At least they are being consistent. Those were always two sides of the same coin, even when championed by opposite sides. I disagree with both, so I think I'm also being consistent.
When I was a boy, that kind of economy was actually the standard conservative/centrist position - but in hindsight it was pretty big government We are talking up until the early 80s
Max, the MSM are more like ambulance chasers and they go for ratings/clicks and Trump knows this. So he attacks Boeing so no one talks about Japan and Ivanka. You see political analysts have crisis of conscience when they discuss what they want to cover
More confirmation that Trump's "digital marketing genius" was just the usual agency shop work that goes on via Facebook every day of the week Trump paid web marketing firm Giles-Parscale another $28M in final weeks of the election, bringing the company’s total paycheck to $73M.— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) December 9, 2016
While we all worry about what we've gotten ourselves into, a reminder of what an alternative universe would have been like. Namely, an assault on the First Amendment! Yay! Read the story if you like, but the summary is Hillary Clinton thinks "fake news" (a completely unambiguous term that couldn't possibly manipulated at all, just like "terrorism") is an epidemic, and thus... Congress needs to act. That whole "Congress shall make no law...", yeah, screw that. As I've said, the Democratic Party doesn't deserve to exist for what they inflicted on us in 2016.
You're reading a lot into her comments there. I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but there's a huge difference between, "it's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives," and "Congress needs to enact laws that inhibit free speech." Alternatives? Additional funding for public media, encouraging more open rebukes of "fake news" from elected officials, etc.
Perhaps, but we know what Hillary Clinton thinks is the "public sector" solution to speech she doesn't like, and it's putting people in jail. I doubt she means additional funding for public media or condemnation of fake news (which doesn't require Congress, as she does exactly that in the video).
Well, we got the guy who'd like to strip American citizenship from people who burn the American flag. And loosen liable laws so he can sue the press more easily. So the First Amendment is obviously safe! Thank jeebus we didn't elect that Hillary character. She's so obviously shady as shit.
Your second and third paragraphs are not mutually exclusive, as the numerous Trump threads around will demonstrate. In fact, Trump talked about how he doesn't like flag burning again today.
Fair rebuttal, so here's another data point, from February this year. On December 6, after delivering an address about Israeli-American relations at the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton was asked how she would deal simultaneously with the bloody dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the terrorist menace of ISIS. After spending three minutes talking about Sunni insurgents and diplomacy with Russia, Clinton pivoted to a solution she has proposed for several disparate policy challenges across her decades in public life: censorship. "We're going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space," Clinton warned, citing the deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino four days earlier by a U.S.-born Muslim and his Pakistani wife. "Just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space." But doesn't that go against the American cultural and constitutional tradition of free speech? Clinton anticipated the argument: "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," she said. "But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we've got to shut off their means of communicating." That was so kind of her to make explicitly clear her disdain for free speech.
Just out of curiosity, do you regard radio jamming of military communications as "censorship." Propaganda broadcasts?
In the middle of an actual war we're fighting? No for the former, yes for the latter at all times. But that's not what we're talking about.
Not sure its all that different. So jamming Tokyo Rose or Lord Haha or Axis Sally would be censorship?
I sort of agree with Master Shake. Neither candidate was running on protecting civil liberties, privacy rights, freedom of speech etc ... On that issue we would have been screwed either way except in different ways.
Disagree. 1) Hillary was against Gitmo, would have closed it if elected. She told Obama that he should have done that when he had the political momentum at the start of his first administration. She would have done that. 2) The Obama administration didn't force Apple to give up its technology in that phone case. Hillary likely would not have either. Trump publicly said he would. 3) Gay rights. To the extent that this is still an issue, Hillary would be on the correct side, and Trump perhaps not. 4) Voting rights. Ditto. Oh, I could go on. You know perfectly well that the Trump administration will use the Presidency to go after its political enemies, in a way that the Clinton and Obama administration does not. You know that Trump has praised stop-and-frisk while Clinton has not. I could just keep going. There will be major, major differences in how civil liberties are treated between the two potential administrations. Did Hillary campaign on this stuff? No. Because the people who care about these things are Dems who are already voting for her, and white male gun-loving libertarians who will never vote for her. There was no political capital to be made in going after Trump on civil liberties. But that doesn't mean that she wouldn't have taken different actions than Trump. Just as Obama doesn't talk much about climate change because that doesn't sell well to Muricans, but quietly he has done a lot of good on that front. As Hillary would have done, too.
1) On Gitmo I'm not so sure. Remember that she was a supporter of the wars that created the Gitmo situation to begin with. At this point there's only a few dozen prisoners left there. Closing it is more symbolic, but not very substantive. The real question is how the US military and CIA would wield its power abroad with suspects. Droning them or outsourcing them to a 3rd party country like Egypt where they'll get tortured anyways is not necessarily an improvement over Gitmo. 2) Hillary was very vague when asked about the FBI/San Bernardino phone issue. She wanted to have it both ways, but she absolutely did not explicitly defend Apple's position 3) I agree that she has a decent record on gay rights. Sure she was a late arrival on the marriage issue, but better late then never. 4) She is a voting rights champion, no doubt. On this issue she's been consistent since before she was even a public figure. No complaints here. But there are other strikes against Clinton on liberties. She voted for the Patriot Act twice. She has supported the death penalty and voted to make appeals more difficult. She has voted to criminalize flag desecration. She's been very tough on whistleblowers and to this day does not really acknowledge the content of the Snowden leaks. Whenever she talks about that issue, she evades the content and switches the focus on Snowden himself. Then there are the problems of her own personal conduct regarding lack of transparency. And even now, of all the things to focus on after the election, she decides that the #1 issue for her to speak out on is fake news and how to regulate the internet and the media. I agree that fake news is a problem, but that is totally the wrong approach.
Dude, you've answered that repeatedly for years, in many threads; not just "recently..." (Or did you mean just the first question?)
Teen Vogue with a good piece. http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america?mbid=social_twitter and also explains that annoying term gas lighting. This will be missed by the Trumpkins but hopeful more people will wake up to see what the ******** they just allowed to happen.
I heard "gaslighting" for the first time a couple of months ago and was shocked to learn that the term has been around for 50 years, and was inspired by a Depression-era play.