Infowars - The Trump Propaganda Campaign - Time for some racist dog whistles
Trump has always been a conspiracist. He has said some bizarre, smoking good kush 'ish over the past year or so. My fav so far was when he accused Cruz' dad of killing JFK. These statements, to him, are real or at least plausible. If he feels the smallest tinge of embarrassment, he simply ceases his rant but moves on to a new one (quiet as a church mouse these past few days regarding the wire tapping).
One would think with a stellar Wharton education, he'd be able to decipher fact from fiction but I guess even the best schools can't keep someone from going nuts.
@drummerboy, may I use your post on Facebook? It puts into words what I have been thinking yet not able to articulate.
kibbegirl said:
Trump has always been a conspiracist. He has said some bizarre, smoking good kush 'ish over the past year or so. My fav so far was when he accused Cruz' dad of killing JFK. These statements, to him, are real or at least plausible. If he feels the smallest tinge of embarrassment, he simply ceases his rant but moves on to a new one (quiet as a church mouse these past few days regarding the wire tapping).
Why be embarrassed? Neither Cruz, his Dad or his wife (also the target of a ugly Trump insult) opposed him in the general election. Cruz made calls asking people to give Trump money. Trump is profoundly ignorant on so many things, but he gets that many people will swallow any insult, accept any lie, endure any humiliation if they think that it will serve their own needs.
sure.
blianderson said:
@drummerboy, may I use your post on Facebook? It puts into words what I have been thinking yet not able to articulate.
this is exactly right. He's been able to live his whole life by collecting a very sad assemblage of people who put up with him because it's in their financial interest. If he had not started with money, but still had the same personality, he would undoubtedly be a homeless guy roaming the streets , ranting in exactly the same way he does now.
Stoughton said:
Trump is profoundly ignorant on so many things, but he gets that many people will swallow any insult, accept any lie, endure any humiliation if they think that it will serve their own needs.
kibbegirl said:
One would think with a stellar Wharton education, he'd be able to decipher fact from fiction but I guess even the best schools can't keep someone from going nuts.
On what basis do you say he had a "stellar Wharton education"?
Have you seen his Diploma? Have you seen his Transcript? Do you know whether they are legitimate?
Stoughton said:
kibbegirl said:
Trump has always been a conspiracist. He has said some bizarre, smoking good kush 'ish over the past year or so. My fav so far was when he accused Cruz' dad of killing JFK. These statements, to him, are real or at least plausible. If he feels the smallest tinge of embarrassment, he simply ceases his rant but moves on to a new one (quiet as a church mouse these past few days regarding the wire tapping).
Why be embarrassed? Neither Cruz, his Dad or his wife (also the target of a ugly Trump insult) opposed him in the general election. Cruz made calls asking people to give Trump money. Trump is profoundly ignorant on so many things, but he gets that many people will swallow any insult, accept any lie, endure any humiliation if they think that it will serve their own needs.
Coincidentally, Senator and Mrs. Cruz will be dining with the Trumps in The White House tonight. Hallie Jackson of NBC asked Sean Spicer if President Trump would use the occasion to apologize to Mrs.Cruz. Spicer gave a nonresponsive answer.
LOST said:
kibbegirl said:
One would think with a stellar Wharton education, he'd be able to decipher fact from fiction but I guess even the best schools can't keep someone from going nuts.
On what basis do you say he had a "stellar Wharton education"?
Have you seen his Diploma? Have you seen his Transcript? Do you know whether they are legitimate?
It was an undergraduate economics degree which, while granted by the Wharton school, is not the same as the famous Wharton MBA program. President Trump only attended Penn for two years after transferring in from Fordham.
Grades matter. An economics degree with a C+ average from an Ivy League school, for example, should impress nobody. On the other hand, a A or A+ average is impressive.
Stoughton said:
LOST said:
kibbegirl said:
One would think with a stellar Wharton education, he'd be able to decipher fact from fiction but I guess even the best schools can't keep someone from going nuts.
On what basis do you say he had a "stellar Wharton education"?
Have you seen his Diploma? Have you seen his Transcript? Do you know whether they are legitimate?
It was an undergraduate economics degree which, while granted by the Wharton school, is not the same as the famous Wharton MBA program. President Trump only attended Penn for two years after transferring in from Fordham.
What evidence have you seen that he attended for even one day?
He doesn't believe Obama was born in Hawaii or went to Columbia University. Why should I believe he went to Wharton? Not one person has come forward who remembers him from Wharton.
Some insight from George Lakoff, though I have to admit I'm not crazy at Lakoff's framing this as a "treason" issue.
https://georgelakoff.com/2017/03/07/trumps-twitter-distraction/
The net has been drawing closer around Trump’s Russian connections.
His unwavering support for America’s major enemy has raised a question:
Is Treason the Reason?
The Tax Return issue has become a treason issue. The tax returns
could show if Trump is deeply in debt to Russians or if he is involved
in illegal financial activity. He might clear suspicions by releasing
the returns.
The longer he refuses to do so, the greater the suspicion gets. Jeff
Sessions’ recusal made Trump furious because it meant that Sessions
could no longer protect him from an independent Justice Department
investigation, if there were to be one. If Sessions is forced to resign,
the net gets that much tighter. Of course, in addition to releasing the
tax returns, Trump should support a full and independent investigation
to clear up all questions about his Russia contacts.
In the midst of this, Trump created a distraction: accusing Obama of
wiretapping the Trump Tower, with no evidence. Faced with the biggest
scandal in American history – presidential treason – Trump, with a
tweet, accuses Obama of a scandal bigger than Watergate.
Trump’s tweets are strategic. I analyzed the tweets on NPR’s On the
Media, and a diagram has been shared widely on social media and also
appeared in the Washington Post.
Trump’s tweet is a doozy. It is an example of all four of Trump’s strategies.
Pre-emptive Framing: He frames first. He creates a
new presidential scandal – Obama’s wiretapping — an accusation without
evidence, and with all evidence against it.
Deflection: He puts the onus on his squeaky-clean predecessor.
Diversion: The press bit and the diversion worked.
It generated headlines questioning whether Obama, rather than Trump, had
committed wrongdoing.
The diversion worked, at least temporarily.
Trial Balloon: Will the public accept it, or listen
to a discussion of it long enough to distract the press and the public
from the treason issue?
The media is still focused on the false accusation, not on the
investigation of Trump’s Russian connections and the treason issue. (Of
course, the growing nature of the scandal is making it harder and
harder for Trump to pivot away from his Russia problem)
Pretty effective tweet. But it gets more effective.
It put the press and those from the Obama administration in the
position of denying the accusation — of repeating the accusation by
questioning it and negating it — like saying Obama is not a crook. The
more the press discusses it, the more Obama is associated with the idea
of wiretapping Trump, thus strengthening Trump’s claim in the minds of
the public by denying the claim, or asking for evidence of the claim.
Meanwhile, Trump’s minions are associating Obama with Watergate by
repeating “What did he know and when did he know it?” This question is
what brought Nixon down. They can keep this up for a long time.
And worse: This is not just a diversion from the treason issue. It’s
also a diversion from what Trump’s cabinet, with the help of Paul Ryan,
is doing under the cover of the diversion: denying healthcare to
millions, taking away public protections we have all depended on by
defunding the EPA, allowing drugs to go on the market without being
tested for safety and efficacy, taking away protections from investors,
and on and on.
The wiretap tweet was not crazy or manic – it was strategic. And when
the press treats tweets as “breaking news” it just plays out the Trump
strategy.
It seems that Trump did attend U Penn.
Allow me to put my tin foil hat on.
re Trump's wire tapping charge.
This isn't going away. Why did Trannon (maybe I should use Brump?) put "wire tapping" in quotes? It's an extremely odd usage. Is it not possible that it was used deliberately, so they can than say it means more than mere tapping (or mere anything, really. This opens up a wide definition of surveillance.)
Isn't it an already known fact that some of Trump's associates were inadvertently surveilled during the campaign?
Let's go back to square one. Why was this tweeted in the first place? It could be to raise concern about surveillance of his campaign. Or, by conspicuously naming Obama, is he just pre-emptively attacking Obama for his followers, just to reinforce their general hatred of him? Obama may or may not come out swinging against Trump one day. That remains to be seen. But if he does, he could be a game changer in shaping the discourse. Trannon knows this, and their game plans have to allow for Obama coming back. They would be foolish to ignore that probable possibility.
We always need to be vigilant about discerning the motive for any action they do. I think it is rarely the obvious one.
Anyway, the fact remains that his wire tapping charge is gaining traction, not dying away. He has a lot of support among the Trump crowd, and a fair amount of "well, let's investigate anyway" from the less wingnut set.
An investigation would probably turn up enough to justify what Trump claimed, at least in the universe of his followers. And it could surely be spun into implicating "Obama" - mwerely by him being President at the time.
The mere fact that it has dominated the news for what, 10 days now, is just remarkable. The press, I think, smells red meat in this latest tweet, and they're feeling confident about... well, about something, but I'm not sure what. But they won't let go of this one.
It will, in the end, be another Trump victory - which again, mostly means that he has fired up his base just that much more, while diminishing Obama among them at the same time, and that Trump will not suffer any consequence.
And what about Comey - wtf exactly has he been telling all these legislators? And why, in this case, are the pipes tight as can be, with no leaks?
I don't like it at all. Based on the somewhat self-righteous press coverage, it kind of seems that Trump may be on the ropes a bit on this one.
But I don't think that's the case at all.
We'll see....
tinfoil hat off, but it's always around.
wow. for a few minutes there today, I thought maybe Trump was on the way to losing this one, due to the announcement by the Senate Intelligence Committee
But I'm not sure. I am listening to Spicer give the most astounding "answer" to a question I've ever seen. He's just reading. He must be on page 10 by now. He's laying out a grand litany of news stories (you know,. from the enemy of the people) concerning surveillance activities under Obama, whether having to do with Trump or not. I have never seen so much sh!t thrown at a wall at one time to see what would stick.
These guys are doubling down. It's far from over.
Don't even get me started on the OMB appearance before Spicer came on. OMG
if you've ever doubted the efficacy of his propaganda campaign, consider these statistics. This is the nation we're dealing with.
drummerboy said:
if you've ever doubted the efficacy of his propaganda campaign, consider these statistics. This is the nation we're dealing with.
Another confusing graphic. The result for that question, obscured by the tangle of lines, is that 43 percent could name a current justice; 57 percent could not (or gave a wrong name first -- "Souter ... no, Breyer!" -- and blew their chance). The lines simply reflect how often each justice was the one the respondents named.
good point. Need to know the question.
eta: here's the full survey. Warning: PDF
I'll need to find another measure of America's disengagement.
DaveSchmidt said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:
if you've ever doubted the efficacy of his propaganda campaign, consider these statistics. This is the nation we're dealing with.
Another confusing graphic. The result for that question, obscured by the tangle of lines, is that 43 percent could name a current justice; 57 percent could not (or gave a wrong name first -- "Souter ... no, Breyer!" -- and blew their chance). The lines simply reflect how often each justice was the one the respondents named.
The graph is clear to me. The numbers at the bottom are the ages of the respondents. For example about 20% of those 65 or older can name Ginsberg, and about 15% can name Roberts
LOST said:
The graph is clear to me. The numbers at the bottom are the ages of the respondents. For example about 20% of those 65 or older can name Ginsberg, and about 15% can name Roberts
That's incorrect. It's not that 20 percent "can" name Ginsburg; it's that 20 percent happened to give her as their answer when asked to name any justice.
In other words, 59 percent of repondents 65 or older could name a justice. While 20 percent named Ginsburg, it doesn't mean the other 39 percent couldn't name her (or any of the other seven), too. Or that the 1 percent who named Alito weren't just showing off and could name the rest just as easily.
Media Matters has a good piece on tracking Trump's wire tapping lie, but I though the following was particularly instructive.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/03/24/life-cycle-donald-trump-lie/215798
Trump and his team are doing everything they can to create an
atmosphere of uncertainty in the which people will trust Trump over all
other sources. And so they tear down the media, and the Congressional Budget Office, and federal government employees.
But this only works if Trump is perceived as honest. And so Trump
never admits that he was wrong, never acknowledges if his story has
changed, claims that it is the people who say that he’s pushing
falsehoods who are the real liars, and kicks up as much dust as possible
around his falsehoods.
This turns every lie he tells into a polarized argument, with him and
his media allies on one side and his perceived enemies on the other.
The pro-Trump team rallies his supporters to believe him over the facts.
Those in the middle, who don’t follow news closely, are confused; the
story they end up hearing is that there is a dispute over what the
president said, not that he is a liar.
I didn't quite understand the purpose of never admitting you're wrong, even occasionally. It seemed to me that this would be good PR for Trump. Make him seem more "human". But I think Media Matters' statement is correct. He has to maintain a complete facade that he's always right. He will never waver, never apologize.
Did you hear him yesterday, saying he never said there was a big rush for early repeal of ACA? But wasn't it one of his (frequent?) "on the very first day" things in campaign speeches?
DaveSchmidt said:
In other words, 59 percent of repondents 65 or older could name a justice. While 20 percent named Ginsburg, it doesn't mean the other 39 percent couldn't name her (or any of the other seven), too. Or that the 1 percent who named Alito weren't just showing off and could name the rest just as easily.
Thanks. I did not understand.
Interesting article about the "alt-news" networks that have been growing in the last few years. Made more interesting now that we have a Prez who believes and promotes this stuff - granting it an unheard-of-before authority to a certain class of individuals. Dangerous.
e.g. Alex Jones's Infowars gets as much traffic as the Chicago Tribune.
Do Trump supporters trust the president? Fast-forward to 2:25 on this CNN video to see some silent squirming.
Another good article from Media Matters on the growing disinformation network
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
(unfortunately I can't find it online yet.)
e.g. His Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement, and the revelation that a portion of the Obama care replacement plan specifically deals with the incredibly costly scandal of lottery winners receiving govt. benefits.
These are examples of him taking ridiculously overblown issues by the right-wing media, and elevating them as issues of such concern that they need to be dealt with legislatively. Again. for no purpose other than to feed the false history that is accumulating among his base.
If Trump has to create an office to look into immigrant crime, than hell, it must be as scary as I thought it was. Them damn lottery cheats too!
I hadn't considered this part of the propaganda campaign before. It's kind of clever. And quite dangerous.;
Regardless, a seriously under covered aspect of Trumpism is the fact that he is running the biggest propaganda campaign since that other guy did it. You know who,. I'm not allowed to say his name because apparently that undermines my point. Or something. But you know who. That guy.
The fact remains - with the current tools that are available, like twitter, and the Trumpists' unrelenting ability to never give back on any issue - that we, the U.S., are being bombarded by propaganda in a way we've never had to face before. And frankly, we're not coping too well.
People tend to misunderstand propaganda, I think. They think that since they are able to easily see past all of the b.s., that the propaganda is just an annoyance with little effect.
Wrongo. If you can discern his b.s. from the truth, you are not Trump's audience. He could give a sh!t about you. What he (or, more correctly, Bannon) cares about is building an alternate history among his base, and hopefully peel of some people in the muddled middle, so as to increase his base.
It is, in my opinion, easily the most dangerous part of Trumpism. With every tweet, with every false claim, he further divides America in a way that can not easily be repaired. At base, a society needs to agree in fundamental facts, regardless of their political opinions. If we don't there's no way that we can ever build compromises. And that's one of Trump/Bannon's goals.
The divide has been building for a long time, led by right-wing media. The election of Trump exacerbates this process by an order of magnitude. Before, the right-wing media fed the base, but they were still lacking some requisite authority to throw it over the top. With Trump, the right wing media is now ascendant, and the most powerful voice is not O'Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh or whoever.
It is the Leader of the Free World.
Not only that, he's even fringier than the "mainstream" right-wing media. He's an Alex Jones fan, fergawdsakes. Do you all realize how dangerous that simple fact is?
This is a big deal, which, as I said earlier, is really underappreciated by most people. Partly because the mainstream media really hasn't picked up on it yet. The media should be pounding on the propaganda campaign every darn day.
We really don't understand how Steve Bannon is a puppet master. The original release of the Muslim ban on Friday was deliberate, so as to allow us good meaning liberals a chance to vociferously protest during the weekend. He wanted that to happen, so as to anger the base. And we acquiesced. Luckily for us, this time, the order was such a mess that the judicial system managed to undercut it.Though hell, maybe that was part of the plan too.