McCain: Dictators 'get started by suppressing free press'

[PaulinVA]

Not true, not true at all. …

…When someone reports something, and they are being silenced on the quiet (Such as in Europe with hate speech laws etc) those are your first signs. Which is why I find it incredibly Ironic that Trump could be accused of this when there are far more serious signs of it that people are ignoring in place like Europe and even in Australia with laws like 18C.

Josh

Josh, you need to modify your ideas for the unique situation of our country. Silencing wouldn’t work here because even Trumpeans would be against that. Trivializing the news media has the effect.

 

[meltzerboy]

Did you look at the citations? Number 11:
“Is Breitbart.com Becoming the Media Arm of the ‘Alt-Right’?”. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved November 11, 2016.

How about 19:
Viveca Novak (July 21, 2010). “Shirley Sherrod’s Contextual Nightmare”. FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. We’ve posted no shortage of pieces on political attacks that leave context on the cutting room floor to give the public a misleading impression. … The latest victim of the missing context trick is U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod. … a clip of several minutes of her roughly 45-minute speech surfaced on conservative Andrew Breitbart’s website, where he labeled her remarks ‘racist’ and proof of “bigotry” on the part of the NAACP. … It quickly became clear that the climax, not to mention the moral, of Sherrod’s tale had been edited out of the version Breitbart posted.

I recall the Shirley Sherrod case. I was wondering whatever became of it and her.

 

[josh987654321]

Josh, you need to modify your ideas for the unique situation of our country. Silencing wouldn’t work here because even Trumpeans would be against that. Trivializing the news media has the effect.

Then your fine, and trivializing the news media does not have that affect, because people aren’t stupid. When he calls them fake news, the only reason it’s getting traction is because most people have witnessed the biased and dishonest reporting of some of these groups. And so long as they are still allowed to report, then there is no silencing being done, unlike the case in France where there is actually silencing of the press, and very cleverly done on the quiet too. And that’s just one example, I can give you more.

Which is why I find it incredibly Ironic people could accuse Trump of this, yet have been blind to it for so long in these other places.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

We have laws about fairness. They are quite narrow and hard to apply. And we have the free market that can also judge fairness. If Trump thought he could sue these media outlets he would. Therefore he is trying to influence the free market by convincing the public to distrust the media. We will know whether or not Trump has crossed into dictator status if he manages to leverage public opinion to do things by force of law that he could not do right now. But so far, all that Trump’s rants are doing is making him appear unhinged.

I distrusted the main stream media long before Trump came along.

After all, if they consider free speech and free press so important (I certainly do), why did they not report on laws like 18C being used to silence free speech here in Australia? Instead they attacked those and used the same narrative of ‘hate speech’ in effect aiding the silencing of free speech and free press.

Where were the reports on France’s law silencing free speech and free press on anti abortion? I guess this was a favor to them considering most of them are pro abortion anyway.

And where was the defense for free speech and free press when it came to Islamic Immigration in places like Europe, which is also silenced by hate speech laws.

These people are silencing your free speech and free press, all the while so many people who seem to have turned a blind eye to and the height of hypocrisy to accuse Trump of it for simply calling out biased and deceptive reporting.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[twf]

I’m starting to conclude for the most devoted followers of Donald Trump, nothing “is a bit much” when in defense of Donald Trump. That he may indeed have spoken truth when he said he could even stand in the middle of NYC’s Fifth Ave and shoot someone and he still wouldn’t lose support.

Yep. One of my prime examples is his support of torture. The catechism condemns torture as an “intrinsic evil”. For the many Trump supporters on this board, Trump comes first, the Church and Magisterium comes second (they won’t admit it but their words and actions proclaim it)…so they bend over backwards and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain that Trump’s “torture” is a different kind of “torture” than the Church’s definition of “torture”. If Trump were to murder someone in cold blood on 5th Ave, we would see Trump supporters running to this forum to convince us all that Trump’s “murder” is a different “kind” of “murder” than that which the Catechism defines as intrinsically evil. I exaggerate…slightly.

 

[dvdjs]

Not true, not true at all. A dictator doesn’t allow even the reporting whether it may be believed or not, which is why they do their best to make sure it doesn’t see the light of day.

The idea, however, is how do they “get started”?

Who determines what’s a misleading claim?
Trump should be allowed to call out bias and dishonest reporting. Doing so is not silencing them. Big difference.

Who is easy - all of us. The big question is: how.
Calling names, pronouncing judgment, is not helpful in the least for determining “what’s a misleading claim”. And it can easily seem like an attempt to intimidate others or baselessly undermine them. Instead, just supply the facts that show that the claim is misleading. Facts are stubborn things.

That’s all that it takes.

 

[josh987654321]

Yep. One of my prime examples is his support of torture. The catechism condemns torture as an “intrinsic evil”. For the many Trump supporters on this board, Trump comes first, the Church and Magisterium comes second (they won’t admit it but their words and actions proclaim it)…so they bend over backwards and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain that Trump’s “torture” is a different kind of “torture” than the Church’s definition of “torture”. If Trump were to murder someone in cold blood on 5th Ave, we would see Trump supporters running to this forum to convince us all that Trump’s “murder” is a different “kind” of “murder” than that which the Catechism defines as intrinsically evil. I exaggerate…slightly.

Well, you could always just ask me. I have said many times how I am against torture (Which includes waterboarding), and I sincerely hope Trump changes his stance on it, he said it’s in the hands of General Mattis, and I hope he opposes it. If you want to criticize Trump because of his stance on torture, I’m with you and that would be fair criticism, but half of this stuff is unfair criticism, which is why I am generally defending Trump and his administration in a lot of my posts.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[twf]

your source is wikipedia?

The problem is there is nothing critics of Trump can say or do…Trump supporters dismiss all criticism of Trump as “fake news”, so we’re stuck. It seems there is no source that is trustworthy, no authority that can be turned to, other than the word of Trump himself. The bishops condemn Trump’s actions and we are told on this forum that the bishops are simply “misinformed”…so they can’t be trusted as a source. I have often wondered, and asked, where else Trump supporters go to learn about the world around them (other than Trump’s direct utterances)…CNN and all other cable news stations are “fake news”, so they’re out. I would really like to know, what do you listen to / read?

 

[twf]

Well, you could always just ask me. I have said many times how I am against torture (Which includes waterboarding), and I sincerely hope Trump changes his stance on it, he said it’s in the hands of General Mattis, and I hope he opposes it. If you want to criticize Trump because of his stance on torture, I’m with you and that would be fair criticism, but half of this stuff is unfair criticism, which is why I am generally defending Trump and his administration in a lot of my posts.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

I’m glad to hear it! Others on this forum have defended his stance on torture using mental gymnastics to get around the Catechism.
And I praise his actions in regards to abortion. Give credit where credit is due.

 

[josh987654321]

The idea, however, is how do they “get started”?

By passing laws aimed at silencing free speech and free press on the quiet, in today’s age, often with deceptive ‘hate speech’ laws. Like in France over anything anti abortion, and in Australia using 18C hate speech laws to target any dissent on issues such as same sex marriage and abortion.

Who is easy - al of us. The big question is: how.
Calling names, pronouncing judgment, is not helpful in the least for determining “what’s a misleading claim”. And it can easily seem like an attempt to intimidate others or baselessly undermine them. Instead, just supply the facts that show that the claim is misleading. Facts are stubborn things.

That’s all that it takes.

Watch his press conference, then watch some of the reporting on even that, it’s clear that there are many who are biased and very deceptive in their reporting, even here in Australia.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I’m glad to hear it! Others on this forum have defended his stance on torture using mental gymnastics to get around the Catechism.
And I praise his actions in regards to abortion. Give credit where credit is due.

x2

When I see a poster mention their support of Torture, and they are Catholic or not, I have always tried to correct it.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Sy_Noe]

Josh, you need to modify your ideas for the unique situation of our country. Silencing wouldn’t work here because even Trumpeans would be against that. Trivializing the news media has the effect.

Or additionally I suppose he could just blacklist them or ban them from his campaign events.

money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/

And I’m not so sure I’d underestimate some Trumpeans.

FOX’s Sean Hannity for instance wanted Donald Trump to ban or blacklist CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post from the White House.

salon.com/2016/11/14/fox-news-sean-hannity-wants-donald-trump-to-ban-the-mainstream-press-from-the-white-house/

 

[dvdjs]

Watch his press conference, then watch some of the reporting on even that, it’s clear that there are many who are biased and very deceptive in their reporting, even here in Australia.

Your post is an example of the problem. You merely pronounce your verdict “… biased and very deceptive …” This might be convincing if you were to cite something specific and make a case.

PS I have watched and read.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yep. One of my prime examples is his support of torture. The catechism condemns torture as an “intrinsic evil”. For the many Trump supporters on this board, Trump comes first, the Church and Magisterium comes second (they won’t admit it but their words and actions proclaim it)…so they bend over backwards and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain that Trump’s “torture” is a different kind of “torture” than the Church’s definition of “torture”. If Trump were to murder someone in cold blood on 5th Ave, we would see Trump supporters running to this forum to convince us all that Trump’s “murder” is a different “kind” of “murder” than that which the Catechism defines as intrinsically evil. I exaggerate…slightly.

Oh I’ve noticed it too and it has always puzzled me how a practicing Catholic could support DJT when to my understanding torture is an intrinsic evil just as abortion is considered to be in the Catholic faith. Personally I have trouble even with some other things in regard to what he has said and his antics, such as what he thinks he can do to women and the shooting someone on Fifth Ave and even the antics of mimicking a disabled person’s mannerisms. But putting those aside, and just looking at abortion and torture, I see many saying they voted for him because of abortion. But I actually understand better those among the faithful here who have said they could not vote for either major party candidate this time around.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Your post is an example of the problem. You merely pronounce your verdict “… biased and very deceptive …” This might be convincing if you were to cite something specific and make a case.

PS I have watched and read.

Many of us have. I watched the press conference live. I admit though I skipped yesterday’s campaign rally. Saw/read snippets of the transcript of it.

 

[ucfengr]

McCain seems to be somewhat ignorant of history, as do many of the posters. Dictators get started by using violence to advance their political program, like the “Beer Hall Putsch”, the burning of the Reichstag, or the storming of the Bastille, or the November Revolution, or any number of other examples. It is not Trump and his supporters that are engaging in violence, it is Trump opponents who are.

 

[joshman1]

McCain seems to be somewhat ignorant of history, as do many of the posters. Dictators get started by using violence to advance their political program, like the “Beer Hall Putsch”, the burning of the Reichstag, or the storming of the Bastille, or the November Revolution, or any number of other examples. It is not Trump and his supporters that are engaging in violence, it is Trump opponents who are.

The rise of anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic violence that has sharply increased? That’s a direct consequence of his language.

 

[dvdjs]

McCain seems to be somewhat ignorant of history, as do many of the posters. Dictators get started by using violence to advance their political program, like the “Beer Hall Putsch”, the burning of the Reichstag, or the storming of the Bastille, or the November Revolution, or any number of other examples. It is not Trump and his supporters that are engaging in violence, it is Trump opponents who are.

The burning of the Reichstag is and excellent example.

 

[josh987654321]

On the quiet? Are you serious?

Yes, very serious.

Have you heard of a little guy named Hitler and his go-between, propaganda minister Goebbels?

Yes.

They outright took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio.

Exactly, so who in the campaign did the media pander to? The idea that Trump controlled or controls these press groups is laughable considering their hostility toward him.

Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.

By, lets say ‘hate speech’ laws? where have I been seeing that?

On May 10th, 1933, they raided bookstores and libraries all over Germany–taking books by Hemingway, Freud, Einstein, Helen Keller, et al–and marched by torchlight while chanting, then burned it all in bonfires on the street.

And Trump has done nothing like that, while others such as Clinton are far closer with things like hate speech laws, with hate speech laws anything anti abortion or anti same sex marriage, could be legally removed.

Nazi’s went into movie theatres and disrupted screenings, and those who protested were beaten.
On the quiet? To quote Trump, “I don’t think so…”

So where again have we seen those tactics? It has been from the LGBTQ activists, not the other way around. It has been from the Trump protestors who shut down rallies, not the other way around.

Clinton had her share of negative reports. If he had more, it’s because of his own racist, misogynist words and actions.

lol, I know that’s not true, anyone who followed just the main stream media, would have thought Clinton was an angel and that Trump was a joke.

If some papers endorse a candidate, you do see more positive/negative angles…but that goes for both sides. *The New York Post *was full of glowing reports on Trump all year, and still are. The Daily News and Times, notasmuch. But when he did something good, it was reported on. It still is.

lol okay, give me a positive thing about Trump during the campaign.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[SuperLuigi]

There can’t be freedom of the press or free speech with “hate speech” criteria.

The SJW left start the process of healing by apologizing to Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannapolous and agreeing to listen to them on college campuses.