patrick.net

Why does she have three names?

Quote from Sally Boinking Browns

The white man should only exist to financially support the rest of humanity until they die off. In order to further that mission, the white man must be castrated to prevent proliferation of their inferior species.

justme says

Apparently, the DNC learned nothing from the failed strategy of trying to elect Hillary Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders.

YUP.

Speaking of an anti-White, anti-Malestrategy:
www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/11/labor-secretary-advised-clinton-cast-sanders-candidate-whites-turn-minorities

“First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (don’t forget the sizeable [sic] population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.).”

Perez continued, “Emmy and the team have a good plan to attract all minority voters. When we do well there, then the narrative changes from Bernie kicks ass among young voters to Bernie does well only among young white liberals—that is a different story and a perfect lead in to South Carolina, where once again, we can work to attract young voters of color. So I think Nevada is a real opportunity, and I would strongly urge HRC to get out there within a couple days of [New Hampshire].”

Like others in Clinton’s campaign, he described Nevada as Clinton’s “firewall” and was unconcerned about how minorities would feel if they were described in such an exploitative way.

Clinton only won African Americans decisively in the Nevada caucus, according to entrance polls. But more Latinos voted for Sanders so Nevada did not make it abundantly clear that Sanders was incapable of attracting support from people of color.

Tom Perez’s Bank-Friendly Record Could Kneecap the Democratic Party
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party

Like Patrick said:
rando says

And the strategy to drive straight white men out of the Democratic party continues

You would think he would be more grateful.
This is the same media that arguably got him elected by giving him over twice as much coverage as his opponents.
A record breaking amount of coverage, for any candidate, ever, in fact.
So fucking much obsessive attention that it swept aside the other republican goof-balls and swamped the democrat's gargantuan, record-breaking dark-pool, 1.4 billion dollar, War-Chest-and-Coronation-Fund.
.

Robert Sproul says

This is the same media that arguably got him elected by giving him over twice as much coverage as his opponents.

And the media continues to obsess about Trump's personality, every day, on the front page.

Such trolling, such triggering!

I don't see any journalism at all. I see no "news" items without opinion added from either side. A major "news" outlet's idea of being balanced is adding an entertaining opinionator from the network's flip-side to the Sunday schedule. They would all fail the basic journalism courses I took in college.

I looked at CNN's web page on Friday trying to find a Political or Finance story that wasn't a negative dig on Donald Trump.

Everything else was click bait time suck stories.

Isn't it a Second Amendment right to put down rabid dogs with aftosa with gunfire?

I can hardly wait for the newsreels of Pence's thin, purple lips nictitating over his saliva flecked, yellow teeth, curling in smiles of cruel joy as Trumpligula's body twitches and rolls in the dust in death spasms.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party

(I'll repeat what I said in Blurtman's thread)

Wow, Blurtman. This is why nobody ever heard of Tom Perez before. He was hiding in the Justice Department, quietly doing the bidding of the banksters.

And, the dems very smartly appointed Keith Ellison, who I think was the Bernie Sanders candidate, as DNC vice chair. This is the time-honored bring-into-the-tent strategy, where you silence your enemies by giving them a ceremonial role.

Will Steve Bannon allow Mike Pence to usurp the presidency? Is that not the big unspoken question?

zzyzzx says

it's OK for Obama to not have Fox News, but it's not OK for Trump to not have the liberal media, correct?

First off, if OBama banned Fox it would be like Trump banning MSNBC. Secondly, when Obama did try to ban Fox, CNN and the NYT came to Fox's defense. Not all Fox anchors are duechebags like Sean Hannity. http://www.vocativ.com/405883/white-house-media-ban-inspires-viral-reaction-from-unlikely-ally/

EVen many mainstream conservatives such as George Will, are honest enough with themselves to see what's happening.

Check out this abbreviated DAvid Frum (republican) message.

www.youtube.com/embed/DjOdMfTqNMY . He nails it. And this was made before Fridays whitehouse bans.

rando says

Robert Sproul says

This is the same media that arguably got him elected by giving him over twice as much coverage as his opponents.

And the media continues to obsess about Trump's personality, every day, on the front page.

Such trolling, such triggering!

Agreed. What many are missing here is that this is not about whether every little anecdote told is true, half-true or not true at all. It's about the lamestream media taking the bait and getting ground up in these little skirmishes, failing to report actual news. On the big stories they haven't been able to prove jack shit, like the Russian hoax. On the small stories they may be often right in the detail, without realizing that nobody gives a shit about the inauguration crowd size or whether Trump's win was among the greatest (electoral college numbers wise and otherwise) or not, or just among the Republican wins only. It doesn't matter, it was quite an upheaval and surprisingly clear defeat, so he is basking in it and the press - being royally wrong in their "predictions" - appear to be the sore losers pointing out inaccuracies that in the end do not matter as they don't have anything to do with world politics. It's almost like game 101, either as a planned tactic or natural alpha game (and you don't have to be particularly intelligent to be a natural alpha).

Currently never. At this point there is nothing tangible at all that could be used against Trump.

Another great observation, this time from a guy that apparently used to be a right wing talk radio host.

"All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.

The Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long familiarity with that process when he tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Mr. Kasparov grasps that the real threat is not merely that a large number of Americans have become accustomed to rejecting factual information, or even that they have become habituated to believing hoaxes. The real danger is that, inundated with “alternative facts,” many voters will simply shrug, asking, “What is truth?” — and not wait for an answer.

In that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth; a familiar phenomenon in an authoritarian state, but a radical departure from the norms of a democratic society. The battle over truth is now central to our politics. "

Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html?src=me

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Any of that stands up with documentation that survives authoritative scrutiny, Trump could not wash off the question of whether or not his organization (Bayrock, etc) is just a laundering mechanism for Eastern Europe / Central Asian kleptocracies.

Sounds like you have done your homework on the Casino stuff, I don't have time to look deeper into it. However how is that in any way worse or even equal to pretty much every past administration giving "development money" (= more weapons) to African warlords, making deals with Saudi Arabia, toppling dictators killing millions who turned from friend to foe that were providing much needed stability in the middle east while lying through their teeth? I can't see any grounds for impeachment just because Trump's enterprises may or may not be connected to the mob. Past administrations killed millions of Iraqis during illegitimate wars, US weapons fueled many wars and genocides. Trump so far is more isolationist and more peaceful than any of his predecessors. Peace and good relations with Eastern Europe, central Asia and hopefully the rest of Asia is a good and much needed development these days.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Any of that stands up with documentation that survives authoritative scrutiny, Trump could not wash off the question of whether or not his organization (Bayrock, etc) is just a laundering mechanism for Eastern Europe / Central Asian kleptocracies.

Then Trump had better hurry up and implement the policies I want before all of this goes down. Shit ballz.

He needs to throw out CNN so that they're marginalized and can't create any more divisiveness in our country. Plus, I just want many of Trump's policies to get implemented, and CNN just slows that down.

Obama did the same thing to Fox News.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

The big question is....

how many in the line of succession you could simultaneously impeach and remove, because if you don't have a good answer to that, then you would be starting something that could end very badly.

I feel skeptical of major party insiders and their corporate media enablers suddenly praising Mike Pence as an alternative to the POTUS. Pence has long built a reputation as a holy rolling crusader. His disciplined demeanor might reassure some people, but he would probably not even have got re-elected Governor, let alone VP, without Donald Trump. Remember Bob Woodward interviewing George W Bush about the decision to invade Iraq?

"Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'"

America doesn't need another crusader, no matter how lucrative that would be for some MIC procurement contractors including deep state consultants. A lot of this appears driven by interests that want ultimately to spread Sunni Islam. Their media megaphones are blaring about how we must submit to importing more Muslims who would kill atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali as they murdered Theo van Gogh. The Democrats campaigned on shooting down Russian planes within seconds' flying time of Armageddon, and killing Russians in Syria.

We should rather continue with the POTUS the voters elected.

I kinda like Trump, mostly for his audacity. I admire that.

Spicer should absolutely figure out who is leaking and fire them.

CBOEtrader says

CNN doesnt do this. That's why they are fake news.

I would think if this were true, you would be able to find a non Trump supporting person to agree with you ? Is it possible that what you're experiencing has more to do with your own bias ?

www.youtube.com/embed/IOS2o1gTvHE

Tons of non-trump supporters agree w me. I am a "non" Trump supporter.

marcus says

Is it possible that what you're experiencing has more to do with your own bias ?

Look in the mirror.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

The big question is if the rest of the Taj story will make it out of FinCEN archives and if there is any connection with the Kazakh and Russian mobs laundering enterprises.

This is why Lyndon Johnson wanted to become President and to have Kennedy dead. Kennedy was ready to shitcan Johnson and throw him to the dogs in his second term. Johnson would have been indicted and imprisoned for all of his previous corruption, but the Presidency sanctifies everything that came before through omission, intimidation, and black bag ops.

Somebody would have to catch Trump in something while actually holding office.

CBOEtrader says

Tons of non-trump supporters agree w me. I am a "non" Trump supporter.

Okay. Well the fact that CNN is there to make money is nothing new. Btw, I don't watch CNN or read it's website. But I know this trend in media is nothing new. I found that analysis really annoying for several reasons. He takes a legit commentary about the negative impact of social media as an indictment of the guy implying it is the only problem with how we get our news. Also, he repeatedly wants to make the point that CNN gave so much more attention to Trump than to Bernie. Hey at least the media is moving in the right direction of giving some attention to Bernie. I recall the media en mass not being willing to consider Rand PAul a legit candidate. In the case of Bernie, I believe that right or wrong it was believed impossible that he could win. Trump they also believed could not win, but that was entertainment.

So the guy found a couple small examples, like the guy saying that reading stolen emails was a crime, when it is and yet it isn't, becasue they are freely available. But back to this ? Interesting that repeating that example and I think one other trivial error was the best he could do.

CBOEtrader says

Easy.

1)Leave out your opinionated "again" part.

2)Offer the entire quote and video content.

3)Stop willfully misinterpreting Trump's every word.

4)Report the facts only and let your audience draw their own conclusions.

CNN doesnt do this. That's why they are fake news.

I believe that in the case of reporting on Trump, they NEVER need to inject their opinion to make him look bad. You're saying that they do is why I assumed you like Trump.

We know Trump exaggerates and is inconsistent with what he says. Honestly, I don't fucking care just as long as he blows up Washington and implements the major policies that may actually change our future for the better. We have no other alternatives now, so why fret over minutiae.

This last week must have been a low one for Trump lies, becasue I can't see that anyone is listing "the week in Trump lies" for this most recent week. But here's his first 100.

The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team’s Flurry Of Falsehoods
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-lies-100_us_58ac7a0fe4b02a1e7dac3ca6

Yeah sure, just another President in a long line of politicians. "Typical politician." "Nothing to see here folks."

Yes, it's true many of his lies are exaggerations such as the ones about the standing ovation he didn't receive at the CIA (not that the abundance of this type of lie aren't disturbing). But many of them are important BS, like when he says the murder rate is the highest it's been in 46 years. The uptick is the highest in a similar period of time, but the actual rate is about half what it was 25 years ago.

THe big picture is that the murder rate has dropped an amazing amount. WE know Trump must know this, so why does he say such lies ? MY theory ? To troll the press, so that gullible fools (I won't name any names of people around here) will believe that the press is being mean to him and that he is justified in creating his own branch of the media that will be the ones entitled to cover him close up.

CBOEtrader says

Are you referring to talking wo a teleprompter for 90 minutes, only to have a point about "sweden last night" be willfully misinterpreted and used as fake news. Is that one of your "examples"?

How was that wilfully reported? "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden" is an obviously misleading claim, so how exactly do you suggest the media should respond to such a comment?

marcus says

So the guy found a couple small examples, like the guy saying that reading stolen emails was a crime, when it is and yet it isn't, becasue they are freely available.

Small example? The day a "news" organization spews out such dangerous, utterly false, grossly misleading and condescending bullshit is when they become fake news and need to be taken off the air.

marcus says

highest it's been in 46 years.

marcus says

uptick is the highest in a similar period

It makes me smile that you found the answer yourself.

Remember that trump speaks for 90 minutes w/o a teleprompter. If you try anyone can willfully misrepresent his underlying meaning. Ex:

Rashomon says

"You look at what's happening last night in Sweden" is an obviously misleading claim,

No. Its an ambiguous and poorly phrased reference the current trends in Sweden. He cleared that up when asked. See how easy that is?

Yelling about racism and lies is just childish way to stick your fingers in your ears. Everyone else sees through it.

CBOEtrader says

No. Its an ambiguous and poorly phrased reference the current trends in Sweden. He cleared that up when asked. See how easy that is?

And then Kek steps in and there's a riot in Sweden right after. It's almost as if the Cosmic Joker hates the Media.

"1: White House press secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed the crowd on the National Mall was “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” (Jan. 21)

That's the first lie in your article?

I listened to Sean Spicer's statement. Its totally reasonable. This is a perfect and obvious misinterpretation.

Should I continue?

FP says

GFI

How is it different to GLD?

CBOEtrader says

"1: White House press secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed the crowd on the National Mall was “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” (Jan. 21)

That's the first lie in your article?

I listened to Sean Spicer's statement. Its totally reasonable. This is a perfect and obvious misinterpretation.

Should I continue?

Also it is largely irrelevant, it was a big crowd alright. Who gives a shit if it was bigger than any or all of its predecessors? This has nothing to do with reporting news anymore, but looking for petty fights and misinterpretations everywhere. Lamestream media is losing it.

Forgotten Stories:

Obama’s Orwellian Image Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/opinion/obamas-orwellian-image-control.html

Obama’s Efforts to Control Media Are ‘Most Aggressive’ Since Nixon, Report Says
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/

Whereas this is just retaliation for trifling basic bitch coverage of the Administration:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321063-media-slams-limited-wh-press-access

rando says

OK, does it seem like a good move to buy silver now?

That's what I'm holding. I'll swap when the ratio dips. I go with physical because I like investments I control directly. Silver rounds or junk silver, premiums on investment coins always disappear before a market tops. Also, if you want to offload some of your investment unexpectedly, coins are much easier to exchange, liquidity is good.

But, I thought the media loved and was extremely biased towards Obama??

You mean they wrote negative stories about someone OTHER than Trump?

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

owning precious metals is only better than leaving money in a saving account.

You give me an investment stock or real estate that didn't rely on an insider tip or deal, and I'll show you how much more you could have made if you had invested in silver or gold. What your fiat currency-centric mind doesn't understand is gold and silver have been outpacing inflation(the dollar) for nearly a decade. While every other paper investment has been saddled with the same loss.

You never adjust your profit for inflation!?

"Who gives a shit if it was bigger than any or all of its predecessors?"

Exactly! So why did Spicer make a point to say it at the press conference? Why did Trump tweet about it?

Who cares?

"If you try anyone can willfully misrepresent his underlying meaning"

You mean, anyone who listens can hear the blatant lies. There is no underlying meaning. He just lies on purpose because he knows that folks like you don't care.

I marked this as ad hominem to test the new feature.