Obviously you thought Pravda was free as well.
It wasn't; it was an organ of the Communist Party and had to publish whatever the party wanted. But the American MSM is an organ of no party, whatever illusions you may have to the contrary.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obviously you thought Pravda was free as well.
And just like McCain the best you can come up with as an example of "Trump's war on the press" is Trump being rude and or not putting up with shit from other assholes in/representing the press.
The "press" from the biggest media moguls to the citizen with a smart phone, can report any facts they want and give any opinion they want.
There is no war on the press, anyone who thinks there is, is a certifiable fucking lunatic.
No, I meant they're a demonstrable propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and don't treat the opposition fairly.
Yes they are "free" do so, but doing so doesn't mean they're ideologically free to be anything other than a partisan propaganda arm.
If you want to call that a free press, that's fine.
I can agree to disagree.
I agree
Trump is certifiable as he is the one who said the press is his opponent and that the news is the enemy of the American people.
Pretty unbelievable to come from a so-called president.
Obviously you thought Pravda was free as well.
You can also believe the Earth is flat....
Yes, but
His followers lap it up. If Trump says all of CNN is "Fake News," they believe it. WE can say it's "stupid," but there's a god 30% who do NOT. THAT is laying the groundwork for authoritarianism, i.e. I and only I tell you the truth, forever and ever. Don't believe anyone but me. That is a far cry from saying "We have a free press. I don't always agree with them, I think they're biased" and leave it at that. You're a fool if you don't think he's taking it to a whole other level.
In other words, you're counting on yourself and others to have a healthy skepticism and be able to say what's true, what's not, what's stupid, what's not. You're taking that for granted. That's exactly what he is trying to undermine.
He doesn't have to shut down the internets and stop the presses to "suppress." He knows he can't do that in a literal sense.
But when you have 30% absolutely distrusting anything that doesn't come out of his lying mouth (except for state-approved shows like Fox) because he tells them so, what do you call that?
So when, if, the facts come out about his lies, his fraud, whatever bad shit comes on the horizon, he can just call it all fake.
And that's not even mentioning the whole "The press is the enemy of the American people."
If Kyrie Irving whispered "the earth is flat" into Trump's ear, Trump would quote him as a credible source, and actually believe it.
I call it "stupidity" for which stupid people are wholly responsible rather than the dishonest people who deceive them: AS LONG AS THAT DECEIT OCCURS LEGALLY! It's why some people buy brand name aspirin rather than the generic product. Go figure.
ANYBODY can call ANYTHING "fake." There are idiots running around claiming all the Apollo moon landings were fake. And there are bigger idiots who actually believe it.
There are numerous authors who've made a career alleging that former President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Cuba, organized crime, the former Soviet Union AND Vice-president Johnson. And the are gullible, paranoid fools who believe it.
Obviously you thought Pravda was free as well.
Just out of curiosity, what publication or media outlet with a liberal orientation would you consider a free one? There must be some out there in the world -- unless you regard "free" and "liberal" as somehow flatly incompatible, which would be nonsense.
I call it "stupidity" for which stupid people are wholly responsible rather than the dishonest people who deceive them: AS LONG AS THAT DECEIT OCCURS LEGALLY! It's why some people buy brand name aspirin rather than the generic product. Go figure.
ANYBODY can call ANYTHING "fake." There are idiots running around claiming all the Apollo moon landings were fake. And there are bigger idiots who actually believe it.
There are numerous authors who've made a career alleging that former President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Cuba, organized crime, the former Soviet Union AND Vice-president Johnson. And the are gullible, paranoid fools who believe it.
Now you can make an argument that the electorate was "fooled" into electing Trump in the first place, and I wouldn't even attempt to dispute you. Because that's pretty much how all political campaigns are conducted. It was either get fooled into voting for Trump or get fooled into voting for Hillary, not unlike we got "fooled" voting for Obama, Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon....
There is a REAL world out there, and by YOUR OWN estimated numbers, 70% of Americans in it either don't pay the least bit of attention to nonsense accusations like "fake news" or they are at least smart enough to try and discriminate about what news is or isn't fake.
That is a high enough number for me to have great faith in the INABILITY of any would-be-fascist-dictator to lie his or her way to power on the premise that enough people will believe anything he says.
The question is, why isn't it a high enough number for you?
Just out of curiosity, what publication or media outlet with a liberal orientation would you consider a free one? There must be some out there in the world -- unless you regard "free" and "liberal" as somehow flatly incompatible, which would be nonsense.
First let's clarify the word free in this context. Anyone or entity is "free" to say what they want but a system that excludes the free exchange of ideas isn't what the founders had in the mind.
It didn't contemplate a monolithic mainstream media in an incestuous relationship with the government, switching employment back and forth.
I call it "stupidity" for which stupid people are wholly responsible rather than the dishonest people who deceive them: AS LONG AS THAT DECEIT OCCURS LEGALLY! It's why some people buy brand name aspirin rather than the generic product. Go figure.
ANYBODY can call ANYTHING "fake." There are idiots running around claiming all the Apollo moon landings were fake. And there are bigger idiots who actually believe it.
There are numerous authors who've made a career alleging that former President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Cuba, organized crime, the former Soviet Union AND Vice-president Johnson. And there are gullible, paranoid fools who believe it.
Now you can make an argument that the electorate was "fooled" into electing Trump in the first place, and I wouldn't even attempt to dispute you. Because that's pretty much how all political campaigns are conducted. It was either get fooled into voting for Trump or get fooled into voting for Hillary, not unlike we got "fooled" voting for Obama, Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon....
There is a REAL world out there, and by YOUR OWN estimated numbers, 70% of Americans in it either don't pay the least bit of attention to nonsense accusations like "fake news" or they are at least smart enough to try and discriminate about what news is or isn't fake.
That is a high enough number for me to have great faith in the INABILITY of any would-be-fascist-dictator to lie his or her way to power on the premise that enough people will believe anything he says.
The question is, why isn't it a high enough number for you?
Don't see how not; any newspaper of their day might have been so partisan as to exclude the free exchange of ideas.
Benjamin Franklin was both a statesman and a journalist, among many other things.
I guess that you're point of view is o.k if you're an atheist. As long as it's legal wtf! If they pass a law that all old white men have to enter a FEMA death camp, that would be cool.
Weak and unresponsive. You can do better.
Like this is even analogous.
Anybody can call anything fake, true, but it's a slightly different thing when the goddamned President does.
And let's be real.
CNN is not fake news.
Faux News is not fake news (cough)
FAKE NEWS IS THE PIZZAGATE STORY
FAKE NEWS is fake, not biased, not an extremely right wing interpretation of facts, not a mistake, but fake. FAKE NEWS IS MAKING UP A MASSACRE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. FAKE NEWS IS CLAIMING SANDY HOOK DID NOT HAPPEN.
It is goddamned irresponsible and fucking crazy for the President of the United States to toss that around to any media representation he does not like.
Jesus Christ, how many times can people point out on this thread:
No, there seem to be checks and balances against ACTUAL crackdowns on authoritarian power. No one's claiming they could, short of a military enforcement. No one's saying that.
But that doesn't mean, which you refuse to see because you're so literal, that the rhetoric is not there, the DESIRE isn't there, and the brainwashing isn't there. Just because no one's been rounded up in cattle cars yet does not mean there isn't a precedent being set, DUH. (Although let's not forget what happened to the press at Trump rallies)
It is happening, at an ideological level, no doubt.
And why are you so secure in this 70%?
If that is so, it's because we have a sort of educated populace who've grown up with the free press, and no President screaming at them not to mistrust everything except what he says for 200 years.
Give it another 20 years, another Betsy DeVos, etc. and that percentage will just shrink and shrink.
Oh, I see. If you can construct a single absurd fictitious example of a reprehensible moral relativistic "law" and attack the equally reprehensible strawman presumption that my respect for law supports such nonsense, then I suppose you can create the proposition that ANY "LEGAL" partisan statement NOT based on provable FACT is an effort to "undermine" a person or position of higher moral standard, and that the offending speaker should himself be legally constrained.
I mean, if ALL moral relativism is reprehensible, than the only alternative is a corresponding commitment to moral absolutism. Is that what you are advocating?
If not, but if the President's comments are so dangerously on the precipice of moving us toward fascism, by all means tell us where to draw the line LEGALLY (because we remain a nation of laws) so as to prevent this deplorable possibility while NOT creating a prior restraint of speech that is itself fascist. American courts hate that and there are tons of case law precedent repudiating it.
You can do that can't you? You've thought it through to that extent, yes?
We all respect the law but some of us are aware of and respond to our higher impulses. I guess it's all about how evolved one is.
Which apparently does not include giving straight answers to direct questions. That's some high road you're traveling.
Hogan, I know your game. Only fools play by your rules.
Game? What is foolish about discussing practical and reasonable legal solutions to potentially serious legal problems?
You guys appear to be seriously alarmed about the realistic potential harm from Trump's comments and, far more importantly, his actual motivations behind those comments.
Game? What is foolish about discussing practical and reasonable legal solutions to potentially serious legal problems?
You guys appear to be seriously alarmed about the realistic potential harm from Trump's comments and, far more importantly, his actual motivations behind those comments.
It would seem to me that a person so exorcised by these prospects would have at least a theoretical plan of action rather than just random bitching.
I fail to see what is so sinister in my asking to hear it.