[politics & media] The death of establishment media - it is a good thing and great to watch!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Personally, I am not at all prepared to "sell Hillary Rodham Clinton down the river!"
I believe that she is and was the faithful spouse of William Jefferson Clinton, who helped him win (and, re-win) the White House ... indeed, in each and every step of their(!) political career ... and who was a priceless component of that Administration even when classic Washington, DC thinking refused to consider that "the First Lady" had a brain. (Although she was an intellectual property attorney.) The two of them acted as an unspokenly-tight team, and they still do. Even when Bill was confronted by a blackmailer, their marriage could not be broken. (And both of them shielded their daughter.)
I likewise believe that she served the State of New York honorably and well in the Senate, and that she likewise served the country as Secretary of State with honor. I believe that she would serve any other future Office that she held, with the same honor.
I dismiss out-of-hand the thought that she betrayed her Country's secrets through "e-mail servers." Quite frankly: "the entire Department of State exists to safeguard the secret dealings of the Secretary," and it is laughable to imagine any of these professionals allowing any such scenario. To suggest any such thing is very close to accusing them of treason. "How absurd!"
If you are The Secretary of State of the United States, then you are tasked with the most-private diplomatic relationships between the USA and every other country on Earth. The need for secrecy is palpable. Therefore, it pervades every single dealing in the Department of State. "They live in it. They die in it. They swim in it." Most of all the Secretary!
Why should the SOSUS need to have any concern at all as to how State Secrets are safeguarded? The Officeholder may simply assume that such things are being taken care of, by the many thousands of persons [with "above Top Secret™ clearances" ...] who are tasked to take care of such things. And I simply willnot entertain the thought that any of these career professionals: betrayed their country.
Granted, she lost the 2016 election. But she has served the United States of America honorably throughout her career – as has her husband – and it would never be in her to betray it, as she has now so-often been accused.
Again, "I will have nothing of it."
Her career is far from over. She would have performed the Office of the President with honor, and ... "2020 is another year!" (No, I don't think she'd win.)
Although "yes, this is politics," I feel that we are dead wrong(!) to throw her under the bus.
I do not even know where to begin so I will focus on the highlighted bit..
Yes, she served very 'honorably' - essentially laughing at the chaos she caused in Libya (not including the stupid 'he died' quip). Most likely (indirectly) forced her cronies to make sure she got the nomination at the DNC. Always used divisive rhetoric and identity politics since the 1990s (super predators comment), and also rather condescending in her campaign, which was no policy just "vote for me because I am a female and not Trump", remind me how did that turn out again? "Survived sniper fire in Bosnia" (wow what a hero! (wait she lied about that) )
I do hope you were just being sarcastic, because there is nothing honorable about her. No I won't sell her down the river, I would just prefer she is pushed off a cliff.
I do hope you were just being sarcastic, because there is nothing honorable about her. No I won't sell her down the river, I would just prefer she is pushed off a cliff.
I think that it's impossible to be Secretary of State for the US, because this country can't keep its feet out of everybody else's business, especially in the Middle East.
But I will give an office-holder the gracious opportunity to go away gracefully – as long as they go away.
I think that it's impossible to be Secretary of State for the US, because this country can't keep its feet out of everybody else's business, especially in the Middle East.
But I will give an office-holder the gracious opportunity to go away gracefully – as long as they go away.
Well she is planning a return, so she is not going away apparently much to the chagrin of some Democrats.
And according to Magna, an ad-buying agency owned by the Interpublic Group, the internet is wreaking havoc on the television industry. They assert that TV ratings have dropped a whopping 33% in the last four years, which is nuts. And, in the current TV season, our big networks have lost 8% of their audience. So, fewer viewers than ever are tuning into the idiot box, instead choosing to tune into the internet – whatever kind of idiot box that’’ll turn out to be.
0-39sec:
I appeal to the intelligence agencies and the governments of what is left of the free world. To them as entities entireties as bureaucracies making official decisions and to the individuals who make decisions of conscience. To GCHQ and MI6 in the UK, to the BND in Germany, the DGSE in France, the ASIS in Australia and even to the GRU in Russia
What is he saying? Is he hoping for more people to try to meddle in our government because he and others bet on the wrong horse? Also months ago it was 'Russian scum', now it is 'Russia please help get this guy out of office.'
Quote:
39-43sec:
Where they must already be profoundly aware that they have not merely helped put an amoral cynic in power here, but an uncontrollable one whos madness is genuine and whose usefulness even to them is at an end.
Yet he does not elaborate in what way Trump has benefited someone like Putin.
Quote:
1:30:
The first National Security Advisor was fired and may have been a Russian Stooge.
The mental gymnastics must be intense, and now I cannot pinpoint how he truly feels about Russia in general. First they were scum after the election, now suddenly he is appealing to them to pretty much help get him thrown out of office - but then goes back to another 'Russian stooge' comment.
Quote:
1:48:
The White House is run by a cabal of an amoral family syndicate that has spent its first three months slapping a dollar sign on anything that stood still long enough. A cabal with at its head a man with seemingly no interest in our laws, in our rights, in our Constitution, and with a brain that appears to not work properly.
What about the previous administration and it's further curtailment of our rights, and trampling of our Constitution? What about this guy's brain? All that cognitive dissonance - how has he not had a stroke or aneurysm?
Those are just key points, the video itself is 7 min but I had to stop - all the doublethink and projecting of this guy. Seriously though, the initial start of the video is what caught me - do we need anymore of an example of how dangerous this rhetoric is?
Those are just key points, the video itself is 7 min but I had to stop - all the doublethink and projecting of this guy. Seriously though, the initial start of the video is what caught me - do we need anymore of an example of how dangerous this rhetoric is?
That's one reason why I ask that discussions here summarize videos, and limit themselves only to videos that have something to say. The Internet gives everyone "a bully pulpit," and while that's a fundamental freedom-of-speech that should be protected, it does not mean that everyone actually has something to say that's worth listening to.
I think that there a lot of people who are overtly afraid of Donald Trump because they don't know what he's about – and maybe because they're envious-as-hell of his enormous wealth. He is unlike every other President this country has ever had, and he holds his cards close to his chest. He seems to boldly go in one direction, then reverse his position. This has been called "mental instability." I call it: cunning.
In a throwback to the 1950's and 1960's, "The Russians®" were dragged out of the woodwork to resume their honored place as "America's Favorite Boogerman.®" It was easy to conjure up images of Lenin ... Khruschev ... Stalin ... Putin "holding the puppet-strings from half a planet away." They even tried to convince people that Russia was about to launch nuclear missiles at us because of Trump, and that we should Duck and Cover 2 as we kiss our country's a*s g'bye.
When you haven't figured out what makes your President tick, call him "Tricky Dick." Waste time in Congressional Hearings trying to find a reason to impeach him. Fantasize about a "President Veep," who at least is a politician and therefore thought to be more predictable. Yes, do anything but cooperate with the President that you've actually got, and to help him move agendas forward that the great majority of the States clearly want him to do.
Hillary Clinton still can't believe that she's not in the White House, and to me this is an indication of just how far-removed from reality our political establishments have actually become. Hillary was their candidate – but, not the country's.
Although I did not personally vote for the man, I do understand how he won the election, and I think that it was a very bold move for the country to purposely elect a President who was unlike any other CEO we've ever had. I think that the US Government has become fossilized, and that people expressly wanted to hire someone who would shake things up ... and who had the business experience to do so. Think about it ... This country has neverbefore had a President who was not: either "a career politician" or "a retired General." Therefore, no one in Washington knows what to make of him, and he is shrewdly playing them like an accordion. (But they haven't figured that out yet.)
You come to understand why he is worth several billion dollars . . .
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-13-2017 at 07:44 AM.
About 9-1/2 minutes too long for the initial joke, IMHO.
Also, please be aware that mis-information is freely spread through the Internet, too! Anywhere a site claims to be a "news source," you will find bias of one form or another. Ditto the traditional "printed page."
As I've suggested: the media (in all of its outlets), but also quite a few individuals in their own "bully pulpit," openly loathe Trump because they fear him.
He doesn't follow anyone's playbook but his own. He doesn't give them nice, digestible "talking points." (In fact, when they're looking for a quote, he seems to babble. Doonesbury parodied this in this week's Sunday paper.) At first glance, you might suppose that you'll catch him drooling, but I suspect that you're actually dealing with a razor-sharp intellect which is purposely not giving you what you expect to see. He has put you off-guard and he's keeping you there. He's making you drop all of your cards but he's not revealing his own. (And he's not pointing out your dropped cards to you, either. Anyone can see them.)
The media, and the Senate, and the House, are all being pushed out of their fossilized "comfort zone" and none of them like it – even though, I think, this is precisely what the American people intended(!) to do to all of them.
"High-stakes Negotiation 101."
Above all else, Trump is a negotiator, who knows how to drive billion-dollar real estate deals. He's done it all his life, as did his father and grandfather before him. There's not a soul in Washington, DC who has any experience with this sort of thing. Members of Congress, and of the media, are fairly used to lazy-patsy pushovers who look after their own butts first, and whose moves are therefore basically predictable. This guy isn't anything like that. This is purposeful – but they've never had to deal with such a thing before, and they don't want to have to do it now.
No one professes to understand why so many of his cabinet picks were CEOs – and the Senate might spend the next three years dallying to confirm them. But, if you took a very hard look at who these people are, where they came from, and what made them successful in their past lives, you'd have a clearer picture of Trump, as well. He knows that his cabinet can't be made up of career politicians. He stated his objectives in his campaign and you can see him pursuing them, one by one. Just, not in a way that you've ever watched a President do it before.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-15-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Are you tired of hearing about Donald Trump? Do the words “Melania,” “Ivanka,” “fake news,” and “Russia” no longer make you want to cringe, tremble convulsively, or cry yourself to sleep? Do you find yourself no longer phased by that daily barrage of doomful news?
If so, you might be suffering from Politics Fatigue Syndrome, a comically unofficial disorder coined by NPR that is plaguing millions in the United States. Major symptoms include feelings of sheer exhaustion, disdain, and utter hopelessness for anything political-related. In other words, it’s that feeling of being so f-ing over it (“it” being Trump). [QUEERTY]
Trump fatigue is different. It's habituation. And it inures to his benefit.
So, basically MSM no matter what just keeps shooting themselves in the foot.
Wow, if the rest of the content wasn't a giveaway, putting an image on post #1 of Pepe the Frog (which has become well known symbol of race hate, and his creator killed him off because of that) was a obvious clue as to where this thread would go.
Just the Pepe makes me wonder if this the sort of thing that should be on this forum? Let alone the rest of the content in here.
Maybe general should be shut or a limit placed on the number of technical to non-technical posts. Or maybe some of the people who have the vast majority of recent posts on political posts in general need to get a facebook page......
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 13,602
Rep:
Based on post #5, I'm closing this thread. While we're huge supporters of free speech at LQ and I've hesitated to disallow specific topics until now, it's clear this thread has gone on long enough.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
And I simply will not entertain the thought that any of these career professionals: betrayed their country.
) 
Breaking down Olbermann's further breakdown
The Internet gives everyone "a bully pulpit," and while that's a fundamental freedom-of-speech that should be protected, it does not mean that everyone actually has something to say that's worth listening to.
