So far the 2016 GOP prez wannabe is the only one in history who so far hasn't received even ONE newspaper endorsement. SPESHUL ain't he?

Who are the "disenfranchised masses" exactly? All white ALT RIGHTS who want to make America Great again, meaning white again? Trump is not the problem. He would be an irrelevant footnote were it not for the hordes of people who worship him. They are the scary ones. From whence cometh they and where were they hiding all these years? Under white sheets? Trump has made being a racist something of which to be proud. Imagine that? Thank you for your reply Tq. More's the pity. :(

The disenfranchised masses are those of us who have watched as good jobs were shipped off to Mex and other country because of "free trade" and have to compete against illegal immigrants for jobs.  Who are told that is just the way it is and has always been.    
It is not about race it is about good jobs. 

Thank you for your reply m2c and Happy Sunday to thee.

Hey, Rosie!

The disenfranchised masses are those who aren't represented by either wing of the statist quo.  They're the ones whose sentiments are never considered (if even broached) in political circles.  They're the ones who will vote for Trump primarily BECAUSE he's not "one of them."

Oh, and while I'm certain that some of them may be as you've stereotyped them, most of the others are not.  They only want a voice--a voice they don't have going the normal route.  Some of them are from the now defunct Tea Party (which, despite media myth to the contrary, basically only wanted fiscal responsibility in government), some are disaffected millennials, some are blacks who are tired of getting shafted by globalism, some are Latinos who resent having to come here by way of the 'normal' process of immigration while others are welcomed 'illegally'....  

I could go on for days, but the most important thing to remember is that not all of Trump's supporters fit your description of them. Many don't even like the man!

Journalism is a thing of the past. America's once noble fourth estate has become the slave of gover-business.

I totally and completely disagree with thee Tq. Sure some rags promote specific political agendas.  If it were not for dogged journalists digging for info and letting the public know we would remain more abjectly ignorant than we are. The "Freedom of Information Act"  is there for a reason. Pols are crooks. Government is corrupt. We the people don't ever know the truth unless a journalist(muckraker) and/or people on the inside blow the whistle and go to journalists to get the info out. You are not a fan of Joseph  Pulitzer then nor of the awards given to journalists indicating excellence in reporting?  Then there is the Nobel Prize which is awarded to folks in the areas of physics, chemistry, medicine,  physiology, literature and the promotion of peace. You discount that as well? Seriously? Different strokes. Simply writing journalism off as a thing of the past does not make it so any more than Donald Trump saying he has won all the polls and the first debate makes that so. Don'tcha know? Thank you for your reply Tq. We are at odd on this. So what, right?

Fritz Haber developed a poison gas and won a Nobel Peace Prize. Later his poison would be used in Nazi Germany:

"The pioneer of poison gas was a German called Fritz Haber, a Jew who, conscious of the anti-Semitism already prevalent in fin-de-siècle Germany, had, in 1893, converted to Christianity. Haber had developed the means to convert nitrogen in a way that it could be used to produce cheap and effective fertilizer, which, of course, improved and revolutionized agricultural efficiency. His work won him the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1918.

The use of poisonous gas in war was prohibited by the 1899 Hague Convention yet as soon as the First World War broke out Fritz Haber and his team worked on developing gas as a weapon. Haber, as a Jew, was determined to prove his devotion and loyalty to Germany. “During peace time,” Haber once said, “a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country”.

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2014/04/22/fritz-haber-gas-warfare-summary/


Should I say it? The noble peace prize is a joke. Obama got the noble peace prize less than two weeks into his presidency solely for ideas and not for actually doing anything. Which one of the people that gave it to him later came out and regretted.

There's many others that are questionable.

There have been numerous incidents of people being awarded the peace prize for stupid reasons and for that reason the noble peace prize I would argue is purely driven by politics.

@mis --- You are conflating the Nobel Prizes for academic excellence (which are rewarded on the basis of actual accomplishment) with the Nobel Peace Prize, which (as you correctly note) is a highly political subjective award with many questionable recipients (Henry Kissinger, Yassar Arafat, Barack Obama, etc.)

Haber won his Nobel Prize for CHEMISTRY, not for being a great humanitarian. And I would claim the prize is warranted. The Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen has enormously increased the "carrying capacity" of Planet Earth. Without artificial
nitrogen fixing, we simply couldn't grow enough food to support more than about 2 billion people on the planet. There are
currently over 7 billion people.

While your point is valid (the Nobel Peace Prize is often ridiculous), your justification for that point is also ridiculous.

Not really meaning to conflate anything on purpose I was using it as an example to show how ridiculous some of the Nobel Peace Prize's are. Of course I do not mean "always" or "all." Or that people of the award are not deserving but I do argue that it seems as if it is highly politically motivated... same example as newspapers giving some stupid endorsement which is what I was trying to say.

Rosie did bring it up after all which still doesn't relate much to anything else aside from trying to appeal to empathy.

This reply while very interesting is not remotely responsive to the question I asked mu. Happy Sunday to you.

The kind of independent journalism you're describing, Rosie, doesn't exist anymore in America.  Almost all media outlets are now corporate (government) owned.

And not that it's relevant, but I've a small amount of personal experience in/with journalism.  I used to write for the local paper in the town where I used to live.  That, and although it's not relevant here, my dad was a journalist for 20 years.

So all government is in bed with big business then? If a journalist wins a Pulitizer prize for investigative journalism and brings a story of corruption to the public they would not have known about it is really the government/business combine that deserves the prize?  You know more about it than I do Tq having worked on a local paper. I never wrote for any newspaper. But I still disagree with thee. Ignorance does that to people I suppose. Thank you for your reply  GJ!  :)

First, who's GJ?

Now, to answer your question, publicly traded corporations (the current owners of ninety percent of American media outlets) are GOVERNMENT contrivances.  They're created by, given rights by and protected by GOVERNMENT, so yes. I'd say the line between government and corporation is mighty slim indeed.  As for who's sleeping with whom, it really doesn't matter. Both are functionally the same.  (As a libertarian I don't believe corporations should exist as we know them today.  In fact, for the first 100 years of our history, they were flatly illegal.)

Oops. Mea culpa. GJ is Goat Jumper. Right church, wrong pew. Apologies to you Tq. So to you such awards are meaningless then? Different strokes. Thank you for your reply. So you're a Libertarian? Are ya gonna vote for Gary Johnson, the (what is Aleppo?) guy? When asked by Chris Matthews to name his favorite world leader anywhere in the world he could not come up with a single name. His running mate had to rescue him. This is the guy you want as your prez?  He had time from his "what is Aleppo" gaffe to bone up and read and learn something about the world but he obviously chose not to do so.   I think that is stunningly shocking personally. What do you see in him other than that he is not Trump/Clinton  and might you vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? Of course none of this is any of my business. Thank you for your reply. If corporations should not exist then you are not a capitalist, correct?

Hey, Rosie!

Your having misidentified me as GJ is interesting inasmuch as he, too, is a (left-leaning) libertarian. :-)

And yes, I believe such awards are meaningless.  They're given on the basis of political affiliation and favoritism.  That may not have always been the case, but now such kudos are bestowed on people who toe the party line.

As for Gary Johnson, I've already explained that (and why) I am morally opposed to 'voting.'  Conceivably, I could vote, but only under very specific circumstances such as having a) a realistic alternative candidate, b) a candidate who represented my views, and c) who had a realistic chance of winning.  ANY OTHER situation would lend my support to the current, broken and barbarous system.  I am not willing to do that.

And as you learn mor about libertarianism (classical liberalism), then Johnson's responses about Aleppo, etc. will make more sense.  Libertarians don't concern themselves with world affairs unless they represent a SPECIFIC threat to them or to the people they represent.  We follow George Washington's admonition in regard to avoiding foreign entanglements.

I could, just as conceivably, have voted for Sanders (as opposed to Stein) but, thanks to the DNC, that's no longer an option.

Finally, corporations are GOVERNMENT creations.  I am opposed to corporations precisely BECAUSE I am a capitalist.  Corporations are NOT--repeat, NOT--capitalist entities.

Awards of that type really mean nothing other than the recipient impressed a panel of judges.   Which makes them entirely subjective.  They often just go to those that are popular with the status quo.

To whom is this post directed mu? It is unclear.

Not to whom.. what. Your original statement implies that public opinion should be swayed by popular media outlets. The only true act of media is investigative journalism. Clinton is endorsed ONLY because she is the popular candidate.

Your original statement:

So far the 2016 GOP prez wannabe is the only one in history who so far hasn't received even ONE newspaper endorsement. SPESHUL ain't he?

Trump has received non-endorsements from some newspapers. Some newspapers who are not endorsing Hillary are telling folks to vote for ANYONE but Trump. Some newspapers who NEVER endorsed a Dem in their entire existence have endorsed Hillary! He is a mold-breaker for sure. One-of-a-kind. Unique. Never been one like him. Of all the places in the world he couldda gone he had to walk into an American presidential election and hijack it.

The media has long been a part of the establishment. They pick the winners.  They picked Jeb Bush a year before the primaries started.  Bush Sr annouced that they (establishment) had picked Jeb.  Then Trump came in a messed it all up. And they are all still mad.