Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Opinions are not a fact.

That's your opinion.  Let's see what some unelected partisan has to say about it.

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

That's your opinion.  Let's see what some unelected partisan has to say about it.

Let's get specific.  A fact is provable, an opinion is not.  If someone says something that isn't true, there's no grey, either its true or not.  

 

Also, that bamma running FCC will be one of the first to go when Trump loses re-election, better believe it.

 

If we go the route of "can't trust the government", who can we trust?  Facebook?  

 

Like any idea to address this won't happen in this administration, so let's not even talk like we'd expect Trump to tell Fox News what the truth is, that's going the other way around as we speak, fruitless.

[PokerPacker]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Let's get specific.  A fact is provable, an opinion is not.  If someone says something that isn't true, there's no grey, either its true or not.  

 

Also, that bamma running FCC will be one of the first to go when Trump loses re-election, better believe it.

 

If we go the route of "can't trust the government", who can we trust?  Facebook?  

 

Like any idea to address this won't happen in this administration, so let's not even talk like we'd expect Trump to tell Fox News what the truth is, that's going the other way around as we speak, fruitless.

Any power you want to cede to the government, imagine that power being given to this administration.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Any power you want to cede to the government, imagine that power being given to this administration.

 

Again, any ideas I have to address this matter won't happen until after this administration is gone.  That doesn't mean I'm wrong or what I'm saying won't work, its just means they won't do it, there's a difference.

 

Edit:  Are you afraid any future administration will abuse this?  It's not worth it to be scared of this idea, you see where doing nothing is killing us.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Renegade7

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Again, any ideas I have to address this matter won't happen until after this administration is gone.  That doesn't mean I'm wrong or what I'm saying won't work, its just means they won't do it, there's a difference.

The Dems make this mistake over and over again.  The last one ended up with Neil Gorsuch on the bench.  

[Renegade7]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

The Dems make this mistake over and over again.  The last one ended up with Neil Gorsuch on the bench.  

I think I understand your point, but can you please clarify?  My "idea" was in regards to confirming if Fox News has the constitutional right to spread false information as news via the 1st amendment.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I think I understand your point, but can you please clarify?  My "idea" was in regards to confirming if Fox News has the constitutional right to spread false information as news via the 1st amendment.

I was referring more to the idea that you would want to implement something only when the time was right. The Dems do this often.  They did it when they got rid of the 60 vote threshold for judges.  And now are screaming about the number of judges Trump is appointing including a Supreme.  They opened that door.  

 

If if it’s a good idea, it won’t matter who’s in charge. 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

If if it’s a good idea, it won’t matter who’s in charge. 

Hmm.. that is fair.  IDK, I mean, we all see what he's doing to agencies in charge over going after the private sector.  Is this another one of those "exceptions", all things considered?  I do believe Dems are too nice, but lets be real, Trump will never allow anyone to regulate Fox News. Ever.

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The Dems make this mistake over and over again.  The last one ended up with Neil Gorsuch on the bench.  

 

Actually, the GOP inventing a fictional rule, to try to justify an abuse of a constitutional power, resulted in Neil Gorsuch on the bench.  No Dem action contributed to that whatsoever.  

 

But then, I understand that it's traditional for Republicans to try to blame Democrats for the things Republicans do.  

 

And I do agree with the larger point that, every time a Democrat proposes a rule which is needed to protect the country from current Republican actions, eventually some later Republican will figure out how to abuse that rule.  I'm just nitpicking the particular example you tried to use.  

 

 

[Kilmer17]

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Hmm.. that is fair.  IDK, I mean, we all see what he's doing to agencies in charge over going after the private sector.  Is this another one of those "exceptions", all things considered?  I do believe Dems are too nice, but lets be real, Trump will never allow anyone to regulate Fox News. Ever.

Take Trump out of the equation.  Imagine what a president Kasich would do?  

[Larry]

28 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

If if it’s a good idea, it won’t matter who’s in charge.

 

Now I'm going to take your example, and throw it back at you.  

 

No, we should not automatically assume that we cannot permit any power which can be abused.  

 

To point specifically at Gorsuch, his being on the SC is due to the fact that the Republican Party chose, unanimously, to abuse a power granted to them under the constitution.  However, the fact that this abuse did happen does not automatically mean that said authority should not have been granted to the senate.  

 

It simply means that we should not place people who abuse their power, into such positions.  

 

 

---

 

We have to give the authority to use nuclear weapons to someone.  

 

We don't have to give it to Donald Trump.  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Larry

[Kilmer17]

After Trump took over, the GOP co opted the Dems decision to eliminate the filibuster to confirm all Judges.  The Dems did this because they could not imagine a time when they wouldn’t be in power. 

 

Oops. 

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Take Trump out of the equation.  Imagine what a president Kasich would do?  

Again, fair.  If we're talking hypotheticals, how realistic should we be?  Will the president in 2020 be Red or Blue?  I believe Blue.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

Again, fair.  If we're talking hypotheticals, how realistic should we be?  Will the president in 2020 be Red or Blue?  I believe Blue.

Depends on a lot of things but say I agree.  If it is Blue, and the Dems enact something like what you’re suggesting, what happens when the GOP wins again?   Think they will capitalize on the Dems action?

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Depends on a lot of things but say I agree.  If it is Blue, and the Dems enact something like what you’re suggesting, what happens when the GOP wins again?   Think they will capitalize on the Dems action?

Like, I'm not even sure what this means.  If its a fact, it should be easy to prove.  If someone tries to say its not a fact, the entity should be able to challenge it then its up to the courts.  I'd hate to involve the courts because that could set up for every violation to be there, but leaving it up to the FCC is exactly what your talking about and asking for it no matter who's running the executive branch.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Like, I'm not even sure what this means.  If its a fact, it should be easy to prove.

 

It is a fact that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect.  This was proven, in laboratory conditions, 150 years ago.  

 

Try proving it to the (imaginary) person who Donald Trump just appointed to be in charge of determining which "truth" can and cannot be said on TV.  

 

It's an age old problem.  (I think there's even a famous biblical quote on the subject.  Specifically "What is Truth?")  

 

That's why I believe that putting the government in the position of censoring the media is an absolutely horrible idea.  The cure would be vastly worse than the disease.  

[Renegade7]

28 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

It is a fact that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect.  This was proven, in laboratory conditions, 150 years ago.  

 

Try proving it to the (imaginary) person who Donald Trump just appointed to be in charge of determining which "truth" can and cannot be said on TV.  

 

It's an age old problem.  (I think there's even a famous biblical quote on the subject.  Specifically "What is Truth?")  

 

That's why I believe that putting the government in the position of censoring the media is an absolutely horrible idea.  The cure would be vastly worse than the disease.  

 

I get the concern, but I can't take ya'lls concern seriously if you keep asking how it will look under Trump. It will never happen under Trump, are you saying what if there's another Trump?  Bigger problem.

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I get the concern, but I can't take ya'lls concern seriously if you keep asking how it will look under Trump. It will never happen under Trump, are you saying what if there's another Trump?  Bigger problem.

 

So, imagine how it will be under President Cruz.  Or President McConnell.  Or Pence.  Or Ryan.  

 

Heck, imagine President Bernie.  Or Pelosi.  (And I guarantee you, there's wingnuts on the D side who are a lot more wingnut than that.  And it remains to be seen if the D's will move in that direction.  I hope not.  But I can't deny the possibility.)  

 

Or, you want another example?  Remember how outraged the Dems were over "enhanced interrogations"?  

 

Remember how President Obama saved us from that?  Oh, that's right.  Now that he's the person with that power, I guess we don't need to get rid of it.  

[NoCalMike]

Would bringing back the Fairness Doctrine do anything to help?  That was sort of before my time, wasn't it about it making it mandatory for equal time regarding politics?  I know a lot of people say that when it went away coincides with the right wing pretty much taking over AM radio.  Like I said it was a bit before my time so I am not exactly sure if/how it would make any difference in 2018.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Imagine what a president Kasich would do?  

Unfortunately I'm afraid it'll be a long, long time (if ever) before someone like Kasich will be President.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So, imagine how it will be under President Cruz.  Or President McConnell.  Or Pence.  Or Ryan.  

 

Heck, imagine President Bernie.  Or Pelosi.  (And I guarantee you, there's wingnuts on the D side who are a lot more wingnut than that.  And it remains to be seen if the D's will move in that direction.  I hope not.  But I can't deny the possibility.)  

 

Or, you want another example?  Remember how outraged the Dems were over "enhanced interrogations"?  

 

Remember how President Obama saved us from that?  Oh, that's right.  Now that he's the person with that power, I guess we don't need to get rid of it.  

No. You're basically saying both sides will fine people for telling the truth if they don't like it?  I said it could be challenged, does that not matter?  Would you rather it be private sector like how PCI-DSS works?  Or are you saying that will fail as well?

 

Again, this comes back to whether Fox has the constitutional right to bold face lie, if they don't (which I don't believe they do, but needs to go to SC), how do you enforce that?

Edited May 16, 2018 by Renegade7

[skinsmarydu]

15 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

And of course, we are doing this analysis ourselves, but will he do such an analysis?  If his interests are contradictory, does he even realize that?  Can he be made to realize that, and if so, how?

I have a BIL that would rage about "welfare people", hated Barack for racial reasons (there's no other way to say it)...

Health issues caused him to have to sell the Pepperidge Farm bread route he had owned for decades, and he has to wait for the gubmint check every month. 

Still wails about "welfare people", has no idea that his disability check is a form of HELP from the tax dollars that he and the rest of us have paid in for HELP when we need it. 

I can't even deal with hearing this bull****, much less try to change his mind, makes my head hurt and I end up in a permanent facepalm. 

 

[No Excuses]

Will someone help Trump voters understand themselves first? 

 

Here is a prime example of how easy they are to con and manipulate:

 

 

They are consistently duped by

con artists like this. They have increasingly turned to conspiratorial outlets to satisfy their paranoia. 

[twa]

Candace was the CEO of MSNBC?

 

[No Excuses]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

Candace was the CEO of MSNBC?

 

 

She probably wouldn’t have turned that gig down for sure. 

 

Gotta respect the hustle. $$ is $$ conservative or liberal. DC is full of people like her.

Edited May 16, 2018 by No Excuses