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

Oafley Jones

Kitsunegari wrote: »

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.

This really isn't hard to understand, it's not censorship in any shape or form.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

What? So attacking a bunch of companies for sponsoring a show that you don't watch is now not attacking a company? That's a new one for me. You do realise that these people aren't refraining from buying the companies product. It's done through abuse on twitter and online campaigns telling people not to buy X because they support Y and creating an environment where the advertiser has to pull out due to the negative publicity. They aren't just deciding not to buy the product they are advertising for people not to buy or support a product due to the fact that it doesn't agree with their political viewpoint.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

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.

But what is your solution? Should people be banned from posting lists? Should people be forced to buy certain products?

Brock can promote whatever he likes, it is up to the individuals to make the choice. Some people don't drink Coke because of perceived work practice violations, some people don't use Israeli products, some people didn't buy South African products during apartheid.

Should those campaigning against apartheid have been banned for letting people know of those companies supporting the system?

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is your solution? Should people be banned from posting lists? Should people be forced to buy certain products?

Brock can promote whatever he likes, it is up to the individuals to make the choice. Some people don't drink Coke because of perceived work practice violations, some people don't use Israeli products, some people didn't buy South African products during apartheid.

Should those campaigning against apartheid have been banned for letting people know of those companies supporting the system?

Don't continually ask questions of others when you aren't prepared to answer any yourself.

Billy86

Hannity's total number of lost sponsors now up to seven, and he has take an 'abrupt vacation'.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/Sean-Hannity-Fox-News-Seth-Rich-advertiser-boycott-vacation.html

Sean Hannity is taking a couple days off amid a growing advertiser boycott after pushing a conspiracy theory involving a slain Democratic National Committee staffer.

Kitsunegari

InTheTrees wrote: »

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

How can you boycott Hannity when you don't watch him in the first instance?

Or is this just people not wanting Hannity on television because of his views?

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Don't continually ask questions of others when you aren't prepared to answer any yourself.

You are the one bringing this up as an issue yet you want me to find a solution to it?

I have no problem with this. I'm uneasy about it, but it happens all the time and on both sides yet you appear to only be concerned when it concerns someone you like.

I have asked you plenty of times why you don't appear to have the same concerns when Trump is clearly trying to censor the press. Through calling them fake news, refusing to take questions, refusing them access to meetings etc. His PR staff regularly blame the press for bias and fake news.

But to play your game here are my answers;

No people should not be banned from making lists
People should not be forced to buy products
Those people who campaigned against apartheid should not have been banned for naming companies supporting the system.

Right, so lets be having your answers

Harika

c_man wrote: »

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.

CNBC also reports it
Anyway, in context with the confirmed examples I tend to believe it. It is just a matter of time, when Donald will release a confirmation on twitter about it.

keane2097

This is the sort of thing that can happen when you abuse free speech, it is heartening to see an element of democracy working as it should.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are the one bringing this up as an issue yet you want me to find a solution to it?

I have no problem with this. I'm uneasy about it, but it happens all the time and on both sides yet you appear to only be concerned when it concerns someone you like.

I have asked you plenty of times why you don't appear to have the same concerns when Trump is clearly trying to censor the press. Through calling them fake news, refusing to take questions, refusing them access to meetings etc. His PR staff regularly blame the press for bias and fake news.

But to play your game here are my answers;

No people should not be banned from making lists
People should not be forced to buy products
Those people who campaigned against apartheid should not have been banned for naming companies supporting the system.

Right, so lets be having your answers

I asked you did you support David Brock and his movement and you failed to answer. That' the question I was referring to.

Harika

keane2097 wrote: »

This is the sort of thing that can happen when you abuse free speech, it is heartening to see an element of democracy working as it should.

Indeed no one forces Fox to take off Hannity, they can clearly state that they find his opinion important and it should be broadcasted and Hannity can state to relinquish some of the contracted money to keep the show on air.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What? So attacking a bunch of companies for sponsoring a show that you don't watch is now not attacking a company? That's a new one for me. You do realise that these people aren't refraining from buying the companies product. It's done through abuse on twitter and online campaigns telling people not to buy X because they support Y and creating an environment where the advertiser has to pull out due to the negative publicity. They aren't just deciding not to buy the product they are advertising for people not to buy or support a product due to the fact that it doesn't agree with their political viewpoint.

The sponsor does not have to pull out. They just want money but they could stay the course if desired. Free speech means I am free to encourage other people not to buy a product. Especially if I feel the company is behaving badly.

Nothing to do with political viewpoint. Hannity disagreed with liberals long before the boycott. I believe the issue was Hannity lying and causing distress to a family who lost a loved one last year

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I asked you did you support David Brock and his movement and you failed to answer. That' the question I was referring to.

I did answer it. I said I had no problem with it, although I am uneasy with it.

What more do you want me to say?

So back to my questions then

Trent Houseboat

Kitsunegari wrote:

How can you boycott Hannity when you don't watch him in the first instance?

Or is this just people not wanting Hannity on television because of his views

That's a strawman, people don't want him on the air because the disagree with him. They want him off the air because he's exploiting the murder of a young man for the purposes misdirection away from the political party he likes. Despite the victim's family asking not to.

This isn't a boycott of Hannity, it's a boycott of the companies who associate themselves with him by paying for him to go on air, by people who don't agree with the unfounded politicisation of a young man's murder.

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is your solution? Should people be banned from posting lists? Should people be forced to buy certain products?

My solution would be for everyone to do a bit of critical thinking. It's not that hard. Nobody should be forced to support or buy anything. I would laud people for boycotting Hannity based on their own analysis or beliefs but not because David Brock published a list. If it wasn't so obviously partisan I wouldn't have an issue. I equally disagree with the conservative boycotts of advertisers simply because they don't agree with their viewpoint.

Should those campaigning against apartheid have been banned for letting people know of those companies supporting the system?

No, that's not a fair comparison to make.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

My solution would be for everyone to do a bit of critical thinking. It's not that hard. Nobody should be forced to support or buy anything. I would laud people for boycotting Hannity based on their own analysis or beliefs but not because David Brock published a list. If it wasn't so obviously partisan I wouldn't have an issue. I equally disagree with the conservative boycotts of advertisers simply because they don't agree with their viewpoint.

How do you know people are not doing critical thinking. Not everybody blindly follows everything a party or persons says. The list is just information. Would you prefer that it was hidden. I would imagine that is actually pretty easy to get all the information, all Brock is doing is putting it together in one place to make it easier. So basically it seem to be your dislike for Brock that is the issue here. You don't mind the list, you don't mind people choosing to avoid companies/products. What exactly is the problem you have?

You say you equally disagree but have you actually called Trump out on his disgraceful attitude to the press?

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

How can you boycott Hannity when you don't watch him in the first instance?

Or is this just people not wanting Hannity on television because of his views?

No, it's not boycotting Hannity is it though?

Why shouldn't people be able to pick what products they buy?

robinph

So Trump is now using the leaks of evidence to do with the Manchester bombing in order to open an investigation into leaks in general.

Leaks from a government department where illegal or questionable things are going on should happen, but Trump doesn't like that so wants it stopped.
Leaks from an investigation into a criminal activity should not happen and nobody would approve of it, other than the people being investigated potentially.

Wouldn't want to make a conspiracy theory about it, but that the Manchester leaks even happened seems a bit too convenient as it allows Trump to now go after all leakers but under the guise of trying to figure out where the leaks to do with Manchester happened.

Kitsunegari

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

That's a strawman, people don't want him on the air because the disagree with him. They want him off the air because he's exploiting the murder of a young man for the purposes misdirection away from the political party he likes. Despite the victim's family asking not to.

This isn't a boycott of Hannity, it's a boycott of the companies who associate themselves with him by paying for him to go on air, by people who don't agree with the unfounded politicisation of a young man's murder.

Thereby taking him off the air. You can call it what you want; it's a boycott of Hannity from people who don't watch his television show.

Dress it up whatever way you want.

The irony is that most of the people taking the moral high ground and tweeting abuse at these companies and sponsors of his show are doing so from their iPhones. Forgive me, if I get a bit sick in my mouth when I hear about people moaning about what companies associate themselves with while using an iPhone and wearing clothes assembled in a sweatshop.

Hypocrites.

Harika

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Thereby taking him off the air. You can call it what you want; it's a boycott of Hannity from people who don't watch his television show.

Why would people that are watching Hannity would want him off the air? Or what would need to happen to do that? And if that happens, aren't they better off to simply switch off and let him on air? According to your logic, we should never do anything, cause we can always walk away.

Leroy42

So now its not just censorship you have a problem with it is hypocrisy.

And yet again, it seems you only have an issue with that when it is effecting you. The hypocrisy of Trump to talk of crocked Hilary when he had to settle a fraud case is staggering.

Trent Houseboat

Kitsunegari wrote:

Thereby taking him off the air. You can call it what you want; it's a boycott of Hannity from people who don't watch his television show.

Dress it up whatever way you want.

How are people who don't watch a show continuing to not watch that show boycotting it? I think we can put "boycott" next to "censor" on the list of words you don't understand.

You seem to think he has a god given right to be on TV.
If his sponsors don't want to be associated with him then the don't have to be.


Do you want the sponsors to be forced to pay for him to go on air?
Do you want to silence consumers who would reach out to the sponsors?

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

My solution would be for everyone to do a bit of critical thinking. It's not that hard. Nobody should be forced to support or buy anything. I would laud people for boycotting Hannity based on their own analysis or beliefs but not because David Brock published a list. If it wasn't so obviously partisan I wouldn't have an issue. I equally disagree with the conservative boycotts of advertisers simply because they don't agree with their viewpoint.




No, that's not a fair comparison to make.

Errr critical thinking can involve seeing what people, including Brock say on the situation before making a decision. Really I think your issue is that it a Republican who dug himself this hole. Aside from that none of your objections hold water. Nobody has been forced to buy or not buy anything. Those products are still widely available. People are suggesting that these companies are acting in an immoral fashion if they support a man who has abused a man's death for views by lying about him. That would be about all of it

Again you seem to be mixing up viewpoint with attacking a grieving family.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

Errr critical thinking can involve seeing what people, including Brock say on the situation before making a decision. Really I think your issue is that it a Republican who dug himself this hole. Aside from that none of your objections hold water. Nobody has been forced to buy or not buy anything. Those products are still widely available. People are suggesting that these companies are acting in an immoral fashion if they support a man who has abused a man's death for views by lying about him. That would be about all of it

Again you seem to be mixing up viewpoint with attacking a grieving family.

I don't support the Republican party. You're oversimplifying the whole scenario to suit your narrative because you don't like Hannity.

Those people that are suggesting that these companies operate in an immoral fashion are largely hypocrites. The US is a morally bankrupt nation and that's why we have these people selectively choosing which causes they're currently concerned about in order to further their own political beliefs. If they were so concerned about the morals of these companies then where is the mass Apple boycott?

You think this is a sweet shop where you can pick and choose what you want to stand for. These people are nothing more than a complete embarrassment.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I don't support the Republican party. You're oversimplifying the whole scenario to suit your narrative because you don't like Hannity.

Those people that are suggesting that these companies operate in an immoral fashion are largely hypocrites. The US is a morally bankrupt nation and that's why we have these people selectively choosing which causes they're currently concerned about in order to further their own political beliefs. If they were so concerned about the morals of these companies then where is the mass Apple boycott?

You think this is a sweet shop where you can pick and choose what you want to stand for. These people are nothing more than a complete embarrassment.

To begin with you are picking and choosing your own causes here. Did you protest against apple's work practices and yet you are deciding to stand up for Hannity? Picking and choosing what you stand for (no I don't believe this logic but apparently you do).

What because they don't support every cause ever they can't support this one. Does this mean no one is ever allowed to support anything as they have obviously not supported every other cause?

I am not oversimplifying. It is a simple situation. You have been twisting the situation by using phrases which are not appropriate to the situation and one which has happened many times before on both sides of the aisle. This is the first complaint I have seen about the practice.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/867754169272324097

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080

Overheal

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Making his sponsors public and pressuring them to withdraw in coordinated attacks is scum. Trump's young son has been viciously attacked by the media, was that not for political gain?

Well his sponsors are public because well - if they weren't public, they would be getting nothing out of it. We're talking about advertisers here. It's not like they are being doxxed or something. As for the attacks on his kid, those were swiftly smushed in the mainstream, almost as swiftly as they began. Nobody is interested really in bothering Baron Trump, when Eric is a much lower-hanging piece of fruit.



People have every right to contact his sponsors and give them a piece of their mind. People have done it to Chik Fil A, Starbucks, Target, Hobby Lobby, to name some high profile ones. It is par for course of doing business and dipping your toes in political water.

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Yeah, but that's not actually what has happened here. what actually has happened is that liberal lobbyists like Media Matters post up the sponsors of shows like Hannity to put pressure on the sponsors to back out. That's a witch hunt.

It's another form of censorship that the liberal lobbyists don't like to admit to. It's no different from the 'Berkeley anti-fascist fascists' who try to suppress free speech that they don't agree with by rioting.

But go ahead and justify it all you want. It's still censorship.

Censorship is by and large something a Government does, and when people cry about censorship this is what they are angling at.

• O'Reilly telling 'liberal pinheads' - even ones on his show he is interviewing - to shut up, is not real censorship.
  
• News outlets declining to livestream a Bernie Sanders event, is not real censorship. That's like saying FOX is censoring the Simpsons because they aired an episode of Family Guy instead.
  
• Iran shutting down it's internet infrastructure to crackdown on protesters is censorship.
  
• China blocking outside internet traffic and anti-government pages is censorship.
  
• Comcast, if they succeed in their wish of abolishing Net Neutrality, will be able to simply block access to websites like www.Comcastroturf.com with impunity. That would be a pretty strong instance of private-entity censorship.
  
• Similarly, Comcast blocking user access to say, the previously mentioned livestream hosted by a Bernie Sanders campaign, would also be censorship.

Petitioning a sponsor to pull it's endorsement of a political figure is not censorship. It is freedom of speech. Hannity is welcome to fund his own voice, his sponsors are not obliged to do so.

Kitsunegari wrote:

Again, another strawman argument from you. Can you point out where I stated that Hannity was being censored under the definition of the US constitution?

Im getting really tired of your continual misrepresentation of my arguments on this forum.

Really now. You've just beautifully illustrated my point; hence why it doesn't behoof you to gaslight the issue by crying censorship. You're employing it as a misdirecting buzzword that evidently no one around here takes seriously, so please try a different narrative.

Kitsunegari wrote:

Thereby taking him off the air. You can call it what you want; it's a boycott of Hannity from people who don't watch his television show.

Dress it up whatever way you want.

The irony is that most of the people taking the moral high ground and tweeting abuse at these companies and sponsors of his show are doing so from their iPhones. Forgive me, if I get a bit sick in my mouth when I hear about people moaning about what companies associate themselves with while using an iPhone and wearing clothes assembled in a sweatshop.

Hypocrites.

There you go, after pages of whining about others using strawman arguments, blame the iPhones and make utterly juvenile assumptions about what people are wearing when they tweet.

If Hannity gets taken off the air that's his own doing. Look what happened to Glenn Beck: was it censorship to say that Fox News didn't want to renew his contract because he couldn't gain enough sponsorship or viewership to stay viable for the network? And where is Beck now: well, after he did [something I forget] he lost his sponsors on his radio show a few years later too, and they dropped him. However, is Beck barred from his 1st Amendment rights? Not at all! He launched The Blaze network, his viewers paid into it in a very similar model to HBO, and he started doing his own content, shows, and hiring instigators like Tomi Lahren. Free market, free speech, alive and well!

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Leroy42 wrote:

Hannity presented this, and other stories, as facts. He also steadfastly refuses to deal with facts that don't suit his agenda.

Sure. I can think of instances eg. when CNN misrepresented the audio tapes from the Trayvon Martin shooting. They rightly lost viewers, should have lost sponsors too. Sponsors also have the right to pull endorsements from outlets pushing too hard on a narrative they find to be a falsehood. And in this case, several sponsors have pulled out because of the particulars of the Hannity-Rich episode, with the family begging for the narrative to cease as being unhelpful to their investigation efforts, Fox retracting it's own reporting, and Hannity saying basically 'I have a contract [4 years left on it at the moment] and free speech so no I'll keep at it.' Evidently, his sponsors have begun seeing this as a total dick move and are pulling out (:o).

Hank Scorpio wrote:

If there's nothing wrong with it why not publicise everybody's.

Ostensibly they are not a non-partisan outlet, if they chose not to do this, whereas sites like OpenSecrets, push out pretty raw data regardless of implication. May be a criticism of MediaMatters but it's up to other sites to publish said information - and to be fair it's often as simple as watching TV and noting the commercials.

Celticfire wrote:

"The Pentagon is PISSED".... says who? The Huffington post, Buzzfeed?

Considering CNN covered the arrival of USS Michigan in Busan, South Korea on April 25 and the Navy has no problem notifying the world through it's webpages and Facebook pages when a submarine visits port I fail to see how this story lives up to it's hysterical headlines.

From my understanding those sentiments were from Pentagon sources yes. As for reporting deployments, they will generally disclose Carrier Group movements (because you can't miss them, and show of force), and will indeed announce when specific subs are returning/deploying in order to notify families and sailors. It's not the same as saying "We have 2 subs in this area," which gives Signals Intelligence of eg. the Chinese and North Koreans something to work with, they can use that information to improve or calibrate their detection methods. It's kind of a big deal, and I imagine the Navy will have had to respond with a rapid re-shuffling of assets in the Pacific to make that information stale ASAP.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

What did I say that's incorrect? Still no evidence of collusion.

Correct. TBD.

demfad wrote:

You've just been supplied with an extensive list of evidence. Address it without fibbing please.

All of which I have to admit is circumstantial and only narrows in on some possibilities. Not enough to convict Flynn, or Trump's team, or much less overthrow a sitting President with. TBD. The investigation continues. At the very least, it's all politically damning, even if it is not legally conclusive.

Rjd2

mayo.mick wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/867754169272324097

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080

Initial rumour it was Orban he pushed, which would have been absolutely amazing for the fall out.
Viktor however is beaming.:D

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

To begin with you are picking and choosing your own causes here. Did you protest against apple's work practices and yet you are deciding to stand up for Hannity? Picking and choosing what you stand for (no I don't believe this logic but apparently you do).

What because they don't support every cause ever they can't support this one. Does this mean no one is ever allowed to support anything as they have obviously not supported every other cause?

I am not oversimplifying. It is a simple situation. You have been twisting the situation by using phrases which are not appropriate to the situation and one which has happened many times before on both sides of the aisle. This is the first complaint I have seen about the practice.

Are you seriously asking those questions? You say you aren't oversimplifying yet you produce the above.

Honestly, what's the point in talking about these issues when it's clear that it's beyond reason for people to have an actual debate here and not attack everything that doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

Oversimplification to the absurd.

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Honestly, what's the point in talking about these issues when it's clear that it's beyond reason for people to have an actual debate here and not attack everything that doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

Oh, come on. This from someone who has to hand-craft his own definition of "censorship" to try to defend someone as loathsome as Hannity.

And no, before you try to disappear off down another tangent: I don't consider him loathsome because I disagree with his politics. There are lots of people with whose politics I can respectfully disagree. He's loathsome because of his peddling of conspiracy theories at the expense of a grieving family.

His fawning adulation of the worst president in American history by a wide margin is pretty loathsome too, but sadly it doesn't seem all that uncommon.