The Right Side of the News

They aren't lying, you just have tio make everything the Right says into a lie like all leftists do. What you all "tell" me is just spin, I certainly could do with a lot less of that. I did answer you. I believe both, which I explained. He meant he knew him in the sense of having had enough contact to get a favorable impression of him, but in the sense of really knowing the guy in any depth he doesn't and is saying so now. Again, you make mountains of molehills. It really isn't hard to sort these things out. Trump is not a seasoned politician or he'd know better how to talk to people like you, but he's still got more of a businessman's mentality in which everybody is your best friend on first meeting but that doesn't mean you have been bosom buddies since kindergarten.

Yes. Yes they are. According to you they said Whitaker was 'next in line', and that's wrong, as I told you. That's impossible if you take what he said, one month apart, in context. One month ago he was trying to impress his Fox friends with his deep personal respect for Whitaker. Then, when things are going sideways on the appointment, he weasels away from Whitaker as fast as he can.Weasel words, weasel actions. Just like with Putin.

No, I am not confused, you are. The true fascists are the ones calling themselves anti-fascists as I said. And I am far from the only one saying this. I realize you have to make your way through a thicket of leftist spin to find right-wing commentary of the sort I've been listening to lately but most on my side of the fence agree that it's the Antifa brownshirts who are the fascists. They have the intolerance of those who disagree with them that characterizes fascists and the willingness to do harm to them, with the character assassination tactics that make "vermin" out of human beings and that sort of thing. The call to violence was made only too clear by that Antifa guy in the video I posted yesterday being interviewed by Tucker Carlson. If you represent anything they "think" is a threat to them, though you've merely expressed an opinion and are otherwise minding your own business, they can justfiy "defending" themselves against you, like by beating up someone wearing a MAGA hat, or people attending a right wing speaker on a campus, or scaring Tucker Carlson's wife and doing damage to his property. (And I do hope pictures of the damage to door and car will show up eventually). Yes it is the violence, but it is also the totalitarian intolerant mindset. See my signature. Reagan called it years ago. If fascism ever comes to America it will be on the liberal side. This insistence on the right wing orientation is a big smokescreen that can only mislead people. Suppression of criticism is certainly on the Left these days, even with violence, it is not on the Right, and racism is on the Left too, as Tucker Carlson keeps pointing out, it is NOT on the Right. The Left just keeps calling people on the Right racists with NO justification WHATEVER. WAKE UP. As I say above you are badly misled. Badly. The reverse is true. The Left won't let him. Right wing is maybe the only part that does fit, maybe. He is not an authoritarian, but the Left is. It's the Left that is willing to steal votes because they don't care about democracy they just want to run the show. We are getting news as a leftist blitz that shuts out right wing views and is even threatening to erase them from the internet, which has already happened though it's hard to prove. This is the media doing this, and they have as much power as the President or more when it comes to controlling information, which is really propaganda. Those on the Left are totalitarians. No, not ALL, and I'm sure there are many who don't know this is the main thrust of the Left but it is and they are tacitly supporting it. I know you don't see this and you think we are just inventing conspiracies that don't exist, but spend some time on my side of this for a change.\\And you are refusing to understand what he means by "nationalist" just as so many others are. He means he wants to support American interests. It's a way of saying he's an anti-globalist. He's our President after all so he considers himself to be working for American citizens. Guess what, that's his job. Obama was working for our enemies, he was not a nationalist and did not care one bit for Americans, that's why Trump won. A nationalist as Trump embodies it wants to enforce our immigration laws, wants to protect our jobs, wants to protect our borders, wants to protect our culture which is a melting pot of people from all over the world who want to be Americans with our constitutional mindset, which they don't have and won't have as long as you don't require them to come in legally and assimilate. He cares about Americans and American culture. Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world under his version of nationalism, but that has nothing to do with Trump's use of the term. And some people put the word "white" in front of "nationalist" to distort the idea further. Trump is no racist. He meant what he said about welcoming LEGAL immigrants because we need them. Political Correctness that calls him a racist and a fascist and a xenophobe is all LIES. WAKE UP.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, I'm the one who got it wrong about Whitaker being next in line, that was my fault, I wasn't getting it from the commentators. All they said was that he is qualified. I started listening to thse things when the election started, that's about one week now, I was not up on the Rosenstein flap and I'm still not sure enough of what was going on there to comment. The commentary I've heard has only said that Trump has the right to appoint the acting AG.Yeah he thought Whitaker was fine and then he changed his mind. Big deal. Yes you want it to be a big deal because you want to find fault with him however you can.

Have you noticed that the Right - and often you personally - are guilty of pretty much every accusation you throw at others ? You’d have to be blind to miss it.And, Tucker Carlson seems pretty racist to me, if these reports are accurate: wikipedia

Here's an example of censorship of the right from the left. Facebook deems the commentary of the duo Diamond and Silk to be "unsafe" because they are pro-Trump.

That's a far cry from your original claim: So, yes, "the president appoints an acting AG" is true as far as it goes. But you very well know there are constitutional constraints on that appointment, as well as many other appointments the president is allowed to make. The facts of this particular appointment matter in the larger context, which is why most experts are questioning this action by this president. Yes, yes it is a big deal. We expect a competent president to vet his appointments. And you very well know this is not his first nomination to go down in flames.

Obama never gave reporters any reason to be rude. It's absurd to suggest that left-of-center press is rude and right-of center press is polite. There is no such homogeneity on either side of the political spectrum.The common element is Trump. Reporters have to challenge his lies and misrepresentations in order to get at the truth. Wow, you must have lots of free time and a high tolerance for pain. I agree that the questions often reflected the position of the questioner, but when challenging a lie or misrepresentation this is unavoidable. If Trump doesn't like the way questions call attention to his lies and misrepresentations and thereby his character, then he should stop lying and misrepresenting. Can you be specific? I've heard that Obama didn't call on Fox News as often as other news outlets, but if true I do not approve, and wouldn't approve of Trump doing this, either. Even Nixon called on Dan Rather. I think it was pretty clear that, upset by the election results, he was trying to pick fights with the press, pretty easy given his overt hostility.It didn't have to be this way, but Trump was unable to put the acrimony of the campaign behind him. The day after he won the presidency he held a press conference and squandered his opportunity to start afresh and rebuild his relationship with the press. He opened by saying he respected all news organizations except Buzzfeed, but then he added, "As far as CNN going out of their way to build it up... It’s a disgrace what took place. It’s a disgrace, and I think they ought to apologize to start." So Jim Acosta tried to ask a question, and Trump replied, "Not you. Your organization is terrible." When Acosta persisted in trying to ask a question Trump added, "Quiet. Don’t be rude. Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question. I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news."So much for rebuilding a positive relationship with the press. Jim Acosta and all the other reporters who were abused by Trump (such as PBS's Yamiche Alcindor, a black reporter whose question Trump called racist when she asked about Trump declaring himself a nationalist) were just doing their jobs. Each has their own style and some are more aggressive than others. She wasn't accusing him of racism. There would be little point in that since Trump's racism is well known and of long-standing, dating back to the 1970's and his attempts to keep blacks out of his buildings in New York City, and to 1989 and his full page ads in all four of the city's major newspapers calling for the death penalty for the four black and one Hispanic kids arrested in the Central Park jogger rape case (though innocent they spent between 6 and 13 years behind bars; the actual rapist was eventually found through DNA evidence).This is Yamiche Alcindor's actual question:

quote:

---

Hi, Mr. President. On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying (Trump interrupts)...There are some people that say now the Republican party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?

---

This isn't an accusation of racism, though Trump's racism is a given. Ms. Alcindor is asking what Trump thinks about the possibility that his nationalist rhetoric is inciting white nationalists and leading some to believe that the Republican party supports them. Don't you think announcing that fact is encouraging to white nationalists, thereby worsening the racial problems in American? How is it in America's interest to widen racial divides? There can be little doubt that Trump *is* a racist. For people who believe America is a white country, nationalism is synonymous with white nationalism. Hence the question whether Trump's nationalist rhetoric was emboldening to white nationalists. What accusation? Her question was about Trump's nationalist rhetoric. He didn't like the question, so Trump did what he always does under such circumstances, he lashes out with false accusations to cause a distraction. Trump is killing his own presidency, he doesn't need any help. The migrant caravan is perhaps an "invasion" in a metaphorical sense, but not in any real sense. But Trump is treating it like a real invasion, as is evident by his calling troops to the border. The migrants are still 1300 miles away (they seem to be heading toward Tijuana), so the troops will have to wait a long time. At 30 miles per day the migrants won't reach the border until after Christmas. Again, Trump's racism is undeniable. This untruth is just more evidence that issuing accusations as a substitute for actual discussion is what you do. Of course there was substance to his question. He asked why the president was calling a ragtag migrant caravan fleeing danger and poverty an invasion. The American public has a right to know if the president has any justification for this blatant mischaracterization. Apparently not, because Trump resorted to the same ploy he always uses, lashing out with false accusations to distract attention. Well, you finally said something true. Trump is right about few things, but he is right when he calls himself an open book. He does little to nothing to hide his racism, xenophobia, misogynism, etc. But the video doesn't show migrants crashing over a wall. It doesn't show them crashing over anything. It shows migrants pushing on a high fence, and it gives no indication where or when or in what context the video is from. Given the number of times the Trump administration has misleadingly used images and videos, what gives you any confidence that that video shows migrants at the US border? Members of the caravan interviewed on the news say they plan to apply for asylum. Except for Trump's unsupported claims, what is there to indicate that they plan to illegally crash over walls. Is there anything Trump could say you wouldn't believe? That's because most news outlets are not Trump echo chambers, nor are they supportive of racist, nationalist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric. The news media covers every word Trump says - what's this censorship nonsense you're talking about? Have you ever thought of applying for a job in the White House Office of Communication? I provided you a transcript. Quote Acosta being hostile or partisan. Again, I provided you a transcript. Quote Acosta being hostile or partisan. You are very confused. Fascism is right-wing. You are, again, confusing tactics and politics. Few of the top people in the Trump administration are innocent. They're variously guilty of Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, hush money payments, possible concealment of financial malfeasance, violations of the emoluments clause, implementing family separations, damaging the environment and ignoring the human role in climate change, and abuse of office, to mention the more significant offenses.--Percy

Donald Trump was a lifelong Democrat and realistically only made the switch to a Republican when it benefited him as a political expediency. Now Democrats despise him and Republicans fawn over him.Demonization over Russia was pretty faux pas for Democrats in the past, because of their connection to Communism, and it was Republicans that excoriated the dreaded Reds in true McCarthyian paranoia. Now the opposite is true. Now Democrats use Russia as the perennial bogeyman and the Republicans kind of give it a pass and deny the collusion.The Left supported Kanye West because he was so critical of Dubya... now that he's completely lost his mind, Republicans with short memories now embrace him because he wears MAGA hats and the Democrats are quick to offer him up as a scapegoat.Roseanne Barr was raked across the coals by Republicans because she made light of the national anthem a number of years back. Now its the Democrats taking shots against her because of her calling someone black who wasn't... of course the actual reason is her affiliation with the Trump White House.Damn near every one of the #MeToo movement proponents were also Hilary supporters - even in spite of Bill Clinton being an actual womanizer, if not a died in the wool sexual predator.The list goes on... there's probably 30 more bizarre instances where essentially a 180 degree turn has been made.I guess what it really goes to show is that in politics, memories are very short and people's convictions only run deep if there's some political advantage to be gained.The whole lot of them are corruptible. The Left/Right paradigm is a false dichotomy.

It was not a complaint about style. It was a major scandal.

Are you saying Valerie Jarrett isn't black? She is. DNA testing indicated that Jarrett is of 49% European, 46% African, and 5% Native American descent.Valerie Jarrett - WikipediaAnd, the reason Roseanne was fired wasn't just that one tweet. I was at a taping last year, and there's so much more to the story than what's been generally reported.

The point of mentioning Sam Donaldson, and also Dan Rather, is that aggressive questioning by the White House press corps did not originate with Jim Acosta. Banning reporters for aggressive questioning *did* originate with Trump. This isn't a vote. I provided you videos and a transcript. If you can make a case that Acosta exhibited behavior so egregious that it warranted banning from the White House, go ahead. You can't count. It might appear to you that Acosta asked more than two questions because Trump interrupted him a number of times and Acosta's first question was fragmented across the interruptions. Acosta asked only two questions and received very little in the way of answers. One question was about Trump's characterization of the migrant caravan as an invasion, the other about possible indictments resulting from the Mueller investigation. The transcript is in Message 90. Well, then let me quote Trump words that were not appropriate or creditable:

quote:

---

(sarcastically) Here we go.
...
(sarcastically) Thank you for telling me that, I appreciate it.
...
Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN, and if you did it well your ratings would be much better.
...
That's enough. That's enough. That's enough. That's enough. That's enough. That's enough, put down the mic.
...
I'll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN.
...
You're a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way.
...
(sarcastically) You are, you are the best.
...
Just sit down, please. When you, when you report fake news...no. When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people.

---

These words seem neither appropriate or creditable for an American president. What was a bullying reaction was Trump ordering a reporter to sit down and not be allowed to ask his second question just because he didn't like the first one. Two days ago when you wrote this, no one had sued Trump. You were making things up. Again. CNN didn't announce that they'd filed suit until today, see Message 2605. As I pointed out in the very message you're replying to, there is legal precedent for protection of press credentials that says:

quote:

---

We further conclude that notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon First Amendment guarantees. Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process.

---

Yes, of course it was overblown, but an alt-right website saw fit to doctor the video to try to create a controversy. I provided you the transcript. If Acosta behaved in a way that justifies removing his press credentials you have yet to show it. What we do have is yet another example of the behavior and actions of Trump, in this case contempt for a free press and their first amendment rights, that are behind the many calls for his impeachment.--Percy

You're just issuing and repeating accusations without making any sense or offering any evidence.Your original point was that you object to Antifa tactics. We, too, object to Antifa tactics. We agree. What's the problem? You're again making an assertion with no evidence. What acts of violence is the "liberal left" condoning by their silence? You're again making an assertion with no evidence. In the case of the sole example you mentioned, the Antifa protest, we agree with you, and both CNN and the Washington Post registered their condemnation within a day. And concerning the harassing of conservatives in public places, many op-ed pieces have appeared in the press saying that that is not the right approach. What more do you want? You're again making an assertion with no evidence. Who in the press is justifying Antifa's violent actions or the harassment of public figures?--Percy

Except that it isn't fake news. It is merely news that Trump and Trump supporters don't like. As the article PaulK cited says (Growing criticism of Trump WW1 no-show), the British defense minister, Winston Churchill's grandson, former American diplomat Nicholas Burns, and Obama's deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, all criticized Trump for using rain as an excuse for not attending WWI commemoration services and the Paris Peace Forum. He was the only world leader who opted not to attend. The criticism actually happened and is true, and what's more seems well deserved.Are you ever going to provide an example of actual fake news? I have one. It would be Fox News reporting that the migrant caravan is filled with armed and dangerous men from MS-13 and is carrying diseases like smallpox (wiped out nearly 40 years ago) and leprosy.--Percy

I have to wonder why the number of followers is at all relevant. Trump does what he does, says what he says and inevitably it gets reported.Perhaps Faith means followers like Cesar Sayoc. It’s about the only way it makes sense.