5 ms·

A constant litany of complaints about unfair and rigged main stream media by the president elect (his latest tweets about the NYT being an example) has convince

by pg314 10y ago

A constant litany of complaints about unfair and rigged main stream media by the president elect (his latest tweets about the NYT being an example) has convinced a significant portion of the public that the main stream media cannot be trusted. With social media the propaganda can now directly be delivered to the base, so control of the main stream media is no longer needed, except maybe to limit the dissemination of unwanted information to the opposition. For a couple of days I was hopeful that we would witness a more reasonable Trump, but it seems that he seems intent to continue following the fascist playbook. If he follows through on his promise to appoint a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, we will know for sure. If you haven't done so already, I would implore everybody to subscribe to the NYT/WaPo or any other reputable newspaper. I did so today, and I'm not even from the US. Digital subscriptions are only a couple of bucks per month. They could use the support. The USA cannot afford to lose the independent media.

Clubber 10y ago
NPR is also a good source. The GOP has been trying to defund them since Bush took office in 2000.
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  For far longer than that actually. Newt Gingrich (the one soon-to-be of the Trump administration) spent the 90s trying to defund public media as House Speaker.
exstudent2 10y ago
> A constant litany of complaints about unfair and rigged main stream media by the president elect (his latest tweets about the NYT being an example) has convinced a significant portion of the public that the main stream media cannot be trusted. You have this backwards. Many people voted for Trump because they could see with their own eyes the media bias against him (and read the DNC emails working with the media to block out Sanders). NYT/WaPo are not reputable sources, they are extremely biased and so obviously so that they're working against their own mission out of arrogance.
- rikkus 10y ago
  Accidentally downvoted. Replying to give it some karma back.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Read all the stuff by the username. Click the stuff that says "undown".
    - rikkus 10y ago
      On the mobile app I was using, there was no such thing, sorry. I am sorry, too, as I got downvoted for trying to make up for it by replying.
- rikkus 10y ago
  Accidentally downvoted. Replying to give it some karma back.
briandear 10y ago
Why shouldn't a special prosecutor be appointed? Is not Hilary under investigation for criminal activity? He foundation pay-to-play activities for instance -- highly illegal.
- cpleppert 10y ago
  >>He foundation pay-to-play activities for instance -- highly illegal Not sure how soliciting charitable donations is pay to play. On the face of it laundering donations through a charitable foundation is pretty stupid and pointless and it seems unclear how donations would drive her to take the risk of doing a quid pro quo when the quid has little personal benefit to her.
- hsitz 10y ago
  When you say "highly illegal", what sort of legal expertise and/or understanding of this do you have? I'm a lawyer, but don't know much about pay-to-play crimes. My understanding is that it's a pretty goddamn hard crime to prove (need extremely strong link between donation and reward), and that most of what is characterized as pay-to-play is actually legal, just the normal unseemly way politics gets done in our country. I'm no fan of Hillary, but I suspect she and her assistants are well aware of the laws, may have stretched things to limit but careful not to step over. In any case, the bald-faced statement that what she did was "highly illegal" strikes me as suspect. (The situation with email server strikes me as similar.)
  - cpleppert 10y ago
    >>but I suspect she and her assistants are well aware of the laws, may have stretched things to limit but careful not to step over. What actual evidence is there of this? The clintons receive more than enough money through paid speeches and those would be the route you would use if you wanted to set up a quid pro quo. Using a charitable foundation to do this doesn't make sense generally nor in this case. Of course, lobbying and getting on paid boards after a government career is basically a quid pro quo( the presumption is that after you work for the industry you get a cushy career paid by the industry you helped) but that has been totally ignored this election cycle.

by pg314 10y ago

Clubber 10y ago

NPR is also a good source. The GOP has been trying to defund them since Bush took office in 2000.

diyorgasms 10y ago
For far longer than that actually. Newt Gingrich (the one soon-to-be of the Trump administration) spent the 90s trying to defund public media as House Speaker.

exstudent2 10y ago

> A constant litany of complaints about unfair and rigged main stream media by the president elect (his latest tweets about the NYT being an example) has convinced a significant portion of the public that the main stream media cannot be trusted. You have this backwards. Many people voted for Trump because they could see with their own eyes the media bias against him (and read the DNC emails working with the media to block out Sanders). NYT/WaPo are not reputable sources, they are extremely biased and so obviously so that they're working against their own mission out of arrogance.

rikkus 10y ago
Accidentally downvoted. Replying to give it some karma back.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Read all the stuff by the username. Click the stuff that says "undown".
  - rikkus 10y ago
    On the mobile app I was using, there was no such thing, sorry. I am sorry, too, as I got downvoted for trying to make up for it by replying.
rikkus 10y ago
Accidentally downvoted. Replying to give it some karma back.

briandear 10y ago

Why shouldn't a special prosecutor be appointed? Is not Hilary under investigation for criminal activity? He foundation pay-to-play activities for instance -- highly illegal.

cpleppert 10y ago
>>He foundation pay-to-play activities for instance -- highly illegal Not sure how soliciting charitable donations is pay to play. On the face of it laundering donations through a charitable foundation is pretty stupid and pointless and it seems unclear how donations would drive her to take the risk of doing a quid pro quo when the quid has little personal benefit to her.
hsitz 10y ago
When you say "highly illegal", what sort of legal expertise and/or understanding of this do you have? I'm a lawyer, but don't know much about pay-to-play crimes. My understanding is that it's a pretty goddamn hard crime to prove (need extremely strong link between donation and reward), and that most of what is characterized as pay-to-play is actually legal, just the normal unseemly way politics gets done in our country. I'm no fan of Hillary, but I suspect she and her assistants are well aware of the laws, may have stretched things to limit but careful not to step over. In any case, the bald-faced statement that what she did was "highly illegal" strikes me as suspect. (The situation with email server strikes me as similar.)
- cpleppert 10y ago
  >>but I suspect she and her assistants are well aware of the laws, may have stretched things to limit but careful not to step over. What actual evidence is there of this? The clintons receive more than enough money through paid speeches and those would be the route you would use if you wanted to set up a quid pro quo. Using a charitable foundation to do this doesn't make sense generally nor in this case. Of course, lobbying and getting on paid boards after a government career is basically a quid pro quo( the presumption is that after you work for the industry you get a cushy career paid by the industry you helped) but that has been totally ignored this election cycle.