Click pic to see full screen
WHO ARE ALL THOSE EXUBERANT CHEERING PEOPLE AT TRUMP RALLIES?>>>>>>>>>>>>
Its just the same crowd bussed in by the Trump Campaign, using the millions that Donald trump has to spend. ( sarc.)
Of course thats exactly what the Dems do, Hillary would hire a few Hollywood rock stars, and pay her rally attendees.
I mean Donald is doing this on a large scale! ( sarc.)
The media does not WANT a populist movement, therefore they refuse to recognize it when its rearing up and biting them in their collective asses!
I got a kick out of the Dallas rally, with Ted Cruse and the Texas blue blood Republicans standing there in their hot three piece suits, amid a crowd of T shirt wearing, sweaty red hatted populists.
Its almost like they were just tolerating standing there with fixed grins on their faces with a shadow of disbelief when they witnessed the tens of thousands of voters inside the stadium with 30 thousand watching big screens outside.
They are still in disbelief and are forced to “put up” with nouveau diamond in the rough, Donald Trump, who has single handedly saved America from the Obama social hegemony which was destroying America, and delivered the US electorate to the Republican party.
Its simple really, all these haughty Republicans have to do is get behind Donald Trump and stop f*cking around with looking down on the populist movement as a little too low for them. The survival of America requires them to troll in what they consider to be mud.Sorry you blue blood republicans! You too Mitt Romney! Roll up your sleeves and get to work.Support our President .
I showed a couple of rally photos to a couple of people I sispect are libs. They were quite shocked at the size of the crowds. Nonchalant i was like look what I just saw....they were astounded.
PONDER THIS FROM THE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE:
Joe Biden’s war chest of $8.9 million was a small fraction of what his Democrat rivals have on hand.
But Biden's spending like there's no tomorrow, FEC data shows.
Biden's lavish expenses include:
<><> $924,000 for private jets, about one out of every $16 raised
<><> taking in $15.7M BUT spending $17.6M during that same period.
<><>more than $20,000 at the luxury Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan;
<><> more than $14,000 at the Coronado Island Marriott in San Diego —
<><> more than $10,500 at the W Hotel in Los Angeles,
<><> big buck$ at other high-end hotels.
<><> almost $9M on payroll,
<><> $228,378 on "research consultants" and $150,400 on “strategic consultants.”
QUESTION How does a "party of the people" candidate spend $17.6M during the same period he took in $15.7M?
I guess only Hunter Biden knows ...cackle.
As for Hunter, they are desperately trying to portray him as a "victim." Voting America is having none of it.
Outside of Democrats' blue enclaves of wanton perversion, Hunter is seen, not as a victim, but as a cocaine-addicted
womanizer, exploiting his political connections, riding the fast lane, living large off his White Privilege.
Click pic to see full screen
. . . which is precisely what we observed on 9/12/09, when about a million opponents of Obamacare congregated on the Mall in DC.Reaction of the journalism cartel? Crickets.
The Republican Party must sue the journalism cartel. The named defendant must be, “The Associated Press, all other wire services, and all members/subscribers thereof.” The tort must be, libel, and antitrust violations. The wire services were created to conserve scarce, expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the distribution of news. But that created virtual meetings of all major journalism outlets, and
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nationsthe inevitable result has been a conspiracy to promote journalism at the expense of the public. Journalism’s propaganda campaign to the effect that journalism is objective is inherently false because objectivity is a laudable goal but not a state of being. Efforts to attain objectivity are hard and unpleasant work because journalists - or anyone - believes that their own opinions are true and not self-interested. And attempting to be objective means denying one’s self the luxury of taking that for granted.For journalists to claim their own objectivity does not reflect truth, but instead it tends to redefine objectivity to mean whatever is congenial to self-satisfied journalists within their cozy mutual admiration society.
Journalism is about bad news - news which reflects ill on society and thus promotes the idea that more government is needed. Thus journalism, empowered by its wire service cartel, defines “liberal” or “progressive” or “moderate” or “centrist” - any and all politically positive labels - to mean nothing other than what is congenial to promoters of big government.
The effect is that the journalism cartel systematically libels conservatives, and never libels “liberals.”
The defense would cite the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which asserted that the right of government officials to sue for libel was reduced by the First Amendment. But the First Amendment did no such thing. Antonin Scalia pointed out that the Bill of Rights was, you could say, politically an emergency measure. The Constitution was new, and had been ratified narrowly on a promise to add a bill of rights by amendment. That promise had to be fulfilled, or the legitimacy of the whole Constitution would have been lost. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights enumerated only the rights that government was most likely, historically, to violate - and covered the rest in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
andThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Scalia’s point was that it was important that none of the enumerated rights be controversial. The rights which were enumerated, therefore already existed, in the eyes of the people, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. “The” freedom of the press already existed - freedom of the press within the constraints of pornography and libel law. It would have been controversial to have attempted to repeal libel law, and could have been seen to have been a poison pill designed to kill the Bill of Rights. Precisely the sentiment that the Federalists could not afford to provoke.So libel law and pornography law survived the passage of the First Amendment untouched. Since the Sullivan decision claims that the First Amendment changed libel law, it is to that extent incorrect. And Sullivan was oblivious to the fact that the wire services created an anti-conservative journalism cartel. Given the drastic, orders-of-magnitude, decline in the cost of telegraphy bandwidth which characterizes the Internet Era, can you imagine the Feds allowing the AP to be created now, if it didn’t already exist?
In the Nineteenth Century, telegraphy bandwidth cost was a significant factor. Now, it is de minimus.