Freedom of the Press or Suppression of the Evidence
An articulate Liberal Progressive conservative Democratic President's words on that subject cause me to wonder. I ain't talking about Obama ,Clinton, nor Carter. Over fifty years ago President Kennedy warned about secret societies ideas and the fall of America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces.
These ideals as spoken to by the late JFK seems so appropriate in today's political climate. Everything that he admonishes us about is clear and present danger right before us, today and now.
Yes it is too appropriate in today's political climate.
Alright Credence2, how about answering the question I posed to Junko - Specifically what is the "clear and present danger you speak of?
ps. Don't forget, I am closer to those "stupid and dense rightwingers" you spoke of than I am to you enlightened Progressives - so type slowly.
GACREDENCE2 WROTE:
GA, are you referring first of all to my comment to Onsurus' insidious posting on another thread?
Onsurus referred to my comment regarding the Trump photo of this KellyAnn person lounging on the sofa while Trump was holding a meeting with the heads of assorted HBCU institutions.
I said that the photo was tawdry and disrespectful of the gathering there. Onsurus responds with a photo of Obama with his feet on the desk as being the equivalent. Well, it is not.
Lets face it, the issue was not 'feet on the desk' but the Black man's feet on the desk. Onsurus and conservatives in general think that I don't know the difference? What other conclusion do I come to, after all, there are pictures of Nixon, Ford, Clinton. Reagan with their feet on the desk and accordingly I responded to him, So What.....
Conservatism is beginning to uncomfortably morph with racism making it even more unpalatable in the age of Trump. Look how much conservatives have accommodated to give Trump a free pass.
For Onsurus and other conservatives and right wingers to think that we on the left can be deceived by them as direct contradiction as to what is clear an obvious is stupid and dense.
By the way, you never told me that you had that much of an affinity for the 'red'.
I don't have to tell you what the clear and present danger is, don't you know? It is Trump, Trumpism.
It is the attitude of squelching dissent and opposing ideas rather than taking them into consideration.The idea that Trump muzzles and fear the press, while President Kennedy invited them to call him out on his errors was reflecting of the kind of man and leader that he was, in stark comparison to what we have now.Hey bud, regarding my affinity for "red," I am a purple - remember? Blue on some issues, Red on others. Probably more Red than Blue, so I just go with Purple.
I didn't address the "KellyAnn" issue, but I do agree with your perspective on it.
If I understand what you mean by "Trumpism," there is one part of it that I might agree as a "clear and present danger," and that would be the bolstering of an Isolationist sentiment among citizens. As an FDR fan, I think you might see the point of that fear. But the rest of what I think you may mean is just the flip-side of the Democrat coin. No more dangerous now, than when the Democrats were on top.
And I hope you aren't expecting me to charge into a comparison of Pres. Kennedy to Pres. Trump... yet.
ps. Your Onsurus explanation won't fly either. Your comment, and others like it that you have made, specifically addressed "Rightwingers" as a group, not a specific poster you were responding too.
GAHey bud, regarding my affinity for "red," I am a purple - remember? Blue on some issues, Red on others. Probably more Red than Blue, so I just go with Purple.
------------------
Got you seeing Red this time, GA?
---------------
I didn't address the "KellyAnn" issue, but I do agree with your perspective on it.
-----------
See, you have no problem seeing the issue even though you are conservative. The rightwinger will deny, deflect and avoid confronting that issue for what it is.
---------
If I understand what you mean by "Trumpism," there is one part of it that I might agree as a "clear and present danger," and that would be the bolstering of an Isolationist sentiment among citizens. As an FDR fan, I think you might see the point of that fear. But the rest of what I think you may mean is just the flip-side of the Democrat coin. No more dangerous now, than when the Democrats were on top.
---------------
When it comes to Trump there has been no Democratic President that was comparable and definitely, 'no flip side'.
Trump is Rash and impulsive, a dangerous narcissist that like so many right wingers, equate ignorance with experience and knowledge. So many of his edicts, from what I understand, were made without any imput from others qualified to discuss their merits.
Why increase the nuclear arsenal? What war is he preparing for, does he not know that there is sufficient megatonage in either our or our adversaries arsenals to take the crust from the planet and render it lifeless? That's dangerous.
FDR biggest faux pas was his attempt to pack the courts. There are not comparable issues of war and depression for Trump to get everyone drawers in a wad about, today.
The ability acknowledge more than 'I have a great brain', you need an attitude being willing to listen and learn. I need prudence from the Commander and Chief, not a bull in the China shop.
As a former military, I don't like chicken hawks, tough talking as long as someone else's skin is in the game. That is Trump to a T.
How about leading by example, where is the tax return data? This man is responsible for enforcing our law, whose is checking to see that he complied with it?
-------------
ps. Your Onsurus explanation won't fly either. Your comment, and others like it that you have made, specifically addressed "Rightwingers" as a group, not a specific poster you were responding too.
-----------------
Yes, I attack Right wingers and they deserve it, but that is not you, is it?
GAYes Cred, on the KellyAnn point you do have me seeing Red. My perspective is that the issue is a matter of respect and manners, and I see both as very strong Conservative, (Red), values.
But wait... before you toss out some of these forums more vocal participants as examples to prove your point- I am speaking of a general group, not extreme segments of that group. We all know that old adage about exceptions to a rule. Rudeness, name-calling, and denial aren't confined to any specific ideology - no matter how many times you claim it to be so. (sorry, but I couldn't resist just a little twist of the blade) ;-)
My reference to FDR had to do with his circumvention of the Isolationist attitudes of both Congress and the citizenry during the lead-up to WWII. Specifically his Lend-Lease program. History has proven that he was right. Had he followed the dictates of public and Congressional opinion, (and the spirit of current U.S. law), we would have offered no help to Britain against Hitler. I don't think there can there be any doubt that Britain would have fallen without our help. I also don't think there can be any doubt that we would have still been drawn into the war - at a much greater national cost - even if we didn't help. In FDR's time U.S. isolationism was definitely a clear and present danger. With Pres. Trump, and many of his supporters, I also see that clear and present danger of an isolationist American policy.
My agreement with you about that point, (regarding Pres. Trump), is that, as I once heard someone remark; "If you scratch the surface of many Americans, you will see an Isolationist." My concern is that I do see Pres. Trump as an Isolationist. All reasonable folks should see the extreme danger in that - regardless of party affiliation, or ideology.
To all your other criticisms of Pres. Trump, you are welcome to them. I will wait to discuss the realities of actions and results instead of jumping on perceptions and assumptions. (I know... where is the fun in that)
GAYes, I am talking about the extremist, not the generalist conservative type of which there are plenty here and for the first time, not even Reagan qualifies, but that is what we have in the White House in person and in spirit, today. Even I have a conservative bent on some things, but I am not a conservative generally.
Conservatives seem to relish in the idea that Trump is not your standard politician, but a businessman. Is that supposed to be an advantage?
But we all know that the skill sets between an CEO and POTUS are different, not that Trump was particularly clever or exemplary in the business world. Being a 4 star general did not give Eisenhower the seeds for greatness as POTUS.
I think that Trump is in over his head and out of his element. This is not 'Celebrity Apprentice'.
Rightwinger is a definition and not an insult. I never referred to anyone specifically by that title by name but their ideas are what identifies them. And they know who they are.
Progressives have been too considerate, in the Age of Trump, we are going to have to prepare to give as good as we get.
You are absolutely right about FDR, but that was the outcome of a thoughtful and considerate leader, Trump being neither (has not convinced me to this point). Surely, you are not endowing Trump with the kind of foresight and judgement that FDR had? Yes, there are tenets of isolationism in the Trump's preferences. Maybe, getting a more balanced financial participation by member states in NATO and other sort of alliances like this is not bad idea, if approached properly.
For an isolationist he seems to be boosting the military, for what purpose? History has shown that the Fortress America idea has not worked, peace is maintained by engagement and partnership with others. Even without Pearl Harbor or Without FDR, we would have been drawn into the war eventually, but our delay may have signed the death warrant for Western Europe. We may have entered far less prepared. It may have allowed Germany to complete its heavy water experiments and get the A-bomb first. I also heard that they had developed jet fighters that would pick allied aircraft out of the skies, ending bombardment of the country before its military capacity could be destroyed. History rewards FDR with a designation as in the top 5 of our most effective Chief Executives. And that is for good reason. Trump, and his attitude over many matters does not give me the confidence that there is competence at the helm.
As for Trump, he hasalready been setting the tone for what is to come, change toward a more moderate and reflective attitude just doesn't seem to be in the cards.Well damn Cred, since I still won't join in most of your anti-Trump remarks, there isn't much I disagree with in your response.
A couple points maybe, but they are more perspective than factual substance.
For one, I don't think the Conservative's view that it is a good thing he is a businessman instead of a career politician is necessarily a bad thing. But I won't take that attribute farther than that.
Then, I disagree with you about the Fortress America thought. While I do agree with your thought about the importance of diplomacy and cooperation - I strongly believe in the proven truth of peace through strength. In a kumbahya world you might be right, respect might come from diplomacy and good intentions, but in the real world there is a need for strength behind diplomacy and good intentions. Do you think Russia or Iran would deal with us as good neighbors solely because of our good intentions and willingness to cooperate?
I also think you might give a little more thought to the connection between isolationism and a military build-up - a la your perception of Pres. Trump's build-up statements. I see Pres. Trump's perspective as an Isolationist one - we will be so damn powerful nobody will mess with us, so the rest of the world can go to hell. I can't imagine that as being more wrong. A simple coalition of our worst enemies could easily defeat our strongest defenses - if we restrict those defenses to our own borders. History has proven this point also. Consider how many historical 'impregnable' citadels have fallen to brute force and numbers.
Regarding your "Rightwingers" declaration, perhaps I have been myopic regarding your use of the term, but I don't recall any of your uses that didn't seem to be intended as insulting. Oh well, I learn something new everyday.
GA
Junko, did you realize the potential danger in what you said? I completely burned out 3 neural networks, and knocked two more off-line, just trying to understand what a "... Liberal Progressive conservative Democrat[ic]..." was. Geez!
I suspect you did it on purpose too. I could easily have envisioned a conservative Progressive Democrat. Or a conservative Democrat. Or a Liberal Democrat. Or even a liberal Progressive Democrat. But a liberal progressive conservative democrat - what the hell is that?
Anyway, I agree that your linked Pres. Kennedy remarks are valid to today's times. But I don't see anything prescient about them. They will always ring true; past, present, and future. Even so, the prompt that caused you to post the link might make for an interesting conversation.
What made you think it was especially applicable to today's circumstances?
GALet me help here, JFK was a progressive. He was not a conservative Democrat. Conservatives today refer to him as such, but this 2017, not 1961. Kennedy, like all great leaders, grew with the job and came to the proper conclusions as to what was actually going on through greater understanding and experience. By 1962-63 standards, Kennedy was quite radical and courageous in his proposals.
It's no wonder Kennedy grew up as president , One more rich kid learning to actually earn a paycheck .Much Like Obama , one more entitled idealistic intellectual learning on the job ! Job training is another liberal social program that didn't work ,
America however cannot afford that at the highest level of government.So we replace this idea with a know it all buffoon like Trump?
He's blowing away the competition in economic growth alone , 21,000 on the stock market , returning populist sovereignty , appointing politically sound management , talking REALLY reforming tax codes ...........
However , I don't think progressives like yourself would ever recognize true progress - Is that a genetic deficiency in liberals ?No, more the myopic view that afflicts the Rightwinger.
AHB, you mean he's talking all this stuff. so far we haven't seen any real results. And as far as Obamacare goes, which you didn't mention, he realizes that there isn't a darn thing he can do about it, so he's thrown it back into Congress' lap, where it belongs in the first place.
Aw shucks Cred, I had an idea what Junko meant, I was just yanking his chain for that string of contradictory adjectives.
You say Pres. Kennedy grew into his job, and I agree. I think most Presidents would fit that description. Pres. Obama immediately jumps to mind. As does Pres. Clinton and "W" Bush. But your inclusion of "proper conclusions" offers a glimpse of your bias. We all won't agree on what those proper conclusions should be.
It might even be possible, down the road a bit, for us to say Pres. Trump grew into the job also. And if the stars align just right - he might even be proven to have come to the "proper conclusions" too. Time will tell, but for now your perspective is just one of partisan politics. The same stuff you denigrate "Rightwingers" for.
GAGA the words Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, ALT-Right left wingers and right wingers are all Ideological dog whistles. All these social ideas are in the psychological DNA of most Americans. There are some on the far right that want to end Obamacare but want to spend millions on Opiate Addiction Centers Nationwide brought to them by Obamacare. Their Stance isn't lock'em up conservative as it has been since the 1960's while the the addiction problem was mostly in the black ghetto, today many far right conservatives are liberal about that aspect of Obamacare and they like that part. If I wrote that Trump,Bush or Reagan were liberal progressive conservative Republican Presidents, that would be the truth and nothing but the truth. I am so conservative on some things the liberal side of me don't talk to the conservative side about those things. Red states and blue states of today is just the blue and gray of yesterday.. Conservative when north and turned blue states red like the Russians came west and did what they did here in America. It was all did in secret undercover a lot of anti liberal and liberal lover stuff.
You've lost me Junko, I knew what all those descriptors mean, I just did not understand how the string you put together to describe Pres. Kennedy was supposed to be interpreted.
I also don't understand what the rest of your above response has to do with the OP concerning Pres. Kennedy's secretive groups remarks. So maybe that interesting conversation about his remarks isn't there after all.
GANo GA I didn't lose, you just don't want to go there we me, it's o'k. I was just yanking your chain. You said " They will always ring true; past, present, and future" in relationship to President Kennedy words He also spoke the truth when he said "An error don't become a mistake until you refuse to to correct it" . I've seen too many errors become mistakes in my life time and think it would be a crime for me to shrink from the controversy in my life. Maybe Credence can break it to you gently ,if he will. What Kennedy said in the past show a clear and present danger to me and mine today as it did in the distant past. I consider myself a tiny part of the free press. GA you must understand my underclass views and they must be expressed until heard. I think you thought you knew why I post this but you were in error, don't go please stay. "Iron Sharpens Iron" . .
I am glad to see this response Junko, And I would be glad to go "there" with you. But I think we are talking about different 'theres'.
Hopefully, this will help us both:
When I spoke of yanking your chain, I was referring to your labeling of Pres. Kennedy as a "...Liberal Progressive conservative Democrat[ic]..." I can't figure out what you mean by that. Too many contradictions. I see him as a Progressive Democrat. I can see the addition of liberal or conservative as descriptions of a degree of Progressive - but when all four are combined it made no sense to me. It had nothing to do with anyone's class perspective - upper or lower.
I am still interested in a conversation about the point of his remarks - which I completely agree with, especially your noted clause about when an error becomes a mistake. My comment that his remarks were timeless, was only to draw out your thinking as to why they are especially appropriate to our current times. ie. Pres. Trump. As in what secret groups or efforts do you think Pres. Trump is associated with that made you think of Pres. Kennedy's remarks.
And now, your comment about it being "a clear and present danger to me and mine" makes me fairly certain that we are talking about different 'theres', and I really don't know what point you were trying to make.
So help me out. What point about Pres. Trump - relative to secrets or secret groups are you trying to make? Or was your point more to do with Pres. Kennedy's view of the Press, (the Media of his time), as compared to Pres. Trump's negative perspective of the Media today?
ps. You don't need Credence2 to break it to me gently, sometimes the harder a lesson is learned the more impressive the result. And I have the thick skin to prove it.
GA
I am going to grab the baton from Junko, knowing that he will call me on my errors before they become mistakes.
Kennedy relished in a free press and was not afraid. Trump expresses fear of free expression, be it through protest (free speech) or free press. THAT is going the WRONG direction.
I am reminded of the 1963 Kennedy photo of his conferring with Dr. king and Civil Rights leaders in the White House with all due dignity and respect. Today, I see a comparable meting held by Pres. Trump with the clear distraction of a bimbo on the sofa. THAT is the wrong direction.
For a guy that is to bring us together he makes this Bannion fellow, with undeniable ties to those groups having white Supremist leanings, his right hand man. That is the wrong message, going the wrong way. Is your run of the mill conservative accepting of that?
Trump could have selected from any number of qualified conservatives to run his justice department. But instead, he insists on the most controversial (Sessions )who has a deplorable record on civil rights and race relations. That certainly sends a message to me THAT we are going in the wrong direction
I expect Trumpto make Conservative selections, but not spit in my face with the kinds of men that he invites into his inner circle. This is going full circle from what JFK was trying to stand out front for 55 years ago. And it is definitely in the wrong direction.Thanks Cred, I get your drift. I will wait to see if that was Junko's point.
GA
Yes, but you start an attitude of humility not arrogance.
Proper conclusions is a bias in regard to JFK? Which side was for continued racial intimidation and strife and forced inequity. Just one example where 'my definition' of a proper conclusion is the only palatable one.
We are witnessing the destruction of democracy and the Constitution. Half the country understands it. The other half cheers it.
Promisem, Chicken Little had nothing on you. What is really happening is the working of Democracy as it was intended, and the Constitution being validated as never before - in my opinion of course.
You are crying over words. Don't forget about 'sticks and stones'.
You screamed about the unconstitutionality of his travel ban - but the courts stopped it. That can only be chalked-up to both Democracy and the Constitutional process working exactly as intended. Hoo-rah!
He's bitching about the Free Press, but that's all he can do. He can't control them or shut them down, (ok, so he can inconvenience them by making them work harder because they don't have easy White House access). Chalk-up one more for Democracy and our Constitution.
So where is this scandalous destruction you are proclaiming?
GAGA, you have a way of dramatizing my posts and putting words in my mouth just because you don't like them. How did I "scream"?
Colluding with Russians is an attack on democracy. Demonizing the election process is an attack on democracy. Blocking investigations and lawsuits into Russian involvement in the elections is an attack on democracy.
if this happened 30 years ago, Trump and his campaign aides would be under investigation by now. If this were Hillary and her aides, she certainly would be.
Some people (ahem) will go to any lengths to defend their vote of a man who is unfit to be president.
Since you are getting personal, look in the mirror. You will see an intelligent, well-read man who is content with rationalizing the behavior of a deeply troubled president who will say anything to protect his delicate, unstable ego.Promisem, my "screaming" reference was to past contributions on the Travel Ban discussions - not this comment. Perhaps screaming was a bit heavy. Maybe loudly proclaiming would have been more suitable.
As for my rationalizing Pres. Trump's actions. You misread my intent. Whether that was my fault or yours will have to be looked at again. I think you misunderstand my comments because they aren't automatic condemnations of the man. They also weren't endorsements. I am confident that a look at my past comments on Trump threads will show that I have firmly stood aside from the tide of Trump declarations - for or against - on most subjective Trump issues.
For instance; you describe him, here, as "deeply troubled." I wouldn't say that because I don't know that he is. He might be, or he just might be so far outside what we currently consider civilized norms that our first thoughts are that he is a deeply troubled man.
ps. It may be my error, (but I think not), if my remarks appear to you as putting words in your mouth. I thought that in most cases I used your own words, as I did in my first response. You spoke of "...destruction of democracy and the Constitution," and I spoke of Democracy and the Constitution working. I don't see where I said you said something you didn't.
GAGA, thank you for modifying your post and the extra comments that try to find a middle ground between us.
Regarding at least one thread on the travel ban with the title "Does Trump's Attack on Judge Robart Threaten Democracy?", I responded with:
"Yes, it is. It joins a growing list of them including attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press."
I stand by those comments. I understand that you don't agree with me for your own reasons. I think the evidence of attacks on our democracy is mounting quickly while facing strong denials from Trump supporters. So we may have to agree to disagree on whether or not the problem exists and to what extent.
Even though you do a respectable job of choosing your words carefully, I perceive them as more supportive of Trump than you do.
I admit my emotions sometimes get the best of me. But I have never been more afraid for the future of our country than now.Hello again promisem, regarding your perception that my words may at times seem supportive of Pres.Trump, I am confident that a second look will find that any of my comments that do sound supportive will be understood as supportive of particular aspects of the concept and symbolism of the Trump phenomenon - not the man himself, (or all of his actions).
Just to be clear though, I do support the anti-establishment concept that is Trump, and I am supportive of more than a few of his proposed intentions. Not as many as I would not support, but enough to feel the need to explain.
GA
GA Anderson: Tomorrow we will see if the press will be free to decide if there is evidence of or suppression of the evidents about secret societies you hoped I wrote about here. At the end of the day, will the President be articulate or continue his drive-by arguments.
I hear you Junko. Comey's appearance Monday will definitely be a must-watch for a lot of folks.
But... I am not anticipating any great revelation. And... if he doesn't bring a bombshell to hand to the Press, he isn't really where they should be looking anyway.
I am beginning to worry about the frequency of the comparisons to Watergate that keep popping up in my thoughts about this administration. The Press should be scrambling to follow Woodward and Bernstein's example - not waiting for some spokesperson to do their job for them.
GA
By the way as to the O.P. ...... I offer you all this , What happens when the "Secret Society " actually is what the free press evolves into by becoming fake news , false reporting and biased presentation of altered fact ?
Who then IS that secret society that Pres. Kennedy so eloquently exposed ? The media itself ?
And who did he make this speech to? American Newspaper Publishers Association
My point is to make you think about America without a Free Press. Also to make a comparison of Democratic Presidents Articulations and understanding of government in comparison Republican Presidents. If you got nothing its o'k, it takes all kind of people and understanding to make a world.
Sorry, Junko, I was aiming that question at Kathleen. I should have been more specific. As a former member of the press, I knew your point. I definitely believe that our democratic republic would have been doomed years ago, beginning with Benjamin Franklin's era, if there had not been a free press. I'm beginning to wonder if this country even wants a free press anymore. And I agree with your comparison.
Hello again Junko, maybe this is your answer to a question I posed about your OP. Are you saying that you think Conservative's are more enamored with secret organizations, (or secrecy in general), than Liberals?
Just to note; I think our Free Press is the only reason we have survived as a nation to this point. But on the other hand, (yes, I always have a but, or another hand), I do not see any of Pres. Trump's actions as an assault on our Free Press. I just see it as a much higher level of complaining. As with all things Trump - the previously accepted norms have been tossed out the window. Whether that is a good or bad thing - I will have to wait and see.
GAI haven't seen this kind of talk in regard to a 'free press' since wartime: WW1 and WW2. At least the Chief Executives at the helm during those conflicts had an excuse. What excuse does Trump have?
You got me on this one Cred. As Sheldon would say; Bazingo! - right over my head.
GA
GA: yes this is your answer. If you would have asked me the same question asked by MizBejabbers which I answered in error, it was my mistake. I hope this help answer your question which is the same, just in other words.
Oh well, I thought there was some secret society stuff mixed in. So your comparison was relative to presidential opinions of the Free Press. We are in agreement about the need and value of a free press, but I don't share the concern you do.
I don't think Pres. Trump can do a damn thing about the press. Of course he can cut off their access to the White House - but all they (the Press), would lose is their easy access to question the administration's line in person. They can still pose their questions in print, and if the questions have enough validity, I think public opinion will force the administration to provide some answers - even if they do gain the temporary benefit of having friendly Press relay their answers.
I also think that such actions by the administration would backfire and hurt more than help them. Even their friendliest source - Fox News, stood with the banned Liberal outlets recently, and criticized the administration for its actions.
I think a second hurt to the administration would be the natural human reaction of the banned news outlets to dig even deeper and even more relentlessly puruse the answers to their questions.
I do see where the administrations demonetization of opposing outlets would fire-up the administration's supporters - causing them to add their voices to the 'Fake News' outcry, but by the same token I think it will equally energize the banned outlets supporters to push back even harder.
One caveat to note; Pres. Trump is right in one aspect of his Fake News tirades - a lot of established, and assumed credible news outlets; CNN, New York Times, et al... have been on a witch hunt that in its zeal has printed rumors and gossip as if it were fact. I don't think his Fake News charges are baseless, but it sure as hell isn't limited to his antagonists. Breibart and Infowars are more monstrously guilty of pushing Fake News than any of the others I can think of. Except maybe Salon, now there is a real winner for unbiased reporting. (that was sarcasm of course, but don't tell Credence2, he loves them)
I feel really confident in advising you not to worry. Pres. Trump, nor any other president, has the power to diminish or control today's Free Press. In the end it's all bark and no significant bite. His bark will just make them that much more determined to dig for their answers. And what bite he does have might end up chewing on his own butt.
Coming full circle now, I think your point, (now that I think I understand it), was powerfully illustrated with the Pres. Kennedy remarks link. It does show the stark contrast of personalities and perspectives.
GAGA when The Commander and Chief speak people around the world listen. No superstar celebrity or athlete's words are more powerful. When the President declares the news is fake, at the very lease 3 out of over 300 million Americans are negatively influenced and millions more world wide feel the President can't lie. Every word that comes out of the President's mouth has powerful negative or positive effects on the world's population. Anyway I am glad you got a grip on where I was coming from here. I feel you with that don't worry be happy opinion about The president but, loose lips sink ships.
It is dangerously naive to think that Trump is somehow just complaining when he claims that everything from the mainstream media is a lie using fake sources.
It is even more naive to dismiss his actions when he blocks information to media outlets he doesn't like and limits access to Fox News, Breitbart and others of their ilk.
Your comments are the exact opposite of Chicken Little. Will it take him killing a few journalists like the mysterious death (among many others) of the writer who exposed Gen. Stanley McChrystal before you get the threat?I don't think I am being naive promisem, but of course I could be wrong. Here is why I see this issue as I do.
First, when I speak of Trump supporters, I am speaking of his core support - not everyone that voted for him. When he made the claim that he could shoot someone on Main street, and his supporters would not abandon him, he was figuratively correct. Just consider the response from his supporters - that remark solidified their support. For the rest of us, Trump voters and not - it was such an outlandish statement that all we could do was shake our head in disbelief.
So all his rants about main stream media was music to his supporters ears, but for the rest of us our reaction ranges from a shrug to dismissal. It is just talk. It could be dangerous talk, but still just talk. He does not have the power to muzzle the Media. If the example of the quick quashing of his first travel ban initiative wasn't proof of his limitations, then our court's reaction to any attempt to tamper with our Free Press surely will be.
To the point that a White House restriction of certain medias would amount to blocking free access to information, I would say such a restriction would only be a blocking of the easy road to that information, and an easy venue to challenge that information. If I were in a barred reporter's shoes. I would fight doubly hard to get the correct information. That the task would be harder than it should be would not deter my efforts. Don't misunderstand my point, I do not think such administration actions would be harmless, I just think they would be futile.
I think an analogy to Watergate would help illustrate my position. In Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men, the Press had full access to the White House, but all they got was disinformation, lies, and obfuscation. The book chronicles the Press' efforts to get the truth anyway. I don't think a lack of that type of 'official' news sourcing, as in barring any opposition Press, would have changed anything. The Press still went to work and got the information they needed. I would venture that you might likely compare the "official" information coming out of Pres. Trump's Press Room to my description of the information sourced from Pres. Nixon's Press Room. I also think that restriction of "official" access for today's Press, (Media), will result in similar results.
Considering today's Media, and, as in the example of even Fox News standing with the banned outlets, I think they would be the first to understand the danger of ignoring the admonition of the "First they came for the Jews..." parable, and stand firm and united against any efforts to control them. These thoughts could be naive, but I don't think they are.
In the sense of successful legal or executive actions to muzzle or control the Media, I doubt that would pass the courts in any instance short of a declaration of Martial law. A move which I think our nation's citizens, including a majority of Trump's base supporters, would rebel against in such a forceful manner as to make it a nonviable choice.
Finally, I am hesitant to address your dire example of a reporter's mysterious death, but I do acknowledge the possibility that Pres. Trump's cries of Fake News could be the match that ignites some nutball's fuse. And that would be a national tragedy, but I think it would be such a visibly connected action as to possibly bring down Pres. Trump and his administration.
I do see the potential danger in Pres. Trump's broad Fake News rants*, but I don't think that danger is to our Free Press. I don't see them as an assault on our Constitution's First Amendment, or the workings of our Democracy. My previous labeling as "just talk" was a shorthand version of this explanation.
GA
Hello Kathleen, I hope you will hang-around a bit. Once I understand the purpose of Junko's OP, I would like to hear why you think his audience was important to the point of his remarks.
GA
Sorry I didn't keep up with this thread when questions were directed at me. I think it is significant that the remarks were addressed to journalists because they constantly need to be reminded of their sacred trust - today more than ever when there are so many wannabe media stars instead of hard-working, pavement-beating, burn-the-midnight-oil newspeople of past generations.
Also in past generations, we did have conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Gerrymandered congressional districts have run them out of office and only the extreme ends of the spectrum are in government today. Little wonder so little gets done and without the statesmanship of compromise.
A free press is the last freedom we should ever give up, because it is our last defense against the loss of all our other freedoms. (And the first one lost to a dictator.)
Comey's appearance tomorrow will be interesting. We so worried about the motives of the Russians in affecting our election. What were his motives? And how does a Democrat political appointee happen to still have his job under a Republican administration? Where's a good investigative journalist when we really need one?- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Democrats will not be happy until impeachment is the 'rule of the day' in ANY political opposition , Don't like the fact that America elected a candidate against your ideologies , impeach them ! Simple - the Nixon era has become the mantra of the left "Hell no , just say no " . Leaders like Maxine Waters , Nancy Pelosi , actually wake in the morning smelling impeachment instead of coffee .
Lets just make presidential impeachment part of the Oath of Office . That way you don't need congress .You sound sad ahorseback. If The President didn't get illegal help from Russia and conspired with them Democrats would be happy and impeachment would not be the rule of the day. Yes, some americans and some russians elected a candidate with no idealogy or ideas. I wonder how you would have felt if the shoe was on the other foot(Obama) not Trump and assoiate's feet?
"If The President didn't get illegal help from Russia and conspired with them Democrats would be happy and impeachment would not be the rule of the day."
This is really interesting - to date not a single person has presented anything at all showing Russian activity was successful in affecting the election. No one...yet you are quite happy to maintain that it was.
How does that work? Do you have a secret intelligence source that is not shared by anyone else?Wilderness, did the President get illegal help or conspire with the Russians? If Not you and ahorseback has nothing to be sad about or defend.
Oh fear not conspiracy theorists - there will be no proof !
That's what I asked YOU - you do understand that repeating the question is not answering it? That it provides no evidence or proof, leaving the statement that the Russians affected the election as completely false?
......."if the president didn't get illegal help from Russia ........." Get real !...... , You're just jealous because Hilary Got Her help from the Chinese , AND the Russians AND the middle eastern nations through the Clinton Foundation --- and still dropped the ball on her constituency
And Democrats and happiness ;the two are permanently detached" at the hip".ahorseback jealous ? Why, because Hillary didn't get illegal help and corruption from China or the Clinton Foundation to win the election ? ?
No - Because of the hypocrisy of all of this PHONY Trump resistance ,.............
How is it okay to daily , constantly critique Trumps , personal , professional ,financial ties to anyone in the world simply FOR anti-Trump political mileage and then totally ignore the same allegations and even evidentiary fact from their own candidate . For years the evidence of Clinton -Mafia ties to financial shenanigans across the globe have been ignored , forgiven and even glorified by the left ; and yet before Trump has gotten through the first 100 days of his presidency the left has him tried and hung for ' allegedly ' doing the same?
I am simply ,politically disgusted by the two faces of Trump opposition .I am sorry you feel so bad about The President's troubles ahorseback but, Hillary's Mafia ties and financial shenanigans pale in comparison to allege Trump and Associate's ties to The Russian Government. I trust to know that you too would want to know the whole truth and don't place politics before U S Security.
Horse- Pucky !- Trumps alleged ,to some in the Obama administration , ties to Russians have to be proven and before they are proven they have to be investigated , and befor they are even investigated someone has to show that American and Russian business ties are even illegal in the first place . It doesn't become a major truth just because conspiracy theorists wish it into being !
Come on catch up with realityHorse -pucky! Its not about business ties to Russia its about conspiring with Russia to help Trump win The Presidency of The United states. Don't confuse what is being investigated. Thats the reality of the investigation.
How exactly DID Russia inspire Hilary to constantly put her foot in her mouth or divest herself lock stock and barrel in the Mafia foundation , the Clinton Foundation ? Or for that matter , the other eighteen republican candidates , say nothing about the old curmudgeon socialist Sanders ?
C'mon ahorseback your comment is about what you think not what I said to you about Russia's conspiracy and possible help from Amercans to carry out said conspiracy. Hillary and Obama are out of the political loop. Again I think you want to know the truth, right?
What other nation or political leader hasn't invested themselves in the foray of what American presidential candidate ? Seriously , only todays alarmist liberals are concerned with Russia like Russia is actually the Big - Bad - Boggy --Man .
Are you too ?At one time, you GOP were the prime saber rattlers with Russia and the Cold War a constant focus. It is amazing now that you are covering Trump's A$$ your turn the entire mirror to its inverse.
Hey Cred, shades of Deja vu. I think that right after the election I offered a similar view that only the seat occupants had changed - the mantras remained the same. Democrat slams became Republican slams, and vice versa of course. ;-0
GA
Ahorseback, aside from the subject of Russian election interference -I think Russia is a big bad bogey man.
Their actions will effect U.S. reactions, and if our reactions are wrong or misdirected, or even subverted; then our national interests are affected, and in too many scenarios, our national security will almost certainly be affected.
Now that thought has nothing to do with a pro or anti-Trump perspective, just the reality that Russia is a serious player on the world stage, and can most definitely effect U.S. policy.
So regardless of your perspective on the Russia affected our elections and Trump colluded issue, don't lose sight of the above thought.
Just say'n
GARussia has always been our foe , always will be , our complete political ideologies are so different that its always been obvious , AND they have always played political games with the west ! Look at the main [left ]-stream media if you want to investigate a new and dangerous enemy of the American people.
Just saying . The media invited the Russians and any other outside sources to interfere in our elections by simply aligning themselves with one ideology .
Related Discussions
- 34
So Now, the Press is Enemy of the American People According to Trump?
by Credence2 7 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
- 16
Have Liberals and Conservatives Changed Since The 1960s
by Sharlee 2 years ago
8 Core Principles of ConservatismIndividual FreedomLimited GovernmentThe Rule of Law. Peace through StrengthFiscal ResponsibilityFree Markets.Human DignityConservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.Conservatives support the...
- 55
Is Trump Now Knocking On The Door Of The Supreme Court...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...
- 167
Revisionist history
by Onusonus 10 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 128
AG Barr says Trump and his campaign didn't conspire with Russian - BUT
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...