Jump to content

US election 2016


Happy Face
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The one area where he agrees with congressional republicans is tax policy, wolf writes.

 

The highest-income taxpayers — 0.1 per cent of the population, those with incomes over $3.7m in 2016 dollars — would receive an average cut of more than 14 per cent of after-tax income. The poorest fifth’s taxes would fall by an average of 0.8 per cent of taxed income. To those who hath, it shall be given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, former head of the KKK David Duke, and author of Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, celebrates Bannon's appointment, while thanking Assange for his role in Trump's victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love this attempted smear of Bannon with no clue of the origins. :lol:

 

Establishment left, poodle loving, bed wetting, hysteria in full swing.

 

#Amexit #Brexit #Frexit

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love this attempted smear of Bannon with no clue of the origins. :lol:

 

Establishment left, poodle loving, bed wetting, hysteria in full swing.

 

#Amexit #Brexit #Frexit

He hardly needs the establishment to smear him when he's just been endorsed by David Duke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's he done?

Who? The former leader of the KKK?

 

Or the former head of Breitbart news, the divisive, anti immigration news outlet which has been accused of promoting white nationalism while featuring some of the following headlines, among others, “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Trannies 49 Xs Higher HIV Rate,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”

 

Imagine if Paul Dacre had just received a top Westminster job. This is the same as that, if not even more alarming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who? The former leader of the KKK?

 

Or the former head of Breitbart news, the divisive, anti immigration news outlet which has been accused of promoting white nationalism while featuring some of the following headlines, among others, “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Trannies 49 Xs Higher HIV Rate,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”

 

Imagine if Paul Dacre had just received a top Westminster job. This is the same as that, if not even more alarming.

That article wasn't comissioned by Breitbart, was written by a Jew and had nothing to do with Bannon. :lol:

 

Thing is Gloomy this is a time when we all need to be more discerning. It's obvious to all that the rejected establishment and media are going to throw everything at Trump.

 

We're being bombarded from all sides. There is push back against the establishment in Europe and America we have to accept this and we have to debate it and look at the reasons....Propaganda and smears aren't helpful.

 

I find it wearisome that all resistance however misguided and its leaders somehow immediately become misogynists, anti-Semites or racists....It's laughable.

 

Alt right is a propagnda tag the MSM have applied to everyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

Like 'Coalition of the Willing'...These are propaganda terms or the much fabled 'international community'....These terms are to constitute consent without much soul searching. Everyone has a view and opinions it's healthy that these

debates are carried out in the open so they can be challenged.

 

There is a sort of reset going on. Accept it. :)

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at Brietbart last night and while fully confessing I didn't 'dig deep', it had literally nothing offensive posted on there. Some of the comments beneath certain articles were off kilter for sure, but the articles themselves are actually really lacking in any racial/bigotted substance. As in, the Daily Mail is far worse on a cursory glance.

 

I've come across Milo Yannoupoulos before in my diggings around the internet - he seems to be one of the figureheads for the paper. He just carried out some kind of tour around American universities campaigning against feminism. He's a British guy educated at Cambridge (before dropping out) I gather.

 

So yes, anyway. While Brietbart has some inflammatory headlines it seems, I wish to draw attention to some of the headlines we've seen from the Guardian in the past few years:

 

Why I hate Men.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/02/whyihatemen

 

Women hitting men is not the same

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/solange-jay-z-beyonce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women

 

Feminists don't hate men, but it wouldn't matter if we did (presumably she hadn't read Bindel's article)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men

 

So how is the above different to Breitbart, save that some of the terms used aren't as on the nose? I suspect it is a platform for hate speech, but I'm not having the Guardian telling me that after their crusades in the ever divisive gender wars.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article wasn't comissioned by Breitbart, was written by a Jew and had nothing to do with Bannon. :lol:

 

Thing is Gloomy this is a time when we all need to be more discerning. It's obvious to all that the rejected establishment and media are going to throw everything at Trump.

 

We're being bombarded from all sides. There is push back against the establishment in Europe and America we have to accept this and we have to debate it and look at the reasons....Propaganda and smears aren't helpful.

 

Alt right is a propagnda tag the MSM have applied to everyone that doesn't agree with them and wants to discuss and use free speech (a right in America).

 

Like 'Coalition of the Willing'...These are propaganda terms or the much fabled 'international community'....These terms are to constitute consent without much soul searching. Everyone has a view and opinions it's healthy that these

debates are carried out in the open so they can be challenged.

The media is doing its job. It's scrutisnising Trump's appointments and questioning what it means for America and the world.

 

Just imagine, for a moment, that Nigel Farage is the new British prime minister; he was swept to power on a populist campaign, driven by divisive, anti immigration rhetoric.

 

The media and large swathes of the country are worried about which of his outlandish campaign promises will translate into policy.

Then he appoints Paul Dacre as his chief strategist.

 

I'd be worried if such a scenario unfolded. This is basically what has happened in the states. I'd expect the legacy media to scrutinise the fuck out of it. It is not a smear or propaganda campaign ffs, you crazy bastard. Look at this guy's background for yourself.

 

The reality is Trump had to appoint a right wing loonie to appease his grassroots support. It would have looked weird after his campaign if he's suddenly appointed a load of establishment republicans like his chief of staff. The interesting, or worrying thing, depending on how you look at it, is which of these two will wield most influence over the Donald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is doing its job. It's scrutisnising Trump's appointments and questioning what it means for America and the world.

 

Just imagine, for a moment, that Nigel Farage is the new British prime minister; he was swept to power on a populist campaign, driven by divisive, anti immigration rhetoric.

 

The media and large swathes of the country are worried about which of his outlandish campaign promises will translate into policy.

Then he appoints Paul Dacre as his chief strategist.

 

I'd be worried if such a scenario unfolded. This is basically what has happened in the states. I'd expect the legacy media to scrutinise the fuck out of it. It is not a smear or propaganda campaign ffs, you crazy bastard. Look at this guy's background for yourself.

 

The reality is Trump had to appoint a right wing loonie to appease his grassroots support. It would have looked weird after his campaign if he's suddenly appointed a load of establishment republicans like his chief of staff. The interesting, or worrying thing, depending on how you look at it, is which of these two will wield most influence over the Donald.

 

Dacre is an establishment media force though. Barron isn't.

 

Although I want to be clear here, I don't think he should appoint the guy either. I'm a bit concerned by what exactly he thinks he needs him for, and it's not like the guy has ever been in office. But then again, I'm no more concerned than I would be if he'd hired whichever sad individual heads up the Guardian these days.

 

Ultimately, the media and those with media influence should be nowhere near political positions. Not when they still have an outlet. Presumably Brietbart is going to become a full on propaganda arm of the Trump office.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is doing its job. It's scrutisnising Trump's appointments and questioning what it means for America and the world.

 

Just imagine, for a moment, that Nigel Farage is the new British prime minister; he was swept to power on a populist campaign, driven by divisive, anti immigration rhetoric.

 

The media and large swathes of the country are worried about which of his outlandish campaign promises will translate into policy.

Then he appoints Paul Dacre as his chief strategist.

 

I'd be worried if such a scenario unfolded. This is basically what has happened in the states. I'd expect the legacy media to scrutinise the fuck out of it. It is not a smear or propaganda campaign ffs, you crazy bastard. Look at this guy's background for yourself.

 

The reality is Trump had to appoint a right wing loonie to appease his grassroots support. It would have looked weird after his campaign if he's suddenly appointed a load of establishment republicans like his chief of staff. The interesting, or worrying thing, depending on how you look at it, is which of these two will wield most influence over the Donald.

There is absolutely no factual basis for calling Bannon an anti-semite or racist. Really there isn't.

 

You do know that the Tories were canvassing 'the racist' UKIP core to come over to their side after slamming them for a year. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Guardian uses a source which reports what is happening?

 

Would you prefer them not to report what Al Nusra does?

AMC is made up as is Syrian rights watch which is essentially a bloke living in a semi in Coventry UK. :doh:

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.