Baby Donald is angry, very angry.

Anonymous sources? Hahaha!

 

Americans would do well to shed this idea that people who aspire to careers in government are intelligent, moral and ethical.

 

I guess you don't understand journalism or its code of ethics. Sources are often anonymous. The key to ethical journalism is that the anonymous sources are verified by multiple sources. Whom would you have verify? Your drunken Uncle, yourself, Mom, the Pope, Trump? You may hate it, but that's how journalists work. Its been done this way since the first pharos built the pyramids.

 

All of them? Wow! I didn't know.

 

now you do.

 

So that's your "debunking"? that they used an accepted journalistic practice to cite unsourced information? Though personally I think you're right , the real story wasn't reported. In reality he screamed, threw himself on the floor and literally chewed the rug. After that he had to be taken from the room and sedated while screaming in German that Goering should be shot for surrendering. He didn't come back to himself until he had several cheeseburgers and cokes in bed and stopped going on about how the portrait of Dolly Madison had "his mother's eyes"

 

It's hard to accurately critique the game from a seat in the deep woods 40 miles outside the stadium, but you keep trying. That's dedication. Nothing valuable, but dedication.

 

Well, if anyone is ever to solve this problem, that is exactly what it would take. To punish the people dangling those carrots in a harsh enough manner, like some jail time, like losing a business license, etc. Why does he not do it? Perhaps it is this affliction that perceives business and businessmen as some kind of sacred cow, and are more important than those americans hurt by illegal immigration. Perhaps it just not has occurred to him, what would actually work? I cannot read his mind. Yet I think that I know what DC, both parties have refused to ever get serious about solving this problem. Both parties want illegal immigration, although the GOP might lie to you about it. But actions are what matters, and words are cheap. And there has never been, since Ike, a concerted effort to fix this, to solve the problem. That many businessmen want the cheap labor, due to its effects upon profit margins, is why we still have this problem long after reagan gave illegals amnesty. Nothing significant was done, like going after criminal businessmen, as you mentioned, and we saw 10s of millions more flood into america.

Both parties are run a con game against the People. I think sanders would have tried to go after these criminal businessmen, given he said illegal immigration is what the Koch brothers want for america and her businessmen. Being pro business is one thing, but using the pro business excuse to enable illegal immigration, and refusing to address it using methods that would work, is a horse of a different color.

While the Wall might serve to help keep a flood of future refugees out of america, it will never solve the problem of illegal immigration for as long as businessmen dangle those carrots to illegal labor, and we slap them on the hands, and tell them not to do it.

Only a serious president, or a serious politician, who actually wants to solve this problem will go the common sense route. But businessmen are special, and deserve a light punishment. So, we see it as well when those banksters laundered drug cartel money, and not a single one of them went to jail. During the S and L scandal, we went after 1800 people in the S and Ls, and sent 800 of them to prison. We no longer do that, and we will not go after businessmen who break the law and employ illegals because they work cheap, and employers love it. If you cannot move to china, mexico or southeast asia to get that slave labor, then just use your money to insure you will have access to illegal alien labor. Not fair for MNCs to get slave labor, while businesses that must stay in america have to pay americans more than slave labor. So, it not being fair allows our gov't to insure they don't stop illegal immigration. ha ha. Why penalize businessmen who cannot offshore their labor? ha ha. They want slave labor too! We are so cruel, to even think about taking away illegal alien labor. Only those that hate capitalism and business would want us to fix this problem, by actually punishing businessmen harshly enough so they stop breaking our laws, and they stop depressing wages for americans.

 

An Analysis of Drumpf Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-trump-supporters-has-identified-5-key-traits

The lightning-fast ascent and political invincibility of Donald Trump has left many experts baffled and wondering, “How did we get here?” Any accurate and sufficient answer to that question must not only focus on Trump himself, but also on his uniquely loyal supporters. Given their extreme devotion and unwavering admiration for their highly unpredictable and often inflammatory leader, some have turned to the field of psychology for scientific explanations based on precise quantitative data and established theoretical frameworks.

Although analyses and studies by psychologists and neuroscientists have provided many thought-provoking explanations for his enduring support, the accounts of different experts often vary greatly, sometimes overlapping and other times conflicting. However insightful these critiques may be, it is apparent that more research and examination is needed to hone in on the exact psychological and social factors underlying this peculiar human behavior.

 

So to you, any American who wants the goals that Trump advocates is some sort of an idiot, and should be listening to the crackpots that have turned the liberal colleges into looney bins.

I'm at a loss to figure out what you think is right for America. So far, I'm pretty sure you do not approve of freedom, or personal responsibility, of respect for others, of honor or honesty, of national unity, of balance, or even reality. I have to tell you, that impression is not improving .

 

Ha ha. At least you can use a bit of humor.

I thought that in genuine journalism, if you used an unnamed source, that you also had to get more than one source, that would back up what your one unnamed source told you? Like two more sources to give the lone unnamed source some creds? After all, a great way to go after anyone in power is to say you have an unnamed source, who did not want his name revealed, and you base your journalism on that one source. The source may have it out for the person the journalist is reporting on. Or you may have a journalist who is so biased as to use these sketchy single sources, in order to promote negative reporting on a politician. Or, the unnamed source may be nothing but a liar. ha ha.

But of course, people in politics and the permanent gov't would never tell a lie. Their mentor is George Washington, who cut down that cherry tree, and had such honesty and integrity, that he said, I cannot lie! ha ha.

So unless you can verify that your unnamed source is telling the truth, by using one, but better at least two other sources, for fact checking, who does this kind of journalism serve? It isn't serving the noble profession of journalism. But it is serving a journalists bias and beliefs. Or a single unnamed sources bias and beliefs.

So easy for journalism to be a joke, if only a single unnamed source is used. For the unnamed source can lie like hell, and never be subject to anything as punishment. And because of this, journalism can begin to resemble a confidence game, ran by criminally minded con men.

Of course if documents are leaked, driven by partisanship, you would not need a couple other sources at all, for you have the gov't documents in hand. And that is all the evidence you would need.

So one wonders how many other sources the journalist used to insure his unnamed source wasn't some trump hating liar? You would have never needed to ask this question in the past, when journalists were really concerned about real journalism and used standards in their journalism. No standards, no journalism. Just propaganda.

One wonders if standards are even taught now, and strongly impressed upon future journalists, in journalism school. For it looks like what is being taught is how to cleverly spin and to use very clever propaganda tactics, in order to insure your journalism serves something other than journalism. I think Maddow is the poster child for this kind of journalism, which isn't journalism at all. She seems to have forgotten what journalism is supposed to look like, but then again, like many so called journalists in MSM and FOX, these are ambulance chasing lawyers, who never went to a school of journalism, and use their learning on appealing to a jury, in order to corrupt journalism and manufacture consent for one side or the other, or worse, promoting CIA disinfo.

 

Not even close. What I'm pointing out is the uniqueness of the blind devotion to the man, not the issues. We have never seen a national political figure in this country receive unflinching loyalty by so many after exhibiting demonstrably proven acts of moral depravity, dishonesty, corruption, and the commission of potentially illegal acts.

 

Are they having a big sale on Hogwash at the farm store again?
You aren't supposed to drink the stuff, you know.
You have yet to show the ability to see past your nose, and I've asked you to do so a dozen times.
If you could, or wanted to, you would- so we simply accept that you choose to avoid it.

 

Well at least that non-response was relatively brief ...this time

 

So..............no attempt to refute his moral depravity, dishonesty, corruption, or potential commission of criminal acts. Got it.

 

Yup. That was preferable to sifting through paragraphs of nonsense.

 

Ha ha. Nice try, Lao Che, as indiana jones said to his enemy, Lao Che!

I would trust a left winger shrink or psychologist any farther as I could hurl him in my weakened body being 76 years old. After all these are the same kind of people who under pressure from gay communities, changed the defintion of what homosexuality is. To appease the queers and their politically correct moronic minions on the Left. And this effectively ended any sought after cures for this mental dysfunction. I am not saying that all homos should be cured, but just that they have the option of that, if this is what they want. But since the reversal of what homosexuality is, from pressure to do just that, I don't think researching it and seeking a cure is even acceptable today. The moronic left would just call anyone that did seek a cure, a hateful homophobe. Yes, that cheap shot is by and large the entrenched reaction from the left. But one can surely see what they are trying to do, in their deceit, driven by ideology.

The most intelligent and astute psychologist I have ever listened to, is this canadian named Jordon Peterson, who is very fact based, uses the research done on various issues, within that community, and has the intellect to cut to the chase, like a skilled surgeon. And he is not a right winger, although in desperation many of the Left try to hang that handle on him. As well as playing various deceit based cards from their deck, for they cannot argue their way into coherence or defend their positions, with any credibility.

IMO, these moronic left leaning psychologists, and trump haters, shot both feet off when they broke the rules of this field by diagnosing trump from a distance, without ever interacting with him on a clinical level. The absurdity of it is one thing, but the deceit involved is much worse and concerning.

I would pay to see a debate between Peterson and one of these left wing morons who call themselves psychologists. I think with his mental acuity and clarity and his above average ability to be grounded in logic, rationality and reason, along with his knowledge of this field, as well as other fields pertinent to his chosen field of work, that he would make mince meat of all of these lefties. And like the UK news woman, shred them like cabbage in the making of cole slaw. And he perhaps has something these other guys cannot muster, even on a good day. Honesty.

He has this untypical ability to allow these kinds of folks, to indict themselves, using their own reactions and words. As he did with that UK journalist. And most all of the others who screw up and try to engage him, using tactics that are deceitful at best. In regards to many of these left wing psychologists, they have an affinity with the old saw, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" At least up until they in stupidity attempt to pull this kind of nonsense on Peterson.

And no, peterson is not a trump supporter, which is generally the first knee jerk reaction you get from people, not in his league. And you see so much of this on the left, in that being unable to logically refute something, will use one of their dishonest and intellectually lacking tactics, in hopes that somehow the lower IQs will buy into such a tactic, and become just as foolish as the one trying to use it.

 

Quite a bit of journalism is essentially repeating what other journalists report. Let's say that you witnessed a murder. You call the cops, they come and take your statement. The cops give a statement to the press that uses the information you gave them, but don't mention your name.

Then other news editors will read what was written by those journalists who were at the press conference. The editor tells somebody to write a story about that murder. He goes over what is known, which is just what the cops said and then reported by other media. They change the wording slightly to avoid plagiarism charges, and might throw some spin in there, then you've got a new story.

How many people witnessed the murder, and how many reporters actually dug up the news? Zero! They have all repeated the same damn thing, but slightly different with different spins. If the story continues to generate interest, the editors will start in with their aluminum foil hat conspiracies.

For a good example of that phenomena, you need only remember the Trayvon Martin debacle. How many journalists actually interviewed anybody involved with the case? Zimmerman wasn't talking because his lawyer(s) quite rightly told him to **** because anything he said could be used AGAINST him in a court of law.

How many hundreds or thousands of articles were written about that case?

 

However.... that is all you see. View from the bottom of the latrine, so to speak. Perspective. Self-limiting your view, limiting yourself.

I'm aware of Trumps negatives, and his positives. You don't even see his negatives realistically, and none of his positives. You can't even say something innocuous, like "He wears nice ties". That would be a compliment and acknowledging even something like that scares you- fearing it might weaken your grip on the hate.

Your blind devotion is to hate. Not balanced, reasoned conclusion, just hate. Why should anyone give you an ounce of cred?

 

You've unwittingly bolstered the thesis about Drumpf cultists in your support of that hack pseudo-psychologist.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...he-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

 

Sure, one journalist reporting on what another journalist revealed. Of course that journalist who is using what another journalist said, should at least verify the sources used to make the claims. And not just take it is gospel, especially in the time in which we live, where journalistic standards are seldom practiced in MSM, which has bastardized and corrupted what we call journalism which is the foundation of a Free Press. Free in the sense that gov't does not control what is said in reporting. Free in the sense that journalism and the press is not just accepting what a gov't might tell the People, and therefore the Press is not a propaganda arm of the gov't. But free and independent from the gov't. It is insurance in a nation founded upon democratic principles, and a gov't that is supposed to be by and for the people, and is supposed to serve as an institution that can and will speak truth to power, and not just promote and parrot the lies and propaganda of a self interested gov't. And it keeps a gov't from using the media as their own little propaganda outlet. Like the news agencies in the old USSR did.

And your other points are agreeable to my own perception of what is going on with journalism. It is so important for the american citizen, to have factual and accurate information conveyed to them. Journalism and a free press is supposed to serve this function, and its importance cannot be overstated. So, when you notice that journalism is no longer doing this, that it becomes a partisan entity, or it becomes nothing more than an outlet to distribute what a gov't wants its own people to believe, to think, with no other sides of the story or issue, well, you have what states like the USSR exercised for so long, in order to control their own population.

For if you control information, you have the ability to condition your own people with deceit and falsehoods. And to manufacture consent on particular things like war mongering but also many other things. And so genuine journalism and a free press is essential in a rule of law, democratic constitutional republic, where the citizens process factual info, and then make decisions at the voting booth, based upon accurate, factual, non partisan info.

If you are fed garbage as info, it will of course affect your decisions at the voting booth. And those decisions, based upon accurate, factual info, are the only means we have of self governing, and making the right decision when voting. And this is why genuine journalism and a free press is so essential. If journalists convince the people of something which is just not factual, nor true, by shoddy, dishonest journalism, they are destroying a republic and how it is supposed to operate, and you get something other than a republic. You get something hardly any better than the press in the old USSR. And you are risking losing a republic to an elite class of people whose self interests may not be served optimally by a constitutional republic form of gov't and they have the money and hence power to corrupt a republic until it exclusively only serves the elites. And I have no doubt that indeed we have seen just this, over the decades of frog boiling.

We no longer have a press that seeks to speak truth to power, unless it is politically driven by partisanship and ideology. We no longer have a press that our political class and ruling elites fear, the fear of the truth coming out in regards to both parties, who must cooperate at some level, in order to get where we are today. Indeed, it is my perception that the ruling elites and political class is quite safe, and free to corrupt this republic in any way they see fit.

For instance, one of the biggest and most consequential stories to come out in decades was what the princeton study, evidenced. And using congressional record, which all of us can look at, princeton in collaboration with northwestern looked at a couple decades of congressional record, to discover that the majority of the american people are no longer represented, their self interests, by the very people who are supposed to be bound to represent them. And yet most voters believe that indeed the people they send to DC are in fact representing them, their best self interests, when nothing of the sort is going on at all! Now, isn't this a huge revelation? It certainly should be, for it reflects if we actually have a republic or not. And congressional record evidences that indeed we are not living under a republic at all, for in a republic the majority of people living under it, are indeed represented in DC and this is not happening at all!

And so, this very important and factual info, should have been shouted from the rooftops by journalists and a press speaking truth to power. The truth being, you are no longer represented at all by the people you send to do just that! And such a paradigm has great consequences, and can be felt in the daily lives by americans, average americans.

But what happened when this story broke, out of princeton? Did the press cover it as they should have, given its tremendous importance? Hell no. Did any journalist report it and then follow up on it, revealing to the People what had been done to them? Hell no. In fact, you got so little mention of it, and not a single journalist made an issue out of it, which they should have done, given just how relevant it is. In fact, it looks as if the media, the press, tried to insure that the People would not find out about what their reality is.

And this is not a free press that speaks truth to power, nor was it actual journalism. And this event with this study and the lack of coverage, the lack of speaking truth to power, will always serve as a valid example of the fact that we have neither genuine journalism, nor a free press that does its noble duty.

We have instead a press and journalists who want to insure that the people do not have the right information, for obviously the journalists and the press might as well be a propaganda arm of this corrupted gov't, that will insure this total lack of representation will endure, and the republic will continue to vanish, being replaced by what serves the self interests of politicians and our elites.

So the only way this destruction of a republic form of gov't and the refusal of our representatives to actually represent the People, which they are supposed to be bound to do, can continue, is by journalists and the press refusing to do its job. And we got to this point, because we no longer have journalists, or a free press. That is the unacceptable tragedy involved here.

We should have seen a plethora of reporting on this Study, telling the People the truth of what is going on. That those people they vote for and send to DC to look out for them, to represent the best self interests of the non elites, are refusing to do that, and must lie to their voters in an attempt to fool them, and have no plans of ever representing them. And if you want representation in DC as a republic is supposed to provide, then sending your same person back to DC is the height of stupidity. So, the press indeed did its job and informed you of the facts, and they did it enough so that anyone who reads the paper, watches or listens to the news, now understand the reality of what the people they elect are and it is up to the voters to clean out this swamp of treasonous bastards. But unless you communicate this to the voters sufficiently, then the press is not doing their job and are a part of this conspiracy.

Good lord! I really need to work on being much more brief with my posts. I would not want to read a post this long! ha ha. I really got to do something about it.


.

.

 

"Caine Mutiny"

Excellent book.

The movie only covers about 1/2 of what is in the book.

"The Caine Mutiny" use to be required reading for all JAG officers and recommended reading by most law schools.

Though fiction, the USS Caine was actually a four stacker Wickes class destroyer.

 

His hair dresser is a genius.

 

Why am I not surprised you support a party full of hapless clowns.