MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Why are T-rump supporters losing their m...

Why are T-rump supporters losing their minds over Omarosa's new book?


T-rump supporters and fellow Rethuglikkkans are losing their minds over Omarosa's new White House tell-all book "Unhinged" which comes out tomorrow. But why?

She was considered one of the 'best of the best people' handpicked by T-rump for his WH administration. She was loved by Rethuglikkkans and T-rumpanzees when she said 'people will bow down to T-rump', and 'T-rump was keeping lists' for revenge once he took over the Oval Office.

Now she writes a book which tells her honest experience in the White House, and quickly the Rethuglikkkans turn on her, as well as T-rump and his T-rumpanzees. Why?

reply

Well, we have to pull out all the pretenses: most Trumpers KNOW that Trump is likely guilty of SOMETHING and they made up in their minds already that they don't care and want him to remain president regardless. That's why they're afraid of that information coming out.

Our country is at a crossroads and one direction will lead to our eventual collapse (a second term for Trump) and the other will lead to a meager sliver of hope: someone else.

reply

Make sure you give Hillary her due blame for making that situation happen dteam!

reply

I honestly don't CARE about Hillary one iota. She is not our president: TRUMP is and TRUMP is ultimately what will decide the fate of our nation--NOT Hillary.

Hillary never should have been put into the running in the first place. She is an AWFUL choice and she needs to stay the HELL away from our 2020 elections.

I'm no fan of Hillary at ALL but she is not my president--TRUMP is--and because he is my current president, he will receive the bulk of my scrutiny at the moment.

reply

Trump should get the bulk of your scrutiny dteam, I'm just pointing out that the 'Someone else' tactic didn't work when it was Hillary.

I'm more for anyone else that can at least beat Trump in a fair fight (Which shouldn't be too hard if we're honest).

reply

Odd post. Hillary had nothing to do with Omarosa being handpicked by T-rump as one of the 'best of the best' for his administration.

reply

I was just focusing on dteam's statement:

Our country is at a crossroads and one direction will lead to our eventual collapse (a second term for Trump) and the other will lead to a meager sliver of hope: someone else.


Someone else indeed, had it not been Hillary last time around we wouldn't be in this mess.

reply

Your explanation shows you have a bizarre fixation with Hillary since dteam's comment obviously had nothing to do with her. The comment references the FUTURE of the U.S.

I'm relieved to see that more Republican voters are waking up to not only the danger of Trump, but also the complacency of Republican Senators and Congress who have refused to provide the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers believed were needed in order to maintain the Republic and keep it from becoming a tyranny.

I'm looking forward to reading Omarosa's book and hearing the rest of her tapes.

reply

Your explanation shows you have a bizarre fixation with Hillary since dteam's comment obviously had nothing to do with her. The comment references the FUTURE of the U.S.


I'm not sure what you are saying here. I remember when Donald Trump wasn't the president of the US and the FUTURE of the U.S. was still in question (For some).

I don't want to see that repeated again and that will take some doing to stop media manipulation, Correct The Record efforts and deleted emails from a secure position of absolute trust within the White House all going unchecked.

I'm not a Trump fan but I do think that some of the Left has proven themselves as batshit crazy as the Obama long-form birth certificate mob and nobody walks away looking good from those behaviours.

reply

And when Trumpettes don't deflect to Hillary, they deflect to Obama like you just did.

You complain about "media manipulation" yet you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by repeating propaganda from Fox.

Someone saying a lie repeatedly doesn't turn it into the truth. Unfortunately, that's Trump's tactic.

I challenge you to watch honest and balanced news instead of your biased news for one week. Real information instead of lies and distortions.
Reuters, The Associated Press, United Press International and Agence France-Presse. These are the news sources of news channels before any spin is added.

https://www.reuters.com/
https://www.afp.com/en
https://www.upi.com/
https://www.apnews.com/

Yes, I'm trying to deprogram you and have you think for yourself. In the future, you can use this website to find other news outlets that are balanced instead of demonizing all news like Trump wants you to do.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

reply

"And when Trumpettes don't deflect to Hillary, they deflect to Obama like you just did."

That's odd. I was and am a fan of Obama and so don't see how I could have deflected to him as you state I have.

"You complain about "media manipulation" yet you have allowed yourself to be manipulated by repeating propaganda from Fox."

Odder still, I don't watch Fox news unless it is a breaking story related to immediate personal safety for members of the public in a crisis situation.

"I challenge you to watch honest and balanced news instead of your biased news for one week. Real information instead of lies and distortions."

You now sound like Alex Jones - Oddest of all!

"Reuters, The Associated Press, United Press International and Agence France-Presse. These are the news sources of news channels before any spin is added."

Incorrect. Ron Fournier, head of the Bureau of Associated Press in 2007 introduced the concept of “Accountability Journalism” into their code of ethics which he felt was "cutting through the clutter” of supporting an open exchange of ideas (Even those found repugnant) and making sure to distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

This brings up the question of who determines what "spin", "distortion" and "fair comment" is?

This all happened during Hillary and Obama running for leadership of the Democratic party and again, a lot of leaning for Hillary was presented during this time. It was Twitter and the 'Blogosphere' which swung it for Obama - something now absorbed into mainstream media outlets and shown to be ineffectual alongside genuinely accountable reporting (See Gawker).

While this only represents one of your four listed examples of pre-spin journalism it is a fact which has continued since 2007 until now.

"Yes, I'm trying to deprogram you and have you think"

More Alex Jones sound bites!

Check out the news on Thursday the 16th for this impartiality you think exists. It's collusion.

reply

"I don't watch Fox news"
Fox, Breitbart or Jones. Same difference.

"Check out the news on Thursday the 16th for this impartiality you think exists."

Stop being so cryptic. If you believe news agencies aren't objective then just provide a link to a biased story.

"Incorrect....context."
That's not really incorrect. It's obviously their mission statement.

"This brings up the question of who determines what "spin", "distortion" and "fair comment" is?"

You can do that on your own if you watch different news media and fact check. I compare programs to see what's being omitted, lied about, or distorted. It's not rocket science.

Last week, Fox commentators were discussing several NY Times best-selling books that Fox personnel had written. I went to the source; the NY Times best-selling list and found out they lied about the books being on the list.

"It was Twitter..."

You're confusing political campaigning with actual news. Obama was the first president to use social media to campaign. Anyone getting "news" from social media is a fool.

"See Gawker"
Gawker is DOA. I found this info about that site, "Throughout its existence, Gawker maintained a reputation as one of the most unscrupulous elements of new media and a constant an example of yellow journalism."

I believe the reason why you're paranoid about media manipulation is because your "news" sources are so lousy. Gawker and Jones were garbage and now both defunct.

reply

"Fox, Breitbart or Jones. Same difference."

I don't watch/read them either.

"Stop being so cryptic. If you believe news agencies aren't objective then just provide a link to a biased story."

Not being cryptic; context over wordcount I'm afraid. Take it up with the admins here if you want to have both in a lengthy reply. For the record here's your link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-enemy-of-american-people-boston-globe-newspaper-editorials-a8490361.html

^Plenty more of that across the varied news outlets Keelai, I'm surprised you didn't come across any during your eclectic catalogue of controversial commercial and grassroot sources being skimmed for your range in equating news bias.

"Fox ...lied"

The sun will come out tomorrow too.

"Anyone getting "news" from social media is a fool."

Agreed. Now check your news for where their sources come from.

"I believe the reason why you're paranoid about media manipulation is because your "news" sources are so lousy"

You believe what you want but calling me paranoid will not stop Trump from being your president.

reply

You confused news agency with news media. The news agencies aka: newswire were the links that I had provided. They gather and sell news to news media and remain objective. Your link has nothing to do with them.

News media are TV news, newspapers, etc.

A newspaper editorial is an opinion piece by the editor. Every paper I read has an editorial published everyday. Here's the editorial page of your paper:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials

You appear to be complaining because on August 16th, newspaper editors are going to have an editorial. LOL. That's very normal.

200 newspapers supporting freedom of the press is a great idea and I plan to buy several different papers as a gesture of support. Too bad Trump refuses to uphold the Constitution and attacks basic American values.

You appear to know plenty about that nut Jones for someone who doesn't listen to him.

Trump's going to prison.

reply

"You confused news agency with news media. The news agencies aka: newswire were the links that I had provided. They gather and sell news to news media and remain objective. Your link has nothing to do with them."

I'm not sure of your reading comprehension level and so let's break it down to tiny nibbles that I can understand, shall we?

News Agencies such as the Associated Press have ethical dilemmas in their policies regarding editorial opinion pieces versus stating facts as known since 2007.

News Media co-opted this this slant towards editorial content since 2007 as can be seen by the number of 'bloggers' who are now calling themselves journalists and cite anonymous Twitter handles as a means to support their assertions on any newsworthy situation. Most news reads like celebrity gossip rags these days and it is regurgitated, without fact checking, across multiple platforms within minutes of being published.

"200 newspapers supporting freedom of the press is a great idea"

I agree, as long as they work within ethical standards and report on facts and not opinion as news. I think that Trump is a chump but how many of these 200+ outlets will have stated that Hillary had a 99.8% chance of winning the last election based on polls? (Source: http://horsesass.org/poll-analysis-clinton-has-a-very-good-week/)

How many checked this information independently?

You are limiting yourself to one election, one presidency and while I admire your passion with it you are being incredibly short sighted if you think this exact same mechanism won't be used against you in other standings in your life.

I am attempting to talk abstract about the Fourth Estate and you won't to bash Trump - to each their own is all I can take away from this.

As for the rest of you attempt at making sense I'm afraid it's not something I can comprehend - so there you go, you've bested me with your nuance and parlance in ways I cannot fathom.

reply

He's not MY president. He's an idiot who got elected by being a jerk reality TV star.
I look forward to Oprah and Will Smith running for the Presidency just for the hilarity of it all.
Plus they'd likely do a much better job than Mr Outrage.

reply

Don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Jimmy Keelai?

His view of Hillary isn't much different than how a lot of Democrats feel about her, especially after the bad faith she showed in the primaries against Bernie.

He also brought up Obama as a way of criticizing the loons that threw a fit about his birth certificate, not to denigrate Obama himself.

I haven't seen anything from him, at least not on this thread, to think he's who you seem to think he is. Though I haven't combed his post history, so maybe there's something else you've seen that you think warrants the lashing that I'm not familiar with.

reply

Thanks eYeDEF!

I don't think Keelai is necessarily wrong in the majority of what they are saying, it's simply that they've read a tone or sentiment in my writing which I did not present. That could very well be down to the fatigue of battling with so many Trumpeteers and expecting a cookie cutter response from them as often seems to be the case.

The short and curlies from my end is hate Trump all anyone wants, just don't forget that it was Hillary (Or more aptly her campaign and the weight behind it) that helped get him elected.

reply

Yeah and I'd guess at least half Dem voters feels similarly. The election margins were so razor thin that it came down to less than 1% in 3 states, less than 2% in six states, that it's hard for me to see how she didn't contribute to her own loss from vastly underestimating Trump and losing Michigan and Wisconsin by never bothering to campaign there. After Bernie beat her in Michigan by over performing polls some 28 points she ignored the pleadings of her precinct captains to visit the state to shore up her support, continually ignored the advice of her husband that she was losing the white working class demographics responsible for electing him into office, and instead chose to listen to her advisers that those demographics didn't matter.

I don't hold her solely responsible given all the shenanigans from Russia, but with such close margins it's hard not to think if she had taken Trump more seriously she could have eeked it out. I think her strategic decision to focus on PC feminist outrage the last month ended up playing into Trump's hands, as much as I sympathize with her cause I think she overplayed her hand. Her supporters had already alienated a lot of Bernie's contingent when they painted him as sexist while she offered nothing to shore up her base after such a raw victory that half her base saw her as rigging.

reply

I think the deplorables speech, on top of the impending hard times ahead, bias reporting from the media, missing emails and the Correct The Record super-PAC all added up in the end and had it being a little too inevitable and I think that's what saw people taking to the polls.

Had one or two elements of that been less visible I think she'd have been a shoe in, it was just - as you says - a little overplayed and made people nervous enough to elect a dumbbell like Trump into the position of President of the United States of America.

It's been entertaining to watch but let's see how far the fallout from it all actually goes. George W gave us 9/11 and the 08 market crash on his watch, if Trump can get through this first term without something similar I think I can call that well enough and perhaps a decent Democratic representative can claim it back.

reply

"Don't you think you're being a bit harsh on Jimmy "
Nope.

"He also brought up Obama as a way of criticizing the loons..."
While criticizing "The Left" for some unmentioned behavior.

Hillary deflection and obsession. Obama deflection - even if not negative, still deflects. What do they have to do with the Omarosa book?

Jimmy has forgotten that Hillary received 3 million more votes than Trumputin. Jimmy has also forgotten that Hillary's campaign lost momentum just before the election because of the Comey statement re: emails. The emails that Trump and company wanted from the Russians in the meeting at Trump Tower that they originally denied attending.

Media manipulation. Alex Jones. More right-wing crap.

"I'm not a Trump fan but I do think ..."

Everything before the word but is horses**t.
- Game of Thrones.

reply

How is the corn, beef and water from those big coastal cities eh?

Best in the world!

I think the midWest should annex itself and let the majority who vote also feed themselves within their own farms and resources and we'll see how Leftie they are when they are starving.

There's a reason the electoral college exists and it is for the benefit of everyone, not just those with the votes in their hands in big cities or rural communities.

reply

The big coastal city where I live has local farmer markets. I was just there today. Big bag of apples for $3. Two for $5! And my supervisor brings in veggies that he grows. Many fruits and veggies are imported from other countries, too! I definitely wouldn't starve.

I doubt that farmers in the Midwest want to lose anymore customers considering what Trumputin is doing to their finances.

Tap water from my state is considered among the best in the country. People love the taste and it's even available for sale for people in other states.

The electoral college was a stupid compromise to appease slave owners during the 1700s. Stop supporting regressive nonsense. Electoral college will eventually be phased out. It's too stupid to continue.

Even Newt Gingrich supports the National Popular Vote:

"...the current system for electing presidents does not reflect this tremendous diversity. The winner-take-all-method of allotting electoral votes means candidates must focus their efforts on just a handful of closely divided states...America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally."

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/newt-gingrich-endorses-national-popular-vote

reply

So the next time a Democrat is elected the electoral colleges will be stopped?
I'm pretty sure that the Republicans said the same thing when Obama was elected.

Of course, now that it has swung in their favour they'll keep it until...you know, the next time they lose.

reply

Huh?

If you follow the link, you'd see information about the National Popular Vote. As time continues, more states will sign up. It won't happen over night.

Obama deflection and obsession, again?

Nevertheless, Obama won the popular vote. Twice. Unlike Trumputin, the illegitimate president.

reply

Get back to me in a couple of decades kid, once you've seen this play a couple of times it gets boring and maybe you'll be talking to the young idealist who thinks that it will change.

reply

I'm not a kid. Older than you think. Old enough to have seen plenty of change. Now, society is changing demographically.

Trumputin has done major damage to the Republican Party re: future membership. They can kiss any potential suburban women, Hispanic and millennial future voters goodbye. Let the Republican party continue to depend on the demographically diminishing white male for votes. LOL.

Even some Republicans are disgusted and are leaving the party.

More states have been signing on for the National Popular Vote. We'll see.

reply

Sorry old hag, I just presumed you were a child because of the way you write.

Yes change happens every day and in every way.

Just think about it, women, men and especially black people weren't allowed the vote back when. Damn that oppressive patriarchy for giving them the right to vote and represent themselv...wait a minute!

reply

When people lose an argument, they resort to insults.

That oppressive patriarchy didn't "give" them anything. They fought for it through years of struggle.

BTW, initially most white men couldn't vote because the Founding Fathers only allowed landowners and businessmen. 10-15% of the American population had the right to vote and they could only vote for Congressmen and electors in federal elections. State legislatures voted for U.S. Senators.

When you allow people who are easily manipulated by lies from a conman to vote, you end up with a Trumputin in the White House.

reply

"When some people lose an argument, they resort to insults."

Fixed that for you. Also it's a bit pot calling the kettle black when people latch onto insults straight from the get-go and make prejudice assumptions about who they are speaking with.

"When you allow people who are easily manipulated by lies from a conman to vote, you end up with a Trumputin in the White House."

Ergo, let's try to make sure the gatekeepers do a better job of imparting proper information to the hoi polloi as this is how we got to the current situation we're in.

See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/15/trump-press-editorials-defence-fake-news-media-attacks-us and the OP ED they have on the situation at the top of that article.

reply

"Sorry old hag, I just presumed you were a child because of the way you write."
I consider those insults.

Trump is a conman. He cheated people who went to Trump University and refused to pay numerous employees and contractors as well as defaulted on his bank loans. And he's a pathological liar.

Anyone who believes an obvious liar and conman is easily manipulated.

My mayor is a conman too, but he was very sneaky about it. It only became obvious AFTER he came to office. I wouldn't consider those who voted for him to be easily manipulated.

Trump considers fake news to be negative coverage about him.

Remember when Trump tried to ban the book, "Fire and Fury"? Now he's trying to have Omarosa arrested for writing a book and promoting it. I'm sure they will try to find an excuse.

It's interesting how he tries to silence and discredit everyone who speaks out against him.

reply

I consider those insults.


I knew you would, that's why I called you 'kid' earlier. If some dumb schmuck can manipulate you on the Internet for free imagine what a think tank could organise when financially motivated (From either side).

"It's interesting how he tries to silence and discredit everyone who speaks out against him."

Absolutely. He's a mean kid gangster who expects to buy people off for 15K a month while he's in office. I can't see why that is in the public's interest.

That all said and done when that cloud of genuinely fake news is so thick and hazy that people can't tell who their own friends are any more you can expect plenty of others to use it as cover too.

reply

Everyone gets called kid around here, its nothing new.

reply

The price for apples will go up if the supply goes down, same with immigration and labor.

Just an observation, everyone always says their tap water is the best. Flint Michigan said their tap water was the best. I'm not even kidding. All the top scientists and regulatory bodies insisted that it had no lead in it. It was a huge scandal that follows a pattern that persists in most major cities. American tap water is notoriously low quality. We have all sorts of additives even the chlorine is not good compared to other countries that use ozone. Instead of improving, the EPA told us we now have to add Chloramine as well which was one of the main causes of lead leaching. Fluoride is an American thing too and we have higher cavities. It's like circumcision and AIDS.

This is why I don't trust the media and wonder how the Coke and Pepsi left can't see the corporatism.

reply

You're deflecting. Your original point was that I would starve since I live in a big coastal city. Nope. Not happening. Plenty of supply. Too much. Many farmer markets. My supervisor doesn't charge for his veggies. There are also neighborhood gardens. And fruit & veggie merchants on corners selling imported foods. .25 for 1 banana. $1 for 5.

Flint water is poison.
National papers have run articles about my state's tap water for years. I didn't say it was healthy. I said it tastes good. I have been to other municipalities in which the water tastes like warm spit. Bleech!

"This is why I don't trust the media"
I hope you're not advocating having a politician run the news media like they do in North Korea and other dictatorships. Autocrats fear the free press. Putin has been killing journalists and Erdogan has been imprisoning them. There's nothing worst for a corrupt politician than a journalist exposing him.

reply

There's nothing worst for a corrupt politician than a journalist exposing him.


Sexist much?

Just from very recent history, have you heard of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner?

reply

The him I was referring to was Trumputin. I was being very specific since he's the one speaking out against freedom of the press.

BTW, I did buy a few newspapers today to read their editorials supporting freedom of the press.

reply

No, wrongs.

reply

Actually I have the same opinion that there's a segment of the left, (anywhere between 15 to 20 percent in my guesstimation) that's batshit insane too, but probably for different reasons than Jimmy.

I have nothing but contempt for the hardcore Russia-skeptics on the far left that sound indistinguishable from Trump acolytes; the most high profile being that hack Glenn Greenwald. The intellectual laziness or clueless stupidity is what I'd expect from trumptards. But since Greenwald is far from stupid, in his case it's a clear case of insufferable ego and intellectual laziness. He took a hard skeptic position early and backed himself in the corner inanely accusing Democrats of creating a 'McCarthy-like' environment against ethnic Russians. I'd find it hysterical if he didn't have such a significant following and was so willing to be used as a prop by Fox News as they frequently invite him on their shows to criticize the investigation. He also traveled to Russia to be feted by the Kremlin about a month ago, so he's clearly happy to be used by Putin too. Apparently the irony is lost on him that he's championing a country that systemically persecutes homosexuals like him, both legally and extra-judicially targeted by Russian neo-fascists, not to mention his brand of vocal, political dissent in Russia typically earn Russian activists a mysterious fall off a tall building.

Have you seen this?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/why-are-so-many-leftists-skeptical-of-the-russia-probe.html

reply

That article needs to be renamed, "Why are a few of "The Nation" columnists skeptical of the Russia Probe."

All of those columnists are irrelevant to me and I've never read any of their columns. A few of them could easily be on the Russian government payroll in exchange for denouncing any investigation on Russia's interference with the 2016 election.

I doubt if Leftists in general are skeptical of the investigation. If so, link a poll from a credible source along with the methodology.

Trumputin is acting guilty with his desperate attempts to discredit and end the investigation. Omarosa is fright, he is unhinged.

reply

Greenwald isn't a writer for The Nation. He's one of the publishers of The Intercept and the writer who won a Pulitzer for breaking the Snowden story. The Intercept is central HQ for the Russo-skeptic crowd on the left because of Greenwald. Chait cited seven writers, only two are from The Nation. It frankly doesn't matter if they mean nothing to you or not given their impact on some of the thinking on the left, albeit a small but still significant minority. I was telling you because you appeared to be unaware of the phenomenon and since, to me, everything Jimmy said could have easily come someone speaking from the left based on my experience.

Why are you telling me about Omarosa or Trump's desperation like you have to convince me of anything? I never said leftists in general doubt the Russia story, I said in my guesstimation 15 to 20 percent are Russia skeptics and these are clearly not rational people, at least not on this issue. I have no hard stats, but I base that guess from my frequency of running across these people on the left and of having observed the growth of this crowd since Trump's victory. Jimmy Dore, host of the online show Aggressive Progressives is another HUGE Russia skeptic but about as far left as you can get on everything else. Kyle Kulinski, host of the left wing Secular Talk and whom I was previously and now no longer a fan of, is a skeptic and there are others as well. They blame Hillary for the loss and see the Russia story as providing a convenient excuse for establishment Democrats in congress to not take stock of their own failures and reform their corrupt practices like taking corporate PAC money or reforming the DNC. Kyle's got a following of half a million youtube subscribers so these aren't just trivial numbers or a few voices in the wilderness on the left.

reply

"He also traveled to Russia to be feted by the Kremlin about a month ago, so he's clearly happy to be used by Putin too."

How do you know the Russian government didn't buy Greenwald off in exchange for his support since someone with his reputation would appear more credible?

From your link:
"The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted."

"...Cohen is viewed by some as a Russian apologist..."

Bought and paid for?

"Why are you telling me about Omarosa or Trump's desperation...?"

Trump is also bought and paid for.

You may frequently run across that opinion because you frequent a similar type of blogger, youtube host or columnist. I never do. They're entitled to their opinion.

reply

Seriously Keelai, don't you have a little more dignity and common sense than to peddle such a poor argument that I'm somehow imagining all this because of confirmation bias visiting similar websites? This is remarkably disingenuous seeing how I already cited an article by Chait in NY Mag (who has done good work informing the public on the Russia angle and who has a far better sense of the national zeitgeist on the left than you do) about this small but significant strain of thinking among leftist literati and its progressive commentariat. You then tried to hilariously dismiss the article as exclusively citing only Nation writers when only 2 of the 7 writers Chait cited write for The Nation. I'm not sure what your point is of repeating back to me what I already told you about Greenwald possibly being bought when it has nothing to do with my point; that he remains an influential voice on the left by ideological zealots regardless of what you or I think.

I'm telling you this as a well intentioned FYI and heads up to an ideological ally, not to start a debate since the facts I've laid out are not in dispute by anyone but you, which I now find most amusing.

It's obvious you haven't ever read or encountered anyone on the left who thought this. I already knew that which is why I'm informing you. On top of the 7 writers cited by Chait I added a few youtube commentators who have significant present day followings for their liberal themed youtube political news programs. Youtube has created vast new fortunes and celebrity out of anyone who can draw an audience; payouts have meant nice careers for a new genre of political commentators. So I have to laugh when you blow off a half million youtube subscribers by Kulinski's Sectalk and 4 million to TYT where Dore hosts his Aggressive Progressives, those numbers aren't chopped liver and can be verified yourself by the real time subscriber numbers listed under every channel. Disappointing to see you dismiss and ignore easily verifiable facts like trumptards do; proof some on the left can be just as unprincipled and shut their minds off to facts.

reply

You're reading comprehension isn't very good since I never wrote that you imagined anything. I questioned Greenwald's motive as you did.

Besides a Russian government payoff, another motive would be to create a conspiracy theory or controversy to attract left-wing "ideological zealots" as you called them and perhaps right-wing extremists who can take comfort in believing that even a "liberal" agrees with them.

Right-wing media personalities like Alex Jones don't peddle conspiracy theories because they believe them. The real reason is because they tend to attract a more loyal type of listener which is great for ratings and advertising dollars. The left-wing counterpart may be doing the same.

Media personalities create a brand for themselves which they believe will sell. If their brand no longer sells then they change it or they'll have no career in media. I know a few who changed from left-wing or conservative to right-wing extremists promoting conspiracies because it was profitable. Certain buzzwords like Clinton or Russia conspiracy will get more clicks. More clicks means more viewers aka: more money.

Anyone can be on Youtube. Being popular on Youtube just means you know how to promote yourself by uploading many videos and using buzzwords to gain clicks during searches. Popularity and credibility are two different things.

Verifiable facts? You still haven't provided any statistical information from a credible source.

reply

Hmm...ok. But that requires you to get up to speed first because your grasp of youtube is archaic. Google vastly tightened up their algorithm and payout terms a number of times where it's no longer possible to game the system with clickbait marketing gimmicks. In the present scheme, clicks alone earn nothing. It's all about the size of your subscriber base with a minimum 10,000 required just to be be given a few ads to run for $100-$300 a month depending on how many viewers you can get to watch them. That's chickenshit. To make a sustainable six figure youtube living you'd need considerably more. And getting 10,000 subs is HARD. I know because it was widely reported how their last ToS change deprived a paycheck from many niche content producers that catered to loyal followings under 10,000 and drove a woman to go on a suicidal shooting rampage at Google HQ. Meanwhile, youtube viewing hours surpassed a billion in 2017 and is projected to overtake television next year. It's viewership has grown 10 fold over the last 5 years. So whether you're aware of it or not, youtube subscriber numbers are the industry gold standard. You saying they're not a "credible source" made you sound out of your depth.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/28/youtube-1-billion-hours-television/

I can tell by your "popularity and credibility are two different things" way to dismiss the youtube news shows I cited that you really have no real understanding of the significance of the medium or how the key under 40 demographic, especially on the left, turns to youtube for its source of news. TyT is the largest online news show in the world based on this gold standard, and its founder Cenk Uygur is a former MSNBC anchor who has built his brand and following by being the first to broadcast on youtube 13 years ago with his flagship TyT news channel and adding additional pundits and shows over that time with established followings of their own. For you to suggest they're not a credible or reliable source is you speaking from ignorance when this is all easily verifiable if you looked into it on your own.

reply

To be clear, Cenk himself is not a Russia skeptic. But as I mentioned he has two political pundits on his network with their own shows Secular Talk and Aggressive Progressives, who are hardcore skeptics with significant followings of their own. But Cenk and his left leaning news channel TYT is a political force in progressive politics. He founded Justice Democrats, the grass roots organization behind the recruitment and organization of the campaigns of Alexandria Occasio Cortez and other successful progressive candidates this cycle to challenge the status quo and force more progressive voices into congress.

I guess what I didn't realize is that you must be older than I am to be this out of the loop. I was under the impression you were younger based on you telling me last week you attended school with changed curriculum more recently than the period I attended 1st grade in the 80s putting me in that under 40 demographic that opts for youtube over TV.

reply

"I guess what I didn't realize is that you must be older than I am to be this out of the loop."

Ageism. You're stereotyping and making prejudiced assumptions based on your bias. Bigotry is ugly whether it's racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, etc.

I understand how youtube operates. A person with a youtube channel still has to first attract viewers with SEO before they become subscribers.

I also know about the recent monetization change at youtube. Many people with channels are complaining about their followers being unsubscribed by youtube.

Google scammed websites a few years ago, too. I have a few of my own websites running and have recently given SEO advice to a friend who just started his own youtube channel.

Ms. Aghdam probably had other issues going on unrelated to her channels.

Credibility means showing some proof.

reply

Which is what I did when I pointed to two youtube pundits part of the TYT network, one with over a half million subs and his own independent channel and the other part of the greater TYT network with over 4 million subs. This is on top of the 7 writers already cited on the left that push the Russo-skeptic angle. You just have a habit of dismissing proof of something you'd rather believe is insignificant.

Which is what you did when you tried to dismiss my proof by claiming "Anyone can be on Youtube. Being popular on Youtube just means you know how to promote yourself by uploading many videos and using buzzwords to gain clicks during searches."

But like I said, subs are the gold standard of the industry. You don't just happen upon a half million subscriptions by "uploading many videos" and "creating buzzwords". You do so by building up a viewership and a loyal following. Your ignorance of this aspect of youtube is why I felt compelled to educate you, as it revealed you had no understanding of the significance of a half million subscriptions and the years it takes to build up that kind of base. No one wastes their time watching political pundits they don't find credible. Their popularity is based on the credibility they have with their audience. Like I mentioned, I unsubbed as soon as I no longer found them credible. So your point about "popularity and credibility are two different things" to dismiss the credibility of youtube political pundits is null and void. They're plenty credible to their base.

Nor is it ageism to note that anyone under a certain age that follows politics on the left doesn't know who TYT is. Your lack of familiarity with TYT or even Greenwald demonstrated you had to be older than a certain age. No reason for you to feel insecure, I just noted I should have provided more context had I not made the wrong presumption about your age.

reply

I never said I didn't know The Young Turks or Greenwald. I could care less about Greenwald especially if he's a Putin apologist aka: bought and paid for.

BTW, Microsoft announced a cyber attack on two conservative think tank websites as well the Senate from the same Russian military intelligence unit that attacked the DNC. Why are you supporting a foreign autocrat's attack on American democracy?

You're assuming that their base is intelligent. Alex Jones has a large base, too. They're as dumb as a wall. Pizzagate, indeed!

The issue is your ageist stereotype that people are stupid or uninformed if they're not your age. Get over yourself!

reply

Your reading comprehension isn't very good since I never said people are stupid or uninformed if they're not your age. Your insecurity is getting the best of you. Again, I specifically said YOU were uninformed because you said this as your way of dismissing a half million subs and TYT's 4 million subs on youtube:

"Being popular on Youtube just means you know how to promote yourself by uploading many videos and using buzzwords to gain clicks during searches. Popularity and credibility are two different things."

I was trying to cut you some slack for sounding so uninformed. Older people have a good excuse for not understanding youtube because they didn't grow up watching it or using it as a source of news. But ok, since you insist then it's not your age, you were just plain ignorant here.

I'll also gladly call you out for such a seismically desperate attempt to deflect by accusing me of supporting Putin's election interference. Seriously? LOLOLOLOL! Ok, I hadn't originally considered accusing you of stupidity, but given just how pathetically weak and not even subtle that was (on top of your inference it's what I was saying about you anyway) I'll gladly concur that you sound pretty stupid too and this time I insist it has nothing to do with your age. 😉

But look, I'm sorry you took the age thing so personally. I genuinely did not intend to make you feel besmirched. My parents are wonderful people, very intelligent and informed, but they know nothing about youtube or the significance of TYT either. That's not any slight against them, they just came of age during a different era. I'm sure there are things they know specific to their generation that I have no clue about. It's just not something you should get so bent on believing has anything to do with "ageism". Life's too short.

reply

"I guess what I didn't realize is that you must be older than I am to be this out of the loop."
"I never said people are stupid or uninformed if they're not your age."

Your memory isn't too good.

You're also doing a great deal of deflecting by ignoring your original message which was about a few left-wing extremists with a youtube channel who deny Russia's meddling of the 2016 election. Which I reiterate, I don't care since they have no credibility.

reply

Being "out of the loop" is not synonymous with being "stupid and uninformed". I'm sorry your insecurity is forcing you to infer insults from anodyne adjectives.

That's why I brought up my parents, who are most definitely out the loop, but hardly "stupid or uninformed". I was hoping to lay your mind at ease.

And like I've proven, it's just not empirically true that it's "a few" left wing extremists. You can believe whatever you want, but ignoring empirical evidence to fit your bias only makes you every bit as contemptible as trump supporters AND the left wing extremists you deride. It's sad you're so lacking in self awareness you can't see this.

reply

Actually that's the very definition.

Meanwhile, you're ignoring the intelligence information from multiple government agencies in the United States and Europe. Microsoft recently warned that they prevented multiple hacking attempts from the Russians.

Continue to worship your youtube gurus like the good cult follower you are. Hopefully, your parents can help you with your deprogramming soon.

reply

I ignore nothing. I work in information security and know firsthand the extent of Russian meddling. I knew about that hack weeks ago prior to it being publicly published. I've argued more than a few times with Trump Russia skeptics on this site outlining the technical details of past hacks you can find in my post archives if you really care.

But again, it's hilarious to watch such an obvious deflection on your part to try to accuse me of actually being a Russia skeptic. What's even more hilarious is how you're so NOT acting your age right now. You remind me of a small child.

reply

You're deflecting since my criticism was your lack of factual sources re: the percentage of left-wing people who don't believe that the Russians were involved. An opinion is fine, but you're acting as if it's a fact. BTW, a youtube viewer doesn't necessarily agree with everything they hear which you appear to not know.

You repeatedly leap to conclusions. You were the one assuming I wasn't acquainted with a few of your gurus because I don't worship them. That was actually a wrong assumption on your part as is your belief that a person can't be acquainted with someone or something because of their age which is a prejudice. You're also assuming my age which I never mentioned.
I pointed out your ageism because most bigots are not self aware.

reply

And again, your criticism is invalid since my factual source was pointing to 500k and 4 mil youtube subs, the significance which flew entirely over your head because you thought those numbers could be achieved by anyone using "buzzwords to gain clicks". That's when I recognized you to be out of the loop and felt compelled to educate you. You're welcome.

And I already explained to you that no one wastes their time watching pundits they don't agree with. The fact that you're now revisiting an argument I already addressed and dismantled numerous times is really starting to bore me. I also already explained I don't watch any of those guys because they're Russia skeptics and I am not one, your weak attempts to accuse them of being my 'gurus' reveals you're really not he sharpest tool in the drawer, or maybe it's early onset Alzheimers. It's sad to see you've become such a bitter old man who loses track of what you say from one post to the next. You should make an effort to review your past replies to jog your memory so you don't keep wasting the time of whoever you're engaged with.

At any rate, I can't be bothered to read any further replies from you when you have a redundant habit of wasting my time by repeating yourself. Have a nice life.

reply

You have a bad habit of making assumptions about people you don't know.

Why are you assuming I'm a man when I haven't identified myself as such? Nor old. Nor ignorant of Greenwald or The Young Turks who I subscribed to a few years ago, genius.

I watch pundits who I don't agree with all the time so your comment is flawed.

Having many subscribers doesn't mean they are right. Ex. Alex Jones

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. You never did provide any factual sources.

Thank you. I would tell you to have a nice life but apparently you must want a short one in order to avoid becoming old since you're ageist.

reply

"most Trumpers KNOW that Trump is likely guilty of SOMETHING"

And here we have a libtard transferring his masturbational fantasies onto others.

The reality is, most Trump supporters KNOW that Trump is being investigated without ANY evidence he did anything wrong. When we ask for evidence, we're told that Mueller will find it.

What kind of investigation is launched based on the idea that while there's no evidence of wrongdoing, but there's a chance they could find some?

I think you should be investigated for abusing children. I have no evidence that you've abused children, but there's a chance they might come up with some evidence if they start looking.

reply

I might as well have "I'm not a liberal" as my signature as not a single day goes by where I find myself NOT having to tell a Trumper that I'm not a liberal. Seriously--do you guys come off an assembly line with pre-programmed responses in your databanks? Serious question. You sound like literally every other Trumper out there and every other Trumper out there sounds like you.

And I must also reiterate for the 1,000th time that you Trumpers don't know if there is or isn't evidence. Any evidence (or lack thereof) of wrongdoing won't be revealed by Mueller until the appropriate point in time.

You Trumpanzees are just like the DCCU fanatics: you all sound about 13 or 14 and you're all fcking idiots.

reply

I've been doing this for just about twenty years, and if I had a nickel for every time a liberal claimed they weren't liberal, I'd be a fucking millionaire.

You can put whatever you want in your signature, but it's your posts that give you away. Who you're compelled to argue with.

Here's a tip: If you find yourself compelled to argue with conservatives every day, you're a liberal. You may believe something different, but you'd be wrong.

"And I must also reiterate for the 1,000th time that you Trumpers don't know if there is or isn't evidence. Any evidence (or lack thereof) of wrongdoing won't be revealed by Mueller until the appropriate point in time."

Which is exactly what I said, right here:

"What kind of investigation is launched based on the idea that while there's no evidence of wrongdoing, but there's a chance they could find some?"

What a fucking joke. So they had no evidence to start the investigation, but Mueller's going to 'find some'.

You have to be fucking braindead to think that is legitimate.

reply

If you've been doing this for 20 years then you just delivered an insult against yourself far stronger than my "13-14 years old" comment. LMAO!!! Wow...

And thank you for the rest of your post as you've only further identified to me just how big an idiot I'm dealing with. No further serious discussion with you is necessary. You're now in "point and laugh" territory as that's about all you're good for at this point. :)

reply

Typical libtard. You can't debate the points, so you whine about me calling you names.

Once again, where was the evidence that started this 'investigation?'

reply

I'm actually great in debate. Some people here could even vouch for that. :)

I simply don't feel like wasting the time trying to debate anything with you. I only debate with people who possess at least a shred of common sense, class and even just a bit of intellect. I've debated for hours with people I 100% disagreed with and kept the whole thing civil.

You, Snags, are not worth the effort. What you ARE worth is my continued finger point/laugh. :D

reply

'm actually great in debate. Some people here could even vouch for that. :)

I simply don't feel like wasting the time trying to debate anything with you.


Yeah, it's the old, "I can debate, but not with you line."

Yes, you are wasting time debating with me because you have no facts to back you up. You just 'feel' you're right, and everyone should agree with you.

"You, Snags, are not worth the effort."

And yet you took the time to type all these words.

Not one of them backing up your argument. Just whining about me.

Classic! Hahahaahahaah!

reply

"What kind of investigation is launched based on the idea that while there's no evidence of wrongdoing, but there's a chance they could find some?"

Of course they had evidence to start the investigation. Have you been living under a rock? Why do I always have to ask Trump supporters this question?

reply

All the lies and denial can't reconcile with the truth and reality.

reply

"Why are T-rump supporters losing their minds over Omarosa's new book?"

Why has Doggie lost his mind since the election, choosing to squat on these boards day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, spewing his hatred for one person and their family?

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a psychosis?

Unless he's getting paid to do it. Now that would make sense.

reply

Last I checked, this was a discussion forum--not a Rump fansite. If you can't handle seeing your fat dictator criticized then maybe you should go to Drudge or Breitbart, snowflake.

reply

Aw, did I make fun of your assbuddy?

Have to come to his defense?

Hahahahahah!

reply

Yeah Snags, you're clearly the most stable, least extreme person on this board. You are totally qualified to pass judgment on others.

reply

Snags would have fit in perfectly on IMDB. Hell, he probably was a troll over there, too. It's so easy to push their buttons and get them to explode. Snags acts like an ADHD kid who flushed his Ritalin. XD

reply

LMAO!!! Assbuddy? What's with you Trumpanzees and all these odd, out of the blue, disturbing gay jokes that don't even fit within the context of the argument? You guys seem to have a habit of doing this on forums and news article comments, I've noticed.

And I'm not coming to Doggie's defense as 1. He doesn't require it and 2. You're too much of a joke to ever be insulting to ANYONE.

No, I replied to you to show how idiotic your complaint is. You're bitching about people complaining about Trump on a discussion board and seem to take issue with the fact that people are bashing him daily. You ignored the OP's subject at hand (as most Trumpers do), deflected (like 100% of Trumpers do) to a different subject and basically whined about the fact that Doggie bashes Trump every day.

My post merely highlighted your own idiocy, though I probably didn't need to post it at all since you're doing a good enough job of making a fool out yourself without my help. :)

I rest my case, people. He has the mentality of 13-14 year-old boy and his retort confirms it. You idiots really like to do yourselves in, don't you? Too easy.

Next! :D

reply

*yawn*

Liberals are fucking whiners.

reply

This is how liberals debate. Call people names and think they won.


This is a quote from SnagsWolf to another comment in this thread. Read the quote and then read his above response to dteam. It's borderline scary....

reply

They are the same person. Pretty obvious.

reply

"They are the same person. Pretty obvious."

I wouldn't put it past Doggie to do that. He's obviously embarrassed about posting on these forums day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, so he could've created another username (or more) just so he could spew more of his hatred.

reply

Uh-oh! Looks like Snaggy couldn't get another refill on his psychotropic meds, again.

reply

"Uh-oh! Looks like Snaggy couldn't get another refill on his psychotropic meds, again"

I'll let the sane-minded thinkers on these forums decide who the psycho is. The one on here day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, spewing his hatred for Trump and his family, or the one stopping by occasionally to make fun of the out-of-control poster.

Hint: It's an easy call. Only your liberal ass-buddies will defend your behavior.

reply

I said it before and I'll say it again - I personally can't hate someone I've never met or engaged with. You, on the other hand, find it easy to do. Why? Because it's time to call your doctor and ask for a refill on your prescriptions. That's why.

reply

"I personally can't hate someone I've never met or engaged with."

Now that's funny. You're on here day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, spewing your hatred for Trump and his family, but you deny you hate him.

More psychotic behavior. You psychos are constantly in denial.

reply

Never said "I hate T-rump" or "I hate T-rump's family".

I just share the news about him and his family - how you interpret it reflects upon you.

Try again, skippy!

reply

Doggiedaddy's right. You definitely give off the most unstable vibe throughout this thread.

Your mostly fact free hit and run diatribes say more about you than you think they do.

reply

Year after year?

Not possible since moviechat.com hasn't been around that long.

reply

Year after year?

Not possible since moviechat.com hasn't been around that long.


Doggie was posting here back in 2017, and he's still posting here in 2018.

That would be year after year.

You so want to defend your assbuddy, you stupidly ignore facts.

Hahahahahahaha!

reply

This year isn't over yet. Maybe you should try 'half year after year'.

reply

STFU troll, "Snagswolf."

It's sad people like you with no personality, no social skills, nothing to say, and lacking the intelligence to say anything worthwhile, that resort to trolling.

Honestly, you've given up on trying, and it's hard to care about someone who doesn't care.

So, stew in your lonely hatred, you socially inept dullard.

reply

STFU troll, "Snagswolf."

It's sad people like you with no personality, no social skills, nothing to say, and lacking the intelligence to say anything worthwhile, that resort to trolling.

Honestly, you've given up on trying, and it's hard to care about someone who doesn't care.

So, stew in your lonely hatred, you socially inept dullard.


Uh oh, someone got triggered.

Hahahahahahahahaa!

This is how liberals debate. Call people names and think they won.

Now that's funny.

Like I said, Doggie, only your liberal assbuddies will defend your behavior.

"So, stew in your lonely hatred"

Any rational person can see very clearly which one of us is spewing hatred.

reply

It's amazing that you can't get through a post in which you claim liberals debate by calling "people names and think they won" without calling people names yourself. You really are one of the least self aware people I've come across.

reply

T-rump supporters and fellow Rethuglikkkans are losing their minds over Omarosa's n


sorry i cant keep up with the bullshit nicknames and i dont know whos got a new book

is Omarosa = Barack Obama?

reply

I guess you don't keep up with the news, and the real world around you.

reply

Well , im trying but you journalists keep referring to people by school yard insults so its hard to keep track.

I mean look at this one for christs sake: "Rethuglikkkans" . I assume there you trying to call republicans kkk members and thugs? Its like trying to do a cryptic crossword puzzle.

reply

Vocabulary is something which is ever evolving. It's never too late to learn new words, names or phrases - keep up the good work.

reply

Omarosa worked for Trump. She was a contestant on The Apprentice years ago and has made a career as a reality show villain ever since. Well until Trump was elected at which point he offered her a job at the White House (where all good reality show villains belong).

She was fired from her White House position last December but has been in the news non-stop for the past couple weeks because she wrote a tell all book. The problem for her is that her credibility is non-existent thanks to the persona she created for herself. The good news for her is that she secretly recorded numerous conversations in the white house which are seemingly backing up a lot of what she wrote and she's become a much bigger thorn in Trump's side than anyone would've imagined.

reply

ahhhh . I see. I did hear something about recorded stuff yes.
I'd have thought exporting unauthorised recordings within the white house would be treason / death wouldnt it ? or did they forget to write that into the secrets act?

reply

Not sure how it would rise to the level of treason unless she was somehow providing confidential information to outside sources. The recordings were only of a personal nature (Kelley firing Omarosa, Trump reacting to Omarosa's firing, Omarosa and other white house aids discussing Trump's use of the N-word, Laura Trump offering Omarosa a $15,000/month job after she had been fired from the white house.

reply

oh please trump only picks sycophants and other fellow narcissists, birds of the same feather............

reply