Nattering nabobs of negativism

A week ago, the Congress and President Trump passed two important pieces of legislation – Justice Reform and the Farm bill.

The fake news barely mentioned the passage of both laws because it would have made the President look good. Instead, they focused on negative stories about the boots FLOTUS wore and the MAGA hats the President signed for the soldiers during their trip to Iraq with not one positive word about their day after Christmas visit to the troops.

While in Iraq, NBC and others skewered the President for not visiting the troops; the President and First Lady were in Iraq visiting the troops and the fake news morons are criticizing the President for NOT visiting the troops. CNN and other fake news outlets editorialized that the soldiers should be punished for even having MAGA hats and that the President was doing something wrong or illegal by encouraging such behavior in the soldiers while he signed those hats. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, the head of the Democrat Party, sits on a balmy beach in Hawaii while the government has been shut down while all that we hear from the fake news is the sound of crickets.

When the President decided to pull all of the American soldiers out of Syria, the fake news focused on and presented only those “experts” who were against the removal of those troops while ignoring everyone who supported the move.

All of these naysayers have one thing in common – a visceral hatred for anyone who disagrees with them. These nattering nabobs of negativism have made themselves the enemy of all of those 50 to 60 million plus voters who support the President and his policies. They label President Trump and his supporters as racists, misogynists, homophobes, islamophobes and “basket of deplorables”.

These haters demand the protections of the First Amendment so they can print their lies and editorialize as though accusations and allegations are evidence; many of us still remember Dan Rather as he waved a piece of paper that lied about the military service of BushII while he stated “The document might not be true, But I KNOW that the charges against President Bush are true.” It destroyed Rather’s career. Dan Rather is evidence that the fake news not reporting all of the facts, all of the good with the bad, are enemies of the people.

Something else the fake news won't report on is the Democrat Congress refusing to work with the President and the Trump GOP, preferring scorched earth tactics instead; the Democrats would rather support policies that favor foreign criminals who do harm to American citizens such as Kate Steinle and Ronil Singh. They would rather facilitate the flow of drugs, weapons and contraband into the United States via their support for “open borders” and their attempts to marginalize those police who would protect Americans from the foreign criminals, illegal weapons and family destroying drugs.

The fake news outlets have had nothing but derision for President Trump, trying to destroy his Presidency at every turn, while President Trump has forged ahead with his agenda – an agenda that is making America Great Again. President Trump is a true hero –The fake news outlets leave me wondering if they can be prosecuted for sedition.

 

Moronic thread. EVERY President has to deal with American Citizens who feel that President is doing a crap job. Only thin-skinned emotionally stunted Presidents lash out like thirteen year old girls because of it.

Just another in the long line of Trump is fragile threads. Nothing to see here.

 

Don't forget his Administration also got the House to pass the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act on the Friday before Christmas.

Did the media spend much time on that?

The level of fraud, manipulation, and deceit demonstrated by the liberal media should be a wake up call to all Americans.

 

You posted "Nothing to see here" - but you had to reply to the post because you can't let go of your TDS. All that you and the fake news have are accusations and allegations with absolutely no truth.

You say "EVERY President has to deal with American Citizens who feel that President is doing a crap job." The truth is that Democrat Presidents are subjected to worship and adulation from the fake news who report nothing negative about their petty Gods! That same fake news does nothing but attempt to marginalize and destroy Republican Presidents. This situation has existed since President Nixon was sworn into office in 1969.

By your own post you have proven that YOU are a nattering nabob of negativism.

 

Blah ... blah ... blah ... TDS ... blah ... blah ...
Can't see wasting more energy on your broken record thread.

 

Thank you for leaving.

I'm sure you would be much more appreciated in the Obama bum kissing posts -

 

The CONGRESS AND SENATE legislate and pass laws the PRESIDENT merely signs them into law or vetoes them.

 

Oh stop the hate. You can go back to worshipping the god of the media.

 

If you are "wondering" that, let me introduce you to something called the 1st Amendment. I'm surprised you haven't met yet. Trust me, as much as you may not like the fella, it is better to have him around.

No, no publication is under any obligation to slavishly lavish praise on the POTUS. They can criticize him as much as they want no matter how much you don't like it. Which should be cause for celebration for anyone who values free speech over partisan authoritarianism.

 

At what point does partisan and authoritarian propaganda from the so-called free press begin to become a threat to a free society?

 

What you are actually asking is at what point you can justify a flavor of authoritarianism that you find more palatable. Sorry, despite the-sky-is-falling propaganda, the free press, no matter how distasteful they can be at times, are not an existential threat to our society, and you should start questioning the people trying to manipulate you into thinking that they are in order to subvert the 1st Amendment.

Partisan speech is not an excuse for overturning free speech. There is no such thing as a "right" to be popular.

 

I asked a simple question.

If I am to take your response as not being a deflection, I must assume that you claim to believe that any manipulation of the public, by the media, is acceptable.

 

Persuasion is not a crime. It can be morally cringe worthy, but the use of government force in order to silence such voices, which is what you appear to be promoting, is far, far worse than anything being peddled by any of these channels.

MSNBC is trash. For the nanny state to control their speech in the name of the public good is immeasurably worse. Either you see that or you don't. If the later, you are pushing far more authoritarianism than what you claim to see among the MSM.

 

"the use of government force in order to silence such voices, which is what you appear to be promoting"

Huh?

 

In case you forgot: "At what point does partisan and authoritarian propaganda from the so-called free press begin to become a threat to a free society?"

Private voices expressing their opinion and not threatening violence will never reach that point. Anyone who finds that point of view controversial needs to come to terms with free speech. The fact that you don't like their politics doesn't cast a magic spell that makes the free press "so-called free press." Partisan opinions are not a "threat to a free society." But these are the typical authoritarian tactics used to try to limit free speech: claim an existential threat and try to pretend that partisanship alone is justification for government intervention.

 

And you keep bringing up government intervention, yet I do not.

Until you are willing to drop your unsubstantiated preconceptions we can't have an open and honest discussion.

How can it be that "persuasion" (the shaping of public opinion) isn't a threat to a free thinking society?

Do you claim that it is bad if government does it, but good if news organizations do it?

If news agencies are shaping our views, who controls them? Whose views do we have?

 

You're trying to draw a line - the only people who could enforce that line would be the government (laws). So, yes, you are proposing an end to the 1st Amendment as written.

 

If you aren't proposing any kind of intervention for "a threat to a free society" then what are you proposing?

Because free thought and free speech are not a threat to a free thinking society. Persuasion isn't force. That's why it is called persuasion. You literally just admitted that you can't comprehend of free communication being anything other than a threat to a free society. Reflect on that for a second. It may be one of the most authoritarian sentiments I've seen shared on PF this year.

Be specific. What is the "it" you are referring to?

News agencies are not magic. They try to persuade, just like you do. Do you seriously and passively let people "shape" your views without thinking critically on your own? Really?

People have their own views. They choose what arguments they let influence those views.

 

"If you aren't proposing any kind of intervention for "a threat to a free society" then what are you proposing?"

I haven't proposed anything. At least not directly. I asked a question. That's all. It has kinda morphed into a more philosophical question, but I'm happy to keep it where it is.

I do wish that society would demand honest reportage.

"Be specific. What is the "it" you are referring to?"

"Persuasion". The shaping of public opinion. Propaganda.

"News agencies are not magic. They try to persuade, just like you do. Do you seriously and passively let people "shape" your views without thinking critically on your own? Really?"

Do you believe that they can't shape your beliefs? Who did? Do you think that all of your beliefs would be the same if you were raised in a closet?

Media are part of the environment which defines who we are. If we get fed crap, that crap must become a part of our worldview.

 

Society demanding "more honest reportage" through speech is fine. "Demanding" it through state force is not. Yes, I'm more okay with private voices engaging in persuasion than I am with state-sponsored propaganda. Who isn't (other than outright authoritarians)?

No, media does not define who I am. I'm sorry if it defines who you are, but don't put that on others. If you are "fed" crap, it is up to you as an adult to formulate an educated opinion without blindly gobbling up crap and spitting it back out. That's part of learning how to be a responsible individual. How is this new?

We've gone from some of the most authoritarian sentiments I've seens expressed on PF to, by far, the most mindless and least intellectually responsible sentiment I've seen shared here (I'm still honestly marveling over the fact that this is a direct quote and not a fanciful strawman): "If we get fed crap, that crap must become a part of our worldview." Hint: that's not how critical thinking works.

 

Why couldn't society, on its own, decide to demand honest reporting?

 

We do. Through speech. Like so: "Hey, I'm calling you out on your dishonest reporting. I demand more honest reporting." Not rocket surgery here.

 

What is critical thinking? Is it encapsulated by the "orange man bad" dreck that we are constantly bombarded with?

If critical thinking is all that you make it out to be, you should tell all of the corporations in the world to stop wasting their money on advertising.

 

But you've seen people on PF, on all sides of the spectrum, heralding reports that were later proven false. I've fallen for some, myself. I'd bet that you have, too.

Some people are still, today, pushing stories that were proven false last year. How could you claim that this is not a problem?