News Clinton Vs Trump

[The Albatross]

No... that wasn't your only point: "My point is that the rhetoric about all journalists being part of some massive conspiracy to rig the election is dangerous" ... and MY point would be that journalists in large part largely to a systemic laziness at best or disinclination due to personal enrichment or activism at worst to actually investigate and report news rather than pander and peddle to the string of hot topics that derail and distract from serious issues.

 

[The Albatross]

Another good "for instance" Casey, would be the suggestions by Clinton herself, the DNC, the general media's inclination... and yeah even your own to support the idea that Assange and WikiLeaks data is Russia based... however much this idea is possible I have yet to see an investigative "journalist" (re read your own comments up the thread here for example and you can see how you settle for assumptions yourself) who has endeavored to prove it or write substantively on that particular topic. THAT is dangerous.

It is also a disservice to the people because "journalists/news sources are afforded protection" yet the more serious investigative information is no longer coming from them is it? It's coming from citizen journalists and hacked sources.

 

[Casey_03]

Yes, you are correct, but was that directed at you? No. I said "the rhetoric", not "your rhetoric." If that was directed at you, I would have made it clear. Perhaps I should've issued a disclaimer that it wasn't directed at you.

I've written about this in another thread, and I agree with your points about the media ignoring serious topics in favor of clickbait. I'm not disputing that.

 

[Casey_03]

I have yet to see an investigative "journalist" (re read your own comments up the thread here for example and you can see how you settle for assumptions yourself) who has endeavored to prove it or write substantively on that particular topic. THAT is dangerous.

I've seen quite a bit, but much of it is written in Russian. The Assange issue is not one I'm particularly interested in debating, but I've made my stance clear that yes, I do find Wikileaks highly suspicious based on what I've seen. Why? There's a lot of strange things surrounding that whole issue -- like Assanage requesting FSB officers at the Embassy, like the fact that i've personally argued with Wikileaks representatives and they've cited Kremlin propaganda (word for word) as their argument, like the fact that someone I know very well who worked for Russian state media told me they work hand in hand with Wikileaks (though I was asked to keep that off the record)... and the list goes on and on. John Schindler has written extensively on this topic as well. It's out there if you look for it.

 

[Casey_03]

And as for the fact that you describe my comments as "assumptions" - no, they're not assumptions at all. They're based on my direct experience with Wikileaks and other people working with Wikileaks.

 

[The Albatross]

Works for me however that does not negate my stance that "journalism" has some serious systemic issues to overcome if it is to be/or to regain the heretofore integrity it once had.

Okay so back to the topic for me.

 

[The Albatross]

Mister has been receiving a great many calls from the Democratic Party and is having a field day telling them exactly why he left the party after life long status.

I on the other hand, am having calls as well and am telling the Republican Party that while I absolutely can't switch my affiliation with Democrat, if we weren't considered "No Party" in my state I'd leave them as well and why.

I expect it is a pretty tough time for cold callers for either party. When some have told both of us, this is being recorded, we both reply, "Good."

 

[Casey_03]

Umm. Holy shit.

Trump vows to weaken U.S. media 'power structure' if elected

 

[hodge]

Yep, he wants to dismantle the First Amendment so he can sue media sources for criticizing him. What a whiny baby (not to insult babies) and idiot dictator wannabe. Thank God he has practically no chance of winning.

 

[Casey_03]

Yeah, he actually prefaced the entire speech by openly saying he's going after the media outlets that "suppressed" the vote for him. Not media outlets that were neutral, or pro-Trump, only the ones that were critical of him. The alarming thing about this is that I'm not sure people realize how f*cked up that is. I mean, he kind of masked all this talk in merger language at the rally today, so I'm not sure people immediately realized what he was saying. But damn. I'm floored.

 

[Casey_03]

You know, when Putin did the exact same thing, he was at least clever enough to not announce it beforehand. He always had back channels for this stuff and it was never tied directly to him.

 

[hodge]

His followers will still vote for him. I don't understand why they are the way they are, but go figure. I think he's right about one thing: he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any votes. But he sure as hell won't gain any, either, and he would need to gain votes in order to win and that's not happening.

So much of what he's about is so f*cked up. I am personally also really offended by this First Amendment assault. Thin-skinned @ssholes should not run for president.