Breitbart.

 

I was wondering what was going to happen with that

 

The comments on Breitbart are hilarious.

 

 

Like what comments?

 

He didn't just fly too close to the sun here, he dove straight into it, total self immolation. https://www.axios.com/behind-the-scenes-of-bannons-exit-1515533804-334c36b1-5af4-4ba8-a7ae-e63786a552b4.html

 

Just tried finding the more hilarious ones at the article, but many of them have gone. A large bunch of comments is apparently sympathetic to Bannon while earlier today everyone was screaming to lynch him for being the second coming of Judas, Betrayer of Trump, Great Prophet of MAGA. ;)

No mind to think. No will to break. No voice to cry suffering.

Posted

Breitbart comments are always funny. Like the Mail or Sun

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted (edited)

Does anybody else think this looks ethically shady? http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/368406-trump-holds-sweepstakes-to-win-dinner-at-mar-a-lago Trump is holding a sweepstakes to win a private dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. This is something I'd expect a businessman or celebrity to do, not a President. Seriously, if it's not legally corruption, it should be, because it feels wrong for a President to do.

 

I can't imagine Merkel, Macron (well, okay, maybe Macron), or Obama, or George Bush doing that. edit: Not the first time he's done a similar thing, but still....

Edited by smjjames
Posted (edited)

It's missing some stuff like TheHill, Vox, Axios, and Politico, AP, the various British papers/magazines....

 

Also, Huffington Post is way worse than Washington Post. Although Huff Post has a great election poll aggregator.

Edited by smjjames
Posted

The Blaze is a better title for a weed mag

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted (edited)

I'm also noticing it shows a whole lot more liberal/progressive outlets than conservative ones, even missing some of the notable ones. It's also almost four years old.

Edited by smjjames
Posted

Well, it comes from a shady source.

  • Like 1

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted

It's missing some stuff like TheHill, Vox, Axios, and Politico, AP, the various British papers/magazines....

 

Politico is there, with the WP/ HuffPo. Beeb and Grauniad are there as well and are probably the most used British sites internationally apart from the Daily Fail which amazingly is the most visited 'news' website on the internet, apparently. And as a sad indictment on humanity.

 

The results are pretty weird though, I can't reconcile the Beeb and Economist being in the same position; nor Al Jazeera, even the US/ English version, being in the same position as The Daily Show.

Posted (edited)

I was looking for an updated one and that's how I landed on the University of Michigan link but it was just reporting on the same 2014 study

 

It did link to a site called AllSides which seems interesting, at least a first glance. Haven't spent much time on it because I was playing with the new google fact checker which seems to have some people in a tizzy

Edited by ShadySands

Free games updated 3/4/21

Posted (edited)

Does anybody else think this looks ethically shady? http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/368406-trump-holds-sweepstakes-to-win-dinner-at-mar-a-lago Trump is holding a sweepstakes to win a private dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. This is something I'd expect a businessman or celebrity to do, not a President. Seriously, if it's not legally corruption, it should be, because it feels wrong for a President to do.

 

I can't imagine Merkel, Macron (well, okay, maybe Macron), or Obama, or George Bush doing that. edit: Not the first time he's done a similar thing, but still....

 

Presidents have been having dinner with people who donate to them for ages. Some Presidents have been accused, with good cause, of far worse. e.g. Clinton was reputed to essentially rent out rooms in the White House for donations.

 

Ethically shady? Arguably yes, but it ranks low on the list of ethically shady things Presidents have been doing since well before your parents were born.

 

Given the climate I think it's actually arguably a good thing. It possibly allows the President to deflect some who would expect a dinner ("nope: you're entering the same contest as everyone else"), and (if he's genuinely interested) allows him to spend quality time with a random supporter. If I was President I would actually want to do the latter from time to time.

 

This is muchado about not much. Up there with the complaints that Obama golfed too much.

 

 

I do think you're right on one point: Neither Merkel, Macron, Obama, nor George would deign to have dinner with any of the 'little people'. They're too busy keeping up with the elite Joneses; suckling at the crotches of those who they perceive as 'elite' who bought and paid for their power.

 

Quite literally sold their souls they all did.

 

Edited by Valsuelm
Posted

Missed that somehow, sorry.

 

Theres probably an updated one running around somewhere given that theres a whole bunch of renewed interest after 2016.

I also think it's interesting that even before the fake news era conservatives already distrusted the majority of news sources

Free games updated 3/4/21

Posted

 

Missed that somehow, sorry.

 

Theres probably an updated one running around somewhere given that theres a whole bunch of renewed interest after 2016.

I also think it's interesting that even before the fake news era conservatives already distrusted the majority of news sources

 

 

It's not as if it suddenly happened overnight, it was something that had been happening for decades now.

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