Trump has never said anything nasty about David Pecker, the National Enquirer publisher, and self-proclaimed practitioner of "checkbook journalism" (a pair of words that make my skin crawl)-- even as Pecker gives highly damaging testimony.
Pecker has not said anything mean about Trump. Just reported on his crimes. Is Trump just sensitive to those who tease & insult him?
Why is he silent? We know it ain't that gag order. (The only ones gagging are all the judges scared to jail him)
@futurebird I'll believe Trump has committed a crime when he's convicted. And maybe not even then anymore. The left has been sperging out about "this time he's going down" for like a thousand times in the past 8 years that I don't believe shit they say anymore. And yes it's looking like political persecution. It doesn't look a damn thing like due process. Especially when the former vice president gets away with worse.
Which former vice president? And what did he do that was worse than charging groups of people to pretend to be electors and pressure Pence not to certify the election whilst sending an angry mob to disrupt the procedure?
@futurebird because every institution in this country is captured by the democrats. NPR just confessed that they were. Every social media site blocked and pulled any news outlet that reported on the laptop. Ya'll are so blind to the fact that the entire US has become your personal political "bubble".
@futurebird and personally I find the repeal of the Smith-Mundt to be the most heinous act a president ever perpetrated against the American people. Even more so than outright killing citizens. Which Obama is also guilty of.
Smith-Mundt only applies to government funded media. The majority of media people consume isn't government funded so how could easing regulations on this tiny sector of media have a large impact?
NPR is not very powerful or popular in the media landscape, that's exactly my point. Private cooperate media is what is most often consumed. Public media is irrelevant in the US.
Which might be a shame depending on your perspective.
So I don't see how a law about public media could be more consequential than say Citizens United... if you want to talk about decisions and laws that have ruined everything.
@futurebird and you still trust them?! No the Smith-Mundt act doesn't apply to all the examples I posted. It was yet another in the myriad of examples of why I don't trust them!
Blind trust in anything is naive and dangerous. Likewise if we choose to trust only those who agree with us we stand to learn nothing. And further, it's impossible to function without trusting some people and institutions, in some ways, some of the time.
I would trust, CNN, for example, to report about some topics but not others. There are some neat tools to help you do this. (which you also have to think about trusting) Have you looked at ground news?
@futurebird I think we can assume they still have a mutually beneficial agreement. And that, interestingly enough, Trump is actually scared of the Inquirer. Maybe because he knows lots of MAGA read it?
Add comment