• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flake to denounce Trump media attacks as Stalinist in Senate speech

Jetboogieman said:
Yeah that's what I thought.
Click to expand...



What do you mean? I showed one that indicates that there are more. If you want another acknowledge I was right on this one. I won't type out a huge destruction of that list to you and you ilk who will simply cry "nuh uh" stamp your feet and run away.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What do you mean? I showed one that indicates that there are more. If you want another acknowledge I was right on this one. I won't type out a huge destruction of that list to you and you ilk who will simply cry "nuh uh" stamp your feet and run away.
Click to expand...

Because you can't Rev, I looked over that list, it's not bad and you said half if it is true, you're gonna have a mighty tough, tough time trying to prove that, the Iraq one was a just, I'll give you it, but the rest, yeah good luck champ, you couldn't hope to prove half of those are true without using some serious mental gymnastics and questionable to say the least sources.

Continue to defend your stable genius like the good little disciple you are.
 
Jetboogieman said:
While Trumps personal attacks on the media at times have been disturbing, legal threats in many cases he can't actually back up with action, the comparison doesn't hold water and does a disservice to all of the victims of Stalins regime.

The same way so many Hitler comparisons in the Obama years did the same.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you on those points.

Trump is no Stalin.
Obama is no Hitler.
Comparing either to those historic figures does disservice to their victims.

Nothing to disagree with here. :)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
That's simply not the case. I've listed numerous retractions, corrections, and other lies by the media.
Click to expand...

That's par for the course now and has little to do with Trump specifically. Because of the Internet and other developments such as Twitter and on-the-ground social media, conventional media outlets work as a furious pace to "scoop" the other guy. This means that they will stumble about before they have done the fact checks. The studies are clear on this.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Show me where the media had this many with Obama. The media was an ally to Obama, it's hostile to trump or any republican.
Click to expand...

An ally? Obama simply didn't give them reason. Do remember the Bush years? Despite this "liberal media" perspective even then, Bush received none of what Trump is receiving. SO, what's different? I'll tell you what's different... -Donald Trump.

But why would the media detest Obama anyway? He didn't give them consistent sensational headlines, constant reasons to criticize, nor a defensive "fake news" war. Obama's only problem was Fox News and its political barrage of "birther" bull ****, "Benghazi" bull ****, "Global Warming is a liberal hoax" bull ****, and so much, much more bull ****. Nobody else played this game. Wonder why. And now we see where Fox News stands largely alone as it struggles to support Trump, while the rest of the "fake news" world reports on every dumb thing Trump does and say's everyday. The man could go out on the front lawn of the White House and take a dump and Trump's fans would declare the media as being unfair for reporting it.
 
Winston said:
You should take a look at the linear graph of DOW. You'll see a consistent trend upwards since the recovery began.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has risen consistently from a point to so low that a bounce back would have been automatic absent strong restraints to keep the growth in check.

Apparently Obama provided that restraint. Whether on not this was good or bad, justified or not, it seems to have occurred.

It was well into 2013 when the DJI reached the level of the highs recorded BEFORE the Great Recession in July of 2007. 2007 to 2013 is about 5 years, obviously.

The rise of the DOW from November 2015 to November 2016 was about 1000 points- just a tad higher than 1000 actually, from about 17,245 to about 18,308.

The rise from the Trump election day to today has been more than 7000 points from about 18,847 to about 25,803 on January 7, 2018. The level 1 year after election day was 23,422. This represents only a 5000 or so point rise in a year.

The rate of increase seems to have increased over the last two months rising to 25, 803 from 23422 for a rise rate of about 1400 points per month.

This indicates to me, and I'm no math wizard, that the DOW is rising at a rate 6 or 7 times as fast after one year with Trump than it was during the last year of the Obama Administration.

How do you interpret these very rough numbers?

My 401K has reacted very well to them.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
That's par for the course now and has little to do with Trump specifically. Because of the Internet and other developments such as Twitter and on-the-ground social media, conventional media outlets work as a furious pace to "scoop" the other guy. This means that they will stumble about before they have done the fact checks. The studies are clear on this.



An ally? Obama simply didn't give them reason. Do remember the Bush years? Despite this "liberal media" perspective even then, Bush received none of what Trump is receiving. SO, what's different? I'll tell you what's different... -Donald Trump.

But why would the media detest Obama anyway? He didn't give them consistent sensational headlines, constant reasons to criticize, nor a defensive "fake news" war. Obama's only problem was Fox News and its political barrage of "birther" bull ****, "Benghazi" bull ****, "Global Warming is a liberal hoax" bull ****, and so much, much more bull ****. Nobody else played this game. Wonder why. And now we see where Fox News stands largely alone as it struggles to support Trump, while the rest of the "fake news" world reports on every dumb thing Trump does and say's everyday. The man could go out on the front lawn of the White House and take a dump and Trump's fans would declare the media as being unfair for reporting it.
Click to expand...



Are you kidding, Bush was the bellweather for what the media was ramping up. Dan rather? etc.... they media slaughtered bush, gave obama a pass. come on now. The wars continued but suddenly we no longer counted bodies or talked about drone strikes. the war protesters disapeared and you all pretended we entered an era of peace.


And trump taking a dump on the lawn in reality would be he used the gatehouse bathroom but the media sells it as he used the lawn.
 
code1211 said:
Yes, it has risen consistently from a point to so low that a bounce back would have been automatic absent strong restraints to keep the growth in check.

Apparently Obama provided that restraint. Whether on not this was good or bad, justified or not, it seems to have occurred.

It was well into 2013 when the DJI reached the level of the highs recorded BEFORE the Great Recession in July of 2007. 2007 to 2013 is about 5 years, obviously.

The rise of the DOW from November 2015 to November 2016 was about 1000 points- just a tad higher than 1000 actually, from about 17,245 to about 18,308.

The rise from the Trump election day to today has been more than 7000 points from about 18,847 to about 25,803 on January 7, 2018. The level 1 year after election day was 23,422. This represents only a 5000 or so point rise in a year.

The rate of increase seems to have increased over the last two months rising to 25, 803 from 23422 for a rise rate of about 1400 points per month.

This indicates to me, and I'm no math wizard, that the DOW is rising at a rate 6 or 7 times as fast after one year with Trump than it was during the last year of the Obama Administration.

How do you interpret these very rough numbers?

My 401K has reacted very well to them.
Click to expand...

I interpret it like you can't attribute that to Trump. That's just part of a long term upward trend. Are you shocked we're doing well now that we are at full employment and out of the Recession? I'm not shocked.

Also, I find it dishonest of you to pick and choose when you want to attach the stock market to Republican presidents. You say, no, no, no Bush isn't responsible for the stock market when it crashes. But, when it's doing great, then Trump gets all the credit.

Besides this whole convo started from you deflecting to the economy from Trump's lies. the topic of the thread isn't the economy, why do you want to argue with a stubborn liberal about it?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Flake to denounce Trump media attacks as Stalinist in Senate speech



Trump would like nothing better than to silence any US media outlet critical of him, his administration, their policies.

A more contemporary example is the Putin regime that has shuttered virtually all independent media in the Russian Federation that is not Kremlin-friendly or owned by Putin crony-oligarchs.

Related: In planned speech, Sen. Jeff Flake compares Trump’s media attacks to comments by Stalin
Click to expand...
where was this guy when obama was slamming the media?
ol yea he was only slamming people that didn't have shivers up their leg when obama spoke.

so that is ok.
 
Lol, yes. But this is the only country where the state-run media is being controlled by the party that's not in power.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, Obama frequently did that concerning Fox News but that was OK because the rest of the MSM agreed with (actively supported?) Obama.

https://townhall.com/columnists/cal...ia-forget-how-obama-treated-fox-news-n2270406
Click to expand...

Kinda funny how that works...

I wish Trump would stay quiet more often, but to compare him to Stalin? Stalin had the power to make people disappear, and did so to tens of millions of people. If Flake makes that comparison, then Flake, is a flake.
 
GDViking said:
Except they are not biased and they are not the ones lying. They are reporting the news trump is the one making the news.
Click to expand...

the media isnt biased?

wow

okay then....hehe

now thats a GOOD ONE
 
Mycroft said:
Trump has said nothing about "silencing the media". He has only exposed them as purveyors of fake news.

Flake's spin is nothing more than a no-meat nothingburger for the useful idiots.
Click to expand...

A couple points I wan't to mention:

1. Trump, like most of his supporters on this site have no idea what "fake news actually means or are completely ignoring its definition. Fake News is news that's made up, not whatever inconveniences the president.

2. Trump has threatened to expand libel laws to sue media companies. That by definition is silencing the media regardless of what you think its usefulness is.

3. Nowhere in the article does Flake accuse Trump of silencing the media, so where exactly are you getting this "spin" from Flake's side?
 
Roycarn said:
A couple points I wan't to mention:

1. Trump, like most of his supporters on this site have no idea what "fake news actually means or are completely ignoring its definition. Fake News is news that's made up, not whatever inconveniences the president.
Click to expand...

Fake news is also news that spins things into something different. This is something the mainstream media does constantly.

2. Trump has threatened to expand libel laws to sue media companies. That by definition is silencing the media regardless of what you think its usefulness is.
Click to expand...

No...this is not silencing the media. Libel laws simply give legal recourse to those who are the victim.

3. Nowhere in the article does Flake accuse Trump of silencing the media, so where exactly are you getting this "spin" from Flake's side?
Click to expand...

The OP is the one who said it...the OP is the one I was responding to.

Trump would like nothing better than to silence any US media outlet critical of him, his administration, their policies.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Flake is an anti-Trump pro-amnesty Republican.

He wrote an anti-Trump book.

He is not running for re-election because he couldn't win a Republican primary in Arizona at this time.

He started the recent gang of 6 who self designated themselves in charge of immigration reform and came up with a proposal to take to the WH. The 6 in the group thought they would be meeting with Trump alone but Trump extended the meeting to include several other members of Congress.

Trump was open to providing a way for those in DACA to remain in the U.S. if Congress would commit to doing their constitutional duty to secure our borders by funding a wall where useful, increased electronic surveillance where necessary, funds to increase agents and reforms to some very unwise visa programs. But instead the gang of 6 moved the goal post to include amnesty for more than just DACA and did not commit to any real actions that would secure the border or real visa reform.

Why keep handing out amnesty if Congress is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws, do their job to secure the border and reform bad visa laws? The overwhelming majority in this country would like an answer to that one!

So let Sen. Flake take to the floor of the Senate and throw some more gasoline onto the fire with his hyperbole so that the MSM and the Democrats can praise him as a hero for the next 48 hours while thinking people will understand why Flake can't win a Republican primary in Arizona.

Trump is crude and crass. He talks too much. We don't need to see him daily on the news. If he insists on using twitter, use it to promote solid ideas and positive things. But to make a claim that he is Stalin like is pathetic.
 
Mycroft said:
Fake news is also news that spins things into something different. This is something the mainstream media does constantly.



No...this is not silencing the media. Libel laws simply give legal recourse to those who are the victim.



The OP is the one who said it...the OP is the one I was responding to.
Click to expand...

1. Spin by definition is a form of propaganda achieved through biased coverage or that is intended to persuade public opinion to favor one side over another. This is not the same as fake news. You can argue that the media spins stories to be anti-Trump but this does not make them "fake" unless what they're saying was completely made up.

2. Libel laws do effectively silence media. Sometimes it's legitimate, but that doesn't make it any less silencing than other forms, especially if Trump is talking about opening up libel laws for reporting that is seemingly against him.

3. I realized this after I had initially posted. Furthermore, there's nothing about OP saying that Trump actually silenced the media, rather, he said that "would like nothing better than to silence."

To return to the main point, can you explain how the media spins stories as "something that they do constantly?" Because there's plenty of evidence that that's exactly what Trump does in most of his statements and tweets.
 
Roycarn said:
1. Spin by definition is a form of propaganda achieved through biased coverage or that is intended to persuade public opinion to favor one side over another. This is not the same as fake news. You can argue that the media spins stories to be anti-Trump but this does not make them "fake" unless what they're saying was completely made up.

2. Libel laws do effectively silence media. Sometimes it's legitimate, but that doesn't make it any less silencing than other forms, especially if Trump is talking about opening up libel laws for reporting that is seemingly against him.

3. I realized this after I had initially posted. Furthermore, there's nothing about OP saying that Trump actually silenced the media, rather, he said that "would like nothing better than to silence."

To return to the main point, can you explain how the media spins stories as "something that they do constantly?" Because there's plenty of evidence that that's exactly what Trump does in most of his statements and tweets.
Click to expand...

Here is one of the earliest examples:

Mexicans are rapists: I first heard this on CNN on the day Trump announced that he was running for President. Like most people, I thought it was ridiculous for him to say something like this. It was all over news and everyone I spoke with was also outraged. A week or so later, I saw a video of his Announcement Speech and I thought to myself - He really didn't say what the media has been accusing him of.

My earliest recollection of the media narrative is that Trump said that ALL Mexicans are rapists (~155 million people)
Some quoted him saying that all Mexican Immigrants are rapists (~40 million)
However, if you listen to his speech (skip to 7:25, up until 8:50), it doesn't take a genius to figure out he's referring to ILLEGAL immigrants (~5 million) streaming across the Mexican border.

He goes on to say that they're bringing drugs, are criminals, rapists and some are nice people. Does it really sound that outlandish? Is is possible some are bringing drugs into our country? Is it possible some of them are criminals? Is it possible some of them are rapists?

The media conveniently dropped the part that he's talking about a fraction of the people illegally coming into our country.

https://www.quora.com/Question-That...art-people-on-Quora-cant-see-through-the-lies
Click to expand...

Here is another from that same site:

Back in Nov, the mainstream media announced that Trump has called for a database of all Muslims in the country. That sounds like an outrageous thing to suggest. I was offended and so were most people I spoke with.

I grew up in India and we have one of the largest Muslim population in the world (around half the population of the US). Many of my friends from school, college and places I worked are Muslims. Some of the most revered actors, singers, sportspeople, scientists in India are Muslims.

A few weeks after this outrageous story broke, I came across the actual transcript of the interview. I read it, and I couldn't believe what an incredibly convoluted interpretation media came up with. Not only did Trump not suggest a database for Muslims (the reporter did), he never said that we need a database. (FYI - Walker is the Yahoo News reporter who broke the story):
Click to expand...

And then we have that enormous hit job on Trump concerning Charlottesville...

Media and Politicians Twist Trump's Words About Charlottesville - Just Facts

This tactic of spinning to get the narrative the anti-Trump people want has been going on for over 2 years.
 
Mycroft said:
Here is one of the earliest examples:



Here is another from that same site:



And then we have that enormous hit job on Trump concerning Charlottesville...

Media and Politicians Twist Trump's Words About Charlottesville - Just Facts

This tactic of spinning to get the narrative the anti-Trump people want has been going on for over 2 years.
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
Here is one of the earliest examples:



Here is another from that same site:



And then we have that enormous hit job on Trump concerning Charlottesville...

Media and Politicians Twist Trump's Words About Charlottesville - Just Facts

This tactic of spinning to get the narrative the anti-Trump people want has been going on for over 2 years.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the specifics.

Trump was quoted by saying in an NBC Interview as saying "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Its pretty clear that Trump is referring to immigrants from Mexico, whether or not theyr'e illegal or legal. And who exactly is one supposed to decide who the rapists, thieves, drug dealers etc. are in contrast to the "good people?"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-donald-trump-defends-calling-mexican-immigrants-rapists/

Similar situation with the Muslim database. Trump may not have been the first to bring it up, but he endorsed the idea nevertheless by saying "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely...there should be a lot of systems, beyond databases." I don't know where the author of that second post got his source, but here Trump is clearly saying that he would implement such a system.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...d-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

It seems as if in the last example it's difficult to determine I there really were individuals from Unite the Right who weren't white nationalists or Neo-nazis. Interestingly enough, there was no spin in ABC's statement on the matter according to this piece, they explicitly stated that the white nationalists were only some of those present at Unite the Right. I do think other media outlets effectively screwed up in covering Trump's true statements and feelings but that alone isn't enough to conclude that there's somehow an anti-Trump narrative that's been churned out by the media.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Are you kidding, Bush was the bellweather for what the media was ramping up. Dan rather? etc.... they media slaughtered bush, gave obama a pass. come on now. The wars continued but suddenly we no longer counted bodies or talked about drone strikes. the war protesters disapeared and you all pretended we entered an era of peace.
Click to expand...

Bush somewhat deserved the criticism that he got and it mostly centered on the WMD issue in regards to Iraq. He also deserved it because he couldn't make the correct arguments for Iraq (and what was really going on), which left the media criticizing what they saw as errors, and his premature -sometimes moronic- statements. Having the worst SECDEF in history didn't help. And GITMO was not very thought out. But Bush was no bellweather.

With Obama inheriting the wars, GITMO, and the Great Recession, what really was the media supposed to go after? What was the protesters still supposed to complain about? Despite Obama taking credit for the troops leaving Iraq, Bush set the timetable prior to McCain and Obama's campaign run. Iraq was all they really protested. Obama immediately launched into continuation operations in the region (for which Bush did not make a good argument for), coping with unintended consequences (that should not have been a surprise to the experts), and economic recovery while Fox News chose to center their next eight years convincing its viewers that Obama was a Muslim, that Global Warming was a hoax, and so many other absurd nonsense stories. This means that even Fox News really had little to complain about when it came to Obama. This is why they clung to the bull **** stories that nobody else saw as legitimate.

Then came Trump, a man who practically begs for negative attention on every level. A man who quickly gained the support of supremacists. A man who makes off-the-cuff statements, then immediately denies making them. A man who practices hypocrisy as a personal policy. A man who manages to align our enemies, our allies, and almost the entirety of the UN together to condemn us. A man who takes credit for what others have done. A man who has declared war on the media for merely reporting on his conduct and flip-floppy decisions.

Consider the object of the ridicule. Mitt Romney would be receiving none of this attention.

ReverendHellh0und said:
And trump taking a dump on the lawn in reality would be he used the gatehouse bathroom but the media sells it as he used the lawn.
Click to expand...

Well, the reality would be Trump denying what everybody else witnessed and calling it "fake news," while calling himself a stable pooper, thereby giving the media more ammunition for future sensational headlines. In the mean time, Fox News would be telling their viewers to look at Clinton.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Bush somewhat deserved the criticism that he got and it mostly centered on the WMD issue in regards to Iraq. He also deserved it because he couldn't make the correct arguments for Iraq (and what was really going on), which left the media criticizing what they saw as errors, and his premature -sometimes moronic- statements. Having the worst SECDEF in history didn't help. And GITMO was not very thought out. But Bush was no bellweather.

With Obama inheriting the wars, GITMO, and the Great Recession, what really was the media supposed to go after? What was the protesters still supposed to complain about? Despite Obama taking credit for the troops leaving Iraq, Bush set the timetable prior to McCain and Obama's campaign run. Iraq was all they really protested. Obama immediately launched into continuation operations in the region (for which Bush did not make a good argument for), coping with unintended consequences (that should not have been a surprise to the experts), and economic recovery while Fox News chose to center their next eight years convincing its viewers that Obama was a Muslim, that Global Warming was a hoax, and so many other absurd nonsense stories. This means that even Fox News really had little to complain about when it came to Obama. This is why they clung to bull **** that nobody else saw legitimate.

Then came Trump, a man who practically begs for negative attention on every level. A man who quickly gained the support of supremacists A man who makes statements, then denies them. A man who practices hypocrisy as a personal policy. A man who manages to align our enemies, our allies, and almost the entirety of the UN together to condemn us. A man who takes credit for what others have done. A man who has declared war on the media for merely reporting on his conduct and flip-floppy decisions.

Consider the object of the ridicule.



Well, the reality would be Trump denying what everybody else witnessed and calling it "fake news," while Fox News tells their viewers to look at Clinton.
Click to expand...




It's a double standard. Obama increased drone strikes, expanded wars. where were all the protestors? where was the media with thier body counts? It's as simple as that. the media protects the left and attacks the right. From reagan on it's been getting worse and worse. How much they love mccain for example would waffle depending on if he was running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom