Infowars - The Trump Propaganda Campaign - Time for some racist dog whistles

whoa.

Alex Pereene nails it. Really nails it.

http://fusion.net/the-long-luc...

Two new major threads in the media:

1. The only words that matter: SUSAN RICE ... blah blah .... COMMITTED A CRIME

2. Why, all of a sudden, is the media giving us such graphic descriptions of the deaths of Syrian children just because they died through chemical weapons? These horrible deaths occur EVERY DAY in Syria. Is it because the use of gas is a convenient means to escalate our involvement there?

Nah.

drummerboy said:

whoa.
Alex Pereene nails it. Really nails it.
http://fusion.net/the-long-luc... 

Yep. The President of the USA folks:

https://twitter.com/NickAmadeu...

Good article on how the NRA is putting on a full frontal assault against the media:

https://mediamatters.org/blog/...

The National Rifle Association’s news outlet NRATV announced a new “series of messages” against The New York Times that will air on the Fox News Channel beginning Monday. The NRA previewed the ad with the claim that the newspaper has “gone on the offensive to take away your liberties.”

The new NRA ad evidences a new phenomenon since the election of President Donald Trump where the gun group now routinely labels protected speech reporting that it doesn’t like as oppositional to traditional democratic values.

On the April 7 edition of NRATV’s Stinchfield, host Grant Stinchfield called the Times
“a liberal propaganda machine that is out of control,” and claimed the
newspaper has carried out an “assault on journalism.” He then played a
preview of a message featuring NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre in which
LaPierre claimed the media has “weaponized the First Amendment against
the Second,” and that America “would have fallen long ago” had people
placed their trust in the “failing American news media.

Simmer down, sirs. I do not have evidence of him attending Wharton. All I have is that he mentioned Wharton hundreds of times prior to and during his campaign and I recall Ivanka waxing nostalgic about his Wharton attendance. In saying that, no, I don't have evidence of him attending and Wharton seems to want to distance themselves from him and most likely, his lies on attending Wharton.

What I do have, however, is the Wharton experience in that I worked in a private equity firm in Boston where all partners were indeed Wharton grads. When I think back to those guys and compare them to Trump, there is nothing Wharton about Trump.

drummerboy said:

whoa.

Alex Pereene nails it. Really nails it.


http://fusion.net/the-long-luc...

Thanks. That's a great article.

kibbegirl -Trump attended Fordham for 2 years and then transferred to Wharton but not as a graduate student. He is mentioned in the Wharton alumni magazine which I do get to read due to family member Wharton grad.

In a recent interview,  Trump gave succor to those many racists in our midst who believe that Civil War was apparently  mystery, and why couldn't the two sides just come to an agreement on slavery?

But look at this LA Times story. They're as much of the problem as Trump is.

They first characterize Trump's comments about the war "puzzling".

The LA Times does not understand a damn thing.

They fail to understand that Trump's claim is not at all "puzzling" to the people he's speaking to.  Trump is telling his followers that the war was not about slavery, and even if it was, they should have just "worked it out".

For moral people, there is no "deal" to be made on the issue of slavery. There is no middle ground. No negotiation is possible. You either allow it or you don't.

But racists, looking for excuses for the war and as they try to blame the North, believe there is.

And look at the last paragraph in the image. They mention "states rights".

There was no issue about "states rights" in the Civil War. The only issue was a state's right to have slaves.

For the LA Times to pretend otherwise just is disgraceful.

Trump says Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War".  I have no doubt Jackson was really angry when he saw what was happening in regard to efforts to limit and eliminate slavery.  Jackson was all for expanding the slave territory of the United States.  And limits on that expansion did lead to the Confederate states trying to leave the Union.  So he's sort of right, although not in the way he thinks he was.  He's ignorant about this, as he is about a lot of things.  Not good for us.

Maybe he was thinking about how much money he'd save on labor at Mar-a-Lago if slavery still existed.

But again, his "ignorance" is not the issue, and I don't think we should get sidetracked by that.

The issue is that President of the United States is signalling to his cult followers that it's OK to think that the Civil War was not really about slavery.

He is, perhaps,  the most divisive President in our history. Every utterance of his like this pushes his supporters further and further away from reality, and makes it harder for them to ever make their way back.

That's dangerous.

South_Mountaineer said:

Trump says Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War".  I have no doubt Jackson was really angry when he saw what was happening in regard to efforts to limit and eliminate slavery.  Jackson was all for expanding the slave territory of the United States.  And limits on that expansion did lead to the Confederate states trying to leave the Union.  So he's sort of right, although not in the way he thinks he was.  He's ignorant about this, as he is about a lot of things.  Not good for us.