Did Trump Really Do That? Progressive Media Never Tells the Truth

A recent cartoon on Lucianne.com accurately pointed out the deceit of the left which ignores the truth of Biden’s disastrous reign while continuing to distort Trump’s statements.

The cartoon shows a man pointing to a chart listing the current Biden chaos in the world saying to his companion, “Can’t you see he’s a total disaster?” The other man wearing a Biden 2024 t-shirt smirks, “Yeah, but Trump said, Grab them by the @$%*#!”.

Yes, he did say that, but why? Trump was simply making a point while chatting with a supposed friend about how some women allow stars and celebrities to do anything to them – even grab their private parts. This is the truth that one hoped the Me-Too movement would change, but I doubt it will. As a handsome billionaire in his youth, Trump probably ran into a lot of self-serving, avaricious, ambitious bimbos. The very idea that he would have bothered with the very transparent E. Jean Carroll is laughable.

But when it comes to media disinformation, one has to admit that it has been extremely successful, at least to those living in a liberal bubble.

I no longer watch insipid award shows but while researching how widespread the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) has been since 2016, I came across a clip of Meryl Streep ripping into Trump’s imitating a disabled reporter while she accepted a Golden Globe achievement award. Meryl, you are a great actress, but you really need to escape that bubble that is making you look like a low info moron. That disabled reporter could not move his arms at all so Trump wasn’t imitating him. His waving arms gesture had been made several times in speeches against opponents, including Ted Cruz and others.

Libertarian reporter John Stossel covered the extent of Trump myths in an excellent video which proves how the mainstream press hides any truth that exonerates Trump.

My longtime readers know that Donald Trump was not my first choice in 2016 for president. I much preferred Texas Gov. Rick Perry, but I voted for Trump then, and in 2020 after his very successful years in office. I plan to do the same in November.

In 2022, I wrote a column inviting TDS supporters to email me to explain why…

more…

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/did_trump_really_do_that_progressive_media_never_tells_the_truth.html

>>20674290

INteresting

I'm not bringing sauce for this but I read the same was true for the end of slavery in America. Slave owners learned that it was actually cheaper to pay a low, barely livable wage than to care for and house a group of workers as slaves. It was actually cheaper to just pay enough for the workers to get by and let them have the illusion of Freedom. They had no true Freedom though because if you don't work, you don't eat.

>>20674428

this

THat's why back in the Beaver Cleaver days, the man worked and that was enough for the family to live comfortably. Now, as technology and more efficient production methods make everything cheaper and more efficiently which should make living even easier, it takes 2 working adults to barely get by. Sometimes that is not even enough. Everything is made quicker and more efficiently so we should have a better standard of living than back in the 50's but the opposite is true.

>>20674473

>>20674462

>>20674438

>>20674493

>>20674428

here it is:

Were slaves cheap laborers? A comparative study of labor costs in the antebellum U.S. South 

By the nineteenth century, many abolitionists hoped or believed that slavery had become an obsolete means of acquiring labor, or at least claimed this rhetorically in order to win support for the abolitionist cause. If this would have been the case, the institution of slavery would undoubtedly have gradually diminished in importance, and eventually disappeared completely. Alas, the historical evidence does not suggest that slavery actually was obsolete. Slavery did as a rule not disappear without great political struggles. At issue, however, is exactly why slavery turned out to be economically profitable for the slave masters for so long. Much of the scholarly research into the economics of slavery has been dedicated to the issue of whether slavery was profitable since slaves were more productive than free laborers. Much less attention has been devoted to the issue of how costly it was to acquire slave labor, in comparison with free labor. While a number of scholars have more or less taken it as self-evident that slaves were cheap labor, others have taken it as equally self-evident that slaves were not cheap, since the capital cost of purchasing a slave could be high. The aim of this article has been to contribute to this debate with a systematic comparison based on quantitative empirical evidence. In the article, a theoretical proposition is made explaining why slavery indeed could be a cheap source of labor; as it could reduce labor costs for a master under conditions of high reservation wages for free laborers. High reservation wages could be caused for example by a high effective land/labor-ratio in a specific location, as suggested by the Nieboer-Domar-hypothesis. It could also be caused by compensating wage differentials for disamenities associated with specific tasks or locations of work. The higher the reservation wage was among common laborers for a particular work, the higher the price of slaves could be with slaves still being the cheapest option available for a master who needed to acquire labor.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0023656X.2021.1974366

>>20674562

not the article I was hunting for

better here:

Slavery Was Never Economically Efficient

A slaveholder has to pay for the room and board, food, clothing, and medical treatment of his slaves. Of course, this can be incredibly minimal—even dehumanizing—but costs nonetheless he would not incur if he did not treat them as living property. A wage reflects value added and is not meant to compensate workers for the food and board they need to survive. With slavery, instead of paying a low wage commensurate with the value created, the slaveholder pays for these living expenses directly.

Additionally, the slaveholder has to invest in near-24-hour security to keep his slaves from escaping. This may mean infrastructures like fencing, buildings, chains, locks, cameras, and more, and it could also include personnel to watch and keep slaves locked away. The revenue from the slave labor is thought to so exceed these costs that it is irrelevant. That is a shortsighted view. For setups where slave or sweatshop workers may not be housed in a prison-like location, the slaveholder still must employ security or enforcers to round people up and subdue them. When added together, these costs begin to have weight. They may decrease in the long run, but they are still ongoing costs that exceed the efficient investment for a free market workforce.

There is also an opportunity cost to consider. Not only does the slaveholder have to pay the actual accounting cost to maintain a worker population and secure them, but he also loses the things he could have if he did not pay for those things. He could have more capital, better quality inputs, and better facilities. The revenue from the slave labor is thought to so exceed these costs that it is irrelevant. That is a shortsighted view. Consider scale, as well; in American slavery, the slave population grew due to birth rates. A higher population costs more to feed and shelter, as well as secure and patrol. Eventually, the numbers could be so overwhelming that it is too expensive to prevent a revolt or escape. Thus inefficiency may grow worse over time.

more…

https://fee.org/articles/slavery-was-never-economically-efficient/

>>20674797

been wondering that too

between the shedding, the meat, and the vegetables, we probably all are at this point

or at least vaxxed adjacent