If you showed me a photo of the panel before they started talking, that's the guy I would have down as the biggest Trumper.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
If you showed me a photo of the panel before they started talking, that's the guy I would have down as the biggest Trumper.
I wouldn't say that's totally accurate. She pushed back on some things. On other things, she made a quick comment that came off more like she just wanted to get something on a transcript rather than actually challenging him. And on others, she let his lies completely go unchallenged or just moved on to another question.
She absolutely should have challenged him harder on some of the election fraud comments and on the sexual assault civil conviction where he went on mocking the victim. Just off the top of my head, Trump claimed his policies led to $1.87 gas prices whereas under Biden gas was $7-8. That was not true and didn't get challenged. Trump tried to explain away his deposition with a huge lie by claiming he said, "women let stars grab them by the pussy" which went unchallenged despite the fact we have video of the deposition that proves that was a lie. And on abortion, he said people were killing newborns sometimes after they were born which went unchallenged. There were more details as well.
She didn't do a bad job but she could have done better. Maybe that was the fault of CNN executives not setting her up to be as successful as possible. But the end result was not the best a journalist focused on truth could have done.
Just because it was the GOP primaries doesn't mean they had to stack it with so many dedicated Trump supporters. They could have had some more independents that vote in GOP primaries or supporters of De Santis or non-Trump supporting Republicans. Most of the questions were from people who voted for Trump.
Could be wrong but as far as I'm aware a change to the voting age would not require an amendment and even if it did it would also require 3/4 of States to approve it - like guns, it would never happen
In some States you have to be a registered with the relevant party to vote in a primary, they were invited as Republicans, they weren't invited as Trump fanboys, and if they were prior asked who they supported do you think they would have told the truth?
I can guarantee Trump wouldn't agree to do a live interview like this unless it was filled with his base in the crowd. He knows how to play them up. Any sort of boos and he would have crumbled (you can tell it killed him when that Nationals baseball crowd (?) boo'd him in 2020). He always has to have that home field advantage and CNN gave it to him on a silver platter. In the end, CNN's owners are billionnaires, and the only one thing Trump was able to do with full republican congress was a rich tax cut. So he's a useful idiot for them. Not to mention the ratings increase from him being in the WH.
Yep. I'm sure it was pre-negotiated who would be in the audience because Trump thought he could put on a show. Little did he know he would wind up further incriminating himself to the prosecutors who were tuned in on TV.
It's not a state-specific program though. It's national. Anyway, I'm sure it was some BS like mentioned above, Trump probably insisted on stacking the crowd to Trump voters not even a representative selection of people identifying as GOP or conservative. All in all, it Collins didn't do a bad job but you'd like to see better from a national news network (although not surprising this was the best we got).
Because he's a fecking moron. He's not only as thick as pig shit, he's also so arrogant he thinks he can say or do anything he wants with absolutely no consequences. After all he's pretty much lied, conned, stole, raped, and done whatever the feck he wants his whole life. He spent a whole Presidency ignoring all rules and enriching himself and his friends and family. Why the feck should he think it would be any different now?
Last edited:
Because nothing will happen to him anyway. He'll die a rich free man, in the books of history and laughing to all of us
Yes you do, all sides, or shades of opinion have an equal right, that's what a free press means. Lies are told everyday in various forms of media, but that is different to having equal exposure.
That's not what a free press means at all. A free press means the press (media today) is free from government control and influence. It should ideally mean the news networks are not just serving the two political parties but serving the public and the truth, but of course in television media, many fall short of the ideal. It has absolutely nothing to do with everything single opinion having an equal right to airtime in the press. So you are 100% wrong. A free press is under no obligation to publish every opinion and give that opinion airtime or equal airtime.
The fact that some media lies is a different issue and I would say aspects of the media that lie all the time like Fox or especially the smaller right-wing outlets are not even trying to be the ideal of the free press either. They are just right-wing propaganda networks.
He will die in prison. Unless of course all the big macs take care of him before he gets there.
Why is he the “Indian guy running as a Republican”?
He will die free because the 47th president eric trump will pardon him
I think the John Gotti comparison is more likely.
You mean going after wokeism, drag queens, and Micky Mouse isn't the secret to winning the Presidency ?
Not if Georgia jails him he won't
What makes you so confident of this?
Im not 100% confident in this, just an approximated guess based on the trajectory of the cumulative investigations and the prison sentences each indictment count would entail. It would be therefore be probabilistically unlikely he won’t get snagged by at least some of them, particularly in the classified docs and GA cases. Any jail time would therefore likely be curtains for him at his age, unless of course Ronald McDonald gets him first.
Last edited:
You mean going after wokeism, drag queens, and Micky Mouse isn't the secret to winning the Presidency ?
Awks…
The strange thing about these candidates in diner shots is people still presume that random people in diners are some sort of barometers of average voters.
Well I think that the support for Trump shows there are lots of not too bright people around who'd be believe it
Maybe the people in the booth talking to Pence mentioned, "No, we voted for the other guy, not the guy that tried to have his minions hang you."
I did not say anything about an 'obligation', its about reality, a free press should in an ideal world be open to anyone to use to platform their opinion. However the law steps in and provides all sorts of interventions, in particular when publishers or broadcasters are either perceived to be, or are actually breaking the law on a multitude of issues.
Despite the fact very many, in indeed nearly all media outlets have their 'favourites'/ or their bias, and they are in many cases able to circumvent laws usually because somewhere in their 'story-telling '/presentation they ensure they include a modicum of the truth. However of course this often relates to 'whose version' of the truth is being presented or discussed and simply goes to prove that there is in reality no free press, unless that is its expressing the same opinion as you.
That still sounds wildly optimistic to me. I'd be shocked if Trump saw so much as a day inside a real jail cell. I believe the most that could happen is he'll get some house arrest and be able to remain at Mar-a-Lago but even that would be suspended until after the election (presuming he loses).
Not sure if you really don't understand things or you are just trolling but just to clarify for posterity.
In the US, free speech protects the right of anyone to speak their opinion, no matter how wrong or batshit crazy, and not be persecuted by the government for that opinion. It does not and should not, however, give anyone the right to a platform for those opinions.
Free press means a press free from government interference. The ideal of the free press has always been for the free press to serve the public and have an obligation for toward the truth.
"Jefferson believed in the necessity of a free press as a watchdog to keep citizens informed and involved in government affairs, but the press had an obligation to accuracy in reporting. In Jefferson’s words: "Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint.”
https://www.monticello.org/the-art-of-citizenship/the-vitality-of-a-free-press/
Now, over the centuries the press and media often falls short of that ideal. From even the time of the Consitution's framing to Hearst's yellow journalism to the lies told by right-wing pundits. But those lies do not change the ideal that the free press should, for a functional society, have a dedication to the truth above all else. If a press does not have a dedication to the truth then it stops being a truly free press and just becomes propaganda and that propaganda can be a bias toward one political party or even both political parties if it manifests as a need to constantly air "both sides" even when one side is fundamentally just false like with climate change or election denialism. There is no "subjective truth" to climate change or election denialism. There are facts and there are lies. A free press dedicated to the truth should not give equal airtime to clear lies just to make things 50-50. That is, in the end, the most detrimental to as Raoul put it a "free democratic society."
I don't think he will be ball and chained at the ADX Supermax in Florence, but any form of incarceration will be viewed as Prison, even if its a Martha Stewart style lock up.
Of all the photos to AI-generate, this one could be the most oddball…
I understand perfectly well, that what you have given is one (your own) definition of a 'free press' which relates entirely to the 'truth in politics' (which is almost an oxymoron in itself). The definition I was referring to is much wider and relates to everyone having a equal right to state their case, right or wrong.
I realise you are not intending to troll, but you have your own. if somewhat 'blinkered', view of what a 'free press' means, that's fine by me.
Well, there's these...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic... magazines,being controlled by the government
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/The+Free+Press
Both blinkered?
Little longer, but closer to home. Obvs blinkered?
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-press/43809
Very impressive merriam-webster. dictionary one of America's most trusted, and the free dictionary one of the most comprehensive ...so presumably that's where he got it from... as I said its one definition... and as I also said.... its fine by me! .
However it is all to do with the context of use of the phrase a 'free press'. In the context of politics/government interference, etc. it can be considered to fit as both the publications you quote stipulate; however in the context of allowing any party/persons 'free access' to present their views whether truthfully, or right or wrong it is not, in that context because of the laws of (most) countries would prohibit such freedom, it is not a 'free press' because of these restrictions. I prefer the wider interpretation that a truly 'free press' would allow access, right or wrong.
Last edited: