Taking America to a Dangerous Place

It is hard to add wisdom to the insights already flowing from all directions as startling new evidence erupts.

So we simply tell the story of Russia, Donald Trump, his administration, and his campaign, mainly in the President’s own recent words and the recent words of those around him. We begin just two weeks ago, on June 29, as the President attacks those who report on Russia’s intrusion into an American election.

Don’t we love that term: fake? What we’ve learned about fake over the last little while!

Fake news! CNN: Fake!

President Donald Trump, June 29, 2017

Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks for the President on June 27:

I think it’s the constant barrage of fake news directed at this President probably that has garnered a lot of his frustration.

I think it’s a disgrace to all of media to all of journalism. I think that we have gone to a place where, if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America.

We’ve been going on this Russia/Trump hoax for the better part of a year now with no evidence of anything.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, June 27, 2017

A few days later, the President issues a challenge as the nation prepares to celebrate its independence.

The fake media is trying to silence us, but we will not let them. Because the people know the truth.

President Donald Trump, July 1, 2017

MSNBC recently compiled and made publicly available, a series of statements, all in the same vein.

Paul Manafort is questioned by George Stephanopoulos:

Q: Are there any ties between Mr. Trump, you, or your campaign and Putin and his regime?

A: No, there are not. It’s absurd and there’s no basis for it.

Kellyanne Conway is questioned by John Dickerson:

Q: Did anyone involved in the Trump campaign have any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election?

A: Absolutely not.

Vice President Mike Pence is questioned by Chris Wallace:

Q: I’m asking you a direct question. Was there any contact in any way between Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or cutouts they had.

A: I joined this campaign in the summer and I can tell you that all the contact by the Trump campaign and associates was with the American people.

Q: Were there any contacts, sir? I’m just trying to get an answer.

A: Of course not. Why would be there any contacts?

Jeff Sessions testifies before Congress:

I did not have communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment on it.

Mike Pence is interviewed by John Dickerson:

Q: Did any adviser or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

A: Of course not.

President Donald Trump holds a Press Conference:

Q: Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?

A: Well, I told you, General Flynn obviously was dealing, so that’s one person, but he was dealing as he should have been.

Q: During the election?

A: No. Nobody that I know of.

Kellyanne Conway is interviewed by John Dickerson:

These conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And it does undermine our democracy.

Then, on July 10, the New York Times publishes a story that, during the previous year’s campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. led a small, three member contingent of Trump campaign officials to a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss secret information stolen from the Clinton campaign by operatives working for the Russian government. The Times claims that email evidence is in their possession that all three participants knew the purpose of the meeting was to obtain information stolen by a hostile foreign intelligence service.

That evening, Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks on behalf of the White House. The President and the White House deny the story. It is fake news.

I would certainly say Don Junior did not collude with anybody to influence the election. Our position is that no one in the Trump campaign colluded in order to influence the election.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, July 10, 2017

The next day, the New York Times produces the actual email conversation between Donald Trump, Jr. and others.

June 3, 2016, from Rob Goldstone to Donald Junior:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Rob Goldstone

Within minutes, Donald gives the go-ahead:

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

It’s hard to get around the I love it especially later in the summer.

Rob Goldstone gets more specific with Donald, Junior four days later:

Jun 7, 2016

Hope all is well

Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

I believe you are aware of the meeting – and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?

I assume it would be at your office.

Rob Goldstone

Donald Junior answers that same day:

Jun 7, 2016, at 5:16 PM

How about 3 at our offices? Thanks rob appreciate you helping set it up.


And an hour later, Donald Junior spells out who else will be there to receive the pirated documents:

Jun 7, 2016, at 18:14

Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me, 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor.

On July 11, Donald Trump, Jr. confirms the authenticity of the emails, that the meeting occurred, and that then candidate Donald Trump’s son-in-law and campaign manager were there.

Comment posted by Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter on July 11, 2017

To everyone, in order to be totally transparent, I am releasing the entire email chain of my emails with Rob Goldstone about the meeting on June 9, 2016.

He later appears with Sean Hannity to insist that, even though the meeting happened, even though it was to receive stolen documents, even though it was with the expectation those prospective documents had been spirited from the Clinton campaign by the Russian government, it was all very innocent.

Walter Shapiro of the Guardian has one of the better reactions:

The best that they can now muster – and it was the underlying theme of Hannity’s fawning interview – is to shout, “Fake Interpretation.”

Somehow that doesn’t have the same ring.

Walter Shapiro, the Guardian, July 12, 2017

Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary for President Bush, feels the entire matter is routine campaign activity.

Is it collusion or is it opposition research? And it certainly seems to me to be opposition research.

Ari Fleischer on Fox News, July 11, 2017

Mr. Fleischer had adopted a different approach in 2000, when campaign materials from then candidate for President, Governor George W. Bush, were secretly copied. The copies had been sent to the Gore campaign.

Ari Fleischer did not seem to think that instance was innocent at all.

We are pleased the FBI is digging, and digging deep.

Ari Fleischer, October 1, 2000

There exists another contrast between those election years. The materials copied from the Bush campaign were not retrieved through a secret deal between Democrats and a hostile foreign government.

Still, the reaction of the Democratic campaign in 2000 to receiving those secret documents was very different from that of the Republican campaign a decade and a half later.

Both sides were not the same.

In September 2000, an important advisor to the Gore campaign, Tom Downey, opened a mysterious envelope that had just arrived by mail. As he began to look over the contents, he realized it was a point-by-point document preparing Governor Bush for an upcoming debate with Al Gore.

It had to have been stolen.

Tom Downey put the materials back in the envelope and called the FBI. Since he had thumbed through the materials before realizing what they were, he and the Gore campaign decided he should no longer have any part, not even any contact, with the Gore campaign until after the election.

Let’s compare.

In June 2016, 3 important members of the Trump campaign, including the campaign manager himself, the candidate’s son, and the candidate’s son-in-law, shared a message promising to them materials stolen by the Russian government from the Clinton campaign. The three eagerly participated in the meeting. They were disappointed that the stolen materials were not produced.

As it turned out, they were not produced until the following month.

There is now some debate over whether laws were broken. To those of us who rely on cover-ups and efforts to stop investigations as consciousness of guilt, we who must look to the apparent progress of criminal investigations and congressional inquiries, it certainly appears that an entire matrix of laws had to have been broken, and that obstruction clearly followed.

Even if that was not the case, every patriot, anyone with even the slightest love of country, ought to agree that a deliberate effort to engage with a hostile foreign government to subvert an election for United States President is, at very least, UnAmerican.

Anytime you’re in a campaign and you get an offer from a foreign government to help your campaign, the answer is no.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), July 11, 2017

We are left with this summary:

…we have gone to a place where, if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America.

That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And it does undermine our democracy.

History may find it easy to judge who has undermined our democracy, and who has taken America to a dangerous place.

Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS
to get episodes automatically downloaded.


15 thoughts on “Taking America to a Dangerous Place”

  1. I agree. Considering the campaign and election corruption of both the Democrat and Republican parties, both should be held in contempt by the American people. As such, Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party should immediately be named President of the United States. 🙂

  2. …we have gone to a place where, if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And it does undermine our democracy.

    Right. Trunpists are the ones to lecture us on falsehoods and what undermines democracy.

    Sadly, this horridly un-American demonization of our free press is gospel to the Cult of Right-wing Authoritarian Personalities. Yet we hear no condemnation of this attack on our First Amendment’s free press. In fact they eagerly join the chorus.

    They pontificate on respecting the Constitution, but the entire CRAP is openly antagonistic to our Constitutional free press, Constitutional regulation of commerce, Constitutional taxes, and Constitutional provision for the general welfare.

    It’s far more important for them to cut taxes for the rich, allow polluters to freely poison our air and water, take food stamps from hungry children, deny healthcare to millions, suppress fair pay, and criminalize the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    And above all, suppress voters and rig our democracy to enable tyranny by their minority.

    Yes, it is quite easy to judge who has undermined our democracy, and who has taken America to a dangerous place. The CRAP reeks of rot to their core.

    With help from Putin, con-servatives have brought our nation to the brink.

  3. Trump is indeed an arrogant buffoon who surpasses even Obama… amazingly so. That said, there is plenty of slanted, falsified, and yellow journalism that has taken place in this country for generations now. It has gotten so bad at this point that Trump’s rants of fake news actually resonates with many Americans now.

    Sadly, not all of what the media points out is fake, but it has become easy for Trump and his stalwart supporters to ignore it all because of the media’s past lack of journalistic integrity. They have cried wolf so many times, that when the real wolf comes stalking around, many folks ignore the cries of the media.

    I truly wish that journalists would stick to the who, what, when, where, and why’s of a story without adding their own editorializing to every account. Or even moreso only reporting on political adversaries wrong doings while ignoring political allies misdeeds. I wish they would police themselves with retractions and corrections when they are wrong or reported something inaccurately. Only then will they regain any sense of credibility among most Americans once again.

    In the meantime, I absolutely acknowledge, support and defend their first amendment rights, but I will also call them out on all of their politically motivated falsehoods too. Needless to say I am skeptical of most of the mainstream liberal media and they are the cause of it themselves.

  4. Thank you, Mr. Paine, for kindly demonstrating the far Right’s, and now Trump’s, war on the press.

    past lack of journalistic integrity… as opposed to FOX’s journalistic integrity? Or the National Enquirer’s journalistic integrity? Or Breitbart’s journalistic integrity? Or maybe the Republicans’ and Trump’s integrity? Very discerning of you, I must say.

    I will also call them out on all of their politically motivated falsehoods …again, as opposed to FOX(R) and Breitbart? Is calling out a Trump lie “politically motivated” or reporting facts? Did you miss Obama’s “keep your doctor” being named “Lie of the Year”? Or was that just another “liberal media” lie? Are we to understand you think climate change reporting and science news is also “politically motivated”? Unlike paid oily shills who deny climate change, of course.

    At any rate, I’m still waiting for the facts to support these unending accusations.

    I wish they would police themselves with retractions and corrections when they are wrong or reported something inaccurately. ……again, as opposed to FOX(R) and Breitbart? You wouldn’t notice, but journalists do these all the time, but what does it matter if you won’t believe them anyway?

    I am skeptical of most of the mainstream liberal media and they are the cause of it themselves.…Cause of what, exactly? Why can’t you offer real cases to support your accusations?

    Interestingly you ignore corporate bias in corporate media. You find no fault with FOX and their blatant political agenda and long record of falsehoods, lies, accusations and smears. IOKIYAR after all. Obama’s “terrorist fist jab” was one of my favorites.

    Do you remember when CNN accused Bush of terrorist anything? Me neither.

    I do remember the New York Times’ Judith Miller parroting Dick Cheney’s “nuclear aluminum tubes” lies.

    Did you call them out for that politically motivated falsehood? Sorry, that’s an unfair example since you still believe Cheney. And apparently you believe Trump’s “fake news” accusations as well.

    Liberals are such unbelievers. No wonder you can’t understand us.

  5. Dave, you are a prime example of the problem. Hell, the way you write, I am surprised that Huffpo or even the NY Times haven’t given you a job, sir.

    The only way I could ever reconcile with you is if I plugged my nose, chugged the 50 gallon drum of K00l-aid and then told you that you were right about everything and please forgive me for ever thinking for myself and being a conservative.

    You are absolutely beyond the point of reasoning with, so it really is pointless in me trying to do so. Go back to your hate-filled, projectionist diatribes. You will have a great following composed of all of your fellow political travelers that read and contribute to Mr. Deming’s site. I am sorry for you that I am not interested in being one of your left-wing utopian fans.

    1. Mr. Paine,

      Thank you for complimenting my writing. Alas, I’m not quite up to the professional level of the Times and Huffpo. (This would have been a good time for you to cite any examples of “fake news” or blatant bias from corporate and liberal media.)

      Thank you for kindly demonstrating the far Right’s “Endless Blame Game” by accusing me of being a “prime example of the problem”. Another unexplained, evidence-free accusation for the books, my friend.

      No hard feelings. I know you must blame and accuse me when your ideology is questioned.

      Thank you for calling out my alleged “hate-filled, projectionist diatribes”. No specifics are required, of course. No evidence that my questions were not valid and my facts not accurate.

      It seems you cannot, or refuse to, logically and factually dispute what I say. Nor have you supported your accusations with evidence. You make up for it by saying I’m unreasonable in my hate-filled, projectionist diatribes, and declaring me a prime example of the problem.

      I understand your need for this, and don’t take it personally. Your tribe is at war with non-Right wing journalism and our First Amendment. You are doing your duty.

      1. “I am skeptical of most of the mainstream liberal media and they are the cause of it themselves.…Cause of what, exactly? Why can’t you offer real cases to support your accusations?”

        This is not an unreasonable question. I’d love to really understand the vitriol certain people have towards certain news outlets. I really would. Such hostility. Like… what’s the value-add that Newsmax or Breitbart or whomever have over WaPo/NYT/CNN/Etc? The closest amount of rage I can muster towards any of those places is over the amount of spyware, cookies and ads on most of those orgs websites.

        Slows my computer down, man…

  6. Trey,

    Remember the “nattering nabobs of negativism” whine from Nixon henchman Spiro Agnew?

    History shows the most outspoken anti-journalism tirades are from liars, from the Nixon, Bush Jr. and Trump Administrations. The lies of these three Administrations can fill books.

    Their CRAP must demonize the press, liberals, the scientific community, educators, etc. to indoctrinate their cult into the believing only their leaders and their Right wing media are to be trusted.

    They all heed and follow the Republican/Limbaugh/FOX campaign of undermining our free press.

    Why? When neutral balanced reporting contradicts their ideology they see it as a threat from the Left. But it’s really just the facts that expose their propaganda to the light of day. They cannot abide this.

    Trump’s election is proof of the great success of their campaign of demonization, with some help from their Russian allies, of course.

    I take it as a compliment; being blamed for being unreasonable in my hate-filled, projectionist diatribes, and being a prime example of the problem.

    I mean nothing can be Republicans’, or con-servatives’ or Trump’s fault, right?

    I proudly stand blamed and accused, without evidence, of wrongdoing or politically incorrect thinking. It greatly validates my position and conscience.

    I would suggest the real projection is from Trumpist Huckabee Sanders:

    …we have gone to a place where, if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America.

    That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And it does undermine our democracy.

    Mr. Paine rejects my assessment and seems to find common belief with the Trump White House. That’s what makes me the unreasonable one, I gather.

  7. Fair enough question, Trey. Frankly, I very seldom go to Breitbart or Newsmax. That said, they definitely have a right wing slant, but even they acknowledge that. The leftwing networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR ad nauseum typically still claim to be objective and non-biased in their reporting. The only people they are fooling is perhaps themselves.

    “…more than 96 percent of donations from media figures to either of the two major-party presidential candidates went to Hillary Clinton.

    This is an ancient and — by my lights — ridiculous controversy. Anyone who has spent a moment around elite reporters or studied their output knows that they tend to be left of center. In 1981, S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman surveyed 240 leading journalists and found that 94 percent of them voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, 81 percent voted for George McGovern in 1972, and 81 percent voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Only 19 percent placed themselves on the right side of the political spectrum. Does anyone think the media have become less liberal since then?”

    The preceding quotation was from the following NR article:

    And here are some other good examples of left-wing media bias, sir. Number 11 of the first link below is particularly noteworthy.




    As for Mr. Dubya, he is so rabid in his left-wing and often times delusional rants that he comes across as something like a left-wing political version of the National Enquirer. I have given him myriads of examples (more than two) in the past of his hateful and unsubstantiated rhetoric, all of which evidently he has either ignored or forgotten. I guess I should construct a list again and then just save the file for easy reference for when he claims I have no evidence yet again in the coming weeks.

    Or, like the screaming kid in the grocery store throwing another tantrum splayed out on the floor in the cereal aisle, I could simply continue with my shopping and ignore him. That said, he probably still is deserving of a spanking. (and NO, I am not offering, sir.) 🙂

    1. Thank you, T.Paine. I very much appreciate the articles that you think help to back and form your opinion. Took me most of the weekend to get through them.

      Unfortunately, these are just articles parroting that the media is left leaning and not really examples of left leaning. Also, the stats on personal biases of reporters and labeling that as media bias is a misnomer. Of course people have personal biases. Judges have personal biases, but they are meant to be neutral. Juries have personal biases and they are meant to be neutral. Journalists can have their own personal opinions and still try for objectivity. I try to avoid the ‘But the otherside’ arguement, but can you look at the preferred news sources you frequent and honestly say they are attempting neutrality and objectivity? The sources you cited here are representative of the issue you claim to have with “mainstream liberal media” but on the opposite side of the spectrum. They cry “liberal media bias” as a means to reinforce the biases the people those kinds of articles are meant to target.

      Again, though, I appreciate the time and effort to give links and supporting sources.

      1. Trey, respectfully I disagree. I think that the one article in particular gave a list of some 50 different examples of biases. I will stipulate that a few of them are weak and stretching the boundaries, but there were definitely many valid ones in there, sir. If my time permitted, I could probably come up with another 25 or 50 more examples myself of more recent events.

        Further, I acknowledge that everyone has their particular predilections and biases. Journalists are no different. I think that there are even a few left-leaning journalists that legitimately strive to be objective. I think they are a small minority though. I further recognize the much fewer amounts of right wing journalists with the same bias problem.

        One of my favorite interviewers is Chris Wallace. He asks difficult questions to all of his guests, regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. Also, importantly, to this day I do not know what his own political viewpoints are. He legitimately strives to get to the facts in an objective manner, it would seem to me.

        For the record I usually browse both left and right wing sources for my news and understand that often times the truth is found somewhere in between.

        You make a good point that I have to go to right-of-center sources to find examples of left-wing bias. Indeed, the left wing journalists are quite loathe to point out their own lack of objectivity most all of the time. They are not very good at self-policing, so one must go to sources other than left-wing to point out that there is a left-wing bias. I have over the years encountered one or two articles from leftwing sources that do acknowledge this inherent bias, but those are very few and far between, Trey.

        I appreciate that you took the time to read the sources I provided, sir.

        1. I applaud Mr. Paine’s referring to diverse news sources. I have to wonder what passes through his filter of predetermined beliefs.

          Bias is inherently human. We are biased in favor of our religion, family, tribe, nation, and beliefs.

          Many Americans do not allow bias to interfere with the performance of the job duties. Those who do are corrupt, partisan, racist, sexist, and negligent.

          As for journalism, liberal bias can select which facts to report, but facts are facts. Right wing bias will manifest itself in falsehoods, accusations, blame and deception in order to push their agenda.

          FOX sponsored anti-Obama Tea Party rallies. CNN never sponsored anything comparable.

          I suggest seeking out the accuracy reflected by left v right bias, before denouncing one side or equivocating.

          Start with climate change and proceed to Russian interference on the behalf of Trump.

          They are not very good at self-policing

          CNN, the Times, NBC, CBS, etc have all run retractions when facts dictate. Their agenda is journalism. They even pay Trumpists to spew for their Dear Leader in an effort to show both sides. Fact checking will show they are the ones telling falsehoods as “alternative facts” and never, never, never retract or correct their claims.

          Chris Wallace is the closest FOX has to a journalist.

          FOX/Breitbart etc. never, or extremely rarely, run retractions. Why? Their agenda is to support the ideology of the Right. They are the propaganda machinery of the far Right.

          Do I get an Obama “terrorist fist jab” for this?

  8. I thank Mr. Paine for kindly offering the opinions on “leftist media” (from Rightist propagandists,) for our perusal. I’ll take a look at some of these claims.

    I’ve yet to learn how my rants are “delusional”, for Mr. Paine again neglects to offer facts that counter my points. No matter. He must demonize liberals who dare challenge his ideology. I understand, and have explained the nature of the Cult of Right-wing Authoritarian Personalities. He is only doing his duty.

    I would suggest examining the claims of far Right ideologues and their long list of resentments and charges of “liberal bias”.

    Turns out most “bias” in the news is in opinion pieces very much like Mr. Paine’s proffered “Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect”, being in the “liberal” and “failing” New York Times yet! Note that unlike the Times, Breitbart features no such platform for diverse opinions. What does that mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.

    Note also the “left wing” CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. all pay Trump shills to repeat their Leader’s lies. What does that mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.

    Mr. Paine credits Jonah Goldberg for noting liberal tendencies of journalists. This is true because journalists are a far more informed group than those indoctrinated by Breitbart and FOX.

    Mr. Paine has also ignored my evidence showing a majority of editorial endorsements went to Bush over Gore. What does that mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.

    His far Right source Jonah Goldberg is so extreme he wrote an entire book demonizing liberals as fascists. But I’m the problem, of course. I’m the one spewing the “delusional hate”, according to Mr. Paine. Why does he still keep the evidence a secret?

    Now let’s examine the charges of liberal bias in the news.

    Mr. Paine and the propagandists of the far Right have concluded, since a reporter votes for a democrat, his reporting is automatically biased. Again, no proof is offered for this wholesale and generalized accusation. What about those reporters who support Republicans? No problem, of course. Double standards apply. Bias in far Right media is a virtue, apparently. So is the unfounded accusing and blaming of liberals for everything. Thank you, again, Mr. Paine.

    Some of Mr. Paine’s “50 examples” are hilariously absurd.

    1) Better Red Than Informed: Probably the single worst example of liberal media bias is the media’s steadfast refusal to accurately report the monstrous evils of the Soviet Union — even still to this day. (Good God, the ignorance and hate is glaring. But we get the message. Journalists are Stalinist commies.)

    2). Castro’s Cheerleaders: (Yeah, more “Journalists are commies” from the CRAP, yet another far Right baseless accusation.)

    7). 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing: the media has for years claimed that convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian terrorist.” (No example given, of course. Accusation alone suffices with the far Right, as I’ve learned firsthand. McVeigh was a Christian. Terrorism is a political act, whether done by Christians, Muslims or atheists. Christian terrorists murdered doctors and shot Planned Parenthood workers)

    9). KKK Double Standard: (Here we go again, with the “Byrd/Democrat party of the KKK” claptrap. The NAACP praised Byrd for renouncing his past association and support of their equal rights agenda. What does that mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.)

    10). Rathergate (or Memogate): (Rather was fired, not rewarded, for his lack of due diligence with forged materiel. What does that mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.)

    And here are some other good examples of left-wing media bias, sir. Number 11 of the first link below is particularly noteworthy. (This refers to opinions offered in a private forum, not in their reporting. But Mr. Paine cares little for such distinctions.)

    17). ACORN: (Deceptive dishonest editing by propagagandist and convicted criminal James O’Keefe is hailed as truth. No hate and bias there, obviously.)

    Here’s another doozy: (Again an opinion, but politically incorrect for the Right.)

    The New York Times media columnist argued the premise: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

    Is this bias, or a reasonable question supported by facts?

    Vox’s editor in chief Ezra Klein said this year’s political debate is between one who is “normal” and “abnormal.”

    Seems entirely reasonable to me. Or are we to trust Mr. Paine’s unbiased conclusion that Trump is “normal”?

  9. Mr. Dubya, your response is enlightening yet again. From it I have learned that the NY Times is not liberally biased. I have learned that if it appears that journalists are biased against conservatives or Donald Trump, it is simply because they are better informed than those few conservative hack journalists. I have also learned that Tim McVeigh was a “Christian terrorist” even though he never spoke of his Christianity and his horrific attack was never attributed in any way to his “Christian” values by him, but evidently the Muslim doctor at Ft. Hood was simply a case of “workplace violence” according to our benevolent leader Obama, despite witnesses claims that he shouted out Allah akbar during his attack on soldiers there.

    I have also learned that despite my constant and specific criticism of President Trump, I am evidently still an apologist for him in Dave’s eyes and I see him as “normal” accordingly.

    I have re-learned what I had long ago discovered. I have learned that it doesn’t matter if I vociferously denounce Trump, I am still an “authoritarian” subscriber to his “crap”. It doesn’t matter if I have always decried the evils of racism, the fact that I am a conservative means that I don’t really believe it in Dave’s eyes evidently. (My Hispanic children are going to be SHOCKED to find this out!) I have learned that I think Trump’s actions and statements are “normal” when I specifically and repeatedly have said otherwise.

    It is these things that make me suspect that Dave has some sort of disconnect when he twists my words or flat out seems to invent and ascribe sentiments to me of which I abhor and explicitly have said that I abhor. It is these qualities of always misrepresenting the facts that makes me think that Dave would be a “good” journalist for the mainstream unbiased liberal media. After all he is so much better informed from ONLY rabid left wing sources. Taking into account the other “conservative” side of the story won’t ever threaten to taint his reporting for sure.

    I know that in Dave’s mind, he is simply standing up for what he believes is right and good. In that matter, I cannot fault him. I simply wish his conscience was better informed with the truth. I think that would solve many of our disagreements.

    1. Mr. Paine
      Thank you for kindly telling us what you have learned.

      You haven’t seem to have learned any facts, since what you mentioned are not my words. We see you have either misinterpreted, misunderstood, or you are playing a bit of “word twisting” you love to accuse me of playing.

      To be clear, the discussion pertains to this Trumpist demonization of the press:

      …we have gone to a place where, if the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a dangerous place for America.
      That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And it does undermine our democracy.

      This was after CNN retracted a report about ties between an associate of President Trump and Russia, NOT due to inaccuracy or bias, but because it was from a single anonymous source. The reporters resigned. Still you don’t seem to be aware of this act of accountability, that is utterly absent from Right wing media. That’s understandably something you don’t want to know because it conflicts with your false belief system and Trump’s propaganda against journalism.

      Also to be clear, you have hopped onto their bandwagon, and wave their “fake news” and “biased liberal media” banners. I wonder if you forgot my telling you about the ugly history of ‘Lügenpresse,’ a Nazi slur shouted at a Trump rally.

      Critics of Hitler’s regime were frequently referred to as members of the “Lügenpresse” apparatus…. “Lügenpresse” (lying press) was an important component under propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

      What does this mean? It means nothing to con-servatives.

      After my mention, you noted, and made no complaint, about Trump/Republican/Right bias.

      This clarifies our two positions on the subject at hand. I won’t say you agree with Trump, but Trump has joined your Right wing war on journalism.

      Just this and I’ll be done.
      I have also learned that despite my constant and specific criticism of President Trump, I am evidently still an apologist for him in Dave’s eyes…
      Yes, there are numerous times you’ve called Trump “an arrogant buffoon and “foolish” etc. I don’t recall you ever saying Trump is a liar, let alone someone utterly lacking basic decency and devoid of a conscience. As to specific criticism of Trump and his party’s agenda, Not so much. You and Trump share many con-servative positions and false beliefs.
      In fact this thread is concerning the hypocrisy of the Trump shill demonizing the press and blaming them
      in Dave’s eyes and I see him as “normal” accordingly

      I apologize for not being clear about my point.

      You presented this as evidence of liberal bias:

      Ezra Klein said this year’s political debate is between one who is “normal” and “abnormal.”
      Agree? Good. Now, if liberal bias says Trump is abnormal, and you obviously disagree with liberal bias, then what does your non-liberal or unbiased opinion say?

      Could it agree in this case that liberal bias is closer to the truth? Maybe it occurs more than you dare consider.

      One thing I’ve learned well over the years is this. People will not learn what they don’t want to know.

We have a comment policy (sort of)

We often encounter extreme amounts of spam targeting more controversial posts. This tends to annoy and confuse Aunt Tildy. If your comment is accidentally omitted, please help her out by resubmitting, perhaps including a note telling us what happened. If you find comments closed, we can still put yours in its proper place. Just attach to another post with an explanation.

Aunt Tildy appreciates most every comment. Truly. But she has what could be an unrealistic view of the innocence of younger readers. She may hesitate when profanity becomes extreme.

In some cases, you might follow our lead. When we ruffle her delicate sensibilities, a soft apology has usually helped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *