CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended by White House

Well its the Donald or some socialist or corporatist, i'd go with the Donald.

As much as I loathe most Republicans, their judges and policies lean towards LESS government in our
lives. I believe in the freedom to be controversial, the freedom to practice what religion you wish, the freedom
to open a business without needing government permission, the freedom to not be forced to hire people or not
be able to fire people.

But I guess you like being told what to do, you sound like you listen very well.

See i understand most liberal people, they are actually good people who have an emotional empathy towards
those in less deserving situations. But they don't feel they have the control to personally do something about it
so they believe the government should force and direct as it is not fair that people should be in a bad situation.

While its sweet to think the above, its quite naive about human nature. I prefer the continuous creative destruction
of industry and loathe anyone attempting to curtail a natural evolutionary process of commerce and life.

 

But wait, didn't most/all of his supporters vote for him for the exact opposite reason, because he was NOT a typical politician? No you are defending him because he is acting exactly like a politician?

A bunch of hypocrites.

 

I'm assuming that you thought you answered my question. The question you answered wasn't the one I was really interested in, but that on me for not being more specific. I'm moving on.

I was reading something not too long ago about the French Revolution. To paraphrase was "Yesterdays radicals, became todays moderates, who then became tomorrows reactionaries." This was over the span of just a few years, and none of the people in question really changed their outlook over that time. But people that the king wanted exiled for being too crazily radical were getting their heads lopped off by Robspierre four years later for being regressive, dangerous conservatives.

Electrical voltage is usually provided as a single number. But what voltage actually is, is difference in electrical potential between two points. When people throw out that number it is generally assumed that one of those points is ground.

For politics, there is no fixed ground. The further two points are from each other, the less meaningful it becomes. Was the classical Greece more or less conservative than todays Republican party? Well, they were big on sex with boys and prostitution, so liberal? But they loved property rights and nationalism, so conservative? It pretty much becomes impossible.

Things that today are normal like gay rights and legalised mar1juana were too insanely liberal 35 years ago, at what is now viewed at the nadir of modern conservatism, before Reagan when Carter ruled the white house. But things that were on the table back then like the equal rights amendment and growing welfare that politicians couldn't bring them up and be taken seriously.

So I have a difficult time fixing where things stand with CNN, Fox, and MSNBC in some grand historical perspective. I am only able to place them relative to other things. Certainly relative to each other it is MSNBC->CNN->Fox, but I'm specifically agnostic with regard to some mythical universal "liberal" or "conservative" tag. Even if you wanted to measure it against, say, the average liberal/ conservative-ness measured across all media, I don't know anybody who consumes so much and so many different media sources that they could provide a valid baseline. For a "conservative" when was the last time you read "Mother Jones", "New Republic", and "Vox" on a regular basis?

If you are way off on the right, and you only read hard right sources, that sample becomes your baseline, and the "center" looks leftist, because they are left of everything you trust. You probably will have difficulty finding something "too far right to be taken seriously" but a leftist can rattle off a list a mile long.

But I would strongly suggest that labeling one as "liberal" or "conservative" without saying what you are measuring it against is generally why people in forums like this can disagree so vehimently and genuinely belive something totally at odds with someone who might be their neighbor.

From where I sit, I see a country where moderates have become liberals, and conservatives are now moderates and insane reactionaries are mainstream conservatives. But increasingly, I understand that that could just be an artifact of my perception.

 

We are more liberal in moral capacities as a country. Imagine a multiple divorced philanderer getting the support of
evangalical Christians, a homosexual (Peter Thiel) giving the address at the Republican National Convention or the
perspectives on illegal drugs.

The crux of extremists on the conservative, liberal or in any sense side is that they want to use force and law to have you follow
their lead.

So i continually side with whichever situation is most about freedom and less intrusion in our lives.

I do believe socialism is eventual but not in the manner in which Marx predicted but more the Joseph Schumpater
theory that capitalism leads to success and freedom which then allows those in power to act on their corporatist
ideals which leads to a controlled and ultimately, failed state.

It really is inevitable as the aging of a society allows guilds and licensing and a more pre-ordained and controlled
future for Americans as opposed to open and free architecture where the law doesn't allow people to utilize government
power to protect their interests.

 

Nope. He definitely would like that. No doubt. It's just a matter if you can see it or not.

 

Ok. So, is this Poe's law in action too? So confusing...

 

Bill Jacobson at Cornell argues "Jim Acosta and his media enablers are on the verge of creating law that will damage journalism."

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...-of-creating-law-that-will-damage-journalism/

 

If Trump has the ability to control who gets to ask him questions, it's one step closer to the end of democracy

 

The terms "left" and "right" belong in 17th century France where they came from. They are poor metaphors for contemporary politics, a source of a lot of hand-wringing by a certain kind of person you never want to be friends with that wonders aloud if the Nazis are "extreme left" or "extreme right" and lives in constant fear of being identified with the less popular political party where they live.

The Nazis were totalitarian. They weren't some kind of terminal end for people with the political opinions of Justin Amash. The Soviet Union was dysfunctional and corrupt. It was not the terminal end for people with the political opinions of Tulsi Gabbard. It shouldn't be a controversial thing to say that Justin Amash and Tulsi Gabbard have more politically in common with each other than either does with the political parties of the Soviet Union or Germany in the 1930s, but you wouldn't know that from watching the news or talking to random people in bars on election night.

Words like "conservative" and even more so, "liberal" which mean something different in the US than it does the rest of the English-speaking world, where no one is confused that the "father of Liberalism" was John Locke, an advocate of individual rights, limited government, and empiricism. Ronald Reagan can probably be blamed for that more than anyone for rendering it both meaningless and a slur when he was governor of California in the 60s, and reaching peak performance as president where the likes of Rush Limbaugh made a career from saying it with contempt.

What the British call liberals are more like what Americans call libertarians, and libertarian itself comes from "libertaire" which was what Pierre-Joseph Proudon started calling himself so that he wouldn't risk arrest for calling himself an anarchist.

We etymologically challenged Americans use the words "left" and "liberal" and "the talking points of the Democratic Party" to mean the same thing, just as we like using the words "right" and "conservative" and "the talking points of the Republican party" to be synonyms. Well, they aren't: Gerry Adams has ever been invited even once to CPAC. Even "Left" in the early 20th century context meant advocacy of labor over capital, with "Right" meaning advocacy of capital over labor.

All these terms have long been rendered meaningless in English. Considering English has more words than any other language, it's hard to imagine it isn't in some way, by design. Either way, don't let generations of linguistic abuse bully you. Don't be the person who describes themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." If you are looking to avoid a conversation, it's more polite to just change the subject, but it's preferable to accept the challenge to make political conversations in English great again by taking the time and effort to describe your own principles in your own language. The words we have worn out and no longer have meaning were all invented at some point because they were required to express an original idea. It's not easy, but damn if I don't try.

The actual divide in politics, with apologizes to George Carlin, Malcolm X, Lenny Bruce, and Gore Vidal: is between the oligarchs, their immediate beneficiaries that help preserve the hegemonic status quo, those in denial about it, and everyone else. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a victim of divide et impera and you should pity them.

Crony capitalism (and the ruling class) doesn't care if you are wearing a p***y hat or a MAGA one, but it will happily co-opt and inflame your bigotries to earn your vote. It doesn't care if you own a gun or have an abortion, but it will sure as hell give you moral panics about those other awful people that do. It's all their fault. I know because I saw it on the same news that gave me fear and distrust of people, and distracted me with bread and circuses, instead of showing the consequence of decades of war, a shrinking middle class, increased surveillance, opioid addiction, for-profit prisons, and the endless political campaigns and fundraising that make it all happen.

 

Great post. I agree that it is a fight between those in power and their determination to maintain and consolidate power and those
who aspire to get in power. That free flow between classes, that constant creative destruction and re-formation is hope and a scenario
where opportunity goes to those with the best ideas and work ethic and not because they know the system.

The political parties at both extreme ends are fascists and the elite's in both parties simply want to maintain control and then use
government in a way to help them retain their control.

So that is part of the reason for my enjoyment of Donald Trump. He is truly neither Democrat nor Republican and has usurped
a power structure where the heads of these parties and big donors thought they had control of. He will be out in two years or six
years but he is but the first of many non-career politicians that will now open the floodgates to what they can do. He has exposed
Washington that the current parties don't need to control the power base anymore. That will be a great affect for America,
just as Barack Obama showed every person with a foreign name or from whatever race that this country is not racist and they
can have whatever they want if they work for it. (ironic that many of his supporters believe USA is racist as his winning
and high popularity at times shows the country truly is not except a few nutjobs)

I also enjoy how he his removing barriers and regulations in nearly every industry. While many may sound good and may
protect a certain person or situation, in aggregate they do more harm. It makes it harder for people to start businessesain
market share and succeed and supplant the current people in power.

Who goes to Austin and rally's against unlicensed barbers, real estate agents, morticians and florists??

Not the consumers, but those in the fields as a way to create modern guilds and ultimately limit competition.
Those with the lowest financial means don't have the ability to pay for the lawyers and consultants needed to it
hurts the lowest of us.

Even welfare 'government systems' are control mechanisms. I prefer a negative income tax. The issue with people in
poverty is they don't have money. I'd prefer to give them money and let them spend it as they wish instead on some
big government deciding on how its allocated. That individual consumer efficiency would end up costing much, much
less as it would be a competitive market for all services.

This is probably a whole different thread but enjoyed your post.

 

You left out bull ****... you feed on bull **** too.

 

Didn’t really have anything to do with his post....

 

You are so full of it, with all due respect. What a load of grade A, unadulterated crap. Congratulations.

 

His focus was that Oligarchs on both sides and insiders control everything and both of the people that
follow are just used. My point was that is correct and what i think can reduce that

Do you know how to read??

I know you know how to curse at people and make snide remarks, but perhaps you should just read.

 

I did not vote for him. Nor do I defend all of his actions. Just sayin he is no different in that regard from others. Do you think I support dodging? I don't. It is just a normal part of politics and as adults we have to pick better arguments than what I responded to.

 

Didn't read, as the first sentence you quotes was fundamentally wrong... most journalists, including the WHCA have supported Acosta and the CNN lawsuit... including the filing of amicus briefs backing CNN's lawsuit. Many have published statements of support... including fox news.

 

I think one of the largest voting blocks, at least here on the D&D, are trump supporters and defenders that did not vote for him. I guess there really was voter fraud... since no one seems to have voted for him (or maybe more accurately, want to own it).

 

Perhaps I shouldn't limit it to just Trump voters. It is more accurate that I say Trump supporters. So even if one didn't vote for him, if they constantly defend/justify everything Trump does, my point still stands.

You know, since subtlety and fact-based logic is so important and emphasized lately.

 

Judge rules in favor of CNN (and Jim Acosta), directs trump white house to give Acosta back is press pass.