"he" is Trump. He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do. (How refreshing!) The people are sick and tired of the abusively biased and corrupt media. Undermining the media is a good thing. The media are part of the "ruling establishment." The media are at least 1/2 responsible for the mess we are in.

Good to see your support of the first amendment remains as strong as ever:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(source)

Oh, "45" is not Congress so POTUS can issue an EO ending freedom of the press without there being a problem. Cool. Now I understand why you want to limit SCOTUS.

He's not interfering with the freedom of the press.

Are you arguing that undermining is not interference?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How many vile symbols here?

How many vile symbols here?

How many vile symbols here?

How many vile symbols here?


How about?

Or is this what you think?

---

He's not interfering with the freedom of the press.

What?
I have seen press conferences where Trump explisity have been saying to some of the journalists trying to ask questions.
"Not you, Next please".
"Not you, Next please".
Who would believe this?
In the US...

He's not interfering with the freedom of the press.

What?
I have seen press conferences where Trump explisity have been saying to some of the journalists trying to ask questions.
"Not you, Next please".
"Not you, Next please".
Who would believe this?
In the US...

Maybe he'll listen to you, janne. He sure as heck won't give any of the rest of the time of day. We're all pinkies to him.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

How many vile symbols here?

Well asked.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Are you arguing that undermining is not interference?

No. You're getting into semantics. The press remains free. They are free to observe and print what ever they want. They are free to ask questions. If they have a history of misquoting or quoting out of context, then who ever gets misquoted or taken out of context has a right to stop answering questions from those who've demonstrated they've been dishonest in the past--like CNN and MSNBC.

I'm all for undermining/interfering with liars.

By the way, Obama signed into law, along with the last defense budget bill, the beginnings of the "ministry of truth." THAT would actually start eroding "freedom of the press" if implemented. Of course, you didn't see that in the press because most press think it would help them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

No? Does that mean you are saying that undermining is interference, and thus "45" is interfering with freedom of the press by undermining the media?

If you're all for undermining/interfering with liars, why not start with "45"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nobody's reading what I'm writing.

And you have a right to do that.

Am I saying my freedom of speech/press if being violated?



You're saying he's lying (and you're saying it like you mean it). I'm saying the press is lying (and I mean it). How can we tell who's telling the truth?

I read what you wrote, asked a question about it, your answer appeared to suggest that you believe that undermining was interference, so I asked again for clarification.

"45" has said "The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years", he said the same while on the campaign trail. It's a lie. How many do you want?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How about?

Or is this what you think?

With a good sword you can behead anything.
Yes. Even belives and coexistance.
Or like we say in Sweden.
"Med ett just järnrör kan man slå världen med häpnad"
translation
Even our Members of the Parlaiment use steel pipes.

Nobody's reading what I'm writing.

And you have a right to do that.

Am I saying my freedom of speech/press if being violated?



You're saying he's lying (and you're saying it like you mean it). I'm saying the press is lying (and I mean it). How can we tell who's telling the truth?

I read what you wrote, asked a question about it, your answer appeared to suggest that you believe that undermining was interference, so I asked again for clarification.

"45" has said "The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years", he said the same while on the campaign trail. It's a lie. How many do you want?

You're demonstrating an Ayers/Alinsky tactic.... redirection.

Maybe he was referring to Chicago.

When are you going to open your eyes and ears. The statement was "our country" not "Chicago".

It is you that is trying the Trump ploy of misdirection and attempting to scare people.

---

Nobody's reading what I'm writing.

And you have a right to do that.

Am I saying my freedom of speech/press if being violated?



You're saying he's lying (and you're saying it like you mean it). I'm saying the press is lying (and I mean it). How can we tell who's telling the truth?

I read what you wrote, asked a question about it, your answer appeared to suggest that you believe that undermining was interference, so I asked again for clarification.

"45" has said "The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years", he said the same while on the campaign trail. It's a lie. How many do you want?

You're demonstrating an Ayers/Alinsky tactic.... redirection.

Maybe he was referring to Chicago.

Even if he was, it would still be a lie. Murder rate in 2016 was the highest 19 years, not 47.

You made a statement, I asked a question, you answered and I asked for clarification. You then accuse me of misdirection. "45" said the murder rate in Philadelphia was "terribly increasing", it was down in 2016 compared to 2015, and 2016 had the 3rd lowest number of murders in Philadelphia since 1990. Another lie. I ask again, how many do you want?

"I'm all for undermining/interfering with liars.", and when I show you that this is untrue in respect of one prolific source of lies, it's redirection? Guy, you toss around words like "misdirection" and "semantics" as if they support what you write, they don't.

Let's go back to your source though:

BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job."

Is it clear that BRZEZINSKI is saying that it's the media's job to control what people think? Why do you believe that in this case the "that" refers to the very last thing in the previous sentence? Couldn't BRZEZINSKI be referring to undermining the messaging of government (when that messaging is comprised of made up facts)? Do you believe it is the role of POTUS to "control exactly what people think"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Even if he was, it would still be a lie. Murder rate in 2016 was the highest 19 years, not 47.

Doesn't speak well for one of obama's co-conspirators.

Sorry, what? "45" lies, and lies about his lying, and the best you have is that? Your support of a liar shows that you lied too, as you are clearly not for undermining liars.

BRZEZINSKI: "Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job."

Is it clear that BRZEZINSKI is saying that it's the media's job to control what people think? Why do you believe that in this case the "that" refers to the very last thing in the previous sentence? Couldn't BRZEZINSKI be referring to undermining the messaging of government (when that messaging is comprised of made up facts)? Do you believe it is the role of POTUS to "control exactly what people think"?

You're struggling to save face. Next thing we'll be debating is the meaning of "is." I'll drop it.

So the only interpretation of Brzezinski's words is the one you arrived at, and you are not concerned by the comment about what "45" appears to be attempting to do?

"45" says country and you think he might mean "Chicago" (because, clearly, the two are very similar), though Brzezinski says "that" and can only mean one thing (the worst possible interpretation). You are nothing but consistent in your inconsistency Guy.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How many vile symbols here?

Well asked.

Unfortunately ignored or perhaps it says more that way about how genuine the howls were.

---

Here's an objectionable symbol/avatar:


(and Guy, maybe if there was *any* freaking national left-wing radio stations, people would find something with a lot more value than Rush to listen to... But big money and conservative interests have been able to make sure no liberal programs break out on to talk radio these days- another reason I don't buy the idea that media is dominated by liberals...)

---

#resist

Here's an objectionable symbol/avatar:

doctor my eyes

(and Guy, maybe if there was *any* freaking national left-wing radio stations, people would find something with a lot more value than Rush to listen to... But big money and conservative interests have been able to make sure no liberal programs break out on to talk radio these days- another reason I don't buy the idea that media is dominated by liberals...)

Actually it could be liberals have a life to live and don't sit around a radio or idiot box all day long and have to be spoon fed claptrap 24/7/365 -- they can't sell commercials to a nonexistent audience!

---