When you feel the need to spew hyperbole rhetoric to make your point means you point is pointless If you have a problem with any of Trumps agenda lets hear it but the constant Nazi comparisons makes you argument nothing but the whining's of a sore loser
Most of the liberal media is owned by corporation conglomerates which make their money not on the media outlets they own but on the parent companies for example CNN is owned by Time Warner the big cable company provider. Time Warner makes their money being a cable provider not on CNN Now that being said and proven these corporate conglomerates use their media outlets not to make a profit but to mold public opinion to create narratives for political favors from the party they aligned themselves with
This speech sounds pretty Hitlerish to me. Take a breath Frank The forgotten men and women in our country will forgotten no more Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.
Honestly? The why is because the press is human, and it is subject to human faults. It's the same with all of our institutions. They are all run by human beings. It is a hard thing to continuously and unfailingly hold to very high ethical standards. When one gives in to arrogance and hubris, one of the first casualties is ethics. To answer your question, I think news organizations are run by strong-willed people with strong opinions. The hard part for them is to separate their own personal opinions from the professional side, and, unfortunately, we political observers can see that they don't. They don't even try anymore it seems. Where I see it most is in what they don't report, not in what they do report. You can't accuse them of direct lying when they simply don't report something, and so that is the preferred way to influence and play politics. The press should be held to the highest possible standards of impartiality. We expect that from judges and police. We even exercise it ourselves in our daily lives in many ways. There is no reason we can't expect it from the press too. Anyways, it doesn't bother me one little bit that we now appear to have an administration that is going to hold their feet to the fire. They deserve it. They need it! I find it refreshing, not terrifying.
What a really stupid message and having no clue of history. Besides, most young people on the left such as protesters know nothing about Hitler and few could even answer who the USA fought in WWII. Who is modern day Hitler in the USA? Obama. He just did something no president in USA history ever did. Ordered the USA military into Poland, just like Hitler.
Great remark -- the OP is hanging our his own brainwash for all to see and doesn't recognize it. Maybe he should look in the mirror and think back to where it all began.
So basically, classic free markets forces, run via capitalism. Done to fit some higher agenda. I don't see how we can hold them to some higher standard, they are corporate entities. So why the R party, being more friendly towards corporations, not friendly with the corporations that have media outlets? Judges and police are gov't employees. So is the solution more NPR and Public TV? I mostly listen to local NPR stations. IMO, they prevent a fair and both sides of arguments.
I know of no way to hold the press to high standards except that the public may choose to simply not tune in. And, if the press wants to continue to act as political mouthpieces instead of news organizations, I think it is perfectly within the rights of political people - like the president, for example - to attack them. When two fighters enter the ring in a pro boxing match, there is always a third person in the ring - the referee. That guy is supposed to be fair to both sides and completely impartial. That's how the press should be - scrupulously. You don't see the boxing referee start sucker punching one of the fighters because he's on the side of the other fighter, do you? What would we say about a referee that did that? Well, one thing we would say is that the fighter the referee punched would have every right to punch the referee right back. Do you know what would be interesting? If CNN apologized to its audience for its past behavior and publicly vowed to hold itself to the highest ethical standards of good journalism and impartiality in reporting. And I mean they really meant it, and they sort of "cleaned house" and started over with a true commitment to creating a new news organization. And then they really did it. Personally, I think it would be a winner. I think their ratings would go up a lot. I think it would be great from a business standpoint, and I think the organization could take pride in itself. Ha! What a dreamer I am sometimes ...
Cable news may be a thing of the past in a generation or so. With the last 2 generations basically growing up on social media, most information is being got that way. And then people are grouping together and following only their narrow minded views. Look at all the news type blogs that popped up in the last decade. Mostly spewing stuff to a targeted group. Most of the 20 and 30 somethings have rarely watched network news.
If you think the point I am making here is meaningless... ...you are helping me to make my point. And it is far from meaningless. - - - Updated - - - Okay. But don't be surprised, as where the Germans of the early 1930's, if it doesn't work out the way you think it will.
Think the militia stand offs of the 1980's and 1990's. They fought the government but it failed in the end. The violence from those actions have helped people conclude the government is out to get them, that it's corrupt, that it's not worth being part of anymore. That's what I was going for. Maybe so, but I'm hoping that he sees reason. - - - Updated - - - I'm not sure what you mean by this. - - - Updated - - - I already have and am continuing. Trump is no Hitler. Cite a better example than Hitler.
One thing I think you seem to forget Frank, in order for Trump to go Hitler on us (ridiculous claim) he would need to have full support of the military, not gonna happen. And there are over 300 million firearms in the US one of the main reasons we haven't been militarily invaded yet. Look at this stat Frank, seems people were more afraid of Obama . The first year of Barack Obama's presidency was an inflection point: It marked the first time that the number of firearms in circulation surpassed the total U.S. population. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.cbd60c80cb33
the Germans were completely poverty stricken and unarmed. We have mobility, communication, and guns. Martial law cannot be declared nationwide, for more than a very few days, cause if that were to happen, foreign investors would pull out of the $, which would collapse the $ and we'd descend into complete chaos, millions would be dead inside of a month. So the powers that be will never risk declaring martial law, and if they tried doing so, we have the means to easily evade them/resist them. we have off road bikes, night vision, soft armor, concealable autorifles, subsonic ammo, silencers, etc.So we can easily make for 1000's of cop/troop deaths per day. No group of thugs working for Big bro will stand up to such a threat. We can always, over a period of days, follow them home, and once we have that info on half a dozen of them (per resistor) , post it on the Net. We know where they work, what they drive, how they dress. Let's see how THEY like having armed men showing up at their homes!
Germans were literally starving to death with blockades on their ports. This is an act of war,officially declared MARCH 24TH 1933 front page news. "JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY" The Germans didn't buy into anything,they knew full well who the enemy was. I suppose ,for all those calling Hitler evil,that you have a better plan than starving to death? Perhaps roll over and die? For all the misery Jewry brought on Germany,and with the Jew Merkel, still is trying to destroy Germany...The Nazis only imposed a 24 hour boycott on all Jewish businesses. [video=youtube;2BXlSZE2X90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BXlSZE2X90[/video] It was the Jewish communists that were the evil bunch,Hitler was nothing special,just another in a long line of leaders who had to kick Jews out for usury,undermining society,back stabbing,treachery,conspiring with the enemy,ect This after Germany had been so open armed to Jews. Now the Jews are doing the same to the U.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4xqUvUqy-4
Oh, I see what you are saying. Adolf Hitler made Germany great again...and Donald Trump will make America great again. Jeez...why didn't I think of that. Here are some pictures of Berlin. This one is before Hitler made Germany great again: This one is after Hitler made Germany great again:
Apparently, eight years of a king who dreamed of being a leftist dictator for life made people want to try something different. We'll see how it goes.
You didn't draw parallels to Obama and Hitler and there certainly were, you haven't drawn parallels Bruening Clinton and Hitler and there certainly are there as well. Most people didn't want a treasonous screeching witch for president. That's why trump won. And the socialist candidate (Hitler actually was a socialist) didn't beat hillary. It isn't being douped, it's having to pick the lesser of two evils. The economy has been slowly weakening the past couple of years. But we are no where near the state Germany was when they elected Hitler. The mark was worthless. 104,000 were required to buy a loaf of bread. You don't understand the first thing about Hitler's election the conditions that put him there, or what party he was most like in the United States. I get that you dint like Trump, i think he's a pretty bad choice for president. But given who we had to vote for he was the lesser of two evils. And in four years we get to try again.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you object to what I have said, quote what I said (link to it) and I will comment. Hitler was NOT a socialist. It IS being duped...but I can understand why anyone who actually voted for Donald Trump would want to make it seem he/she was doing so because of "choosing between two evils." So what? You are not the judge of what I know or do not know. Considering some of the things you are saying about Hitler...you should be the last one to question what I know about Hitler. Whatever. I certainly think Donald Trump is a terrible choice. I will agree with that.
"My country" would be a meaningless image if it didn't have controls and borders. The neo-facism card is as overplayed as the "fake news" card. America went to left looking for change and Obama didn't deliver, so it had no choice but to go to the right. These things sort themselves out over time.
So do I. And for the people around the world who are not asking why...I gotta wonder why they are not. We are idiots to be allowing this to happen to us.
I know about presidential executive orders but there has to be some checks and balances = I mean the idiot has just made it impossible for FLIGHT CREWS to land in America - what does he think all Muslims are "**********s" and "camel riders"? On his list on who he did NOT include was the largest Muslim country in the world - Indonesia. And his brain washed slaves cannot even see that this is half baked ill considered idiocy
Yes Hitler was a socialist. It isn't. Poeple only get one vote. There were only two candidates to vote for. Trump didn't make it seem like he was the lesser of two evils. The democrats and hillary did and are still doing currently. Do you know why Hitler was elected? I'm just going by what I read, and your OP was incredibly ignorant, and you saying "Duh um..so...um what" to the entire history leading up to the Nazi rise to power is profoundly ignorant. I absolutely can judge the things you say as ignorant. What have I said that was wrong? Do you know why the people of Germany elected Hitler? Oh, no wait...you don't think it matters. You just want to day ensure you don't agree with is Hitler. Compared to the treasonous criminal he ran against he was better and the abeyance poeple thought so too. Why doesn't the Democrat party prosecute her? They might win the next election if they showed the slightest bit of integrity.
