4 ms·

Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets

by beat 10y ago

Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again. Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.

astrodust 10y ago
As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military event and he'll make some incoherent speech about something or other and, at a quick glance, you might not be able to tell him from Muammar Gaddafi. Once he crosses that line there's no telling what will happen. There are too many utterly terrifying historical examples to draw on.
- matwood 10y ago
  What are you talking about? This type of incoherent rambling gives normal liberals a bad name.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    People I know who've had to escape tyrannical regimes would say this isn't incoherent rambling. If Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are raising concerns this is not a "liberal" problem. Get a grip.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Are you talking about the firing of the acting Attorney General? Not a judge. It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions during the transition.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    > ...it is unlikely to become part of a pattern... And that's where we disagree. I think this is the first of many.
maxxxxx 10y ago
They don't have to suppress the media if they just undermine their credibility. I think this is the strategy and they are successful with it. If people view the New York Times and breitbart.com as equally biased then you have a problem.

by beat 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago

As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military event and he'll make some incoherent speech about something or other and, at a quick glance, you might not be able to tell him from Muammar Gaddafi. Once he crosses that line there's no telling what will happen. There are too many utterly terrifying historical examples to draw on.

matwood 10y ago
What are you talking about? This type of incoherent rambling gives normal liberals a bad name.
- astrodust 10y ago
  People I know who've had to escape tyrannical regimes would say this isn't incoherent rambling. If Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are raising concerns this is not a "liberal" problem. Get a grip.
maxerickson 10y ago
Are you talking about the firing of the acting Attorney General? Not a judge. It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions during the transition.
- astrodust 10y ago
  > ...it is unlikely to become part of a pattern... And that's where we disagree. I think this is the first of many.

maxxxxx 10y ago

They don't have to suppress the media if they just undermine their credibility. I think this is the strategy and they are successful with it. If people view the New York Times and breitbart.com as equally biased then you have a problem.