Trump MAGAThread III: Steak, Vodka, Casinos, and America

[San Lumen]

I should had more context I'm sorry. He said he would sign and an act that would make it legal for business to discriminate against LGBT people as well as for county clerks to refuse to give out marriage licenses to whomever they choose. I forget the name of the bill.

That is not good.

No its not good at all. They could pretty much make the Obgerfell decision irrelevant.

[The Black Forrest]

That is not good.

No its not good at all. They could pretty much make the Obgerfell decision irrelevant.

Well? If it happens then it's reasonable to discriminate against Christians. After all, would you want such hateful people in your business?

[Jerzylvania]

Or maybe The Art of the Deal?

I'm sticking with the comic book. Just don't know which one yet.

No. ..wait! I've got it!

Sin City short stories often end with the bad guys winning. The most well-known example of this is in Daddy's Little Girl where an incestuous father-daughter couple kill the protagonist as a means of foreplay. The main stories play with this trope. Even when the heroes die or their lives are destroyed, the villains suffer great losses as a result or even die themselves.

[San Lumen]

No its not good at all. They could pretty much make the Obgerfell decision irrelevant.

Well? If it happens then it's reasonable to discriminate against Christians. After all, would you want such hateful people in your business?

Discrimination against anyone isn't ok.Id rather not be a second class citizen.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm sticking with the comic book. Just don't know which one yet.

No. ..wait! I've got it!

Sin City short stories often end with the bad guys winning. The most well-known example of this is in Daddy's Little Girl where an incestuous father-daughter couple kill the protagonist as a means of foreplay. The main stories play with this trope. Even when the heroes die or their lives are destroyed, the villains suffer great losses as a result or even die themselves.

now now. Sin City is a good read.

Trump is more the sunday funny section. Supposed to be exciting as it was in the past but now dull and boring.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? If it happens then it's reasonable to discriminate against Christians. After all, would you want such hateful people in your business?

Discrimination against anyone isn't ok.Id rather not be a second class citizen.

But the hypocrisy would show. Once enough people start saying No Christians allowed; guess how fast a law will be in place.

[Jerzylvania]

No. ..wait! I've got it!

Sin City short stories often end with the bad guys winning. The most well-known example of this is in Daddy's Little Girl where an incestuous father-daughter couple kill the protagonist as a means of foreplay. The main stories play with this trope. Even when the heroes die or their lives are destroyed, the villains suffer great losses as a result or even die themselves.

now now. Sin City is a good read.

Trump is more the sunday funny section. Supposed to be exciting as it was in the past but now dull and boring.

True, but that Daddy's Little Girl fits him to a tee, hell, the girl even looks like Ivanka. Then again, a sticky old stack of Hustlers might be more aprapo.

[Blakk Metal]

So if Fox News wanted to go inside your house and search your house for evidence you raped a little boy, and you didn't let them, would that be a violation of freedom of the press.

So you no problem with certain news outlets having no access to the Trump administration?

Yes.

So if Fox News wanted to go inside your house and search your house for evidence you raped a little boy, and you didn't let them, would that be a violation of freedom of the press?

Public servant versus private citizen. Staple of the job versus unsubstantiated defamation/slander/libel.

How could you possibly think that the two are comparable?

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

[San Lumen]

So you no problem with certain news outlets having no access to the Trump administration?

Yes.

Public servant versus private citizen. Staple of the job versus unsubstantiated defamation/slander/libel.

How could you possibly think that the two are comparable?

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

So basically only have news agencies who agree with you and won't report you negatively? Thats what dictatorships do like China.

[Camicon]

Public servant versus private citizen. Staple of the job versus unsubstantiated defamation/slander/libel.

How could you possibly think that the two are comparable?

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

I'm comparing the President, a public servant, to Joe Blow, a private citizen that Fox has - for some reason - decided to slander with accusations of paedophilia. I never said the two were mutually exclusive, I was noting the substantial differences between news organizations being refused access to the most powerful public servant in the country - the President - who they and all other citizens have a right to know about, and news organizations launching slanderous attacks against private citizens for no goddamn reason.

The scenarios are not comparable.

[Blakk Metal]

Yes.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

So basically only have news agencies who agree with you and won't report you negatively? Thats what dictatorships do like China.

You know what else 'dictatorships do like China'. Build roads.

[Blakk Metal]

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

I'm comparing the President, a public servant, to Joe Blow, a private citizen that Fox has - for some reason - decided to slander with accusations of paedophilia. I never said the two were mutually exclusive, I was noting the substantial differences between news organizations being refused access to the most powerful public servant in the country - the President - who they and all other citizens have a right to know about, and news organizations launching slanderous attacks against private citizens for no goddamn reason.

The scenarios are not comparable.

Still not a violation of freedom of the press.

[Camicon]

I'm comparing the President, a public servant, to Joe Blow, a private citizen that Fox has - for some reason - decided to slander with accusations of paedophilia. I never said the two were mutually exclusive, I was noting the substantial differences between news organizations being refused access to the most powerful public servant in the country - the President - who they and all other citizens have a right to know about, and news organizations launching slanderous attacks against private citizens for no goddamn reason.

The scenarios are not comparable.

Still not a violation of freedom of the press.

No, it's not a violation of the First Amendment.

It's still insane to try and deflect criticism of Trump's decidedly undemocratic actions by comparing it to the slander of private citizens.

[San Lumen]

Still not a violation of freedom of the press.

No, it's not a violation of the First Amendment.

It's still insane to try and deflect criticism of Trump's decidedly undemocratic actions by comparing it to the slander of private citizens.

How is it not a violation of freedom of the press?

[Camicon]

No, it's not a violation of the First Amendment.

It's still insane to try and deflect criticism of Trump's decidedly undemocratic actions by comparing it to the slander of private citizens.

How is it not a violation of freedom of the press?

The government isn't interfering with what the press can and cannot say, it's denying them access. As far as I'm aware nothing in the First Amendment guarantees access, or has the Supreme Court ruled otherwise at some point?

[San Lumen]

How is it not a violation of freedom of the press?

The government isn't interfering with what the press can and cannot say, it's denying them access. As far as I'm aware nothing in the First Amendment guarantees access, or has the Supreme Court ruled otherwise at some point?

Well then then America is on the road to dictatorship.

[Internationalist Bastard]

How is it not a violation of freedom of the press?

The government isn't interfering with what the press can and cannot say, it's denying them access. As far as I'm aware nothing in the First Amendment guarantees access, or has the Supreme Court ruled otherwise at some point?

I dunno, the government demanding only certain news outlets get direct access to you can get pretty controlling. Like, if you don't positively present this thing, you get booted and lose your valuable government contact.

[Camicon]

The government isn't interfering with what the press can and cannot say, it's denying them access. As far as I'm aware nothing in the First Amendment guarantees access, or has the Supreme Court ruled otherwise at some point?

Well then then America is on the road to dictatorship.

It was on the road to dictatorship when the Patriot Act passed. Trump just happens to be accelerating the process.

[The Lone Alliance]

Yes.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

But seriously, freedom of the press isn't having to let them in your press conferences.

So basically only have news agencies who agree with you and won't report you negatively? Thats what dictatorships do like China.

I seem to remember Obama feuding with Fox News to the point of trying to exclude them from things as well... mostly because of Fox news constantly reporting with a horrible bias against him.

Can't really argue it's the same, but it wasn't illegal.

[The Black Forrest]

So basically only have news agencies who agree with you and won't report you negatively? Thats what dictatorships do like China.

I seem to remember Obama feuding with Fox News to the point of trying to exclude them from things as well... mostly because of Fox news constantly reporting with a horrible bias against him.

Can't really argue it's the same, but it wasn't illegal.

It was mentioned he threatened but I don't think they were excluded. Fox of course made it sound like the dogs were let loose on them.

I am not upset if the swamp is stupid enough to exclude news outlets. He will regret that when they start printing more and more things that annoy him.

[The Lone Alliance]

I seem to remember Obama feuding with Fox News to the point of trying to exclude them from things as well... mostly because of Fox news constantly reporting with a horrible bias against him.

Can't really argue it's the same, but it wasn't illegal.

It was mentioned he threatened but I don't think they were excluded. Fox of course made it sound like the dogs were let loose on them.

Apparently they were excluded from certain interviews and tiny things, nothing major though... and yet it was still legal for Obama to do that, they weren't entitled to interviews.

Funny enough Obama's press secretary even had a "Fake News" moment by calling Fox a propaganda outlet.

I am not upset if the swamp is stupid enough to exclude news outlets.

I'm not upset either, the press helped cause this fuck up and they can drown in the swamp for all I care.

He will regret that when they start printing more and more things that annoy him.

Because they were all saying such wonderful things about him before now /sarcasm
They would have printed things that annoy him anyway because they professionally and in many cases personally hate his guts.

Thanks to the fact that people only view the news they agree with now, 90% of those articles are just going to be read by people who hate Trump already. The remaining 10% will be read by Trump supporters who read it merely to mock the articles and won't believe said article in the slightest.

Same with the other way around to be fair.

[Slakonian]

The vodka was a lie

[Ostroeuropa]

If you ever doubted why the media and the establishment democrats hate trump so much, the mask slipped for just a moment when CNBC tweeted at him that JFK learned the hard way not to attack corporations.

https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/821820204372099073

So, yeh. That's fairly shocking.

[The Black Forrest]

If you ever doubted why the media and the establishment democrats hate trump so much, the mask slipped for just a moment when CNBC tweeted at him that JFK learned the hard way not to attack corporations.

https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/821820204372099073

So, yeh. That's fairly shocking.

They hate him; you worship him. I guess that is shocking.

As to the "news" not really shocking.

It's probably worse now since companies are people.

[Cattle Mutilators]

If you ever doubted why the media and the establishment democrats hate trump so much, the mask slipped for just a moment when CNBC tweeted at him that JFK learned the hard way not to attack corporations.

https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/821820204372099073

So, yeh. That's fairly shocking.

Did you actually read the CNBC editorial cited in that tweet?

It talks about how JFK's aggressive jawboning of the steel industry in 1962 led to a sharp Wall Street selloff that momentarily left the nation reeling.

<pause>

I mean, what did you think they were saying? That Corporate America was going to have Trump assassinated? REALLY?!?!?