Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.
Good to know.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders. The governor of my State, Tim Walz.
In reality, out here in the big world, it's been mostly Republicans who have been taking people's guns away and persecuting them for owning guns and so forth. The paramilitary forces who went in after Katrina, for example, and the regular police and Federal agents who murdered the Black Panthers for carrying guns, were largely Republican and entirely rightwing.
The lefties had that called in 2016.
It will be interesting to see if the rightwing dominated media (such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc) once again try to sell the line that Trump is just engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration for effect - that he won't actually try to screw up the Post Office and invalidate the vote in key States.
Are you comparing CNN to FOX?
I predict that Trump will declare Marshall Law is order to extend his presidency.
As long as he is president he is untouchable, so he needs a few more years in office, until the Statue of Limitation expires.
Today, the moment he becomes civilian he will be buried by lawsuits and criminal charges. It'll be the end of the (vacuous) Trump Empire.
He has already declared the upcoming election as a fraud, before a single vote is cast or counted. Declaring Marshall Law on some pretense of imminent threat to the Nation will give him dictatorial powers and he will exercise them, for his own self-preservation.
ok people im not one who is usual pedantic about spelling and grammar but seriously its martial law. Marshall is a name
Trump may be one of the final presidents over US capitalism, while Elon Musk recently noted that the Chinese are a lot more economically motivated than Americans. Americans have been driven to despair and give-up status largely because of ever-rising income inequality, combined with the double wham of Covid-19.
You're absolutely right. I had it confused with the Marshall Plan.
I must have read it in the news;
But I stand by my projection of Trump trying to delay any change resulting from a fair election.
Sure. Lots of the same people, issues framed the same way, etc etc. CNN is certainly much closer to Fox than to anything one could describe as "leftwing".
CNN is better at getting the occasional fact straight (that's where the Republicans get their sense of CNN being "left") but frames issues in the same way (often in the same vocabulary and with the same emphasis) and has proved to be a reliable source of employment for Fox staffers and talking heads who want to upgrade their CV with something more respectable. Being trained by Fox is apparently a plus on one's job application to CNN.
One reason for laying such a bet would be that Trump has threatened to do that or similar , and has been making preparations for doing something like that.
Not that I would bet on it, but it's not at all farfetched.
You just gave an opinion.
And I'm not certain you agree with what you said.
? Like everyone else, you mean?
It's an informed opinion. Many years informed. I've been watching CNN transform itself into a "bothsides" parrot, for example, since even before AT&T/TimeWarner bought it and put this guy in charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_L._Stephenson
and even before they hired this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Zucker
who is famous not only for hiring Trump to front "The Apprentice" but also for stuff like this:
. Note that Jeff Zucker, promotor and enforcer of the bothsides travesty, knew as a matter of fact that Trump did not write the show "The Apprentice", and in particular that Trump did not decide who to fire and when - the writers did that.
Upshot: if you inform yourself, I think you will agree with it - the evidence is nothing if not obvious, and easily encountered.
Here is a list of current and some former CNN staff of various ranks, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CNN_personnel . Try to find the lefties. You can find Andrew Breitbarts and Rick Santorums and similar evil whackjobs easily; you can find plenty of David Frums, David Gergens, David Gregorys;
(Gregory's lecturing of Matt Taibbi on the need for Taibbi to report more favorably on Trump supporters during the 2016 campaign was a classic - Taibbi kept pointing out that he was actually interviewing and researching and dealing with real life Trump supporters, and Gregory kept chastising him for what amounted to accurate and insightful reporting because it made one side look worse than the other)
but you will have a very difficult time finding anyone on the left, all of them low level and unfamiliar (they don't get much air).
Of course you aren't. But if you check it out - being careful to check out what I did in fact say, and not something else you might expect me to have said - you will find that the facts and events support rather than contradict it.
It's not rocket science. CNN wanted to be the champions of bothsides political reporting and punditry, to cover politics as one would cover a baseball game, and since the Republican Party refused to budge off of bullshit mountain they had to join it on the slopes - to treat what has been accurately described as "bullshit mountain" as if it were factually and analytically equivalent to rock solid geography. That's what they did. That's what almost all the mainstream media in America did. Here's how Wiki carefully phrases it:
"Accusations" my ass. "False balance" ("bothsides") was and is CNN's overt, explicit, publicly proclaimed agenda.
Second paragraph you put into quote, I stopped reading.
Those are not my words.
The two quotes attributed to you were single sentences cut and paste from your post, your words as labeled by the forum software's "reply" function, which were directly addressed to me. The other two quote boxes, which are more like paragraphs, are also source labeled, the first one linked and the second labeled "Wiki". There are no quotes attributed to you that are not your words, and no unattributed quotes.
Meanwhile: If you regard opinions as "just" opinions you may prefer not reading anything I post - almost everything I post is an opinion of some kind, mine or somebody's. The ignore function works well, they say, and it will save you from the inevitable embarrassments attendant upon replying to posts you have not read with more care than is your custom.
Just a suggestion.
Meanwhile: if you follow the links and arguments above, and otherwise check out the well-documented reality of CNN's news delivery and related policies, you will (I predict) discover that CNN is much more closely aligned with Fox News than it is with any lefty news or punditry source. Only CNN's greater allegiance to fact saves it from being entirely a sensationalist sibling of Fox - in the framing of issues, the vocabulary employed, the weighting of priorities, the hiring of pundits and guest experts, etc, CNN displays only small differences.
Why not just say "sorry"?
Can i say sorry as well... just for fun?
Me too? We need more "sorry"!
In what world would demonstrating that "justice is blind" NOT be "good for democracy?"
I agree with the question, but I agree with Biden that it would not be productive if anybody could just sue a president for relatively minor infractions committed during his presidency, after his/her terms is finished.
It will be a legal nightmare, especially if a president is allowed to serve out his/her term. If the crimes are "high crimes and high misdemeanors" the legal remedy is to impeach during tenure, which was already tried and failed.
But this case may be a good example, because Trump is a perfect example of an elected president who must be held to account for the hundreds of Constitutional infractions and broken legal conventions that have been broken at the expense of tax-payers.
Separate names with a comma.