Was the whole idea behind “Draining the swamp” to replace it with an even nastier mixture which appears to be 50% parasite infested steer feces, and 50% thick morass of hot tar?
4 Likes
the swamp is anything that impedes white men from doing whatever they want with their money and their land ( and their guns )
draining was about getting rid of environmentalists, feminists, talk about equity and the like
8 Likes
Yep draining the swamp was always about getting a stranglehold on democracy, caniballizing your own children, and destroying life for all Americans who are not rich white racists. I don’t believe that there was ever any other intention, not even momentarily.
3 Likes
As it happens, I read these articles on the topic earlier this morning:
While this may be a workable strategy, I see no inclination on the parts of MSM outlets to try it.
2 Likes
Because…
a) The corporate media is profit-driven, and has no more sense of ethics or public duty than any other corporation (i.e. none).
b) When the corporate media does abandon the pure profit motive, it is in service of the political interests of their owners. Not the public good.
The media are not on your side; they are their own side.
4 Likes
Hey Cory, your hyperbole is showing.
…“and by illegally barring Jim Acosta from White House press conferences in retaliation for Acosta’s refusal to let Trump off the hook when he failed to answer a simple question.”
The ruling by the judge was not one regarding the legality of the matter, but rather a temporary restraining order until the matter could be fully adjudicated.
There is no legal standard that requires the President even hold press conferences, so there it’s not clear whether or not barring Acosta was illegal. Furthermore, there is a separate question of “due process” which has to be established, but it’s unclear if this applies.
Finally, Acosta wasn’t pressing him on the same question, he tried to squeeze in another question after Trump had already answered his first question (admittedly, his answer was bullshit), and other reporters had shot up their hands to take their turn. Acosta had moved on from the caravan issue to asking about the Russia probe.
I’m super in favour of nailing Trump each and every time he’s wrong, but I think given this climate, and the peculiar nature of this President, we should aim to be as accurate as possible.
And let’s not give Acosta such a free pass either – the guy is grandstanding, and was uncomfortably physical with the intern (no, it doesn’t rise to the level of assault in my view, but it’s definitely impolite and should be deemed inappropriate conduct by a journalist in a press conference).
The intern assaulted Acosta. She was trying to take the microphone away.
We can debate whether she had a right to do that, but claiming Acosta was the aggressor is absurd.
5 Likes
You are aware the video was edited to change perception of what it showed, right? You can watch it in full detail her along with the altered version…
The woman trying to grab the mic out of Acosta’s hand is not an intern. She is Lindsay Walters, deputy press secretary and adviser to the press secretary, special assistant to the president with an annual salary of $115,000.
Edited for accuracy. Thanks @smulder.
5 Likes
Snopes says it’s not Walters. I was gonna say that if it was true 
5 Likes
They have families to feed. Their employer, more to the point, has investors to enrich.
CNN made a billion dollars last year. The NYT national politics staff have expanded from 70 to 100 over the last two years, they told CBC last night. The “failing” paper is thriving.
As Al Franken’s book said, they have neither a left- nor right-wing bias; they have a “sell eyeballs to advertisers” bias. Covering Trump as much as possible, his every theatrical bit of pretend politics, does that. So they will continue.
It is not their job to save America; that job falls to the whole populace. Their job is to watch what happens on the way, and record it all, even if it is the descent into dystopia.
Mike Wallace once affirmed that if he could get a ride-along with a Viet Cong patrol, he would watch quietly as they killed a whole platoon of Americans, and not give the Americans a warning - he said this on a televised panel discussion, in front of a couple of Army officers, the senior of which seethed “I feel nothing but contempt”. Wallace looked back at his jumping jaw muscles placidly.
1 Like
So wait a minute, is Trump supposed to be the Army officers here, or is Trump the Viet Cong 
1 Like
He’ll probably get time off for bad behaviour, so, I’m guessing maybe a couple of months.
I had to think about that one for a second. But yes, Trump is the Viet Cong, only lying in wait to shoot American Democracy. (American Democracy will be played tonight by America’s Sweetheart, Sandra Bullock, dressed up as the Statue of Liberty, the gown somewhat impeding her progress through the Mekong jungle.)
The Army officers are us, expecting the press to be loyal Americans and oppose Trump.
Trump, of course, has been hoping that the Press would take up the role as “Trump’s Enemy”, in which he has been attempting to cast them for 3 years.
Newsies can make money out of this in ANY direction, because it’s conflict, and that sells from every side. They can accept the role of Trump enemy and sell Trump-hating eyeballs to advertisers, or be Fox and sell Trump-loving eyeballs. Or you can be the NYT and WaPo and CNN and proclaim yourself Mike Wallace, just watching the Viet Cong shoot Sandra Bullock, who just might go all “Miss Congeniality” on the Viet Cong’s asses, shooting them up despite her wounds, the gown not slowing her vicious karate kicks to the jaw. Or not. Either way, Mike will face the camera afterwards, and saying “The final outcome remains to be seen”, and sign off.
And if you’re Noam Chomsky, you figure that lower-level newsies tell themselves that they are being “neutral” while their bosses snigger, knowing that this form of “neutrality” systematically benefits the most powerful, because they always have the most claim on authority and “credibility”. And will then be called “centrist”. I suppose I could be called a “chomsyite” or some such, on the subject of news media criticism. After the Iraq War, I don’t see any other way to view it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
