Breitbart MUST be destroyed.

[NoahFence]

You clearly have no knowledge of the history of the press in the United States.

Well I know that kind of history needs to stay just that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hillary's own campaign emails. She tried to pull a McCaskill/Akin. Was this not obvious even before the email leaked? It should have been.

There were 3 names on that list, Trump being only one of them, clearly a preference for the most far right candidates.

This is hardly any different from Trump's regular comments in favor of Sanders. Just because Red-State interprets that email as "using Trump" that framing is a figment of the op-ed writer's imagination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a thread you started entitled "Breitbart MUST be destroyed," you're concerned that Trump is going to muzzle the press?

Calling Breitbart the press is a stretch. Does Trump's regular threats of suing the press not bother you? After all there was the dismantling of Gawker by lawsuit funded by another fat cat. So suing the press is a threat to free speech, is it not?

 

[Mike!]

How should we destroy them?

You nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Where have you been?

 

[Ziggurat]

I dunno. Ask the Breitbart/Mercer/Bannon stooges. That's Kellyanne's defense of Donnie, You'd be in jail, Trump. "You're taking him literally. Of course he didn't mean to just put her in jail, but to do it democratically."

No. We do not put people in jail democratically. We put people in jail through due process. So all you've done is shifted one question with no obvious answer (what's the "democratic" way to destroy Breitbart) to a question that obviously has no answer (what's the due process way to destroy Breitbart). You made your own position worse.

Thanks for playing, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Mmmmm.... sweet irony.

 

[Ziggurat]

There were 3 names on that list, Trump being only one of them, clearly a preference for the most far right candidates.

This is hardly any different from Trump's regular comments in favor of Sanders.

I never said it was different. But Noah seems to think it's different, since he thinks a Trump presidency would be an existential threat, but I doubt he feels the same about a Sanders presidency.

 

[Ziggurat]

Calling Breitbart the press is a stretch.

Not from a legal and constitutional standpoint.

Does Trump's regular threats of suing the press not bother you?

Doesn't really bother me, since he mostly bluffs, I doubt he could win any of his threatened suits, and none of the targets of his threats seem to be at all intimidated.

After all there was the dismantling of Gawker by lawsuit funded by another fat cat. So suing the press is a threat to free speech, is it not?

That depends very much on the nature of the suit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Best to just debunk and expose their lies.

Oh, look! Someone who actually thinks the remedy for bad speech is more speech!

Around here that's getting to be as rare as hen's teeth.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No. We do not put people in jail democratically. We put people in jail through due process. So all you've done is shifted one question with no obvious answer (what's the "democratic" way to destroy Breitbart) to a question that obviously has no answer (what's the due process way to destroy Breitbart). You made your own position worse.

No, you just didn't get the point. I think it's an absurd position. I was making fun of their own defense of the ferret-wearing creep. The fact that you didn't see it coming really can't be placed at my feet.

It was a set-up. Surely you should have learned by now not to walk in swinging when I toss out a looping right hook. I'm a southpaw. When you try to counter the fake right hook, you're going to catch the left uppercut.

Mmmmm.... sweet irony.

Yeah, I'd say. It was a set-up. You fell for it. Neener, neener, neener.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you just didn't get the point. I think it's an absurd position. I was making fun of their own defense of the ferret-wearing creep. The fact that you didn't see it coming really can't be placed at my feet.

It was a set-up. Surely you should have learned by now not to walk in swinging when I toss out a looping right hook. I'm a southpaw. When you try to counter the fake right hook, you're going to catch the left uppercut.




Yeah, I'd say. It was a set-up. You fell for it. Neener, neener, neener.

Oh, I get it. You think you're clever because you figured out how to do a tu quoque. I'm so impressed. You sure showed me.

 

[Roboramma]

Calling Breitbart the press is a stretch.

Not from a legal and constitutional standpoint.

I think the worry is that Trump will silence those who disagree with him, in which case that portion of the press that does agree with or support him will be allowed to go on doing so.

The issue then isn't whether or not Breitbart constitutes a member of the press, but rather how the press as a whole will be treated. Breitbart isn't "the press", it's a member of that class, and as such it can be treated differently from the press as a whole, even if that means being singled out to be left alone.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm sure she thought exactly that. But the point is, easier or not, Trump might still win. The odds aren't 0%. Hillary is willing to risk Trump being president. So again, what does that say about Hillary?

The odds of an asteroid hitting the earth aren't 0% either, but I'm more concerned about cancer.

Obviously she needs to weigh the chances of losing against the cost of losing. The cost of losing to a different candidate may be less than the cost of losing to Trump, but the chances of losing higher and it may, then, come out to be more reasonable to prefer Trump in that case.

This is true even if she has only the interests of the country in mind.

No, I don't think that she does, but we're talking about a matter of logic here.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, I get it. You think you're clever because you figured out how to do a tu quoque. I'm so impressed. You sure showed me.

You're welcome.

 

[Brainster]

I was not discussing the history of the press in the US nor how a lot was in the not all that distant past. Learned a lot about that while working toward my MLS. I was only comparing legitimate press and "press" of the yellow journalism (see, I really do not make this **** up) current type such as Breitbart and Faux/Fox news lies. Hope this helps.

Your appeal to authority is noted, but sorry, if you're trying to claim that Breitbart is not the press, your claim is rejected. And lots of other sites that are equally biased towards the Democrats (like the Huffington Post) also qualify. We are moving back to the days of yellow journalism, and I find it somewhat refreshing rather than the pretense of neutrality claimed by the legacy press.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The US might seriously benefit from a purely state- financed and run news outlet.

 

[MikeG]

The US might seriously benefit from a purely state- financed and run news outlet.

How do you think that would go down with the anti-gubmint conspiracy theorists?

 

[N0z]

DDOS?
I dunno.

You're wanting to stop free press, yet you complain about a leader that you "feel" will. Also, if the press is so bad -- why are you concerned that people are reading it? Wouldnt you want them to so they can see its so bad? Sounds more like... you dislike their opinions, and want to silence them.

 

[fuelair]

You're wanting to stop free press, yet you complain about a leader that you "feel" will. Also, if the press is so bad -- why are you concerned that people are reading it? Wouldnt you want them to so they can see its so bad? Sounds more like... you dislike their opinions, and want to silence them.

Only concern with the tools listening to /watching it (I doubt they read anything outside of very simple signs) and thinking it has some connection with reality. Of course I refer to -by example as there are many others- Fox, Breitfart, Limbaugh and all like them. Scum for deplorable scum.

 

[NoahFence]

Your appeal to authority is noted, but sorry, if you're trying to claim that Breitbart is not the press, your claim is rejected. And lots of other sites that are equally biased towards the Democrats (like the Huffington Post) also qualify. We are moving back to the days of yellow journalism, and I find it somewhat refreshing rather than the pretense of neutrality claimed by the legacy press.

You find rags that constantly lie refreshing?

Didn't see that coming....

 

[Ziggurat]

The odds of an asteroid hitting the earth aren't 0% either, but I'm more concerned about cancer.

In that case, then, there's no reason to be upset at Breitbart for backing Trump.

No, I don't think that she does, but we're talking about a matter of logic here.

That's sort of my point: Noah's logic is inconsistent. If the threat of a Trump presidency is really so great that Breitbart must be destroyed in retaliation, then Hillary should be condemned as well. If the threat of a Trump presidency is small enough that Hillary shouldn't be condemned, then there's no reason to destroy Breitbart in response.