- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New York Times is a serious threat to the security of our nation. - POTUS Trump
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:45 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:45 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So here’s the question you keep avoiding: if the problem is government money corrupting the press, why did Trump target newspapers instead of the government actors writing the checks?
Because the media made his balls itch today? Tomorrow it might be his arse and he goes after more politicians!
1
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Wanting to ban news outlets and imprison reporters is exactly that....
Considering they are not actual news outlets and reporters but merely propagandists, I agree with you.
What a day to see Roger and company defending the MIC's and alphabet agencies Newspeak.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:51 pm to northshorebamaman
This was your initial argument that you cannot defend:
Ok. How can you do that when the entire system are corrupt?
You can't answer that.
All of this is conflation and straw man's when you were steel manned above!
quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition. Not letting the state decide the truth for you. Calling a newspaper a “national security threat” and saying it must be “dealt with” is not confidence in truth, it’s fear of it.
quote:
Free enterprise should determine the fate of newspapers.
Ok. How can you do that when the entire system are corrupt?
You can't answer that.
All of this is conflation and straw man's when you were steel manned above!
quote:
Free enterprise should determine the fate of newspapers. Government should be responsible for policing its own spending and corruption. Those are different domains with different remedies. Pretending I argued one solution fits both is a straw man. If a newspaper is being propped up by government money, the fix is to expose and end the funding, name the agencies and officials authorizing it, and then let the outlet stand or fall once the state support is removed. That reduces government involvement. Declaring a paper a “national security threat” and saying it must be “dealt with” expands it.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:52 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Then stop speaking in generalities and be specific.
There is no IF to it. They are and the DOGE investigations revealed CNN and MSNBC received federal tax funds.
Trump knows this and has already and has taken steps to remedy it.
And targeting a biased media agency accepting the funds would be the same as targeting a climate scientist in a scientific journal with bias towards his funding.
Doesn't matter at this point if both parties are corrupt.
Saying “DOGE investigations revealed CNN and MSNBC received federal tax funds” is meaningless without clarifying what funds, for what purpose, under what authority, and whether they were discretionary subsidies or standard contracts. Those distinctions matter, and you skipped them because you either don't know (my theory) or they collapse your argument if examined.
Your analogy to a climate scientist fails for the same reason. A scientist publishing biased research does not get labeled a “national security threat” or told they must be “dealt with.” Their funding gets scrutinized, conflicts are disclosed, grants get pulled, and their work is challenged. The remedy targets the funding and the process, not speech itself. That's exactly what I'm arguing for.
Which brings us back to my point: If Trump already knows the government is corrupting the press and has taken steps to remedy it, why is he publicly branding newspapers as enemies instead of naming agencies, budgets, and officials? Why attack speech rather than the state action you say is the cause?
Declaring “both parties are corrupt” doesn’t answer that. It just avoids you having to explain why expanding government power over the press is your chosen remedy.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:53 pm to Speckhunter2012
quote:
What a day to see Roger and company defending the MIC's and alphabet agencies Newspeak
No, your ilk are supporting stalinist type policy.
Never thought we would see the day.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:54 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Saying “DOGE investigations revealed CNN and MSNBC received federal tax funds” is meaningless without clarifying what funds, for what purpose, under what authority, and whether they were discretionary subsidies or standard contracts. Those distinctions matter, and you skipped them because you either don't know (my theory) or they collapse your argument if examined.
This is another tangent. You're spurring.
I need you to answer the initial argument before we move on. You aren't arguing in good faith man.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:59 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:I never said “the entire system is corrupt.” That is your premise, not mine, and you keep inserting it because without putting words in my mouth you don’t have an argument.
Ok. How can you do that when the entire system are corrupt?
You can't answer that.
All of this is conflation and straw man's when you were steel manned above!
My position has been consistent from the start: if a newspaper is corrupt, you challenge its credibility through exposure and competition. If government money is corrupting the press, you expose and stop the government action doing the corrupting. Those are distinct claims with distinct remedies.
You keep pretending I argued that a free market can fix government corruption, which I did not say. I argued that free enterprise governs newspapers, while government is responsible for policing its own spending. Conflating those domains is the only way you can claim I’m being inconsistent.
So let’s be precise. Where did I say “the entire system is corrupt”? Quote it. Because without putting those words in my mouth, you still haven’t answered the original question: why did Trump target newspapers instead of the government actors you claim were responsible?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I never said “the entire system is corrupt
for the last time. How can an economic or open ideas market work itself out if the government is picking winners and losers? Answer that! You can't. That was your initial argument. Only when I mentioned USAID did you flounder around in straw man land.
Just answer that.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:02 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Because the media made his balls itch today? Tomorrow it might be his arse and he goes after more politicians!
Grow up.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:04 pm to Errerrerrwere
You keep demanding an answer to a premise I never accepted. I never argued that “the entire system is corrupt,” and you keep inserting that claim because without it you can’t make me inconsistent.
My position has been the same throughout: newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition, while government corruption is addressed by exposing and stopping the government actors doing the corrupting.
Treating necessary distinctions as “tangents” because you don't understand them doesn’t rescue your argument, it just avoids the fact that you’re asking me to justify punishing speech for a problem you claim originates with the state.
Until you explain why Trump targeted newspapers instead of the government officials you say were responsible, you’re not engaging my argument at all.
My position has been the same throughout: newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition, while government corruption is addressed by exposing and stopping the government actors doing the corrupting.
Treating necessary distinctions as “tangents” because you don't understand them doesn’t rescue your argument, it just avoids the fact that you’re asking me to justify punishing speech for a problem you claim originates with the state.
Until you explain why Trump targeted newspapers instead of the government officials you say were responsible, you’re not engaging my argument at all.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:07 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Another argument you've attributed to me because you have nothing to attack my actual argument with.
How can an economic or open ideas market work itself out if the government is picking winners and losers?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:14 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
How can an economic or open ideas market work itself out if the government is picking winners and losers? Another argument you've attributed to me because you have nothing to attack my actual argument with.
This was your actual argument man.
quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition. Not letting the state decide the truth for you. Calling a newspaper a “national security threat” and saying it must be “dealt with” is not confidence in truth, it’s fear of it.
You posted it
AGAIN. You cannot answer this from above's beliefs because your argument falls apart.
Just answer it man!
quote:
So, my question is still "how do you expect to break the credibility of a newspaper or let it fail on its own for bad reporting; if it's being propped up by the government?
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:21 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Do you think putting it in a quote box makes it my argument?
So, my question is still "how do you expect to break the credibility of a newspaper or let it fail on its own for bad reporting; if it's being propped up by the government?
Again. My actual argument. Not what you wished it was:
Newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition, while government corruption is addressed by exposing and stopping the government actors doing the corrupting.
which directly answers your question:
quote:
"how do you expect to break the credibility of a newspaper or let it fail on its own for bad reporting; if it's being propped up by the government?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:22 pm to northshorebamaman
Journolist they worked together msm and the government.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:25 pm to Jbird
quote:Definitely.
Journolist they worked together msm and the government.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:26 pm to northshorebamaman
And are still working together.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:27 pm to Jbird
Agreed 
Posted on 12/25/25 at 8:48 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
A scientist publishing biased research does not get labeled a “national security threat” or told they must be “dealt with.”
They should be…or have you forgotten about the lies spread during the COVID op?
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:00 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:That doesn’t follow. You saying scientists should be treated as national security threats doesn’t imply I forgot anything about COVID nor does it require agreeing with you that the state should label research or journalism an enemy.
They should be…or have you forgotten about the lies spread during the COVID op?
If your position is that bad science or bad reporting justifies state punishment of speech, then argue that directly. Don’t substitute “have you forgotten COVID” for an actual defense of that claim.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:40 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Do you think putting it in a quote box makes it my argument?
I linked it. Put your exact quote also.
quote:
Newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition,
This is the premise of your argument. And it's stupid. You have a corrupt government and a corrupt media manipulating a market.
You're trying to convince everyone how one is more corrupt than the other.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News