commies will be commies
Dr. Effing Oz
- Thread starter SSdoc33
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
Let's look at the free speech issue...
Can you give an example of when Trump suppressed free speech? Have you turned on CNN, MSNBC, or read the NYT or WaPo? The cases of free speech being suppressed that I can give examples of are the liberal Antifa movement, SUCCESSFULLY shutting down conservative speakers. On college campuses, safe spaces are set up to "protect" people from speech they find objectionable. We've argued here about how it's supposedly ok to suppress free speech if someone thinks it's "intolerant". That suppression is not Trump, that's "progressivism".
Dictators and Trump and everyone else COMPLAIN about bad press. They favor media that is favorable to them.
That's quite different from actually suppressing free speech.
Napoleon's cable news station was WAY better than chairman Mao's. It was all programs about wine and sex.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,109
- Reaction score
- 878
Successfully? Not yet to my knowledge. But's he's tried.
What’s Driving Trump’s Attacks on Amazon? It’s Personal
His attack on Amazon was almost certainly a direct attack on Jeff Bezos for coverage he believes is unfavorable in the Washington Post, which I'm sure most people here know, owns WaPo.
It might not matter when pundits, or lower level government officials run their mouths, but when the POTUS is calling mainstream media sources "fake news"*, and he's making statements that suggest he's ready to walk all over the first-amendment, we'd be seriously remiss not to pay attention. Particularly in the case of a president that seems to idolize dictators and favor an authoritarian style. Hello? All you conservatives out there who live in fear of tyranny? Anyone home?
Thanks to DT, my mother - a dyed in the wool Trumpie - doesn't know what to believe, or who to trust anymore. She trusts HIM, that's it. Pathetic. But wow... what a score for DT.
* Do any of you remember what *actual* fake news used to be... it used to be utterly false and easily verifiable news reported as being true, generally by fringe conspiracy type web sites and bloggers. No one talks about this anymore.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,630
- Reaction score
- 5,924
my post was about what DICTATORS do. not independent organizations that decide that a certain speech is incompatible with their moral values. nice try but you are completely off base.
in terms of Trump, he is getting awfully close to attempting to do what dictators do.
his personal daily attacks on "Fake News" and specifically targetting news reporters that disagrees with his opinion is in contradistinction to every other president out there. yes, Obama didnt get along with Fox and called out Fox news. i get that. but getting personal is cheap, demeaning, disingenuous unlike any other POTUS and, frankly, coming from someone with the greatest amount of power in this country, frankly very concerning...
The 472 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List
a few of them...
"Crazy"
"A waste"
"dummy"
"truly bad people"
"among most dishonest groups of people"
"wacky"
"Neurotic dope"
"dumbest political pundits"
"really dumb puppet"
"stupid talking head"
"a clown"
"sleepy eyes"
"incompetent"
"3rd rate reporter"
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
Agree with this 100% He's also the ultimate troll.
Don’t you dare play victim. You and the liberal media do a great job of discrediting yourselves.....funny how you all loved Trump when he was a Democrat. Trump hits back when the likes of Jim Acosta heckles him on the White House lawn or in the White House press room or when Trump and Kim are finally meeting. And it’s no secret that every major news organization endorsed Hillary. So since they aren’t Trumps buddy, they get mad and hide behind “Freedom of Spech” when he hits back.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,630
- Reaction score
- 5,924
funny how you make so many blanket statements and try to lump those who don't believe in your opinion as having the same opinion. this is usually a sign of a weak argument.
im a New Yorker, and I can definitively state that I never trusted nor liked Trump (tho I am not a Democrat per se). and "every major news organizations" sure did critique Clinton hard for her many errors.
the problem that you blithely ignore is that, unlike any other political figure, he seeks to discredit and belittle those who he thinks critiques him. Reagan never did that. Neither did Bushes, McCain, Romney, Ryan, OConnell, Krauthammer, ... only guys like Bannon, North,
maybe Palin, but then again....
im a New Yorker, and I can definitively state that I never trusted nor liked Trump (tho I am not a Democrat per se). and "every major news organizations" sure did critique Clinton hard for her many errors.
the problem that you blithely ignore is that, unlike any other political figure, he seeks to discredit and belittle those who he thinks critiques him. Reagan never did that. Neither did Bushes, McCain, Romney, Ryan, OConnell, Krauthammer, ... only guys like Bannon, North,
maybe Palin, but then again....
you are correct in part. The media has had it out for past republicans for decades and they chose to ignore the media. Trump chooses not to and he said as much. He trolls like the best of them and the media falls all over itself about his tweets and "lies". Those things dont concern me.
"I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy," Bush told Matt Lauer on the TODAY show. "That we need the media to hold people like me to account. I mean, power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere.” - GWB
President Reagan Thursday saluted freedom of the press as 'a fundamental tenet of American life' and criticized a U.N. agency for policies he said were alien to free communication.
In a message observing National Newspaper Week, Oct. 9-15, Reagan said, 'Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life.
There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success in what the founding fathers called our 'noble experiment' in self-government.' -Reagan
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
-Thomas Jefferson
President Reagan Thursday saluted freedom of the press as 'a fundamental tenet of American life' and criticized a U.N. agency for policies he said were alien to free communication.
In a message observing National Newspaper Week, Oct. 9-15, Reagan said, 'Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life.
There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success in what the founding fathers called our 'noble experiment' in self-government.' -Reagan
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
-Thomas Jefferson
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
On Meet the Press yesterday, Chuck Todd called Trump a "liar" multiple times. He quickly went through a list of things Trump said that he called lies. They were mostly debatable things but the one I remember was "Obama lost Crimea", which was labeled a bald faced LIE by Chuck. Then he got his "expert" panel of reporters together to talk about lying.
Obama was president when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine. Therefore it's absolutely true that Obama lost Crimea. It's not like he could have done much about it but it's still true. It's NOT a lie.
When you say something is a lie and it's not, that makes YOU the liar. Therefore, the credibility of Meet the Press and Chuck Todd does not change at all. It is still the bottom of the barrel, tabloid entertainment for the masses.
Anyway, that's why "lie" is in quotes.
There’s no doubt that the liberal media is and has always been agenda driven and in favor of Democrats. If you don’t see this, it’s because you don’t want to. I am all for a Free Press until the press decides to suppress other peoples opinions. I would not consider CNN or MSNBC journalists in the way the term Free Press was intended to be used. And when the press instigates racial division, attacks law-enforcement, and supports illegal immigration, it is inexcusable.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
- Messages
- 4,263
- Reaction score
- 1,560
As the press has called Trump a liar 2,000 times over the past 6 months, here's what's happened to his approval ratings. Black line:
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,630
- Reaction score
- 5,924
so you're saying its better to lie to make yourself look good and convince others that others are lying, than to tell the truth?
try that in school. it will get you far - to the principal's office.
or he can be a real man and tell the truth.
try that in school. it will get you far - to the principal's office.
or he can be a real man and tell the truth.
When the lead investigator of the Clinton investigation Peter Strzok-“I’m with her”, “Trump is a ****ing idiot”,
are you seriously saying politicans(most are lawyers) dont lie? Dont forget he's a racist and sexist and mysoginist and homophobe......keep going in circles for the next 6 years if you want. It's called projecting. Democrats do it right.
are you seriously saying politicans(most are lawyers) dont lie? Dont forget he's a racist and sexist and mysoginist and homophobe......keep going in circles for the next 6 years if you want. It's called projecting. Democrats do it right.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
There are exaggerations, lies, and then there are LIES. Eg. "The crowd of people that came to see me was the biggest EVER in human history" is an exaggeration. "I didn't have sex with that woman" (to cover up an affair) is a lie about a personal matter that is none of our business.
Calling someone a LIAR repeatedly is really awful and immature.
I think all these attacks are due to the fact that Trump's message of "MAGA" is hard to counter.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,630
- Reaction score
- 5,924
im sorry, a lie is a lie. George Washington didnt say "well, i kind of only started cutting down the cherry tree" (euphemistically speaking - of course he is never offically quoted as saying that he did).
and if you believe in MAGA, then you believe that America sucks right now,. when was it great, 50 years ago??? 30? ask any non-white - it sure sucked back then especially in the deep south.
if you think America is and has been the greatest country in the world bar none, then MAGA never "happened" because we are GREAT RIGHT NOW, before Trump, and not some remote past.
sorry, but i think the latter is true.
and if you believe in MAGA, then you believe that America sucks right now,. when was it great, 50 years ago??? 30? ask any non-white - it sure sucked back then especially in the deep south.
if you think America is and has been the greatest country in the world bar none, then MAGA never "happened" because we are GREAT RIGHT NOW, before Trump, and not some remote past.
sorry, but i think the latter is true.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
MAGA to me means that success ("winning" as Trump would say) is admired rather than frowned upon. I think that is aspirational as opposed to "Why bother starting a business because you didn't build that". And the shame that some people feel about being American - apology tour, "for the first time I am proud", etc, it's just not what I want for the country. It may be your vision, it's not mine.
That to me is the main thing. I don't see anyone talking about going back to discriminatory racial policies. I see the "Me Too" movement with Trump, no one before him. So for those who were terrified MAGA meant going back to slavery, I mean, let's be real here. It's not happening, even a little. I haven't seen any more riots in Ferguson or Baltimore and I don't see any reason to think racial relations are declining.
You guys should prepare yourselves because another SC justice would really change the country for the long term. That is to say, the constitution will be more literally interpreted and not "living and breathing" and subject to whatever hormones are circulating in the court at the time...
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,630
- Reaction score
- 5,924
I’ve always been proud to be an American and oft bothered I haven’t contributed more. I would have but bone spurs 20/400 vision kept me out.
These new movements are not rising because of trump - they are riding due to trump. Because Americans are afraid their voices will be taken away. Afraid because he does not deny the alt-right and in fact encourages their racist views, all while espousing derogatory views of others based on race and heritage. Those huge marches last year were not in celebration of trump politics.
If you don’t see that... man, where did you get those rose colored glasses???
These new movements are not rising because of trump - they are riding due to trump. Because Americans are afraid their voices will be taken away. Afraid because he does not deny the alt-right and in fact encourages their racist views, all while espousing derogatory views of others based on race and heritage. Those huge marches last year were not in celebration of trump politics.
If you don’t see that... man, where did you get those rose colored glasses???
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
I do see it and pretty much agree with everything you're saying. People are angry and afraid and are reacting to it. It doesn't change the fact that Harvey Weinstein is no longer mingling with politicians. Minority Americans are doing well. I can't argue that people are concerned. But looking at the results, I think they shouldn't be any more afraid than with a more suave and PC president who says all the right things.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 733
ahahahahaha... functional and nimble governments like european parliaments? parliamentary republics such as Italy and Greece, the parliament of Croatia? some of the worst corruption and debt on the planet. hahahaha....... ahhhh ok, wiping the tears away.
ok keep going...
Last edited:
so the Democrat position is Trump is a liar, and we are not? Yea ok. Unfortunately for Democrats, they dont have any other position except Trump is a racist, Trump is a liar, and Trump hates the children. Who is wearing rose colored glasses?
Please turn off Mika on MSNBC....she is crying today all because of Trump hating the illegal immigrant children and Trump is physically taking kids away from their families, while lying to everyone and forcing his head of DHS(a woman) lie on TV about a Bill Clinton policy of not putting the children in jail with their parents(1999). He is pure evil and if you dont feel for these children you are a monster.(violet font)
Please turn off Mika on MSNBC....she is crying today all because of Trump hating the illegal immigrant children and Trump is physically taking kids away from their families, while lying to everyone and forcing his head of DHS(a woman) lie on TV about a Bill Clinton policy of not putting the children in jail with their parents(1999). He is pure evil and if you dont feel for these children you are a monster.(violet font)
enough with straw-man arguments.
such a useless debating tool.
you create an impossible scenario just to shoot it down. bringing back slavery? what are you even saying? elizabeth warren has nothing to do with this.
ahahahahaha... functional and nimble governments like european parliaments? parliamentary republics such as Italy and Greece, the parliament of Croatia? some of the worst corruption and debt on the planet. hahahaha....... ahhhh ok, wiping the tears away.
ok keep going...
nice of you to join the debate. 200 posts in.
croatia? maybe bring in equatorial guinea while you are at it.
no government is perfect, but the parliamentary systems function better, IMHO.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
I think ours has the potential to work better, its just more dependent on who is in the White House. This probably has been getting worse over time as the Executive Branch gains more and more power. Curtail that (and choose better Presidents) and I think we're better. Keep expanding its power and keep electing the people we have been, and we're likely to not be.
well said.
however, wyoming should not have as much say in the senate as california.
our electoral college system blows.
there should be uniformity in regard to federal election laws, rather than this state-by-state mayhem.
but im with you in regards to the executive branch. we have proven time and time again that we elect bozos, both at the state and federal level
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
I definitely disagree with your opinion about the Senate. I think we really do have the best of both worlds here where one chamber is based on population while the other isn't. One could make the argument that the balance of power between the House and Senate might be a little off, but there's something just wrong about LA county having more of a say than the smallest 11 states (based on 2015 population).
I don't mind the electoral college all said. Might be nice if it weren't a winner-take-all system, but we make that change and I think we're OK. That way the entire election isn't based on either 4 states (like now) or 4 metro areas (like it would be without the College).
I don't know enough about general election laws to comment on that.
arbitrary latitude and longitude lines shouldnt determine if abortion is legal, what our taxes should be, etc. right now, joe scho in wyoming has more of a say in our democracy than joe schmo in LA. not fair. it should ALL be based on population. including the general election. seems pretty stupid to me that in 2 out of the last 5 elections, they candidate with the most votes didnt win.
i understand your argument about urban vs. rural, but farmers shouldnt count more than subway employees.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
Pretty sure abortion is decided by the Courts.
Problem with being all population based is that essentially means that this disenfranchises a huge number of Americans. 8 states would control the entire government using current numbers. At least now everyone is represented, if not equally (in only 1 of the 2 chambers, the other chamber is entirely population based). Under your plan 42 states would have absolutely no voice if the largest 8 decided to act together. Better slightly unequal representation than none, and again the unequal part is only in 1 chamber, or 50% of 1/3rd of the government.
There was an interesting article a few months back that basically redivided the country based on general cultural aspects that I thought was quite interesting. Might be preferable than "arbitrary latitude and longitude".
gigantic tracts of land, home only to bears and insects and a few hundred thousand people shouldnt have 2 senators.
people are disproportionately moving to the cities because that is where the jobs are in a 21st century economy. if 8 states can control the government, that is because it is the home to so many americans. your thinking, like nay aspects of the constitution is outdated.
do you have the link to the article? im trying to do anything today other than see patients.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that score then.
Here is an article, not sure if its the original one I saw or not: This map shows the US really has 11 separate 'nations' with entirely different cultures
those urban folks ARE represented.....by their local and state govt's. The constitution is not outdated in this regard and the founding fathers thought about high density areas just like in Europe when they wrote the constitution.
edit:added the exact context of the Constitution not being outdated
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,861
- Reaction score
- 1,194
maybe not outdated, but can always use some updates....ie 12th ammendment
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 21,231
- Reaction score
- 12,342
Bunch of dorks.
Dont like the law, change it. Process clearly outlined. Just takes a lot of like minded people.
Dont like the law, change it. Process clearly outlined. Just takes a lot of like minded people.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
I don't hear you debating at all. Only complaining...
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 10,989
- Reaction score
- 5,665
I don't know if any changes in the law/constitution will make people agree any more than they do. Or be any less upset.
I actually think we have a great system but we've gotten spoiled so we magnify every little disagreement. Like we're freaking out over wedding cakes...
another straw man argument. we are not freaking out about wedding cakes, we are freaking out about the fabric of our democracy. we are freaking out because our president has been bought and/or blackmailed by russia. sort of a different argument.
who are the dorks? us? if you mean us, then you have no disagreement there.
if you mean congress, then you also have no disagreement.
unfortunately, it takes, what 2/3 or 60% like minded people and a president who also agrees. we cant even seem to agree that the sky is blue these days
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,539
- Reaction score
- 2,163
however, wyoming should not have as much say in the senate as california.
our electoral college system blows.
Lol. The electoral college is there precisely to counter those with this opinion. Thank God.
our electoral college system blows.
Lol. The electoral college is there precisely to counter those with this opinion. Thank God.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
Don't need the President to make amendments - in fact I'm pretty sure he's not involved in that process at all.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
You're not, but a bunch of people are. Just ask my Facebook feed or Twitter...
this is correct. 2/3 of both houses. good luck with that.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
Nope, can be done entirely by the states. If 2/3rd of state legislatures decide they want a Constitutional Convention, Congress has to make it happen. The Convention's proposed amendments can become part of the Constitution if 3/4ths of the states agree.
Also interestingly, you apparently can't make an amendment that will take away equal representation in the Senate unless the states that are going to lose that agree to it. So barring an entirely new Constitution, you can't take away equal suffrage in the Senate. I was not aware of this until just now. I guess you could do away with Article 5 altogether and then change the Senate, but I'm not sure if that's even possible. That would absolutely need a Supreme Court ruling.
Still very hard to manage which is kind of the point.
i didnt include the state legislative angle because that is pretty much a pipe dream.
i agree it should be hard -- but not this hard. we are stuck with this quagmire
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,958
- Reaction score
- 56,375
Maybe for you guys, my team controls exactly 2/3rd of the state legislatures.
I don't think we are stuck. The country has done fairly well with this exact system for a long time. Its been within the last 20-ish years that things have gotten so bad. I mean, you can talk to some of the older Senators and they were still in the Senate at a time when things weren't this bad.
still convinced the President is colluding with Russia? Even after the lead "I'm with her" FBI investigator was colluding with other heads of the FBI to exonerate Hillary, stated he had insurance to prevent him from being elected, and when he was elected, to then impeach him after getting a special prosecutor on him? If only you had some texts of some kind making this picture clear?
exactly, but "your team" doesnt speak for 2/3 of the people int he country. that is why our system doesnt adequately represent the views of its people.
at this point, congress couldnt even pass a kidney stone (bad joke). i dont know if the country is too big, too difficult to manage, or what, but they are doing a piss-poor job
you are delusional.
how does hillary have anything to do with trump being in bed with russia?
everyone in trump's orbit is or will be in jail because of the russia story. it actually represents a bigger threat to us than any other single issue. but you can go on burying your head in the sand if you wish. i personally would not like to live in a dictatorship
