Let this statement sink in for a moment:
"President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of social media posts late Sunday, suggesting they be fined or taken off the air over polling and coverage of his administration."
Think this through.
"President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of social media posts late Sunday, suggesting they be fined or taken off the air over polling and coverage of his administration."
Is the price of eggs (which has not come down) worth the loss of a free press?Are you at all concerned about the blatantly biased and propagandist "news" that they put out?
Such as the Russiagate hoax, the Fine People Hoax, the "Maryland Dad" story, the coverage of the "mostly peaceful" BLM protests where a reporter was unironically calling the protests peaceful even while the city skyline was ablaze in the background, the Ferguson "hand's up don't shoot" hoax peddled by CNN that led to that city being looted and burned, the fake stories about Iraq's nuclear program that led to the death of millions (directly in the war and later through poisoning from depleted uranium munitions of the US, malnutrition, and civil war), or the time that they breathlessly covered allegations that an American citizen had been deported when nothing like that had happened?
You can make this about Trump, but maybe the news you watch are the problem.Good point... when the news is nothing but lies, maybe someone should shut it down.
You know... 'The Left' just doesn't seem to get it. What Biden gave us was worse than anything Trump has done.
Loss of 25% of the Dollar's Value
Open Borders and millions of migrants getting taxpayer freebies
Transgenders in Women's sports... including High Schools
DEI and Equity over Equality and Merit/ability
World War III
Yeah... screw the Democrats because when they got Biden in there, they sure did screw Americans, while demeaning them for complaining about it.Don't be ridiculous. WWIII.!!!!!
Is there a war in Japan,
In Germany?
In France?
In India?
In the US?
In Indonesea?
In South Africa?
In Australia
Are there battles in the Great Ocean
etc. etc.
It is not the threat of a WWIII, that acording to you is in full swing, that we should worry about.
It's the climate crisis that is threatening mankind and the collapse of society.
What has Donald Trump done so far to stop the climate crisis?
The opposite.
Creating de Big Beautiful Bill Act. Where he makes sweeping legislation, eliminates tax credits for wind and solar energy while granting the oil, gas, and coal industries major gains. It mandates extensive offshore and onshore drilling lease sales, lowers royalty rates, and introduces stronger carbon capture incentives for oil production—strategically favoring fossil fuels.There is a major war in Europe that has taken more lives since WWII.
russia has another nation providing them with troops to fight for them. That is two nations against one.
This does have the potential to become WWIII is not handled properly.I agree with you there, but Ken is talking if WWII is already happening. And this is not true. The situation today in the world is not even comparable with WWII.
What is happening in Ukraine shows the retreat of the US on the world stage, leaving a gap for other nations to fill.
I don't think it will lead to WWIII, as in the end, a war might be good for some business, for the majority it is not. And businesses like Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, Google, etc don't want a war.
There is nothing to gain by a WWIII.
But yes, it should be properly handled. How, I do not know. But Trump is not the right commander to do so, he doesn't want to be involved and Putin knows this.
Probably it has to be Europe to do the negotiations as they have more to loose than the US. But Europe doesn't have an army, so in the end it's up to Ukraine to do it themselves. And they do an amazing job.
But in the meantime the war drags on and innocent people die because of the weird idea of a the Great Russia Putin has...Don't forget to add Iran and Israel...
Iran which also supports Russia...
The BRICS nations, China, North Korea...
But yeah nothing resembling a World War except that this looks more like the beginnings of a world war than the last two did in their early stages.
-shrugs-
Denial of facts and reality the lefties are great for that.
It's especially endearing when it comes from those who have not seen war or understand international affairs at all.
I'm sorry you are completely oblivious to the war that has been raging for years now.
Im sorry for you that you still believe the power hungry lunatics pushing the 'climate crisis' as a real thing... Or that DEI and Equity would be a fix for whatever historical wrongs occurred to whatever oppressed minority one chose to belong to.
Climate change is a real thing ...sure...our ability to change it by shipping our coal and oil to China so they can be the world's industrial power rather than the U.S.... is not.There is a raging war going on, just not WWIII
And to belittle the climate crisis is ignorance of the situation.The Climate Crisis:
How I Think About Climate Change [a good place to start]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRA2SfSk2Tc
OK... I'm sure you agree with that one.
Climate Change: Natural or Man Made? [in under 3 minutes no less]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Pb2o4qU78
You'd agree with that as well... yes?
What the news won't tell you about climate change | Hannah Ritchie, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XNQFqUwCnU
Ahhhh... so there is some information that makes you think.
The Tipping Points of Climate Change — and Where We Stand | Johan Rockström
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl6VhCAeEfQ
Damn that one was really full of info on the matter.
So... I hope you took the time to watch them, I did, old news for me... and this is why all your panty-wringing is misplaced... why the Paris Accord was BS... why the whole issue is used against Americans and Europeans to our detriment:
China is burning more coal today than the rest of the world combined:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2CfJ-obR_08
China's coal plants alone responsible for over 15% of global carbon emissions
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/td9vCyC9DBk
50% spike in China's greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 to 2014: Official data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8j0lPwVlJA
FACT CHECK: China Misrepresents Greenhouse Gas Curbs, Addiction to Coal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLpQyOe4Z2g
So, the point I am making is that the UK or France or America can become Carbon Neutral... and that is great... but the developing nations, or the nations that don't care about the rest of the world, only their advancement and what benefits them... are going to continue to use those 'cheap' energy sources to develop, to manufacture the things the EU and America no longer will because of their 'Green Agendas'.
Are you seeing my point?
America stops burning coal and gas... only for China or India or whoever to burn it at a rate faster than we ever could... so the problem didn't get solved... and it won't get solved... because those nations won't cripple their own development or power just to reduce Carbon emissions.
They will just become more powerful, until they can dominate us, for what few resources remain in a world being impacted by climate change.
Like everything else emanating from 'Western' leadership and elites these days... the ignorance and arrogance that they combine in their 'leadership' is astounding... the only thing we are doing is crippling ourselves as Russia and China and India get stronger, and a serious threat to everything we have.
Idk where the "mostly peaceful" line came from and why it is used in place of the most famous CNN quote of the time.
"Fiery, but not necessarily unruly," was the quote used by a CNN reporter as a police station burned behind him. I think that more truly captures the spirit of what is referred to now by the, "alt-right," as the, "summer of love."
To be honest, we could use some, "fiery, but not necessarily unruly," protests directed at the proper targets this time around.
Yes, Kathleen, I saw that. Only this cretin of a man would have the gall to so blatantly promote tyranny. CBS and NBC networks are over 90 years old. What does it take for the American people to “pull their heads out” and pay attention to what lies right before them?
Democracy dies when dictators define freedom. America has entered its Fascist era
It's been a Democrat fascist state for a long time, just with better press coverage. Deplatforming, debanking, punitive IRS audits, all brought in under Obama, with the connivance of a media apparatus paid for by USAID dollars and controlled by just a few corporations. Do not fool yourself into thinking that the media was free before.
Fine. You pick the sources or source you want to follow. What I'm concerned about is the freedom of media outlets to report the information they find as they see fit without a president fining them or restricting their flow of information to the public.
Do you understand what is at stake?Maybe not. But it will be worse if this happens.
When there is seriously bad news, can MAGAs ever manage not to look backwards for a whataboutism?I think your comment oversimplifies the situation and misses why so many Americans continue to support Trump. Millions voted him back into the White House after living through a turbulent four years under a Democratic administration, not because of the price of eggs, but because they were dissatisfied with broader issues like the economy, borders, and national security. Suggesting that voters only cared about groceries ignores the very real concerns people had about leadership and policy.
His posts about networks weren’t about “losing a free press”; they were about calling out outlets that repeatedly misrepresent facts, spin polls, and ignore successes of his administration. Holding media accountable doesn’t destroy press freedom; it’s about ensuring the public gets accurate information. I think we need to look at the straightforward facts: numerous fact-checking reports have highlighted errors and bias across major media outlets, and there have been multiple lawsuits filed against some of the most popular networks, including Fox News, for misleading coverage. With all of this, it’s hard not to question reporting these days.
In short, the millions who returned Trump to the White House made a deliberate choice based on governance and accountability, not egg prices. Reducing their decision to sarcasm about eggs misses the bigger picture entirely. Just my viewIs it not that there is always bias in the press? And that this bias can be called free speech. In a good running free country you need press from all different angles. If a president or government starts to intervene with press freedom you have a big problem.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press means that you also have press that is not printing articles according to your own view.
A government should not intervene with free speech and art. The moment a government is doing so, it is a sign of state power control over freedom of expression. Something nobody would want.I strongly agree that we need a press that presents multiple perspectives. At the same time, we also need an honest press, one that can stand up to fact-checking and demonstrate the truthfulness of its reporting. I believe articles should be rich in facts rather than dominated by personal opinions.
At this point, I don’t believe our government is interfering with free speech. I see one individual in government using his own free speech to highlight issues as he perceives them. From my perspective, I’ve witnessed numerous instances of injustice perpetrated against Trump by the media. I admire his courage to step up and have his voice heard. I certainly don’t always agree with everything he says, but he has as much right as I do to exercise his freedom of speech. I would consider it inadequate if he did not call out the lies and bias he perceives in the press.
When it is proven that someone lies, and the media reports it, it is bad news for the liar. It is not biased reporting.
When it is proven that someone is interfering with the effectiveness of the agencies and institutions of our country, and the media reports it, it is bad news for the one doing the damage. It is not biased reporting.
When every single day one of these two things are happening, every single day it is the responsibility of the media to report it. It is not biased reporting.
If you voted for a liar; if you voted for someone who is damaging our country, I'm sure you don't want to hear about it every day. Your unhappiness doesn't make the reporting biased.
In any case, it is not the job of any president to restrict the press. If they knowingly and willingly report falsehoods - the courts are at everyone's disposal. Just ask FOX -many of their former staff are now in this administration. Think on that for a moment as well."If you voted for a liar; if you voted for someone who is damaging our country, I'm sure you don't want to hear about it every day. Your unhappiness doesn't make the reporting biased.
YESI would strongly challenge the notion that repeated negative coverage automatically equates to truth or unbiased reporting. While it is certainly the responsibility of the media to report verifiable facts, the selection, framing, and emphasis of stories can create a perception of bias even if each individual fact is accurate.
Media outlets make choices every day about which stories to highlight, how to contextualize them, and which voices to amplify, and those choices can systematically favor one narrative over another. Reporting that constantly emphasizes alleged wrongdoing by a single individual, while downplaying similar behavior by others, can subtly shape public perception in a way that is far from neutral. Furthermore, “proving” a lie or interference is often not as clear-cut as suggested; legal, procedural, or factual ambiguities exist, and the media’s interpretation of these events can influence how the public perceives them.
Dismissing someone’s perspective by calling them a “liar” or accusing them of damaging the country is neither productive nor respectful. People can disagree about policies, actions, or interpretations of events without being dishonest or harmful. Criticism of media coverage is not simply about “unhappiness” with negative stories, it can be about whether reporting is balanced, accurate, and contextually fair. Constantly labeling voters as complicit in wrongdoing because they support a particular candidate ignores the complexity of political choices and undermines civil discourse. Honest debate requires engaging with differing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks or assuming bad faith.
While no president should restrict a free press, it is equally valid to scrutinize whether media coverage is fair, representative, and comprehensive rather than assuming constant negative reporting is inherently unbiased.
I've long said Trump would be the first to try altering the first amendment, and that thought came from me speculating on how I could change it myself without altering the foundation of society to such a degree that civil war, revolution, or even world war would break out.
It's a slippery slope to be sure, but an inevitable slope we must traverse. I'd rather it be a conservative at the wheel when we decide to take the journey toward altering the first amendment.
The right's need for rigid traditionalism is my deterrent to outright supporting them, and the left's need to pander to every aberrant minority is my deterrent to outright supporting them. May whoever holds the reigns of this chariot choose the best path of attack, because I would sooner take out the driver than ride off of a cliff with them.
Alteration of freedom of speech was always inevitable, let's not make it militantly partisan. Especially not at a time where I believe we are seeing all of the signs that we are entering into a wartime economy and government, and unity will be socially if not forcefully mandated."Your post has been deleted because it contains misinformation."
The US first amendment has been attacked for a long time. How long have hate speech laws been around? Were you not aware of what happened to any physician that disagreed with the WHO during the pandemic?The plandemic was, what I believe, to be a planned isolated event that got out of control during the now seemingly-forgotten and widespread Hong Kong protests. I didn't believe anything they said during that time for a second, and followed the journalists who immediately targeted the Wuhan labs and the doctors in China who spilled the beans about the protein on the virus that only occurs in lab conditions.
Yes, it has been under assault for a long time, and will inevitably be amended. I can only hope we amend it for efficiency as opposed to authoritarian control.Or anyone that disagreed that there was a Russian conspiracy... Or anyone that spoke about Hunter's laptop... 50 former top Intelligence officials penned their names to a paper calling it a Russian hoax, if that wasn't a Red Flag.
I still think of Jon Stewart mentioning that if there was a chocolate outbreak in Hershey Pennsylvania you would not be blaming bats, and since he pointed out the leftist insanity he was branded as a right wing extremist.
Did they really think we were so stupid to believe all their other lies?
WOW - this discussion has gone completely off the rails!
But I believe in letting a discussion go where it will.
Still, if anyone would like to go back to the original question, I'm all ears.To be fair, the original question was, "was the price of eggs (which has not come down) worth the loss of a free press?"
It was not a very clear and earnest question to begin with. The whole egg price thing was a meme from the get go.That kind of curve ball happens a lot on these boards, especially when some don't want to deal with the actual issue - like obstructing our free press.
The press is running rampant with anecdotal claims presented as objective claims on the daily, it is rare I actually find any examples where, "free press," is truly limited outside of state-sponsored propaganda pieces these days. Trump's admin limited USAID and defunded quite a few state-sponsored press agencies bringing a stop to many ongoing authoritarian press initiatives, so I have more evidence of him promoting free speech and thought for the public. I will say, however, he does seem to run his inner circle like a dictatorship, and I think that's why we see his friends turncoat whenever they get the chance.
It's a system of ebb and flow with no clear path toward a solution to the abuse of free speech. We will see how it plays out, and I'm banking on one regime or the next to amend the first amendment within our lifetime.
A clearer question: If you voted for Trump because you thought he would bring prices down, have you gotten what you wanted?
Is what it is costing the country in other ways worth it?I haven't voted since it was Romney vs. Obama, and even then I wanted Newt Gingrich because of his preemptive focus on creating the space force which took far too long to come about.
However, if I had voted it would have been for Trump. It's like the South Park skit: You get to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Have I been given what I wanted had I voted Trump? No, not really, it seems like MAGA leaned even harder into MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) than I was hoping for though that has caused a huge rise in antisemitism and the "noticer" movement so a broader audience is payin attention to semitic concerns. The job market is still a complete joke and I'm thankful I've made a successful transition into a new industry no thanks to my government. Groceries are still going up by an uncomfortable amount month to month. The media is still a stinking pile of doo doo with no real effort toward objective newscasting, just entertainment television with a thin veil of newsy perspective.
I will say, however, that Trump has done wonders for opening up the broader discussion and playing field of race, gender, and sociopolitics in general. Most importantly, college campuses around the country now face near-immediate consequences for shutting down speakers on the right or who have been demonized by the left. Males, especially young males, are beginning to fight back publicly on the same platforms that used to automatically ban them for daring to counter left talking points. I credit Trump, at least his normalizing of risque discourse, for inspiring others to make that shift.
If I had to give an objective rating of Trump as POTUS so far without consulting my own judgements: a soft 6/10, he isn't doing himself many favors in the way of domestic affairs and our ever-collapsing social infrastructure, but I think he handles himself well with other world leaders who are direct threats to America. I'm concerned about his health declining, as I have always felt our POTUS should be younger, more virile, able to command from an office or the front lines equally even if he never had to step foot on a battlefield.
I no longer have any faith in the American political system to govern itself fairly with honor and integrity becoming of a world power. Even further, the West seems to be falling faster and faster as it becomes some strange amalgam of conflicting, aberrant ideologies. Trying to find a light at the end of this tunnel, but struggling. Trump is not helping me alter this perspective in a positive way." I credit Trump, at least his normalizing of risqué discourse, for inspiring others to make that shift."
Can you clarify that statement?When the POTUS was temporarily banned from Twitter for his saucy discourse, it inspired a wave of active social rebellion big and small against the left. Zuckerberg, Musk, Wojcicki and Mohan, prominent leftist/pseudo-lefties each of them, they all took steps to ensure they opened social markets to a broader range of sociopolitical discourse.
The most prominent speaker for the right with gen Z and alpha as of now, Nick Fuentes, is on all major platforms and gaining steam despite his focus on amplifying hate speech and nationalism. Jordan Peterson is being invited back to all major campuses to speak where once he was barred from schools due to fears of left protests/backlash. Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, Joe Rogan... all of these folks were banned/shadowbanned/demonetized prior to Trump making major social waves.
I don't credit Trump with taking any action to resolve the silencing of certain viewpoints, but I give him credit for inspiring others to do the right thing and allow all speakers to be platformed regardless of message. It feels like young males, especially caucasian males, are getting to have a say in social infrastructure again at least in image, and that's better than nothing.You will love this...
https://youtu.be/jIYBod0ge3Y?si=AaXT-ryHD7wZQjH2Metal Gear Solid has always done some awesome spins on real-life issues. Love the series, been playing it since the PS1 days and Metal Gear Ac!d on the PSP. Always a good time.
Kojima regularly keeps his fingers on the pulse of tech, even if he takes some obtuse approaches to it lol
Fuentes is a fringe guy who is not really accepted by most gen z
Perhaps that is the case, but it isn't what I'm observing. Millenials, gen z, and gen alpha seem to really be embracing him in the social media sphere.
That's a question I continue to ask myself in the face of what seems inevitable. I can't think of a single amendment to make that wouldn't be strictly abused for authoritarianism, or equally cause widespread violence and require authoritarian control to implement fully.
The way I see it playing out in places where it is, "functionally implemented," like China, would be a form of social credit score where you can say whatever you want, but some algorithm with human-determined boundaries adds and removes your social credit points and flags you for personal review by the local/federal police. The elites plan to institute something similar here in America, Google already has the infrastructure for it in their browsers due to their creation of it for China, though I believe their hesitation is that inevitable violent backlash they'll face.
A very difficult question, indeed. In an ideal world, we are all just chill with one another and don't require big brother to limit our freedoms at gunpoint.
Whatever the system they choose, it will slowly wash over the masses in the form of social initiatives and psyops. It will take root before the general public can even grasp that a change occurred.
Palantir is a good current subject to point to, the name itself is based in evil fantasies. Perhaps even the new 24/7 AI internet scraper that flags your online discourse for pre-crimes that Aaron Cohen is introducing. It is coming, but to what capacity will it be abused? I always bet on the government pushing things as far as we will let them go, and I use a baseline thirty-year plan timeline for full implementation.The control of information has to come before the control of Free Speech.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”
– Socialist Norman Thomas, 1928
The idea that you can control free speech through control of words is what we have been witness to in Canada and the UK the past few years...
If you control language, you control the argument. If you control the argument, you control information. If you control information, you control history. If you control history, you control the past.
The problem that has arisen, especially here in America, is the access to information that counters that.
When you short-circuit the capacity of a person’s ability to think logically, they will obey authority without force.
The ability to access information and bring it forward to others, like we do here in the forums when we provide links to articles or videos counters the very efforts of 'Progressives' to enforce Political Correctness (originally coined by cultural Marxists for thought control).
Progressive-socialist thought-crime laws cannot control free speech in America until they can control all access to information that directly counters or proves false their ideologies and 'facts'.
When you consider 1984... the level of control that required, the constant rewriting of history, of events...
I think when you consider the past... the "dark ages" where very few had access to education, the ability to read was limited to those in service of the church and the nobility... and what was available to read was just as limited. The amount of information available and who had access to it, was extremely limited for centuries.
Creating that type of control over thought and conformity in today's world just doesn't seem possible without bringing about the collapse of civilization. Certainly not in our lifetimes.You don't feel like, barring a direct amendment to the first amendment, they're already fundamentally altering the first amendment with proxy initiatives? That leaves me asking who should be holding the reigns if one side or another is going to seize that opportunity for control. Outside of collapse, I don't see a way to avoid it, and allowing it to occur prior to collapse just staves off the impending collapse a little longer.
You're big on the AI topic and it's relevant to free press, speech, thought, etc. What are your thoughts on Palantir and Gideon? That's the kind of AI that I truly fear. Pre-crimes, misdemeanor/felony wrongthink, criminalizing ingesting, "malinformation," and even your personal diet/health choices could indicate criminality/legal worthiness.
They are rolling out Gideon and Palantir as we speak, and to me that is a surefire sign that things are shifting in a direction we should all be rallying against, or at the very least making sure there's a knife pressed snugly against the back of its keepers.We can see examples of how bad things can get... at least initially in places like the UK and Canada.
I'm sure you have seen plenty of videos and articles like these:
"Arrested for a social media post" | Konstantin Kisin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7GRx8Sl-s
I was arrested for sending Whatsapps complaining about my daughter's school | Times Radio exclusive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zfz5rjjifM
Its a lot harder to do in America... everyone in America has guns, and many of them just want such a 'good reason' to use them.
What they will use AI for is limiting information... until the only information to be found online is State approved information... I have seen a considerable amount of this already, the first efforts at this was the filtering control they put on Search Engines soon after the 2016 election, which omit whatever sites they do not want being reached.
You could blame Elon Musk for them having to reverse this trend, when he bought Twitter(X) and made it so that sites and opinions could be found there that were being silenced elsewhere (IE Youtube and Google Search) ... Alphabet and Meta had a choice ... they could reverse the censorship trend considerably ...or they could risk losing the majority of their users to X eventually. Especially men... and Alphabet really couldn't afford that, over 80% of YouTube users are men... and most of them are quite dissatisfied (or were) with the way the country was going.
The 2024 election would have gone much differently, if not for Elon Musk buying Twitter(x)... and censorship today online in America would less about arrests (like goes on regularly in the UK) and more deplatforming and disallowing certain people to post anything anywhere online, after they violate whatever rules they came up with to police the internet.
If not for Musk/X and Trump's win, we would be nearing a point where discussions like this (and many others in these forums) would be essentially impossible, anyone voicing opinions like I have would simply lose the ability to post online... we would have some form of Digital ID that they could ban from posting/speaking online... and we would have had the continued scrubbing of 'wrong information' from the internet.What's your personal take on the soon-to-be instituted Palantir and Gideon?
Lets make sure we are talking about the same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_OmAglFjG_A
If this is the topic, you note they mentioned "Israeli grade"...
They also said this is going from the National level to local Law Enforcement to be alerted and incorporated.
I'm sure the NSA and Israeli Intelligence and China's Intelligence have all had similar AI efforts in the works for a long time now, there is nothing you could post on Facebook or Twitter or TikTok that wasn't screened by all three, especially if you are a person of interest put on their radar.
All those Apps you use, all those websites you visit... unless you have chosen to live out in the Ozarks of Arkansas and cut ties to the internet and cell phone use, you will have a Big Brother or two monitoring you.
That they are announcing it, most likely means it is already in place and has been for a while, now its use will be spread down to local authorities to get people used to the fact... become accepting of it... by the time Gen Z is in their 40s they will be used to being under constant surveillance and used to a Social Credit system that monitors their every act.
I wrote about this around a decade ago now... when China was first rolling out their Social Credit score and using facial recognition.
Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ95Gmvg_D4
Written at least half a dozen years ago:
https://hubpages.com/politics/How-China … our-futureSo it'd be safe to say we are on the same page about the whole thing, or at least damn near the same page. This stuff gives me an uneasy feeling in the pit of my gut. I never thought the West would go this way.
The war was already fought, they already have the victory, they have controlled the education system, especially the Universities for a long time.
Studies show that the younger generations overwhelmingly support things like gun control (complete banning), Trans and all LGTBQ+ rights, etc. they have grown up with a cellphone in their hands and internet being their closest friend.
This war was lost over twenty years ago when we didn't know it was being fought... Trump is a result of the older generations becoming aware of how wrong things are... black or white or anything in between, many see it, which is why he had more support from blacks and hispanics than any other Republican candidate in history.
Now they just wait... they let Trump and his supporters have their 'victories' and wait... the Pendulum will swing... the Gen Z and younger generations will come into power, be the controlling force in the nation.
Then its over... all people will serve under a world government, controlled by Big Brother... you won't be able to exist in society, be it China or America or Europe or Russia or Iran and be free from it.
I'm not aware that opportunities for Caucasian young men have ever been at risk. They seem to still be well ahead of most everyone else.
That is most likely because you are not a young man or male in general, and I don't want to go and assume you don't keep up with the social infrastructure that young men dwell within, but I would feel confident guessing it isn't high on your list of priorities as far as research and immediate care goes.
Young people, but young men in general, are struggling. The media and government aren't doing enough to bring broad attention to the issues facing the younger generations.OK. We probably all felt that way when we were young.
If the social and political paradigms are to be believed, yes, the majority has long felt invisible in their youth and even beyond. We'd go far off the beaten path of the conversation if I broke down why today's youth woes are different, worse than the past in many aspects. Credence, Ken, and I have touched on it in depth in other threads.
It's not something we can be brushing off as part of standard youth development anymore, because the youth is highly aware there isn't much reason to keep developing for the sake of a better future. Nonetheless, the influencers on the right have offered these marginalized groups a voice again, and the left is taking notice. Trump's lack of a filter did much in the way of allowing that to occur.No doubt the cost of higher education and a first home are factors today in contrast to past generations as well.
I'll give a very brief breakdown for youth issues today just so we can get a grasp of how serious things are. I'd like to add, Trump hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of pretty much any of these things. As a young male myself, I have been feeling the sting of much of this for many years, and I don't see it getting any better in any facet:
Worsening Social Environment
Mental health crisis: Rising depression, anxiety, and suicide rates among youth across demographics, with young men less likely to seek mental health treatment.
Identity crises: Young men, especially Caucasian males, report feeling socially displaced in discussions of privilege, masculinity, and belonging.
Decline of social mobility: Many feel trapped between expectations of traditional male roles (provider, protector) and a job market/economy that doesn’t support those roles anymore.
Racial Tensions & Sociopolitical Narratives
Polarized racial discourse: Younger generations grow up in an environment of intense debates over race, equity, and privilege. Caucasian males are frequently positioned within narratives as beneficiaries of systemic advantage, leading to feelings of collective guilt or exclusion.
Ostracization in education/workplace settings: Many young Caucasian males report perceiving themselves as “outsiders” in diversity-driven initiatives, even if they face economic and social hardship themselves.
Social alienation: Online movements and culture wars amplify narratives that pit demographic groups against each other, reducing opportunities for unity.
Less Political Power & Representation
Youth as a whole have reduced voting influence due to low turnout and demographic imbalance compared to older populations.
Young men in particular feel politically voiceless: issues like men’s mental health, education gaps, and declining male workforce participation receive little institutional focus.
Generational divide: Many perceive policies as skewed toward older, wealthier, urban populations, sidelining youth priorities.
Erosion of Demographic-Focused Spaces
Decline of male-oriented community spaces (e.g., fraternal orgs, vocational clubs, affordable sports programs) compared to earlier generations.
Online substitutes often become polarized echo chambers, radicalizing many rather than fostering healthy support networks.
Young men experience fewer neutral “third places” to form identities outside school/work/home.
Weaker Job Market
Male workforce participation has declined steadily since the 1970s, with young men disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed.
Many traditional “male-dominated” industries (manufacturing, trades without union backing) have shrunk, been automated/outsourced, or earmarked for women/immigrants.
Young men increasingly find themselves in unstable gig work without clear career ladders, unlike prior generations.
Inflating Prices vs. Deflating Wages
Real wage stagnation hits young men especially hard, as prior generations could achieve middle-class stability with fewer credentials.
Rising costs of housing, healthcare, and education erode traditional milestones (homeownership, marriage, family formation).
Debt burden: Young men are falling behind women in college completion rates, yet still carry disproportionate financial pressures tied to expectations of providing.
Climate & Environmental Instability
Youth inherit unprecedented ecological instability, with young men often drawn into risk-heavy industries (construction, agriculture, resource work) impacted by environmental changes.
Weaker Family & Social Safety Nets
Decline in two-parent households and marriage rates disproportionately affects young men, who statistically benefit from structured family environments.
Higher rates of isolation among young men (declining friendship networks, marriage delays) lead to long-term social consequences not as pronounced in past generations.
Shrinking social supports: Welfare and assistance programs tend to target women, children, or the elderly, leaving young men ineligible or overlooked.
While earlier generations of young men (especially Caucasian males) often entered adulthood with societal assumptions of advantage, stability, and clear identity roles, today’s young men face:
Weaker economic prospects.
Cultural narratives framing them as privileged “by default” regardless of personal struggle.
Less institutional support for male-specific challenges.
And greater alienation from both peers and politics.
Young men have been the drivers of the future throughout all of history, and unless the goal is to return to the stone ages, I suggest we begin taking their plight more seriously. All they need is the tools to build a better future, and they'll overcome their plight without outside interference and support as a majority. As of now young men, especially Caucasian men, are viewed like some sort of devil, and they're beginning to act the way they are labeled as a whole.
If a President, any President of any disposition can reverse this bullshit path we are on, I'll go re-register and they have my vote. Left, right, center, fascist, socialist, egalitarian, green, I do not care. Just give us purpose and hope, a future.
Once we Baby Boombers have gone on to our reward (?) things will be better for your generation.
We came up in a white male dominated world and had to fight tooth and nail against sexism and racism to get anywhere. Today all that effort is being reversed. We'll see if it returns to a more level playing field for everyone when Trump is gone. Good luck!No, it won't if we continue in the direction we have been for decades. That's the point. Alas, I see this isn't an earnest discussion, but I'm happy to have shed some light on these things for you regardless of whether it sinks in or not.
I suppose the future shall speak for itself. These issues are only the prelude to full first amendment alterations, and they're accelerating.
Related Discussions
- 19
Why the Media Ignores Key Trump Administration Actions
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
In today’s fast-paced news cycle, some of the most important actions taken by President Donald Trump often go unnoticed or are buried beneath an avalanche of controversy and scandal-driven coverage. While his administration has taken significant steps on immigration enforcement, federal workforce...
- 28
Biden’s Band-Aid Is Falling Off—And Now Trump Takes the Heat?
by Sharlee 2 months ago
Blaming Trump for a Bidden Band-Aid Falling Off Misses the PointIn recent weeks, headlines have warned that Obamacare premiums are set to spike in 2026, and predictably, fingers are being pointed at Donald Trump. But let’s take a step back and look at the full timeline of events before buying into...
- 35
What Price Freedom of the Press
by Arthur Russ 8 years ago
Here in the UK as in America and the rest of the free world in general, the Press is unregulated, and as such most frequently twist the facts, with some even go as far as fabricating news stories. Without mentioning any names there’s one British newspaper in particular who’s been sued for...
- 98
It seems the main stream media has its set of problems besides bias...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
Could not have happened to a more deserving crowd...I hope all of them are held accountable for all that they have done in harming our Republic...
- 15
The Hegseth Press Conference On The B-2 Iran Mission
by ga anderson 2 months ago
That was a helluva start to the day. It may be the best, most genuine, and most appropriate presser I've seen.45 minutes that should embarrass the press that was involved (and named on camera by Hegseth) in pushing the failed mission message.The worst press example came at the end when a reporter,...
- 29
"Enemy of the people" in light of recent events
by PrettyPanther 6 years ago
David Lapan@DaveLapanDC"Over 30+ years as a U.S. Marine, I defended our country against its true enemies. In 20+ years as a USMC, Pentagon and DHS spokesman, I dealt w/ the news media nearly every day. I know quite a bit about the press and know this -- they are NOT the enemy of the American...