43% of Republicans think Trump should have the power to shut down the media

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-p...nt-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

Gosh, it's almost as if all that constant bleating about the first amendment was nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

I call bullshit. The statistic quoted isn't 43%. It's 13%. But even that I think is too high. Only fascists or militant leftists want this, and how many votes did parties like that get in presidential elections? Not that high.

Here's the clue: "according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast".

I think this is a poll intended to produce an outraged reaction.

They cite the polled statements they are reporting on:

"the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior"

"the news media is the enemy of the American people"

"the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly"

 

[DrZoidberg]

"the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior"

Vague statement. If bad behaviour is eating babies then they should be shut down. If all they do is publish dirt on non-famous people becuase of personal vendettas, then they should be punished.

"the news media is the enemy of the American people"

Means nothing.

"the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly"

Means just as little

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Vague statement. If bad behaviour is eating babies then they should be shut down. If all they do is publish dirt on non-famous people becuase of personal vendettas, then they should be punished.



Means nothing.

[/FONT][/COLOR]"the mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly"

Means just as little

Please justify the opinion.

 

[Bomb#20]

Where are you getting that? They said they were for silencing the media that are "engaged in bad behavior". The "for reporting the news" characterization is your own personal gloss; it's not something you have evidence for.

Personal gloss? There is an ostrich that wants its hole in the ground back.

7 out of 8 are against Trump getting to silence the media for engaging in "bad behavior". If they'd been asked during the Obama administration the numbers would have been different. Nobody wants his own ox gored.

You can feel free to support that assertion.

You are seriously challenging me for evidence for a mild, moderate claim that's based on normal human psychology and that's a claim about only some of the respondents, right after you straight-up put words in opponents' minds in a claim you made about the entirety of them, and when I asked you for evidence the sum total of your evidence was "There is an ostrich that wants its hole in the ground back."?!? It appears you require extraordinary evidence for non-leftist claims and no evidence at all for leftist claims.

So let's try this again. You go first. Where are you getting that? They said they were for silencing the media that are "engaged in bad behavior". The "for reporting the news" characterization is your own personal gloss. What evidence do you have for it?

Trump and his supporters rail on about "Fake News".

See DrZoidberg's comments. You're implying that in your mind, when the poll asks about "the president", that means 43% of Republicans (and probably a lot more) interpreted that as a question specifically about Trump personally, and 0% of Democrats interpreted it the same way. So you're entitled to take for granted that the "bad behavior" all those Republicans had in mind was whatever their leader considers "fake news"; but I'm supposed to presume that every Democrat interpreted the question as a generality about what any president including one of their own guys should get to do, because, reasons?

The media hasn't reported any "fake news".

That's a digression from the topic of the thread -- we're debating the minds of partisans, not the facts on the ground -- but it would be fascinating to see you try to back up that remarkable generalization.

From Democrats, it is a fringe position to hold.

"It"? Well, duh, obviously "A Republican should be in charge of deciding who gets censored" is a fringe position for Democrats. "A Democrat should be in charge of deciding who gets censored" is a fringe position for Republicans. Whoop de do. Believing the president shouldn't get to censor people when it's a president you hate isn't exactly a shining badge of integrity.

This was your second opportunity to present an argument that Democrats support censorship of the media if a Democrat is President. You again didn't present anything other than a baseless assertion of Moore Coulter.

Been there, done that. See the link in post #7. A Democrat was president when that poll was conducted and 85% of Democrats supported censorship of the media.

For Republicans, its a Trump supporter position to hold.

For both Republicans and Democrats, support for letting the government silence the media is an extremely non-fringe position. Support for the other side's free speech rights is a fringe position in both parties, and it's fringier in the Democrats. Only 24% of Republicans support free speech. Only 15% of Democrats support free speech. 85% of Democrats are for authorizing the government to define bad behavior and silence media that engage in it. The spectacle of Democrats calling the Republicans hypocrites for their anti-free-speech positions blows irony meters to smithereens. Quit worrying about the mote in your neighbors' eye and get the beam out of your own eye. This means you. I've read your posts. You are one of the non-fringe 85% who advocate censorship.

That's three times now.

Oh please, are you going to make me click "Advanced Search" and post links? You have a long history of pro-censorship posts. The Federal Election Commission illegally suppressed a movie, so the Supreme Court swatted the FEC on the nose and told them not to do it again, so nearly the entire American left-of-center and half the right collectively lost their minds over the outrage and went into conniptions -- and you're right there with them. I believe your exact word was that you "hate" the decision.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Please justify the opinion.

Free speech has limits. You're not allowed to slander people. You're not allowed to make shit up to destroy anothers life. You're not allowed to incite violence or revolution. You're not allowed to frame people for crimes. You're not allowed to call 911 and say they're a fire when there isn't. There's lots of things we're not allowed to say.

If you say that a news source who is bad (ie systematically keeps doing any of the above) will be shut down... that is justified and completely normal. It's not saying anything. If Trump says that he will shut down bad media, people might interpret that as just this. Doesn't mean shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh please, are you going to make me click "Advanced Search" and post links? You have a long history of pro-censorship posts.

It shouldn't take long to find them.

The Federal Election Commission illegally suppressed a movie, so the Supreme Court swatted the FEC on the nose and told them not to do it again, so nearly the entire American left-of-center and half the right collectively lost their minds over the outrage and went into conniptions -- and you're right there with them. I believe your exact word was that you "hate" the decision.

Well, I suppose you've got me, other than the issue that Citizens United steps a little bit further out than merely allowing a film to be shown. Seriously, your statement isn't even apples to oranges level bad.

 

[Elixir]

I call bullshit. The statistic quoted isn't 43%. It's 13%. But even that I think is too high.

<shirtcuff math> 43% of Republicans would be about 12% of the electorate.</scm> Is that what your 13% represents? I don't find that unbelievable at all. I agree that this is probably just alarmist clickbait bullshit. If the report is that 13% of Republicans want Cheato to be able to shut down the media, that's even more believable (SCM: that would be short of 4% of the electorate), and more indication that the headline is alarmist BS..

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I do find it alarming that 43% of Republicans think the President should have the authority to shutdown bad-behaving media. That is a very kingly totalitarian ability. Suppose there were a media outlet that was bad-behaving in reality, such as Russia Times supporting a coup and funded by Russian government, lying to Americans and with a head quarters in Washington DC, with spies and so forth. Why should it be the President who has this power to shut them down as opposed to a court order, say for example, to do something because of specific illegal behaviors? That's not even counting that who the heck is defining "bad behavior" in the first place. And why is it bad opposed to illegal?

 

[Elixir]

That is a very kingly totalitarian ability.

Yup. Let's remember this:

The president of the United States apparently regards the leader of the Chinese Communist Party as a model. “He’s now president for life,” President Trump told supporters this past weekend. “President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh please, are you going to make me click "Advanced Search" and post links? You have a long history of pro-censorship posts.

It shouldn't take long to find them.

It didn't take long to find them; the question is why you're challenging me to post them when you obviously know you wrote them. Whatever; I'm not your therapist.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=290084&highlight=citizens+united#post290084

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=320731&highlight=citizens+united#post320731

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=257069&highlight=citizens+united#post257069

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=189657&highlight=citizens+united#post189657

That last one's especially idiotic since CU v FEC upheld disclosure requirements. If the donation can't be traced, that's on Congress, not the SCOTUS.

The Federal Election Commission illegally suppressed a movie, so the Supreme Court swatted the FEC on the nose and told them not to do it again, so nearly the entire American left-of-center and half the right collectively lost their minds over the outrage and went into conniptions -- and you're right there with them. I believe your exact word was that you "hate" the decision.

Well, I suppose you've got me, other than the issue that Citizens United steps a little bit further out than merely allowing a film to be shown. Seriously, your statement isn't even apples to oranges level bad.

Hey, I get that you get your analysis from an incestuous echo chamber that's just spent eight years telling you to believe that; but how about if you try applying some critical thought to the issue? It's apples to apples; in fact it's one apple to the exact same apple. What is it you think the SCOTUS did that steps a little bit further out than merely ruling in favor of CU? What legal justification do you think they had for merely quashing that particular act of censorship two years after it had become moot, that's not as far out as the First Amendment?

There really isn't much of a middle ground here. Either the First Amendment applies to corporations or it doesn't. If it applies to corporations then CU gets to advertise their movie whether Congress and the FEC like it or not. If it doesn't apply to corporations then Congress and the FEC get to ban them from running their ads. By the same token, if the First Amendment applies to corporations then the NYT and the WaPo get to publish the Pentagon Papers whether Richard Nixon likes it or not. If it doesn't apply to corporations then Richard Nixon can enforce the court order he got from a compliant federal judge to censor the NYT to stop them from revealing that the government had been lying to the public for years about Viet Nam.

When you condemn the Supreme Court for ruling that the First Amendment applies to corporations, that is you standing up for Richard Nixon's authority to shut down the media for what he thinks is bad behavior. You can of course make believe CU v FEC was only about money and not about speech to your brainwashed heart's content; but if the government gets to tell CU they aren't allowed to spend corporate money urging people to hate Hillary then it equally well gets to tell the NYT they aren't allowed to spend corporate money revealing government wrongdoing. It's one and the same First Amendment stopping the government from getting away with both acts of censorship by passing them off as financial regulation. You and 85% of Democrats are plainly on the wrong side of this issue. There is no way around it. The New York Times is a corporation. Deal with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It didn't take long to find them; the question is why you're challenging me to post them when you obviously know you wrote them. Whatever; I'm not your therapist.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=290084&highlight=citizens+united#post290084

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=320731&highlight=citizens+united#post320731

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=257069&highlight=citizens+united#post257069

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...p=189657&highlight=citizens+united#post189657

Well, that was a good job of showing that I disagree with the overall impact of Citizens United and how it equates bribery to free speech... and nothing you cited actually speaks to your crap claim that I support partisan censorship. You need to stop wasting your time.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, that was a good job of showing that I disagree with the overall impact of Citizens United and how it equates bribery to free speech...

Quote CU equating bribery to free speech. Whom do you think "Hillary: The Movie" was an attempt to bribe? If the government hadn't suppressed it, the only one who would have benefited was Obama.

Furthermore, if you are going to equate spending money to attack a politician with a bribe, where the devil does that equivalence say the magic word "corporation"? It doesn't. Consequently, if "Your publication is really a bribe because the government says so" is a valid argument for censoring a corporation, then it's an equally valid argument for censoring a citizen. So tell us, should Warren Buffett be allowed to spend his own money to publish his views on political candidates? Is that too "bribery", not "free speech"? Are you in favor of completely throwing the First Amendment down the toilet, or are you going to come up with some lame rationalization for maintaining a double standard?

and nothing you cited actually speaks to your crap claim that I support partisan censorship. You need to stop wasting your time.

Excuse me? "My crap claim that you support partisan censorship"?!? You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Where the bejesus do you see me saying "partisan"? You support censorship, full-stop.

I'm sure you can convince yourself the censorship you support is nonpartisan, and that this makes all the difference. But so what? In the first place, you haven't produced evidence that the 43% of Republicans who endorsed "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior" would also endorse "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in pro-Democrat behavior". In the second place, the First Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless the law is nonpartisan"; and if the courts start interpreting it that way then the next president who wants to silence the next New York Times to stop release of the next Pentagon Papers will have no difficulty producing evidence of the newspaper's partisan motivation. And in the third place, the censorship law you so vehemently objected to CU v FEC overturning was blatantly partisan -- it silenced little $12 million/year shoestring outfits like CU, allegedly so their heaps of money wouldn't "drown out" opposing views, while it explicitly exempted billion-dollar mainstream media outlets like the TV networks and major newspapers, which mostly lean Democrat. There's a reason the so-called "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" was passed with very little Republican support. Why it's bribery for CU to tell people Hillary sucks but it isn't bribery for the NYT to tell people Trump sucks, no doubt you'll eventually get around to explaining.