you admit the censorship is a fantasy, and not reality, but is still problematic, in fantasy form, without ever becomming a reality.

now please make your post about how jim Acosta proves Trump is hitler reborn lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/20/fox-friends-host-rips-trump-over-border-chaos-irresponsible-syria-withdrawal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c4ae67e42f4e

fox and friends openly ripping Trump now. im sure that will change your NPC stance on cultists standing by trump no matter what

it's really a grey area. by constantly suggesting to his cult that critical outlets have to be censored, that they are the 'enemy of the people', publicly floating the idea to challenge their licence, and even threatening legal action, he's clearly testing the waters. he's exploring how his dogs react to such suggestions, and the vast majority are completely fine with it - otherwise you would have linked significant voices opposing his censorship ideas - and not establishment war shills being outraged because trump's transparent distraction (which also acts as a nice present to putin, erdogan, and assad) might hurt their bottom line as well...

regarding the treatment of acosta, the bad thing is not that they got rid of that moron for a while, it's the blatant lying and fabrication of an incident to justify it. sorry that you apparently can't distinguish between the two, or that your bar for acknowledging that as a concerning precedent would have to be a 'hitler reborn' (that godwin point looks great on a strawman btw) type of situation.

This post was edited by fender on Dec 20 2018 12:40pm

i found the "altering" that was done to be silly for the WH to get involved in, but looking at the timeline it's possible they didnt realize the one instance was sped up to make it look worse. either way in real time Acosta shouldn't have put his hands on her, and she shouldn't have tried to forcefully remove the mic from his hand. if i was to judge it i'd fire both involved and wash my hands of the whole thing.


as to the "testing the waters", ok maybe? but the only difference between "testing the waters" and "sabre rattling" is hindsight after one, both, or neither happen. so far we have almost zero instances of actual speech restrictions, so the idea that his tweets and speeches amount to actual speech restrictions is just a lie. you could say "just wait" but you might be saying that until 2024 when you're forced to pivot lazily to something like "i guess checks and balances work, thank god he couldnt get more than 2 terms or THEN it would have happened". in any case all you have is speculation, as a 1A proponent ill be first in line to condemn any actual actions. but i'll keep my panties untwisted when Trump's clearly just lying to his own base, you know that other thing you like to point out when it's convenient for you?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 20 2018 12:44pm

even if you go with the apologetic spin, chalking it up as pure incompetence and a complete lack of diligence to provide that breitbart video as evidence, the narrative they went with was still blatantly dishonest. i mean it's not like THEY judged the incident by the video, they were all there - they used the video to support a claim they all knew was ridiculous. i bet there was more physical contact when they all entered that room. the intern tried to grab the mic from acosta, and he then merely fended her reaching arm off. there was no aggression from him whatsoever. the incident clearly documents this administration's willingness to bend the truth and use any excuse to get rid of an inconvenient journalist - that doesn't have to make anyone 'hitler' in order to be worth criticising.

it's also quite interesting how easily you just outright dismiss threats against journalists, the intimidation attemts that many face at trump rallies for example, and also the massive erosion of trust in media (that has a SIGNIFICANTLY better track record when it comes to telling the truth than trump himself) in general. i don't know if you actually think that his attacks and rhetoric against critical outlets, his public floating of licence challenging and censorship ideas really mean nothing, or if you're just trying to disprove a misrepresentation of a claim i made, but making a third of the country comfortable with such ideas and pitting them against every outlet that dares to report critically about their dear leader, seems rather concerning. maybe even worse than that is when people like you, who aren't even part of his cult, try to play it down. principiis obsta.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45361665
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/boston-globe-death-threat-robert-chain-trump-press-enemy-people-a8515406.html
https://cpj.org/2018/10/cnn-mail-bomb-is-latest-case-of-attacks-and-threat.php

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/02/donald-trump-un-media-press-freedom-journalist-danger
https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/attacks-record-state-global-press-freedom-2017-2018

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/08/05/brian-stelter-journalists-receiving-death-threats-vpx.cnn
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/opinion/trump-fake-news-enemy.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/20/disconnect-between-president-trump-his-administration-freedom-press/?utm_term=.658e72a64f73

im not discounting or setting asside anything. you wasted a lot of time googling anecdotes.

im saying that the left is being hyperbolic about Trump's "attack on journalism" and using disingenuous comparisons that are historically ignorant. they are using emotional appeal through false equivalencies on a regular basis. none of that means trump isn't in an absolute sense anti-media, he's just ineffectual and largely all bark with little bite. basically sabre rattling, as i plainly said. my doggo at home "attacks" his stuffed animals and i've seen a police attack dog rip someone's hand off, both dogs attacking but scale matters. Trump's "attacks on the media" are basically all inappropriate incitement of vague violence and blustering shit talk. all your side has is "a man who is willing to do what Trump has done is obviously testing the waters and has more worse stuff planned". ok. well see. but im reasonable and waiting, you're assuming and unreasonable. you wont even respond reasonably to this, which has not actual arguable points. ive made it as bland as i can to prove you will kick and scream regardless of the position when i post at you. go ahead son, prove me wrong.

we dont even need to get into historical examples. Trump is routinely compared with Putin, Erdogan, Saudis, etc. when the two in context are incomparable in every sense that matters. the takeaway from all of this is that the US and it's system of checks and balances are the best form of govt there is and the best way to prevent damage. but that goes against the NPC script for a euro neckbeared tryhard commie doesnt it?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 20 2018 02:05pm

let me stop you right there, before you further devolve into immature name-calling, and lazy pivots:

those aren't just 'anecdotes'. if you actually read the articles, you'd realise that many mention a DEVELOPMENT, a TREND set under trump. journalist organisations are rightfully concerned, incidents are increasing - and to an educated person that can hardly be a surprise given trump's rhetoric singling out reporters and outlets, and his 'enemy of the people' narrative. so your little 'but it's not as bad as the left claims' objection is merely a transparent attempt to shift the topic of the conversation. yes, he might be incompetent and ineffectual in many different ways, but messaging to his base (and apparently way beyond) is one of the few things he does almost to 'perfection', with propaganda-like qualities (emotional and manipulative messaging, over-simplification, repetition...)

you claim you're not discounting anything, yet you're in full deflection mode: introducing comparisons i never made (to putin and erdogan) in order to support your 'everything short of dictators is just fine' line of argument, making ridiculously obvious statements that were never contested in the first place (the one about checks and balances), and generally try every dishonest tactic in the book to downplay his attacks on the press.

She should have tackled him and punched him in the head until he gave it up

if my dog humps his toy 3 times this week and 7 times next week it is an alarming and increasing trend to some, to others it's still a dog humping a toy tho.

you're not listening, no surprise there. trump's actions are still overplayed and don't rise to the level of the authoritarian dictator the left makes him out to be. you can deny this, and look silly, or admit people are being too hyperbolic, and i might even respect you for it.

i say trump does and says stupid shit, that his WH mishandled the Acosta thing, that he attacks the press in an immature way. but i go so far as to say he's not literally hitler, even though some people claim his moves are analagous to Hitler's rise of power for emotional appeal, and all of a sudden i'm "in full deflection mode".

its funny, i keep doing this thing where the content of my posts is agreeable to your viewpoint, i take care to offer concessions and not strawman, but i pepper in a few insults. without fail you strawman me in return because of the insults. ive been doing it for a few responses and selectively for months just to test you, i predicted your responses perfectly of course. NPCs are easy to read. for instance i said im not discounting, which just means i factored them in and came out with a different answer at the end of the equation. but the mere thought of me having actually countered your argument before you made it is unthinkable.



here is just an easy to pick out strawman. ive made plenty of concessions on trump behavior being unacceptable, stated so outright multiple times, and said his WH was being silly. then u claim in the face of all of this i said it's fine. this is because you're a liar. next you'll pivot to "knowing my true intent" and "reading between the lines". its what you do each time you're caught lying outright. so again, prove me wrong. admit that i said it's not ok but at the same time not comparable to Putin. because that's what i said. and you know it. you have a real chance here to prove you're capable of admitting when you're wrong if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar. or prove both hte lefties and the righties of the subforum right. stay on the Ghot path and get relegated to posting only photos in one thread because so many people take the piss out of all your posts. maybe that's what you want tho. who can say.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 20 2018 03:24pm

you just can't stay on topic, can you? you just have to share your weird delusions and kitchen sink psychology attempts...

i specifically addressed the main pivots you now claim i did not 'listen' to, exposing them as such:
i never claimed ANY of the things you insist 'the left' claims. i never claimed or even suggested he was as bad as putin or edogan. YOU are the one who introduced them, quite obviously to play down trump's actions and rhetoric by comparison. YOU are the one who repeatedly brought up hitler concerning the acosta case - i specifically addressed that, explaining to you that someone does not have to be hitler to be worth criticising.

you rationalise, sugarcoat, deflect, and play down trump's actions - but a dog humping its toy is not a fitting analogy for threats against journalists. you're being dismissive of a very serious issue, that is a direct result of trump's rhetoric, yet again - and you probably don't even realise it. can't wait for your spin on that one to be honest.

if you're not willing to admit that trump's anti critical media narratives and censorship fantasies are dangerous and concerning, ok - but at least don't be so dishonest to claim you did - because that's simply not true. all you did was make flimsy 'b-b-but he's not hitler, a-a-and not as bad as the evil left claims' excuses. what a low bar to cross to make you defend him...

concerning, yes. and its being checked. dangerous, no, its being checked. trump hasnt done anything successfully that's causing danger at the level of an authoritarian that makes it notable. the entirity of my point is that he's not the authoritarian he's made out to be. of course you see this as downplaying, because you think he's a dangerous authoritarian. u can try and strawman me as a liar, but at least i regonize its just the impasse of our disagreement on trump not being a literal authoritarian. you can again lie and say you haven't compared trump to putin but that just gives me a hearty belly laugh.

ive been making outlandish comparisons to be funny by mocking the hyperbolic left (my entire point), just because you didnt laugh doesnt mean im attempting to downplay trump. im vocally critical of the guy 10 times a day, but each time it behooves you to ignore this you do. everyone's a cultist apologist trump supporter when you need them to be. the truth you fail to recognize thread after thread after thread is we're equally critical of trump we're just not equally hyperbolic.