If you’re looking for a way to unwind — or focus on the positive — on Inauguration Day, consider Love Trumps Fear, an evening of entertainment curated by local musicians. The production promises positive music and self-care, intentionally created in direct response to the turbulence and negativity many citizens have experienced since the election. Performances will include I, Star’s politically attuned hip-hop and folk-rock; the harmonic soul of Jonathan Santos; energetic rock, soul and hip-hop from Natural Born Leaders; and Summit Jaffe of Numatik with his soothing electronic beats. The event includes a chocolate temple, tea lounge, massage zone and plenty of opportunities to relax and/or dance. The Altamont Theatre will be transformed into a musical utopia on Friday, Jan. 20, at 7 p.m. $12-$30. thealtamonttheatre.com. Photo courtesy of Jonathan Santos
Glad to see folks put aside political tensions for an evening to celebrate the inauguration of our new president!
Yes John, I concur. But it’s also important for people to understand what really goes on in this country. It was obvious that the simultaneous protests…or rather riots…. in many cities around the country after Election Day were professionally and highly organized. Not at all spontaneous by people with deep convictions. I’m thinking the “protesters” were interested in their “cause” only until the money coming to them ran out.
You can expect more of the same on Inauguration Day courtesy of the deep-pockets of some very connected private individuals.
Ads in two dozen cities offer protesters up to $2,500 to agitate at Trump inaugural
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/
From the article: A search by the Washington Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.
Time to wake-up, folks! There are some deeply twisted and sick forces out there attempting to divide this country. They can only succeed if YOU LET THEM.
Uh, you linked to a page saying it was all a hoax, Swifty McSwifterson.
“The polished Demand Protest website, the Backpage.com ads recruiting paid protesters for the Trump inauguration: Apparently it was all a hoax.”
The content you currently see on that link was amended after I posted it. See the URL, it depicts the original title and content. Yesterday afternoon the article was about the ads which WERE placed. See content of the ads: http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump-protest-ad.jpg
Indeed, questionable aspects were the blatant title (usually they’re more discreet) and the amount of money being offered was pretty ridiculous. Hillary/DNC were only offering $50 in Craigslist ads for bodies to fill seats at the convention after the Bernie supporters left early. Cheap! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/07/28/dont-believe-what-you-see-on-tv-bernie-delegate-says-the-dnc-is-hiring-seat-fillers-to-create-appearance-of-unity-n2199179
There will be plenty of paid “protesters” on Friday. Anything for a buck.
The Washington Times is a Breitbart-like publication funded by alt right fanatics would truly don’t care if you have advanced cancer and, not having money for treatment, will die in the streets.
one of the leading NY Times commentators, Richard Luettgen, who has been a die-hard Trump supporter since his nomination, has suddenly started realizing that the entire thing has been a con. Take note.
Town Hall, which has columnists like Ann Coulter who even far right fans consider crazy – literally – is perhaps one of the few sites on the net lunier than Breitbart!
Don – I am aware of the leanings of Washington Times. Are you aware of the undeclared, but blatant, leanings of the NY Times? And the Washington Post?
It is no small matter that websites like Wash Times and Breitbart are forthright about their political bent while NY Times and Wash Post pretend to present objective journalism while fronting an obvious agenda.
I am no fan of Ann Coulter nor most of the blowhard pundits from any political party.
Now you’re paraphrasing an article about ads that were labeled (by the article’s writers, no less) as a hoax!
That’s frankly pathetic. I expect better trolling from you.
Real World:
Here’s the difference:
I don’t read the Washington Post regularly, but am familiar with the Times. I have never read a single comment by any Times reporter in over a half century that even remotely implied that they have no particular bias. This was, in fact, the basis of the notion of implicit bias that was presented last year in regard to racism, which Breitbart and other publications immediately twisted, deliberately. (look up the Harvard site on implicit bias and take the test if you have any doubts)
The best schools of journalism in the world start, from square one, by requiring journalists to acknowledge they have bias. That’s where you start. Any good conversation involving a sincere attempt at dialog starts with an awareness of bias.
So the Times makes no secret that it has a tendency toward a rather tepid, centrist and slightly liberal perspective. The very fact that they (and WaPo also, in fact) deliberately include very conservative commentators every day on their opinion page speaks to their recognition of the need for balanced perspectives. If you read the articles carefully, though they often appeal to a liberal crowd (though, for the sake of their income, they also appeal to many corporate executives with a decidedly conservative orientation), they also go over backwards to include a variety of non liberal views.
In utter contrast, Fox News, Breitbart and the Washington Times were started with the ***explicit*** intention of presenting a far right view, and were bankrolled by oil company executives and others who had a strong financial incentive to present misinformation regarding climate change and other related issues in order to increase their profits.
“that even remotely implied that they have no particular bias. ” — Seriously? That statement makes sense to you? Don, there is a world of difference between a person/entity not implying a LACK of bias and, in fact, admitting they they DO have bias. I’ve been reading that kind of hairsplitting, parsing of words from the lefty crowd for far too long. It is utterly disingenuous but, I guess, that’s the intention. Sad!
Many people would loudly disagree with your third paragraph. Their bias is distinct, not slight, and it seems many who didn’t grasp that previously certainly learned it in 2016. Their revenues are down no small amount and they recently gave up 8 floor of their HQ so, they are clearly losing advertisers who don’t bale as long as there is a healthy number of eyeballs.
The media outlets you mention being bankrolled by oil money doesn’t seem right unless you have some specific info. Rupert Murdoch (Fox) is almost entirely media and Robert Mercer (Breitbart) is a hedge fund guy. But, in keeping with your idea, the NY Times is owned by none-other than Carlos Slim, Mexican billionaire. Gee, I wonder what Prez candidate he and his paper were rooting for? Now with Trump, I imagine re-negotiated trade deals with Mexico will wind up trimming Slim’s annual earnings. Poor Carlos.
“climate change” — I am interested to know whether you are discomforted by our outgoing Prez, who claims to be concerned about such, now moving into an 8200 sq ft home with 9 bedroom and 8 baths? Do you not find that hypocritical and excessive given his deep concern?
Oh dear god, “if you’re concerned about climate change why do you use electricity?” is the argument of the pathetic.
A VERY lame dodge. But, no surprise as disingenuousness abounds with the slippery rules crowd.