Slashdot Mirror
White House Could Use AT&T/Time Warner Deal As 'Leverage' Against CNN (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: AT&T seems to be on track to close its purchase of Time Warner Inc., but President Donald Trump's hatred of Time Warner property CNN could still be a "wild card" in the deal. Trump's feud with CNN was described yesterday in a New York Times article titled "The Network Against the Leader of the Free World." Within that article is one tidbit that could affect AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner, which owns CNN and other media properties such as HBO and Turner Broadcasting System: "White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN's parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump's Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president's animus toward CNN remains a wild card."
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
While I am against the AT&T/Time-Warner merger (and was also against the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger), I think this goes too far. The Press is part of the checks and balances of the government. There have been lots of bad press against all former Presidents, but the President didn't use his powers against them like this. This blatantly violates the First Amendment.https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/07/06/2255213/white-house-could-use-atttime-warner-deal-as-leverage-against-cnn#
Since the overturn of Citizens United, I'm really worried about corporations' well-being. AT&T only has a market cap of $222.95 billion, and little 'ol Time Warner is only worth $78.66 billion. How are they going to look out for their own interests in the same way that a real life citizen making $40k/year would?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Whether it's CNN or any other news organization, does it bother others when you read shit like this;
"The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking."
I AM conservative and I call bullshit on printing hearsay like this. Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
The "Russian thing" is true, with regard to activate manipulation of the election. The rest of it is garbage.
So in 2014, when Fox tried (and bailed on their own accord) what was the coverage like? Humm..... if only there were a way to know what happened 3 years ago in a D controlled white house?
you are so full of shit its coming out your ears
Not since the last one. And the one before that, and the one before that, and....
The basis of article is an anonymous source. I can't belive anything an unknown source say in these times of 'fake news'. I need solid facts.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Hah, maybe not.
I wouldn't be applauding. The executive branch shouldn't be using it's powers to extort favorable coverage or to carry out the president's personal vendettas.
Now here's an interesting question. Name a liberal president who would consider doing such a thing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
On the one hand, Trump is a bit of a cry-bully and CNN can say anything they want.
On the other, when an "unnamed source" says that Trump said something mean to someone in the oval office and CNN covers it for five hours straight, you tend to wonder what the hell is going on. There's some crazy deal going on with Qatar that's just a *bit* more important, why aren't they covering that more?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
This is a fallacy. Being (ethically) corrupt isn't a zero-sum pool. They can both be horrible at the same time. It's still an abuse of power even if you're doing it to someone reprehensible. Also: criticizing one for their actions is not an implicit endorsement of the other party.
Trump is going to bring the Mars to us!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it. Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true. Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions? Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
Whoever loses, we win?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sooo... unnamed sources say "might" and "could" and "maybe" and some person with a persecution complex (who's actually stomping on citizens right to free speech) complains that his multi-100's of billion merger might not work if someone else interferes... maybe?
WTF. This isn't fucking news. Call me when they actually DO something against the merger.
Just like with opponents to Obamacare. Just because they oppose that particular implementation, doesn't mean they oppose the concept of universal healthcare.
AT&T is trying to merge with TW which is also part of Comcast. As if you didn't have choices before, now they'll have virtually all of the DSL, Cable and Wireless market as well as all the media companies that come along under one big corporation. I thought Ma Bell was split up to prevent these kinds of things.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The GOP promise is small government. A government that gets out of the way and lets business do what it wants. Yet the GOP seems to really really like getting in there and making things personal. This is the exact opposite of small government.
You dont have to look further than his current and past open abuse of power to believe this one is probably true
When you cant win, ad hominem.
that same hairsplitting works on the 2nd amendment too. lets see how THAT works out...
Sure, Trump may have groused to several of the people who he works with--but for this to be made a condition of the sale would open a huge legal can of worms.
Which is why I would take a wait and see attitude here. My guess is it won't happen: the Trump Administration won't meddle with the inner workings of CNN as a condition of the sale.
On the flip side, if the Trump Administration does do this, pop some popcorn and watch the feathers fly! Because this would guarantee that the anti-trust regulations and the business regulation powers of the government would fly up against some hard Constitutional limits--and my guess is it would define how we see the SEC in the news for at least a few years. Worse, I think this would make some very interesting bedfellows as right-of-center anti-regulation conservatives (who think mergers like this should never require oversight) find themselves in bed with left-of-center "don't mess with my journalism we hate Trump" types.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...
Okay, while the merger I am not in favor of, using this as leverage by the government is basically manipulating the press which the government is not supposed to (okay, we know they do it, we know they give "recommendations" on what to publish but not blatantly bullying the press). The "leader of the free world" is trying to lead us into "A Brave New World" that could bring us closer to "The Handmaid's Tale". . This is getting scary.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
"Has any former President ever been so open in his abuse of power?"
Yes, in 1973. Nixon went power mad and tried to take down the New York Times and the Washington Post. There were actually still some Republicans left who had integrity like Howard Baker; with their cooperation, Nixon was the one taken down.
It started with the publishing of the Pentagon Papers and the Injunctions Nixon then instituted. The curious thing about this was it was Johnson who bore the brunt of the criticism for the handling of the Vietnam War, but Nixon felt that if he did nothing it would set a dangerous precedent. So he used the FBI among others to discredit Ellsberg and the Newspapers. This backfired spectacularly when the Watergate break-in was reported. Elements in the FBI and the Justice Department turned against him. By some accounts, Nixon feared that impending Impeachment was another dangerous precedent, and so he resigned.
Some Republicans have never forgiven Nixon; they feel that he should have stuck it out. Some Democrats think that Nixon finally did the right thing by resigning. Ford inherited the Presidency and he wasn't all that bad, except for dealing with the massive Inflation that he also inherited. His solution? Handing out "Whip Inflation Now" badges.
This was also the beginning of the Republican Lie that Carter was responsible for the Inflation of the Seventies. Nope, it was Nixon and his War. He ran in 1968 partly on the Plank of ending the War. Instead, he ratcheted it up without finding the means to pay for it.
We have a similar situation now, in that a Corrupt President is taking on the Free Press. But this time there are no honorable Republicans left to stand up to him.
If the merger is not being evaluated with respect to the good of Americans, I'm afraid this, too, might be overlooked by any Trump supporters that have been seduced by the cult of personality.
Has Trump done that or is it speculation from "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking"? The sad thing is, now the well is poisoned. Even if the merger was blocked for legitimate reasons this will be thrown out as the excuse regardless of reality. Should AT&T and Time-Warner be able to merge? Other similar mergers were blocked before without much complaint.
Too much 'could', 'maybe', and 'might' makes this entire opinion piece pure speculation designed to poised the well so that useful idiots that think "everything Trump == bad" will support the merger. How else do you get people that are normally opposed to mergers like this to support it? Use Trump and 'could' in the same sentence.
Historically, the press is called 'The Fourth Estate' and they are considered a crucial part of any democracy. While you are correct it is not codified in law, it is a thing that simply cannot be ignored either.
"The Fourth Estate (or fourth power) is a segment of society that wields an indirect but significant influence on society even though it is not a formally recognized part of the political system.[1] The most commonly recognized part of the fourth estate is the news media, or press." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good-bye
If that happens, this "person" who happens to be in the oval office will be committing an act of personal vengeance using the power of his office. That is UNACCEPTABLE. It is unethical and economically disastrous. What kind of business environment would we be fostering if companies could not rely on being treated fairly under the law?
These days, it seems to me that the US is a lost cause. So here's an idea: everyone who voted for either Hillary or Trump should be fucking shot. Those who plead they voted so only because they believe the other to be a bigger evil might be let off with only a thorough spanking.
And some other candidates, like Jill Stein, are even worse.
In most countries, we have a mix of batshit insane parties and ones which are only thoroughly corrupt, promoting shit like ACTA but then backpedaling as soon as there are protests, etc -- but at least they're semi-acceptable.
Not so in the US: there's not such thing as a sane party there.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'll take Obama for $1000 Alex
BS.
The video takes each clip entirely out of context. That alters Obama appears to be only focusing on.
Each conversation covered other media outlets, except for the last one, where George Stephanopolous kept prompting Obama to say "Fox News", which Obama avoided for the first few attempts.
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" – specific phrases – for every talking head to repeat. . . an attempt at making something false believable if every reporter *cough* at Fox News repeated the same line. So, yes, your uncle who only watches Fox News would be un-debatable because logic** can never prevail against a mind which does not use it.
** Discussion in which only provable premises are allowed for use in the next step of the discussion thread.
everyone who voted for either Hillary or Trump should be fucking shot.
Fuck off, pal. I voted for Clinton because she was one of the most qualified candidates in recent memory. This bullshit of equating the two persons is just insane.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
The fact is, CNN News actually did broadcast anti-Trump pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
ISPs further conglomerating so that they control all our internet access inherently is news for nerds. The fact that the president is so bad that every news story has him as a subject including this one doesn't change that.
I suspect you're actually asking to be able to ignore national politics again. That's part of what got us into this issue in the first place. You'll have a chance in 2018 to reduce the number of hair-raising news stories about politics with your vote, and in 2020 you'll have a chance to elect someone who is not going to require more attention than an infant.
"libtard" - anything after that is pretty much invalidated.
What were her qualifications? One and a half terms as senator with no substantial legislation and one term as Secretary of State with a lot of questionable policy decisions. That's hardly the most qualified candidate in recent memory. She wasn't even the most qualified candidate in this election. That goes to Gary Johnson who served two full terms as Governor.
Fake News has found its way to Slashdot.
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it.
Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true.
Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions?
Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified. Of course the explosive claims are hard to falsify, which is one of the reasons CNN, despite having access to the dossier, deliberately held back the actual contents (until Buzzfeed broke them, an act most media organizations disagreed with).
Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
Can you imagine if Breitbart or even Fox News was held to that standard? Would Sean Spicer even last through a single press conference?
I stole this Sig
So a lot like the right wing press during the Clinton and Obama administrations then...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You understand that the White House lies everytime they put on a press conference. The only way we ever hear what they are actually doing is when it is leaked. If you are a reporter and wish to maintain that flow of information you are going to protect your source.
I don't like unverified sources anymore than you do but you seem to be glossing over the fact that Trump's administration is not behaving like any previous administration. When the administration can lie about something as mundane as crowd sizes you can't trust them, that lack of trust only leads in one direction.
Journalistic integrity from the likes of CNN is still orders of magnitude more reliable than the Trump administration to date. To you point, CNN fired people for negligence. You have never heard Trump say he was wrong, you've never heard anyone in his administration say they were wrong even when Ms Conway coined the term alternative facts. What would you have preferred CNN do in response to their screw up? They break hundreds of news articles everyday. Yes, they make mistakes, everybody does, but they always retract if they are shown to be in error. That is not reciprocated at all by this administration.
Its the fact that the Democrats keep killing single-payer legislation that proves they dont actually support the concept.
Their words dont match their actions. They never have in my lifetime.
"His name was James Damore."
Post your address
Not so in the US: there's not such thing as a sane party there.
Yeah, the parties are made up of people who advocate shooting others who voted 'wrongly.' In some cases, they only advocate spanking.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Give me a break. CNN has gone way downhill, but it's standard reporting. The problem with it is that they stick in too much fluff reporting and obsessing on the same story over and over. Just stop picking political sides and you'll see that all the stations are equally lousy. CNN and others report on the Russian hacking things because that is what is interesting, and that makes money. The only political bias you have at any station is deciding how to get the most viewers, and that determines which close minded bubble aim for. So the logic here is not "let's run more Russian hacking stories to make Trump look bad", but "people are still watching these stories so keep running them!"
Unnamed sources are and have been common in news. "Deep Throat" in the Nixon scandal was an unnamed source (and a key). The news org is usually confident enough in the source to publish the results. If the org calls wolf too many times, their reputation is damaged. The org is betting on their reputation when they do it.
CNN should get some kudos for withdrawing their quote after publishing it. They didn't have to. New info often comes up later; it's why it's called "news".
Table-ized A.I.
Since you are asking for speculation - I'll give it to you.
Obama was at war with Fox News during his entire administration:
http://www.newsweek.com/when-o...
Don't think for a minute that if the opportunity to put the screws to Fox presented itself, Obama would have passed.
It was indeed a lousy election. The DNC just decided to field only one candidate, one with very well known weakness and known to be highly polarizing, although Bernie went against the plan. The RNC had a lot of ho-hum candidates, many of which I would not have minded being president, along with some real nutcases who stole the show. I can remember back to Nixon running, and I've never seen a more screwed up bizarre election than this last one.
If you're talking about the emails, a good many politicians, including Republican, have made comparable snafu's. There should have been review grunts around her inspecting stuff better so she could focus on policy instead of technology.
As far as foreign policy decisions, it's probably one of the toughest parts of any DC job. The Middle East is Medusa's and Godzilla's possessed offspring.
I challenge you to identify one important decision she made as SS that a Republican or even Gary Johnson likely would NOT have made.
I agree she is not that skilled politically. But she is quite competent in terms of the "mechanics" and administration of decision making. For one, she doesn't have Trump's A.D.D.
Table-ized A.I.
If you're talking about the emails
I don't give a shit about god damn emails. I'm talking about real policy decisions. Like the complete failure to have any coordinated strategy in response to the Arab Spring.
I challenge you to identify one important decision she made as SS that a Republican or even Gary Johnson likely would NOT have made.
That the problem isn't it? The Clintons (both of them) are basically just Republicans when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues. Being a libertarian, Gary Johnson would probably not sponsor a coup in Honduras. http://america.aljazeera.com/o...
Well, I do agree that the US over-meddles. But voters generally seem okay with that, as the Syrian airfield bombing shows. The candidates merely reflect that, and thus I find it hard to "blame" just the candidates. If you want to change it, you'll have to change voter thinking.
Table-ized A.I.
The first amendment explicitly separates out freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Perhaps in the eyes of a Constitutional originalist, would one possibly only consider the printing press as being a medium of free speech. But given that they are listed separately, a non-originalist might consider that a free press and free speech are different from each other. Also, being an originalist, one might limit the freedom to the medium generated on a printing printing press. But time moves on, cars supplant trains which supplant horses; the press is now considered to be not just newspapers, but new media such as TV, radio, the Internet, etc.
Yes, the professional behavior of journalists is a matter of public scrutiny, but having the government require the firing of a journalist and/or editor (here I consider the president of CNN a journalist and/or editor, an originalist might just think he's management) to make a business deal is effectively government interference in the press.
Yeah, the parties are made up of people who advocate shooting others who voted 'wrongly.' In some cases, they only advocate spanking.
Hmm, there is a point in your post: while I obviously named these punishments in jest, I should haven't done so -- there are members of such batshit insane parties who do call for the death penalty for the crime of voting differently than them.
For example, in Poland, a prominent member of our ruling party called for restoring the death penalty specifically for one Donald T., the current president of the European Council, for a variety of crimes such as "diplomatic treason". That party member is Ewa Stankiewicz who doesn't hold any government office, but her idea was seconded by Stanislaw Karczewski, the Marshall of the Senate, who degraded the punishment to only "hard prison" with no parole (there's no such thing as "hard prison" in Polish law since WW2). And no, there's no law that says an elected official must vote according to what the ruling party's leader wants.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Pro-gun people usually do split the hairs of the 2nd amendment in exactly that same way: the amendment guarantees an individual right to do a kind of activity (have and use a weapon or printing press), it doesn't enshrine any specific institution ("the press" or "the militia").
That said, the freedom of the press being an individual right doesn't say anything against people exercising that freedom being an important part of keeping our government in check, so it was kind of a non-sequitur on DeplorableCodeMonkey's part. I guess it's not technically a part of the "checks and balances" in the sense of "separation of powers" (since "the press" as an institution don't have any special legal powers), and maybe that's all he meant?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Because the NYT alleges that Trump might use his power to influence approval of a merger, you accuse him of "open abuse" of presidential powers? He hasn't done anything yet. And if he opposes the merger, it's likely for the same reasons Democrats would oppose such mergers, namely too much media concentration.
Furthermore, even if he were to try to penalize CNN, it would be the kind of action Clinton heartily approved of, namely executive power to ensure what the executive branch considered "truth", she just wanted to be the one at the levers of power.
you tarded? oh yeah, you tarded.
I'm confused. What does CNN have against Angela Merkel?
Oddly enough, I read the original article and at no point did they say President Trump HAD actually threatened to kill the merger, instead they were just stirring the pot by suggesting he COULD. The second article allegedly quotes an unidentified WH insider as saying that President Trump liked the idea, but again did NOT say he had made any such threat. ... it would be just as true to say the "President Trump could dispense the contents of Fort Knox to veterans and the elderly." I expected better of ArsTechnica.. Feel free to hate on the President for what he has actually done, but every time you bandwagon one of these claims you help to bolster the 'fake news' arguement.
And no, I voted for the lesser johnson, Gary, not the Donald.
It may be true, of course, but this is just a big nothing burger again
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
> except... pretty much everything leaked from unofficial sources inside the white house has turned out to be completely true. ... according to the other stories citing anonymous, unverifiable sources.
> Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
That's irrational. You should believe things because you have proof, rather than demanding proof before you'll stop believing. A horoscope might be right some of the time, too, but when it's right, it's for the wrong reasons. Otherwise, someone can just point out that anonymous rumors say that you're a creep who does unmentionable things in private. And we're all going to believe that now because you have no way to disprove it. Also, we can dismiss any evidence you do give us because you're a creep. See how that works? Believing things like this just makes people into tools: sad, pathetic, easily-manipulated losers.
> Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
CNN reported that they had evidence they wouldn't show us. Buzzfeed actually showed us the dossier that CNN wouldn't, allowing people to understand just how unreliable the "evidence" CNN was working from was. Honestly, CNN was less ethical here, because they gave the viewers no opportunity to verify anything and they reported absurd rumors they were unable to verify instead of keeping their mouth shut.
CNN never should have reported on anything but the items they were able to verify from the dossier and never mentioned the rest. Instead they kept telling us how they had secret evidence they weren't going to show us. Then Buzzfeed showed everyone that it was a pile of garbage. It goes right up there with the story that hit Slashdot about the "secret communication with Russian banks" that turned out to be stray DNS queries from a 3rd party marketing server caused by Russian spam (also, who the hell was tapping their DNS...!?)
> Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified.
The dossier puts one person in the wrong country because they confused him with someone who had the same name. It's true that some of the items are not falsifiable, because no evidence exists whatsoever, but again, it's not rational to believe things that cannot be falsified.
You might as well tell us that you saw all of this in your crystal ball, it's just as reliable. It's up to you to prove the claims you make. Trying to shift the proof onto others to disprove your claims is not rational. Hearsay is not evidence.
Again, they should not have reported anything they could not independently validate. Hearsay is not news. Any "journalist" who publishes such--about any person whatsoever--is a disgusting creep who deserves public scorn.
> CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
CNN's Chris Cuomo, a licensed attorney with an ethical obligation to know better and not to misinform us, falsely told us that Wikileaks was illegal. More credible lawyers quickly told us that was absolute BS.
CNN ended their association with Donna Brazille, but they never identified the person who actually leaked the questions, let alone did they fire them.
By all means, hold all of them to that standard. But demand documented proof of everything, on all sides. No, the person CNN blackmailed was not 15, at least according to their Reddit history. No, Trump's commission did not demand non-public voter roll data, you can read the damned letter on NPR. It's amazing how many lazy scumbag "journalists" couldn't be bothered to link the damned thing, including the article that Slashdot linked to.
It's damned pathetic that supposedly professional "journalists" are so lazy that they're not as good at providing sources as Slashdot comments.
One legitimately inaccurate story but what stories about the dossier or any other Trump/Russia illegal connection have been found true? None. It's not about just CNN either, but the entire mainstream media. The entire mainstream media machine has been derelict in their duty to verify news before reporting it.
Multiple news organizations knew about the dossier before the election and didn't print because they couldn't verify it. If it hadn't been for Buzzfeed breaking with journalistic practices and publishing you still wouldn't know about the contents!
The alternative is that the entire mainstream media machine is so blind/inept that they mistakenly published story after story that has turned out to be false about Trump collusion with Russia. So what has this administration ACTUALLY done that warrants this behavior?
Trump's team removing language against Russia from the GOP platform. Hiring multiple people with close connections to Russia. Hiring a campaign manager who worked for Russian puppets and choosing an Attorney General who lied in his confirmation hearing about meeting with the Russian ambassador. Hiring a national security advisor who hid payments from Russia, and then contacted the Russian ambassador to assure him that Trump would drop sanctions while Obama was still President. And then when that advisor lied to the media and the VP about the meeting he still kept that advisor until then press found out.
And then he fired the head of the FBI for refusing to drop a Russia related investigation. Oh, and every intelligence agency agreeing that Putin was trying to help Trump in the election.
And these are just the publicly confirmed things. There's no smoking gun, but there's more than enough for a full congressional investigation.
I didn't approve of many of the things Obama did, but there was NEVER this level of excoriation of Obama by the mainstream media and that includes Fox News. Despite Obama popping off incorrectly on the Harvard professor and blaming the cops, or encouraging the divide in race in our country by saying Treyvon Martin is what his son would look like despite the legal evidence showing no crime was committed. Obama did more to purposely divide the country than any president before him or likely will after him.
I love how in 8 years of Obama this was the best evidence you could find of his malfeasance.
I stole this Sig
Not the claim: Fox is an obvious mouthpiece for the RNC. CNN is an obvious mouthpiece for the DNC (along with ABC, CBS, NBC). MSNBC is an obvious 'progressive' echo chamber. etc Every partisan has a media 'safe space', where they won't hear disturbing facts and reporting. Some of the edge cases are (internet/public access channel) only. Even groups of two or three are forming up circle jerks.
Two years ago, CNN's status as propaganda was _barely_ debateable. Not anymore. Now the only people that dispute it, are just like those that would dispute the status of Fox. Complete partisans that _prove_ the point with every regurgitated argument.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I meant more about vetting messages, not so much about equipment.
Table-ized A.I.
The biggest problem is that you get some junior senator and former community organizer that comes out of nowhere and knocks your chosen candidate out of the primaries. Granted, Obama turned out just fine for the elites in the end, but they weren't going to have a repeat of that again. Hence in 2016 they decided "it's her turn".