Well, I think it’s about time Americans stopped making the mistake to elect male Presidents.
SHARICE DAVIDS FOR PRESIDENT!
Heck, she may even come with a First Lady, no need to think of what to do with a First Gentleman 
Reminds me of “[expletive deleted]” from back in the Seventies. Good times, good times …
You mean “smocky”?
If this whole Trump horror show somehow turns out to be the end of the political influence of the NRA…that’s practically the definition of serendipity.
I just have a hard time believing that regardless of the quantity of evidence that exists, that the 40% of Americans who still think that this shitshow is going swimmingly are going to accept a scenario where the entire Republican party and the NRA are criminal enterprises and need to be taken down. Trump and Fox will whip them into an orgy of violence first.
I don’t recall Maddow making the particular point last night.
Still, I don’t think the press should re-characterize what is true just because it might piss off the person about whom they are reporting.
I mean, take your concern to its logical conclusion and you get… Fox “News” and Donald Trump.
It’s been said. It doesn’t need to keep being said.
Think of it this way: Honest people form groups and occupations with the goal of doing good. Anything else is criminal. The Republican party, fundamentally, exists in order for people to group together to do good. Journalistic organizations, fundamentally, exist in order for people to group together and do good.
We do not have the first amendment just for shits and giggles, we have it because we think that it’s not just an occupation that can improve the lives of the people, but can do so at such a level that we need strict protections for it.
Journalists will almost certainly be offered information or find themselves in situations where they have access to information like who is a CIA officer or where are American troops on a map. And to be sure, they could report that information. There’s nothing to stop them from making a buck…except the desire to use their occupation as a force for good.
Similarly (if the law allowed it), a doctor could offer a service selling the organs from 3rd world children who were pressured by local gangs into “donating” their non-essential parts for 1st world people who wanted raw material for a penis extension, youthful blood, etc. But they don’t do that because, at the end of the day, the profession exists in order to help people.
Simply doing something because you can or because, technically, it fits under the heading of your occupation, is not sufficient for doing it. A journalist’s job is not to simply blab each and every single thing she ever learns. She’s expected to be working for the side of good, for protecting lives, educating the public, etc. Doing things that could only ever harm that is not part of the job.
There is a difference between failure to report on someone because they’re your favorite sports team and because you think that doing so could help to bring down a major criminal who is aiding a foreign power to take over the Middle East through aggressive violence. That’s not the start of some snowball effect. That’s going against your instinct as a journalist to just publish everything and, instead, being a good human who’s using their brain to decide whether or not something really makes sense in the bigger image.
An interesting take, and I daresay likely an outlier one. Especially since the first thing I said in my post was that I don’t believe Maddow mentioned the status of Butina’s “sham relationship” in her piece last night.
Did you watch it? Am I wrong?
I believe Butina’s “sham relationship” is referred to in that way due to Butina’s own characterization of it in emails/texts to Torshin. If the relationship is referred to in a story, I don’t see why a reporter should have to twist him/herself into pretzels in order to avoid a characterization of its bonafides one way or the other, just because it bugs you.
I did. She did.
(emphasis added)
Quote from me: “doing so could help to bring down a major criminal who is aiding a foreign power to take over the Middle East through aggressive violence.”
Ah, ok. I missed that bit.
I sincerely doubt Butina’s decision to cooperate rests so heavily on whether her relationship is referred to in the media as real or a sham.
They might try. But Trump fans/Fox viewers are fundamentally toadies. Toadies get excited when their bully makes aggressive noises; they love chest-thumping.
But bestir themselves to go out and commit acts that will certainly take them away from their La-Z-Boys? Nah.
(emphasis mine)
eta: Yes, there are alt-righters who don’t have the “settle in for Hannity” habit, and who will, gladly, shoot some “liberals” at the instigation of the Rancid Clown and his enablers. But the mass of Trump fans are NOT going to take to the streets. They’re just not willing to go to the trouble.
Exactly. Not to say that no one will get hurt or suffer. But civil war? No way.
Well, Trump appears to believe he can foment revolutionon his behalf, indicating that “the people would revolt if that [impeachment] happened.”
To repeat myself: the man continues to amaze and astound. From that link:
I hope the graduate psychology students of the world are taking advantage of this opportunity to study a textbook-case narcissist in detail, day by day. I predict many dissertations will be written about Der Trumpster in the months/years ahead.
I mean, he really BELIEVES this crap he urps out about himself. :smack:
To be honest, I firmly believe there will be significant violence (though I don’t begin to predict the degree) should Trump be removed from office.
There are rural people here in Arkansas who might participate in that sort of thing.
Let 'um. It would pretty much slow Twitter down to a crawl with their revolting comments, and we can get on with life.
His people are already revolting.
Hey, somebody had to say it.
I’ll take this one on; no there will not, unless your definition of “significant” is way lower than mine (I would not classify a few unconnected terrorist attacks as significant violence, for example.) If you mean a level of violence that would merit definition as at least a paramilitary action, I’d say the chances are zero.
It really takes a lot to get people to rise up in significant numbers in violence. They need to feel personally, immediately at threat. You need to have food shortages or some other group engaging in violence or real persecution to even have a chance at that. Otherwise they will sit on their asses and bitch about it and do little else. For most Trumpists, their love of Trump is absolute and impervious to fact, but it’s also largely theoretical. Dave the Deplorable Doofus from Dayton hasn’t really seen his life change in any way from Trump being in office, and will not see it change if Trump is thrown out of office. He’s not going to risk his job, family and possessions by taking up arms against the Deep State he sort of casually believes in but not really the way he believes two plus two equals four.
“I know, I’ve seen them.”