Home › Forums › Political Corner › Media Bias Against Trump
This topic contains 38 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by 
FrankOne 3 years, 4 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
If you look at an aggregate of the polls, over time, you can get a clearer pictures, e.g. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html — Trump has actually had ‘crossovers’ where he is ahead of Shrillery; e.g. right after convention. Unfortunately, the site does not show the news events that cause the surges and declines, but it is still interesting.
Venom: Yes, most blacks hate Republicans. They call them ‘uncle Toms’ and other derogatory terms. Now, I don’t like Republicans either, because they’re too left-wing for me; I’m voting for Gary Johnson. But I think it’s racist to vote for somebody because they’re white OR black. I don’t give a rat’s ass what color the candidate is. Trump looks like he’s Orange and Shrillery looks wrinkly. Republicans have done a lot of damage to the urban underclass and blacks in particular, with the insane War on Drugs. Democrats have done even more damage with the Great Society and support for failed public education and Teacher’s Unions.
Fast Wries: No she is not. Three weeks ago Trump was in the lead, Reuters (the same company that those that cut the video feed in the top post works for) “tweaked” (rigged) their polls to given her a 10 point lead against Trump. And in that ten weeks Trump has claimed back another ten points.
Faust: Reuters simply removed the ‘Neither’ option. This has, at various times, favored one or the other candidate. It’s better to look at ‘aggregate’ polls, like the link above from Real Clear Politics — it represents an aggregate of many polls — rather than looking at one particular poll. ‘IS’ means ‘NOW’. Clinton is ahead by about 4% presently based on an aggregate of 10 polls. Even Fox’s most recent poll has her 6 points ahead. Trump WAS ahead, but it was FOUR weeks ago, not 3 — this was right after the convention. See aggregate poll chart, linked above.
Trump leading with 60-70% of the vote? If you really want to know what polls are RELIABLE, a publication devoted to such matters, 538, ranks them, based upon their reliability in predicting election winners. Again, if the polls are all ‘rigged’, why are the polls presumably run by Trump partisans, such as Fox News, not reporting different numbers than everybody else?
FrankOne wrote: As for Blacks supporting Trump, even Fox News has him polling at only 1% among blacks.
Faust responds: And where did this poll come from? The polls have been openly found to be rigged against Trump. Repeating a lie does not make that lie true.
Fox does its own polling. Where it came from? Real Clear politics links to it, but here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/08/31/fox-news-poll-aug-31-2016/
As for Fox having a liberal bias and being against Trump, that’s a tough one to sell… Just turn it on and watch!
Now one poll I like: 63% saying Trump was not ‘honest and Trustworthy’ and 66% saying Hillary was not honest and trustworthy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/01/fox-news-poll-voters-think-clinton-and-trump-will-do-anything-to-win.html There may be hope for the American people yet!
There is a whole pockets of identity groups that are just looking for a candidate to give them any material to justify going after them. Trump has done this with spades. With this then comes the media pandering to them. Throw in also Trump insistence on always being the lead story in the news, and you are going to get what you are seeing.
The media basis is a fusion of global corporatism (editor and the executives) and also progressive views (journalists are generally progressive in their views). So, what you get for news is this, and a candidate like Trump feeds fully into it, so that the media is all the time covering Trump, looking for anything that can cause the news cycle to lead with every single thing going on with Trump and a critique of this. Because of all this, Trump is one of the worst candidates to run against Hillary, if your idea is to have the media focus on Hillary and rip her apart for all the problems she has. A candidate like Trump is opposed to globalization, but also is appealing to normally traditionally white European values, mixed with a strong authoritarian message, which is going to cause the entire media to go off on him.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.
Faust: Reuters simply removed the ‘Neither’ option.
Reuters and other media groups have also weighted their polls 8 to 10 points for democrats. When it is shown that republican votes in the 2016 primaries increased and democrat votes in the 2016 primaries decreased.
No matter how you state. This is poll rigging.
As for Fox having a liberal bias and being against Trump, that’s a tough one to sell… Just turn it on and watch!
I have posted my sources. It is time for you to post links to your sources.
Because of all this, Trump is one of the worst candidates to run against Hillary, if your idea is to have the media focus on Hillary and rip her apart for all the problems she has.
You do not understand. The media has worshiped Hillary for at least the last twenty-five years. The media never says a truly bad thing about her.
The only difference with Trump is that Trump fights back and he will attack the media for their hypocrisy, anti-American bias, and sycophant support towards Hillary. The American people love Trump for this, and this makes those in the media loath Trump even more.
Of course, let us take a look on the flip side. The media are acting like pussy chasers towards Hillary (I apologize for this mental image) and like any modern woman dealing with “nice guys”, she shows no respect for the media, she exploits the media, and she treats the media like crap.
People generally want to listen to an echo chamber; that is why 78% of Rush Limbaugh’s viewers are conservatives and 57% of Rachel Maddox’s and liberals. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/
As for the proof that most major polls aren’t faked, I’d refer you to 538 where they rank the pollsters objectively against percent of races correctly predicted: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Some of them are better than others, but the majors are over 75% with some up to 93% accuracy.
Faust writes: You do not understand. The media has worshiped Hillary for at least the last twenty-five years. The media never says a truly bad thing about her.
Hillary never receives negative coverage? Hillary has received plenty! Why do you think 66% of the public don’t trust her, according to the Fox poll I referenced?
Despite the Lamestream media’s liberal bias, they have covered the e-mail story, for instance. Even NPR! They have to, or they won’t have any credibility.
I would argue there is too much focus on the ‘horse race’ and not enough on actual POLICY issues. Too much focus on Trump’s personality.
One aspect of Trump I do like is he’s not afraid to attack the media.
Evidence Fox is pro-Trump? Sean Hannity has endorsed Trump, and Fox didn’t have any problem with it… His is probably one of their most popular shows… Same for O’Reilly:
“I’d rather have the straight talk of Donald Trump than the obfuscation of Hillary Clinton any day, at anytime.” – Bill O’Reilly
Seriously, even posing that question to me, it’s like asking me to justify that NPR is pro-Hillary. See first link. Just turn on NPR, see if they make a lot of pro-Trump statements! The percent viewership by partisans, of each outlet, will reveal its bias. The larger the difference in viewership between conservatives and liberals, the more biased the outlet is. Simple.
Reuters and other media groups have also weighted their polls 8 to 10 points for democrats. When it is shown that republican votes in the 2016 primaries increased and democrat votes in the 2016 primaries decreased.
No, they haven’t. The polls are weighted against the question ‘How likely are you to vote on November 2nd.’. Again, look at the link pertaining to poll accuracy — if the Left had been rigging polls, they wouldn’t have accuracies of typically 80-90%. Now, the Left used to rig elections (e.g. Chicago). Not so much these days.
But I concede turnout is critical, and one reason polls are off a couple percent. If one candidate’s supporters are a lot more dedicated, they’ll go out to vote… Regardless of rain, snow, etc. I would say Trump supporters are more ‘enthused’ with him, than most Hillary supporters are with her. I would also argue supporters were very enthused with Obama, at least for his first term, because the idiots comprising the American public bought into the ‘Hope and Change’ paradigm and so turned out in large numbers to elect him.
Anonymous11My vote is for stage 4 lung cancer:
This should’ve been a slam dunk election for Republicans.
I’m talking massive landslide. Get your talking points down, and slam her over and over. Keep pounding.
However, we have not seen that from trump. He keeps flopping around. Why? I have NO clue. Guy gets unbelievable airtime and coverage.
If trump cannot beat Hitlery, its because trump beat trump. Nothing else. Bitch hasn’t has a press conference in over 200 days. Was actively being investigated for treasonous acts of the highest degree.
Seriously? How is it even close?
Thanks, goober RNC. Thanks.
Punks- Not Feeling Lucky Since 1971
Anonymous24It’s funny to me that this is even a mystery to some. Jewish control of all forms of media in the U.S. reached a tipping point long ago. Clinton is their choice, therefore she will win, no matter what. The ENTIRE machine is behind her, she is the HEART of the machine at this point. I challenge you all in the future to pay attention to who owns, controls, and CEO’s what, and if they are ever again unable to push the masses to the candidate they have chosen.
Jewish/Israeli influence is so strong that BOTH sides of the media isle are clearly in their pockets. Never any real coverage anywhere in MSM about the s~~~ Israel does. Ever seen a Palestinian giving his opinion about things on the news? Never. Ever seen a Jewish person giving his opinion about things in the news? All the time. In fact so often I wonder if they really only make up 2 percent of the American population. If an Alien came down to earth and watched U.S. T.V. he would think Palestinians did not exist and the U.S. was maybe 30-40 percent Jewish. And I guess Palestinians don’t really exist anymore, as under SOMEONES influence Google just removed Palestine from Google Maps…
Joe Bauers: Most US media is owned by multi-national corporations, rather than individuals. With the exception of Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Viacom, Disney, Comcast, and Time Warner, are not owned by Jews. Nor is even the New York Times!
Much of the discussion in this thread has been over Fox News and its bias. Murdoch is a practicing Christian married to a Catholic. But he supports Israel. Part of the reason is the overlap of interests between neocons and Zionists — Many neocons believe the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ.
Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.
Many Jews actually advocate a peace settlement; indeed, Jewish presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has criticized Israeli Policy and its PM.
I should also qualify my earlier comments about Fox being pro-Trump; BEFORE he was nominated, there was in my opinion a bias against him relative to other Republican nominees. AFTER he won, they’ve been behind him. But it also isn’t a MONOLITH in even biased media; for instance, many Jews, are very critical of Israeli policy relating to the Palestinians. And some Fox commentators despise Trump — though two leading ones, as I indicated earlier, have essentially endorsed him.
At the end of the day, the general public does not understand how much Israeli support has cost the US: If we never sent Israel money and hadn’t supported it since 1948, there would have been NO oil embargo in the 1970’s and no 9/11. There would have been no Gulf Wars. The US needs to stop meddling in foreign countries affairs and the military, focus on DEFENDING our country. While we’ve spent billions on direct aid, the real cost, trillions, has been in all these unintended consequences.
Anonymous24Joe Bauers: Most US media is owned by multi-national corporations, rather than individuals. With the exception of Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Viacom, Disney, Comcast, and Time Warner, are not owned by Jews. Nor is even the New York Times!
Much of the discussion in this thread has been over Fox News and its bias. Murdoch is a practicing Christian married to a Catholic. But he supports Israel. Part of the reason is the overlap of interests between neocons and Zionists — Many neocons believe the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ.
Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.
Many Jews actually advocate a peace settlement; indeed, Jewish presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has criticized Israeli Policy and its PM.
I should also qualify my earlier comments about Fox being pro-Trump; BEFORE he was nominated, there was in my opinion a bias against him relative to other Republican nominees. AFTER he won, they’ve been behind him. But it also isn’t a MONOLITH in even biased media; for instance, many Jews, are very critical of Israeli policy relating to the Palestinians. And some Fox commentators despise Trump — though two leading ones, as I indicated earlier, have essentially endorsed him.
At the end of the day, the general public does not understand how much Israeli support has cost the US: If we never sent Israel money and hadn’t supported it since 1948, there would have been NO oil embargo in the 1970’s and no 9/11. There would have been no Gulf Wars. The US needs to stop meddling in foreign countries affairs and the military, focus on DEFENDING our country. While we’ve spent billions on direct aid, the real cost, trillions, has been in all these unintended consequences.
Great post. I agree with most of it but Jewish influence is undeniable in left wing media and movies. Also I am pretty sure the CEO’s of many of those companies you listed are Jewish as well. I am not going to comb through all of it right now, you clearly paint a little different picture than I do… Jews already knew they had the religious right on their side, that’s why they spent most their resources on the left. If you control both sides in a two party system, you can never lose.
I just looked up ONE, the one I knew had the most Jewish Influence, Disney, and here we have…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Iger
Jewish.
N.Y. Times? I am sure they staffed with tons of Jewish people.
Hollywood? S~~~, we don’t need to go there do we?
As far as your comment about many Jews being critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, I agree, these are people who I have learned from, …Israel Shahak, Noam Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, and my favorite, Rabbi Weiss.
The sad fact remains. Mainstream media is LOCKED DOWN on the issue of what Israel does. Both sides are team Zionist.
Let me know when some Hollywood star, Jewish or not, takes a stand against Israel/Zionism/Palestinian treatment. It doesn’t happen. Why? I think we all know why… I mean if something else were not in play how else can we account for every single Jewish person in Hollywood being a Zionist??? Not a single person in Hollywood, especially Jewish ones, will ever be heard taking a stance against Israel, why is this? Cosmic coincidence? I f~~~ing doubt it.
S~~~ is LOCKED DOWN. You will not work if you speak your mind.
Actually there have been very brief incidents of people speaking up, Penelope Cruz, Riana, and I think one or two others briefly said something about Israel/Palestine then redacted it within a day or two and then nothing more on the topic… They got SHUT THE F~~~ DOWN.
Tell me, how do you account for all of this? Why is it you have never seen a Palestinian on any MSN giving his side of the story? Yet we see Jewish faces in all forms of media all day all night for eternity giving their opinion. Also, why no movie about the modern history of Israel or Palestine?
Fact is, some things are off limits. And those things are criticism of Israel, Zionism, and War when it comes to Mainstream Media and what comes out of Hollywood.
I don’t rely on polls anymore they really aren’t accurate. I did drive about an hour and a half away from home over the weekend to ride my bike. I saw maybe 25-30 Trump/Pence signs, and 0 Hillary signs. I actually saw a Sanders sign someone made and next to it there was an H with a line through it.
It’s amazing how the media can portray something that is completely false, and people still buy into it 100%.
This one is great:
What ISIS Just Said About Trump Should TERRIFY Every American
Anonymous24Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.
Problem is, the Media shows a clear agenda of collectively looking the other way when it comes to Israel. It does not matter if there was plan or not, no need to even argue that point. Also, tell me, why is it that out of clearly Left Wing Hollywood that nobody has ever spoken up against Ultra-Right Wing Israel in person or through a movie??? This right here is the most damning fact as to there being shenanigans at play. You are telling me, that a group of people in L.A. who RABBIDLY go after Right Wingers in the U.S. somehow just lose all desire to do the same when it comes to Israel??? Not one of them??? Wake up man. Both sides are locked down in the U.S. All one needs to do is observe what is off limits to see who controls/influences it all.
People generally want to listen to an echo chamber; that is why 78% of Rush Limbaugh’s viewers are conservatives and 57% of Rachel Maddox’s and liberals. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/
What is a problem with this here, we face, is with the Internet and search engines trying to pander to worldviews people have, is they get a nice built in bias to direct them to what they want to look at, which leads to people not seeing what is going on. It makes people more and more entrenched in their view of reality and anything that doesn’t align with their own view of reality, ends up being seen as bias or an agenda.
The term “filter bubble” is a label used for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubbleThe Internet, which should be a source for greater information, ends up only amplifying these biases. One can, if they aren’t aware enough, and disciplined enough, end up buying into groupthink. You see it with social justice warriors, and other pockets, like the alt-right side.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.
Joe: I agree with much of your post too. And it is undeniable, most Jews, are ‘progressives’. But, not all. Some of the greatest libertarians/free market advocates and theorists have been Jews! Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard. John Stossel (okay, maybe he’s not a great theorist, but certainly a great and popular ADVOCATE against Statism and for Liberty). And then, let us not forget, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. These two, certainly not libertarians, but great freedom advocates. Rand was an atheist of course, but her parents were non-observant Jews.
The New York Times is staffed with many Jews, but my point is, even if it weren’t, it would still be left-wing. That is the segment it caters to. When I used to read Newsweek years ago, most of it was progressive tripe, but even they had a one-page editorial by George Will (a conservative) to give the publication some balance. So even the biased outlets, give SOME voice to the opposition to maintain at least some illusion of ‘objectivity’. NPR runs some stories about Hillary’s e-mails. And interviews conservatives and Libertarians. But they definitely DON’T tend to play hardball with progressives. And of course, the coverage of any Republican scandals is intense and lengthy.
Just because MOST of a given group votes a certain way doesn’t mean they all do OR that there is some organized hidden system to make them vote that way. Most Blacks vote Democrat, but there is certainly a small minority of conservative and libertarian blacks.
I would say there are numerous celebrities that support Palestine and/or question Israeli policy: e.g. Christiano Renaldo of Real Madrid, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters, etc. And many who have canceled tours or shows in Israel to protest the Israeli war actions, e.g. Stevie Wonder.
Part of the reason you don’t see more support for Palestine is likely due to it not selling movies. Being AGAINST Israel gets labeled as being PRO-terrorism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; our support for Israel, has CAUSED much terrorism. But, that is the perception of Joe Public.
IGMOW writes: The term “filter bubble” is a label used for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubbleThe Internet, which should be a source for greater information, ends up only amplifying these biases. One can, if they aren’t aware enough, and disciplined enough, end up buying into groupthink. You see it with social justice warriors, and other pockets, like the alt-right side.
Absolutely. And there is a commercial aspect; a cable network news station may find it can get more viewers if it caters to a partisan political viewpoint. Analytical, in-depth, moderately objective news publications like The Economist, do NOT enjoy high circulation AND are expensive. The public has little appetite for this; they want entertainment with a dash of biased news. Look at the popularity of Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly. There isn’t a lot of respect for objective news. I LOVE Wikipedia — though even IT is biased on extremely controversial subjects. Every once in a while, I read a copy of Mother Jones to counter my more frequent reading of Reason Magazine — talk about two polar opposites!
Steeb writes: I don’t rely on polls anymore they really aren’t accurate. I did drive about an hour and a half away from home over the weekend to ride my bike. I saw maybe 25-30 Trump/Pence signs, and 0 Hillary signs. I actually saw a Sanders sign someone made and next to it there was an H with a line through it.
It’s all about who you poll. EVERY single hourly MAN where I work, is anti-Hillary. The office staff is mixed, with most, pro-Shrillery. There aren’t many Hillary signs because most of her supporters aren’t that ‘enthused’ with her; in contrast, Trump excites his supporters. As I travel further away from the urban core where I reside, into the rural hinterlands, support for Trump increases as I move from ‘blue’ to ‘red’ territory. Where I reside, in the urban core, Hillary WILL win the majority just like Obama before her. And the demographics indicate it is becoming ever more progressive in this major US metro.
Anonymous24Joe: I agree with much of your post too. And it is undeniable, most Jews, are ‘progressives’. But, not all. Some of the greatest libertarians/free market advocates and theorists have been Jews! Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard. John Stossel (okay, maybe he’s not a great theorist, but certainly a great and popular ADVOCATE against Statism and for Liberty). And then, let us not forget, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. These two, certainly not libertarians, but great freedom advocates. Rand was an atheist of course, but her parents were non-observant Jews.
The New York Times is staffed with many Jews, but my point is, even if it weren’t, it would still be left-wing. That is the segment it caters to. When I used to read Newsweek years ago, most of it was progressive tripe, but even they had a one-page editorial by George Will (a conservative) to give the publication some balance. So even the biased outlets, give SOME voice to the opposition to maintain at least some illusion of ‘objectivity’. NPR runs some stories about Hillary’s e-mails. And interviews conservatives and Libertarians. But they definitely DON’T tend to play hardball with progressives. And of course, the coverage of any Republican scandals is intense and lengthy.
Just because MOST of a given group votes a certain way doesn’t mean they all do OR that there is some organized hidden system to make them vote that way. Most Blacks vote Democrat, but there is certainly a small minority of conservative and libertarian blacks.
I would say there are numerous celebrities that support Palestine and/or question Israeli policy: e.g. Christiano Renaldo of Real Madrid, Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Stewart, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters, etc. And many who have canceled tours or shows in Israel to protest the Israeli war actions, e.g. Stevie Wonder.
Part of the reason you don’t see more support for Palestine is likely due to it not selling movies. Being AGAINST Israel gets labeled as being PRO-terrorism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; our support for Israel, has CAUSED much terrorism. But, that is the perception of Joe Public.
IGMOW writes: The term “filter bubble” is a label used for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubbleThe Internet, which should be a source for greater information, ends up only amplifying these biases. One can, if they aren’t aware enough, and disciplined enough, end up buying into groupthink. You see it with social justice warriors, and other pockets, like the alt-right side.
Absolutely. And there is a commercial aspect; a cable network news station may find it can get more viewers if it caters to a partisan political viewpoint. Analytical, in-depth, moderately objective news publications like The Economist, do NOT enjoy high circulation AND are expensive. The public has little appetite for this; they want entertainment with a dash of biased news. Look at the popularity of Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly. There isn’t a lot of respect for objective news. I LOVE Wikipedia — though even IT is biased on extremely controversial subjects. Every once in a while, I read a copy of Mother Jones to counter my more frequent reading of Reason Magazine — talk about two polar opposites!
Steeb writes: I don’t rely on polls anymore they really aren’t accurate. I did drive about an hour and a half away from home over the weekend to ride my bike. I saw maybe 25-30 Trump/Pence signs, and 0 Hillary signs. I actually saw a Sanders sign someone made and next to it there was an H with a line through it.
It’s all about who you poll. EVERY single hourly MAN where I work, is anti-Hillary. The office staff is mixed, with most, pro-Shrillery. There aren’t many Hillary signs because most of her supporters aren’t that ‘enthused’ with her; in contrast, Trump excites his supporters. As I travel further away from the urban core where I reside, into the rural hinterlands, support for Trump increases as I move from ‘blue’ to ‘red’ territory. Where I reside, in the urban core, Hillary WILL win the majority just like Obama before her. And the demographics indicate it is becoming ever more progressive in this major US metro.
I always enjoy your posts Frankone…
Early on here you named off a few more of my Jewish Hero’s. I know, many wouldn’t believe that Joe’s hero’s are indeed mostly Jewish. Shahak, Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, Rabbi Weiss, Rand, Rothbard, even though he was pretty extreme in some regards… I actually have a first edition of Rand’s Fountainhead, it is worth a pretty penny. I do not know who Von Mises is though, I will check him out.
The last post I made was a real breakthrough for me. It I think is the best direct question one can raise about the whole mess. It sums up so many things about the issue in just a few words.
Jews are over-represented relative to their population, in the media, just as they are in many professions such as law and medicine. Does this mean there is a plan to dominate these professions, or just that they enter them to a greater extent? I’d argue the latter.
Problem is, the Media shows a clear agenda of collectively looking the other way when it comes to Israel. It does not matter if there was plan or not, no need to even argue that point. Also, tell me, why is it that out of clearly Left Wing Hollywood that nobody has ever spoken up against Ultra-Right Wing Israel in person or through a movie??? This right here is the most damning fact as to there being shenanigans at play. You are telling me, that a group of people in L.A. who RABBIDLY go after Right Wingers in the U.S. somehow just lose all desire to do the same when it comes to Israel??? Not one of them???
So, I may be off by like, what, two or three people in Hollywood who has actually spoke up? Certainly no high level Jews. Stone would be the closest once again. It is something I think people should really think about. Why is it that all of Hollywood is Ultra Left Wing and they will not criticize Ultra Left Wing Israel? They just criticize Right Wingers in the U.S.
Hypocrisy much?
Agenda much?Clearly both.
I do disagree with your assessment of why no movies on Palestine/Israel… It’s straight up a blackout on the topic, all media for the most part that the money men have their hooks into…Left, Right, and Left Hollywood, all blacked out…Some s~~~ is CLEARLY off limits.
Anonymous24S~~~, won’t let me edit…
Wanted to add Oliver to Stone…
And correct my mistake of calling Israel Ultra Left Wing, meant it to be Right Wing of course…
Joe: One other comment I wanted to make. If you look back to 2003, VERY FEW celebrities even signed the letter against the Iraq War — a few dozen. That is because it was bad business to do so.
Thanks but no need to add ‘Stone’, I assumed you meant director Oliver Stone.
‘Recent reports have indicated that the decision to cancel pre-Oscar red-carpet festivities is as much a conciliatory effort for celebrities — who would rather avoid discussing the war — as it is a nod toward the solemnity of the occasion.
In fact, an Academy rep told Reuters that many stars had requested a back entrance so they wouldn’t be put on the spot. And really, who can blame them? Those who have chosen to voice political opposition, including Martin Sheen and the Dixie Chicks, have been vilified. ‘ http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,625786,00.html
I do concede, there were many more celebrities against the Iraq war, than against Israeli OR Palestinian tactics in the intifadas, that is factual. I was only arguing there were SOME detractors from the mainstream narrative.
But, most celebrities didn’t take a rigid, public stand on the Iraq war despite being progressive peaceniks — otherwise, many hundreds would have signed the letter against the Iraq war in 2003. I think a few over 100 celebrities signed it. http://www.upi.com/Celebrities-urge-Bush-to-avoid-Iraq-war/97531039550943/ Why? Because being labeled a ‘traitor’ by the media and public, isn’t good for ticket sales. Whether you live under the Regime of Bush, Stalin, or Hitler. Of course, one man’s ‘traitor’ is another man’s ‘patriot’. Me, I think it’s good to have divergent opinions in society and to carefully deliberate issues.
I read the Fountainhead when I was a teenager, and it had a profound impact upon my thinking.
von Mises was the leader of the Austrian school of economics, he essentially promoted Markets rather than Governments to allocate resources.
Anonymous24Thanks for the reply buddy, all very well said as usual from you. I will for sure be looking into Von Mises, though from that one sentence I think I have a good idea of his position, thanks man.
Joe: I agree with much of your post too. And it is undeniable, most Jews, are ‘progressives’. But, not all. Some of the greatest libertarians/free market advocates and theorists have been Jews! Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard. John Stossel (okay, maybe he’s not a great theorist, but certainly a great and popular ADVOCATE against Statism and for Liberty). And then, let us not forget, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. These two, certainly not libertarians, but great freedom advocates. Rand was an atheist of course, but her parents were non-observant Jews.
Markets are what drive globalization. The desire of business to forever expand and find more customers to sell to drives globalization. So, anyone who is pro-markets, ends up supporting globalization. Elites, who believe they are able to compete better than others, will support globalization. Individuals who fall behind, masses of average skilled workers, will be opposed to free markets, as their see their wages pressed down. Such individuals will call for government to step in and combat what they believe causes problems, and that is usually related to those who are not like them.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.
IGMOW: ‘Globalization’ is a rather all-encompassing catchphrase. So let’s focus on ‘international trade’. Does this trade actually lower standard of living? If you look at EPI studies, it definitely lowers the WAGES of the non-college educated worker about $1,800 per year. But it has also created MORE jobs in sectors wealthy countries can compete in, to export goods and services, e.g. it has widened the gap between white and blue collar wages. But another impact is in lower cost of goods; I can buy a pair of jeans made in the State I reside, but they are $60 a pair vs about $25 from local big box retailers, whose jeans are made outside the US. So, even if you’re making less, your dollar buys more. And so, the percentage of our income we spend on clothing, has been greatly reduced, for instance. So the impact of free trade is a bit more complex; the free market sends signals through prices. The market response to that signal, due to high wages in the US, is to not manufacture clothing here because it is not profitable. The only people who buy the $60 jeans are individuals choosing to ‘buy america’, a small minority of the population that can afford to do so.
I would argue free trade, on net, is beneficial, but that many of our trade agreements are unbalanced (unfair). I would also argue that we will always have a trade deficit, until and unless we go to a monetary system such as a gold standard, wherein trade deficits are not sustainable.
The US also exports many products. Closing economies has historically been detrimental, in my opinion. The reason is, you have more competition and lower prices with international trade. But the trade deficits that can and do exist under fiat currency, ARE a problem that prevents the system from balancing.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
