[Breitbart]This is what I've been waiting for.
Viewership of news media coverage of Tuesday nightâs presidential election collapsed by 26 percent, compared to 2020.
Tee hee.
That is a huge-huge drop, and the excuses coming from the usual suspects make no sense.
During the viewing "period of approximately 7-11 p.m. ET across 18 networks, specifically: ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CW, Merit Street Media, Scripps News, Telemundo, Univision, CNBC, CNN, CNNe, FOX News Channel, FOX Business Network, MSNBC, Newsmax, NewsNation, PBS," reports far-left Variety, the "overall rating for the night was a 13.3, with approximately 28.45 million households."
"That is down significantly from network coverage in 2020, which drew an estimated 56.9 million viewers, equalling a drop off of approximately 26%."
And then we arrive at my favorite part:
A number of factors no doubt contributed to that decline, including the fact that people were still largely under lockdowns due to COVID during the 2020 election.
You see, when it suits the left, we are told that the pandemic increased television viewership. But when the bottom falls out of the ratings for the Oscars and Emmys and other Hollywood award shows, we were told the pandemic resulted in fewer viewers.
Let me tell you what I think happened. This is just one manâs opinion.
Viewership of the news mediaâs coverage of Tuesday nightâs presidential election collapsed by 26 percent, compared to 2020.
Normally, I donât work for a living. Iâm a semi-retired part-timer. But on Election Day, I work for a living. Iâm there for the duration. On Tuesday, I put in a 20-hour day and loved every minute of it, especially because all of Donald Trumpâs enemies walked away with a face job.
Now, in order to do my job on Election Day and Night, I have to know what the hell is going on, and for the first time in 40 years of watching election returns, I did not turn on the TV. Why? A few reasons... 1) I hate almost everyone on TV, 2) the news media lie and spin and make everything about them, and 3) I was afraid Iâd miss something.
Work-wise, the third reason was the most important, but even if I had the night off, it wouldâve been the most important. Working or not, I want the most accurate information as soon as possible. So where did I spend the evening? On Xwitter. Everything I desired was on Xwitter. Not only did the results come fast and furious, but so did the thing the corporate media have abstained from for years: context.
Elon Musk for the win? I can get into that.
When I wanted to know what the campaigns were feeling, that behind-the-scenes stuff, I tuned into Mark Halperinâs online show.
Also, over this election season, I had curated a handful of data-driven Xwitter accounts that earned my trust and followed those on Election Day.
I bet I wasnât alone, and Iâll bet a lot of people who did tune into the news networks hardly watched as they refreshed various social media accounts. Millions were undoubtedly watching podcasts.
As I wrote on Wednesday, We the People are the media now.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/08/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
26% - attention advertisers, are you getting your monies worth from legacy media? Yeah, boycotting X, that's the ticket. /sarc
[TheMix] Donald Trump has officially won the 2024 presidential election over Kamala Harris. This could have major implications for British royals Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who are in the midst of a precarious visa battle.
HARRYâS VISA BATTLE
Ever since he moved to Southern California back in 2020, Harry has been trying to become a U.S. citizen. Harryâs visa application has since come under scrutiny after the royal admitted in his memoir Spare to using cocaine, smoking marijuana, and experimenting with magic mushrooms as a teenager.
Back in February, Trump spoke out to say that President Joe Biden had been âtoo graciousâ to Harry since his move to California.
Now that Trump is going to be president again, however, Harryâs dreams of U.S. citizenship may be dead in the water.
âI wouldnât protect him,â Trump has said of Harry. âHe betrayed the Queen. Thatâs unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me.â
Before the election, Trumpâs son Eric spoke out to say that Harryâs U.S. visa is only safe because âno one caresâ about him. He added that his father âlovedâ Queen Elizabeth and was deeply disturbed by the stress that Harry and Meghan caused her in her final years.
âTruthfully I donât give a damn about Prince Harry and I donât think this country does either,â Eric said, going on to suggest that Harry had âgone off the deep end and itâs sad to watch.â
Eric Trump said that Americans, himself included, donât give a damn what Prince Harry and Meghan Markle think.
TRUMPâS HISTORY WITH HARRY AND MEGHAN
Thereâs no love lost between Trump and the royal Sussexes. Indeed, before marrying Harry, Meghan was a Hollywood actress who was outspoken about her anti-Trump views.
âYes, of course, Trump is divisive, think about female voters alone, right?â Meghan said in a 2016 interview with talk show host Larry Wilmore. âI think it was in 2012 the Republican Party lost the female vote by 12 points; that is a huge number and with as misogynistic as Trump is, and so vocal about it, that is a huge chunk of it.â
âYouâre not just voting for a woman if itâs Hillary because sheâs a woman, but certainly because Trump has made it easy to see that you donât really want that kind of world that heâs painting,â she added
*shrug* The Sussexes did just buy a house in Portugal on the ocean near his cousin, so that the royal-ish children could play together. (Iâve lost track of whose children are still princes and princesses, and which merely lord/lady or Honourables, not that it really matters) But that means if Duke Harry canât stay in America, he and the fam have a place to go.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/08/2024 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, there's the "hit the grift limit in LA" thing (you wouldn't think it possible), and then, Harry would likely want to try to use the kids to mend fences with Charles. If he waits until William gets his promotion to try, he'll be told to leave.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
11/08/2024 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
[RT] The majority of African countries are now well on the way to strengthening their own independence and their own institutions in various fields, including finances, politics, and culture. This is a long and complex journey, but one that is strategically necessary in an increasingly unpredictable world where only strong states can be truly independent.
For Russia, cooperation with Africa is not just a set of economically driven projects with a win-win outcome, but also an essential part of building a new foreign policy architecture and a fairer global order.
In a practical sense, African sovereignty demands investments, which means that it is a costly project for the African nations themselves. However, in the long run, investments in sovereignty usually pay off, and form the basis for the well-being of nations for many years to come.
The majority of African countries are now well on the way to strengthening their own independence and their own institutions in various fields, including finances, politics, and culture. This is a long and complex journey, but one that is strategically necessary in an increasingly unpredictable world where only strong states can be truly independent.
For Russia, cooperation with Africa is not just a set of economically driven projects with a win-win outcome, but also an essential part of building a new foreign policy architecture and a fairer global order.
In a practical sense, African sovereignty demands investments, which means that it is a costly project for the African nations themselves. However, in the long run, investments in sovereignty usually pay off, and form the basis for the well-being of nations for many years to come.
A great deal more verbiage at the link, which no doubt is of interest to someone more clever than I, else Skidmark would not have posted it.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
[ColonelCassad] The American media have begun to throw out general outlines of proposals for ending the war in Ukraine, which come from Trump's entourage.
1. Stopping the war on the current front line with the creation of some kind of dividing demilitarized zone.
2. De facto recognition of the transfer of the currently controlled territories of the DPR, LPR, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions (excluding Kherson, Zaporizhia and western Donbass) under the control of the Russian Federation without legally recognizing their belonging to Russia.
3. Postponing Ukraine's accession to NATO for 20 years.
4. Continuing to arm Ukraine after the cessation of hostilities.
In the current reality, these conditions actually mean that the Russian Federation will not achieve the goals of the NMD.
1. Current conditions - DPR, LPR, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions in their full borders, that is, the entire Donbass, the entire north of Zaporizhia and the city of Zaporizhia, the right-bank part of the Kherson region and the city of Kherson. This is what was announced in June. Now the conditions, due to the situation at the front, will be even worse.
2. The proposed conditions do not solve the problem of Ukraine being drawn into NATO and the threat being formed for Russia on the territory of Ukraine. Instead of stopping Ukraine's involvement in NATO, there will only be a formal delay, and instead of demilitarization, there will be arming of Ukraine.
3. These conditions also do not solve the problem of protecting the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, denazification and its general neutralization.
4. These conditions also do not solve the problem of legitimizing new regions of the country, issues of sanctions, etc.
In general, these conditions are beneficial to the United States and Ukraine, which will allow them to gain time, get a respite for rearmament and resuming the war at any convenient moment, with even more active involvement of NATO in it.
As the Kremlin has repeatedly noted, negotiations with the United States on Ukraine are possible, but only if systemic issues of indivisible international security are resolved. The announced conditions give Russia little and do not allow achieving key goals. Therefore, in this form, the proposals will most likely be rejected.
Russia is ready for peace talks on Ukraine based on realities and the agreements already reached in Istanbul, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on November 7 at the plenary session of the annual XXI meeting of the Valdai Forum.
The Russian leader stressed that negotiations on Ukraine should not lead to a âhalf-hour or half-year truce.â
âWe are ready for peace talks, but not on the basis of some wishes, the names of which change from month to month, but on the basis of the realities that are taking shape, and on the basis that were achieved in Istanbul,â Putin said.
At the same time, Putin noted that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples remain fraternal, despite the tragic events.
As reported by the Regnum news agency, on October 25, President Putin stated that there would be no "exchanges" in the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. The head of state recalled that Moscow, unlike Kiev, has never rejected the possibility of negotiations, but agreements should not be to the detriment of Russian interests.
The Russian leader noted in early September that Russia was ready for negotiations with Ukraine, but only on the basis of previously recorded agreements. Putin specified that such agreements had been reached in Istanbul.
In June, the Russian president, at a meeting with the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, named the conditions for peace talks with Ukraine. Among them were the withdrawal of Ukrainian formations from Russian regions - the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the Zaporizhzhya and Kherson regions, and Kiev's refusal to join NATO. Kiev rejected the Russian peace plan.
#2
Ukraine is Russia's buffer zone. It always has been. Russia has always relied on vast distances between them and their enemies to the West. That's why expansion of NATO into Ukraine is unacceptable to them. NATO leaders will claim that their intentions are peaceful but after the travesty of the Minsk accords and then the Maidan coup, how can Russians trust them?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/08/2024 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
[LettersFromAustralia] The Censorship Bill now before the Parliament was punched through the lower house in a shock vote on Thursday, November 7.
They did this on the sly, while we were looking at the US elections - then blinded us with the squid ink of âban on social media for under-16sâ.
It has now passed both the Second and the Third Readings, which leaves just the Senate to stop it with a vote.
This âMisinformationâ Bill will give an unelected bureaucracy (ACMA) control of everything you can hear, see and say on social media, censoring the internet.
ACMA is full of Permanent Canberra bureaucrats, spies and ex-cops. They will decide what is âaccurateâ and what is âwrongâ or âliesâ and then censor what they deem âmisinformationâ.
You will never again see or share a dissenting scientific, medical or economic opinion if the Government decides it is causing too much flack for the bureaucracy or their corporate âpartnersâ.
If you want free speech you must act now, thereâs no time to waste. Senate sits next on November 18 - you can see the calendar here.
To stop this Bill you need to contact the Senators in your state - and tell them that if they vote this into law, that you will punish them at the next election and campaign actively to have them voted out. Go in person (but be polite) to your nearest electoral office. Failing that, phone their office. Be always calm and polite - never rude.
There must be electoral consequences for this.
I will update this Substack with a record of how they voted. They will not be forgotten.
This Bill will not only censor the internet, it will back-engineer censorship of corporate media where the metric of journalistic success is clicks and shares on socials.
If socials are censored for what the government calls âmisinformationâ then The Guardian, ABC, SBS and Nine will all self-censor, too.
Lawyer Tony Nikolic accurately pinpointed that the institutions that stand behind this âmisinformationâ censorship bill - media organisations, government agencies, regulatory bodies and bureaucracies - are not neutral arbiters of truth. Rather, they are gatekeeepers, filtering and sanitising information to protect their own interests.
I will add that they are the bureaucratic class of university-educated entitled people, who despise the blue-collar working class. They hate you and they will not share power with you, and they are afraid of you. That is why they want to control what you can say and share online.
âFree speech is not dangerous,â Nikolic wrote.
âIt is the cure for misinformation, prejudice, and bias. It is through the clash of opinions, unfettered debate, and the exchange of ideas that we as a society find truth.â
More than 22,000 people have signed a petition against the Bill as of November 8: click the button below to add your voice.
But only if you are Australian. Foreign voices have no vote for such petitions.
#2
Note - this is NOT the same as the plan to ban kids under 16 from socials which is a good idea
This is a plan to set up a ministry of truth to censor the internet for everyone including preventing you from sharing dissenting science, economics or medical opinions
The government has brought this up because parents love the idea and it is controversial
So it takes all the air time
What they are REALLY doing, under cover of the US election and this red herring, is pushing through the CENSORSHIP BILL
The Democrat-aligned âblobâ (deep state, state dept, cia, nsa, fbi, censorship industrial complex) has been going round the world getting europe and the anglosphere to set up bureaucracies to CENSOR the socials
This means you cannot critise health policy, bureaucracies or corporations on Substack, Tik Tok, Twitter, YouTube, FaceBook or anywhere there is one-to-many broadcasting like whatsapp
This will CENSOR DISSENT and while it was aimed at trump and trump won, it hasnt stopped over here in australia
They are ramming it through faster than ever
What the goal is, is to CENSOR the USA bypassing your 1a protection
Because when the big social firms have to comply with censorship legislation in Au, UK, Canada, NZ, EU, it is easier to just apply a blanket policy patrolled by AI across the entire platform including in the USA
So YOU get censored by default
And bye the way, this back engineers censorship of fox, msnbc, cbs, cnn, abc etc
Know why? JOUrNALISTS metric of success is how much a story is shared and how many clicks it gets. They wonât write what wonât get shared on socials or their career falls
#4
Sounds like censorship to me. Just like keeping kids in school until they're 18 sounds like prison. If they can't watch their smart phones, then they have to watch TV, is that it? And the government controls the TV?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/08/2024 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Reminds me of the late 1990âs when the GIVERnment shut down NAPSTER and online music sharing. Someone in my daughterâs high school set up a private server and 400+ students shared all their music. I really do not know how you shut down forums, gaming socials, special interest pagesâŚ.
So they are using it toBLIND you to what they actually want go pass which is ANOTHER bill that censors all social media platforms
This other censorship bill appoints a bureaucratic agency, a ministry of truth called ACMA to force social media firms to censor themselves for âmisinformationâ
WHAT THE TRUMP VICTORY MEANS FOR OUR ECONOMY
The decisive election of Donald Trump to a second presidential term has fueled the hopes of investors for a renewal of economic momentum, a stronger labor market, a revived manufacturing sector, and more abundant energy. As a result, the stock market has soared to new highs.
Voters have long signaled their rejection of âBidenomics,â the combination of big-spending and centralized command-and-control economic policies built around leftwing social and environmental goals that led to the worst explosion of inflation in four decades. Many told pollsters that they believed their own household financial positions had worsened during the course of the Biden administration and said they preferred the economy when Trump was president.
Of course, Trump cannot simply turn back the clock to the pre-Biden era. Too much damage has been done to the economy, and new challenges have to be met with new policies.
Investors have so far focused on three major policy changes likely to be adopted in a second Trump administration. The first is tax cuts, both for workers and companies that produce goods domestically. The second is tariffs, which would likely help domestic manufacturers and encourage investment in the U.S. The third is the unwinding of the massive growth of regulatory red-tape seen in the Biden administration.
But a fourth policy that could supercharge the economy and advance Trumpâs agenda is less familiar. Among the advisers to the president, discussions are occurring around using bank regulation to encourage investment in high-tech manufacturing, energy production, and the re-shoring of production.
PRESERVING THE TAX CUTSâAND THEN GOING DEEPER
The power of Trump tax cuts is probably underestimated by a lot of economic analystsâalthough perhaps not by financial markets. Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden before her, had promised to turn back Trumpâs 2017 taxes on businesses, raising the top corporate rate to 28 percent. Combined with state taxes, the average corporate tax rate would have risen to 32.2 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. In several states, including California, it would have exceeded 34 percent.
The risk of higher tax rates was likely already holding back investment by companies, lowering employment and slowing innovation. When businesses calculate the after-tax returns on investmentsâwhich is ultimately what matters to their shareholdersâthey do not just use that current statutory rate but the rates they expect to face in the future. So, when many businesses expected a Harris winâand surveys showed that chief financial officers were more likely to expect a Harris presidencyâthey pulled back on investment.
So, just by securing the current 21 percent corporate tax rate, Trumpâs victory makes room for greater investment and higher after-tax corporate profits. This is one of the reasons the stock market has reached new highs in the days following Trumpâs election.
But Trump is offering more than just preserving the status quo. He has promised even lower corporate tax rates, particularly for firms that manufacture goods in the United States. Those tax cuts would further boost investment not just by companies already manufacturing goods here but also for companies that currently manufacture elsewhere that they then sell into U.S. markets. The 15 percent rate floated by Trump would provide a powerful incentive not just for U.S. companies to reshore their manufacturing but for foreign companies to build factories in the U.S. and hire American workers.
The tax cuts Trump has proposed for workers, including elimination of taxes on overtime pay and tips, as well as the end of taxation of Social Security benefits would give many Americans more money to spend and invest. This could help bolster consumer spending in a period where many economists fear weakening now that the last of the pandemic-era savings appear to have dwindled or been exhausted.
REGULATIONS AND TARIFFS
Itâs hard to quantify the extent of the economic benefits of deregulation, but they are likely to be quite large. Even before actual deregulation occurs, lifting the risk of ever-escalating regulation under the Harris administration is likely to energize growth. Snipping the regulatory ropes that have shackled business, including costly mandates around climate change and DEI, will make it easier and more rewarding to start new businesses and expand existing ones.
Tariffs build on each of these. While additional costs for imports may offset some of the benefits from preserving tax cuts, those costs will be far lower than the tax hikes Harris was pushing. If tariffs were to become a drag on the economyâwhich is unlikelyâthe revenue they produce could fuel even further tax cuts. Whatâs more, by encouraging domestic production, tariffs will broaden the U.S. tax base, accelerate growth, increase employment prospects, and have multiplier effects throughout the economy for businesses that provide goods and services to the new U.S. factories.
The fourth leg of the edifice for the new Trump economy is likely to come from an unexpected place: bank capital requirements. While it is well-known that Republicans plan not only on stopping the Elizabeth Warrens and Michael Barrs of this world from squeezing bank lending even further, some Republicans with ties to the Trump administration have a more ambitious agenda.
BANKING ON THE NEW TRUMP ECONOMY
Capital requirementsâthe amount of equity funding banks must use when making loansâcould be adjusted to encourage economically beneficial lending. Loans for oil and gas exploration or pipeline construction would carry low capital charges, for example. Loans to companies expanding high tech manufacturing in the U.S. could be encouraged through lower risk weighs.
Unlike direct subsidies, which often lead to waste because companies are spending taxpayer funds rather than their own, companies would still be on the hook for these loans, and banks would still be taking risks in hopes of profit. Free market principles would still direct investment, but with less drag from regulation for activities deemed central to our economic might and national security.
Many of these pro-growth reforms can begin even without Congressional action. Only the additional tax cuts would require new laws to take effect. But each of them could be strengthened if Congress later enshrined the changes into law, guaranteeing that the next administration could not undo them with the stroke of a pen.
#2
Closing the border is easy. Just send the 1st Infantry division, the 82nd Airborne, and the 4th Armored division to gaps in the wall, and shoot anybody that tries to cross. Word will get around, and the flow will dry up. THIS IS AN INVASION. TREAT IT AS ONE.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/08/2024 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Drill, Baby, Drill. Drop the price of gas/diesel that is woven into everything we buy, you'll see a rebound.
Direct Translation via Google Translation. Edited. by Gregor Spitzen
[REGNUM] What had been talked about for so long and quietly prepared for in the German Bundestag for months has finally happened: On November 6, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) announced the expulsion of Finance Minister and leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) Christian Lindner from the government. This means the collapse of the ruling "traffic light" coalition, a vote of confidence in the Chancellor in January and, most likely, early parliamentary elections in March next year.
After three years of work, the federal government, consisting of the SPD, the Greens and the FDP, is ending its work with a bad taste in the mouth from an internal corporate scandal and the airing of dirty "coalition" laundry for all to see.
After the coalition committee failed to agree on a common economic and financial policy on Wednesday evening, Scholz accused his finance minister of "violating his trust too often." According to Scholz, the FDP leader was not concerned with the interests of the country, but only with his own "clientele" of big business. In explaining his decision, Scholz accused Lindner of selfishness and pursuing short-term interests.
You can have different attitudes towards the former finance minister. You can dislike his party, which in its love for the free market and libertarianism sometimes descends to almost social Darwinist positions and openly lobbies for the interests of the military-industrial complex. However, despite the complexity of Lindner's character, he was one of the few real professionals in the "traffic light coalition" who really understand the business they were entrusted with.
The Minister of Finance must economize by definition. And Lindner, fully aware that Germany's fattest years are already behind him, called on his colleagues at the "traffic light", who are used to putting out any fire with banknotes, to moderate their appetites. And not to throw away billions of euros so madly on "green wishes", excessively inflated social programs and aid to Ukraine, which has exceeded all reasonable limits and has crossed the astronomical figure of âŹ40 billion.
Lindner took the chancellor's speech (which had obviously been in the works for a long time, as it was filled with an overview of the government's activities and elements of election rhetoric) as an opportunity to accuse Scholz of "deliberately breaking the coalition." The chancellor, according to the former minister, was no longer interested in compromise and had even stopped accepting proposals from the FDP on economic reform projects.
Instead, Scholz issued an ultimatum to Lindner to soften his stance on increasing the national debt, which would allow the Greens and Social Democrats to continue to enthusiastically finance their political projects at the expense of future generations of Germans.
Lindner, somewhat pompously but quite reasonably, objected that such a demand was in conflict with the oath he had taken to the German people, and refused to continue cooperation under such conditions. "For three years, the FDP had demonstrated political responsibility and a willingness to compromise 'within the limits of what was acceptable,'" he said. But this time the limits had been seriously exceeded.
The Finance Minister did not limit himself to describing the situation, but took a tough stance against Scholz.
The Chancellor, he said, had long ignored and downplayed the dire economic situation in Germany. Now he has decided to put forward proposals that are "not serious and not ambitious" and do nothing to overcome the country's fundamental weakness in economic growth. "Unfortunately, Olaf Scholz has shown that he does not have the strength to breathe new life into the country," Lindner concluded.
In fact, Scholz's main proposal was to increase the government debt threshold, which would include a cap on energy costs, subsidies for the auto industry, and a guarantee of continued support for Ukraine after Trump's victory in the US elections.
By and large, the Chancellor is doing the same thing he did when he was Finance Minister in Angela Merkelâs cabinet â solving political problems with borrowed funds, without really thinking about who will repay these loans and how.
âHelicopter moneyâ in the era of the coronavirus pandemic, energy subsidies and subsidies for the purchase of electric cars, the creation of a special fund for the Bundeswehr financed by government debt - all these are projects of the current chancellor, which have cost Germany hundreds of billions of euros.
In fact, Scholz's idea of ââcreating special funds alongside the regular budget in order to reconcile "green" climate, "social democratic" social and "liberal" financial policies became the cement for the highly contradictory "traffic light coalition".
However, any manipulation of finances and public debts has its limits.
In November 2023, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled the financial ploys to create further shadow budgets unconstitutional, and this marked the beginning of the end of the coalition. The cautious Lindner was no longer willing to take constitutional risks.
If you look at it objectively, the Chancellor's reasoning is, to put it mildly, indeed questionable from a legal point of view.
He believes that the Russian special operation in Ukraine and the election of Donald Trump as US president, which is expected to be followed by a reduction in American aid to Ukraine, constitute an emergency comparable to a natural disaster. And if lava from an erupting volcano is approaching the country, then, according to the Chancellor, there is no time for neatness.
However, Lindner's departure from the government coalition will lead to its collapse and early parliamentary elections, which do not bode well for Scholz. Both the Chancellor's personal popularity and that of his SPD party are far from being enough to claim the post of head of government in the new cabinet.
However, having gotten rid of Lindner, Scholz may try to pass a series of bills requiring an increase in the national debt, thus sacrificing himself to the interests of a certain part of the German elite, and only then sink into political oblivion.
Direct Translation via Googler Translate. Edited. by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] The recent presidential elections in the United States ended in a real triumph for Donald Trump and the Republicans. The extent of his victory surprised even many of Trump's fellow party members, who had hoped for success but were confident that the gap with Kamala Harris would be minimal. How did they manage to achieve such a result and what will it mean for America and the world?
Trump's campaign team had been radiating confident optimism for the last three or four weeks before the election. The teammates had even begun to divide up the posts in the future administration in advance. It seemed a bit reckless, but such optimism was based on closed polls conducted by the Republicans, which pointed to Trump's victory in all seven key states.
As a result, the closed sociology of the Republicans turned out to be much closer to reality than public polls or electoral models of the Democrats. American sociologists once again underestimated the level of support for Trump, as was already the case in 2016 and 2020. True, in this election they at least did not write him off. But the consensus was that Trump would take only some of the states and the distribution of electors would be approximately equal.
In the end, Trump won quite easily with 312 electors, both in the southern US â in Arizona, Nevada â and on the east coast â in Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. He also managed to win in the Midwest â in Michigan and Wisconsin. It was a real âred waveâ that literally washed away the Democrats. The Republicans showed a sharp increase in their level of support in almost all of America.
Former swing states like Florida and Ohio gave Trump a whopping 12-13 point lead. Even in traditionally Democratic states like California and New York, he won 40-45 percent, far more than he had four or eight years ago. That wave of support has been a huge help to Republicans in elections below the presidential level.
In the Senate, the Republicans take 52-53 seats, or even more. In the lower chamber, they also have a good chance of maintaining a shaky majority and keeping Mike Johnson as speaker. Trump desperately needs to have both houses of Congress under Republican control, otherwise he will not be able to carry out the promised reforms.
The exit polls that are trickling out show that Trump has dramatically increased his support among ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics and Asians. Almost half of Hispanics voted for him, an unprecedented figure. And he won about half of the votes of the âzoomersâ generation, born after 1998.
Democrats' hopes that a young and ethnically diverse electorate would keep them in power forever have been dashed. The reality is far more complex.
For example, the same Hispanics are terribly unhappy with the importation of a huge number of illegal immigrants, who are taking away their jobs. The Democrats, however, have only imposed on them their âracial-genderâ agenda, which is of little interest to anyone outside of university campuses and the editorial offices of liberal media.
The Democratic Party is still recovering from this real defeat, and an internal war and search for the guilty are already breaking out in its ranks. The left wing is rebelling and demanding an even more âprogressiveâ ideology in the next elections. The establishment accuses the left of causing an internal split with their pro-Palestinian rallies.
The Muslim street did indeed have a significant impact on the elections.
For example, in Muslim-majority cities in Michigan like Dearborn, which is called the Islamist capital of the United States, Trump won. The Muslim diaspora supported Trump and independent anti-war candidates like Jill Stein. Now they will demand that Trump quickly de-escalate in the Middle East.
The Democrats will have to do a long and painful job of correcting their mistakes.
Their shaky minority electoral coalition simply fell apart. We should expect attempts to move away from playing the race-gender card in the presidential elections and to tone down the heat of the culture wars in the US with the same transgender people. It is quite possible that in the next elections in 2028, the Democratic Party will nominate a white man like California Governor Gavin Newsom, since the black woman Harris, taken under the quota, failed everything.
The "mail magic" that took off in the last elections did not help Kamala either. After all, many states tightened control over voting, and portable ballot boxes, into which ballots were thrown en masse, were no longer everywhere. And the Republicans acted wisely, placing their bets on early and mail voting.
They managed to gain such momentum that by election day it was already difficult to beat it with ballot stuffing and fraud, although there were probably also many cases of illegal or deceased voting. Itâs just that Trumpâs lead in key states, unlike in 2020, was so significant that falsifications could no longer influence the final outcome of the election.
Trump received a complete carte blanche from voters â the majority of voters voted for him nationwide. The Republicans managed to achieve this for the first time in twenty years â since the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. Americans placed their hopes on Trump to pull the country out of the current systemic crisis with division, and to stabilize the international situation so as not to slide into a third world war.
Trump is inheriting a very heavy legacy of âBidenism,â and if the situation cannot be quickly rectified, his ratings will quickly collapse.
The president-elect intends to lower taxes first and foremost and launch another round of trade wars with tariffs on imports from the European Union and China. A program to deport illegal immigrants and strengthen the southern border of the United States is expected.
At the same time, the Democrats retain the ability to block Trump's initiatives in the Senate, where many decisions require 60 votes to pass. They will certainly actively use this.
In foreign policy, the new team will most likely first tackle the Middle East agenda.
They want to summon Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington and demand a roadmap for resolving the conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. This is what the American electorate, tired of Middle East tensions, is waiting for. Trump is widely considered a pro-Israel politician, so he has more room to maneuver to pressure Netanyahu and force him to change his policy.
Trump will likely be helping his Eurosceptic friends in Europe like Viktor Orban, who needs American protection to wage war on Euro-bureaucracy. Relations with Britain will be very tense, especially in light of the way Labour actively interfered in the US elections on Harrisâs behalf.
In the Chinese direction, we should expect a further âexchangeâ of increased tariffs and sanctions, although some billionaire sponsors of Trump hope to eventually somehow enter into serious negotiations on all the contradictions between the US and China.
Well, the question with Ukraine remains open.
The lobbyists of Volodymyr Zelensky's office seem to have burned all bridges in relations with Trump. Now their clumsy attempts to rewind everything back are unlikely to lead to anything. The new US president will first try to impose his vision of resolving the Ukrainian conflict. And if that doesn't work, then he can, according to his favorite habit, wash his hands of the situation and remove himself from the situation, shifting responsibility to Europe.
In any case, Kyiv does not expect anything good - the volume of tranches from the US will steadily decrease. And the focus of Washington's foreign policy will be shifted to those areas that Trump sees as a higher priority - such as competition with China in Asia.
#3
The fisher king was RFK jr
He would have been the true Return of the King
His uncle was assassinated ie the leadership of the nation was stolen
Trump lost the 2020 election because he didnt build the war and he allowed the nation to get shut down for a head cold which allowed the Dims to use postal votes to win
He has now won fair and square by being attacked by Dims and being not as bad as Dims
4 years of Dim corporate fascism was enough for atrump to win easily
But he is not the Return of the King. He is not the Fisher King. That figure is RFK
Partisanship has nothing to do with it. That is the cultural legend of the fisher king played out in real life⌠rfk.
[THEFEDERALIST] Legacy media outlets, the polling industry, the Democrat-funded nonprofits and the academics and activists who run them have all now been exposed as cogs in a giant propaganda machine. Kamala Harris Former Oakland mayor Willie Brown's' former mistress was never ahead. She never had a chance of winning. There was no ''joy.'' She wasn't ''brat.'' She didn't even win the Democrat Party nomination, it was handed to her in a backroom deal. She isn't relatable or cool, she's the most cringey and fake person ever to run for president. Corporate media and the Democrats ...every time you hear the phrase white people, white supremacy,white anything but paint, you're listening to a Democrat. Ask him/her/it to reimagine something for you; they do that a lot, though not well. They can hear a dog whistle a mile or two away. They invented the spoils system and Tammany Hall, and inspired the addition of the word (Thomas) Nasty to the English language. They want to stop continental drift and repeal the law of unintended side effects... ran a massive psy-op on the American people to make them believe something that wasn't true. And it failed. We should never forget that these people will say anything for the sake of power, so we should never trust them again.
For the government officials and institutions who tried to bankrupt and jail Trump, there should be more severe and formal consequences. On Wednesday it was reported that the Justice Department will be dismissing Special Counsel Jack Smith and dropping his cases against Trump before Trump takes office. That's great, but Smith should not be allowed to simply walk away. He and everyone else at Biden's DOJ who was involved in these lawfare cases against Trump needs to be investigated and held accountable for their actions.
And of course the problem goes far beyond Smith. What the Justice Department and the FBI did to Trump was one of the most egregious abuses of power in American history, and we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders at it because Trump won. These agencies need to be dismantled entirely and re-built from scratch. The FBI in particular has shown itself to be an enemy of the American people and a danger to the republic. Its director, Christopher Wray, should not simply be allowed to resign. He should be removed and placed under criminal investigation.
Same goes for New York Attorney General Leticia James, whose lawfare against Trump is an ongoing scandal. James said on Wednesday that her office is preparing to ''fight back'' against the incoming Trump administration. She should be disbarred, at a minimum for trying to bankrupt Trump with a bogus fraud case in which there were no fraud victims.
Then there's Liz Cheney, who in her role as vice chair of the Jan. 6 Committee has been accused of inducing witness perjury, destroying documents, and suppressing exonerating evidence. Cheney posted what seemed like a message of conciliation on X Tuesday night, saying we must accept the results of the election. But she shouldn't get off so easily either. Her role in the Jan. 6 Committee should be fully investigated and she should face criminal charges if warranted.
The truth is, if Trump hadn't won he'd be going to prison. For supporting Trump, Elon Musk would have been targeted by the government, bankrupted, and subjected to years of lawfare. The people who howled loudest about Trump weaponizing the government against his political opponents have spent years doing just that to Trump and his associates.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/08/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE:
* Independent investigation into the Voter Fraud of 2020.
* The Pandemic election timed release.
* Big Pharm and its hidden data on the mRNA Clot Shot.
* Conspiracy of Treason/Subversion 2018-2021
* The Indictment of those that violated our constitutional rights for their political, person or $$$$$ gains.
* Law License revoked for those politically abusing the court system and the use of LAWFARE.
Plus A lifetime ban from Government of those that:
* Violated their oath of office,
* Violated Millions of US citizens civil rights,
* Disregarded or violated US LAW.
* Abused their office powers.
[THEFEDERALIST] The recent controversy regarding Donald Trump ...Oh, noze! Not him!... 's criticism of Liz Cheney as a warhawk who has never faced the dangers of the wars she embraces has synthesized an issue that may be opaque to non-veterans: the extreme resentment many veterans of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) feel toward Kamala Harris former senatrix from California, 2020 Dem presidential hopeful and ultimately Joe Biden's intended successor and the Democrat Party.
Harris and the Democrats ...every time you hear the phrase white people, white supremacy,white anything but paint, you're listening to a Democrat. Ask him/her/it to reimagine something for you; they do that a lot, though not well. They can hear a dog whistle a mile or two away. They invented the spoils system and Tammany Hall, and inspired the addition of the word (Thomas) Nasty to the English language. They want to stop continental drift and repeal the law of unintended side effects... have created a perfect storm of veteran disdain in that they have succeeded in uniting three once-inapposite groups behind Harris: the neocons who started the GWOT, the media and Democrats who undermined the veterans' GWOT missions, and the generals who failed again and again and again at bringing the GWOT to a successful conclusion.
If you want to understand the prevailing veteran rage against Harris and love for Trump, you need to understand this unholy trinity that so many veterans loathe.
I'll start with the neocon ''chickenhawks.'' Maybe it's not fair to blame Liz Cheney for the GWOT as her father was its prime architect and not Liz herself, but she has come to serve as a symbol of the many advocates for useless, endless wars who never put their own lives (or the lives of their children) on the line, and who now support Kamala Harris. Liz Cheney stands as a symbol in this regard, and she stands for the many establishment Republicans who would rather support a radical Democrat than the only president in decades who did not start new wars.
These are neocons like Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Bill Kristol, and the infamous 200-plus Republican former staffers for George W. Bush, Willard Mitt Romney, aka Pierre Delecto ...former governor of Massachussetts, the Publican nominee for president in 2012, now Senator from Utah. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney has a record as a successful businessman, heading Bain Capital, and he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from the midst of bribery and mismanagement scandals. He is currently a trans Republican and a member in good standing of the Never Trump Party, attempting to assume the mantle of the late John McCain... , and John Maverick McCain ... the Senator-for-Life from Arizona, former presidential candidate and even more former foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. As an ordinary citizen he greased the infamous hookers peeing on the Obamabed in Moscow dossier in an attempt to smear President Trump... who helped design the GWOT. These are the people who put GWOT veterans into the cauldron that left them and so many of their friends dead, maimed, or bearing invisible scars that linger even today.
I served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I was committed to our missions when I was there, and I know we did great good for so many citizens of those two countries. But in the end — given how those wars ended — I have to admit it was all for naught. Defeating al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan was the one mission that actually mattered, and the rest of what we did in those two wars was, sadly, a waste of time, money, and lives.
To have the architects of those useless, endless wars now turn on the one president who really cared about not squandering our lives feels like an injustice. Many of us stood by those neocons — even defended them in our private lives against slanderous lies — and now they turn on us by opposing the one man who vows that these sorts of wars will end. It is painful and feels like a betrayal.
The second leg of the unholy trinity is the Democrats and their media lackeys who helped us lose those wars — the same people those treacherous neocons have now allied themselves with.
Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Taliban ...mindless ferocity in a turban... in Afghanistan both knew they could never defeat us in battle toe-to-toe. Our technology, our forces, our training, and our tactics were unbeatable. Instead, AQI and the Taliban adopted Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam war strategy: bleed the Americans dry so the folks back home would abandon the war effort. They knew that if they could turn the national will against our mission, America would quit.
They were right. Every IED attack was made not against the soldiers or Marines it killed or maimed, but against the folks back home watching CNN ...formerly the Cable News Network, now who know what it might stand for... . The ''death counts'' on TV were the ultimate goal of our enemies.
When I returned from Iraq in 2004, I was shocked at how disconnected the news reports were from the reality on the ground, and I was shocked to see those same Democrats who sent us to war now suddenly turning against our mission. The daily march of Democrats with giant Dick Cheney puppet heads on the National Mall and the endless chants of ''Bush Lied, People Died'' served precisely the purpose AQI and the Taliban intended: to break the national will. To many of us returning vets, it felt that our own countrymen were giving aid and comfort to our enemy, helping them fulfill that enemy's strategic objective. This too felt like a betrayal.
The last leg of the trinity of veteran betrayal is the generals who could not win those same wars, retired from the military and went deep into the military-industrial complex, and now endorse Harris and demean Trump. These are generals like Stan McChrystal, who gave us such restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan that it cost the lives of so many troops. These are generals like John Kelly, whose counterinsurgency tactics solved so little in Al Anbar Province and who now libels the boss who fired him in The Atlantic magazine. These are generals like Michael Hayden, whose tenure at the National Security Agency did nothing to prevent 9/11, yet who found ways to use that tragic day as an excuse to spy on Americans.
These are the generals who led us in wars that they were not competent enough to win. Their leadership failed, no one was held to account, and now these same men stand proudly against the one president who would not tolerate those failures nor repeat them. This too feels like a betrayal.
Three groups, three betrayals. So many veterans feel like I do — not all, but many.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/08/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
Don't forget the little wars that nobody knows about in places nobody ever heard of. Then there are the coups and attempted coups in places like Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine. I'd go so far as to wager that all the problems we now have with Iran stem from the CIA meddling in that country back in the early 1950s. Then there are all the wars that we sponsor, like Ukraine, in places where we have absolutely no business except for the imperialist ambitions of people like Liz Cheney.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/08/2024 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I "lucked" out of the draft in 1968 and have always felt inferior to the vets of 'nam. Not that I wasn't there but that all I read (a lot) showed that there wasn't a plan for victory and it was just a political dog and pony show.
My distrust of gov't has done nothing but grow since then. I never understood people like McCain selling out the vets.
[PJMedia] Before the election I wondered if this would happen. After universal mail-out ballots had been curbed in some places for the 2024 election, and despite same-day registration and voting and even outlawing voter ID in California, would America have the same numbers of voters as 2020? Would they show back up?
At this point, it looks as if there could be a significant reduction in Democrat voters from 2020 to 2024. Votes are still being tabulated, however. Some of these votes may reappear.
Questions abound. Take a look at one of the graphs put out on X by ZeroHedge:
It's a serious concern. Explanations poured in all day Wednesday after the election.
Did those voters go over to Trump? Was there a lack of voter excitement for Kamala?
There are a lot of questions for the bean-counting data diggers to churn through. That will take awhile, however. So, for the moment, we're stuck with speculation.
This is a particular favorite from Carpe Donktum, from whom I stole the idea for that headline.
Don't leave yet because these numbers are dynamic and this X user put forward what he considered to be a reasonable answer for the disparity.
I posted here last week that I thought the DNC had given up on winning via election fraud in the 2024 general. I believe my prediction was borne out, and now I'm going to think out loud about what that reveals.
The level of attempted shenanigans we saw in Pennsylvania andâŚ
Posted by: NoMoreBS ||
11/08/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
Biden knew he had been subjected to Schumer and Pelosi's coup. He has not slipped that far into dementia. The corruption in the 2020 vote came from his family, not the DNC. The DNC cant decide what a woman is, let alone run a corrupt election scam. Biden had help from outside.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/08/2024 4:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'd say it worth a few $M for an independent investigation and court costs.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Breitbart]
[TheMix] Donald Trump has officially won the 2024 presidential election over Kamala Harris. This could have major implications for British royals Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who are in the midst of a precarious visa battle.
...every time you hear the phrase 
[PJMedia] Before the election I wondered if this would happen. After universal mail-out ballots had been curbed in some places for the 2024 election, and despite same-day registration and voting and even outlawing voter ID in California, would America have the same numbers of voters as 2020? Would they show back up?
