- Joined
- 19 October 2005
- Posts
- 3,936
- Reactions
- 5,729
No such thing as a 'right wing nut job'.
Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2024 donald trump
wayneL
'Abba Shboq Lhon'
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,427
- Reactions
- 12,460
Good question from Clint Russell 
So here's how it works:
The media spends years refusing to cover Trump's speaking events. They cut away mid-speech and describe it as "protecting their viewers from misinformation." Then, suddenly, there is a Trump event that gets covered by the major news outlets. Coincidentally, he it shot at 8 times and miraculously survives. Worse, he responds to the attack in legendary fashion and pumps his fist as blood streams down his face. Probably the most incredible political photo in modern American history gets taken. Does the media run it 24/7 for months like they would've had an attack on Biden or Obama occurred? No. They bury it. Is there a years long "national dialogue about political violence and the dangers of the radical left"? No. Zero.
In 14 days, the story is wiped from the headlines. Google suppresses all searches. Newspapers don't run the photo, stating openly that it makes him look too heroic. In just two weeks, it is like it never happened.
So what can we conclude?
Well, for one, the entire corporate media sphere works directly for the federal government and by "federal government" I mean the democrats or the establishment or the intel community. Take your pick. But you already knew that.
The conclusion, or oddity, that I can't get past:
You had a media blackout on Trump ever since J6. You've basically gone back to the blackout protocol over the past two weeks.
So...why, how etc.
Did you, the corporate news, decide to cover this one particular Trump event where he just so happened to come one inch from death?
Inquiring minds would like to know
So here's how it works:
The media spends years refusing to cover Trump's speaking events. They cut away mid-speech and describe it as "protecting their viewers from misinformation." Then, suddenly, there is a Trump event that gets covered by the major news outlets. Coincidentally, he it shot at 8 times and miraculously survives. Worse, he responds to the attack in legendary fashion and pumps his fist as blood streams down his face. Probably the most incredible political photo in modern American history gets taken. Does the media run it 24/7 for months like they would've had an attack on Biden or Obama occurred? No. They bury it. Is there a years long "national dialogue about political violence and the dangers of the radical left"? No. Zero.
In 14 days, the story is wiped from the headlines. Google suppresses all searches. Newspapers don't run the photo, stating openly that it makes him look too heroic. In just two weeks, it is like it never happened.
So what can we conclude?
Well, for one, the entire corporate media sphere works directly for the federal government and by "federal government" I mean the democrats or the establishment or the intel community. Take your pick. But you already knew that.
The conclusion, or oddity, that I can't get past:
You had a media blackout on Trump ever since J6. You've basically gone back to the blackout protocol over the past two weeks.
So...why, how etc.
Did you, the corporate news, decide to cover this one particular Trump event where he just so happened to come one inch from death?
Inquiring minds would like to know
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,530
- Reactions
- 6,258
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,380
- Reactions
- 4,344
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,878
- Reactions
- 1,543
NEW - Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is now labeling actual photos of the Trump assassination attempt as "altered" because "independent fact-checkers" claim so.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reactions
- 23,450
Probably fake.
US police photographed Trump shooter more than an hour before assassination attempt
The FBI says a local police officer took a photo of gunman Thomas Crooks and sent it to other law enforcement officials at the scene of Donald Trump's Pennsylvania rally before the shooting took place.
www.abc.net.au
Police noticed the Pennsylvania man who tried to assassinate Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump more than an hour before the July 13 shooting and took a photo to share with other law enforcement officers, according to the FBI.
"The shooter was identified by law enforcement as a suspicious person," Kevin Rojek, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Pittsburgh field office, told reporters at a briefing on the agency's investigation into the assassination attempt.
He said a local officer took a photo of gunman Thomas Crooks and sent it to other law enforcement officials at the scene of Trump's Pennsylvania rally that day.
wayneL
'Abba Shboq Lhon'
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,427
- Reactions
- 12,460
"Weird" is the new NPC narrative... which is actually very weird coming from the weirdos of the left 
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reactions
- 23,450
"Weird" is the new NPC narrative... which is actually very weird coming from the weirdos of the left
They have four months to distort reality, which means there will be some very strong messaging going out, it is pretty amazing watching how quickly the narrative adapts.
Money talks, that's how Republics work.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 6,155
- Reactions
- 9,883
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,530
- Reactions
- 6,258
"I love you Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote," Trump said.
Last edited:
Whats the context?
The economy and US is doing so well that he won't need to call on the Christian base to vote as everyone will approve?
The current fraudulent voting system has guards put in place?
They have quoted part of what was likely a 30 min speech.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,530
- Reactions
- 6,258
They asked him on Fox News directly this doesn't mean to state that this isn't a democracy takeover and he didn't answer the question. He has stated previously similar things. Pretty obvious to me what he means.
- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 6,155
- Reactions
- 9,883
Just prove what a nut case the Trumpet really is.
- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 6,155
- Reactions
- 9,883
General/President/King Trumpet forever !!!!
- Joined
- 19 October 2005
- Posts
- 3,936
- Reactions
- 5,729
What similar things?
They leapt on his comment about there being a "bloodbath" if he isn't reelected but entirely left out the context. There, he was talking about the loss of the U.S auto industry and jobs if China was allowed to go on unrestrained in the U.S market. He wanted tariffs imposed. He was using 'bloodbath' in an economic sense just as the more intemperate stock jockeys use it it for a down day on the share market.
It was just a totally dishonest continuation of 'Trump is Hitler and his followers are white extremist nazis' garbage and I'm sure the insinuation from this recent unguarded comment that he'll instal himself for life is the same.
wayneL
'Abba Shboq Lhon'
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,427
- Reactions
- 12,460
wayneL
'Abba Shboq Lhon'
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,427
- Reactions
- 12,460
They are masters at creating narratives from truncated/out of context comments.
Very fine people anyone? It took Snopes *seven years* to debunk that one.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,530
- Reactions
- 6,258
It's all written down in Project 2025, attack the institutions that check the votes, attack free media attack the legal system. It's a big read because it's highly planned and quite complex.
Project 2025’s Guide to Subverting Democracy
A second Trump administration could weaponize existing government agencies to dismantle democracy itself.
Donald Trump has made no secret of his determination to govern as a “dictator” if he regains the presidency, and that’s got his critics warning that his reelection would spell the end of democracy. But Trump and his allies are too smart to go full Kim Jong Un. Rather, the former president’s enthusiasm for the authoritarian regimes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Tayyip Erdoğan, and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán suggests the models he would build on: managing elections to benefit himself and his Republican allies; gutting public broadcasting and constraining press freedom; and undermining civil society. Trump, who famously demanded that the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential voting be “recalculated” to give him a win, wants the trappings of democracy without the reality of electoral consequences. That’s what propaganda experts Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead once described as “demonstration elections,” in which, instead of actual contests, wins are assured for the authoritarians who control the machinery of democracy.
The outline for such a scenario emerges from a thorough reading of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, which specifically proposes a Trump-friendly recalculation of the systems that sustain American democracy. The strategy for establishing an American version of Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” is not spelled out in any particular chapter of Mandate. Rather, it is woven throughout the whole of the document, with key elements appearing in the chapters on reworking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In the section on the DHS, for instance, there’s a plan to eliminate the ability of the agency that monitors election security to prevent the spread of disinformation about voting and vote counting.
How serious a threat to democracy would that pose? Think back to November 2020, when Trump was developing his Big Lie about the election he’d just lost. Trump’s false assertion that the election had been characterized by “massive improprieties and fraud” was tripped up by Chris Krebs, who served as director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the DHS.
In Mandate’s chapter on the DHS, Ken Cuccinelli writes, “Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth.” Cuccinelli previously complained that CISA “is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections.” As for the team that worked so successfully with Krebs to secure the 2020 election, the Project 2025 document declares that “the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One.” The potential impact? “It’s a way of emasculating the agency—that is, it prevents it from doing its job,” says Herb Lin, a cyber-policy and security scholar at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
This is just one way that Project 2025’s cabal of “experts” is scheming to thwart honest discourse about elections and democracy. A chapter on public broadcasting proposes to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as part of a larger plan to upend NPR, PBS, and “other public broadcasters that benefit from CPB funding, including the even-further-to-the Left Pacifica Radio and American Public Media.” More destabilizing than the total funding cut that Project 2025 entertains is a parallel plan to end the status of NPR and Pacifica radio stations as “noncommercial education stations.” That could deny them their current channel numbers at the low end of the radio spectrum (88 to 92 FM)—a move that would open prime territory on the dial for the sort of religious programming that already claims roughly 42 percent of the airwaves that the FCC reserves for noncommercial broadcasting. And don’t imagine that the FCC would be in a position to write new rules that guard against the surrender of those airwaves to the Trump-aligned religious right.
In the words of Politico, Project 2025 seeks “to give the president complete power over quasi-independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies that have been the bane of Trump’s political existence in the last few years.” As part of its focus on the agency, Project 2025 champions the abandonment of the FCC’s legacy as “a New Deal–era agency” and proposes “eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules.” That’s a recipe for empowering media giants like the Sinclair Broadcast Group. In a 2019 article in the American Political Science Review, Gregory Martin and Josh McCrain determined that the “stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market.” Sinclair already reaches 40 percent of American households via more than 180 stations, and when the group’s chair, David Smith, met with Trump in 2016, he said, “We are here to deliver your message.”
While project 2025 seeks to rewire the FCC to favor Trump’s allies, it also wants to lock in dysfunction at the Federal Election Commission, the agency that is supposed to govern campaign spending and fundraising. Established 50 years ago, the FEC has six members—three Republicans and three Democrats—who are charged with overseeing the integrity of federal election campaigns. In recent years, however, this even partisan divide has robbed the FEC of its ability to act because, as a group of former FEC employees working with the Campaign Legal Center explained, “three Commissioners of the same party, acting in concert, can leave the agency in a state of deadlock.” As the spending by outside groups on elections “has exponentially increased, foreign nationals and governments have willfully manipulated our elections, and coordination between super PACs and candidates has become commonplace,” the former employees noted. Yet “the FEC [has] deadlocked on enforcement matters more often than not, frequently refusing to even investigate alleged violations despite overwhelming publicly available information supporting them.”
One logical reform, supported by many Democrats, would reduce the number of FEC commissioners to five, with two Democrats, two Republicans, and an independent chair. Mandate’s chapter on the FEC rejects that reform, arguing that Trump and a Republican Congress must resist “efforts to impose a ‘nonpartisan’ or so-called ‘independent’ chair.” Instead, Project 2025 supports “removing the Federal Election Commission’s independent litigating authority”—a move that would render the agency even more toothless. In addition, it advocates a strategy that would direct the US attorney general to defend the FEC in circumstances in which citizens sue the agency to get it to enforce the law—an approach that would effectively block one of the last remaining avenues for addressing illegal electioneering.
This is all part of Project 2025’s broader vision for restructuring the Department of Justice so that it can be weaponized by a new Trump administration when it comes to election-related issues. In Mandate’s chapter on the Department of Justice, Gene P. Hamilton, a DOJ appointee under Trump, proposes reassigning responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the department’s Civil Rights Division to its Criminal Division. Why? To ensure that Republican-generated claims about “fraudulent voter registration,” “mail-in ballot fraud,” and presumably the various targets of Trump’s Big Lie claims regarding the 2020 election are “appropriately investigated and prosecuted.”
Instead of focusing on voter suppression, the manipulation of election processes by domestic and foreign agents, and other genuine threats to democracy, Mandate for Leadership’s authors would have these agencies do the bidding of Trump and his MAGA movement. That’s a formula for giving Trump the authoritarian power he seeks—not through an explicit crushing of electoral democracy, but by “reforming” it in precisely the way that the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy warns is most dangerous.
“The biggest innovation of 21st-century authoritarians has been to maintain the facade of democratic elections while at the same time tilting the rules against their opponents,” the group explains in its report, The Authoritarian Playbook. “They do this by suppressing votes and biasing, distorting, falsifying, or even overturning the results—either through capturing the referees or by manipulating the electoral rules in their favor.”
Project 2025’s Guide to Subverting Democracy
A second Trump administration could weaponize existing government agencies to dismantle democracy itself.
www.thenation.com
Last edited:
Trump has distanced himself from project 2025 and didn't actually have anything to do with it. I think the staff that wrote it stepped down. It's just an attack point.
However there is a noticeable Christ based religion resurgence. Ive mentioned it before. A lot of youth getting involved in pretty hard core lines of faith. Be interesting to see what this actually grows into.
However there is a noticeable Christ based religion resurgence. Ive mentioned it before. A lot of youth getting involved in pretty hard core lines of faith. Be interesting to see what this actually grows into.
Similar threads
