First they can't accept the results of an election...

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
...now they won't accept the results of the Mueller report.

I blame the media for this, and I think Trump should shut down any news outlet that lies, distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise hoodwinks the public. It's harming our country and borders on treason. ALL of the media outlets that pushed the Russian collusion story should be disbanded and the owners fined. The lying reporters should all be charged with defamation.

I understand that the progs love nothing more than to gobble hate-Trump conspiracies, but it's not good for them. We do all kinds of things in the name of public safety and promoting the general welfare; it's time to shut down fake news.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
...now they won't accept the results of the Mueller report.

I blame the media for this, and I think Trump should shut down any news outlet that lies, distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise hoodwinks the public. It's harming our country and borders on treason. ALL of the media outlets that pushed the Russian collusion story should be disbanded and the owners fined. The lying reporters should all be charged with defamation.

I understand that the progs love nothing more than to gobble hate-Trump conspiracies, but it's not good for them. We do all kinds of things in the name of public safety and promoting the general welfare; it's time to shut down fake news.
I realize you are being intentionally hyperbolic, but I am very glad the government does not have the authority to do what you are suggesting. It would really be bad if we relinquished our control over government and gave them the authority to decide what is "hoodwinking" us, or distortions of truth on such a global (not in a courtroom challenging against libel/slander, but globally making this choice) scale.

Can you imagine what would be considered "distortions, exaggeration, or otherwise hoodwinking" us if we elect Sanders, or Harris, or a plethora of others? Even a Romney?

Thank God we live in a country where exactly what you are playfully asking for is not a possibility!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I realize you are being intentionally hyperbolic,
You know, not really. I'm not a huge fan of rabble rousing and I think it's dangerous to the public at-large. It's not good for the rabble, and it's definitely not good for those on the receiving end of the witch hunt. You'd think we'd be past that in our human evolution, but clearly we're not.

Can you imagine what would be considered "distortions, exaggeration, or otherwise hoodwinking" us if we elect Sanders, or Harris, or a plethora of others? Even a Romney?
I have said many times - right on here, even - that when the People speak I am okay with accepting the results. I may not like it, but oh well. I wasn't the one having a crap fit about Obama - I accepted that the People elected him. Just like if this country devolves into Socialism and goes straight to Hell.....oh well the People spoke and now they get to live with it. There are numerous posts by me on this very subject; just the other day I wrote that even Socialists and drug gangs get a say in our republic.

My concern is that the rabble are being roused by lying politicians and corrupt news media. That shouldn't be allowed. If MSNBC and CNN want to engage in conspiracy theories and tabloid rumors to keep the mouth breathers entertained, good for them. But they cannot call themselves "news" and they cannot present themselves as such. Buzzfeed should not be allowed to call itself "news". These shows should be clearly labeled "satire/parody" or "for entertainment only", just like they have to do on the internet.

These leftwing psychos believe the crap because they trust the "news" media to give them information. When those outlets do not inform, and merely entertain, they should be clearly designated as such.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Basically what we have going on is a soft coup. The Democrats and their media handmaidens aren't coming in guns a'blazing; they are skewing our information sources and persuading us with lies. I refer back to that famous quote by Nikita Kruschev - ..."without firing a single shot..."

It shouldn't be allowed.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
You know, not really. I'm not a huge fan of rabble rousing and I think it's dangerous to the public at-large. It's not good for the rabble, and it's definitely not good for those on the receiving end of the witch hunt. You'd think we'd be past that in our human evolution, but clearly we're not.



I have said many times - right on here, even - that when the People speak I am okay with accepting the results. I may not like it, but oh well. I wasn't the one having a crap fit about Obama - I accepted that the People elected him.
Just like if this country devolves into Socialism and goes straight to Hell.....oh well the People spoke and now they get to live with it. There are numerous posts by me on this very subject; just the other day I wrote that even Socialists and drug gangs get a say in our republic.

My concern is that the rabble are being roused by lying politicians and corrupt news media. That shouldn't be allowed. If MSNBC and CNN want to engage in conspiracy theories and tabloid rumors to keep the mouth breathers entertained, good for them. But they cannot call themselves "news" and they cannot present themselves as such. Buzzfeed should not be allowed to call itself "news". These shows should be clearly labeled "satire/parody" or "for entertainment only", just like they have to do on the internet.

These leftwing psychos believe the crap because they trust the "news" media to give them information. When those outlets do not inform, and merely entertain, they should be clearly designated as such.
now that is some funny crap right there
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You know, not really. I'm not a huge fan of rabble rousing and I think it's dangerous to the public at-large. It's not good for the rabble, and it's definitely not good for those on the receiving end of the witch hunt. You'd think we'd be past that in our human evolution, but clearly we're not.



I have said many times - right on here, even - that when the People speak I am okay with accepting the results. I may not like it, but oh well. I wasn't the one having a crap fit about Obama - I accepted that the People elected him. Just like if this country devolves into Socialism and goes straight to Hell.....oh well the People spoke and now they get to live with it. There are numerous posts by me on this very subject; just the other day I wrote that even Socialists and drug gangs get a say in our republic.

My concern is that the rabble are being roused by lying politicians and corrupt news media. That shouldn't be allowed. If MSNBC and CNN want to engage in conspiracy theories and tabloid rumors to keep the mouth breathers entertained, good for them. But they cannot call themselves "news" and they cannot present themselves as such. Buzzfeed should not be allowed to call itself "news". These shows should be clearly labeled "satire/parody" or "for entertainment only", just like they have to do on the internet.

These leftwing psychos believe the crap because they trust the "news" media to give them information. When those outlets do not inform, and merely entertain, they should be clearly designated as such.
I hear what you're saying - it's not fair to the uninformed to give them bad information.

One of the problems I have with that line of thought is that it implies it is not up to you and me to be more informed. It IS up to you and me to keep ourselves informed, and know that CNN is known now more for lying than telling the truth, as is MSNBC and a host of others.

You can't win by acting outside of the Constitutional limits on government even more than we already do. I do not make it CNN's responsibility to give me accurate information - it's my responsibility to see their commentary as commentary and get information from multiple sources. The best source is generally C-SPAN, because there is little commentary and much "what actually happened" there.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
These leftwing psychos believe the crap because they trust the "news" media to give them information....
... And even funnier, if you listen to some of them they actually believe if they succeed in booting trump, they get to put Hillary in the WH. :killingme
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I hear what you're saying - it's not fair to the uninformed to give them bad information.

One of the problems I have with that line of thought is that it implies it is not up to you and me to be more informed. It IS up to you and me to keep ourselves informed, and know that CNN is known now more for lying than telling the truth, as is MSNBC and a host of others.

You can't win by acting outside of the Constitutional limits on government even more than we already do. I do not make it CNN's responsibility to give me accurate information - it's my responsibility to see their commentary as commentary and get information from multiple sources. The best source is generally C-SPAN, because there is little commentary and much "what actually happened" there.
It's a shame that this must be explained.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Basically what we have going on is a soft coup. The Democrats and their media handmaidens aren't coming in guns a'blazing; they are skewing our information sources and persuading us with lies. I refer back to that famous quote by Nikita Kruschev - ..."without firing a single shot..."

It shouldn't be allowed.
We definitely agree that it should not be allowed. Where we seem to disagree is on whose responsibility it is to not let it happen.

I will offer you another quote; “a republic, if YOU can keep it.”
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
One of the problems I have with that line of thought is that it implies it is not up to you and me to be more informed. It IS up to you and me to keep ourselves informed, and know that CNN is known now more for lying than telling the truth, as is MSNBC and a host of others.
Last time I looked, defamation was against the law. When a fake news org intentionally defames ANYONE - even a sitting President - they should be held accountable for that. For some reason we've been giving them a pass on this and I don't know why the press is above the law.

We cannot keep ourselves informed if a large portion of our accredited information sources are lying to us for political purposes. Most people don't want to have to run down every little thing that happens; that is what our news media is for. If we wanted to do it all ourselves, we don't need them.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we DEMAND our news sources either report factual news OR be labeled as entertainment. Our First Amendment does not cover intentionally lying from their position of power in order to overthrow our government and replace our duly elected President with one of their choosing. In fact, that is the epitome of UNconstitutional.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
...now they won't accept the results of the Mueller report.
The observation has been made - COUNTLESS times, to no avail - that the prog press and Hillary were SO AGHAST at Trump suggesting during the debates that he might not accept the outcome of the election should Hillary win.

Damn, if there wasn't a shitstorm the next few days over that.

Come November - and every day since - it's "Not My President" and made up claims of foul play and conspiracies.
It's the LEFT who chose to not accept the outcome - and still won't.

Which shows, they're not interested in fair play - just that their guy wins. SHOCKED that Trump might not accept the outcome,
but perfectly satisfied with them doing precisely that.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Last time I looked, defamation was against the law.
I'm reminded of Harry Reid and his famous "he didn't win, did he?" remark - after being asked about what was clearly a bare-faced, blatant lie about Romney not paying taxes for ten years. He smirked because, doesn't matter, because we won and he lost.

So now we have hosts of pundits, Congressman and others who posited most assuredly that THEY HAD BONA FIDE EVIDENCE of collusion.
Incontrovertible. That man is leaving the White House in cuffs. Just wait and see.

They were lying. And they knew they were lying. They - had - nothing. They were betting like they had a straight flush with a pair of deuces.
Frankly, I'd be happy if they simply got called on the "evidence" and information they claimed to have - because they didn't have it.
I don't care if they get prosecuted for it - just called out, publicly.

The way that Harry Reid did NOT have to.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I don't care if they get prosecuted for it
I care. If there are no repercussions for their lies, they have no reason to stop doing it. They make money off the eyeballs they lure, which is why they all went off the deep end with these crazy stories: it sells.

Much like the Covington lawsuit. These "news" outlets made a lot of money by defaming and attacking a US citizen with made up stories and edited video. Their fake apology isn't enough, and shaming them isn't enough. Their punishment needs to be harsh enough that it's no longer profitable to continue doing it. At the very least, any money they made off their defamation should be given to the victim.

The media and the politicians should also have to pay us, the taxpayers, back for the money spent on this bullshit. And that money should come out of their personal funds, not some Al Sharpton style Go Fund Me.

If it were up to me, I'd make it fun. A reality show. Contact some anti-Trump hysteric from social media and ask them to choose a politician or news media person. Then both they and their choice get executed on live TV.

I really would be an awesome dictator. :diva:
 
Top