PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on March 21, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
-
And if they don’t do a retraction, they should, they should you know have a form of a trial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/
So, he wants a kangaroo court to pass judgement on when reporters are mean to him. New York Times v. Sullivan is one of the things that truly makes the United States a great democracy. The press doesn't need to constantly look over their shoulders when it comes to reporting on public figures.
-
Yet another patent attempt to misrepresent what was said.
He made no such suggestion to a kangaroo court or a different court of any kind, but never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
I mean he is running for President, not King, not dictator, etc., a President could do no such thing, you know it, and he knows it.
This is really getting tiresome JeffDG - it's just so predictable, monotonous and non-value-added.
Who are you for?
Who do you support?
What is positive in your mind for this cycle?
What are you excited about?
What policies/positions are engaging and energetic for you?
Really man, between you on Trump and Lucifer on Cruz it's almost a bore to drop in.
'Gimp
-
HIATT: But just – given the Supreme Court rulings on libel — Sullivan v. New York Times — how would you change the law?
TRUMP: I would just loosen them up.
RUTH MARCUS: What does that mean?
[Crosstalk]
TRUMP: I’d have to get my lawyers in to tell you, but I would loosen them up. I would loosen them up. If The Washington Post writes badly about me – and they do, they don’t write good – I mean, I don’t think I get – I read some of the stories coming up here, and I said to my staff, I said, “Why are we even wasting our time? The hatred is so enormous.” I don’t know why. I mean, I do a good job. I have thousands of employees. I work hard.
I’m not looking for bad for our country. I’m a very rational person, I’m a very sane person. I’m not looking for bad. But I read articles by you, and others. And, you know, we’ve never – we don’t know each other, and the level of hatred is so incredible, I actually said, “Why am I – why am I doing this? Why am I even here?” And I don’t expect anything to happen–
RYAN: Would that be the standard then? If there is an article that you feel has hatred, or is bad, would that be the basis for libel?
TRUMP: No, if it’s wrong. If it’s wrong.
RYAN: Wrong whether there’s malice or not?
TRUMP: I mean, The Washington Post never calls me. I never had a call, “Why – why did you do this?” or “Why did you do that?” It’s just, you know, like I’m this horrible human being. And I’m not. You know, the one thing we have in common I think we all love the country. Now, maybe we come at it from different sides, but nobody ever calls me. I mean, Bob Costa calls about a political story – he called because we’re meeting senators in a little while and congressmen, supporters – but nobody ever calls.
RYAN: The reason I keep asking this is because you’ve said three times you’ve said we are going to open up the libel laws and when we ask you what you mean you say hatred, or bad–
TRUMP: I want to make it more fair from the side where I am, because things are said that are libelous, things are said about me that are so egregious and so wrong, and right now according to the libel laws I can do almost nothing about it because I’m a well-known person you know, etc., etc.
-
Yet another patent attempt to misrepresent what was said.
He made no such suggestion to a kangaroo court or a different court of any kind, but never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
I mean he is running for President, not King, not dictator, etc., a President could do no such thing, you know it, and he knows it.
This is really getting tiresome JeffDG - it's just so predictable, monotonous and non-value-added.
Who are you for?
Who do you support?
What is positive in your mind for this cycle?
What are you excited about?
What policies/positions are engaging and energetic for you?
Really man, between you on Trump and Lucifer on Cruz it's almost a bore to drop in.
'Gimp
Gimp, if his statements about wanting to "loosen up" the libel laws don't give you pause for concern, then I don't know what to say. It's his mindset that concerns me. A mindset that he "would" do something that imperils the freedom of the press, among other things. What kind of conservative or Constitutionalist would say that?
-
Gimp, if his statements about wanting to "loosen up" the libel laws don't give you pause for concern, then I don't know what to say. It's his mindset that concerns me. A mindset that he "would" do something that imperils the freedom of the press, among other things. What kind of conservative or Constitutionalist would say that?
Again, I don't call him a conservative or constitutionalist yet you keep saying that, then saying you didn't say that, when I call you on it.
Is he more conservative than ANYONE on the Democrat side, hell yes he is. Is he more conservative than Cruz? No. I never said it, I don't think he is. And I don't fucking care.
I actually think our press does get away with far too much bullshit, in particular when writing about political figures anywhere to the right of Che Gueverra, it is one of the primary complaints we on the right have had for decades.
Liberal bias has been a fact in our media since Walter fracking Conkrite, perhaps longer, but it has reached a fever pitch over the past couple decades, the pinnacle (or depths) being the treatment of George W. Bush by the entire media. And with opinion masquerading as news with no clean break it gets stickier and stickier.
Trump didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't nice', he didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't flattering', he didn't say 'don't say or print things he doesn't like', he said don't say or print things that are wrong, that are not true - big fucking difference and if you don't or won't see or understand that then there really is nothing else to say on this topic.
Look, just admit it - you are unwilling to give the guy a fair shake about anything. He isn't a big C Conservative, didn't work; he is too unpolished, didn't work; he has no details, didn't work; he is Hitler, or Mussolini, didn't work; he is an authoritarian, didn't work; he beats up women reporters, didn't work; ummm, he has thin skin and is against the 1st Amendment, no. Just keep throwing shit at the wall to see if anything will stick.
I think the Brits have libel and defamation far more correctly defined than we do, it clearly does not keep the UK press from criticizing their power elite but it does keep things more fact based and better researched.
Demanding responsibility from the media with respect to political reporting in general and in terms of libel in particular is a start to regaining some semblance of an even discourse in my opinion. It is along the same lines as loser-pays and tort reform, needed changes that are foundational to bringing personal responsibility back to a profession that has totally lost its compass - see Gawker verdict to Hulk Hogan.
I knew there was no purpose to reply to Jeff's post, all it begets is more of the same shit. I actually almost deleted this. You guys can't be even be remotely fair to the guy, which is fine. You're not changing any minds and clearly neither am I, so be it.
'Gimp
-
Again, I don't call him a conservative or constitutionalist yet you keep saying that, then saying you didn't say that, when I call you on it.
Is he more conservative than ANYONE on the Democrat side, hell yes he is. Is he more conservative than Cruz? No. I never said it, I don't think he is. And I don't fucking care.
I actually think our press does get away with far too much bullshit, in particular when writing about political figures anywhere to the right of Che Gueverra, it is one of the primary complaints we on the right have had for decades.
Liberal bias has been a fact in our media since Walter fracking Conkrite, perhaps longer, but it has reached a fever pitch over the past couple decades, the pinnacle (or depths) being the treatment of George W. Bush by the entire media. And with opinion masquerading as news with no clean break it gets stickier and stickier.
Trump didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't nice', he didn't say 'don't say or print things that aren't flattering', he didn't say 'don't say or print things he doesn't like', he said don't say or print things that are wrong, that are not true - big fucking difference and if you don't or won't see or understand that then there really is nothing else to say on this topic.
Look, just admit it - you are unwilling to give the guy a fair shake about anything. He isn't a big C Conservative, didn't work; he is too unpolished, didn't work; he has no details, didn't work; he is Hitler, or Mussolini, didn't work; he is an authoritarian, didn't work; he beats up women reporters, didn't work; ummm, he has thin skin and is against the 1st Amendment, no. Just keep throwing shit at the wall to see if anything will stick.
I think the Brits have libel and defamation far more correctly defined than we do, it clearly does not keep the UK press from criticizing their power elite but it does keep things more fact based and better researched.
Demanding responsibility from the media with respect to political reporting in general and in terms of libel in particular is a start to regaining some semblance of an even discourse in my opinion. It is along the same lines as loser-pays and tort reform, needed changes that are foundational to bringing personal responsibility back to a profession that has totally lost its compass - see Gawker verdict to Hulk Hogan.
I knew there was no purpose to reply to Jeff's post, all it begets is more of the same shit. I actually almost deleted this. You guys can't be even be remotely fair to the guy, which is fine. You're not changing any minds and clearly neither am I, so be it.
'Gimp
I have no friggin' idea what you're saying in your first paragraph. I know you don't think he is either of those, and I don't recall you "calling me out on it." My point in repeating it is that I thought we were voting for the Republican nominee.
To my knowledge and experience, the GOP has (or had) two main factions: the conservative Constitutionalists, and the squishy, soulless Establishment. That was the Tea Party battle, something that I actually fought for since Rick Santelli exploded in 2009.
I never took you for the latter, so I presumed you would be a guy who wanted the former. So I'm aghast at the level of GOP support of a man who doesn't represent the former. In fact I see more of the latter in him, though not entirely.
That's OK. I also think nose rings and gauges in your ear sentences you to work at a gas station or a coffee shop for the rest of your life. Maybe I'm slow to accept change.
But my support of the Constitution is immovable, and Trump's failure to even mention the Constitution, let alone his statements that imply "loosening up" a right guaranteed in the document, is extremely concerning to me.
-
To start with, I think the guy should be able to express a cohesive thought into complete and correct sentences. Until then, we have no idea what he means by wanting to loosen up the libel laws. Except that it can't be good.
He probably means just with respect to things said about him, though. He'll want to keep HIS right to stretch and bend the truth and malign others.
-
Using tactical nuclear weapons is like negative campaigning, donchaknow
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeKCw2qW4AId73a.jpg:large)
-
Using tactical nuclear weapons is like negative campaigning, donchaknow
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeKCw2qW4AId73a.jpg:large)
By not including the previous question its out of context.
You are pathetically predictable in this - this makes no contribution to this particular discussion, is unrelated in fact to the subject matter. I eviscerated your insinuated strawman so you come back with something totally unrelated in an attempt to embarrass, and I could not care less.
Ignoring you dude, can't stand your pointless harpy non-value-added bullshit anymore. You win, first person I have ignored in years.
'Gimp
-
By not including the previous question its out of context.
You are pathetically predictable in this - this makes no contribution to this particular discussion, is unrelated in fact to the subject matter. I eviscerated your insinuated strawman so you come back with something totally unrelated in an attempt to embarrass, and I could not care less.
Ignoring you dude, can't stand your pointless harpy non-value-added bullshit anymore. You win, first person I have ignored in years.
'Gimp
Yeah, a candidate for POTUS' views on the use of nukes is totally a bullshit issue.
-
Same here, putting the petulant child on ignore. He can't contribute anything to the conversation.
-
Same here, putting the petulant child on ignore. He can't contribute anything to the conversation.
Sweet!
I won't bother putting you on ignore. Not worth the effort, honestly.
You can continue your "I never said I support Trump but Waaaaahhh! Why do you say bad things about Trump!" diatribes...they're funny in that they show how utterly clueless you are.
-
Ignoring you dude, can't stand your pointless harpy non-value-added bullshit anymore. You win, first person I have ignored in years.
I'm honestly sorry to hear that.
It saddens me that someone as smart as you has been sucked into Trump's complete and utter bullshit. The fact that people can daily, and normally multiple times daily, point out batshit crazy things he has said should be a signal to people, but I fear for the Rebpublic that I have adopted.
-
The fact that people can daily, and normally multiple times daily, point out batshit crazy things he has said should be a signal to people...
It's a huge smoke signal, and I can't figure out how so many people just don't see it.
-
By not including the previous question its out of context.
You are pathetically predictable in this - this makes no contribution to this particular discussion, is unrelated in fact to the subject matter. I eviscerated your insinuated strawman so you come back with something totally unrelated in an attempt to embarrass, and I could not care less.
Ignoring you dude, can't stand your pointless harpy non-value-added bullshit anymore. You win, first person I have ignored in years.
'Gimp
I'm disappointed. Do you think there's a chance that Jeff feels like I do as expressed in post #6, and which I consider to be a fair criticism of Trump, and a fair concern over where the electorate is going?
-
There's a schizophrenic aspect to Trump, it seems. Sometimes his words seem batshit crazy, sometimes he's lucid and coherent. I understand that at his AIPEC speech he had multiple standing ovations and was coherent.
I do wonder if he's on medication? Maybe that's the Democrat's ace in the hole ... reveal his pharmacological history. Just thinkin'.
-
I'm disappointed. Do you think there's a chance that Jeff feels like I do as expressed in post #6, and which I consider to be a fair criticism of Trump, and a fair concern over where the electorate is going?
I am equally disappointed that it appears that folks who clearly demonstrate a high level of intelligence, who have principles similar to my own, and who can be reasonable and rational when discussing so many things seem to go off the rails for one specific person, and spew what I perceive as irrational, non-value-added, non-fact based hatred.
By cutting where he did, JeffDG creates an appearance of cluelessness, the same thing they used to do to W. I find that kind of clipping to be disingenous at best, intellectually dishonest and manipulative at worst.
I really think it points to the sinister effectiveness of the LeftMedia complex and their tactics in shaping opinion (now co-opted by the RINO Establishment and the self-appointed big C conservatives alike).
Would that we focused a fraction of the attention Trump gets from everyone here (and elsewhere) to the failure in office now, and the likely candidate of his party (assuming she escapes indictment). Let the people vote. I am not convinced that Trump will win the nomination but he should have the opportunity to do so on en even playing field.
I have tried to maintain an even strain with respect to the endless and usually poorly formed criticisms of the man, and I have acknowledged ones I agree with as well as coming up with my own, but it has become tiresome, the same old tropes over and over, from the same biased sources. Nothing new under the sun.
I still haven't seen any full throated support FOR other candidates from the small cadre of #neverTrump Jihadi's here. I am not out blasting Cruz or Kasich. I could, but it is not my objective and not worth my time - I am dealing with enough negativity and vitriol from outside already without stooping to it myself.
'Gimp
-
'Gimp, it's clear the man rambles and goes off subject and gives vague answers much of the time. Other times he's coherent. I think much of what people are saying here is just to look at the actual video of the man; listen to his own words. Yes, the media can focus on Trump's stumbles in front of microphones, but the range and number of such stumbles, and their content (his actual words) are alarming.
Keeping my thinking hat on here.
-
'Gimp, it's clear the man rambles and goes off subject and gives vague answers much of the time. Other times he's coherent. I think much of what people are saying here is just to look at the actual video of the man; listen to his own words. Yes, the media can focus on Trump's stumbles in front of microphones, but the range and number of such stumbles, and their content (his actual words) are alarming.
Keeping my thinking hat on here.
His speaking off the cuff is no more or less alarming to me than were W's or Reagan's, and a tremendous improvement over folks who so parse their words as to say absolutely nothing.
I take the man in totality, what he has said and written and done. I've followed him as a business person since the late 80' and the release of The Art of Deal - I find him to be far more consistent than others. Maybe I give him too much credit, maybe others give him too little - only time will tell.
Take his stint as a Democrat during the Bush years - he was seriously opposed to the Iraq War and felt left behind by the Republican party. We can talk forever about whether or not we agree with it or not, but it was his decision to make, where else is there to go?
Looking now to his foreign policy advisors and the non-interventionist approach he laid out the other day - that is consistent with his opposition to the Iraq war (I think he was awrong about that BTW). I don't agree with a totally non-interventionalist policy, at least to the extent I fear it could go since I believe the world is a better place with our direct involvement, but I agree that our allies and friends and those closest to the challenges around the world can and should do more.
All of the democratic socialist powers of Europe are only able to spend on their own people to the extent they do because none bear the full cost of their own defense thanks to NATO and therefore to us.
My only point here is to show that there are rational, fact-based and thought out reasons for my support of Trump - if it gives others pause to consider him so be it. If not, so be it.
People should vote their conscience but it should be informed by facts they have sought out, verified and integrated themselves into their own value system, beliefs and desires for the future.
'Gimp
-
His speaking off the cuff is no more or less alarming to me than were W's or Reagan's...
'Gimp
Exactly. As if that's not a great big red flag.
Both Reagan and W were fairly well-spoken at the beginning, but toward the end they struggled with complete sentences. Trump can't complete a thought now in a complete sentence.
-
Exactly. As if that's not a great big red flag.
It is not for me, I picked those two since I am talking about a candidate for the Republican nomination.
I could discuss at length what the meaning of 'is' is if you want, or what 'I did not have sex, with that woman, Ms Lewnisky' while wagging a fat little finger at the camera with feigned disdain represents in terms of communication. Or I could go out and find the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. whithout his teleprompter (57 states, corpsEman, uh, uh, uh). We could bark like dogs.
The lawyerly parsing of words has destroyed our communication IMO, and that is what I focused on.
'Gimp
-
'Gimp, it's clear the man rambles and goes off subject and gives vague answers much of the time.
And the press just lives to play that back for us over and over.
Other times he's coherent.
That doesn't get near as much press. You pretty much have to watch the live interviews to see that.
I think much of what people are saying here is just to look at the actual video of the man; listen to his own words. Yes, the media can focus on Trump's stumbles in front of microphones, but the range and number of such stumbles, and their content (his actual words) are alarming.
I think you sort of get it, but then you become alarmed, just as the press and the #stoptrumpers intend.
But let me ask this: What kind of leader would anyone else in the hunt make? The last time we had a hurricane here, three mighty oaks in my yard fell. The trees that could bend a little withstood the winds just fine.
-
But let me ask this: What kind of leader would anyone else in the hunt make? The last time we had a hurricane here, three mighty oaks in my yard fell. The trees that could bend a little withstood the winds just fine.
When I'm looking for good wood to make a solid frame/foundation, I won't be looking to the Weeping Willow tree or the fast-growth pine.
-
And the press just lives to play that back for us over and over.
That doesn't get near as much press. You pretty much have to watch the live interviews to see that.
I think you sort of get it, but then you become alarmed, just as the press and the #stoptrumpers intend.
But let me ask this: What kind of leader would anyone else in the hunt make? The last time we had a hurricane here, three mighty oaks in my yard fell. The trees that could bend a little withstood the winds just fine.
Of course I'm alarmed. I watched all of the Republican debates (what kind of medal does that earn me? :o) and my opinion of Mr. Trump was formed from his fully in-context, whole "sentences" given in reply to actual questions.
Of course I don't want a brittle old oak for president! But of the candidates, I actually think he is the most brittle.
-
Of course I'm alarmed. I watched all of the Republican debates (what kind of medal does that earn me? :o) and my opinion of Mr. Trump was formed from his fully in-context, whole "sentences" given in reply to actual questions.
Of course I don't want a brittle old oak for president! But of the candidates, I actually think he is the most brittle.
Funny thing is, others here complain he is too flexible.