Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Fake News Depot

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
This was not Ms. Ryan's finest hour, imo.
Some I guess are looking under every rock and crevice for examples of Trump's apparent racism:
April Ryan Defends Accusing President Trump of Racist Language He Never Actually Used
That's identity politics at its core - you hear what you want to hear, and craft it for your own purposes.

There are too many of them to list, but I got a million of them if anybody is interested in a few.

April took to Twitter to defend herself and rally support. It didn't go well. She posted the sound bite, and the video, feverishly trying to make her case. She even Twitted, "So what does "we built this country" mean in front of a predominantly white crowed?"

The responses were in the order of, "It means you're a race-baiting troll. Dumbest thing I've ever heard," and "It means you made an ignorant, race-baiting comment, and got called out on it."

If you recall, she's the one Trump asked about in setting up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. She later bristled at that, and encouraged those who painted the question to her as being racist.

Funny thing is, the Wikileaks Podesta emails showed that she was not only one of the reporters who attended those two off-the-record dinner meetings with the Clinton campaign designed to craft how the liberal press would cover the campaign and work in lock-step with the campaign, they showed her comments after the meetings, about how wonderful they were, and about how they got her excited about the campaign and the inevitable election of Hillary. There were exchanges about how the campaign wanted her appearances on MSNBC to be framed, and about how they would like her to cover certain stories. She was most definitely entrenched within the partisan politics of the campaign.

But the really REALLY funny thing is, in several emails, she offered to facilitate not only meetings with the black reporters of the National Black Reporters Association, but to facilitate a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus (which she did, in fact, facilitate - so Trump may be a snarky bang-zoom genius).

In any case, what's the most telling here about April Ryan's race-baiting question is the deafening sound of crickets from here colleagues. No one is defending her.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Don't mess with Spicey.

On another note, have you yet noticed the virtual flood of the heart-tugging, human interest immigration stories, of families being ripped apart, of people being denied health care, of children, children, children?

One guy, who has been deported multiple times, was detained once again at the border, and was again deported. He claimed he just wanted to come to the US to work, to support his three children, who is everything to him. He lives for his children. His children are so important to him that upon re-entering Mexico, he jumped off a bridge, committing suicide. Other reports from very different news outlets show that he was a serial criminal in Mexico and was fleeing Mexico to avoid a life, or maybe death, sentence. But none of that matters. The important thing is, he killed himself because he was deported. Bad USA, bad. Shame on you.

The Daily Beast has an article, where the headline at least, leaves the distinct impression that ICE scooped up a woman with a brain tumor and locked her up for deportation. Well, no, that's not at all hat happened. The piece states that, "lawyers for the woman who remains in the custody of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement fear she’ll die there without ever seeing or speaking to her family again." But my favorite line in the story is, "It’s a scenario that advocates worry could become far more common under President Donald Trump's new immigration enforcement rules," as if ICE locking up people is a cause of brain tumors and when that happens, they can't talk to their families ever again. <snort>

The reporting over Trump's DHS and ICE directives, you know, the ones that tell them that it's OK to enforce the laws already on the books, is getting lots of lots of attention, and spin, as you would expect. This story from Reuters has several little gems. Chicago immigration lawyer Mike Jarecki said, "The memos make it very clear that they want to create an enforcement environment, and they don’t want to just instill fear — they want to go after people, put them through the system and ultimately deport them." Golly, gee, Mr Law School Graduate, that's how the law works. Yes, they want to put the illegal aliens through the system and ultimately deport them. Doh.

And on the the “expedited removal” process that’s already available under current law, expect many lawsuits (that will not succeed) over that one. But the little gem is this: "Anyone who cannot prove in the heat of the moment that they either have legal status or that they’ve been here continuously for two years could be dragged off to detention and removed without getting a lawyer or a hearing before a judge," said Johnson-Xenitelis, who also teaches crime and immigration at New York Law School. "In the prior administration, this only happened to people found at or near the border who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days."

Soooo, the only thing that has changed is the time frame. Under the 14 day policy, they still were subject to proving "in the heat of the moment" that they either have legal status or that they've been here continuously for that particular time frame. He and others are upset that, while before you could just remain out of sight for 14 days and then you were good to go, it's now 2 years, which makes it more difficult to be here illegally.

Nevertheless, as the story notes, if someone is undocumented and has no legal right to be here, it's gonna be a tough sell that they should be given immunity from deportation.

On the other hand, I do think that anyone who has been documented as a DREAMer (DACA) and thus have been given paperwork that allows them to remain and work here, that's straight-up documented, and they should only be deported for the same reasons as any other non-permanent resident (felony, gang membership, etc.). We gave them our word, and we should live up to it (and I think we are, so far). That's not to say that the DACA program needs to be renewed in perpetuity, though. At some point these people need to apply for a visa or residency and get legal legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
The Washington Post is also fighting back with its new masthead motto:

Democracy Dies in the Darkness

They've been using that little ditty now and again for a while, here and there. WaPo owner Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon, and is, uhm, not a fan of Trump, used the phrase in relation to Trump at some event last year, and Bob Woodward has been running around using it since the election. The implication that somehow Trump is threatening to kill democracy is clear enough, which makes it laughably ironic as Trump has never made any attempt to censor or silence the press, and has even expanded the White Press Corps by a substantial number of reporters. It's also ironic because The Washington Post has produced arguably more fake news than even CNN. It's just that CNN has more hours to talk about it.

Ironic also is that the language used, the present tense of "dies" states that it is currently in the midst of dying and there's nothing anyone can do about it (instead of "died", past tense and too late, or "is dying," present tense but preventable), because WaPo didn't give one wit about the health of democracy for the last 8 years.

I think they chose that particular phrase because "Democracy Dies When The Press Becomes the Propaganda Arm of a Political Party" wouldn't fit.

One Twitter use suggestion one that's both fitting and spot-on...
"Democracy Dies in Darkness But I Got This Cute Little Night-Light at Amazon for Just $4.99 and It's Free Shipping Because I Have Prime"

Even Stephen Colbert took his nose out of Hillary's butt long enough to offer up a few suggestions, like:
“No, you shut up!”; “Come at me, bro!”; and “We took down Nixon — who wants next?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Hopefully the super sekrit videos contain more than the contents of Al Capone's vault, like most of O'keefe's other videos.

It's probably going to be of this kind of stuff, only probably more of the anchors and show hosts talking to each other during commercial breaks. That's my guess, anyway.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
When the 9th Circus Court of Appeals failed to lift the stay of the travel ban, it really pissed off a lot of people who were betting that Trump would blow up and ignore the ruling, creating a road to a quick and easy impeachment. The Press was coyly predicting as much, seeing up a triumphant "We told you so" moment.

Instead Trump shifted to more intensive screening at point of arrival rather than at foreign departure, and was the epitome of angelic compliance. That has had the incidental benefit of utterly rebutting the baseless charge that he is an autocrat.

Try as liberals and the press might to provoke him into doing something impeachable, is really Trump who is goading then and driving them to overreact and make absurd fabricated accusations that vanish within a few days. And isn't that funny.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Recently recent example...

Talking about how the arrests and deportations are going, CNN described his comments as, "President Donald Trump, meeting with business leaders at the White House on Thursday, described his administration's moves to deport undocumented immigrants as a "military operation," a label that runs counter to what his administration has previously said."

They went on to actually quote him saying, "We're getting really bad dudes out of this country, and at a rate that nobody's ever seen before. And they're the bad ones. And it's a military operation because...."

MSNBC and many others followed suit and joined with CNN by immediately lighting their hair on fire, their arms flailing around, and running around and slamming into plate glass windows. (that's just an awesome visual).

When I heard him say that, I immediately knew what he meant, that the arrests and deportations have been carried out with military precision, like a military operation, properly planned and executed. I also immediately knew the press would take "military operation" and milk the crap out of it. And they have.

Trump was speaking in very recent and present tense, an ongoing thing. He wasn't talking about any plans for the future enforcement. Anyone with any intelligence and common sense, even a bad eight grader, should know that no military personnel have been carrying out immigration enforcement around the country. So, they should be about to very quickly deduce that either Trump is delusional and batcrap crazy (the preferred knee-jerk go-to for the Left), or that it more likely might be a metaphor, the same way that people will use "this is a government operation" to describe any bassackwards bureaucratic operational procedure even when it's a private business and not a government operation at all.

When DHS Secretary Kelly was asked about it, he clarified and said that no, we will not be using the military for immigration enforcement.

CNN immediately characterized Kelly's comments as a a "rebuke of," and "rebuff of," and a "fracture with" the President. Morons.

Also, has anyone noticed how the liberal protesters at the GOP town halls are always described lovingly and patriotically in the media as "Americans" and "constituents"? Never Democrats or liberals. And certainly not the "racists" and "white supremacists" that they used to routinely describe the Tea Party protesters at the Democrat town halls a few years ago. Never heard the Tea Partiers called Americans or constituents, either. For that matter, they described every protester at any liberal event as being Tea Partiers, when very few of them actually were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
I have now seen two full press briefings with Spicer. A little slow, but I actually am liking this guy so far..
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I have now seen two full press briefings with Spicer. A little slow, but I actually am liking this guy so far..
He's the highest rated show on television during the hour he's on there. :D

I've caught most of them live, either on the radio or streamed via YouTube. The rest I've watched later on YouTube.

You do learn a lot, especially by the questions and how they are posed by the reporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Also, has anyone noticed how the liberal protesters at the GOP town halls are always described lovingly and patriotically in the media as "Americans" and "constituents"? Never Democrats or liberals. And certainly not the "racists" and "white supremacists" that they used to routinely describe the Tea Party protesters at the Democrat town halls a few years ago. Never heard the Tea Partiers called Americans or constituents, either. For that matter, they described every protester at any liberal event as being Tea Partiers, when very few of them actually were.
When I read this it made me think of what I saw yesterday from Greg Gutfield:
Gutfeld: Media change their tune on town hall protests | Fox News Video - FoxNews.com
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Also, has anyone noticed how the liberal protesters at the GOP town halls are always described lovingly and patriotically in the media as "Americans" and "constituents"? Never Democrats or liberals. And certainly not the "racists" and "white supremacists" that they used to routinely describe the Tea Party protesters at the Democrat town halls a few years ago. Never heard the Tea Partiers called Americans or constituents, either. For that matter, they described every protester at any liberal event as being Tea Partiers, when very few of them actually were.
When I read this it made me think of what I saw yesterday from Greg Gutfield:
Gutfeld: Media change their tune on town hall protests | Fox News Video - FoxNews.com
OMG That's hilarious. So I'm not the only one that noticed it.

I picked up on it after reading 3 or 4 news articles from different outlets, where the protesters were repeatedly referred to as "constituents" and a few times as "Americans." One piece started out in the first paragraph calling them Americans, but whenever it got to the specifics it switched to constituents. But when I heard Lester Holt use the phrase "angry constituents" instead of the standard "angry protesters" I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity.

Whenever there are any angry protests at town halls, the press almost never, until suddenly now, have ever called them constituents. And I've heard many of the angry protesters refer to themselves as constituents. A few constituents may use that word for self-description, but it's very rare. Most people say, "I'm a voter!" instead of "Hey, I'm a constituent!" I heard that multiple times where people were complaining about the GOP reps that didn't show or so far haven't held any town halls, where person after person used that phrase. It's comical. Especially the dood in Miami who was talking to a MIA Rubio saying in his best Spanglish as if he just learned how to pronounce "constituent" an hour ago, "Where are you? I'm a constituent. We want to talk to you!"

It's almost like everyone from the press on down to the protesters got the same memo with the required buzzwords and talking points. hhhmmm....

The missing GOP legislator on milk cartons is hilarious, though. And the fact that "Little Marco" is now known as the "Milk Carton Rubio" is even funnier.

BTW, note the "constituents" on the milk carton below. It looks better than "afraid of liberals who didn't vote for him"

Rubio.PNG

I think some of these Senators and Congressmen at the town halls should just ask people who are protesting if they voted for them. If they answer with the non-answer of "I'm a constituent!" then simply reply with, "That's fine, but I'm a Republicans, and Republicans voted for me to do Republican things. There is zero chance that someone who didn't even vote for me will convince me to do liberal Democrat things, much less Progressive liberal things."
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Just heard that the Supreme court is going to nullify 2016 election. Any truth to that ?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Just heard that the Supreme court is going to nullify 2016 election. Any truth to that ?
Yes and no. No, the SCOTUS is not going to nullify the 2016 election. Yes, three crackpots from Massachusetts filed a petition in a lower court (Blumstein vs. U.S.), the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and because it involves a foreign state, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction, based on Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the Guarantee Clause) that says the federal government is required to keep the States safe from invasion. The petitioners claim that Russian hacking of the election constitutes an invasion. It cites intelligence reports and statements of the former President as conclusory evidence that an invasion has taken place, and they claim that private citizens do, in fact, have standing to file against he Constitution’s Guarantee Clause. As well, they claim that cyber intrusion by "armed" Russian forces into the DNC’s Headquarters on federal land in Washington D.C. is sufficient to conclude that an invasion has taken place. They also claim that The Court, as a non-political matter have the right to nullify a federal election, instead of the actual political branches.

The lower court called it a “novel constitutional question,” then, as lower courts often do with any of the thousands of these ridiculous cases that get filed every year, with a giggle referred it to the Supreme Court, where the case was then refiled, and there will be a March 17th conference to determine if the petition has the high standards of merit to be to put in front of all of the Justices.

The petition is for an Emergency Writ of Mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a filing imploring a Court to take mandatory action in the nature of public duty. Mandatory, meaning, they have a clear and settled duty under the law to act on that law. That's going to be really tough sell on a case with no precedent whatsoever.

One of the funnier things in this is the defendants are pretty much everybody except Obama. Listed defendants are Vice President Joe Biden, President of the US Senate, all Members of the House of Representatives, all Members of the US Congress, President-Elect Donald Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence, and the US Office of Personnel Management.

In a total liberal wet dream, the petition asked for a complete vacation of the entire 2016 electoral process, including all of the Primaries, and asks for total do-over. Essentially, it's "We want this really, really badly, therefor we deserve to have it."
 

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
Offline
So outher wards if I don't like Trump it or hiloty I could say gary was cheated by not being aloud to debate them we need to redo the election LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
The White House Correspondents Association's annual dinner (April 29th) is usually held at the Washington Hinckley Hilton. It's a fundraiser for scholarships for young up and coming journalists, and acts as a (self-congratulatory) awards ceremony. A few media outlets are considering not attending because... Trump hurt their feelings. Bloomberg pulled out of hosting the after-party, transitionally held at the French Ambassador's residence, when the co-host of the party, Vanity Fair, earlier pulled out. There are other parties, as well, many of which have also been canceled.

Bloomberg (and likely Vanity Fair) will still attend the WHCA Dinner itself, however. The banquet itself is traditionally a hoot and a hollar with the President giving a few lighthearted remarks roasting the media, and then a laundry list of comedians and celebrities roast the president.

I think it will be hilarious if Trump doesn't attend. Not only will it be a great big "up yours" to the media, but if the media goes ahead and roasts him in absentia, they'll solidify the notion that they are petty and immature little children, and prove Trump's point about a biased media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc
Top