TV Station Forced to Run Pro-Trump Programs

[piezoe]

...
Even todays democrats who have been around more than 5 to 10 years were pro border security... and anti immigration to a much greater degree than they are now.

Almost everyone is pro-border security regardless of their politics. What people are divided over is how to handle those who came here legally on visas and overstayed them, got jobs working in Trump hotels and casinos and for Trump contractors , made homes here , have American citizen children in many cases, and have contributed to the American economy for many years.

Trump's Mexican rapists and murderers streaming across the Mexican/US border were invented by him to attract votes from his low information support group. If you believe Trump on this, you will believe that Trump is going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. You'll also believe that low skill manufacturing jobs are, as if by magic, going to return to the U.S. if only a big Wall is built. There is really not all that much difference between believing in this Trump bullshit and believing in Jack and the Beanstock.

 

[Tom B]

Almost everyone is pro-border security regardless of their politics. What people are divided over is how to handle those who came here legally on visas and overstayed them, got jobs working in Trump hotels and casinos and for Trump contractors , made homes here , have American citizen children in many cases, and have contributed to the American economy for many years.

Trump's Mexican rapists and murderers streaming across the Mexican/US border were invented by him to attract votes from his low information support group. If you believe Trump on this, you will believe that Trump is going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. You'll also believe that low skill manufacturing jobs are, as if by magic, going to return to the U.S. if only a big Wall is built. There is really not all that much difference between believing in this Trump bullshit and believing in Jack and the Beanstock.

Your first sentence is a LIE.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Impressive is the amount of effort and research that the left media put into alerting us about Sinclair. Such is their dedication to duty. Or is it more likely they have an agenda?

We have seen professors in select universities in Chicago, New York, and the West Coast promote a Left agenda. We have seen many sitcoms introduce disfunctional ideas thru "humor." For example, when a character on the show is hard working or smart, he is made fun of and called a name. We have seen much of the U.S. Media promote exceptional circumstances either as the norm, or that we should allocate great resources to rectify that exceptional situation.

It seems like a centralized entity is behind this. Has the US been infiltrated by a foreign country that has focused on our news media, education system, and entertainment to disseminate their propaganda?

If so, which country or countries might be behind this?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It seems like a centralized entity is behind this. Has the US been infiltrated by a foreign country that has focused on our news media, education system, and entertainment to disseminate their propaganda?

If so, which country or countries might be behind this?

Yes, Australia, his name is Rupert Murdock, you gave him a passport in 1985 due to the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.

Remember how things were sane/centrist enough until the character of the nation became one of wrought overreaction and weeping in 'terror'. I guess it was the Monica Lewinski scandal that he used to get a solid wedge into the psyche of Americans.

He used the death of Princess Diana to turn a stoic enough British public into a publicly weeping bunch of sissies.

Stop chasing the laser pointers and look up.

1. He has transformed world politics for the worse.
2. He has ridiculed and raised doubts about global catastrophes, and about science itself.
3. He has undermined liberty.
4. He has turned the public against the press.
5. He has simultaneously propagandized for “the law” and compromised it
6. He has undermined essential rules about propriety in the news business, degrading ethical walls put in place through long tradition.
7. He has propagandized for many of society’s worst instincts.
8. He has until now effectively neutralized many would-be critics in journalism.
   
9. He has relentlessly applied a double standard.
10. He has dumbed down the news business and hence the public.
    
11. He has used his wealth regularly to stave off businesses and individuals that his company has illegally damaged.
12. His campaign contributions and the public support of his media organizations have persuaded politicians to override laws against media monopolies.

Anda lot more.. http://www.alternet.org/story/151768/12_ways_rupert_murdoch's_media_empire_has_made_the_world_worse

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Yes, Australia, his name is Rupert Murdock, you gave him a passport in 1985 due to the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.

Remember how things were sane/centrist enough until the character of the nation became one of wrought overreaction and weeping in 'terror'. I guess it was the Monica Lewinski scandal that he used to get a solid wedge into the psyche of Americans.

He used the death of Princess Diana to turn a stoic enough British public into a publicly weeping bunch of sissies.

Stop chasing the laser pointers and look up.

1. He has transformed world politics for the worse.
2. He has ridiculed and raised doubts about global catastrophes, and about science itself.
3. He has undermined liberty.
4. He has turned the public against the press.
5. He has simultaneously propagandized for “the law” and compromised it
6. He has undermined essential rules about propriety in the news business, degrading ethical walls put in place through long tradition.
7. He has propagandized for many of society’s worst instincts.
8. He has until now effectively neutralized many would-be critics in journalism.
   
9. He has relentlessly applied a double standard.
10. He has dumbed down the news business and hence the public.
    
11. He has used his wealth regularly to stave off businesses and individuals that his company has illegally damaged.
12. His campaign contributions and the public support of his media organizations have persuaded politicians to override laws against media monopolies.

Anda lot more.. http://www.alternet.org/story/151768/12_ways_rupert_murdoch's_media_empire_has_made_the_world_worse

Thanks for reminding me of the things Fox News has been involved in. However, looking at sitcoms from the 1970's and some of the things I held to be true growing up, but turned out to be pre-Fox news propaganda garbage makes me feel this problem has been going on for a long time.

The news media and their cohorts have to be scared "spitless" of the Internet and public officials Tweets.

 

[piezoe]

Yes, Australia, his name is Rupert Murdock, you gave him a passport in 1985 due to the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.

Remember how things were sane/centrist enough until the character of the nation became one of wrought overreaction and weeping in 'terror'. I guess it was the Monica Lewinski scandal that he used to get a solid wedge into the psyche of Americans.

He used the death of Princess Diana to turn a stoic enough British public into a publicly weeping bunch of sissies.

Stop chasing the laser pointers and look up.

1. He has transformed world politics for the worse.
2. He has ridiculed and raised doubts about global catastrophes, and about science itself.
3. He has undermined liberty.
4. He has turned the public against the press.
5. He has simultaneously propagandized for “the law” and compromised it
6. He has undermined essential rules about propriety in the news business, degrading ethical walls put in place through long tradition.
7. He has propagandized for many of society’s worst instincts.
8. He has until now effectively neutralized many would-be critics in journalism.
   
9. He has relentlessly applied a double standard.
10. He has dumbed down the news business and hence the public.
    
11. He has used his wealth regularly to stave off businesses and individuals that his company has illegally damaged.
12. His campaign contributions and the public support of his media organizations have persuaded politicians to override laws against media monopolies.

Anda lot more.. http://www.alternet.org/story/151768/12_ways_rupert_murdoch's_media_empire_has_made_the_world_worse

Very interesting viewpoint. Thanks for posting.

 

[gwb-trading]

Yes, Australia, his name is Rupert Murdock, you gave him a passport in 1985 due to the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations.

Remember how things were sane/centrist enough until the character of the nation became one of wrought overreaction and weeping in 'terror'. I guess it was the Monica Lewinski scandal that he used to get a solid wedge into the psyche of Americans.

He used the death of Princess Diana to turn a stoic enough British public into a publicly weeping bunch of sissies.

Stop chasing the laser pointers and look up.

1. He has transformed world politics for the worse.
2. He has ridiculed and raised doubts about global catastrophes, and about science itself.
3. He has undermined liberty.
4. He has turned the public against the press.
5. He has simultaneously propagandized for “the law” and compromised it
6. He has undermined essential rules about propriety in the news business, degrading ethical walls put in place through long tradition.
7. He has propagandized for many of society’s worst instincts.
8. He has until now effectively neutralized many would-be critics in journalism.
   
9. He has relentlessly applied a double standard.
10. He has dumbed down the news business and hence the public.
    
11. He has used his wealth regularly to stave off businesses and individuals that his company has illegally damaged.
12. His campaign contributions and the public support of his media organizations have persuaded politicians to override laws against media monopolies.

Anda lot more.. http://www.alternet.org/story/151768/12_ways_rupert_murdoch's_media_empire_has_made_the_world_worse

So pretty much just like Soros, eh?

 

[gwb-trading]

Almost everyone is pro-border security regardless of their politics. What people are divided over is how to handle those who came here legally on visas and overstayed them, got jobs working in Trump hotels and casinos and for Trump contractors , made homes here , have American citizen children in many cases, and have contributed to the American economy for many years.

Trump's Mexican rapists and murderers streaming across the Mexican/US border were invented by him to attract votes from his low information support group. If you believe Trump on this, you will believe that Trump is going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. You'll also believe that low skill manufacturing jobs are, as if by magic, going to return to the U.S. if only a big Wall is built. There is really not all that much difference between believing in this Trump bullshit and believing in Jack and the Beanstock.

I have previously posted my thoughts on the best way to handle the illegal immigration situation in the U.S. A pragmatic solution is needed which deals with the reality of the situation rather than pure politics and optics.

This gets back to the reality that deporting millions of Mexicans (and other Central American illegal immigrants) from the U.S. will be very costly and difficult. There will also be a significant economic impact both in their purchasing of goods and the jobs they hold.

Personally I believe the best approach to solve the illegal immigration issue in the U.S. is a three part solution:

1) Build a wall. Even though it is likely that the "wall" will consist of many areas without a wall but improved surveillance via cameras and drones plus enhanced border patrol presence. This will serve to keep new illegals out and deportees from returning illegally.

2) Require every illegal resident in the U.S. to register. Set a 90 day period in which every illegal immigrant in the country is required to register at a government office (with picture taken, etc.). Do a criminal background check on all of them. Anyone with a criminal background or fails to register will be subject to deportation starting at Day 91. There should be an active deportation effort.

3) Issue 6 year Visa to registered illegal immigrants who are not criminals. The document should include their picture. After six years they can submit an application for another six years, go home, or attempt to get a green card. This will also require that the properly pay taxes, but still will not be eligible for public benefits.

Step 3 may sound like "amnesty" to some, but it is different since it is not permanent. As a country we need to face the reality that from a demographic perspective we will need new workers in the labor force. Fifty years from now we will probably be actively begging for people to immigrate from foreign countries. It would be best if we faced reality and put in place pro-active policy to deal with the illegal immigrants -- most who are hard working decent people -- and clear out the criminals among them.

 

[piezoe]

I have previously posted my thoughts on the best way to handle the illegal immigration situation in the U.S. A pragmatic solution is needed which deals with the reality of the situation rather than pure politics and optics.

This gets back to the reality that deporting millions of Mexicans (and other Central American illegal immigrants) from the U.S. will be very costly and difficult. There will also be a significant economic impact both in their purchasing of goods and the jobs they hold.

Personally I believe the best approach to solve the illegal immigration issue in the U.S. is a three part solution:

1) Build a wall. Even though it is likely that the "wall" will consist of many areas without a wall but improved surveillance via cameras and drones plus enhanced border patrol presence. This will serve to keep new illegals out and deportees from returning illegally.

2) Require every illegal resident in the U.S. to register. Set a 90 day period in which every illegal immigrant in the country is required to register at a government office (with picture taken, etc.). Do a criminal background check on all of them. Anyone with a criminal background or fails to register will be subject to deportation starting at Day 91. There should be an active deportation effort.

3) Issue 6 year Visa to registered illegal immigrants who are not criminals. The document should include their picture. After six years they can submit an application for another six years, go home, or attempt to get a green card. This will also require that the properly pay taxes, but still will not be eligible for public benefits.

Step 3 may sound like "amnesty" to some, but it is different since it is not permanent. As a country we need to face the reality that from a demographic perspective we will need new workers in the labor force. Fifty years from now we will probably be actively begging for people to immigrate from foreign countries. It would be best if we faced reality and put in place pro-active policy to deal with the illegal immigrants -- most who are hard working decent people -- and clear out the criminals among them.

This is a far better plan than what I heard Bannon say. He wants to just deport everyone who is here illegally no matter on long they have been here, how many roots they have put down, how much they have contributed, nor how many citizen children they may have. The second part of your #2 had already begun under Obama. Deportations were greatly stepped up and at the same time illegal border crossings were brought to a trickle. All the progress we have seen should be credited to Obama; none to "lying little" Donald. Trump has continuously misrepresented the situation as it was when he took office with respect to border crossing enforcement and deportation of illegals with criminal records or those who only recently arrived and overstayed their visas.

We already have a patrolled border and effective border fences stretching for many miles in critical areas. This along with some stepped up surveillance is all that's needed as shown by the number of illegal border crossings having slowed to a trickle. That happened under Obama. Constructing an actual Wall will be unwelcome by those U.S. citizens who live along the border and own land their. It will not be cost effective, and will be ugly as sin. The returns from spending the same money on infrastructure would be far greater. If the Wall gets built anyway, so be it. We've done much worse. But why on earth would we build a G.D. wall just because of the Donald's low I.Q. campaign rhetoric? Why would we suddenly think he is an expert on border protection and Wall building? It's not like he has demonstrated sound judgement in the past! At this point the only thing we know he is good at is lying, dumbing down political rhetoric, grabbing women's pussies, and promoting himself while insulting others.

Why should the Donald's fixation on placating his low information voters be at our expense? Let it be at his expense! Since there is no prospect of him making Mexico pay for the Wall, as he repeatedly, and absurdly, claimed, let him use his self-proclaimed "deal making" skills to get Anheuser-Busch-InBev to sponsor the Wall in exchange for covering it with Bud Light Ads. Or Let him raise the money from investors and paint his own name in gold along the Wall. It wouldn't be the first time he has ripped off investors with his "projects." He can suggest to the contractors that they hire Mexican illegals from the Mar-a-Lago dish washing room. When they do, and after the Wall is completed, he can refuse to honor the contracts, and threaten to turn the contractors into immigration authorities because illegal labor was used.* The contractors might sue, but what's another law suit on top of the over four thousand he's already been involved in.

If I could choose between deporting an illegal immigrant murderer or The Donald, I'd deport the Donald and let the murderer stay in a U.S. Prison. An unjailed Donald is far more Dangerous to America.
___________________
*Though I've used creative license here to make my point, its been reported that Trump did something similar on a project in Manhattan early in his career as a shyster. http://time.com/4465744/donald-trump-undocumented-workers/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/are-we-all-part-of-trump-nation-some-readers-say-no/398462/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821

 

[jem]

I bring up 1984 all the time, we seem to be marching towards that state of existence. I forgot you could not turn off the TV. its time to re read it.

nice post...

My suspicion is this. Both Dem and Con are really serving their donors. This has been exacerbated by a lot of things, and the astonishing citizens united ruling being just the cherry on the top.

The dems and cons are hard to tell apart in ways because the serve the same class of masters.

I'm not sure the US has ever approximated the people's democracy people imagine it to be. It got good when the oligarchs got idealistic also, post WWII, but that waxed and waned.

In the case of the OP's post, it is not good the TV networks that both left/right/dem/con/cat/dog could watch in peace boring, ABC/NBC affiliates are being pumped with op-ed corporate propaganda.

I've listened to an NBC affiliate TV station in Albuquerque today (KOB).Traffic status, state fair preparation, weather and other basic local news and events. No savage political partisan "opinion".

If Sinclair (and there will be a Dem version soon) get their way that is it. Don't turn on the TV or just watch Netflix shows if you don't want propaganda blared at you. Netfix will be next though, somehow.

Remember in the book 1984? You could not turn the TV's off.