Marie3 commented on my most recent post, Politics, Intelligence and the Deep State. More Non-Partisan, Pro-Freedom Sense From the Internet:
Listened to this interview with Matt Taibbi where he attempted to explain why the MSM SOP takedown of presidential candidates didn’t work with Trump. If Taibbi has an answer, it didn’t come out in the interview. But it did cause me to begin pondering the question. A diary and conversation on this question would be of interest to me.
Here is my response:
I listened to the interview.
Taibbi came close to explaining the situation.
The usual mainstream media, standard operating procedure takedown of presidential candidates didn’t work with Trump because the people who tended to support Trump had given up on the mainstream media.
Why?
Because the MSM lies…including the astounding prevalence of Big Pharma/Big Med/Big Insurance sponsorship of said news media…had simply gotten too transparent to work anymore. Even the dumbest watchers knew that if one watched say an hour of “news”…say 1/2 hour of so-called “local” news” and 1/2 hour of equally so-called “national” news (which would necessarily include some 20-30 minutes of watching false advertising), out of that hour one might get 2 or 3 minutes of real information.
If that.
The rest? Just lying advertising and Deep State bullshit.
So if 20%/30%/50% of the news was anti-Trump, then if it was all bullshit, 20%/30%/50% of the news was actually recommending Trump.
End of story.
If a proven liar consistently opposes something and supports something else…and that is exactly what happened (and continues to happen) with the media regarding Trump and his opposition…it doesn’t take a Harvard doctorate to figure out that the consistently opposed force needs a good, careful look.
They looked…with newly de-scaled eyes…they liked what they saw and heard, and they voted.
Duh!!!
Were they ‘wrong?”
Given two negative choices and no third choice?
Who’s to say?
Not me.
Now the media situation has scaled up another notch.
Now it’s Cold War II, with Trump and Putin as the bad guys.
Will this work?
Maybe.
It might even be true.
Stay tuned.
Even the most dedicated liars accidentally say something true eventually.
Watch.
AG
Even with all his other disappointments, I’m most disappointed with Obama for issuing sanctions against Russia for revealing the truth about the DNC and HRC, IF they did that. Sanctions for invading the Ukraine and annexing Crimea in violation of their treaties, yes. Sanctions for threatening to shut of gas to Western Europe, yes. Even sanctions for processing uranium for Iran. But sanctions in a fit of pique over what they maybe never did and was not a lie or hurtful? No. Never. Remember, it is not alleged that Russia spread false propaganda. The truth is an absolute defense.
Obama introduced partisan politics into foreign policy. And policy regarding the next biggest nuclear power at that. I hate Putin and how e suborned the Russian constitution, but Obama was wrong, very wrong.
Booman et al don’t realize how these bullshit lies and attempts to undo the election are turning people away from the Democratic Party. No wonder a majority does not vote at all. Both parties are full of cheating wackos determined to drive the American people into the dust. If only there was an alternative.
Umm, I believe the sanctions were put in place because of Russian meddling in the election, not just for hacking the DNC. If you recall, Russian actors also hacked the election systems of Illinois and Arizona.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/politics/hackers-breach-illinois-arizona-election-systems/
That link says it was a known Russian hacker, not the Russian government. I’ve also had hacking attacks from Russia. Also from the Philippines, Belgium, Romania, and China. Most of all from China. They have tried to break in half a dozen times so far today. At times the attacks constitute a DOS. Often the IP address traces back to a red Army installation near Beijing.
Why didn’t Obama sanction China?
Read here: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551
You can post 10 more times if you like. Those hacks were indicated as government origin as well, or at least hackers set in action by the Russian government. There are so many articles on this. Do your own research if you doubt this. I’ve now provided 2 links. The sanctions were not just about the DNC.
Unnamed “officials say” and “State officials told the Chicago Tribune they were confident no voter record had been deleted or altered. “
Propaganda, pure and simple.
How do you know the hackers were set in motion by the Russian government? Is it the US government that keeps sending me e-mails that pretty girls want to have anal sex with me? Or are they the ones that say my non-existent never existed bank account at Wells Fargo has been breached and I have to click their link and verify my data? After all, these did originate in the United States so they must be from the Us government, right?
Do you believe everything you read? You might look up Mark Twain’s remarks on newspapers.
You keep commenting on my paltry 2 links, adding nothing of substance, only conjecture. It’s telling that you don’t actually post something/anything supporting your argument. Signing off now, this is worthless.
Yes, it is. You have been brainwashed by the media.
What is “meddling”? Specifically. Doesn’t the US “meddle” with foreign elections? Even allies?
From your link:
China did the same–hacked the party orgs in previous elections.
I have little doubt that Russia has done/did so.
BUT, I have yet to see a clear statement from Obama or any other named official go on record that it was substantially proven that the Russian govt provided Wikileaks with the e-mails. This is Chinese whispers (telephone) at its worst.
The failure of the MSM to ruin Trump is a pretty broad topic.
First of all, we always have to acknowledge that Trumper lost the popular vote very decisively, so it is only as a result of our failed constitution that he gets to play prez to the delight of the incompetent white electorate that simply had to have him. In a legitimate representative democracy, the “attempt” of the MSM to combat Trumper would be seen to have succeeded.
That aside, I guess the first question is whether the MSM actually DID attempt to take Trump down. Yes, they worked him over pretty well with extremely negative coverage and it’s doubtful that anyone was unaware of Pussygate (which even the most astute observers thought was the end of him.)
But the bloggers of LGM are pretty persuasive in demonstrating the unrelenting October Surprise coverage of Comey’s illegal intervention, the phoniness of the Emails! scandal and the Pussygate-level coverage it generated in the MSM. There also was a raft of Trumperian frauds that were not effectively covered by the MSM (his phony foundation, fraudulent university, and fraudulent business career for example). So it’s rather unclear that the MSM actually did their job in informing the rubes of the stakes and issues.
But given how extraordinary the result of 2016, and how it seemed to deviate from prior elections, one probably has to try to examine broader societal changes to explain the proposed “failure” of the MSM. Election 2016 is likely not a one shot deal, its failure portends many future failures.
So as of 2016 the ability to create one’s personal (perhaps unique) “reality” has been realized, to the detriment of citizenship. There is no set of stipulated facts possible anymore, so “debate” on such facts is necessarily impossible, and “positions” appear to have become meaningless in politics. In such an environment, the MSM is best seen as simply more pieces of flotsam and jetsam, haplessly adrift in a sea of informational chaos…..one “news” source is as good as another, and who’s to judge, amirite?
Not my question. That also implies that it’s the duty of the MSM to destroy political candidates which I find repulsive.
The comment of yours quoted by AG implies that an “MSM SOP takedown of presidential candidates” exists and that it “didn’t work with Trump”. I didn’t intend any deviation from your formulation.
And my offered observations really have nothing to do with MSM “motivation”.
That was Taibbi’s formulation, not mine. It follows from the media that creates and builds up celebrities and later delights in tearing them down. For some what follows that is a rehabilitation phase (easier if the celebrity is then dead).
I was interested in a discussion of the formulation, why some politicians are targeted for destruction for no reason, why some incompetent and loathsome creatures are given passes, and how effective the MSM is at the building up and tearing down. I suspect that Trump as an individual isn’t anywhere as unique as Taibbi’s formulation concedes.
Since you present “The Answer,” it doesn’t leave room for discussing the question which is what I was looking for. I don’t agree with you on “The Answer” but more than that isn’t appropriate for this forum.