SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.
"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.
Mr Trump's tweet came in response to a story written by NBC, which said that Mr Trump had sought to increase America's nuclear arsenal tenfold after taking a look at a briefing slide that showed stead reduction of the US nuclear arsenal since the 1960s. The story cited three officials who were reportedly in the room when Mr Trump made the comments.
Source: Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Threatens to Shut Down NBC and Other TV News Networks That Criticize Him
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
(Score: 4, Informative) by BananaPhone on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:50PM (40 children)
If that does not give him the dictator label, nothing will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:54PM (27 children)
That's not how any of this works.
Besides, what is democracy (representative or otherwise) other than one group dictating to another group?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:56PM (7 children)
It's a violently imposed monopoly of the majority.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:22PM (5 children)
*majority as defined by electoral college, gerrymandering or other non-representative systems where individual votes to not determine who wins the election or what counts as a 'majority'.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:42PM (4 children)
Don"t you DARE criticize the effects of our perfect sacred constitution or otherwise heretically question the infinite wisdom of the Framers!
For there is no system better than our system, and no country better than our country, as illustrated by the failure of all others to achieve what we achieve, or handle the test of time, greed and corruption!
You, for one, should expect the DC inquisition!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:23AM (3 children)
Settle down, pinhead! No one is saying that you can't criticise the Constitution or "the infinite wisdom of the Framers". You can put that straw man back in the closet.
If you have a better idea for how the government should be run then, by all means, put it out there before a candid world. My guess is that you won't. My next guess is that if you should choose to respond, you will only embarrass yourself further.
Ummm...yeah. You can put your persecution complex in the closet right next to your favourite straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:37AM
Fix gerrymandering, congressional term limits, no more electoral college.
Done. I'll leave you to your bed wetting.
(Score: 4, Touché) by edIII on Friday October 20 2017, @02:27AM (1 child)
He was being sarcastic. Sheesh.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:43PM
Poe's Law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:23PM
A kabuki play meant to distract the rabble from the powers that really determine policy?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:07PM (16 children)
Besides, what is democracy (representative or otherwise) other than one group dictating to another group?
No, that's what government is, by definition. If no one ever gets dictated to and has no limits at all on their actions, then you have anarchy. The whole point of having a legal code and a judicial system (integral parts of a government) is to limit peoples' actions, which amounts to one group dictating to another group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:27PM (15 children)
You're right: An organization is a "government" when its fundamental principle is coercion; that's why a warlord, Kim Jong Un, a monarchy, and Uncle Sam, etc., are all governments. A street gang is a kind of government, too, within its little "jurisdiction".
Yet, there's no fundamental need for an organization that is based on coercion.
It is enough to have a self-supporting (read: iterative) system of law by contractual obligation: Individuals agree in advance to certain terms of interaction, the enforcement of which is itself specified by the contract(s); enforcement is just another service in the market, open to competition by various suppliers, and in this way, the whole system benefits from the free market's power of evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice), known as the "invisible hand".
There's no need for your "government" idea. It's an ancient relic of "do-as-I-say" authoritarianism; it's time to embrace "do-as-we-agreed" libertarianism.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:03PM (11 children)
Sweet jesus how many times do we need to point out that you're simply re-inventing the government? Do people get to decide in advance whether they are OK with murder being illegal? How do you punish someone who says they never agreed to that? At what age will people be held accountable? What about tourists? You are basically describing a weird fusion of city states and corporations with no answer as to how it would actually work other than the "invisible hand".
The whole point of Democracy is that it is SUPPOSED to be "do as we agreed" but corrupt fuckheads gerrymander their way into power and we're too divided to vote out the corporate tit suckers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
I like an analogy to games. Games have rules and often judges. The stakes are carefully kept relatively low. For instance, almost always the losers are not executed or sacrificed to the gods. Even animal males fighting each other for mates doesn't usually end in death. It's too destructive, and could easily result in no winners because every player ended up hurt too badly.
All this talk of extreme competition under total anarchy, no rules or enforcement at all, simply isn't realistic. Life doesn't always work that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:43PM
You've constructed an extreme straw man.
Indeed, your desire to avoid "extreme competition" is undoubtedly shared by very many people, and thus would results in a law-by-contracts that is similarly risk-averse—perhaps even more so than the law that is crafted today by whimsical, vote-grabbing politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:39PM (8 children)
People drive on one particular side of the road, not because it's the government's law, but because that's what you do when in Rome, especially when you don't want to die!
To interact with others outside of a well defined contract (including cultural norms) is to put your life into peril. That's the whole point of negotiating a contract in the first place: To get people on the same page.
Why has democracy failed to produce a society based on "do as we agreed"? Well, simple: Democracy is fundamentally based on "do as I say" coercion. What else did you expect?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:56PM (7 children)
It is appalling that you see democracy as coercion and think "voluntary contracts" will not follow a similar route. You have yet to address the VERY SIMPLE "murder is illegal" conundrum. How do you punish those who don't think it should be illegal? They never agreed to it.
I feel like you're just a blind zealot, or an intentional plant to sow division and undermine the very concept of democracy. At this point, with so many times we've engaged your stupid rant, FUCK OFF!
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:00PM (3 children)
Easy, don't allow them to enter the areas where people have agreed that they shall not murder. Anarchy doesn't mean everyone is free to do what they want, it means that there is no government. Quit regurgitating archist propaganda.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 20 2017, @01:07AM (2 children)
Yes, we'll just need some organization to decide who gets in based on agreement to the terms of entry. And some sort of governing body to make sure the decisions are being made fairly.
Then, we'll need a group to decide if the rules have been violated by someone who agreed to be ruled. To jeep it impartial they can hold secret ballots. Place a peanut in the hat if the rules were violated, otherwise a mint. We can call it the goobermint.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday October 20 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)
None of that is required, just the normal social practices that already exist. If you're known as a child molester, do you have an easy time living anywhere? I bet not. You'll get threatened, attacked, and driven out. This is the way society works, it needs no government, no laws, none of the formalities that ostensibly make justice "just", just people looking out for their own best interests.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 20 2017, @08:58AM
You need to read something about organizations. Here: The Tyranny of Stuctureless [jofreeman.com].
When the "society" decides who is a child molester and who needs to be ostracised, there always forms a cabal dedicated to declaring its enemies as child molesters and manipulating others into agreeing with themselves. The purpose of government is to make sure this cabal can be recognized. This holds true even for primitive systems with a local leader and its henchmen to kings and kingdoms to democracy. Instead of dedicating all mental energy into doing politics, society decides proactively gives the power to the cabal so rest of the people can mind their own business. I mean literally - it is related to economics.
In a poor society fighting off natural calamities and lack of rain, people didn't have time to worry about the neighbour and his/her infatuation with children. All the talk about lack of governance relies on a utopian economical system where people actually have time to coordinate and strive to make fair judgements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:08PM (2 children)
You've already been answered: If you haven't agreed to an particular contract, then you are operating outside of the well defined bounds of a contract; the consequences for your actions are therefore also ill-defined—murder someone, and see what happens to you...
Of course, a sophisticated framework of contracts will naturally spell out the consequences for such behavior in most cases, so you'll be able to guess what people will do. For instance, vigilante justice may not be allowed within a certain community, so you can expect the response to be fairly official.
The shape of society will be found through the process of evolution by variation and selection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)
So history up to now was what then? NOT an evolving society? mmhmmm
You do realize you are describing laws right? "Oh you entered our local domain and a certain group of contract agreements are inherently agreed to upon your entering." Yeah, sounds like a completely new process to me!
Sorry but yer a total jackass. Oh wait, I'm not sorry. I mean "you're welcome".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:05AM
Your "law" is a dictate, not a contract or collection of contracts.
They are superficially similar, but are actually quite different.
You're correct about one thing though: Society is already not far from what has been described; you already exist under a different "law" than I do, because you have contractual obligations in your life that are different from mine.
Keep thinking. You'll get it, eventually.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:06AM (2 children)
Unless, of course, an organization already exists to steal, extort, etc by coercion, such as a gang. We already have examples in Eastern Europe of what happens when official governments crumble and citizens of the country refuse to pick up the slack. You are running afoul of human nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @06:45AM (1 child)
What could your point possibly be?
None of this stops people from realizing the continuing trauma (coercion), and then deciding something different (libertarianism).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:29PM
In the real world, a lot of people will decide against libertarianism. Safety over freedom.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)
This makes me weep. Please, go back to school. Grade school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:47PM
It's obvious that you yourself are a product of a government-run school.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:41PM (3 children)
Trump says a lot of mean and silly things on Twitter. Does that make him a dictator?
He keeps trying to do things by fiat, but nearly all of them have failed because Congress and the courts have blocked him. Doesn't that mean by definition that he is not a dictator?
He can't even get his own nominal party to back his policies.
If he's a dictator, then he's the weakest and most benighted one in history, because he can't seem to manage to do much at all by diktat.
You can call Trump a lot of things, but you can't call him a dictator because he can't dictate anything.
Now, if the FBI consents to roll out and arrest the heads of the DNC and RNC and he declares martial law and suspends elections, then he will fit the label of dictator.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
He's a dictator. He just sucks at it.
Being shitty sportsball player doesn't make you NOT a sportsball player...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 20 2017, @04:23AM
Only in the special olympics, my friend. Everywhere else you get cut from the team.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @12:33AM
If the FBI arrests the heads of the DNC and RNC, then he will fit the label of courageous.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:00PM (4 children)
Can you even imagine the epic shitstorm that would have ensued if Obama said something like that?
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @01:17AM (3 children)
We don't have to wonder. Obama did similar things several times, such as spying on news agencies, or punishing information leaks in illegal ways. Not much was made of the issue other than to occasionally note [washingtonpost.com] that it's happening.
Now, Trump has that power. And so will future presidents (many whom will be similarly iffy presidents) unless it is somehow revoked. But where was the epic shitstorm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:53AM
When things are hidden it is hard to develop an epic shitstorm. I didn't like Obama pretty early into his terms, but I only knew about some of the most minor infractions apparently. Even now people are pissed, but there is no process for citizens to get redress. Contacting congressman is a joke, protesting seems to do nothing, occupy was subverted and the media did a great job of marginalizing them. False flag shit by the 3 letters, abuses of power for anyone who becomes too much of a problem.
Gee, I wonder why nothing happens!? Oh yeah, the standing rock bit, that was some clear examples of media and law enforcement marginalizing people. It was almost amusing to see how hard they had to try to find flaws to make the protesters look bad.
Did you post stories about Obama's negative shit? Did a bunch of liberal types defend his bad actions? Is there some reason Obama's shitty terms are relevant to Trump's ridiculously worse kickoff? No, you just want to equivocate so your team doesn't seem so bad. Sorry, but it is that bad, and no amount of bullshit from a Democrat will change that.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 20 2017, @02:47AM (1 child)
It's nice to see someone bring that up. Too many people forget that Obama ushered in a dark era when it came citizen's privacy, and indeed, civil rights. While people were loving a hip black President, they didn't notice he never followed through on those promises. Or that we never left war. Or that the NSA/AT&T people were never touched. Or the Patriot Act didn't get touched, but extended. Or that Constitutional Free Zones existed, what they were, how many people were under them, and that many of your rights were abrogated in them.
Yeah, going after the whistle blowers instead of thanking them for their courage solidly put him in the authoritarian category.
It will awhile before people can have an honest discussion about that President. His hipness and faked progressive agenda, while admittedly being a President for LGBTQ, makes him largely unassailable. Apparently it's a really good idea to be a good looking populist charmer when you're going to con your fellow citizens.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 20 2017, @04:34AM
Not me. I feel unabashed about calling him out for the useless POS he was. He had a chance to redeem his piss poor record by pardoning snowden because a presidential pardon is absolute and does not have to win approval in a legislative branch controlled by the opposition. But he fucked that up, the simpering coward and/or master-of-the-universe wannabe. He could have gone after bush & cheney for their war crimes, but he didnt. He could have cleansed the CIA with fire over their torture program and extraordinary rendition and black sites, but he didnt. He could have turned the NSA inside out for their crimes, but he didnt. On and on. He didnt even take on wall street, when the vast majority of the country would have voted him best president ever if he had, because those fuckers desperately need to get got. But he didnt. The only positive thing i can say about barack obama was that he didnt mangle the english language like an inbred redneck retard on meth like his immediate predecessor. That's really it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
So someone in a position of authority says that they would like to legally challenge some entity that may not be operating within their regulated space (i.e. License) makes them a dictator?
Shrewd logic..
In this case, he didn't even say he'd do it, just asking when would it be appropriate - almost rethorical. That quoted statement in TFS clearly doesn't even reconcile with the News headline in TFS.
As others pointed out he's wrong in that those entities he referenced aren't actually regulated (with a License), but that just makes him ignorant. Far stretch from a dictator.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @02:19PM
Yes, actually. For someone of the highest authority to even suggest that others he doesn't like should be stripped of their authority, the label "dictator" is appropriate. It doesn't matter if it is Trump about the press, or Maduro about government prosecutors, or Erdogan about Gulen, or Hitler about the jews. It should all be viewed through the same lens, and should not be weaseled away just because you like one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:57PM
Come on now... at least be intellectually honest. Sure, he 'asked' the question but he didn't just ask it. He 'asked' it because he wants to get people to pressure whoever need to be pressured and to make it clear to members of his administration that this would 'please the emperor'...
Just see whether when you 'ask' the a question framed in the exact same fashion regarding termination-of-life of the head of the governmental executive. See how long it would take for you 'just asking a question, almost rhetorically' to land in front of a couple of SS agents being grilled for multiple hours.