Trump only drinks Diet Coke and he make prostitutes pee on each other. No water though.
Would-be dictators suppressing "fake news" and white house ok with it.
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Trump only drinks Diet Coke and he make prostitutes pee on each other. No water though.
Pre vs post wwii I will take post World War II every day of the week.
Now that you mention it, Trump's denigration of the press is reminiscent of Hitler's, despite the obvious differences such as Hitler having been far more erudite and having had a firm foundation in ideology that went well beyond is own personal needs. He had a long history of involvement in political debate and party politics that Trump does not have. Of course by the late 1930's, Hitler had gained complete control over the German media and successfully suppressed contrary viewpoints. Hitler had many staunch defenders, just as Trump does. Then as now, many threw reason out the window. They found the real news entirely "fake."
Another interesting parallel involves the man who eventually became Hitler's propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels. Goebbels was quite brilliant in the way he was able to manipulate crowds in the nineteen twenties and thirties. He would encourage discord and physical violence, and a number of Beer Hall brawls resulted. Trump's active encouragement of violence at rallies is certainly reminiscent. Perhaps Trump not only studied Hitler's speeches but is also aware of Goebbels techniques for crowd manipulation. It seems he may be.
Last edited:
Trump's behavior is more like Sadamm Hussein's. You will see tonight as police escort all the evildoers from the SOTU. Quite apparent why Ginsburg decided not to attend, but they will get her at the nursing home...
Link(s)?
And please let's be sure to compare it with the "accuracy" of the fringe media that you appear to rely on.
And where errors are made, who owns up to them and who does not?
A Costly Retraction for CNN and an Opening for Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html
NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/
The New York Times Misquoted Trump’s Charlottesville Remarks In Five Different Reports
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/new-york-times-corrects-five-trump-charlottesville-reports/
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#3848d2e57ad5
There's much more, but this should keep you busy for a while.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html
NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/
The New York Times Misquoted Trump’s Charlottesville Remarks In Five Different Reports
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/new-york-times-corrects-five-trump-charlottesville-reports/
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#3848d2e57ad5
There's much more, but this should keep you busy for a while.
That's all you got? In each case, the stories were retracted. Where they were significant, people got canned. The Daily Caller stuff is fluff: distinctions without a difference. Not exactly a big haul, there, Arnie.
How many people got fired from the "news" sources you rely on when they got it wrong? And how about all those timely retractions, eh? At least getting it wrong is egg on the face of legitimate, mainstream media. To the fringe media that you follow, it's practically a badge of honor.
Last edited:
LOL, thankfully Arnie took the ball and ran with it. I'm sure he realized that you'd never accept anything anyone ever posted regardless of how substantial it was. You'd find a reason to disqualify all of it. Stuff like John Harwood email Podesta about how he'd give Hillary the interviews that told things the way she wanted it, that sorta thing.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/21/wikileaks-reveals-hillary-clinton-camps-work-with-/
You mean by ignoring the other parts of my post?
I acknowledged the errors, so how do you figure I didn't "accept" them?