- 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 9:54 pm to Errerrerrwere
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:54 pm to Errerrerrwere
If you’re just going to repeat yourself and recycle the same disingenuous question, forgive me for just copy-pasting my prior replies. It may be entertaining for you, but dismissing the same claim over and over while you ignore the answers is getting repetitive on this end.
If you ever feel equipped to move past that and make an actual argument, I’m happy to engage.
Answer
That is your premise, not mine, and you keep inserting it because without putting words in my mouth you don’t have an argument.
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.
If you ever feel equipped to move past that and make an actual argument, I’m happy to engage.
Answer
That is your premise, not mine, and you keep inserting it because without putting words in my mouth you don’t have an argument.
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.
1
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:19 pm to northshorebamaman
My position is that Fauci and crew pushed policy decisions that weakened the U.S., up to and including vaccine mandates for military personnel.
Intentionally fomenting unrest. while doing so as a legitimate news source, is also an issue.
Intentionally fomenting unrest. while doing so as a legitimate news source, is also an issue.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:21 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Agreed.
My position is that Fauci and crew pushed policy decisions that weakened the U.S., up to and including vaccine mandates for military personnel.
Intentionally fomenting unrest. while doing so as a legitimate news source, is also an issue.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:36 pm to northshorebamaman
Again. This is what you said.
No. I didn't. I argued when you said this:
I then asked you how the market will break the credibility when it's propped up by the government. And I asked you how that could happen.
You still haven't said how.
Now, my argument is that BOTH have been corrupted. And Trump is exposing BOTH.
Your argument to that is Orange Man Bad because he said mean things about the corrupt media.
Maybe it's not being inconsistent. Maybe it's bias.
They're either both corrupt or neither are corrupt.
quote:
You keep pretending I argued that a free market can fix government corruption
No. I didn't. I argued when you said this:
quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition.
I then asked you how the market will break the credibility when it's propped up by the government. And I asked you how that could happen.
You still haven't said how.
Now, my argument is that BOTH have been corrupted. And Trump is exposing BOTH.
Your argument to that is Orange Man Bad because he said mean things about the corrupt media.
quote:
Conflating those domains is the only way you can claim I’m being inconsistent.
Maybe it's not being inconsistent. Maybe it's bias.
They're either both corrupt or neither are corrupt.
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:49 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Here is your how for the fourth or fifth time: 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.
Again. This is what you said.
quote:
You keep pretending I argued that a free market can fix government corruption
You did when you said this:
quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition.
I then asked you how the market will break the credibility when it's propped up by the government. And I asked you how that could happen.
You still haven't said how.
Notice how you only quoted half of that? Doesn't look very "good faith."
BTW, I typed a few thousand other words that you not only failed to quote but have failed to respond to. At this point I can only conclude it's because you lack the ability to do so.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:56 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Notice how you only quoted half of that? Doesn't look very "good faith."
Again this is your original post that I went after for the TENTH time:
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.
Your ENTIRE premise (bolded) was that Trump kicked you in the feels because he said things. When I brought up USAID funds being doled out to the media being funded you pivoted to "muh government corruption"
Funny. Right before I asked you about this you never mentioned anything about government corruption and you were hanging your hat on Orange Man Bad. Why is that?
quote:
If government money is corrupting the press, you expose and stop the government action doing the corrupting.
Now. Again. What if they're both corrupt?
Trump just sits on his hands?
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:58 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Calling a newspaper a “national security threat” and saying it must be “dealt with” is not confidence in truth, it’s fear of it.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:01 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Knowing what I know now? No!
If the government props up a failing media conglomerate to push a narrative (COVID, Russiagate, Ukraine, etc) and it's being subsidized by the state to deliver their message-- Then they're both corrupt and Trump can expose all of it. IDGAF.
And I've already explained it no matter how much Northshore tries to crawfish.
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:05 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
If the government props up a failing media conglomerate to push a narrative
Who decides this?
The guy in charge?
Surely you see how that’s ripe for actual corruption and that an attempt to silence that voice only speaks to reinforce their point
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:10 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Surely you see how that’s ripe for actual corruption and that an attempt to silence that voice only speaks to reinforce their point
I never argued this.
My original argument was right before Northshore pivoted to MuH Government Corruption; he argued that the markets NOT MuH TRUMP, should let it play out.
Only when I brought up the media being subsidized with tax payer funds did he bring the government corruption up.
Which just proved my point even further.
Trump can say whatever he wants to either side of a corrupt system.
Bottom line.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:12 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Funny. Right before I asked you about this you never mentioned anything about government corruption and you were hanging your hat on Orange Man Bad. Why is that?
I'm sorry, do you operate on the assumption that any angle I didn't address in my initial reply to someone else is excluded from future discussion? And it still doesn't change anything or make anything inconsistent. Your inability to spot the load-bearing beam of my argument is almost impressive.
I still stand by it:
quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition.
Still true.
quote:That’s exactly what I asked you to explain. What he didn’t do. He never called out the government officials you yourself claim were corrupting the newspapers. The same officials who sit inside the government. You know, the one he is the executive of.
Now. Again. What if they're both corrupt?
Trump just sits on his hands?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:13 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
he argued that the markets NOT MuH TRUMP, should let it play out.
Why do you disagree with this?
ETA: it sounds like are you in favor of attacking the messenger and not the source, which is confusing to most people.
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:16 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
He never called out the government officials
Maybe you just don't understand politics much. But part of being a politician is playing politics.
And he has already addressed and took measures about the taxpayer monies going to the media. His DOGE team took care of that months ago.
Him not calling it out- call me crazy, is him playing the politics game.
You aren't too educated on politics are you?
It's easier for him to call out the media and cut the funds. You might say he's getting two birds stoned at once.
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:17 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Why do you disagree with this?
Because if a system is corrupt let sunlight do its thing.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:19 pm to NawlinsTiger9
And I've been pretty critical of Trump term 2 on this board.
This ain't it.
This ain't it.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:20 pm to Errerrerrwere
It’s pointless.
He thinks this can be settled by some marketplace competition for actual news reporting. That’s not what the NYT is, and that’s because it isn't what the leadership or consumers of the NYT want.
I’ve already posted what Bari Weiss had to say about the matter. Here’s more:
Trusted News Initiative (TNI) steps up global fight against disinformation with new focus on US presidential election
These people took two years to authenticate the Hunter biden laptop.
He thinks this can be settled by some marketplace competition for actual news reporting. That’s not what the NYT is, and that’s because it isn't what the leadership or consumers of the NYT want.
I’ve already posted what Bari Weiss had to say about the matter. Here’s more:
Trusted News Initiative (TNI) steps up global fight against disinformation with new focus on US presidential election
quote:
At a recent summit chaired by the BBC’s Director-General, Tony Hall, the TNI agreed to a shared early warning system of rapid alerts to combat the spread of disinformation during the US presidential election. The TNI is an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organisations working together to stop the spread of disinformation where it poses risk of real-world harm.
quote:
At the summit, the TNI also agreed to engage with new verification technology, called Project Origin, led by a coalition of the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft and The New York Times. Project Origin is a new approach to combating disinformation by detecting the manipulation of content and authenticating the content source.
These people took two years to authenticate the Hunter biden laptop.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:21 pm to G2160
quote:
These people took two years to authenticate the Hunter biden laptop.
And they'd still be mockingbirding the public had Trump not called them out back in 2016
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:23 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Then his job on the matter is done.
And he has already addressed and took measures about the taxpayer monies going to the media. His DOGE team took care of that months ago.
.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Then his job on the matter is done.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:26 pm to Errerrerrwere
What else should he do, in your opinion?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News