Politics

[RLD]

It does not matter who is president, if the president speaks it is news worthy! Americans should be able to watch the speech and decide for themselves their opinion. It is not up to the news media to sensor the news that they see fit.

Did you watch the speech?

Do you think that when the news media didn't carry Biden or Obama speeches on networks live that the media was engaged in a pro-Republican or anti-Democratic conspiracy?

What do you think about President Reagan who was very clear in that he felt that news networks should be able to broadcast in the way they chose as an aspect of the first amendment? He clearly articulated that any interference with editorial judgement was an infringement of the First Amendment. I think he is right about that. He did a lovely job of demolishing the "scarcity" argument as well.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Refusing to air an address by the President of the United States, any president, is absolutely atrocious.

I want to agree, but I watched the first 15 minutes before turning it off. I have no qualms with someone passing on that. It wasn't news, and frankly it wasn't very presidential, IMHO.

 

[jeanes]

That was your choice. I didn't watch it all, either, but we should have a choice. Networks refusing to air gives people no option.

 

[Russ16]

That was your choice. I didn't watch it all, either, but we should have a choice. Networks refusing to air gives people no option.

If some refuse to air and some air then we have a choice. I hate it when they all show it and I don’t have a choice of watching somewhere else. As long as one is showing it that’s enough for me.

 

[Hunt anything]

If some refuse to air and some air then we have a choice. I hate it when they all show it and I don’t have a choice of watching somewhere else. As long as one is showing it that’s enough for me.

I feel the problem is that the viewers of MS now and CNN or who ever didn’t show it wouldn’t search for it and then they listen to the bloviaters on said networks and only hear their take on the speech.
This goes both ways on the other side of the isle as well, Republicans letting Fox News tell them how they should think.
I much prefer to watch and make up my own mind as most on the forum do.

 

[Red Leg]

Did you watch the speech?

Do you think that when the news media didn't carry Biden or Obama speeches on networks live that the media was engaged in a pro-Republican or anti-Democratic conspiracy?

What do you think about President Reagan who was very clear in that he felt that news networks should be able to broadcast in the way they chose as an aspect of the first amendment? He clearly articulated that any interference with editorial judgement was an infringement of the First Amendment. I think he is right about that. He did a lovely job of demolishing the "scarcity" argument as well.

To their credit, ABC, NBC, and CBS declined to carry Biden's bizarre and somewhat dystopian looking "1984" or perhaps "1938" speech in 2022 from Independence Hall concerning so called "threats to democracy" - all of which curiously were right of center.

 

[Russ16]

I feel the problem is that the viewers of MS now and CNN or who ever didn’t show it wouldn’t search for it and then they listen to the bloviaters on said networks and only hear their take on the speech.
This goes both ways on the other side of the isle as well, Republicans letting Fox News tell them how they should think.
I much prefer to watch and make up my own mind as most on the forum do.

I actually prefer to watch something entertaining and read the transcript later. It takes a lot less time.

 

[RLD]

That was your choice. I didn't watch it all, either, but we should have a choice. Networks refusing to air gives people no option.

Many networks aired it, and almost all of them streamed it. All you needed to do was change the channel.

 

[Brent in Az]

When Democrats claim something is a "threat to democracy", that is basically leftist code for a "threat to their agenda".

 

[Brent in Az]

Democrats turning on Fetterman over his statement over what would cause him to leave the Democrat party.

The Borg collective hive mind on full display.

 

[Hunt anything]

When Democrats claim something is a "threat to democracy", that is basically leftist code for a "threat to their agenda".

Yeah and the DSA want to abolish the Supreme Court, Senate and the Presidency with no borders and they say Trump is the threat to democracy!
Give me a freakin break!

 

[Hunt anything]

Democrats turning on Fetterman over his statement over what would cause him to leave the Democrat party.

The Borg collective hive mind on full display.

I saw an interview with Senator Federman last night and paraphrasing he said if the Democratic Party turned on Israel he may leave the party, how about them turning on the United States? Which I believe a lot of them have done.

 

[spike.t]

Can't read all of it but the small part I could is unbelievable...under this new useless piece of shit the UK looks like it's going to go down the sewer even faster.....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/17/burnham-sets-out-1970s-vision-for-britain/

 

[spike.t]

And report from Iran......

Leaked Iran report finds record public anger as regime focuses on holding power

Iran's confidential report prepared for President Masoud Pezeshkian reveals majority support regime change or deep reform amid surging public anger over food prices and corruption.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Killingtime]

He acknowledged it was a boff on the part of the Committee which I'm sure was something of an embarrassment for them. Then Trump gets mad because they won't make the same mistake twice. Pathetic.

I don't know of any mulatto persons who don't consider themselves Black.

@Tanks, I don't have to scour the internet. Anyone who checks the news can see Trump's goofy nonsense in the headlines pretty much every day.

On the mulatto comment I believe race on a birth certificate is decided on the mother’s race. But on the fact that no mulatto considers themselves not black.. its seems to be a condition trained in people in the west that any percent of a person not white is what they claim. My nephew’s mother is 95 percent creek Indian he is 45 percent roughly creek. He in my opinion can claim both but he doesn’t care either way. But most people I meet that have had a dna test (or haven’t) will claim being Indian and disregard their whiteness even if they have only 1percent, Same thing if they have any minority blood at all in them. I have not found that to be true with any other race that has a tiny percentage of white in them they claim what they are and disregard the white side

I guess at the end of the day it’s none of our problems or business if an individual hates or denies what they are.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

We should charge Canada air pollution fee for not managing their forests.

From someone who clearly has no concept whatsoever of the immensity of boreal forests in Canada. How are we supposed to "manage" them better? Let them burn more frequently? That will do wonders for US air quality. Or cut more of them down? Sure, that will be a big boost to global warming. Ever stepped out of a mature forest into a clear cut on a warm day summer day. I have, thousands of times. And those mostly barren grounds are sure eating up a lot of CO gasses, eh? Come up here and look at the typical waste left behind in cutting units. Why? Because it costs more to haul it off than it's worth. So we should just cut down more trees to fix the fuels buildup. And do what with the dead trees? That will just make the planet hotter. Won't fix anything.

Did you not see the image I posted in my thread yesterday? Obviously not so I'll repost it here.

This was all the result of ONE big lightning storm followed less than a day later by ONE record breaking heatwave with lots of wind added to the mix. So how in the world could ANY agency get on top of that many fires in that situation, even if they had a thousand water bombers at their disposal? Not possible.

Of course, I don't expect America's Idiot in Chief to be able to appreciate the unique factors that led to this situation. What Trump knows about science of any sort wouldn't fill a teaspoon. He thinks global warming is a "hoax." And injecting disinfectant and or UV light to cure COVID is something that should have been explored. He drives a motorcade parade down the middle of Lincoln pool after spending $14M to have it lined and can't understand why the liner went to hell when filled with water. Newton's Laws of physics, Donald. "Who's Newton? Must be another leftist liar." So I see now he's gonna slap Canada with a tariff because we can't control the weather. Yeah, that will fix things. Why don't you send some Hot Shot crews and water bombers up here? Probably because he can't find (or afford) the airplane fuel. And why would be that be? Hmmm.

Canada isn't to blame for this no more than the folks in Texas are to blame for not managing their flash floods. We are ALL to blame. We are ALL causing climate change.

 

[steve white]

It’s like driving past a car wreck……

Why are YOU liking this post Big Easy--you are the problem.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

That was your choice. I didn't watch it all, either, but we should have a choice. Networks refusing to air gives people no option.

The president gave fair warning what the subject would be: the same old nonsense and lies about stolen election, stolen voter info (so what?), give him the SAVE Act or else, blah, blah, blah. Even if he actually has something worth talking about, it's still VERY hard to tolerate the rambling, the nonsense, fabricated "facts", and generally talking out his arse without thinking. But to know ahead of time the subject is going to be same old total bullshit. Why would ANY network waste valuable air time broadcasting it again? I think if you could privately poll every GOP up for election this fall, the overwhelming majority would express relief that the speech was NOT more widely broadcast. I think they would agree those networks did the Republican party a favor.

"... gives people no option"? Who in this digital era only has one news source available? Change the channel if you want to watch the King of Babble-on make a fool of himself ... again. I'm glad some of the networks gave us an option to choose something else. Personally, I'd rather watch a soap opera than a Trump press conference ... and soap operas are disgusting (though the script usually at least has some thematic direction). If Trump planned to talk about the Iran war, I'm sure every network would broadcast it. But that stolen election conspiracy crap isn't news. It's pathetic childish ranting again ... and again ... and again. The topic is worn out. Notice that he's the only one still focused on it?

 

[Big_Easy]

Opinions about the surge of "Socialist/Democrat" candidates. What is happening to our country? When I joined the military back in 1983, the word socialism or communism meant you were going to have someone in black suits pay you a visit.

Now, it seems like every Joe, Dick, Harry and Julio are embracing it with obviously the promises of "free" stuff.

I'm going to say something here about those who want to change our country. Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda. The same applies to Ilhan Omar who was born in Somalia, and the rest of the squad. Leave, go change the sh*tholes you left and leave our country the way it is.

This scares the crap out of me. I know what Socialism/Communism does, and I lived it and suffer through it. America, we need to wake up, encourage everyone to vote in the mid-terms. This is real, and if we want to keep our country the way it is, we need to vote. Pass it on.

Maybe the people who can't afford to live here anymore don't want to "keep the country the way it is"? Did it ever occur to any of you to ask why these candidates are getting traction now? Similar to the Socialist candidates in the early 1900s? I mean it's not that hard people. If you screw over enough American's, allow income inequality to reach all time highs, and gaslight people about it, they tend to rebel at some point. Socialist candidates received almost 1 million votes for president in the 1912/1920 presidential elections, by the 1940s it had dropped to 150K votes, and then to only 60K votes by the 1950s.

Try doing something about the oligarchs here, the vast income inequality, the outrageous cost of housing, the loss of good paying jobs, corporate monopolies, etc...Instead of complaining about candidates that were duly elected by the people. Maybe tax cuts for the rich, endless corporate campaign contributions, and free trade wasn't the answer. Remember that you may have a lot to loose financially, but the people on the bottom don't. Pass it on.

 

[Big_Easy]

Interestingly the Socialist/Communist candidates are primarying incumbent Democrats in solid blue districts. Pretty good playbook for them as mostly the base votes in the primaries.

Similar thing happens on the GOP side as well on solid red districts as fringe candidates win primaries.

Yeah it's almost like gerrymandering isn't a good idea because it leads to extremest candidates trying to out crazy one another since only the hardcore base tends to vote in most primary elections.