War! Trump has Declared War!

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Yeah like putting criminals in jail. Nothing wrong with targeting people intentionally hurting America. Real news doesn't like.

Just curious. . . . . .

Can the media "yell fire" in a crowded movie theatre?

I can't believe some of what I'm reading here. Folks that are vocal 2nd Amendment supporters, as it protects all other Amendments, are OK with attacking the 1st. Makes no sense at all. If Obama had gone after Fox it would have been...



If ya'll are saying that this is "all part of Trump's plan", that plan is selling out the Constitution. Why aren't you guys seeing this?

a reply to: intrepid

Sorry false analogy. No one has a problem with real news. Fake news is like a felon, who can't own a gun.

Want a gun, Don't be a criminal. Want to provide news, stop publishing lies.

I remember the Trump bashing media laying into him for pardoning that grandmother. Next day they had her on saying how wonderful it was .. but never gave Trump any credit.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fox was 50-50 positive negative on Obama. Fake news is 90% negative on Trump.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

Sorry false analogy. No one has a problem with real news. Fake news is like a felon, who can't own a gun.

Wrong. Who determines "fake news"? My guess would be from your following statement:

Fox was 50-50 positive negative on Obama. Fake news is 90% negative on Trump.

If one can't see the path to fascism you're blind.

For those who still do not understand why President Trump tweets: He does this so the American people can hear his untwisted words by the media. He is communicating with the American people and not with the media. Twitter gives him a way to circumvent the reporters and media.

It is that simple.

No, it's not that simple. It's not the reason why. Why would you assume that? Something "honest Abe" Trump said perhaps? Trump has always been a social diva. He has tweeted long before becoming POTUS, and it will continue after. He tweets for attention. He has a huge .. MASSIVE ego, and Twitter helps feed it. That's the obvious reason he tweets, to anyone whose nose isn't firmly wedged between his butt-cheeks.

There are plenty of media sources that also kiss his butt, and paints him in only a glowing, positive light. He doesn't need Twitter to get the "truth" out. And for those who read media sources that focus on actually covering all sides of Trump, they are probably not focusing on his tweet-barrages anyway.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fox was 50-50 positive negative on Obama. Fake news is 90% negative on Trump.

What does the amount of positive or negative spin on the POTUS have to do with the supposed "fake" news being published about Trump? There is more negative press because Trump gives out far more ammo for media sources to work with. When Trump lies repeatedly and twists the truth on a daily basis, it's up to the media sources to publish correct information.

If the U.S. were to ONLY rely on Trump as an info source, they would be provided with a whole heap of braggart, ego-filled posts full of misinformation.

I'm not saying CNN or the Post or Fox or ANY source doesn't also twist an article to forward their own agenda. As far as flat-out lies by the media in regards to Trump, I feel that # is actually quite low. You need to remember.. Trump labels ANYTHING that paints him in a negative light as "fake news."

For those concerned about the 1st amendment, there is no issue here. The first amendment protects the media from laws passed by Congress restricting them from reporting. The president can bash them all he wants, that doesn't stop freedom of the press.

originally posted by: face23785
For those concerned about the 1st amendment, there is no issue here. The first amendment protects the media from laws passed by Congress restricting them from reporting. The president can bash them all he wants, that doesn't stop freedom of the press.

He can bash them all he likes. When he interferes with them that's a constitutional violation. I say go for it. Just what congress need to impeach him.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: face23785
For those concerned about the 1st amendment, there is no issue here. The first amendment protects the media from laws passed by Congress restricting them from reporting. The president can bash them all he wants, that doesn't stop freedom of the press.

He can bash them all he likes. When he interferes with them that's a constitutional violation. I say go for it. Just what congress need to impeach him.

It's actually not. I suggest you read the constitution. When you find the part where it says anything about the President in relation to the press, let me know.

I don't think mainstream media is fake news but for, ironically, Fox News which Donald loves as his main source for critical thinking. (Whoa.) But I do think mainstream media is very calculated news crafted to numb and distract the public.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: carewemust
I have been saying for over a year that the liberal fake news media is a danger to America. They are domestic terrorists masquerading as media people.

When are you going to do something to stop or punish them president Trump? You have the entire power of the government available to put the screws to them in ways they cannot even imagine.

This sounds awfully authoritarian.

Its war. Few rules and very nasty.

In case you haven't been watching for the last decade and a half of armed interventions, let me fill you in on the biggest thing that has changed: wars aren't won with guns anymore.

They're won with cell phones.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
The problem is that Trump's tweets don't address the real problem. You can't just call out CNN and NBC. It's the media conglomerates that got us to this point. He should call for a journalistic reform in America that starts with breaking up the media giants. He should also encourage professional journalists to do their part to get the house in order. It's kind of like moderate Muslims not denouncing the extremists. The same goes for journalists. They should denounce the bad actors. MSM doesn't report news anymore. They talk about what they think and skip the fact finding part. That's hard work after all.

He definitely should do all those things.

But first he has to get consensus among the American people that those groups need curtailing. Calling them out is how to fire the first salvo. Then let the people think about it for a bit.

originally posted by: intrepid
I can't believe some of what I'm reading here. Folks that are vocal 2nd Amendment supporters, as it protects all other Amendments, are OK with attacking the 1st. Makes no sense at all. If Obama had gone after Fox it would have been...

If ya'll are saying that this is "all part of Trump's plan", that plan is selling out the Constitution. Why aren't you guys seeing this?

Actually.... the sheer beauty of the way he is doing it is, he's not overstepping. He's not using his official powers.

It's likely he never will use them.


But you have to try and remember these guys didn't get powerful by normal free market success. They were given exclusive access to the VHF and UHF airway frequencies. By law, nobody but them could use those frequencies. Their power is only starting to decline now because broadcast television is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

If they had ever truly been skillful business people, they could hold on in spite of losing that (officially legislated) advantage. But they are not.

a reply to: intrepid

The problem with the 1st in regards to the press is that it's supposed to protect the press in it's ability to report in an honest fair and balanced fashion, not to make up #, twist things however they wish, lie, and mislead the public with some bizarre harmful agenda.

The public is supposed to be able to rely on the news to be news so we know what's going on in the world in such a way they can interpret the data themselves and make their own informed decisions. The freedom of the press is supposed to protect the press from anyone in government trying to prevent them from doing that, not allow them to be a mouth piece for some kind of agenda.

Blah, the whole mess is so convoluted I'm not sure how to handle it. The press has been sold to the highest bidder and unless it starts working for the people again it's simply not the press.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: face23785
For those concerned about the 1st amendment, there is no issue here. The first amendment protects the media from laws passed by Congress restricting them from reporting. The president can bash them all he wants, that doesn't stop freedom of the press.

He can bash them all he likes. When he interferes with them that's a constitutional violation. I say go for it. Just what congress need to impeach him.

It's actually not. I suggest you read the constitution. When you find the part where it says anything about the President in relation to the press, let me know.

Cool. If you want to use this limp interpretation(which I don't) I say go for it. He EO's this and congress will react(it's Newtonian) and he'll be out and that will be rescinded by the next prez or congress itself.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: face23785
For those concerned about the 1st amendment, there is no issue here. The first amendment protects the media from laws passed by Congress restricting them from reporting. The president can bash them all he wants, that doesn't stop freedom of the press.

He can bash them all he likes. When he interferes with them that's a constitutional violation. I say go for it. Just what congress need to impeach him.

It's actually not. I suggest you read the constitution. When you find the part where it says anything about the President in relation to the press, let me know.

Cool. If you want to use this limp interpretation(which I don't) I say go for it. He EO's this and congress will react(it's Newtonian) and he'll be out and that will be rescinded by the next prez or congress itself.

Reading the constitution is a limp interpretation?

And what EO has been proposed? You guys are overreacting. He bashes the media every day. That's all that happened, and you're acting like there's news. Anything to distract from the fact the summit went better than everyone expected I guess.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrepid

The problem with the 1st in regards to the press is that it's supposed to protect the press in it's ability to report...

Exactly.

... in an honest fair and balanced fashion...

I haven't read that in the Constitution.

The press has been sold to the highest bidder and unless it starts working for the people again it's simply not the press.

Funny I didn't read this during the Obama administration. Murdoch in other words.

a reply to: intrepid

The purpose of the news and press is to keep politicians honest, keep the people informed and be champions of the truth. Unfortunately it has become just as corrupt as the crooked politicians it was partially meant to police.

You want to quote the 1st amendment to protect them doing whatever they wish regardless of the outcome and whether it even vaguely represents or comes close to the medias original purpose.

So what are we left with as options? The corrupt government officials control and are protected by the law, the corrupt media are likewise protected by the law.

Are we supposed to just sit here and accept all the lying, meddling and bull# these people do to # up our lives and destroy our way of life for their personal benefit?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrepid

The purpose of the news and press is to keep politicians honest, keep the people informed and be champions of the truth. Unfortunately it has become just as corrupt as the crooked politicians it was partially meant to police.

You want to quote the 1st amendment to protect them doing whatever they wish regardless of the outcome and whether it even vaguely represents or comes close to the medias original purpose.

So what are we left with as options? The corrupt government officials control and are protected by the law, the corrupt media are likewise protected by the law.

Are we supposed to just sit here and accept all the lying, meddling and bull# these people do to # up our lives and destroy our way of life for their personal benefit?

Truth. I wrote about this in this thread. Right now, the media themselves are the biggest danger to freedom of the press, by repeatedly destroying their own credibility.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: intrepid

The purpose of the news and press is to keep politicians honest, keep the people informed and be champions of the truth. Unfortunately it has become just as corrupt as the crooked politicians it was partially meant to police.

You want to quote the 1st amendment to protect them doing whatever they wish regardless of the outcome and whether it even vaguely represents or comes close to the medias original purpose.

So what are we left with as options? The corrupt government officials control and are protected by the law, the corrupt media are likewise protected by the law.

Are we supposed to just sit here and accept all the lying, meddling and bull# these people do to # up our lives and destroy our way of life for their personal benefit?

Truth. I wrote about this in this thread. Right now, the media themselves are the biggest danger to freedom of the press, by repeatedly destroying their own credibility.

If that's the case too bad it's not covered by the Constitution.