President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If there is evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians then that information should be presented to him and he should have the right to defend himself.

Yep, in a big room with lawyers and a judge and stuff.

Handcuffs optional.

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

One person forgetting to mention a meeting with Russian officials could be overlooked. Multiple people forgetting multiple meetings with Russian officials looks a little suspicious. Those same people denying any contacts with Russians only to play down the contacts once they are confirmed is very shady, don't you think?

Flynn's case is shady and he's probably in trouble. Stone, Manafort handed in documents and want to testify, the rest I dunno.

Just throwing it out there, there was suspicions Trump / Campaign were collaborating with the Russians, and have been under investigation since July of last year, the FBI obtaining FISA warrants and so on, and there's potential he's going to become the next President, they still didn't find anything and it only became a huge deal after the election.

Still trying to figure what collusion they're looking for.

Kitsunegari

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can you tell us what meaning of "censored" you are using?

Because all I see is someone publicising a list of commercial sponsors of a show, hoping that public pressure will cause the sponsors to withdraw or threaten to withdraw sponsorship of that show in hopes of changing the editorial direction of that show.

No censorship there at all - just market forces at work.

Are you serious? If you don't like a show don't watch it. This is using market forces to create censorship.

You also can't say:

Because all I see is someone publicising a list of commercial sponsors of a show, hoping that public pressure will cause the sponsors to withdraw or threaten to withdraw sponsorship of that show in hopes of changing the editorial direction of that show.

And then ask me what censorship is.

The people that are attacking his sponsors demanding that they drop Hannity aren't Hannity watchers anyway. You can dress it up whatever what you like and try and argue over semantics but what is happening here is censorship.

Non-conservative supporters attacking a conservative tv show because they want to change it's 'editorial direction' isn't censorship. Are you serious?

This thread is starting to look extremely unhinged.

Calina

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Are you serious? If you don't like a show don't watch it. This is using market forces to create censorship.

You also can't say:



And then ask me what censorship is.

The people that are attacking his sponsors demanding that they drop Hannity aren't Hannity watchers anyway. You can dress it up whatever what you like and try and argue over semantics but what is happening here is censorship.

Non-conservative supporters attacking a conservative tv show because they want to change it's 'editorial direction' isn't censorship. Are you serious?

This thread is starting to look extremely unhinged.

It isn't censorship. Hannity has any number of channels through which he can push his message if he wants. He is not technically depenent on his sponsors to have a voice.

Shutting down Fox by means of a legal instrument such as an act of congress, that's censorship. It seems to me you do not understand what censorship really is.

Kitsunegari

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Do tell us how it works then.

Kitsunegari

Calina wrote: »

It isn't censorship. Hannity has any number of channels through which he can push his message if he wants. He is not technically depenent on his sponsors to have a voice.

Shutting down Fox by means of a legal instrument such as an act of congress, that's censorship. It seems to me you do not understand what censorship really is.

No, it seems to me as if you're pigeon holing your argument around the definition of censorship as per the US Constitution.

It seems to me as if you don't really understand what censorship actually means. You're being incredibly narrow minded on this because it doesn't suit your argument.

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, it seems to me as if you're pigeon holing your argument around the definition of censorship as per the US Constitution.

It seems to me as if you don't really understand what censorship actually means. You're being incredibly narrow minded on this because it doesn't suit your argument.

Sp free speech is a US constitutional right, but censorship as it pertains to the constitution is just too narrow minded to focus on?

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Are you serious? If you don't like a show don't watch it. This is using market forces to create censorship.

You also can't say:



And then ask me what censorship is.

The people that are attacking his sponsors demanding that they drop Hannity aren't Hannity watchers anyway. You can dress it up whatever what you like and try and argue over semantics but what is happening here is censorship.

Non-conservative supporters attacking a conservative tv show because they want to change it's 'editorial direction' isn't censorship. Are you serious?

This thread is starting to look extremely unhinged.

Stop using censorship. That is not censorship. People are free to not buy products based on who they sponsor. They are also free to buy products based on who they sponsor. This is all this is.

People don't have the right to have a TV show of their own. Fox are free to drop him if they feel he is a liability. They are a business. None of this is censorship. Fox is not censoring me by not giving me my own TV show. Nor is any company by not giving me sponsorship for said show. Companies drop sponsorship deals when public figures become controversial all the time.

Calina

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, it seems to me as if you're pigeon holing your argument around the definition of censorship as per the US Constitution.

It seems to me as if you don't really understand what censorship actually means. You're being incredibly narrow minded on this because it doesn't suit your argument.

You don't understand what censorship is. Hannity can stand in the middle of Time Square for all I care shouting his message so that the great and faithful can listen to him and nod. Other people have the right to tell companies "we shall not buy your products if you endorse this message".

It is free speech on both fronts. Hannity does not have a god given right to money for this.

Hank Scorpio

This was buried in a NYT report on Brennan's testimony on Wednesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/john-brennan-russia-trump-campaign-cia.html?_r=0

“Mr. Brennan acknowledged that he did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign.”

Then today there's another "bombshell".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/russia-trump-manafort-flynn.html?mtrref=undefined&_r=0

Down in the fifth paragraph.

“The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing, It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.”

Kitsunegari

Calina wrote: »

You don't understand what censorship is. Hannity can stand in the middle of Time Square for all I care shouting his message so that the great and faithful can listen to him and nod. Other people have the right to tell companies "we shall not buy your products if you endorse this message".

It is free speech on both fronts. Hannity does not have a god given right to money for this.

If those people are watching his show then that would be true but they don't watch his show. This is a bunch of people trying to exert pressure upon someone whose views they don't agree with. You can't just use and abuse the market to suit your narrative, by doing so you are censoring the opinions of others simply becuase you do not agree with them.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Down in the fifth paragraph.

“The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing, It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.”

So if it is unclear, it makes perfect sense to investigate it in an effort to gain clarity.

Hank Scorpio

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If those people are watching his show then that would be true but they don't watch his show. This is a bunch of people trying to exert pressure upon someone whose views they don't agree with. You can't just use and abuse the market to suit your narrative, by doing so you are censoring the opinions of others simply becuase you do not agree with them.

Also worth noting is that the same group ran correct the record, a paid army of trolls used to combat anti Clinton rhetoric on platforms like reddit and twitter. No reason to suspect the same thing isn't happening here and many of the "complaints" are without just cause.

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

So if it is unclear, it makes perfect sense to investigate it in an effort to gain clarity.

Agree!

BuilderPlumber

It is a total insult to the victims of the recent ISIS/ISIL/DAESH atrocities the way the current American regime go on. Going out to wellknown sponsor of Sunni terrorism Saudi Arabia, and going on to Israel and then proposing some sort of a grand alliance between Israel and Sunni extremist states like Saudi Arabia in an effort to defeat Iran. If one was not informed, they'd assume that it was Iran who were running ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. Sadly, the real terrorists were not prioritised by this American regime and the usual cynical anti-Iran propaganda (more than likely egged on by the fact that the American regime's preferred candidate Ebrahim Raisi lost) was evident instead.

America never apologised for all the wrong it has caused. Everywhere there is trouble in the middle East, you will find America to quote one of the American regime's idiots. Only problem is this idiot did not mention his own country and instead accused Iran of doing what America did. According to this Tillerson, Iran must have been the one who invaded Iraq in 2003, set up ISIS, did 9/11, overthrew Colonel Gaddafi, killed innocent civilians in bombing raids of Afghanistan, etc. Are these guys so delusional they cannot see the wrongs in American policy or is it they are being well paid to defend the indefensible.

America if it were a proper and mature country should be willing to admit wrong. It owes an apology to Japan, Vietnam, Iran, the former Yugoslav nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Cambodia among others. Oh and yes it has also sided with some of the most vile regimes on the planet when it suited including the original ISIS called the Khmer Rouge.

Kitsunegari

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Also worth noting is that the same group ran correct the record, a paid army of trolls used to combat anti Clinton rhetoric on platforms like reddit and twitter. No reason to suspect the same thing isn't happening here and many of the "complaints" are without just cause.

Yes, the ShareBlue gang! But there is nothing to see here as it's just market forces and capitalism at work... :P

Hank Scorpio

<snip>Brock is the top dog in media matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

Correct the Record was a super PAC founded by David Brock. It supported Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. The super PAC aimed to find and confront social media users who posted unflattering messages about Clinton and paid anonymous tipsters for unflattering scoops about Donald Trump, including audio and video recordings and internal documents.

He's a busy man!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareblue

Shareblue, formerly known as Blue Nation Review, is an American left-wing news website owned by journalist and political activist David Brock and headed by former Clinton staffer Peter Daou. Shareblue is within a consortium of political groups in Democratic strategist David Brock’s network that will raise a roughly $40 million budget to oppose President Donald Trump's policies.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

<snip> Brock is the top dog in media matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

Correct the Record was a super PAC founded by David Brock. It supported Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. The super PAC aimed to find and confront social media users who posted unflattering messages about Clinton and paid anonymous tipsters for unflattering scoops about Donald Trump, including audio and video recordings and internal documents.

He's a busy man!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareblue

Shareblue, formerly known as Blue Nation Review, is an American left-wing[1][2] news website owned by journalist and political activist David Brock and headed by former Clinton staffer Peter Daou. Shareblue is within a consortium of political groups in Democratic strategist David Brock’s network that will raise a roughly $40 million budget to oppose President Donald Trump's policies.

Good man David! I'm delighted to hear he's doing such wonderful work.

demfad

Apologies Folks.

I'm not posting on this thread anymore until moderators sort out the blatant derailment being attempted by these two posters.
The majority of posts are now by them or replying to their tangental nonsense.
Most of us here know exactly what they are trying to do.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If those people are watching his show then that would be true but they don't watch his show. This is a bunch of people trying to exert pressure upon someone whose views they don't agree with. You can't just use and abuse the market to suit your narrative, by doing so you are censoring the opinions of others simply becuase you do not agree with them.

Why do I have to watch a show to refuse to buy the products it advertises? That is an extremely odd notion. I am not forced to buy anything.

Also please stop using that word. "I do not think it means what you think it means". If a company supports and helps someone or something I disagree with fundamentally I am free not to support that company. If a company supports a march to life (or March for choice) then people are free to avoid that company. They are not censoring those campaigns by doing so.

Leroy42

So a private citizen, looking to use the power of a group to legally obtain their goal (getting rid of Hannity on Fox) is censorship but the POTUS refusing questions from CNN, refusing access to US media to a Russia meeting, calling out members of the media as fake news, that is acceptable.

Trumps whole WH team have labelled a large section of the media as nothing more than fake news, something to be avoid and curtailed. He is actively seeking to look at ways to jail journalists that use unknown sources.

Why the sudden concern for the freedom of the media based on Hannity when there appears to be no concern for the others?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Ok everyone needs to calm down. Please keep posts civil and of a high standard of debate, otherwise this thread will be closed permanently or bans will be handed out, which is not something anyone wants.

Professor Moriarty

Censor (verb) definitions:

Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it. (Oxford)
If someone in authority censors a book, play, or film, they officially examine it and cut out any parts that are considered to be immoral or inappropriate. (Collins)
To remove anything offensive from books, films, etc., or to remove parts considered unsuitable from private letters, especially ones sent during war or from a prison. (Cambridge)


Therefore, Brock is not censoring anything by publishing a list of sponsors. Not doing anything illegal. People are free to do as they please having been informed. All good.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

Why do I have to watch a show to refuse to buy the products it advertises? That is an extremely odd notion. I am not forced to buy anything.

Also please stop using that word. "I do not think it means what you think it means". If a company supports and helps someone or something I disagree with fundamentally I am free not to support that company. If a company supports a march to life (or March for choice) then people are free to avoid that company. They are not censoring those campaigns by doing so.

What part are you missing? This is a campaign by David Brock to remove Sean Hannity from Fox through his advertisers. You're free to support whichever companies you want but you shouldn't have to be told by David Brock or MediaMatters to make that decision for you.

If you try and oversimply what is happening here you will come to a conclusion like yours. Abusing the market to suit your political narrative isn't something we should be supporting but you and others are cheerleading it because it supports your anti-Trump and anti-conservative viewpoints. Attacking their sponsors because you don't agree with the content you don't watch is the definition of snowflake politics.

Harika

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/trump-worried-about-brexit-impact-on-us-jobs

So Trump talks with a SME and changes his stance on Brexit. As he did before with Stoltenberg-NATO, China/NorthKorea and so on. He should be linked up with Bill Nye, then climate change is back on the agenda or Rouhani and after that he would declare Iran a friend of the US.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari - it has been pointed out by many posters that this is far from censorship, which is what you are claiming it is.

Whether or not is is morally justified is something else, but it is not censorship.

Do you think Bill O'Reilly has been censored? It will come down to a financial decision from Fox about whether the costs of employing Hannity are justified given the revenue received.

It is the choice of each company, a free choice, as to whether they advertise or not. There is nothing to stop those that like Hannity to offer support for those companies that continue to advertise. Some companies will choose to, others may not.

But Hannity is not being silenced. For a start, there is nothing to stop Fox moving his show to a different time slot, or for him to set up an Alex Jones type podcast.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What part are you missing? This is a campaign by David Brock to remove Sean Hannity from Fox through his advertisers. You're free to support whichever companies you want but you shouldn't have to be told by David Brock or MediaMatters to make that decision for you.

If you try and oversimply what is happening here you will come to a conclusion like yours. Abusing the market to suit your political narrative isn't something we should be supporting but you and others are cheerleading it because it supports your anti-Trump and anti-conservative viewpoints. Attacking their sponsors because you don't agree with the content you don't watch is the definition of snowflake politics.

I don't need to but I can certainly listen to Brock. Not buying a product is not attacking. Stop with the over dramatisation. I was hardly complaining when Trump supporters wanted to boycott Hamilton when Tyler audience booed and an actor gave a speech.

c_man

Harika wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/trump-worried-about-brexit-impact-on-us-jobs

So Trump talks with a SME and changes his stance on Brexit. As he did before with Stoltenberg-NATO, China/NorthKorea and so on. He should be linked up with Bill Nye, then climate change is back on the agenda or Rouhani and after that he would declare Iran a friend of the US.

So you're accepting of an anonymous source ("An EU source said...") who, if they even exist, would be against Brexit, in an article in a notoriously anti-Brexit paper.... Wow.

It's laughable that even got printed really but Donald gets clicks I suppose.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

Kitsunegari - it has been pointed out by many posters that this is far from censorship, which is what you are claiming it is.

Whether or not is is morally justified is something else, but it is not censorship.

Do you think Bill O'Reilly has been censored? It will come down to a financial decision from Fox about whether the costs of employing Hannity are justified given the revenue received.

It is the choice of each company, a free choice, as to whether they advertise or not. There is nothing to stop those that like Hannity to offer support for those companies that continue to advertise. Some companies will choose to, others may not.

But Hannity is not being silenced. For a start, there is nothing to stop Fox moving his show to a different time slot, or for him to set up an Alex Jones type podcast.

I can accept that it's not strictly censorship in a legal sense however it's quite obvious how it relates to censorship as this is a group of people who want to stop something that they don't watch. What would you call that? Do you think it's ok if we go down this path of masses of sheep complaining to sponsors about their political affiliations simply because you don't agree with them?

Do you support David Brock and his movement?

I don't think Bill O'Reilly was censored.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What part are you missing? This is a campaign by David Brock to remove Sean Hannity from Fox through his advertisers.

You should look up the history of the term "Boycott".

Ireland was at the forefront of citizens refusing to do business with those they disagreed with.

It's not censorship.