• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Breitbart MUST be destroyed.

acbytesla said:
That in fact would be dumb. One, it would seem petty to the world and two, would deprive him of the majority of media outlets. Didn't you see The Godfather? What does the Don tell Michael about how to deal with his enemies?

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Click to expand...
For decades we've been treated with the same media bias that constantly undermines the republican. It serves no purpose to invite the left. Oh sure the libs will complain and stomp their feet, but who really cares.
 
logger said:
For decades we've been treated with the same media bias that constantly undermines the republican. It serves no purpose to invite the left. Oh sure the libs will complain and stomp their feet, but who really cares.
Click to expand...

You really have a bizarre sense of reality. Is that why Republicans have held the White House 20 of the last 36 years and have controlled most of Congress since 1994?

This idea of a liberal media has been and has aways been a farce. The overwhelming concern of the media is the same as all businesses and that is to make money. And they do that by selling advertising. And I'm sorry that Trump is not getting much positive coverage. But you can hardly blame the media for that. Sex sells and it sells pretty much better than anything else.

Say what you want about this election, the truth is Trump got the coverage he asked, no demanded. Every day he said something crazy, so Trump led the news. Whether it was Trump calling Mexicans rapists and suggesting that a judge of Mexican descent could not act fairly or calling for a ban on Muslims to suggesting that we torture suspects and kill their families. His followers loved that crap, the rest of us not so much.

Nobody made Trump attack a Gold Star family or mock a handicapped reporter. Nobody made him call Miss Universe Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping. Nobody forced him to say he could do anything including grabbing a woman's pussy.

But if you don't think that constitutes news, you should think again. What Republicans seem to want from the news is NOT the truth. They don't want to hear that climate change poses a serious threat to the planet or about other environmental hazzards. They close their eyes to evolution as well as the human nature of people different than them.

Please, tell me what is so appealing about a media that ignores the facts and only tells you what you want to hear.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
"He" Bannon, or "it" Breitbart.
Click to expand...

If "he" is Bannon, do "we"(whoever that is) need to destroy Bannon? Do we think the Mercers won't just upgrade Hannity v. 3.1 or Coulter, who'd love to have her mean-assed self a media empire.

Discredit Breitbart... as a source. If right-wing crazies want to read right-wing crazy news, that's up to them. I read it 'cuz I want to see what that element is up to. I also read The Conservative Tree House. And American Conservative. And Vdare. And watch Fox. And I'll watch Trumpbart Network when it comes along.

Rip 'em apart. I do whenever I get the chance. "Destroy them" figuratively by the strength of your logic and evidence of their lies or skullduggery.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take it that you fervently bleeve that it is patently unfair to cheer when the opposition slots bumbling, orange nincompoops against you?

Something is really wrong with you, to think thusly.
 
trvlr2 said:
I take it that you fervently bleeve that it is patently unfair to cheer when the opposition slots bumbling, orange nincompoops against you?

Something is really wrong with you, to think thusly.
Click to expand...

You have completely misunderstood my entire point.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bannon is trying to get Trump elected. Is it your contention that Trump, if elected, would destroy the country?
Click to expand...

Pretty close to it. If not him, then the next one, because.... witness the below post.

When Trump trashes the economy, stacks the Supreme Court, gets us into a five-sided shooting war with anyone who pisses him off and achieves zero to "bring back the imaginary America the paleos dream of", do you think they're going to say "Well, it was a good fight, but I guess we should return to some nominally sane policies and stop fighting progress." Not a chance.

Again, lookit the below. The anti-Americans on the right will continue their mantra, "Well, he wasn't right wing/authoritarian enough. Maybe we need to try what General Coulter is suggesting. We need us a benevolent dictator who won't broke interference from these softies."

This election is the chance to halt this movement in its tracks. Let the crazies bunker down for the coming Armageddon. Return the GOP to sanity-based politics instead of promoting fear and hatred.

logger said:
Lol, hilarious.

If Trump is elected I'd like to see him do some different things with the press core and press room. Only conservative internet newsy's like Brietbart and others should be allowed.

No MSM types at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the educational opportunity. Are you sure simply banning them is sufficient. You should examine the system here. The press is free to operate and report on everything... as long as their owners sign-off in their license applications on a loyalty pledge to not criticize the king, queen, princes, princesses, their friends, the military, the police, or whatever the PM and his ruling junta deem to be of importance to "bringing happiness to the people".
 
CapelDodger said:
Collective shunning. It's a bitch.
Click to expand...

Provided it's voluntary, that sounds more like a free market destruction than a democratic destruction, though I suppose this is a semantic objection. But in any case, it's unlikely to work any better than the Hobby Lobby or Chick fil-A boycott attempts.
 
Ziggurat said:
Concentration camps? Seriously? Yeah, that's not a rational fear. And I can't reason you out of it, because you weren't reasoned into it.
Click to expand...

Not a rational fear? Why? Simply because he isn't arguing for it now? He's inflaming his base. How do I know where it will stop? It's a rational fear when I already know he's inflamed a racist base larger than I thought possible. As I pointed out I don't consider those things to be guarantees, but I consider them worth consideration and worth preventing. In the face of evidence that the population has responded to racist demagogue more than I would have thought possible, how is it not rational to fear that I might be even more wrong than I suspected?

And you were claiming that Hillary, working against Trump, is somehow equivalent to Bannon/Breitbart working for Trump. Get back to the rationality of that please.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Argument by internet troll? Yeah, that's not even slightly convincing.
Click to expand...

Trolls, plural. Thousands and thousands of them, perhaps representing millions of deplorables (that half of Trump's supporters who qualify represents about thirty million).
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Not a rational fear? Why? Simply because he isn't arguing for it now?
Click to expand...

That's part of it, yes.

He's inflaming his base. How do I know where it will stop?
Click to expand...

All politicians inflame their base. It's how the game works. Why is Trump fundamentally different? Because this time you don't like his base?

It's a rational fear when I already know he's inflamed a racist base larger than I thought possible.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, that doesn't make it rational. That just means you don't understand the situation. And that's precisely the circumstances under which you are most likely to make irrational assumptions.

As I pointed out I don't consider those things to be guarantees, but I consider them worth consideration and worth preventing.
Click to expand...

And yet, Hillary thought they were worth risking in order to further her personal ambition.

In the face of evidence that the population has responded to racist demagogue more than I would have thought possible, how is it not rational to fear that I might be even more wrong than I suspected?
Click to expand...

Because most people haven't responded in this manner. Plus, even more importantly, the state hasn't responded in this manner. Trump cannot ultimately do what he wants to do. Congress isn't really with him (and won't be even if it stays Republican), his base isn't influential with the rest of the populace (what happens in the urban centers affects the rest of the country, but not much the other way around), and the bureaucracy of government is actively hostile to him. Government employees are going to try to thwart him even on the normal stuff. A rational examination of the issue shows that, above all, Trump is likely to be an ineffective president.

And you were claiming that Hillary, working against Trump
Click to expand...

But she wasn't. That's the point. In the primaries, she was helping him.
 
If you consider Trump's personality, things could get very ugly if all of this plans are thwarted by Congress: he might do some serious off-the-reservation executive orders, just to prove to himself and the world that he is in charge of something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom