Trump Consciousness

"Why doesn't Maxine Waters want to live in her own district?​
Because she doesn't want to suffer the consequences of her own policies.​
Riots and violence surge in our streets. While our buildings and businesses burn.​
Maxine sits safe in her mansion guarded by the same police she demonizes.​
Maxine has never had to deal with violence or riots in her neighborhood."​






 
Last edited:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trum...s-running-for-the-senate-forgets-romneys-name

Biden said, “You know, we have to come together. That’s why I’m running. I’m running as a proud Democrat for the Senate, when I ran as a proud Democrat for vice president, and I’m running as a proud Democrat for president. But I promise you this, I will govern as an American president.”


Biden also appeared to to forget the name of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who was the GOP nominee for president in 2012. “I got in trouble when we were running against that senator who was a Mormon, the governor,” he said.
 
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.


The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.


“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.


An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings— is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.


Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.
https://nationalfile.com/big-tech-m...cumented-hunter-biden-crack-pipe-email-story/

 
Last edited:
These emails are true smoking guns. At any other time in American history - Biden would be toast... just for these. But also, at any other time in American history, a "Joe Biden" in his current condition and state of mind would never become a nominee for any political party, much less one of the two major US parties.
 
Is anyone trying some of the usual tricks to get round censorship of this sort, such as posting a link like this:

http colon slash slash skeptiko dot com

Variants like that can usually trick automatic censoring.

David
 
There is one delicious irony to the email story. Pelosi started the impeachment stunt (it could never have passed in the Senate, so it was never going to mean anything) and the hearings drew attention to the whole issue of the Bidens and Ukraine. It is entirely possible that she inadvertently pulled the whole house of cards down with that one mistake.

Presumably that must also mean that many Democratic politicians were unaware of this problem - so I wonder if a few of them might start to disassociate themselves from their party?

David
 
Is anyone trying some of the usual tricks to get round censorship of this sort, such as posting a link like this:

http colon slash slash skeptiko dot com

Variants like that can usually trick automatic censoring.

David
That method might work technically but it is not a really a satisfactory solution because many fewer people will look at the article if there isn't a real link. This means the conservative web sites will not get as much web traffic when they are censored. This has ramifications beyond just the story being censored because it will result in fewer subscribers and less revenue for commercial sites. In the bigger picture, the problem isn't so much a problem of one article being censored - the information gets out and people talk about what is in the article in spite of the censorship.

The real problem is that most web sites need readers to share articles to twitter and facebook etc by clicking on the twitter or facebook icon on the web page with the article. That generates a post to your twitter or facebook feed with a link to the article. The point is that some of your friends and followers will hopefully retweet it or share it on facebook too, and also click on the link and go to the web site posting the article and then maybe click on advertisers - which is how they make money. Unless sharing can generate a real link in the social media posts, fewer people will go to the original article and subscribers and revenue will be much less.

The social media censorship puts conservative media companies and web sites at a disadvantage it is much harder for them gain readers and revenue so it is harder for them to survive without fair and equal social media access. This includes being fairly represented in search result and news feed algorithms in social media as well as search engines.

Twitter and facebook have a huge influence on the viability of commercial sites. If you don't have equal access to twitter and facebook your business might not be viable. Its a antitrust issue as well as a censorship issue.
 
Last edited:
There is one delicious irony to the email story. Pelosi started the impeachment stunt (it could never have passed in the Senate, so it was never going to mean anything) and the hearings drew attention to the whole issue of the Bidens and Ukraine. It is entirely possible that she inadvertently pulled the whole house of cards down with that one mistake.

Presumably that must also mean that many Democratic politicians were unaware of this problem - so I wonder if a few of them might start to disassociate themselves from their party?

David
If they disassociate themselves from their party the money they need to campaign will not be available. In the US we had campaign finance reform which restricted the amount of money an individual could give to a candidate. The idea was to prevent rich people and corporations from buying politicians or influencing elections unduly. The result (unforeseen by the public but expected by the party leadership) was that the money was shifted to political parties instead of candidates and the party spends the money in ways that help their candidates. So instead of a few candidates being bought, now the entire party is bought.

It's why so many republicans were against Trump. They know which side their bread is buttered on, actually they would never have gotten in to office if they were not acceptable to the big donors in the first place.

In the US, politicians including "moderate" democrats are not corrupted once they get into office, they never get into office if they are not compliant from the beginning.

The big donors never liked Trump who wanted to drain the swamp. Multinational corporations don't like Trump's pro-worker trade policies, armaments manufactures don't like his anti-war foreign policies, drug companies don't like his policies to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals, etc etc. Even government regulation which you would think would be onerous to corporations creates a barrier to entry for smaller companies that might destabilize an industry with new technology - so when Trump reduces government regulation he is also threatening large corporations. This is why all the power structures in the world are against Trump he is an existential threat to their unfettered looting of the American people.
 
Last edited:
That method might work technically but it is not a really a satisfactory solution because many fewer people will look at the article if there isn't a real link. This means the conservative web sites will not get as much web traffic when they are censored. This has ramifications beyond just the story being censored because it will result in fewer subscribers and less revenue for commercial sites.

Most web sites need readers to share articles to twitter and facebook etc by clicking on the twitter or facebook icon on the web page with the article. That generates a post to your twitter or facebook feed with a link to the article. The point is that some of your friends and followers will hopefully retweet it or share it on facebook too, and also click on the link and go to the web site posting the article and then maybe click on advertisers - which is how they make money. Unless sharing can generate a real link in the social media posts, fewer people will go to the original article and subscribers and revenue will be much less.

The social media censorship puts conservative media companies and web sites at a disadvantage it is much harder for them gain readers and revenue so it is harder for them to survive without social media access.

Twitter and facebook have a huge influence on the viability of commercial sites. If you don't have access to twitter and facebook your business might not be viable. Its a antitrust issue as well as a censorship issue.
Well.... if I see a url spelled out that way, I know it is important. A lot of stuff is censored nowadays and that trick alerts people to the situation.

Signifying the fact that information is being censored is itself important.

Alternatively, creating a TinyURL might fool the censoring software for a while.

David
 
Top