re: Trump using an earpiece?

quote:

---

WaltWhite504

---

I genuinely appreciate the time you took to respond.

quote:

---

Media - I am a literal student of Chomsky. He taught me about media filters using the NYT as his model for propaganda. He would break it all down - who is the reporter - who is the source - who are the advertisers - why was this written - who did they interview - who is the editor who black marked the story for print? All ways a media story is targeted, limited, and censored. Then came internet and cable news - and a whole new world was created. I do this with everything i read.

---

Do you believe the mainstream media has morphed into an incurious state supporting apparatus that's remarkably anti-free speech?

quote:

---

I am OK with court determined limitations on free speech. Government shall make no law to edit speech - but it can add a disclaimer. Example - you have the right to advertise cigarettes are good - just as long as you say they aren't. Also certain propaganda funded by a foreign advisory falls into national security. AND - If you say something untrue against and individual or organization - you are subject to financial penalties under defamation law.

---

Most of this makes sense in principle but you're not really addressing my question. I'll ask in a more specific way -

The outright censorship of Covid science/opinions opposing the state's narrative, are you onboard with the Left's position or are you opposed? And to be opposed, you're pretty much diametrically opposed given the circumstances.

quote:

---

I am pro-defending sovereignty. The right of self-rule by the inhabitants of a region. If you come in my home - i have the right to defend myself. If hitler invades France, if Iraq invades Kuwait, If Russia invades Ukraine, the attacked has the right to defend themselves

---

Okay, but that's not what I asked. I mean Russia didn't invade the US, right?

When I asked about the new Democrat position on war/MIC, I wasn't asking if we had the right to defend our own borders (...ahem). The Democrat party is now full-blown neocon/pro-MIC, pro-meddling, pro-fostering conflict, pro-funding conflict, pro-shoveling cash at MIC. All a 180 degree turn from deeply entrenched ideals from not too long ago. Are you onboard with it?

quote:

---

Some speech is dangerous. We have to decide the cost of maintaining it.

---

We already know this, right? When have curbs on speech ever not proved a slippery slope?

Why are you a white male Democrat?

I'd rather have an half coherent Trump than a fully crazy Kamala.

quote:

---

I genuinely appreciate the time you took to respond.

---

I wish there was more open discussion on here than the party allegiance and calling people stupid which is prevalent - so i appreciate you asking

quote:

---

Do you believe the mainstream media has morphed into an incurious state supporting apparatus that's remarkably anti-free speech?

---

Commercial media? Its all just a ratings game to sell soap. The big news agencies are all owned by mega-corps who are owned by investment groups who have a profit motive. If you are talking mainstream television - its niche networks who target an audience and watch ratings. This is the primary function of these entities.

Journalistic integrity is basically an internal legal team which evaluates liability. Since profit is the bottom line, most opt for shows which are opinion based because its cheap and entertaining. Investigative journalism is expensive, high risk and becoming more rare. That is where the morphing has occurred in my lifetime. News used to be a non-profit public service of commercial networks and now they are profit based competition.

Its why i have to laugh when people say MSNBC is trying to get Harris elected so we can be a communist state. Communist seize tv stations - and all the hedge funds who own them. Why would the capitalists want that?

Are they anti-free speech? Sure. They will not say anything that gets them in trouble with the FCC or advertisers, or parent company investors. And if they have a partnership with a movie studio - they might tell reporters what to say about the latest film release. And if they have regular access to Trump or Biden for interviews, they might ask him softer questions so he likes them and tells his followers to like them. Does a reporter have the license to go off script? - sure - Do they? Sometimes - and they lose their million dollar salary and get cancelled.

The point is censorship is not Fidel sending troops over to the station to hold guns on the guy at the news desk while holding up a script. It is systematic. And there are plenty of independent places where you can speak freely. They do just do not have the reach or audience of those with "mainstream" commercial investment. But if the story is cited and sourced - it can be legit.

quote:

---

The outright censorship of Covid science/opinions opposing the state's narrative, are you onboard with the Left's position or are you opposed? And to be opposed, you're pretty much diametrically opposed given the circumstances.

---

First - the state narrative on covid was crafted under Trump. Fauci worked for Trump. The pandemic began almost a year before the 2020 elections. Trump spent $3 trillion and supported state lockdowns. He rushed the vaccine.

The facebook "pressure" to label commentary was what exactly? A simple request? A horse head in his bed? That has never really been clarified. What exactly was specifically asked of Facebook is unknown.

The administration has concerns about false health information being on the internet during a public health emergency. If a local news source posted an incorrect contraflow map during a hurricane - would it be 'pressure' or censorship for local government to call and ask that it be corrected - or is that censorship? As tech advances i expect there will be more debate about how we regulate it for public safety. Buckle up for AI.

quote:

---

The Democrat party is now full-blown neocon

---

It always was. Vietnam was LBJ.

Clinton sent air strikes to the Slavic wars. He bombed Iraq in 98.

Bush has massive democratic support for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama supported the Bush occupations. He dropped A LOT of bombs.

And now Biden.

As far back as the FDR war machine of WW2 - Democrats have always supported the military industrial complex and have always voted to send massive aid to places like Israel to defend against neighboring Arab states.

The MIC is a huge part of the US economy. Part of the game is to hold out your vote for a piece of the pie. Even the biggest lefty on the hill Bernie Sanders lobbied for an F-35 factory in his district.

LINK

We constantly invest in new technology and advance our weapons. Since it cost money to store an old arsenal, we grant the old ones to wherever the democratic front is - currently its Ukraine.

I'm not really sure what is different?

Also Trump was president already. He approved huge increases in the defense budget during his term AND then failed to end the Afghan war as promised during his election. Why is he suddenly the anti-war guy? Because he appeases totalitarian dictators?

quote:

---

I wish there was more open discussion on here than the party allegiance and calling people stupid which is prevalent

---

The most likely case is that what you’re calling “party allegiance” is merely a difference in opinion between yourself and another. As for the concept of wishing for more open discussion and less name calling, perhaps you should start with yourself insofar as you choose to use completely dismissive (some will even see it as insulting) language to describe an cross segment of folks, i.e. “cult members” simply blindly following their “cult leader.” Start at home, then look outwards.

quote:

---

The debate will be interesting.

---

No it won't. Your queen is a moron and knows nothing about anything.

...and you're a douchebag.