Democratic primary watch

[Nodack]

I sort of remember that name. I really have no clue who that is.

[Indy]

I sort of remember that name. I really have no clue who that is.

Cap included a handy link in his post.

[3rdside]

This is the kind of real deep state stuff I think (i hope..) will get USA over the line.

[3rdside]

With all this new tech, social networking, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, cable TV News, network news, internet web sites, there are lot of ways to spread propaganda and none of it has to be true. Who do you trust? Nobody really.

I still think you have to rely on the bigger names - The Times, the Financial Times the Economist and the Guardian (just) in the UK.

Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg, Boston Globe in the USA? I'd say the WSJ but it seems every time I pick it up it's a pro Trump piece, which I always struggle with.

Two credible papers two opposite opinions on Flynn's pardon - justice served according to the WSJ, a disgrace for the WaPo..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

vs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-fo ... 1606349462


He broke the law he's a criminal, right? Or am I a victim of MSM's brainwashing and he's really not?

What happens with Trump legally after he leaves office will be very interesting regarding how much MSM news we read is truth or garbage (along the lines of the Steele dossier I mean .. ).

[Indy]

With all this new tech, social networking, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, cable TV News, network news, internet web sites, there are lot of ways to spread propaganda and none of it has to be true. Who do you trust? Nobody really.

I still think you have to rely on the bigger names - The Times, the Financial Times the Economist and the Guardian (just) in the UK.

Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg, Boston Globe in the USA? I'd say the WSJ but it seems every time I pick it up it's a pro Trump piece, which I always struggle with.

Two credible papers two opposite opinions on Flynn's pardon - justice served according to the WSJ, a disgrace for the WaPo..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

vs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-fo ... 1606349462


He broke the law he's a criminal, right? Or am I a victim of MSM's brainwashing and he's really not?

What happens with Trump legally after he leaves office will be very interesting regarding how much MSM news we read is truth or garbage (along the lines of the Steele dossier I mean .. ).

I think that is the key. It is pretty easy for even credible news outlets to find opinions on both sides of any issue... even ones that are cut and dry. I mean, he pled guilty. And if you want to say that he was coerced, Trump specifically said he fired him for lying to Pence. I know that was more than a week ago, so I can understand why Trump doesn't have to mention it.

[Mori Chu]

Flynn is without doubt a traitor to the country who deserves to be imprisoned. That he would receive a "blanket pardon" is an abhorrent misuse of the Presidential pardon power.

[Nodack]

It’s pardon time in the Trump WH.

Giuliani has discussed possible pardon with Trump: report
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ump-report
Rudy Giuliani has discussed the possibility with President Trump that Giuliani could receive a presidential pardon, according to a report in The New York Times.

Hannity urges Trump to pardon himself
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... on-himself
Sean Hannity said on his radio and television shows Monday that he thinks President Trump should pardon himself in order to avoid a potential prosecution from the incoming Biden administration.

[Mori Chu]

The idea of pardoning oneself is so preposterous. It has to be illegal or invalid. Even if he does that, he won't be free from prosecution in state court, right?

[3rdside]

With all this new tech, social networking, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, cable TV News, network news, internet web sites, there are lot of ways to spread propaganda and none of it has to be true. Who do you trust? Nobody really.

I still think you have to rely on the bigger names - The Times, the Financial Times the Economist and the Guardian (just) in the UK.

Washington Post, New York Times, Bloomberg, Boston Globe in the USA? I'd say the WSJ but it seems every time I pick it up it's a pro Trump piece, which I always struggle with.

Two credible papers two opposite opinions on Flynn's pardon - justice served according to the WSJ, a disgrace for the WaPo..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

vs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-fo ... 1606349462


He broke the law he's a criminal, right? Or am I a victim of MSM's brainwashing and he's really not?

What happens with Trump legally after he leaves office will be very interesting regarding how much MSM news we read is truth or garbage (along the lines of the Steele dossier I mean .. ).

I think that is the key. It is pretty easy for even credible news outlets to find opinions on both sides of any issue... even ones that are cut and dry. I mean, he pled guilty. And if you want to say that he was coerced, Trump specifically said he fired him for lying to Pence. I know that was more than a week ago, so I can understand why Trump doesn't have to mention it.

It's the extreme of opinion that's the problem.

There maybe same disagreement about the extent of the crime, or debate about whether it was a crime at all, but to have two large papers at literal opposite ends of the spectrum isn't just a difference of opinion, it's schizophrenic.

It's raises - to me anyway - the broader question of how a society is supposed to remain just that if it can't even get some level of consensus on facts, exacerbated by social media.

It's not just limited to the USA either - press in the UK and Australia, both Murdoch domains, are doing similar and both societies are seeing greater division as a result.

[3rdside]

Flynn is without doubt a traitor to the country who deserves to be imprisoned. That he would receive a "blanket pardon" is an abhorrent misuse of the Presidential pardon power.

From what I read - the quote about the judge saying Flynn effectively sold his country out mainly - and from the apparent fact that Flynn lied under oath seems totally inarguable that he committed a crime. Meaning the extent of his crime can be debated but not - I don't think - about whether he committed a crime or not in the first place.

I'd like to have access to the WSJ article to understand its argument.

[Indy]

The entire idea of government (and probably especially democratic ones) relies much more on norms and decorum and people accepting things they way they are/have been than on laws/documents. It is crazy to me how much of what we consider "Democracy in America" is based on this instead of what is written in the Constitution or federal laws. It is so fragile. And the more money that is involved, the more dangerous it becomes.

[Indy]

Flynn is without doubt a traitor to the country who deserves to be imprisoned. That he would receive a "blanket pardon" is an abhorrent misuse of the Presidential pardon power.

From what I read - the quote about the judge saying Flynn effectively sold his country out mainly - and from the apparent fact that Flynn lied under oath seems totally inarguable that he committed a crime. Meaning the extent of his crime can be debated but not - I don't think - about whether he committed a crime or not in the first place.

I'd like to have access to the WSJ article to understand its argument.

same here, as I don't have access. But her twitter feed is... interesting. She states that there was no evidence for collusion. Despite the fact we all read the transcript that shows Trump asking for favors from foreign governments. I am curious where she makes her money.

[Mori Chu]

The entire idea of government (and probably especially democratic ones) relies much more on norms and decorum and people accepting things they way they are/have been than on laws/documents. It is crazy to me how much of what we consider "Democracy in America" is based on this instead of what is written in the Constitution or federal laws. It is so fragile. And the more money that is involved, the more dangerous it becomes.

John Adams once famously said that this country has a "government of laws and not of men." But I think he's wrong, at least wrong about how it is in 2020. Indy's quite right that the formal laws we have in place are insufficient to hold together a government or a country. We depend deeply on honorable men and women upholding the values of the country. If the laws are all we have, we won't last. We also need the right people in positions of power.

https://wyliberty.org/blog/legal-perspe ... not-of-men

[Nodack]

We have never had a President test the limits of the Presidency and attack our institutions like Trump has. He has the combination of a lot of things and has learned how to use social media to his advantage. He is strong, cocky and willing to do anything or attack anything standing in his way.

Trump is gone. Democracy lives another day.

I agree Roger Murdoch has been a cancer on planet earth. I won’t ahed a tear when his time is over.