Excellent piece on the difference between Journalism and "Media"...
- Thread starter WVex-pat in GA
- Start date
I completely agree that the citizens have to be vigilant. But I disagree on the media issue. The hard news media MUST be unbiased and uncorrupt. They have a special obligation cited in our Constitution. They enjoy special protections for the duties they are given.
When a newsroom is filled with ideologues that all think the same, how can they possibly be fair? How can you expect them to cover stories without a predisposed position. It does happen on both sides but we both know that the left dominates the media, both in news and in our culture (e.g. Hollywood).
The only way for the media to restore confidence (which we desperately need since no one will trust them even when they are right). They must become ideologically diverse. Very hard to do, but they are not even trying.
You apparently don't know what "discredit the judiciary" means. BO disagreed with the ruling of the SCOTUS and criticized them over it but he didn't call them "so called" justices, there's a big difference. You offer nothing over the so called president's attempts to discredit the media and if BO criticized the intelligence community it certainly wasn't to the degree that Trump has during his feud with them.
What he did was unprecedented. Even the lib media was aghast. He called them out during his State of the Union drawing scorn from Alito (he essentially called Obama a liar). If he lied about the SCOTUS ruling, during his State of the Union, that is a huge deal.
From the very liberal Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2010/01/justice-alito-mouths-not-true-024608
You say BO disagreed with the ruling. Well, Trump disagreed with the ruling. But Trump didn't use his State of the Union to call out that judge, did he?
BO called out the court, not one judge. Trump just tweets his failed attempts to discredit the judiciary by pointing out a specific judge who's action he didn't like.
So? are they above criticism? again, criticizing their decision is not an attempt to discredit one judge which our so called president did if you can understand the distinction. Also it was over Citizens United which I can think of no more bone headed decision made by any supreme court and I applaud anyone that wants to criticize that decision or those that made it. Hopefully it gets overturned some day.
Just as I applaud Trump's decision to blast the judge for overstepping his bounds a ruling that will be overturned. Even liberals like Turley and Dershowitz (which both oppose the ban) claimed the judge had no legal authority to do what he did.
Obama discredited 5 justices at this State of the Union. Trump discredits one federal judge. Big difference.
You're such a hypocrite. You applaud Obama's treatment of SCOTUS because you don't like the decision yet blast Trump for doing far less. Wow.
Surely you can distinguish between disagreeing with a ruling (Citizens United, terrible ruling btw) and attempting to delegitimize a branch of government by calling a judge a "so called judge"? I knew you could. Trump is a fool who can't control his temper or his mouth. He's his own worst enemy. For a guy who doesn't like to get criticized, it's going to be a loooong 4 years for the so called prez.
Frankly in my opinion I think Trump would verstepped his bounds by EO on immigration. I think Congress should determine immigration policy, which the constitution stipulates I believe.
Obama did not just criticize the ruling, he criticized and disrespected the sitting justices right before him at his State of the Union. So much so, that Alito essentially called him a liar. Surely you can see that. So Obama criticizes five Supreme Court justices and Trump criticizes one judge and you blast Trump. You are a hypocrite.
Throughout our history boom, the Supreme Court has given wide deference to the president on issues of national security. The justices do not sit in on the daily presidential briefings. They do not sit in on his national security advisor's meetings. They do not know the threats that endanger our nation.
This one will be overturned. This judge went way too far. Read this from the very liberal side Vox:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox....t-elect-donald-trump-muslim-ban?client=safari
If we start with the "in the interest of national security" Trump card (pun intended), it sends us down a very dangerous road. Torture, suspension of due process, invasion of privacy, control of the media, there is no telling where it will go. Once fear it kicked up enough to warrant actions that eliminate our civil rights, away they go. Be a good President, lay out your plan and policy initiatives for the American public, then send it to congress. If the people want it, the reactionary house will oblige, and the senate will confirm if it makes sense. The President signs and gets full credit. (And doesn't look like a tyrant)
You obviously did not read the article. Trumps actions were well within his executive authority granted by the Constitution. Scotus has ruled on this. This is not tyranny, it is not usurpation of power of other branches, it is the law.
On the other hand, Obama disobeyed the constitution many many times and exceeded his authority. He, was struck down more times by Scotus than any other president in modern history.
I don't remember your wailing when Obama issued work permits to illegal aliens, clearly in violation of the Constitution and later struck down by the Supreme Court, as but one small example. Only Congress, can create law for the granting of work permits.
I really don't want to have to say this to you again Paxx, I WASNT ON HERE UNTIL TRUMP WAS ELECTED....SO STOP WITH THE OBAMA STUFF. Immigration policy is determined by Congress, as specified by the US Constitution. I thought you were all about the constitution. Don't bring national security into this.....how many attacks have we had from visa carrying men/women from the 7 nations that Trump banned?
My God Boom, you make zero sense. This is a national security issue. Read the article I sent you from the very liberal site, Vox.
And frankly I don't care if you were on this site or not, Obama did much worse with respect to disregarding the constitution. This temporary ban is all about national security and protecting the lives of Americans.
So there HAS been attacks inside the US from visa carrying terrorists from the 7 banned countries?
Was it this article from Vox?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox....visas-terrorism-executive-order?client=safari
Honestly, this talking point is one that annoys me the most from your side. It's so misinformed and ludicrous. Look at the status of the countries/governments listed and it will tell you WHY they were selected and not others. At least have a modicum of understanding about the Middle East if you all are going to be as critical over every decision made.
Libya: Failed State
Syria: Failed State
Iraq: Embroiled in 14 years of conflict and the epicenter of Sunni/Shia conflict
Iran: Seriously Clark?
Somalia: Failed State (Black Hawk Down)
Yemen: They just love us here (USS Cole?), another Sunni/Shia proxy war location and in the midst of a shooting war with Saudi Arabia.
Sudan: Darfur,Omar Al Bashir, Sharia Law, National Islamic Front, and I could go on.
There is plenty to be critical about with this moratorium. The rollout was atrocious. However, the states selected were spot on. These countries present the largest challenge with proper vetting and moreover the easiest opportunity for nondesirables to infiltrate.
Boom this article shows just how ridiculous you are. I sent you an article from Vox claiming Trump's ban is absolutely constitutional. You sent me a different article saying it won't work. Those are two completely different topics.
As dvldog mentioned, these are seven failed states. Except for Iraq, they have no functioning government. Meaning we have no idea who these people are, their backgrounds, any documentation of their true identity. their intentions etc. And each are states with an enormous number of terrorists.
This is the very definition of national security.
Is the visa process THAT weak? I've known many that had trouble getting their applications approved over trivial issues.
I never saw the article you sent, didn't care to look back for it. I searched Vox and found that one. If the visa system needs improvement then fine. You said this is about national security....this 90 day ban....why? Because they are failed states, because the visa system is a joke, or because they are Muslim majority states? Trumps not clear, neither are you. I'm not ok with just anything being done in the name of national security.
And I know this is where are thought processes diverge distinctly, but the failed state fact....only makes me want more refugees from those states. The liberal ***** in me wants to offer America to as many as we can from these areas. Am I worried about security? Yes, but I don't want to lose who we are at heart....a nation of immigrants always open and ready to help.
Insert naive post here -->
A failed state is not the only issue, we don't know who these people are because there is no functioning government. How can you bet somebody if there is no information to verify who they are? Your liberalism could result in American deaths. Maybe you were OK with that, I'm not.
And the fact that you won't even read the Vox article speaks volumes. And you claim to be a teacher. I thought teachers were supposed to seek knowledge, not deny it.
I will never understand the liberal mind. In this case we have states with no functioning government. We have no way to vet the refugees. The states as Obama noted are the most dangerous terrorist states in the world. And you want to let as many in as possible. Just unbelievable.
Last edited:
Can you explain to me why you all are losing your **** over a 90 day moratorium?
I think your attitude towards refugees is commendable. It's also extremely naive and reckless but you just haven't seen the beast yet so it's understood.
Once again you get the Father of the Year Award. You raise your kids in a home full of hate and intolerance and you obviously don't care about their safety either. Sad.
I think the consistent talk throughout the campaign about a ban (permanent) has a lot to do with it. Trump loves tough talk....bans....registration....walls, but he's never really specific. Now he's President, I think many are worried about what's next.
I don't care what was said during the campaign, by Spicer at the briefing or from Trump in a tweet. You all are flatly lying and misleading when you say "ban" for the purpose of fear mongering. The reality is that it is a 90 day moratorium. Stop misrepresenting the truth. Stick to what the goddamn EO says.
Valid point. I agree fear mongering is pitiful. I say ban or banned countries out of convenience really. If it's really what the EO says, I think it could have been done more tactfully....but I have no problem with a President taking steps to protect the people. I think he should have made his case to the public then sent it to congress. I trust Trump just about as much as you'd trust Clinton.
I don't like him, I can't stand his childish behavior, and I don't really trust him with detailed facts but I trust him at a high level. He is after all doing everything he said he was going to do. The details might not line up from what was said to what or how it is being executed, but the general plan is happening.
The outrage over this from the left is about as misplaced as I've ever seen. It's essentially outright lying if not obfuscation and distortion of reality to cause upheaval. You guys don't understand that the reactions are fueling the folks that voted for him, it's basically reaffirming their beliefs. I didn't even vote or like the sonofabitch but given the choice between his clown show and the left's **** show, it's becoming easier to choose.
I'm no longer talking about Clinton, or what's his name, thankfully, they are in the country's past. I'm fine with being critical, as long as it's placed correctly, and there are numerous places to be critical of him, but this one is dumb.
Again, valid point. But Trump represents potential radical change (maybe good for you), but for some the changes he (and Bannon) represent are devastating to their way of life (Im thinking Muslim Americans here). I think everything Trump does will be met with friction. I am against much of what Trump is about, so I get it. But the division is what's killing the country. Tough to come together under Obama...tough to come together under Trump too.