HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kentuck » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

kentuck

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 99,410

About Me

This land is your land; This land is my land.

Journal Archives

Trump will do everything in his power to keep the Report from the Congress...

....and the American people.

He will not tell Barr to submit it to Congress, rather he will tell his allies in the Senate to continue blocking it. He does not want the evidence against him to go public. It would be too devastating.

Democrats will attempt to subpoena it but will not succeed, in my opinion.

We are watching the beginning of a cover-up.

I will be very surprised if we ever see the Mueller Report.

Six Days On The Road

Was the economy in the Midwest in such a shambles when Obama left....?

...that Trump voters had no choice but to vote for change, any type of change? They were voting out of desperation?

That is the impression I get when I listen to some of the talking heads on cable news. They were hanging on by their fingernails under the Obama economy?

Are they doing a lot better now under the Trump economy? Do they feel more secure? Do they feel better about the future for their families?

Are they more optimistic for America?

If so, then we are living in an alternate universe.

What do you think of when someone says, "the immoral, corrupt, criminal Administration"?

More than likely, you think of Donald Trump?

Is there a difference in personalizing this "immoral, corrupt, criminal Administration" with Donald Trump?

Rather than directing the criticism toward Donald Trump, would it make any difference if we just called it the "immoral, corrupt, criminal Administration"?

If we used this terminology over and over, repetitiously, would it be more effective than criticizing Donald Trump personally?

Brand Donald Trump by branding his Administration?

The DoJ guideline that prohibits indictment of a sitting president:

It is a long and tedious document.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

It wasn't just about collusion - it was about being compromised.

Adam Schiff stated it very clearly in his response to the Republicans' personal attack upon him. It is not OK that Donald Trump was lying about having no business with Russia when he was negotiating a Trump Tower in Moscow, right up to the end of his campaign. Putin and the Russians knew what he was doing but the American people did not. He was compromised by the Russians.

This administration is corrupt, just as Congressman Schiff stated. Not only was Donald Trump looking to make hundreds of millions of dollars in Moscow, he was also making untold amounts from foreigners off his properties in the US, most notably the Trump International Hotel that is just down the street from the White House. The emoluments clause to our Constitution does not apply to Mr Trump, or so it seems?

If impeachment charges are ever brought forth, these are the charges he must answer for. He may have been cleared of any "collusion" charges, but the corruption does not stop there. Congressman Schiff is doing a great service to America by attempting to expose these behaviors.

Donald Trump is far from exonerated.

====================
A related topic:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/02/schiff_the_trump-russia_compromise_is_far_broader_than_we_thought.html

Why Bill Barr cannot be trusted?

Because everyone that has befriended or allied with Donald Trump has been tainted and corrupted.

Because all of Donald Trump's actions are with evil intent. He does not understand how to be straight or honest with people. He is devious and dishonest.

It is not possible to associate with Donald Trump without being contaminated with his poison. Look at Lindsey Graham. Look at Mitch McConnell. Look at Rand Paul. Look at every person in his orbit.

It would be unwise to believe that Bill Barr was an exception. There is no good intent involved.

Hillary was right the first time...

"Deplorables".

Do they still accept that name with pride?

They are just as sick as Trump.

I have little patience today.

"Lock them up!"

It's a chilling chant now heard at Trump rallies. They were chanting about journalists and the news media.

He knows he only needs to lock up one.

That is all it would take.

It is a very scary time.

We do not know how close we are to the edge?

Name Calling (From the Institute of Propaganda Analysis 1938)

(Sorry the link does not work) http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/Propaganda/name.html

"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

The most obvious type of name calling involves "bad names." For example, consider the following:

Commie
Fascist
Pig
Yuppie Scum
Bum
Queer
Feminazi

A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of negatively charged words include:

social engineering
radical
stingy
counter-culture

The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.

What does the name mean?
Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »