#NeverTrump [W:66]

[Casper]

Re: #NeverTrump

There is a difference between extreme bias and knowingly doing something false that is also damaging or potentially is the catalyst for violence. Can you give me a reason why NBC should be able to continue to be allowed to manipulate in such an egregious manner as was perpetrated in the Zimmerman case? Can you see the media stopping this malfeasance if there is not a consequence?

No right is absolute. I am all for freedom of the press, but there will always be a need to draw lines, boundaries...since it is human nature to exploit to ones own advantage. It would be for the courts to decide.

You seem stuck on the falsehoods and slant put out by msnbc but want ignore the fact that FOX does exactly the same thing, so by that I can on conclude that you are only outraged because the other guy is doing it, noted.

 

[Kobie]

Re: #NeverTrump

Seems to me 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? The NBC editing of the audio 9 11 call made by George Zimmerman to make him out to be a racist was appalling and that sort of thing should 1. never be allowed to occur and 2. be made an example of where the line is drawn, between truth, speculation and the other side of the line where it is made up out of whole cloth fiction.

And here is a rundown of the events surrounding Trumps statements and responses to leading questions posed by reporters. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/]In Context: Donald Trump's comments on a database of American Muslims | PolitiFact[/url]

Besides which, Trump would have to go through the legislative proposal process, taking any/all this to Congress.

This is by Politifact and their bias if anything is more left leaning. Shows a lot of ambiguity in the actual events and statements Trump made. I think it is much ado about little to nothing.

Clearly, this all means that George Zimmerman should be president.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

You seem stuck on the falsehoods and slant put out by msnbc but want ignore the fact that FOX does exactly the same thing, so by that I can on conclude that you are only outraged because the other guy is doing it, noted.

Haven't watched TV at all for over ten years, so your "news" about where I get my news is, well, old news.

Did I say ANYTHING about ANY news organization getting a bye from the same rules? You have no real idea of what you speak, but yet you go ahead and spout it anyhow. Have you a reason for that?

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: #NeverTrump

Seems to me 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? The NBC editing of the audio 9 11 call made by George Zimmerman to make him out to be a racist was appalling and that sort of thing should 1. never be allowed to occur and 2. be made an example of where the line is drawn, between truth, speculation and the other side of the line where it is made up out of whole cloth fiction.

And here is a rundown of the events surrounding Trumps statements and responses to leading questions posed by reporters. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/]In Context: Donald Trump's comments on a database of American Muslims | PolitiFact[/url]

Besides which, Trump would have to go through the legislative proposal process, taking any/all this to Congress.

This is by Politifact and their bias if anything is more left leaning. Shows a lot of ambiguity in the actual events and statements Trump made. I think it is much ado about little to nothing.

Occasionally, there have been failures in the media, but the news media’s role in informing the public is vital to the function of representative governance. Without the public’s ability to have access to information concerning the performance, conduct, and policies of their elected and appointed officials, representative government cannot function effectively. When it can’t function effectively problems ranging from corruption to impairment of liberty can arise.

That’s why the press has been accorded wide latitude to carry out its work. The trade-offs from narrowing the scope of its authority would more than outweigh any perceived benefits from such measures. Eroding the Press’s protection would reduce restraints on public officials, undercut discovery, and weaken governmental accountability to the public.

If one goes back to past political scandals, one finds that those responsible invariably professed their innocence and accused the media of inventing stories following the initial reports of their actions. Under Trump’s vision of reducing protections for the news media, those corrupt officials might well have quashed the media’s efforts to thoroughly look into their actions. They could have compelled disclosure of the initially small number of sources and, thereby, deterred others from providing crucial evidence of corruption. The entire discovery process could have broken down. As a result, there might never have been sufficient evidence to reveal the corruption that actually occurred.

At least in my view, I would err strongly on the side of affording the Press the full protection that is available in the First Amendment even recognizing that sometimes the Press fails in its work.

Finally, were Trump to succeed in reducing the freedom of the Press to publish or broadcast information, would he later seek to compel people to curb their own speech to further reduce the dissemination of objectionable information?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

Clearly, this all means that George Zimmerman should be president.

Which brings one to wonder, just what is the price of peanuts up there in the gallery, Kob? Do you keep up with such speculation full time?

Interesting stuff here at this government website
Peanut Archives

Gave it only a cursory glance, but looked pretty stable from December until now.

Maybe you can put Zimmerman in as your write in candidate.

 

[Casper]

Re: #NeverTrump

Haven't watched TV at all for over ten years, so your "news" about where I get my news is, well, old news.

Did I say ANYTHING about ANY news organization getting a bye from the same rules? You have no real idea of what you speak, but yet you go ahead and spout it anyhow. Have you a reason for that?

Whether you watch it or not does not mean that you do not have a selective outrage thing going, you just get your outrage from different sources, news paper, radio and of-course the "trustworthy" Internet. You can get your panties in a wad all you want but your outrage is selective and obvious and that means I am correct in my opinion, thanks for playing and always so informative.

 

[cpwill]

Re: #NeverTrump

yep. sometimes I can't wonder if people like the op are payed operatives that only see flaws in one candidate. they try very hard to act centrist, but you follow their contributions long enough, and you realize that is a crock of ****.

:lol: if you think donsutherland is here because he's a paid operative, you haven't been paying attention

Well, before we start skipping off thinking we have to do all that, why don't you tell me his exact statement and when he said it. Lets analyze it and see if what your are saying he is saying is what he actually said.

Otherwise we are just putting the cart a little before the horse there, aren't we, cpwill?

Donald Trump "would certainly implement" a database system tracking Muslims in the United States, the Republican front-runner told NBC News on Thursday night.

"I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," Trump said in Newton, Iowa, in between campaign town halls.

"There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," he added. "We should have a lot of systems."

When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, "They have to be — they have to be."

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,”

That's not only unconstitutional as ****, it's scary as **** that his supporters don't care.

 

[justabubba]

Re: #NeverTrump

There is a difference between extreme bias and knowingly doing something false that is also damaging or potentially is the catalyst for violence. Can you give me a reason why NBC should be able to continue to be allowed to manipulate in such an egregious manner as was perpetrated in the Zimmerman case? Can you see the media stopping this malfeasance if there is not a consequence?

No right is absolute. I am all for freedom of the press, but there will always be a need to draw lines, boundaries...since it is human nature to exploit to ones own advantage. It would be for the courts to decide.

sure you are

 

[TOJ]

Re: #NeverTrump

Don't know what you imply by "thrown out", it was a jury trial, evidence presented and the jury made its decision to find Zimmerman not guilty. A verdict that was sound based on all the evidience. I have problems with the American Justice system, but they got it right in that instance.

Perhaps I do have more faith, but I certainly would rather leave it up to a jury than let the media run amok, they are not above reproach players and, as with the Rodney King beating where they left out much of the beginning and replayed it over, and over, over, over and over inciting, inspiring people to riot, to do violence...what was left out of that replaying was this 230-pound, six-foot-three-inch man, with a 0.19 blood alcohol level [with 0.08 as the legal level of intoxication), acting wildly and lunging at policemen, four of whom he actually threw off. The media were extremely responsible for billowing the white hot rage over the Rodney King verdict.

The riots that followed killed 55 people, 2000 injured, 11,000 arrested, tremendous property damage...that is more than libel, that is potentially criminal if all the evidence were to be weighed out properly in an adjudicated manner.

Well, I am more about justice than some it is apparent. I would rather a responsible media, something we do not have currently.

I was referring to Zimmerman's lawsuit against NBC.

.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

Occasionally, there have been failures in the media, but the news media’s role in informing the public is vital to the function of representative governance. Without the public’s ability to have access to information concerning the performance, conduct, and policies of their elected and appointed officials, representative government cannot function effectively. When it can’t function effectively problems ranging from corruption to impairment of liberty can arise.

That’s why the press has been accorded wide latitude to carry out its work. The trade-offs from narrowing the scope of its authority would more than outweigh any perceived benefits from such measures. Eroding the Press’s protection would reduce restraints on public officials, undercut discovery, and weaken governmental accountability to the public.

If one goes back to past political scandals, one finds that those responsible invariably professed their innocence and accused the media of inventing stories following the initial reports of their actions. Under Trump’s vision of reducing protections for the news media, those corrupt officials might well have quashed the media’s efforts to thoroughly look into their actions. They could have compelled disclosure of the initially small number of sources and, thereby, deterred others from providing crucial evidence of corruption. The entire discovery process could have broken down. As a result, there might never have been sufficient evidence to reveal the corruption that actually occurred.

At least in my view, I would err strongly on the side of affording the Press the full protection that is available in the First Amendment even recognizing that sometimes the Press fails in its work.

Finally, were Trump to succeed in reducing the freedom of the Press to publish or broadcast information, would he later seek to compel people to curb their own speech to further reduce the dissemination of objectionable information?

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.

 

[nota bene]

Re: #NeverTrump

That latter group has been so blinded by Trump’s charisma, his narrative of personal success, and his promises to “make America great again” that it has lost sight of Trump’s disconnect with the principles that have long animated American conservatism. The glamor of Trump’s celebrity status is a very poor substitute for clear, timeless guiding principles. It is no substitute for the basic principles on which the United States was established—the principles that were articulated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Exactly.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

Whether you watch it or not does not mean that you do not have a selective outrage thing going, you just get your outrage from different sources, news paper, radio and of-course the "trustworthy" Internet. You can get your panties in a wad all you want but your outrage is selective and obvious and that means I am correct in my opinion, thanks for playing and always so informative.

Always a bit tedious dealing with the constantly asinine, yano?

You might observe that I am not the court system, my individual, as you put it, selective outrages have no bearing...but we do have a court system... and its their job to rule out initial prejudice, to mine down to the real nuggets, the facts, then to make decisions, known as verdicts. Our best attempts at justice.

How do you not get that?

 

[cabse5]

Re: #NeverTrump

Exactly.

When was the last conservative GOP presidential nominee? Romney said he was conservative. You believe him? I don't. I don't think McCain ever had pretensions of be conservative. He wasn't. George W. said he was conservative but he, for example, went into Iraq and pushed for part D of Medicare. Maybe he was a neocon. A conservative? No. Before that was Reagan who was conservative except for the Iran-Contra debacle. Before that was Goldwater. Goldwater and Reagan were conservative GOP presidential hopefuls in the last 48 years! Abe Lincoln, the first GOP president, was about as big a big government president there ever was.

IMO, conservatism is not the base of the GOP. Conservationism is the mouthy minority of the GOP.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: #NeverTrump

yep. sometimes I can't wonder if people like the op are payed operatives that only see flaws in one candidate. they try very hard to act centrist, but you follow their contributions long enough, and you realize that is a crock of ****.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Of all people to accuse of the "paid operative" crap, Don is easily the funniest I've seen it done to. Not only is his extremely academic style HORRIBLE if one actually would want a paid operative on a message board, but his stances have been pretty consistent for nearly a decade and rarely seem to be staunchly putting over any particular individual. I'm sorry, but even "wondering" it in this case is laughable.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

:lol: if you think donsutherland is here because he's a paid operative, you haven't been paying attention





Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,”

That's not only unconstitutional as ****, it's scary as **** that his supporters don't care.

Pretty ambiguous that video... they were talking about a wall, he constantly mentions keeping people out of this country, you are speculating at his off the cuff in an autograph line statement in response to a reporter bringing this line up, not Trump... That to me is also tacitly confirmed by Trump not even having thought the database out, it was not his idea it was a reporter's, and so replies, you tell me, over and over again....so how about lets get off that high horse one seemingly so often sits atop, come down and join the ones aren't just ranting about Never Trump... its silly.

Even if what your interpretation were to be true, and its doubtfull, Trump would have to legislatively propose anything like that, get funding, etc... so you folks a can go down that silly rabbit hole time and again. I will not go there with you.

And why is it you want to hand the election to over the Hillary? You have cherry picked what of my post you want to answer, answer that why dontcha?

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: #NeverTrump

Moderator's Warning:

I swear to all that is holy, if anyone continues to try and derail this thread into another freaking Zimmerman/Martin **** show, I will rain down great vengeance and furious anger upon you in the way of points and a thread ban.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

sure you are

Is that all you got? Well, its a rather simple sentence, at least there is a subject and verb. Not much else there to speak of, but do, keep contributing so fruitfully, just not to me.

Please waste your own time, I place a higher value on my own.

 

[SHOOTER]

Re: #NeverTrump

so you are ok with

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: #NeverTrump

At this point, either the party will embrace him or they will lose. He will run independent. The media will keep him in the spotlight. They want to see what he will say next.

 

[cpwill]

Re: #NeverTrump

Pretty ambiguous that video... they were talking about a wall, he constantly mentions keeping people out of this country, you are speculating at his off the cuff in an autograph line statement in response to a reporter bringing this line up, not Trump... That to me is also tacitly confirmed by Trump not even having thought the database out, it was not his idea it was a reporter's, and so replies, you tell me, over and over again....so how about lets get off that high horse one seemingly so often sits atop, come down and join the ones aren't just ranting about Never Trump... its silly.

Even if what your interpretation were to be true, and its doubtfull, Trump would have to legislatively propose anything like that, get funding, etc... so you folks a can go down that silly rabbit hole time and again. I will not go there with you.

And why is it you want to hand the election to over the Hillary? You have cherry picked what of my post you want to answer, answer that why dontcha?

So... your response is to pretend that he didn't say it.

Well, so much for you actually giving a rats ass about the Constitution. You don't. You just care about Trump.


Want to know how we know? Because you'll subordinate the former, in order to try to excuse the latter.

 

[SHOOTER]

Re: #NeverTrump

23% of all reg voters are republican,if 5% of them are voting for trump,then that leaves 18% of the republican vote for the party,while 45% of reg voters are independents .
explain to me how the republican party could elect anyone,the emperor has no clothes,what republican party,they had better get on board now,mr trump does not forget.

run don run

 

[Lovebug]

Re: #NeverTrump

And seemingly, those who complained about those type of things previously are happily getting on the "hope and ch-"....sorry, wrong bumper sticker election..."Make America Great Again" bandwagon despite Trump turning the dial up to 11.

The thing is, Zyphlin, we go, as you rightly pointed out, through the same thing over and over again. Bush sr promised no more new taxes, just to find out he couldn't do it (or never intended to), Clinton was busy war mongering and womanizing, Bush jr, wanted to make the world a safer place after 9/11, just to find out that hatred is abound and can't be stopped by just one administration. Obama, well, that racial gap has yet to be narrowed. They are idealistic, they make promises to get elected, knowing full well that, once reality hits, they may need to disappoint a lot of people. Some of us are realists enough to know that promises are just that. We want to be heard from every few years, thinking our opinion actually matters. It doesn't, or at least not a enough to make a difference.
Some candidates really care, they want to work for us. Problem is, most of them are too quiet, too mannered, to honest to be noticed...or at least not long enough to count. So they fade away.
DC is a big self serving machine. Trump may rattle them a bit, but in the end, he will be put in his place until he fits.
Pessimistic may be, realistic for sure. The best we can do is to get along, helping the next guy if we can, doing what is right and being responsible, starting with #1, hoping to set an example for the rest to follow. If not, a clear conscience prevails.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: #NeverTrump

Not only is his extremely academic style HORRIBLE if one actually would want a paid operative on a message board, but his stances have been pretty consistent for nearly a decade and rarely seem to be staunchly putting over any particular individual. I'm sorry, but even "wondering" it in this case is laughable.

I didn't say he was a very convincing one.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Re: #NeverTrump

So... your response is to pretend that he didn't say it.

Well, so much for you actually giving a rats ass about the Constitution. You don't. You just care about Trump.


Want to know how we know? Because you'll subordinate the former, in order to try to excuse the latter.

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.

 

[justabubba]

Re: #NeverTrump

Is that all you got?

no. but i shared all that was needed ... at least until this post

Well, its a rather simple sentence, at least there is a subject and verb. Not much else there to speak of, but do, keep contributing so fruitfully, just not to me.

i will continue to post as i feel the inclination. you get to choose whether to read/respond to what i have to offer

Please waste your own time, I place a higher value on my own.

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:

Seems to me 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?

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

Well, I am more about justice than some it is apparent. I would rather a responsible media, something we do not have currently.

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

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?

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

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.

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

Haven't watched TV at all for over ten years, so your "news" about where I get my news is, well, old news.

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

No right is absolute. I am all for freedom of the press …

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