Who survives Shepard Smith or *ucker Carlson?

2,372 Views | 51 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by bearister
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For the last several months Hannity and Carlson have been campaigning at Fox News to have Shepard Smith removed. While Smith has legitimate journalist credentials, Hannity and Carlson represent the Trump pundit side of Fox News and are frequently at odds with the 'truth in the news' presented by journalists like Smith. I have been expecting *ucker Carlson and Trump whisperer Hannity to win this battle.

The end may be coming sooner than expected for Ole Miss grad Smith. Yesterday on Fox Smith openly discredited *ucker Carlson's claim Tuesday night that white supremacy is a "hoax" Last night *ucker Carlson did not appear to be any more irate or hostile than normal on his broadcast; however Carlson hours later announced he was taking a vacation as calls to fire him trended on social media.

As Fox News has transitioned from a News Service to the propaganda wing of the Trump government; the influence of journalists like Smith has waned and that of protagonists like Hannity and Carlson has waxed.
It's decision time for Fox NEWS, who goes Smith or Carlson? does this save Smith? Will the Trump Base demand Smith be fired to protect *ucker Carlson?

thoughts ?
MSaviolives
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As we all know, Fox is "fair and balanced." Therefore, they will keep Shep for fairness and balance.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149 said:

For the last several months Hannity and Carlson have been campaigning at Fox News to have Shepard Smith removed. While Smith has legitimate journalist credentials, Hannity and Carlson represent the Trump pundit side of Fox News and are frequently at odds with the 'truth in the news' presented by journalists like Smith. I have been expecting *ucker Carlson and Trump whisperer Hannity to win this battle.

The end may be coming sooner than expected for Ole Miss grad Smith. Yesterday on Fox Smith openly discredited *ucker Carlson's claim Tuesday night that white supremacy is a "hoax" Last night *ucker Carlson did not appear to be any more irate or hostile than normal on his broadcast; however Carlson hours later announced he was taking a vacation as calls to fire him trended on social media.

As Fox News has transitioned from a News Service to the propaganda wing of the Trump government; the influence of journalists like Smith has waned and that of protagonists like Hannity and Carlson has waxed.
It's decision time for Fox NEWS, who goes Smith or Carlson? does this save Smith? Will the Trump Base demand Smith be fired to protect *ucker Carlson?

thoughts?
Transitioned?
An old white dude
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hope Fox gets rid of Shep Smith and Chris Wallace too. That way there will be no question that they are simply a Republican propaganda arm.

Those guys will easily find work elsewhere.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Follow the money. Your answer resides there.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More bad news for Smith, The Grump has spoken:

"Watching Fake News CNN is better than watching Shepard Smith, the lowest rated show on Fox News," Trump tweeted during a busy day of travel between Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas. "Actually, whenever possible, I turn to OANN!"

The reference is to the conspiracy-peddling right-wing cable news network One America News Network, based in San Diego, which is unabashedly pro-Trump.

I live in San Diego, where the local news shows are decidedly conservative, but I only learned of OANN from this tweet.

Of course we have our own local corrupt politician, GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter, currently awaiting trial on campaign finance violations (60 charges). He has already thrown his wife under the bus by accusing her of funding his numerous extramarital affairs with campaign funds. If that name is familiar it could be that his father of the same name retired when he was being investigated on corruption allegations. Or it could be that on the British drama, Shetland, the chief protagonist who seems to traffic on both sides of the law is likewise named Duncan Hunter. It has to be the name.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just in from Hell: FIRE THAT F@UCKING SHEP SMITH!

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You can't Cuck the Tuck!
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chris Wallace is a tool bag. But Shep Smith is dope.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Isn't Carlson on an unexpected but long overdue planned vacation in the aftermath of Carlson vs. Smith.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chris Wallace posing as a hard-hitting journalist but getting destroyed by William Jefferson Clinton trying to claim he was weak on terrorism (getting Bin Ladin)
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Chris Wallace posing as a hard-hitting journalist but getting destroyed by William Jefferson Clinton trying to claim he was weak on terrorism (getting Bin Ladin)

Holy cr@p, Clinton said he authorized a full scale invasion on Afghanistan and was stopped by the CIA because they wouldn't certify what Bin Laden had done. That has my mind reeling. I'm sure everyone would have criticized Clinton, but arguably he could have changed the course of history. Arguably no 9/11. Looking at Clinton in a new light. Talk about having a pair.
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Chris Wallace is a tool bag. But Shep Smith is dope.
Yup.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.



First of all, Murdoch is a naturalized US Citizen. I believe for the last 30+ years.

And to be clear, are you saying non-citizens don't have the same loyalty to the US? You might be right, but that puts you in firm agreement with many of the pundits on Fox News when it comes to their view of foreign influence (including Hannity and Tucker). Just saying.

Finally, what makes you think Shep Smith can't survive at Fox even if he disagrees with other hosts? He's been there for 20+ years and clashed with O'Reilly and others. Yet he's still there. What does that tell you?

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.



First of all, Murdoch is a naturalized US Citizen. I believe for the last 30+ years.

And to be clear, are you saying non-citizens don't have the same loyalty to the US? You might be right, but that puts you in firm agreement with many of the pundits on Fox News when it comes to their view of foreign influence (including Hannity and Tucker). Just saying.

Finally, what makes you think Shep Smith can't survive at Fox even if he disagrees with other hosts? He's been there for 20+ years and clashed with O'Reilly and others. Yet he's still there. What does that tell you?


I'll be frank. Murdoch is the problem. Even as a citizen he had proven to be bad for the U.S. Fox is pushing lies, protecting Russians and propping up a fascist.

The thing is, he did the exact same thing in Australia (his home country) - published divisive stuff at a high rate. He reeled in profits but really screwed up the system, sowed general hate and distrust in the system, all for profits. If he did that to his home country, fat chance he'd spare the U.S. The guy is a leech.

In any case, I made no mention Smith would be out. I said follow the profits or money. In fact advertisers are pulling their spots from Carlson's show. So it looks like Carlson might be out. Fox put him on "vacation".
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.



First of all, Murdoch is a naturalized US Citizen. I believe for the last 30+ years.

And to be clear, are you saying non-citizens don't have the same loyalty to the US? You might be right, but that puts you in firm agreement with many of the pundits on Fox News when it comes to their view of foreign influence (including Hannity and Tucker). Just saying.

Finally, what makes you think Shep Smith can't survive at Fox even if he disagrees with other hosts? He's been there for 20+ years and clashed with O'Reilly and others. Yet he's still there. What does that tell you?


I'll be frank. Murdoch is the problem. Even as a citizen he had proven to be bad for the U.S. Fox is pushing lies, protecting Russians and propping up a fascist.

The thing is, he did the exact same thing in Australia (his home country) - published divisive stuff at a high rate. He reeled in profits but really screwed up the system, sowed general hate and distrust in the system, all for profits. If he did that to his home country, fat chance he'd spare the U.S. The guy is a leech.

In any case, I made no mention Smith would be out. I said follow the profits or money. In fact advertisers are pulling their spots from Carlson's show. So it looks like Carlson might be out. Fox put him on "vacation".

You're basically saying that Murdoch is the problem because you don't like his politics. Its a 50-50 country - just as many people would say the same thing about the editorial position and opinion hosts at MSNBC or CNN.

If you follow the dollars, Carlson will survive - and its not even close compared to Shep or for that matter other hosts.

From Forbes:

"Tucker Carlson Tonight ranked number two among cable news in June, delivering 3.1 million viewers and 519,000 in 25-54 demographic targeting by advertisers. The show topped the combined showing of rivals CNN and MSNBC both in total viewers and in the target demo.

Ratings like that are too good for Fox, and its advertisers, to ignore."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanberr/2019/08/12/tucker-carlsons-job-is-safefor-now/#46323ae07505

Bottom line, stop drinking the media matters Kool Aid.

I have a question for you. Is it possible that White Supremacy is a very serious problem and, at the same time, that the scope of the problem has been exaggerated by those with a political agenda? In other words, there aren't very many true white supremacists (that is the "hoax") but a decent amount are violent and therefore they present a real and significant problem (or that that they are inspiring violence)? There might even be bigger problems facing the US that kill many more people each year - such as drug addiction and/or homelessness. Many liberals got really upset at Tucker for making this argument.

Before you answer, consider that many people felt (or have expressed in retrospect) that the US overreacted to the events of 9/11. In other words radical Islamists were a real and significant threat, but that threat was exaggerated or manipulated for political and other reasons. That the US should have spent its blood and treasure to address other, more significant problems. Many conservatives got really upset at the people making these arguments.

I'm not saying I agree with either of the above positions. But they are basically similar arguments. I don't see why either is out of bounds unless you view things in strictly partisan fashion.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Without reservation, the best line in the mini series, The Loudest Voice, starring Russell Crowe as Roger Ailes:

"They were red, like raw hamburger."

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.



First of all, Murdoch is a naturalized US Citizen. I believe for the last 30+ years.

And to be clear, are you saying non-citizens don't have the same loyalty to the US? You might be right, but that puts you in firm agreement with many of the pundits on Fox News when it comes to their view of foreign influence (including Hannity and Tucker). Just saying.

Finally, what makes you think Shep Smith can't survive at Fox even if he disagrees with other hosts? He's been there for 20+ years and clashed with O'Reilly and others. Yet he's still there. What does that tell you?


I'll be frank. Murdoch is the problem. Even as a citizen he had proven to be bad for the U.S. Fox is pushing lies, protecting Russians and propping up a fascist.

The thing is, he did the exact same thing in Australia (his home country) - published divisive stuff at a high rate. He reeled in profits but really screwed up the system, sowed general hate and distrust in the system, all for profits. If he did that to his home country, fat chance he'd spare the U.S. The guy is a leech.

In any case, I made no mention Smith would be out. I said follow the profits or money. In fact advertisers are pulling their spots from Carlson's show. So it looks like Carlson might be out. Fox put him on "vacation".

You're basically saying that Murdoch is the problem because you don't like his politics. Its a 50-50 country - just as many people would say the same thing about the editorial position and opinion hosts at MSNBC or CNN.

If you follow the dollars, Carlson will survive - and its not even close compared to Shep or for that matter other hosts.

From Forbes:

"Tucker Carlson Tonight ranked number two among cable news in June, delivering 3.1 million viewers and 519,000 in 25-54 demographic targeting by advertisers. The show topped the combined showing of rivals CNN and MSNBC both in total viewers and in the target demo.

Ratings like that are too good for Fox, and its advertisers, to ignore."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanberr/2019/08/12/tucker-carlsons-job-is-safefor-now/#46323ae07505

Bottom line, stop drinking the media matters Kool Aid.

I have a question for you. Is it possible that White Supremacy is a very serious problem and, at the same time, that the scope of the problem has been exaggerated by those with a political agenda? In other words, there aren't very many true white supremacists (that is the "hoax") but a decent amount are violent and therefore they present a real and significant problem (or that that they are inspiring violence)? There might even be bigger problems facing the US that kill many more people each year - such as drug addiction and/or homelessness. Many liberals got really upset at Tucker for making this argument.

Before you answer, consider that many people felt (or have expressed in retrospect) that the US overreacted to the events of 9/11. In other words radical Islamists were a real and significant threat, but that threat was exaggerated or manipulated for political and other reasons. That the US should have spent its blood and treasure to address other, more significant problems. Many conservatives got really upset at the people making these arguments.

I'm not saying I agree with either of the above positions. But they are basically similar arguments. I don't see why either is out of bounds unless you view things in strictly partisan fashion.


Check this out. It's four parts but it explains the crap Murdoch did in Australia. Very much anti-democracy...just like Fox here, just like Trump. Murdoch has had practice...and results. I am a believer in democracy, even as it's slow, cumbersome, often backwards...because the alternative seems to be fascism, what Murdoch advocates.

The problem with fascist, authoritarianism and Trumpism is while there is imposed change for those in power...the hang-over from fascist regimes tend to be very brutal and effects everyone very harshly because they are unpredictable (see post-WarII Axis countries). Watch Trump...he's push the tariffs crap, edging towards a recession, needlessly because things were running a-okay before.

I don't think anyone sane would predict how the Trump administration ends...too much sh*t flying around. In any case, Murdoch has proven to be bad for democracy in two countries. Frankly I hope he croaks soon.

A very Australian coup: Murdoch, Turnbull and the power of News Corp

Quote:

In the first part of a series, Guardian Australia reveals the outsize influence of a media mogul two Australian prime ministers blame for their demise
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More links from different media outlets in Australia. It seems they have a democracy crisis...much like here, and Murdoch has major media in both countries.

Cancer eating the heart of Australian democracy

Citizen Murdoch's critical grip on democracy

Power without responsibility: Rupert Murdoch's Australian

News Corp: Democracy's greatest threat
prospeCt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/mar/16/stanislavski-man-method-simon-callow



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/12/global-trade-disruption-a-symptom-of-deeper-malaise-us-china
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

BearGoggles said:

Another Bear said:

Rupert Murdoch and family (News Corp) have traded on divisiveness, division and hate not only here but also Australia and the UK. It's their brand. They leverage hate to gain power.

I think there should be limits on foreign media ownership in the U.S., exactly because of News Corp spreading hate. They simply don't have the same loyalties, instead it's about making a buck and screwing anything that gets in the way...including democracy.

On that note, bring back the Fairness Doctrine...and regulate cable. These two factors facilitated the rise of Fox News in the U.S., aka News Corp.

As for Smith vs. Carlson...I assume Fox will go with who generates more $$$. I personally like fact-based journalism so I pull for that.



First of all, Murdoch is a naturalized US Citizen. I believe for the last 30+ years.

And to be clear, are you saying non-citizens don't have the same loyalty to the US? You might be right, but that puts you in firm agreement with many of the pundits on Fox News when it comes to their view of foreign influence (including Hannity and Tucker). Just saying.

Finally, what makes you think Shep Smith can't survive at Fox even if he disagrees with other hosts? He's been there for 20+ years and clashed with O'Reilly and others. Yet he's still there. What does that tell you?


I'll be frank. Murdoch is the problem. Even as a citizen he had proven to be bad for the U.S. Fox is pushing lies, protecting Russians and propping up a fascist.

The thing is, he did the exact same thing in Australia (his home country) - published divisive stuff at a high rate. He reeled in profits but really screwed up the system, sowed general hate and distrust in the system, all for profits. If he did that to his home country, fat chance he'd spare the U.S. The guy is a leech.

In any case, I made no mention Smith would be out. I said follow the profits or money. In fact advertisers are pulling their spots from Carlson's show. So it looks like Carlson might be out. Fox put him on "vacation".

You're basically saying that Murdoch is the problem because you don't like his politics. Its a 50-50 country - just as many people would say the same thing about the editorial position and opinion hosts at MSNBC or CNN.

If you follow the dollars, Carlson will survive - and its not even close compared to Shep or for that matter other hosts.

From Forbes:

"Tucker Carlson Tonight ranked number two among cable news in June, delivering 3.1 million viewers and 519,000 in 25-54 demographic targeting by advertisers. The show topped the combined showing of rivals CNN and MSNBC both in total viewers and in the target demo.

Ratings like that are too good for Fox, and its advertisers, to ignore."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanberr/2019/08/12/tucker-carlsons-job-is-safefor-now/#46323ae07505

Bottom line, stop drinking the media matters Kool Aid.

I have a question for you. Is it possible that White Supremacy is a very serious problem and, at the same time, that the scope of the problem has been exaggerated by those with a political agenda? In other words, there aren't very many true white supremacists (that is the "hoax") but a decent amount are violent and therefore they present a real and significant problem (or that that they are inspiring violence)? There might even be bigger problems facing the US that kill many more people each year - such as drug addiction and/or homelessness. Many liberals got really upset at Tucker for making this argument.

Before you answer, consider that many people felt (or have expressed in retrospect) that the US overreacted to the events of 9/11. In other words radical Islamists were a real and significant threat, but that threat was exaggerated or manipulated for political and other reasons. That the US should have spent its blood and treasure to address other, more significant problems. Many conservatives got really upset at the people making these arguments.

I'm not saying I agree with either of the above positions. But they are basically similar arguments. I don't see why either is out of bounds unless you view things in strictly partisan fashion.


Check this out. It's four parts but it explains the crap Murdoch did in Australia. Very much anti-democracy...just like Fox here, just like Trump. Murdoch has had practice...and results. I am a believer in democracy, even as it's slow, cumbersome, often backwards...because the alternative seems to be fascism, what Murdoch advocates.

The problem with fascist, authoritarianism and Trumpism is while there is imposed change for those in power...the hang-over from fascist regimes tend to be very brutal and effects everyone very harshly because they are unpredictable (see post-WarII Axis countries). Watch Trump...he's push the tariffs crap, edging towards a recession, needlessly because things were running a-okay before.

I don't think anyone sane would predict how the Trump administration ends...too much sh*t flying around. In any case, Murdoch has proven to be bad for democracy in two countries. Frankly I hope he croaks soon.

A very Australian coup: Murdoch, Turnbull and the power of News Corp

Quote:

In the first part of a series, Guardian Australia reveals the outsize influence of a media mogul two Australian prime ministers blame for their demise

You seem to have a strong affinity for the word "fascism" and its derivatives yet little understanding of what the word actually means. Please feel free to define the term and then point me to where Murdoch has advocated for fascism.

The articles you link to - even if taken at face value - don't support a claim of fascism. The articles claim that Murdoch exerted political influence - both because of money and his newspaper media position - to influence democracy. Turnbull resigned due to political pressures (in part generated by Murdoch media) and was replaced as part of the democratic process. And the new leaders remain subject to all the pre-existing democratic/parliamentarian norms/procedures (i.e, they are elected and can be removed). How is that fascist? Arguably, its reflects poorly on the influence of money on democracy, but it literally has nothing to do with fascism or authoritarianism.

Based on the article, it seems Murdoch's media position in Australia is akin to the NY Times in the US - he sets the daily newspaper news agenda. The NY Times certainly has an editorial point of view and have strongly advocated for Trump's removal as well as advancing other progressive political objectives over the years. Are the owners of the NY Times fascists too because they use their postilion of media power for political purposes?

Calling Trump a fascist authoritarian doesn't make it so. Like his predecessors he has pushed executive power (see e.g., Obama and DACA and the Obamacare executive orders, all of which were authoritarian and unlawful in nature). But each and every time Trump has lost in court (and he has lost a lot) or at the ballot box, he has honored the court/election decision. Objectively, that is the opposite of fascism or authoritarianism.

And for the record, you have democratic candidates who are far more authoritarian. Kamala has promised to adopt executive orders imposing gun control restrictions not authorized under current law if congress doesn't act within 100 days. In other words, if the law isn't passed, then she will just impose it (much like Obama and Daca). That is, by definition, authoritarian - imposing a law that was rejected by the legislature
.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/10/kamala-harris-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus/1881749001/

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whatever dude. Okay, so you don't think Murdoch is a problem for Australian and/or American democracy, and both are safe from yellow journalism. The available information says otherwise. There's loads of info about the anti-democracy efforts of News Corp and Fox News. Ignore it if you wish. Have a nice day.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Whatever dude. Okay, so you don't think Murdoch is a problem for Australian and/or American democracy, and both are safe from yellow journalism. The available information says otherwise. There's loads of info about the anti-democracy efforts of News Corp and Fox News. Ignore it if you wish. Have a nice day.

Murdoch might be a problem - but he's not a fascist which is what you called him and Trump. I noticed you've not responded to those points and my challenge that you explain how Trump/Murdoch are fascists - I accept your concession.

And his "anti-democracy efforts" at News Corp and Fox are no different than other partisan, moneyed interests, or yellow/partisan journalism at other places including Media Matters, the NY Times, and Huff Po. Lots of groups have moneyed interests including labor unions and business interests. They are all part of the current democratic process - for better or worse the rich and people in the media have disproportionate influence. Democracy has always worked that way. Other than your partisan preferences, you haven't offered any explanation why Murdoch's influence is anti-democratic or worse than the others who are similarly influential.

You are big on throwing out labels that sound fancy and are intended to inflame - "fascist" or "anti-democratic." But the truth is you use those words to describe people whose politics you don't like. Things are not "anti-democratic" just because they don't meet your partisan/political preferences.

You're entitled to your view and disdain for Trump or conservative policies. But in all candor your rhetoric undercuts your credibility and comes across as both juvenile and lazy. Throwing around "fascist" or "anti-democratic" haphazardly isn't an argument - its just weak ad hominem prattle.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:


Calling Trump a fascist authoritarian doesn't make it so. Like his predecessors he has pushed executive power (see e.g., Obama and DACA and the Obamacare executive orders, all of which were authoritarian and unlawful in nature). But each and every time Trump has lost in court (and he has lost a lot) or at the ballot box, he has honored the court/election decision. Objectively, that is the opposite of fascism or authoritarianism.

And for the record, you have democratic candidates who are far more authoritarian. Kamala has promised to adopt executive orders imposing gun control restrictions not authorized under current law if congress doesn't act within 100 days. In other words, if the law isn't passed, then she will just impose it (much like Obama and Daca). That is, by definition, authoritarian - imposing a law that was rejected by the legislature
.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/10/kamala-harris-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus/1881749001/



You are holding Trump to a different set of standards than democrats. If you think imposing by executive order what you can't get done through Congress is authoritarian, than why only mention it when Kamala has called for it and ignore all the times Trump has actually done it. There have been any number of laws and regulations which Trump has unwound through executive order or shoddy administrative rulemaking rather than convincing congress to pass a law - because he has absolutely no interest or ability in adhering to democratic norms or process. Look at healthcare, immigration, trade, environmental protection and on and on. Arguing that Moscow Mitch should go nuclear for everything seems pretty authoritarian to me.

And not only that but Trump has lost in court and gone back with disingenuously revised EOs as well - look no further than the Muslim Ban where he forced the DOJ to take counterfactual positions. He fired the attorney general for not supporting his authoritarian whims and chose a new AG who is an avowed supporter of executive power. It's laughable to say that Trump has honored the courts or election decisions. He claimed without evidence that millions of illegal votes were cast!

I'm fine with you throwing around the word authoritarian to describe candidates but you aren't being intellectually honest if you ignore all the authoritarian actions Trump has already taken to focus on threats by a candidate.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Re: authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism...the commonality with these are that they're all anti-democracy and thus anti-American. They are the opposite of democracy. Yes there are differences but the practical point is they're all anti-democracy.

The problem with Trumpkins is they want to cherry pick word use and meanings and gaslight everything. For god fccking sake, Rudy G. made it all clear, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH". This statement is the Trump admin in a nutshell.

This is the exact same crap Hitler and his Nazis did in WWII and it is fascism. But for the sake of moving forwards I'll just say Trump's admin is anti-democracy and anti-American ("Hello Vlad, yes I will suck your dick" -T) and so are the GOP with their tradition of voter suppression, gerrymandering and other dirty tricks.

America, love it or leave it...applies most to American traitors sucking off Russkies.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The GOP is definitely anti-democracy at this particular historical moment. They have gone all-in on supporting gerrymandering and preventing people from voting. Democrats support the opposite.

I understand that 30 years ago this might not have been the case. That's not relevant to what is happening now.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

BearGoggles said:


Calling Trump a fascist authoritarian doesn't make it so. Like his predecessors he has pushed executive power (see e.g., Obama and DACA and the Obamacare executive orders, all of which were authoritarian and unlawful in nature). But each and every time Trump has lost in court (and he has lost a lot) or at the ballot box, he has honored the court/election decision. Objectively, that is the opposite of fascism or authoritarianism.

And for the record, you have democratic candidates who are far more authoritarian. Kamala has promised to adopt executive orders imposing gun control restrictions not authorized under current law if congress doesn't act within 100 days. In other words, if the law isn't passed, then she will just impose it (much like Obama and Daca). That is, by definition, authoritarian - imposing a law that was rejected by the legislature
.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/10/kamala-harris-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus/1881749001/



You are holding Trump to a different set of standards than democrats. If you think imposing by executive order what you can't get done through Congress is authoritarian, than why only mention it when Kamala has called for it and ignore all the times Trump has actually done it. There have been any number of laws and regulations which Trump has unwound through executive order or shoddy administrative rulemaking rather than convincing congress to pass a law - because he has absolutely no interest or ability in adhering to democratic norms or process. Look at healthcare, immigration, trade, environmental protection and on and on. Arguing that Moscow Mitch should go nuclear for everything seems pretty authoritarian to me.

And not only that but Trump has lost in court and gone back with disingenuously revised EOs as well - look no further than the Muslim Ban where he forced the DOJ to take counterfactual positions. He fired the attorney general for not supporting his authoritarian whims and chose a new AG who is an avowed supporter of executive power. It's laughable to say that Trump has honored the courts or election decisions. He claimed without evidence that millions of illegal votes were cast!

I'm fine with you throwing around the word authoritarian to describe candidates but you aren't being intellectually honest if you ignore all the authoritarian actions Trump has already taken to focus on threats by a candidate.


Unit 2 - read what I wrote. I'll repeat it: "Like his predecessors [Trump] has pushed executive power." My point is that he is doing what all presidents have done since at least FDR. He is no more authoritarian than any of the others, yet the original post and apparently you think that somehow Trump is different or worse in that respect, making him (and only him) authoritarian. He is not. I am holding Dems to exactly the same standard.

When the political party's change, each new administration comes in and: (i) revoke prior executive order with replacement EOs; and (ii) changes/revises regulations it doesn't like. Clinton did it. Bush II did it, Obama did it, and so has Trump. Live by the EO and die by it. Trump is not worse just because you don't like his policies.

Has Trump pushed the envelope? Yes. Just like when Obama lost on DARPA ruling in the supreme court and many others. https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html

In fact, Obama lost at the Supreme court, unanimously, more than any other President in modern history. But only Trump pushes the envelope?

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-has-lost-supreme-court-more-any-modern-president

We have a system of checks and balances. Each branch is expected to push it prerogatives. When there is executive branch overreach, the other branches push back. The key is that if/when there is a judicial ruling, that the other parties follow it - to not do so would be authoritarianism.

Obama spent 6+ years claiming he couldn't unilaterally change immigration law, then he adopted DACA/DARPA. He literally admitted he did something lawless - primarily for political purposes - and then defended it in court with, as you put it, counterfactual positions. There was literally no legislation authorization or delegation authorizing these actions.

In contrast, Trumps "Muslim Ban" was expressly authorized by a congressional delegation in a prior law - the Supreme Court eventually ruled as such. Even if you think the ruling was legally wrong, Trump at least had a colorable (and eventually victorious) position.

Unequivocally, Trump has followed each and every court ruling, including the very questionable Ninth Circuit penchant for issuing nationwide injunctions. Similarly, when the dems won back the house, Trump didn't not challenge it or claim election fraud. Contrast that, by the way, with Stacey Abrams who is still running around claiming she won an election despite getting 50,000 fewer votes.

Does Trump lie and say a lot of stupid things (e.g., your example re the illegal vote claim)? Yes. Is that ok? No. But that makes him a liar (and a politician), not a fascist or authoritarian.

BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Re: authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism...the commonality with these are that they're all anti-democracy and thus anti-American. They are the opposite of democracy. Yes there are differences but the practical point is they're all anti-democracy.

The problem with Trumpkins is they want to cherry pick word use and meanings and gaslight everything. For god fccking sake, Rudy G. made it all clear, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH". This statement is the Trump admin in a nutshell.

This is the exact same crap Hitler and his Nazis did in WWII and it is fascism. But for the sake of moving forwards I'll just say Trump's admin is anti-democracy and anti-American ("Hello Vlad, yes I will suck your dick" -T) and so are the GOP with their tradition of voter suppression, gerrymandering and other dirty tricks.

America, love it or leave it...applies most to American traitors sucking off Russkies.
You have stated a truism, that authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism are not consistent with democracy. Congratulations. We all learned that in High School.

Now do what I asked you to do before. Define Fascism and Authoritarianism. Hint: policies you disagree with are not automatically fascist or authoritarian. Unfortunately, that is how you operate. You misuse these terms yet never define them.

Words have meanings. Show your work and provide specific definitions and then explain how it applies to Trump specifically, and not other presidents.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:


Unit 2 - read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote but now you are pretending as though you didn't also write that "democratic candidates are far more authoritarian" based solely upon Harris claiming she would pass an EO if congress doesn't take action. That is something Trump has done numerous times in addition to other more authoritarian measures. To say that Trump has honored the court and election decisions is to ignore everything he has done and said. When has Harris or any other democratic candidate (who you generally smeared in your comment) said that they wouldn't honor court orders or election decisions? Trump has repeatedly assailed the courts, the federal reserve, his own agencies, etc. He and his political appointees have repeatedly required his agencies to violate the Administrative Procedure Act leading to a large number of overturned regulatory actions and resignations from by career professionals. He has essentially hollowed out the executive branch through his authoritarian actions. I didn't even get into the fact that he's completely stonewalling congress on oversight - which at the scale he's doing it is unprecedented. I'm sure you will claim that Obama's pushback on oversight was even more authoritarian but of course that's not the case - Trump is refusing to honor all subpoenas from congress at this point. And not only have you ignored his amped up authoritarianism vs prior presidents but you go on to claim "But each and every time Trump has lost in court (and he has lost a lot) or at the ballot box, he has honored the court/election decision. Objectively, that is the opposite of fascism or authoritarianism." What would you consider not honoring a court or election decision?

Maybe you should read what you wrote and stop gaslighting for Trump.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The GOP is definitely anti-democracy at this particular historical moment. They have gone all-in on supporting gerrymandering and preventing people from voting. Democrats support the opposite.

I understand that 30 years ago this might not have been the case. That's not relevant to what is happening now.


The common thread here is that throughout American history white Southerners have been against democracy, regardless of party affiliation.

You could argue that the period 1970s - 2000s are an exception but that is because they had such large majorities it didn't matter.

What is new is that in the modern Republican party they are exporting these strategies to the North.
An old white dude
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

The GOP is definitely anti-democracy at this particular historical moment. They have gone all-in on supporting gerrymandering and preventing people from voting. Democrats support the opposite.

I understand that 30 years ago this might not have been the case. That's not relevant to what is happening now.


The common thread here is that throughout American history white Southerners have been against democracy, regardless of party affiliation.

You could argue that the period 1970s - 2000s are an exception but that is because they had such large majorities it didn't matter.

What is new is that in the modern Republican party they are exporting these strategies to the North.
Very likely we're seeing this kind of thing spread elsewhere because of the changing demographics of the country. White southerners long ago realized that in order to maintain political power, they had to vote as a bloc to keep the fairly large black minority from swinging statewide races. Now white northerners (in some places) have moved in a similar direction, possibly because they saw that increased turnout from racial minorities resulted in two terms of Obama.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:



Words have meanings. Show your work and provide specific definitions and then explain how it applies to Trump specifically, and not other presidents.


What non-authoritarian meanings would BearGoggles ascribe to Trump's latest tweets?

"Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China"



Please don't waste your breath noting that his words are just proclamations and don't yet have the force of law - that argument is essentially saying that words don't have meanings when spoken by the President. But please do tell us why you think statements like this aren't the mark of an authoritarian leader.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Chosen One...ordering American corporation to move manufacturing. Both a move to straight authoritarianism and full delusion.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The King of the Jews has spoken but... they ain't making Jews like Jesus anymore

Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.