White Supremacists are, by their own admission, Alt-Right. That is to say an alternative to the Right, for those who are consumed by hatred for the Right, the Left and anyone in between.
You have seen on this forum how the few Alt-Right (now banned) members pick fights with everyone, regardless of ideology. Sourboy, E.Fungal and Fitz of Rage attacked me more vigorously than any Leftist member.
Now, the two most brutal, mass murdering dictators in modern times where both indisputably Leftist.
You may argue about number three, but he self identified as a Socialist. All good Leftists should respect his self image.
Angry chants of "The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, but we need to go all the way to a Single Payer national health insurance system" erupted at the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 11, 2017.
no alt-right is the same identical right just more open and proud of it the dark side core is the same really think rhonda is any kinder then the rump same lies different order and empathetic inflection
You Patrick, are the one who also doesn't like Trump to look good.
Trump looking "good" is not much of a concern... as Donald's true nature is exposed any time he opens his mouth... which is often.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Trump just kicked leftist azz and won over the audience.
There was no need to "win over" an already brain-washed Republican audience.
I'm fully aware that Trump has a Svengali effect on some people. I see it demonstrated time and time again in this very forum. But for anyone to believe that the CNN studio audience was randomly selected and represented a true cross-section of the American public... well, that's naivety of the highest degree.
And the live studio audience - which seemed vocally pro-Trump, as if imported from Mar-a-Lago - ate it up.
Over in Trump land, the former president’s aides were “thrilled,” according to NYT’s Jonathan Swan. “They can’t believe he is getting an hour on CNN with an audience that cheers his every line and laughs at his every joke.”
“It was a complete disaster,” one CNN employee told Playbook, arguing that the format - specifically, stacking the audience with Trump supporters who cheered his lies - was a “strategic error.”
CNN did not respond to requests for comment about whether they regretted giving Trump a platform - nor did they answer questions about whether Trump or his team had a say in selecting audience participants.
Trump already had the CNN studio audience in his pocket... while at the same time, his hand was probably in theirs!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-15-2023).]
I have encountered reports that the live audience for the CNN Town Hall actually was representative of the people that live in New Hampshire.
According to these reports, the people who liked what Trump was saying were encouraged by CNN to clap and cheer and visibly express their approval, but the people who didn't like what Trump was saying were silent because they were respecting the request by CNN at the beginning of the Town Hall to refrain from booing or jeering.
This was buttressed by camera pans of the audience that showed people who were not smiling at what Trump was saying, but were silent and only expressing their disapproval through body language that wasn't as perceptible to the TV audience as the clapping and cheering (and laughing).
If it had been set up like a focus group, as the polling boffins are wont to do, each audience member would have had a handheld electronic gizmo to enable them to register the positivity or negativity of their reactions in real time.
Who else on this forum has encountered these kinds of reports?
The answer could shed light on whether what each of us is experiencing is conscious life in a physical universe, or is some kind of simulation that we are part of, making us like animated characters in a metaverse.
Heh, many times you cite anonymous sources. Now you are citing anonymous reports ,
Leftists love their anonymous sources and reports because, in their weird "reasoning", they believe that a source that can't be identified and vetted can't be invalidated.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-15-2023).]
Neither political party has 'cornered the market' relative to bigotry.
Although, it's obvious those that self identify as liberals or progressives seem to be more vocal about dividing people into groups based on skin color, sexual preference, gender and etc.
The real question boils down to morality.
I don't see much of that from those that identify as liberal or progressive.
Originally posted by cliffw: Heh, many times you cite anonymous sources. Now you are citing anonymous reports,
Not an anonymous report. The report has names. I have decided to fill in what I previously omitted.
quote
Audience members were advised against booing and disrespecting former President Donald Trump during the disastrous CNN town hall on Wednesday, according to a Thursday report from Puck News.
Republican political consultant Matthew Bartlett told Puck's [Puck News] senior political correspondent, Tara Palmeri, that while many members of the audience applauded the former president, "there were also people that sat there quietly disgusted or bewildered," estimating that the audience was split in half.
"The floor manager came out ahead of time and said, Please do not boo, please be respectful. You were allowed to applaud," Bartlett said. "And I think that set the tone where people were going to try their best to keep this between the navigational beacons, and that if they felt compelled to applaud, they would, but they weren't going to have an outburst or they weren't going to boo an answer."
That's the beginning of a relatively brief article on Salon(.com).
"CNN told Trump town hall audience they could applaud but not boo: report"
quote
"There were also people that sat there quietly disgusted or bewildered," a Republican told Puck News
I also have a page link to the original report, although that cannot be accessed (beyond the first two paragraphs) without registering with Puck News for a "free" trial, which I am not going to do.
"Inside the Trump-CNN Thunderdome"
quote
On CNN, it sure looked like Trump won over the crowd during his town hall interview with Kaitlan Collins. But the reality was different in the room—and in the state of New Hampshire.
Originally posted by randye: Leftists love their anonymous sources and reports because, in their weird "reasoning", they believe that a source that can't be identified and vetted can't be invalidated.
It's like a "one-armed bandit"... "three of a kind."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-16-2023).]
Your post mentioned Tatyana Tandanpolie, of ?Salon?.
Tara Palmeri, starts off mentioning Matthew Bartlett. All she said was fluff. Nothing about CNN's Town Hall expose. Yet, you claim victory because you mentioned her name, ? You could have educated yourself, maybe, if you tried the free trial.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: Yeh. Biggie. I found her on Pron-hub. Lots of other ones too. Point is?
The point is that forum member "cliffw" was 100% wrong when he described the report that I presented about the CNN Town Hall as an "anonymous" report.
The report is not anonymous. It is attributed to Puck News senior correspondent Tara Palmeri, who named her source for what she put in her report as Republican political consultant Matthew Bartlett.
Is this report some kind of "big deal"..? I didn't say that. I wouldn't call it a particularly big deal. It offers some insight into how the CNN Town Hall presented a live Town Hall audience to millions of CNN viewers that appeared to be more overwhelmingly enthused about Donald Trump than was actually the case.
Anyone can scroll back through just this current page of this forum thread to get a clearer sense of what this was about.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-16-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The point is that forum member "cliffw" was 100% wrong when he described the report that I presented about the CNN Town Hall as an "anonymous" report.
Anyone can scroll back through just this current page of this forum thread to get a clearer sense of what this was about.
Have you been smoking the green acid again ?
The report that you presented ? Let's take a look see.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have encountered reports that the live audience for the CNN Town Hall actually was representative of the people that live in New Hampshire.
According to these reports, the people who liked what Trump was saying were encouraged by CNN to clap and cheer and visibly express their approval, but the people who didn't like what Trump was saying were silent because they were respecting the request by CNN at the beginning of the Town Hall to refrain from booing or jeering.
This was buttressed by camera pans of the audience that showed people who were not smiling at what Trump was saying, but were silent and only expressing their disapproval through body language that wasn't as perceptible to the TV audience as the clapping and cheering (and laughing).
If it had been set up like a focus group, as the polling boffins are wont to do, each audience member would have had a handheld electronic gizmo to enable them to register the positivity or negativity of their reactions in real time.
Who else on this forum has encountered these kinds of reports?
The very next post, mine.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Heh, many times you cite anonymous sources. Now you are citing anonymous reports ,
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-17-2023).]
I'm old enough to know people that worked with her in the White House with WHCA and EOP, and every one of them said she was an absolutely horrible person, hell-bent on power. They said Bill Clinton was fantastic, and it's the same with Obama and Michelle... that Michelle was extremely entitled, extremely disrespectful to white house staff, downright rude to everyone, and believed everyone should cater to her 24/7 as if they were slaves, but Obama was apparently a really nice guy. Similarly, everyone that worked for Bush said that he was a nice guy, as was his wife, and both of them were very courteous to everyone... and Laura Bush really tried to do everything herself, and was always so appreciative when anyone did anything for her.
Trump was a little different, most people I worked with said he was hard to work with, would do things rapidly and without warning (which made a lot of people nervous). But they said Melania, like Laura Bush, was really nice.
But since we're talking about Hillary, I don't think anyone here actually believes the bull **** on her book title. I really try to be unbiased, I swear... I really try... but that's like writing a book titled, "For the People" by Pol Pot.
real life not so much as the made up BS tends to FAIL[
/QUOTE]
A perfect example would be the current administration, right?
sure but only racist see under 5% black unemployment numbers as a bad joe has historic hi rates for every group every one is working and the Gop hates joes success
so the Gop wants to wreak the system with the debt limits BS and never ever tax any rich person ever
hint tax the rich they gotts the money not the roor
The Left Wing Propaganda media is not "bat zhit" crazy over whatever it was that Elon Musk just said (or tweeted).
I just scrolled through the most recent hour of MSNBC's "Deadline: White House" with Nicolle Wallace. No mention of Elon Musk.
Don't you think that if the Left Wing Propaganda media were "bat zhit" crazy about this, that they would have brought it into the A-block, or at least the first hour of this two-hour broadcast? Or could it be that this weekday afternoon staple of MSNBC viewers (Deadline: White House) is not actually Left Wing Propaganda media? I think such an assertion—to say that it's not—would be in conflict with many previous remarks on this forum from the "rump" supporters (and sympathizers) and their likes.
The "rump" is given to grossly exaggerated utterances or verbal hyperbole like few other politicians in American history—it's one of his most recognizable traits—and so also, many of his supporters, fans and sympathizers.
It's not ironic. It's predictable.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-17-2023).]
The Left Wing Propaganda media is not "bat zhit" crazy over whatever it was that Elon Musk just said (or tweeted).
I just scrolled through the most recent hour of MSNBC's "Deadline: White House" with Nicolle Wallace. No mention of Elon Musk.
Don't you think that if the Left Wing Propaganda media were "bat zhit" crazy about this, that they would have brought it into the A-block, or at least the first hour of this two-hour broadcast? Or could it be that this weekday afternoon staple of MSNBC viewers (Deadline: White House) is not actually Left Wing Propaganda media? I think such an assertion—to say that it's not—would be in conflict with many previous remarks on this forum from the "rump" supporters (and sympathizers) and their likes.
The "rump" is given to grossly exaggerated utterances or verbal hyperbole like few other politicians in American history—it's one of his most recognizable traits—and so also, many of his supporters, fans and sympathizers.
sure but only racist see under 5% black unemployment numbers as a bad joe has historic hi rates for every group every one is working and the Gop hates joes success
so the Gop wants to wreak the system with the debt limits BS and never ever tax any rich person ever
hint tax the rich they gotts the money not the roor
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And the (s) hits just keep coming. Black unemployment was at its lowest point in history under the previous Administration.......at least this administration didn't screw that up! (Just pretty much everything else, though)
(Note: ray b, you really need to get a handle on your hatred toward your fellow citizens, it's really not healthy for your brain or body)
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 05-17-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The Left Wing Propaganda media is not "bat zhit" crazy over whatever it was that Elon Musk just said (or tweeted).
Take your head out of the sand.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I just scrolled through the most recent hour of MSNBC's "Deadline: White House" with Nicolle Wallace. No mention of Elon Musk.
Surprise, surprise, surprise, . Did you wonder why they did not ? cliffw does !
It's tempting, very tempting, to showcase all the left wing heavy weights videos of their opinions.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Don't you think that if the Left Wing Propaganda media were "bat zhit" crazy about this, that they would have brought it into the A-block, or at least the first hour of this two-hour broadcast?
I do think ! The Left Wing Propaganda media likes to hide things they do not want to be known. This time MSNBC did not get into lock step with the rest of the Left Wing Propaganda media. The rest of the Left Wing Propaganda media was so incensed that emotion overcame them and they could not hold their tounges. Don't you think ?
Originally posted by randye: Leftists love their anonymous sources and reports because, in their weird "reasoning", they believe that a source that can't be identified and vetted can't be invalidated.
love the great mind here
of course he quotes no leftist source as he has none
and ''a source that can't be identified and vetted can't be invalidated''
brilliant but very likely not his intent at all to see it
Originally posted by cliffw: Heh, many times you cite anonymous sources. Now you are citing anonymous reports ,
I did not cite an anonymous report. I talked about a report that I had encountered, but I did not cite the report. I described the report without being specific about where I encountered the report, or about where anyone else could find the report, or about who were the sources for the report. If I had cited the report, I would have used my standard citation format:
Title or banner at the top of the report
Name of the reporter(s); name of the publication or venue for the report; date of the report.
Internet page link to see the report online (if applicable).
But I didn't provide any of that.
When "cliffw" said I was citing an "anonymous report", he was "ahead of his skis"; i.e., he was making an assertion based on knowledge of a report that he thought he was privy to, but did not actually posses.
The bottom line? Forum member "cliffw" was 100% wrong when he said that I had cited an anonymous report.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-19-2023).]
. Did you wonder why they did not ? cliffw does !
