- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,878 comments
- 1,800,948 views
- 6,080
- Simcoeace
I remember a bunch of US presidents, going back to Nixon, but I wasn't alive during the presidency of Lincoln. However ... Lincoln faced truly desperate times. Trump, on the other hand doesn't ... except to the extent that he has invented them.
I don’t know why it’s such a difficult concept.
If you are the president or the leader of a nation, you don’t get to have a ‘personal’ ‘non-work’ twitter account or anything that’s just ‘personal’ that’s publically posted to millions of people.
It’s not a riddle
Whitestar
Premium
- 2,098
- Norway
- Whitestar127
Slightly OT: When trying to follow TexRex's LA Times link I got to a page with this text:
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
Anyone know what that's all about?
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
Anyone know what that's all about?
- 30,019
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I didn't say you were supposed to establish anything, I said you neglected doing so. Not establishing any sort of guidelines for what constitutes a specific act and then rejecting an example of the act because it doesn't hold up to supposed guidelines strikes me as you moving the goalposts.
You said...
...and I provided an example of his actions having been ruled by a judge as precisely that.
Do, uh...do you know what a strawman is or did you see the term elsewhere and just assume it applies here?
Goalposts are heavy, huh?
You said...
...but now you're trying to establish ex post facto guidelines for what constitutes limiting free speech by stating he isn't "shutting it down"? Come on...
"He didn't do it to everyone so he must not have done it to anyone"?
You said...
...and I provided an example wherein his actions, which is to say limiting who can reply to his comments on Twitter, were determined by a judge to be precisely that.
You sure seem to like moving those goalposts.
Nice touch.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ased-news-websites-eu-internet-users-la-times
- 6,080
- Simcoeace
Ah, I see - you mean the jackbooted, brownshirt thugs who are trying to provide healthcare for everybody? Terrifying.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
"Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic,” says media critic Brian Stelter, but “to an unusual degree,” this administration has “narrowed its sights to one specific organization,” which it has deemed “part of the political opposition.”
Stelter quotes a top White House staffer: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she says. “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” - Brian Stelter
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Nobody hear is saying he is hitler, now only you are. Albeit sarcastically.
Sorry I wasnt clear, I was speaking about modern presidents. Like most referenced dictators were also from modern history. I also made clear that I make a difference in criticising a network (like Obama) being not the same thing as declaring Fox news "the enemy of the people". You understand the difference right?
Comparing Lincoln with modern presidents, is like comparing 18th century English kings/queens with current king/queen. Not really a fair comparison.
Again there is a major difference in tone in criticising and declaring an enemy of the people. An enemy you want to destroy and kill, but an opponont you just want to beat.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
What do you think this means. The inferences are pretty clear. It's no different than saying, "I'm not saying Obama is a Muslim but ..."
Already posted examples of a modern President at war with some of the Press. I posted Lincoln because he went much farther than any other President and actually imprisoned journalists. Trump is a lightweight in comparison. However, if stuff that happened 150 years ago is not fair to bring up, why did you spend so much energy talking about slavery a while back as if it's relevant to anything happening today? Let me guess...it's different right?
Yes the two aren't apples and apples and Trump has taken it to the nth degree. Of course he's done nothing but talk about it, unlike Obama who actually secretly spied on journalists, so it would be easy to conclude that Obama's actions toward journalists were far more egregious.
The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
In a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties, an FBI agent also accused Rosen of breaking anti-espionage law with behavior that—as described in the agent's own affidavit—falls well inside the bounds of traditional news reporting. (Disclosure: This reporter counts Rosen among his friends.)
Lemme guess...different?
- 6,080
- Simcoeace
Yes - Lincoln was leading the US in the middle of an actual civil war, as opposed to an imaginary one.
Trump taking everything to the "nth degree" is precisely the problem.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
There is still a difference between referencing similarities between 2 people and declaring he is the reincarnation of Hitler.
I guess you still dont understand the gravitas that comes with proclaiming a group "the enemy of the people". Then you really should do some more research in how this specific sentence is used by certain leaders in the past.
You are also countering with examples that show very different situations. How does an Investigation by the USDOJ (not Obama himself) in a specific individual, compare to the POTUS declaring the press the enemy of the people?
example:
- I believe @Johnnypenso is an oppponent on my political views
- I believe @Johnnypenso is the enemy of the people
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I would say sicking your DOJ on a journalist that works for an organization that you've publicly villified on many occasions is worse than a blowhard making throwaway statements that most people think is nothing more than a funny punchline. It sends a statement to the press along the lines of, "Do not mess with me or I'll put the weight of the entire U.S. government and the DOJ upon you". Again, if Trump had done that with a CNN reporter, there would be a civil war. Obama does it and the general response is, "No problem, it's just Fox News".
"Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic,” says media critic Brian Stelter, but “to an unusual degree,” this administration has “narrowed its sights to one specific organization,” which it has deemed “part of the political opposition.”
Stelter quotes a top White House staffer: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she says. “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” - Brian Stelter
- 30,019
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Don't get me wrong, I think Trump an utterly contemptible individual, but the cited user got perilously close to declaring the latter.
Trump's his own special kind of bigot.
Source?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I'm fairly certain that for a lot of people, his words are a lot more than funny punchlines.
You've pushed this story many times over the years, and you've never once mentioned that Fox wasn't the only organization that Obama "targeted." The Associated Press faced similar scrutiny from the FBI, and there was no "civil war." (Or maybe there was, and Obama managed to strong-arm the press into not reporting it at all?)
Yes, Obama's DOJ initiated more leak probes than any other administration's. But certainly some of that is down to the explosion of online news sources. I've seen you, on many other topics, point out the profound effect that the internet has had on how, where, and when people consume their news. Is this suddenly an area where it's not a factor? Why?
Also, I'd be pretty careful, if I were you, about continuing to confidently assert that Trump's DOJ has not initiated similar probes; they have happened under presidents not named Obama, but typically are kept sealed, and the public never knows about them. Which, when you think about it, kinda explains the whole thing, doesn't it? Things that usually remain sealed got leaked while he was in office, so the DOJ reacted by initiating probes. It's almost like there's cause-and-effect there, and no conspiracy mongering is really warranted...
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
This is what you said:
So the expectation was for me to establish that Trump isn't trying to limit free speech was it not? I'm not the one making the claim therefor it's your responsibility to provide evidence not mine That's not a strawman but it's awfully close, you are skirting the edge. Which is why I said "it's starting to feel strawman", I did not say it was a strawman, but that's just bad reading comprehension on your part, there is a difference.
That you did, and it's in appeals court right now, It's one Federal Judges ruling. We shall see how it ends soon enough but it's way too early for you to declare victory right now. It's his personal twitter account, I doubt it stands.
Yeah about that goal post moving thing....
Remember this started off as Trump being called a Nazi and racist with several accusations made including the limiting free speech part, with no evidence provided to substantiate those claims, then it devolved to 'Trump limiting free speech on his personal Twitter account', I am not the one moving goal posts here. If you would like to provide evidence that Trump is both a Nazi and racist then go right ahead.
Last edited:
Novalee
(Banned)
- 708
- Earth
Well fox news pushing the hondurans have disease is not helping the trumpers .
Anyone with a shred of history on ww2 knows what adolf and pals said about the jews .
But lets be clear ,no one can be someone else but they most certainly can emulate other people .
Evan if it is all a big troll by Trump,it is still a bad idea that needs to be confronted least the mentaly ill ones start shooting up jews or sending bombs .
Anyone with a shred of history on ww2 knows what adolf and pals said about the jews .
But lets be clear ,no one can be someone else but they most certainly can emulate other people .
Evan if it is all a big troll by Trump,it is still a bad idea that needs to be confronted least the mentaly ill ones start shooting up jews or sending bombs .
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
First you dismiss the examples I give you because you weren't alive, and now I give you examples when you were alive and somehow I'm pushing a narrative by answering your question? I didn't say anything about a conspiracy, that's in your own head and an obvious strawman. I'm pointing out the examples you said didn't exist. They do. Many Presidents have battled the press in the past. Trump is over the top but that is as much a reflection of his personality and the times we live in.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I'm not @Biggles.
I was speaking to something larger than the immediate scope of your and Biggle's conversation. As I said, you have on many occasions portrayed Obama as targeting Fox News, without once bothering to mention that other organizations were targeted. That selective information does, indeed, constitute a narrative.
*ahem*
You're painting a picture of Obama being out to get Fox News, and everyone else just shrugging and going along with it. Not sure what else that would be if not a conspiracy.
Again, most of this would be for Biggles, but I'm pretty curious about that bit in bold. If it's not acceptable to label the press "enemy of the people," then it's not acceptable, period. Why should he get a pass just because he's inherently an 🤬?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Why are you still comparing the 2? Isnt the DOJ seperate from the whitehouse? Do you even know the context of the investigation? This wasnt an investigation about "fake news and why do you suggest the investigation was started by "Do not mess with me". Mess with who? How do you keep comparing the 2? There was suspicion he was co-conspiring with an individual who actually was indicted for Unauthorized disclosure of national defense information :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jin-Woo_Kim
He even pleaded guilty. Isnt it a good idea to investigate all people who have contact with a suspect who might be guilty of treason (leaking sensitive info to the enemy)?
You can not compare the investigation, by a seperate arm of government, into a single individual, who happened to be a journalist and had contact with a a convicted person disclosing unauthorized information to an unauthorized person, to the POTUS declaring the press the enemy of the people. Thy dont you understand the difference?
In the end the DOJ did not indict him. But what does this have to do with Obama??? How do you go from from Obama criticising Fox to the DOJ investigating a single journalist who had contact with a person who pleaded guilty to treason?
You are only quoting criticism, which I already established there is nothing wrong with.
There is a big difference between an opponent or opposition and enemy of the people (wich means all people!).
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
My mistake. Your responses parrot each other, hence my confusion. Regardless, providing examples doesn't constitute a conspiracy theory that's just a strawman to try and discredit the main thrust of my post. If Obama targeted others in the media than it only furthers my point that Presidents attacking the media is nothing new and it's not stuck in the distant past, it's as recent as the last President. As I've acknowledged several times, Trump takes it to a whole new level. Saying it's a reflection of our times and part of his personality doesn't excuse the behaviour, it explains it. Again, a strawman. Everyone that voted for Trump knew what they were getting and apparently it was good enough for them in the President they elected. That's the product of our times part. Why anyone would think his behaviour would change post election I can't fathom.
I'm not comparing them, you are. I'm giving examples. Examples aren't identical unless they are identical. It's similar behaviour, similar attitude etc. To you, everything is different unless it is a literal mirror image. Nothing is a literal mirror image and it's strawmanning to continually put forth that defense even when things may be presented on the same point of principle but on a different scale.
Last edited:
- 30,019
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Then why offer it as an argument in support of...anything? You've presented yourself as a Trump supporter so fervent that you're willing to provide tu quoque "arguments" any chance you get, and yet you're unwilling to provide anything to substantiate your opinion that the beliefs of the supposed majority align with your own? Why should anyone take that seriously?
Mind, this is not to be confused with an opinion being rejected simply because of what it alludes to or from whom it originated...since I can very easily see such an assertion being made...rather on the basis of it not being substantiated.
Yep.
It was not. Why quote something if you can't be bothered to read what you're quoting?
I pointed out the absence of any conditions for what constitutes "limiting free speech" because my example appeared to be rejected on the basis of it not meeting unspecified expectations. You attempting to establish conditions after the fact is commonly referred to as moving the goalposts.
You neglected to establish any standards--something that I pointed out in indicating your attempt to move the goalposts--therefore there were no standards to be agreed upon. Had you established any standards at all, it's unlikely I would have offered up an example that failed to meet them.
How. Are. You. Not. Getting. That?
I provided evidence in my initial response to your assertion. You're the one rejecting it on the basis of it not meeting requirements that you didn't establish.
I think you ought to explain to me what you think constitutes a strawman argument, because I fail to see how anything not even remotely like a strawman can possibly be "starting to feel strawman".
Nice one attempting to insult my intelligence, though; it wasn't the least bit unexpected but that you opted to do so in no way helps your argument.
It's the ruling of a judge, and that's why I provided it as an example. You didn't specify such a requirement, but I felt it appropriate to offer something at least as substantive as that.
See, I sort of figured that the ruling of a judge carried some weight, certainly more than my personal opinion, but it seems that you're of the belief that it only carries weight if it aligns with your opinion.
Of course the ruling is being appealed, it's sort of the prerogative of an accused party to seek an alternate ruling from a higher court when a court rules against them. There hasn't been an alternate ruling at this time and the previous ruling against the accused still stands...which is why I provided it as an example. Had the ruling been overturned, I wouldn't have provided it.
I think you ought to accept the example as having sufficiently contradicted your assertion that Trump has done nothing to limit free speech, at least until such a point that the ruling has been overturned--if that happens--at which point I am more than willing to concede and withdraw the example.
I really don't care how it started; I don't have a dog in that race. If I did, I would have cited more than your claim that Trump isn't trying to limit free speech. If I did, I would have offered opinions and evidence to contradict more than your claim that Trump isn't trying to limit free speech. Because my interest lay in that claim specifically, I opted to cite only it and provide evidence to contradict only it.
Sure you are. And contrary to that which you appear to be alluding, I'm not. See, I opted to cite only one portion of your argument and subsequently offer up only evidence that contradicted that particular portion.
Why should I offer up anything in support of an assertion that I didn't make?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
You are citing examples, because I asked for examples of behaviour of modern presidents that showed dictatorish behavior. You came with an example of the DOJ persuing an individual and not Obama.
You hinted above that the motivation of the investigation was as retaliation to bad press on Obama. However this is entirely inaccurate and misleading. I could not find evidence the DOJ's investigation was ordered by Obama as retaliation. You are using a conspiracy theory as an example for Obama having similar "dictatorish behavior" as Trump????
And no it is neither similar behaviour or attitude. The DOJ controversially investigating a journalist has other motivations then declaring the press the enemy of the people.
Last edited:
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I didn't say that it did. Let's try this one more time. You said this:
You're positing that Obama "sick(ed)" the DOJ on a journalist in order to put pressure on Fox, implying that it was somehow different than any time a similar probe was initiated under other administrations. This interpretation requires that the DOJ be a willing participant in carrying out Obama's personal vengeful schemes. In other words, a conspiracy.
You go on to say that most of the country would only shrug it all off if Fox was the target, but would stage a "civil war" if it were any other organization. So now, thanks to a patented Johnnypenso "can you imagine what the libs would do if _____," millions of us are also in on the plot to take down poor Fox News.
Of course, as I will now point out for a third time, there was at least one more organization that we know of, the Associated Press, that was the target of a DOJ leak probe under Obama. And there was no civil war, was there?
- 6,080
- Simcoeace
To the Hitler analogy:
anti-semitism was pretty widespread in the 1930's. You can find anti-semitic statements by most prominent figures in Europe (& the US). What Hitler did was on the same point of (racist) principle, but on an entirely different scale. Differences matter ... a lot.
And Lincoln? Lincoln was President during a time of literal civil war, when spies, assassins & saboteurs were actually plotting in Washington. In fact - "not many people know this" - he was assassinated by one in a theatre immediately after the war.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 5,051
- Netherlands
