#NeverTrump [W:66]

Re: #NeverTrump

Gaugingcatenate said:

I appreciate your high regard of the system as it was constructed to allow the press its proper function in a democracy. But that they were genuinely performing in a patriotic and admirable fashion.

Nobody says you have to curtail the telling of truth, or even what a news organization factually feels/determines to be the truth... or can even, with some identifiable rationale associated, use to speculate as to the truth. But if the press goes too far, as they did in the case that I mentioned, and in another post mentioned the Rodney King "beating", wherein the press was an accelerant to the quick hot tempers that flared then blazed into the LA riots. People died, 55 died as a result... surely you cannot countenance such manipulation of the news to this extent, that a press willing to go this far there that there can be no consequences, can you?

So I disagree with your giving a blanket protection for any and all the conscious acts of malfeasance. Again, its not just editorial or speculation, it is heavy handed manipulation. If that can be proven in a court of law, with all the safeguards still in place, then a news organization is no different than any other corporation for profit that premeditatedly commits a grievous error which results in serious arm. That would be a right that is blind to the facts, the truth, to justice.

I don't mind failure, you can learn from failure, its a part of the natural process. What I do mind is a conscious malicious effort. Say the photo manipulation on Time's cover of a much darker OJ Simpson, what was that all about? Why do that? What was the false message intended to be delivered? And the press continues to manipulate in this manner.

I am more concerned with the speech police, the restrictions of liberties on our university campuses nationwide. The press has many times overstepped the right, the universities are curtailing the right. Besides which, I have lost my confidence in the media to properly report actual corruption, performance, conduct of our elected officials, it often seems more one sided...and even then, not truly investigating deeply as they should.

Click to expand...

Issues related to the Press are not new. Such issues have existed as long as an institution existed to provide information to the public or people sought to do so. But the greater good provided from the Press’s capacity to disseminate information, even when considering those issues, far outweighs the problems such issues cause.

As for the King incident, the Media was reporting on what happened based on the information that was available to it at the time. The reality that mobs are emotionally-charged and can carry out destructive acts in reaction to events is a reality of human nature, specifically group dynamics. That reality is not sufficient basis to muzzle the Press. A free Press is vital to sustaining representative governance and free society. Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society.

Others may disagree, but just as I believe, for example, the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free is preferable to the risk of an innocent person’s being convicted (presumption of innocence/burden of proof involved in criminal cases), the same holds true with the Media. A free Press, even with shortcomings, is vastly preferable to the alternative.

Finally, the same holds true for college campuses. Academic freedom in which students have access to multiple perspectives and an ability to express their views is preferable to a situation where access to perspectives is limited and speech is stifled. The former promotes learning. The latter stifles it.

Re: #NeverTrump

Gaugingcatenate said:

I appreciate your high regard of the system as it was constructed to allow the press its proper function in a democracy. But that they were genuinely performing in a patriotic and admirable fashion.

Nobody says you have to curtail the telling of truth, or even what a news organization factually feels/determines to be the truth... or can even, with some identifiable rationale associated, use to speculate as to the truth. But if the press goes too far, as they did in the case that I mentioned, and in another post mentioned the Rodney King "beating", wherein the press was an accelerant to the quick hot tempers that flared then blazed into the LA riots. People died, 55 died as a result... surely you cannot countenance such manipulation of the news to this extent, that a press willing to go this far there that there can be no consequences, can you?

So I disagree with your giving a blanket protection for any and all the conscious acts of malfeasance. Again, its not just editorial or speculation, it is heavy handed manipulation. If that can be proven in a court of law, with all the safeguards still in place, then a news organization is no different than any other corporation for profit that premeditatedly commits a grievous error which results in serious arm. That would be a right that is blind to the facts, the truth, to justice.

I don't mind failure, you can learn from failure, its a part of the natural process. What I do mind is a conscious malicious effort. Say the photo manipulation on Time's cover of a much darker OJ Simpson, what was that all about? Why do that? What was the false message intended to be delivered? And the press continues to manipulate in this manner.

I am more concerned with the speech police, the restrictions of liberties on our university campuses nationwide. The press has many times overstepped the right, the universities are curtailing the right. Besides which, I have lost my confidence in the media to properly report actual corruption, performance, conduct of our elected officials, it often seems more one sided...and even then, not truly investigating deeply as they should.

Click to expand...

One, I strongly suggest you have a look at libel and slander laws, and the protections of the free press under the US constitution. I have what you mean by "all the conscious malfeasance" but it the outlet prove its true, that's all they have to worry about. Whatever "malfeasence" you're bringing up about Rodney King, no one has ever shown that any of the coverage was incorrect. Maybe you're just using unusual words to sound smart.

No, the media is not like every other business. It comes down to whether they can prove it. That's it. And If I want I can run that story and its pictures every hour of the day.

You're wrong on every point.

Re: #NeverTrump

Gaugingcatenate said:

No, what I am saying is you cannot prove that was what he actually meant. There was a muddle there, and if you are intellectually honest, you will admit it. I think its easy for any of us, when after being slapped and slapped like the American people feel we often have been, and denied by the current office holder and his former Secretary of the Statists, from even being allowed to properly describe the folks slapping us, well even the best of us can get a little heated with our rhetoric, going more over the top than perhaps wanted. That was no more a policy statement coming from his mouth, that was a hastily prepared but in the park home run gotcha question that has really made the rounds on the highlights. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, there are few more ardent Constitutionalists, but you have yet to prove to me the violation. You solely have these flimsy feeble assertions that don't hold up more than mere implication... give us something solid to go over Constitutionally.

Man, for some reason, just won't tell us why you want to hand the election to over the Hillary, will ya? Somebody needing to come out or....what? How is it you are willing to draw that line with arrow towards Secy of Statists, Clinton? One cannot just hold their nose and do that, that takes way more. Tell us.

Click to expand...

The intent of what a person "means" is absolutely meaningless in libel and slander actions. It comes down to "did they say it?", what was the context", and what harm was suffered.

That's it sir. The only rules.

I think you want a controlled press. Go to North Korea, they never commit "Malfeasence">

Re: #NeverTrump

The last sentence in the second paragraph should read:

"Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is seeking to address a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society."

Re: #NeverTrump

justabubba said:

...

you were under duress and were compelled to read and/or respond to my post? then you should alert law enforcement to apprehend whoever compelled you to read/respond against your will. you must volunteer to read/respond to posts of your own volition and should not be made obligated by another to engage in such involuntary activities. please seek out the authorities when you are not restrained from doing so

in the meantime let's look at some of the stupidity found within a few of your posts from this thread:



please share with us the exemption from libel enjoyed by the media. the exception you would pretend actually exists



media is all over the place. from extreme left to extreme right and everything in between. surely there must be responsible media to be found within that divers mix. or is responsible media found by you to be only that which presents views with which you agree



you first correctly recognize that the media is entitled to expose the truth. then you object to the media telling the truth when the public responds to it. your posts appear to lack logic and reason



your objection to the media appears to rest in its exposing that with which you do not agree

and then we have this little nugget



for someone with such strong objections to what the media is able to offer, you seem proud of your decade long ignorance of the televised media. again, there is an absence of logic and reason within your protestations

and then your post which initiated the current dialogue


yes, you want the press to be free ... so long as it exclusively offers up ONLY your viewpoint

and now i have wasted more than enough time on your sophomoric posting inclinations

Click to expand...

You are good at throwing out names, just not very good at making their implications stick, are ya?

Okay, volunteering to continue, its on me. This one has more words, whether it has more substance is still pending, will let you know at the end.

Go back and read, I was not the one that brought up libel...so, direct your desire to know more about that from the original poster. Where do you find fault with what I actually said? Do you disagree that "if the media knowingly does something it should not, they should be open to libel? Why should they be exempt if they, without basis, knowingly damage someone's reputation or incite violence?" Feel free to answer them all.

Perhaps I was just a tad imprecise, I should have said the Mainstream [read:liberal] Media. If you keep up, its all the usual suspects. I would say Fox as well.

What was the outcome of the libel case against Time Mag for that shading of OJ too dark? The Zimmerman case that had the NBC edited tape, what happened there? What about the lawsuits in the wake of the deaths of the LA riots? Can you tell me? I cannot find much information on these famous examples.

Your interpretations of what I was supposed to have been saying in my post, well... Lets put it this way, if we were at war I know who I wouldn't be putting in the intelligence analysis room. Yours has nothing to do with my interpretations. If what the media did was knowingly false, intended not to inform but to mislead, and mislead in a harmful way where somebody was harmed or financially impacted. We can all agree to that can we not, as reasonable people? You see, that is what you should have distilled instead of that mind altered moonshine you put out.

Again, where did I say anything about it having to coincide with my viewpoints? "I have lost my confidence in the media to properly report actual corruption, performance, conduct of our elected officials, it often seems more one sided...and even then, not truly investigating deeply as they should." Did I say Democrat, Liberal, Progressive... did I mention whose corruption, performance or conduct? I hope you are sitting down 'cause brother, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Don't quite know if you know, but can watch old John Stewart on here, CNN, Fox, all over the place here just on the internet, lots of videos right here on DP, you should be aware...its not TV, and though I don't do it much, I do keep up as well as do other things. So, I am abreast of what is going on, just at the pace I create.

Cannot even conclude well, end up on another misinterpretation, and a bad attempt at a new slight, but just bringing up one already disproved as I didnt say it had to be my viewpoint. I do happen to be right, but that is beside the point.

My conclusion, this was not near as clean and concise as the original post. However, a lot less substance per word, nothing of value, so both pretty much worthless. So yeah, turning in my volunteer bib... they give you a bib, you know, just in case you start yodeling groceries... never wear a good suit when doing this type volunteering they advised,. Wisely I might add.

Re: #NeverTrump

Fearandloathing said:

One, I strongly suggest you have a look at libel and slander laws, and the protections of the free press under the US constitution. I have what you mean by "all the conscious malfeasance" but it the outlet prove its true, that's all they have to worry about. Whatever "malfeasence" you're bringing up about Rodney King, no one has ever shown that any of the coverage was incorrect. Maybe you're just using unusual words to sound smart.

Click to expand...

Conversely, I strongly suggest you go back and study those two and the Constitution as well. There is still a lot of unsettled law awaiting to be worked out there. We currently have some existing and necessary limits on speech...as stated, no right is absolute.

Its hard to make out with your sentences at times what you are actually attempting to say. The sentence is red is such a muddle you will have to clean that up if you want an answer.

As regards the Rodney King video, they didnt show the beginning of the video, showed the beating, not what happened before they realized he was not gonna go down, tazering wasn't working, tazed twice and still would not allow officers to handcuff him. They thought he was on PCP... just the most brutal part of the tape, without context, was shown repeatedly...heating up things in LA to the fever level. That, in my book, is malfeasance. Same with the editing of the audio 9 11 tape to make Zimmerman look as thought a racist.

Fearandloathing said:

No, the media is not like every other business. It comes down to whether they can prove it. That's it. And If I want I can run that story and its pictures every hour of the day.

Click to expand...

I didnt say the media was like every other business, but if they knowingly step over the line, we have no absolute rulers beyond the bounds of laws in the USA. They have to take the consequences just like all the rest of us humans. They are not completely exempt.

Fearandloathing said:

You're wrong on every point.

Click to expand...

And you don't know how to assess that properly, it is quite obvious.

Re: #NeverTrump

Fearandloathing said:

The intent of what a person "means" is absolutely meaningless in libel and slander actions. It comes down to "did they say it?", what was the context", and what harm was suffered.

That's it sir. The only rules.

I think you want a controlled press. Go to North Korea, they never commit "Malfeasence">

Click to expand...

And...so?

See, there you go again making all kinds of bold, uninformed kangaroo style statements, hoping to very silly conclusions. Maybe feels good, but you lose credibility, yano?

Re: #NeverTrump

donsutherland1 said:

Issues related to the Press are not new. Such issues have existed as long as an institution existed to provide information to the public or people sought to do so. But the greater good provided from the Press’s capacity to disseminate information, even when considering those issues, far outweighs the problems such issues cause.

As for the King incident, the Media was reporting on what happened based on the information that was available to it at the time. The reality that mobs are emotionally-charged and can carry out destructive acts in reaction to events is a reality of human nature, specifically group dynamics. That reality is not sufficient basis to muzzle the Press. A free Press is vital to sustaining representative governance and free society. Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society.

Others may disagree, but just as I believe, for example, the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free is preferable to the risk of an innocent person’s being convicted (presumption of innocence/burden of proof involved in criminal cases), the same holds true with the Media. A free Press, even with shortcomings, is vastly preferable to the alternative.

Finally, the same holds true for college campuses. Academic freedom in which students have access to multiple perspectives and an ability to express their views is preferable to a situation where access to perspectives is limited and speech is stifled. The former promotes learning. The latter stifles it.

Click to expand...

I taught history, I am familiar with the free press and its concepts. But thanks, anyhow.

Do you remember the Rodney King debacle at all? Only the brutal part of the tape shown. Los Angeles, national broadcast and cable news programs deliberately, repeatedly showing only those most brutal moments, so so terrible, horrible optics without providing the viewers with any vital context.

Confronted with this cut down version of only the cops looking as if the sole aggressors towards what is supposed an innocent black man, of this provocative and therefore incendiary selective cut use, Stephen Wasserman, executive VP of ABC News, dismissed this, “The part of the tape not regularly shown does not shed light on the jury`s action, one way or the other.”

That was just a flat out prevarication. They knew exactly what they were doing.

And nobody is saying muzzle the press. Just that the press must act with in the bounds of honesty and integrity in reporting. Mistakes, honest mistakes one can understand. Knowingly doing something that could/did incite people who might not otherwise be driven to violence with outrageous editing in the face of growing tensions. Unconscionable and should be prosecutable. Certainly.

I am not in complete disagreement, you are somewhat reasonable in your approach. However, the press doesn't always get a pass. That borders on corruption and is too tempting to squander the rights of impacted individuals on the whims of a media that doesn't feel itself in any manner, shape or form accountable...that is a recipe for disaster.

The press is a professional styled group that has higher standards than students at a university, they, students, should say any dumb thing they want generally... the press has a higher standard and higher calling.

Re: #NeverTrump

Gaugingcatenate said:

Who would you put most at fault, the ones who devise a plan wherein somethings may be taken advantage of... or the ones, if that something is clearly legal, capitalize on the opportunity presented? For instance, I don't blame people on government handouts for taking those handouts, I blame government for addicting those folks. Trump is a sharp guy that does actually know the system, but he didn't create the system. I am pretty much against the income tax as presently constructed, but at tax time I use every advantage I can to lower that tax that I wish were not there in the first place... does that mean I am wrong to do so, or just smart knowing there is a game to be played?

Come on. Does anyone find any of these candidate's plans truly credible? Who is this savior that you think is coming that has led the pristine life, never having had a position that you don't like? I ll say it again, I am a Cruz man, but you folks ready to pull the trigger for Clinton sicken one to the core. We have seen in practice the ineptness and corruption of an over the Hillary, and yet you will knowingly hand the election to her.

Some things, as you conclude and I agree, are just too stupid to be believed.

Click to expand...

First, I don't much care about whose at fault and I don't blame anyone for using a rule to their advantage, especially if it is done in good faith and does not directly harm innocents. However, I don't agree that every rule (the system) that is legal makes every choice or act within the system moral. The "legal" bribing of politicians so as to seize others property for one's own use is immoral: period. Using the system to file relentless suits to bankrupt a property owner who has a right to own the property is immoraleriod. Few believe that everything that is legal is moral or just, including you I suspect.

Second, it is irrelevant to the question raised as to whether or not other candidates have many, some, or any credible plans. Ingerham was the one who strongly implied that Trump is "the man" because he promises some kind of added credibility. My point remains - how can his "plans" be more credible when most of them don't exist, and the ones that do are so sketchy as to be unserious?

Most of his "program" is nothing more than barren assertions of viewpoints, many of them contradictory. And no candidate can be credible when even the basic premise is absurd (e.g. 63 percent of Americans paying no income tax, and SSI and Medicare remaining as is).

Finally, yes, Ingraham's rationale is too stupid to be believed, and too dumb to be defended...even in this forum.

Re: #NeverTrump

maxparrish said:

First, I don't much care about whose at fault and I don't blame anyone for using a rule to their advantage, especially if it is done in good faith and does not directly harm innocents. However, I don't agree that every rule (the system) that is legal makes every choice or act within the system moral. The "legal" bribing of politicians so as to seize others property for one's own use is immoral: period. Using the system to file relentless suits to bankrupt a property owner who has a right to own the property is immoraleriod. Few believe that everything that is legal is moral or just, including you I suspect.

Second, it is irrelevant to the question raised as to whether or not other candidates have many, some, or any credible plans. Ingerham was the one who strongly implied that Trump is "the man" because he promises some kind of added credibility. My point remains - how can his "plans" be more credible when most of them don't exist, and the ones that do are so sketchy as to be unserious?

Most of his "program" is nothing more than barren assertions of viewpoints, many of them contradictory. And no candidate can be credible when even the basic premise is absurd (e.g. 63 percent of Americans paying no income tax, and SSI and Medicare remaining as is).

Finally, yes, Ingraham's rationale is too stupid to be believed, and too dumb to be defended...even in this forum.

Click to expand...

Sorry, your pristine candidate, all moral and ethical, doesn't seem to be on our political horizon...ANYWHERE.

So, you pick, as they say, the lesser of two evils. For about the 5th time, not a Trump guy, Cruz is my guy.

HOWever, if Trump is the guy on this side left standing you better by god be sure I am voting for HIM. Not over the Hillary, the lying scumbag who should be on trial right now if not in prison. He is not THE guy, he is just better than the alternative, way better potentially. His plans are credible, or more credible because in the more real world he accomplished, built things, really. That takes planning, putting the right people in the right places, having a shrewd and maybe even killer instinct during the "deal", having the force of personality to just push it through over the finish line.

Your statments lack much value, all the candidates have barren/contradictory assertions of viewpoints, etc...its part of the game of politics. We are at almost 50% now that do not pay Fed income taxes. If we adjust the system, there is a lot of creative ways to structure things, cutting spending is one that otHillary wouldnt consider, but a Trump is the more likely at say, doing away with the Dept of Ed, great thing.

That last little slight, so trivial, so flaccid. But lets turn it around on you, shove your silliness right back in your the face. Right here, right now.

Re: #NeverTrump

donsutherland1 said:

Issues related to the Press are not new. Such issues have existed as long as an institution existed to provide information to the public or people sought to do so. But the greater good provided from the Press’s capacity to disseminate information, even when considering those issues, far outweighs the problems such issues cause.

As for the King incident, the Media was reporting on what happened based on the information that was available to it at the time. The reality that mobs are emotionally-charged and can carry out destructive acts in reaction to events is a reality of human nature, specifically group dynamics. That reality is not sufficient basis to muzzle the Press. A free Press is vital to sustaining representative governance and free society. Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society.

Others may disagree, but just as I believe, for example, the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free is preferable to the risk of an innocent person’s being convicted (presumption of innocence/burden of proof involved in criminal cases), the same holds true with the Media. A free Press, even with shortcomings, is vastly preferable to the alternative.

Finally, the same holds true for college campuses. Academic freedom in which students have access to multiple perspectives and an ability to express their views is preferable to a situation where access to perspectives is limited and speech is stifled. The former promotes learning. The latter stifles it.

Click to expand...

These are the kinds of things that we used to all agree on back when we were a nation, that is with shared experience and a pulling together for the common good. I have been reading a lot of lefties saying recently " what are so many people so pissed about, things are kinda ok". No, no they are not. We have been coming apart at the seems for a long time, the social glue has been weakening, this was clear all the way back to the 60's at least and maybe even further. Is there anything about being an American or about America that we all agree on now? Is there any part of the Constitution that we could get passed now? It is not clear that the answer is yes.

Re: #NeverTrump




Fox News slams Trump, says he has an ‘extreme, sick obsession’ with Megyn Kelly
With the Republican debate season over, the network issued a blunt response to the mogul's latest criticism of its host.

• By Callum Borchers
• The Fix

Re: #NeverTrump

Jack Hays said:

Fox News slams Trump, says he has an ‘extreme, sick obsession’ with Megyn Kelly
With the Republican debate season over, the network issued a blunt response to the mogul's latest criticism of its host.

• By Callum Borchers
• The Fix

Click to expand...

YA, I wonder what is up with that.

I think he has picked her at the perfect encapsulation of the problem of the elite, they who go to the best schools to get indoctrinated and always come out smelling like a rose because the system is rigged in favor of the elite. I dont think this is about her, or about FoxNews. A problem with that however is that she went to a second rate law school. But she is a lawyer, and now she is pushing her opinions onto the little people in a high profile Corporate Class Propaganda Machine job, so close enough I think.

Time will tell.

Re: #NeverTrump

Hawkeye10 said:

YA, I wonder what is up with that.

I think he has picked her at the perfect encapsulation of the problem of the elite, they who go to the best schools to get indoctrinated and always come out smelling like a rose because the system is rigged in favor of the elite. I dont think this is about her, or about FoxNews. A problem with that however is that she went to a second rate law school.

Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Trump is a pig.

Re: #NeverTrump

Jack Hays said:

Trump is a pig.

Click to expand...

He is going for pitbull.

Re: #NeverTrump

Hawkeye10 said:

He is going for pitbull.

Click to expand...

Trump is a pig. Pitbulls have character.

I hope that petition to have him arrested reaches 100,000 signatures soon. IIRC they only need about another 10,000.

Re: #NeverTrump

nothing like being boggled..

run don run

Re: #NeverTrump

Another reason to oppose Trump: Trump questions the value of NATO, as well as the United States' Pacific allies. From The Washington Post:

Donald Trump outlined an unabashadly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday, telling The Washington Post's editorial board that he questions the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has formed the backbone of Western security policies since the Cold War...

Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there.

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/

Re: #NeverTrump

2016 Election
[h=2]Will Trump Clinch The GOP Nomination Before The Convention?[/h] By Harry Enten and Nate Silver