What's your news source?

The Murdochs are Jewish??

 

No but they might as well be. Fox News is heavily influenced by Jews. Jews have a 2000 percent over-representation rate in our country's media. Those are the facts.

 

LOL at someone preferring to get their news from an openly pro-Trump "news" source like OAN.

 

No, LOL at angry progressives preferring to get their propaganda from MSNBC.

 

They also have won lots of prizes for doing science. Shame on them! They should get out of the way and stop doing that!

 

Jews are overrepresented in many professions because they are highly educated from an early age, but several of the people you are calling "Jewish" are Christian, or they just have one Jewish ancestor: Gutfeld, Colby, Francis, and ... Maria Bartiromo? You seriously think she's Jewish?

 

I did not call them jewish, but I did note their pics had the star on them, reminding me of the stars they had to wear on their clothing under nazis. Never goes away, does it.

 

I wasn't responding to you, but rather to RiseAgainst at 6:47 above.

 

Pointless intellectually dishonest deflection.

 

To answer the OP, I tend to check NYT, WaPo, Drudge, WSJ, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Politico, etc. Nearly all groups lean one way or the other and if you approach it from an open-minded standpoint, you can sometimes find something that will adjust your worldview.

For example, this link from CNN expressed the dichotomy of the balance between personal freedom and gun ownership versus the safety of others in a manner that has me seriously considering whether semi-automatics have any place in modern society. I think I may have adjusted my position on the matter.

 

there's always daily stormer, goo.gl, and russophile, for your non jewish "pure" news sources.

 

I think Andrew Anglin is an idiot

 

Good. I think the poster in question think that we are occupied by jews? But here is the truth of the matter, and it has nothing to do with our jewish americans. Wealth is power, for wealth has always influenced and affected political systems, for politicians need money to finance very expensive campaigns, and those people who generally get power at the top, do not like giving it up. It must be as some have said very intoxicating to these kinds of people, and there is probably a higher rate of sociopaths up at the top.

I do not believe in a jewish conspiracy no more than I think jews were responsible for the Plague and they at one point were blamed for it. I think wealth buys policy and favors regardless of your race or ethnicity And we have some rich jews. Some of us celebrate people who have become rich and powerful, unless they happen to be jewish.

But instead of blaming the power of wealth, and the puppet politicians who work for wealthy people, some of us will blame the jews. Has nothing to do with the jews and everything to do with the power of wealth upon a gov't.

 

much more than just that.

 

What's pointless about it? You laugh at me and I laugh at you. You want a medal for your point of view?

I don't know what you mean by dishonest. I honestly do watch all the networks (I already said that) but I like OAN, which covers the same stories, because there are some fresh faces, they read the news straight, they don't preach at me, and they don't hate Trump like you and everybody else. The interviews are obviously coming from a conservative point of view, but where's the crime in that?

 

I can't say that that is false; people with the brains to accumulate wealth naturally will find themselves in positions of power, in any form of government.

But ... I always found it fascinating to hear Obama and other Dems rail against Citizens United (without of course having bothered to read it), which was supposedly going to be the guarantor of victory for the rich. But Obama ran against Romney. All the CU money poured in ... for Romney.

Now ... Did Romney win?

 

Did the elites also finance obama? Sure. Many elites are buying policy and sometimes favors when they finance campaigns. And many will hedge their bets by giving both money. Yet the big bankers, and MNCs elites, and those that own these businesses will reap the benefits from the contributions of others in their same class. After all MNCs and big banks have a commonality in self interests.

Allowing money from special interests to be injected into our political system will yield exactly what Princeton found and evidenced using congressional record, and what it yielded is a paradigm where only the elites who finance campaigns get their interests represented in DC in the form of legislation, rules, policy, etc. Whereas the average american does not get represented much at all. And for decades the interests of the elites has been destructive upon the rest of america, who are no considered at all when the banks and MNCs and the elites who own them get paid back for the money they gave to finance campaigns. It really is pay to play. And not new, but is at levels not seen since the Gilded Age.

Back then, there were cases when a particular rich elite in a state would literally purchase his congressman or senator. And no doubt, given what the congressional record evidences, something of this nature is prolific in DC today. For when you tie a man keeping his power, as a congressman or senator, with who finances their campaigns, you will naturally get corruption, and the usurping of a republic. And this has happened with no end in sight. There was a total lack of intelligence involved when this was allowed. But then again, I do not think it was a lack of intelligence coming from Ivy League lawyers in congress, but instead of intelligence being used to corrupt a republic in their own self interests.

Yes, I have this quaint idea that a gov't, that is by and for the People, a representative republic has a bound duty to actually represent those People. And when the wealth of special interests usurps that, then something needs to be done. Like getting money out of politics. For we know money will corrupt men who seek and demand holding onto this intoxicating ruling class power, status and prestige. And it is as predictable as the rising and setting sun.

I think trump was feared by many elites for one simple reason. He would not have owed them policy, or favors in their own self interests, since he unlike hillary owed them very little in campaign contributions. And every man for decades who walked into the oval office owed our elites a good return on their investment. ROI. And it looks by what has happened to america, they indeed got a tremendous return on their investment. The wealthy did not get and cannot stay wealthy by just throwing away their money. They purchase policy, law, regulations and if there was no return, they would stop investing. It is the american way.

Unless we reform and get money out of politics, the People will never be represented in DC and the big bankers will continue to dictate what our economic model is. That BTW is 180 away from what the Founders set up, in regards to protecting ones own people and economy from slave labor. And of course the erosion of national sovereignty that has came from these so called free trade agreements. If you believe in national sovereignty, the faux liberals will knee jerk into white nationalism. ha ha. If you put your own citizens above the people in other nations, the big banks and MNCs will make sure they buy enough politicians so that is not an option. Some on the right call this bribery free speech. ha ha. And in a convoluted manner they are right, in that it takes speech in order to bribe.

 

I totally agree that campaign finance reform is a necessity. All that dark money is poisonous

Trump is no exception. If anything he's putin's puppet now that his "hoax" has resulted in 14 indictments of russians and his pitiful response. That's a very special interest, wouldn't you say?

 

There is no longer any credible news source in America or in the world today.

But I sure don't use CNN, MSNBC, the WaPo or the New York Times and have never used Face Book as a news source never.

 

LOL. We must have not read the same report on these 13 or 14 russians. None were tied to the trump campaign. And all that I saw in so far as affecting the election was no effect, unless you think some of them voicing hillary to lose in social media made hillary supporters vote for trump. ha ha

Their crimes involved other things, and not working with trump, a conspiracy. Of course if you have the evidence they worked with trump on this conspiracy, present it. If they tried to be conspirators with trump and were employed to do that, then that is a horse of a different color. But if they were unable to get on the inside, I would say trumps team was good enough to keep them out. And should be commended for that.

I will just be glad when Mueller is finished, although if he is like Starr, he will drag it out for as long as he can. If he finds a conspiracy, then prosecute. If not then we will know just how politically driven this deal was, perhaps even a ruse, which IMO is what drove much of it. The dems today remind me so much of the GOPhers when clinton was in office and starr was on him.

 

Only one reference to "unwitting" contact by trump campaign members, in the indictment. Nothing more.

OTOH, they sure do detail exactly what the russians were doing with an astonishing level of detail. Wonder if they have the same level of detail in some of the other lines of investigation, only one of which is "collusion".

 

I like the Morning Joe show with coffee but I would have already heard BBC curtesy of NPR. CBS for evening news and I get a kick out of Chris Mathews even though he gets a bit carried away.

Joe Scarborough is an honest class act guy... who tells it how it is... once in a while Ibwill catch 5 or 10 minutes of Rachel Madcow...

 

It's worse for the Trump haters than "none were tied." The indictment expressly describes them as unknowing, and Deputy AG Rosenstein repeated this verbally, along with "it had no effect on the election."

I almost feel badly for the Trump haters at this point: not only did their pre-ordained Queen lose (again), which threw them into hysterics, now they can't even comfort themselves with the delusion of an illusion of collusion with the Roosians.

I'm copyrighting that last phrase so don't go copying it.

 

Going to milk that for all it's worth, are we? Well, I don't begrudge you a flicker of hope.

 

No!!

Not anywhere near the extent to which they backed Romney. Come on, guy. Over 57% of Obama's donations were in increments of under $200.00. Who do you think sent in all that money? (It was only 24% of Romney's campaign chest.)

Of course there were some PACS that backed Obama, but the point is that Obama was not the choice of the rich as the CU haters still like to claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/campaign-finance.html