Oh wait, that's actually.....NOT breaking news, we've known that for, oh, at least 50 years or so.
Spike, are you going to give equal time to the story from a few days ago that revealed Trump aides plant story items "praising" Trump, with "friendly" news sites, to try desperately to keep him in a positive mood so that he doesn't go off the twitter reservation and start attacking people on there as he is so wont to do? Would you call that "collusion" between "right-wing" media and "Republicans"? I sure would.
Media on NEITHER side should be colluding with politicians. They should be reporting the news, not making it or trying to shape it. Neither side sticks to this policy. It also doesn't mean that everything, most things, or even a lot of the things they report are wrong (at least if we're talking about actual "news" organizations here, not sites like TrumpFoWars, TrumpWayPundit and the "conservative" TrumpHouse, which are Trump propaganda sites).
The Rock
Yes, absolutely they are. Do they have a Liberal bias? Yes, absolutely, and that has been known practically from the beginning of time. Do they seem to prefer Democrats? Of course, also nothing new. Doesn't make them not a "reputable" news organization. They're leaps and bounds more reputable than a lot of the "bloggers" many Trumpists get their "news" from and treat it like the bona-fide Gospel because it affirms what they want to believe.
Jake Tapper is one of the best pure newsmen in the business and has been willing to call out politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle, a quality that is very rare in mainstream news reporters working for networks on EITHER side of the political spectrum.
Well at least CNN would have nothing to worry about!
1) Real definition of "Fake News"=Information that is Objectively Untrue. Trump propaganda sites are full of actual "Fake News" and yet the Trumpists gobble it up because it affirms what they want to believe.
2) Trumpist definition of "Fake News"=Information they Don't Like.
I doubt that. If you are planning to remain abreast of what is happening in the world, then you will be needing to get that information from some "news" source. In order to believe that source, you will have to consider it "credible". The question is, "credible" by what/whose standards?
I will just point out again that you and other Trumpists are pleased as punch to consider any and all mainstream news sources "credible" just as long as they're reporting negative news about your opponent and not about your guy. Same way with Trump and his sycophants ripping the very same U.S. Intelligence community that they were more than happy to promote back in the Fall when they were investigating Hillary's e-mails. Oh, and, say, Reince Priebus wanting the FBI - using "anonymous" sources - to "refute" - to a mainstream news organization - the leaks that have been coming out about Trump's Russia ties. All while Trump (and Priebus) are saying that journalists shouldn't be allowed to use "anonymous" sources. Or how about the fact that Trump wanted to have babies with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks when they were doing Putin's espionage bidding against Hillary back in the General Election, but Trump is hot as h*ll about any leaks coming out about him. I seem to recall a saying that applies very well in this case. "Live by the sword, Die by the sword."
Steve Bannon ripped the 'corporatist, globalist media' at CPAC. The Leninists he admires felt the same way in 1917: pic.twitter.com/UXGvhKjVbP
— Bret Stephens (@StephensWSJ) February 25, 2017
This from a guy whose party would prefer to shred The Constitution, then burn the pieces!
Yeah, but.....but.....but....Bannon once mentioned Lenin's name, so josh believes that's proof Bannon is a Communist!
Bannon said He is a Leninist. If you can provide us with a reason why President Bannon being a self-described "Leninist" shouldn't scare Free Market, Small Government, Constitutional Conservatives, then please, fire away.
"Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too." Steve Bannon to Ron Radosh, Nov. '13 https://t.co/K5MLKTIQNB via @thedailybeast
— Bret Stephens (@StephensWSJ) February 25, 2017
From the article:
" “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press. "
I said many times during the primary election campaign that Trump and his supporters were much more French Revolution than American Revolution. Certainly some extremely strong parallels between the French Revolution and Lenin's Russian Revolution.
How is it taken out of context?
NvaGvUp's Link
Which is what Lenin was.
Isn't that what YOU want as well? Does that therefore make you a communist? He did not say he was a Bolshevik, a communist or anything beyond that.
At CPAC last week when he said he wanted to tear down the administrative state, that was being revolutionary, was it not?
Here's a great piece on Bannon from The Imaginative Conservative from a conservative who knows him well.
That's when he launched his barge on the De-Nial and has been a sail on that mournful journey ever since. He at least get's a good view of the Pyramids.
And put what in it's place? What is "the establishment", and what would "tearing it down" look like? Exactly? Anarchy? Who would be in power then? Steve Bannon? Funny thing about most "revolutionaries" in world history is that they wanted to tear down the existing government/leader, and replace it with themselves!
He said he wants to destroy the "State". What does that mean? Who/what is "the State"?
"Which is what Lenin was."
Lenin was a murdering thug and brigand. I've read a few books about him. Saw his tomb in Red Square 24 years ago. He was not a good guy, and anyone who willingly draws a comparison between themself and Lenin is either a mental case or, like Lenin, a bad guy. And they certainly are not a Conservative. Bannon said a few months ago, by the way, that the trillion $ infrastructure building plan was his brainchild and that "Conservatives are going to hate it". Sure didn't sound to me like he was referring to himself as a Conservative.
"Isn't that what YOU want as well?"
Umm....NO. I don't want to "tear down" or "destroy" anything. There is nothing at all wrong with our system of government, or the Constitution upon which it is founded. The problem is the voters who have discovered that they can stick their hand in the treasury and vote themselves money back to their home district if they vote for the "right" politicians. The problem is the vast majority of voters no longer know what the Constitution is, what it means, or what the importance of it is. The problem is that the majority of voters are economically illiterate about basic economic principles and what a truly Free Market is. Including many people here who have been masquerading as "conservatives". We have the tools to get our government back to the state in which the Founders envisioned. We have always had them. It's called the vote. What we don't have is a majority of voters in the U.S. who both desire to get back to that state and understand how and why to do so. The politicians are simply doing what the voters keep sending them back to D.C. to do.
The answer to America's problems do not lie in isolating ourselves from trading with other countries, quashing a Free Press, and coalescing around a serial lying, wannabe strongman cult of personality who wouldn't know Conservative, Constitutional values from a hole in the ground.
"Does that therefore make you a communist? He did not say he was a Bolshevik, a communist or anything beyond that."
Did I say that Bannon was a communist? No, I did not.
"At CPAC last week when he said he wanted to tear down the administrative state, that was being revolutionary, was it not?"
Again, I would ask, what, "exactly", does that mean? Some would argue, quite correctly I believe, that Bannon's economic plans for Trump's administration will significantly build up the "administrative state".
The American Revolution was oh so rare in the world history of revolutions in that it did not simply seek to replace one tyrant or tyrannical system of government with another just as bad. It was not bent on "revenge" or "tearing down" or "destroying" anything, the colonists simply wanted the right to self-determination, freedom of worship, free trade, and no taxation without representation. Bannon's "revolution" smacks much more of the French and Russian Revolutions than it does of the American Revolution.
He said he wanted to dismantle the "administrative" state.
Apparently you're the only guy here who doesn't understand what that means!
Opinion
Tweets
Here is the exact quote from the article:
"Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too."
"Apparently you're the only guy here who doesn't understand what that means!"
If that is so easy to define, then you shouldn't have any trouble explaining it real quick for me. And also why his economic plans for Trump's administration will not build up the "administrative state".
You're hopeless! You're also an incredibly negative person, so I feel very sorry for you.
You search far and wide for anything negative about a person, then if you find something, you ignore EVERYTHING else about them.
Doers and achievers almost always do the opposite. For me, I only want to be around people with positive attitudes. Those people look at how things CAN be accomplished. Negative people look for why something CAN'T be accomplished.
I want no part of negative people. They are a cancer on life, an anchor on getting things done, and they try their best to drag everyone else down to their level.
I'm not a negative person, I just don't like people to piss on my head and tell me it's a lovely afternoon rain. Funny, I seem to recall regular negativity from you on here about a variety of things, on pretty much a daily basis.
Would you like to backtrack on your very adamant (and uninformed) position that Bannon didn't say he wanted to destroy the state?
Ran Breitbart like the National Enquirer of political media. (even teaming up with them at times) It's funny all the talk of "fake news" batted about now, because if someone actually held Breitbart's feet to the fire (like many are want to do with other "news" orgs) on every BS "news item" they published that turned out to be, well, pure BS..... they would be nothing but ashes up to their knees...... they take no responsibility for what they publish. No culpability. Just more tabloid trash. Throw out a story and if it's wrong, meh..... NEXT!
Anybody who is worshiping Bannon should take another look at him. They can stack the BS so deep you need a bridge to get over it. Yet when called out on how wrong it was his sycophants wave it off like it never happened...... yet when ONE thing pans out.... they are so awesome and..... never mind.... facts quit mattering long ago.
To me the fact they are so often wrong..... makes them irrelevant. In the same league as Drudge, many times passing on stories/rumors as fact and when wrong...... hey, they didn't make up the rumor..... just passing along "what they heard...."
Josh is right in some respects...... People are holding some to one higher standard of unbiased truth..... and no standards at all to others who say what they want to hear...... blocking out or even attacking what they don't want to hear. Objectivity completely lost.... it becomes a tribal thing.....
WRT CNN..... anything that comes out that harms their "credibility" and helps point out the MSM bias can't be bad. They are on a downward spiral as it is...... anything that steepens the dive......
It's clear to all but you, it seems, that Bannon's saying he wanted to the destroy the state did not mean he wanted to destroy the country, as you imply. Any reasonable person, had they been there at the time, would have asked a follow up question along the lines of, "What do you mean by that?" and quickly learned he was referring the bureaucratic/administrative state, ie; the administrative state that has become a 'lawmaking body' of it's own via writing regulations on a minute-by-minute basis with no legislative oversight.
So yet again, you've proven my point re. you look for anything and everything you can, without regard to the context or the completeness of it in order to find any tiny thing you can, then use it to try to destroy someone.