Why do you keep asking the question?
Either the data is true or not.
I still confused as to where you are going with all this. Despite that I agree that the Western MSM generally has a corporate and (G)lobalist axe to grind, hence tending to ignore massive Clinton / Obama vices (and that the Vatican has taken over America from the WASPs), I see nothing to rehabilitate either Trump or Putin's reputations, and Trump's in any regard whatsoever. The only 'good' things he has ever done are to garner self-aggrandizement. The only question in my mind is whether Trump 'knows' what role he is acting, or whether his handlers are running the show. Like Dubya, early in his Presidential career, Trump isn't as stupid as he appears now.For one thing, there is a concerted effort by US mainstream media sources, to denounce Russian (and presumably also Islamic) sources as "Fake News". Their content is allegedly far, far worse than the authorized sources. Furthermore, any American alternative sources which repeat such content, either with or without evaluation, are equivalently tarred with the "Fake News" meme.
But that needs to be qualified. For instance, Trump claims that the MSM ignored the Clinton uranium scandal with Russia, but that just isn't really true. Even some MSNBC talking heads have been forced to admit the Clintons have been douchy, though they can't bring themselves to admit the worst implications. And, having Clinton/Trump scams be presented as merely personal profiteering serves to distract from the larger (G)lobalist implications.On the other side of the dialectic, we have Donald Trump saying that the mainstream media is "Fake News". And everybody knows it's true.
Are you saying horseburgers were not made? Or what?UK Channel 4 seems to be suspect on both counts: foreign (un-American, unless Brits are honorary citizens), and also mainstream (state funded and liberal).
I can only present information that is presented to me Jerry, and then ask questions about it. Thus I have raised my whole theory of Trump's apocalyptic nature, as indeed have many Christians looking at similar data. The Jesuits created this Futurism long ago for a purpose, and they have the White House, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the military command loaded with their DNA.But how are we supposed to know if the data is true or not? If it comes from an untrusted source, doesn't that reinforce the need to fact check everything? You're alluding to the problem by saying that something about this seems fishy to you, a "cover story".
I think I have covered Mathis's take on Trump here before. It is consistent with Flavio Barbiero's 'priestly family' thesis, and the Jewish authored book When Scotland was Jewish as well. Remember, Barbiero has the Hasmonian (Josephan - Mac Daddys) priestly family as playing a Yuuuge role in the early Roman Church, even supplanting the Flavians, which I doubt the latter. And the Scotland book discusses the Kennedy's as being Jewish Melungeons.Miles Mathis has an entirely different take. I don't see him as entirely trustworthy either, but for different reasons.
For instance, Trump claims that the MSM ignored the Clinton uranium scandal with Russia, but that just isn't really true.
Are you saying horseburgers were not made? Or what?
No doubt.The degree of emphasis can make a difference.
See, there you go.With the help of Google and Wikipedia, the claim can be traced to the Daily Mail tabloid, and from there to a book, "The Trumps: Three Generations that Built an Empire" by Gwenda Blair. On pp. 84-85, Blair explains that every other restaurant on the Klondike Trail was selling horsemeat, so Fred Trump must have been doing it too. And the customers were mainly there to get into the tent and out of the snow, and weren't under any illusions about where the 'beef' came from.
Maybe I should have asked either Freidrich Trump was from Bavaria or not?
If Patty Duke is a Jew, then so is Daweed Duke. And I don't care, I love Linda Ronstadt no matter what. "Just one look that's all it took."
Why was that an inference?But as to the inference that he was a Catholic girly man like Hitler, them's fightin' words. Everybody knows there weren't any girly men on the Klondike frontier.
Miles Mathis was making an inference about Linda. I threw Daweed Duke in there because Miles also including Patty Duke in the list, and that When Scotland was Jewish made the claim that use of Jewish names, like Joseph for instance, strongly indicates Jewish (or Lost Tribe Hebrew) heritage based upon deep cultural bonds over generations and generations.Just because Judaism and Catholicism are "incestuously bound at the hip" doesn't mean that you get to talk about Daweed Duke and Linda Ronstadt in the same paragraph. And I can't figure out what any of the three of them are doing in a paragraph about Jews and Catholics, anyhow.
"And everybody knows it's true." Maybe so, but this is the height of irony coming from Agent Orange Leaks, who as I mentioned before, claims to have invented Fake News. And has probably never, in the history of human kind, lied so prolifically, even lying about what he just lied about in the prior sentence more than once. He brings new meaning to the term "pathological liar".On the other side of the dialectic, we have Donald Trump saying that the mainstream media is "Fake News". And everybody knows it's true.
UK Channel 4 seems to be suspect on both counts: foreign (un-American, unless Brits are honorary citizens), and also mainstream (state funded and liberal).
Why was that an inference?
Miles Mathis was making an inference about Linda.
The WP article goes on to explain that Uranium One's in situ uranium extraction process actually represents much less than 20% of American uranium
Yes. It was just a random factoid, that seems part of the Trump narrative.Surely you weren't calling this to our attention as an example of a completely meaningless coincidence....
Well, Linda did date that Jesuit, Jerry Moonbeam Brown.And if there's any inference about Patty Duke or Linda Ronstadt that one can draw from their being born in 1946, even Mathis isn't saying that it relates to Jewishness or Catholicism. Or maybe he does mean crypto Jewish. Mathis sees "cryptos" everywhere.
Generally, for the reasons that I already gave you, and the fact that the alt-right, going back to times even before John Birch, rarely gives detailed facts with their assertions, which is why they're called bald assertions, as opposed to slanted interpretations.So how do we know that the WP's analysis is right, and that the earlier alt-right analysis was wrong?
Generally, for the reasons that I already gave you, and the fact that the alt-right, going back to times even before John Birch, rarely gives detailed facts with their assertions, which is why they're called bald assertions, as opposed to slanted interpretations.
The only real thing of note is the money that Putin slipped to the Clintons.
Linda did date that Jesuit, Jerry Moonbeam Brown.
I'm speaking in terms of generalities Jerry, so certainly there are exception on either side.You might be confusing the more populist wing of the right, like Trump and Fox News, with the more wonkish sectors. Some right-wing authors are very careful with facts, even if they have questionable abilities to put their facts in perspective. Schweizer and GAI, the direct authors of "Clinton Cash", seem to be on the wonkish end of the scale. I'm not sure that much of the "Clinton Cash" material has been successfully challenged, though some errors have been admitted & corrected.
Did I suggest that? I thought it obvious that Putin would expect favors. BTW, Hilly approved a tech mission to Russia to help them set up their Silicon Valley while she was SecState.Why would one assume that Putin didn't expect any further favors in return for the money?
the hinden hand behind trumpFrom the blurb for the film:
In his business heyday during the 1980's, Trump was considered the people's billionaire, a brash but relatable embodiment of the American dream. The apex of this carefully crafted persona occurred on November 12, 1986 when he successfully spearheaded a project to restore the public ice skating rink in New York's Central Park. The media was his darling, and remained firmly committed to furthering the perception of Trump as a cozy benefactor of the common people.Is this the worst of it? Friends in the Mafia, bankruptcies, underpaid workers, poorly maintained buildings? Not that I'm saying any of that is good news, but maybe not any worse than "Hillary issues", either.
That all changed when reports of extramarital affairs and shady business dealings entered the picture, and he found himself the subject of endless tabloid speculation. The film presents and supports many of these claims, including his alleged ties to underworld figures, defaults on massive debts, unfair payment practices amongst his workers, and poor management of the properties which carried his name.
In spite of these damning accusations of ill character, Trump: What's the Deal? highlights perhaps the most significant key to the tycoon's unprecedented success in both the business and political realm: salesmanship. Trump's greatest product is himself, and his greatest gift is in convincing the people that he's the product they want.
Alex Jones, meanwhile, is calling for God and Prayer to help elect Trump, so that Trump can drive a sword into the heart of the oligarchs and globalists. Seriously??