View Full Version : Obama Urges Soldiers to Question Trump’s Authority, ‘Criticize Our President’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/obama-urges-soldiers-to-question-trumps-authority-criticize-our-president/
There he goes: defending Islam, blaming guns, pushing gun control, etc.
I somehow doubt Hussein would be so keen on criticism from uniformed members of the armed forces if it was against him.
Obama Urges Soldiers to Question Trump’s Authority, ‘Criticize Our President’
21463
84
Obama Soldiers APAP
by WARNER TODD HUSTON7 Dec 2016Tampa, FL10,221
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
email address
SUBMIT
In his final address to America’s armed forces, President Barack Obama reminded troops that once Donald J. Trump becomes president, soldiers have a duty to question his authority and criticize him. Obama also said the Second Amendment and global warming can be blamed for terrorism.
Obama stood before soldiers at MacDill Air Force Base, in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, December 6, to talk about “the foundation that we will leave for the next administration,” CNSNews.com reported.
Characterizing the military’s mission as a fight against “violent extremism,” Obama insisted that soldiers need to rise up against Trump if they feel he is pushing policies that are ill considered.
Obama told the troops, “each of us has…the universal right to speak your minds and to protest against authority; to live in a society that’s open and free; that can criticize our president without retribution.”
Obama went on to insist that a proper U.S. policy against “violent extremism” is a “long term” policy.
“So rather than offer false promises that we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs or deploying more and more troops or fencing ourselves off from the rest of the world,” Obama said, “we have to take a long view of the terrorist threat. And we have to pursue a smart strategy that can be sustained. In the time remaining, let me just suggest what I think should guide this approach.”
The lame duck president also went on to blame terrorism on the Second Amendment and global warming.
In addressing the war-torn Middle East, Obama insisted that global warming forms a large part of that conflict. “A changing climate is increasing competition for food and water,” which, he claimed, drives the conflict in Syria and other nearby nations.
Obama also blamed the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for “violent extremism” in the United States.
“Somebody who is trying to kill and willing to be killed is dangerous, particularly when we live in a country where it’s very easy for that person to buy a very powerful weapon,” Obama insisted.
The presidential short-timer also placed blame on the Constitution’s First Amendment, hinting that he thinks free speech is too freely indulged to prevent “impressionable minds” from being warped by “extremism” on the Internet.
Obama touted his efforts to limit the reach of terror recruiters online saying, “We’ve worked with our tech sector to support efforts to push back on terrorist messages on social media that motivate people to kill.”
The president also defended Islam against the charge of extremism:
We are fighting terrorists who claim to fight on behalf of Islam. But they do not speak for over a billion Muslims around the world, and they do not speak for American Muslims including many who wear the uniform of the United States of America’s military. If we stigmatize good patriotic Muslims, that just feeds the terrorists’ narrative. It fuels the same false grievances they they use to motivate people to kill. If we act like this is a war between the United States and Islam, we’re not gonna lose more Americans to terrorist attacks, but we’ll also lose the sight of the very principles we claim to defend
As to the rise of ISIS, Obama insisted it was not given aide by his actions of pulling out of Iraq in 2011 but was instead given succor by the policies of George W. Bush.
“By 2011, Iraqis wanted our military presence to end, and they were unwilling to sign a new status of forces agreement to protect our troops from prosecution if they were trying to defend themselves in Iraq,” Obama proclaimed. “In addition, maintaining American troops in Iraq at the time could not have reversed the forces that contributed to ISIL’s rise.”
Obama added, “Some of the mistakes of the 2003 invasion have helped to give rise to the organization that became ISIL in the first place.”
What an absolute crock of shit. :mad:
Sadly even after he is out of office we will still have to hear the dumb shit that spews forth from his mouth...
Sadly even after he is out of office we will still have to hear the dumb shit that spews forth from his mouth...
Yep! The feckless fifth column media will continue to but his nuts like a child's binky.
And Yet Trump is criticized for his "divisiveness" and not "respecting the dignity of the office."
I don't know that I can think of any President in my lifetime, that has ever done anything as irresponsible as to suggest the military NOT support an incoming President. I think that is worse than Clinton lying under oath, I think it might even be worse than Nixon wiretapping the DNC. It's easily worse than ANYTHING Trump has ever said, suggested or tweeted.
polydeuces
12-08-16, 21:36
Anyone cared to verify content of actual speech? The actual transcript?
This GD forum is rife with the kind of inaccuracies that would get it shut down in a hurry elswhere here on technical forums for being just horseshit unsubstantiated oldwivestales.
Getting a bit old.
Do your due diligence! Stop using this as yet another perpetuator of fake news.
Finding it harder and harder to take anything serious in this area any more. Too bad, used to be a good place to share thoughts.
Fives phases of Grief.
1. Denial - Isolation. ---- I would say there was a mass isolation and stunned silence of dis-belief for the past 30 days.
2. Anger ----- yes, it's beginning to rear it's ugly head. I see it all across the Liberal front. Everyone's getting very chatty and angry. Lashing out any way they can.
3. Bargaining ------ Look for that about Feb. 1. Which is going to be especially interesting since Trump doesn't bargain with losers.
4. Depression ------ This period will be known as 2017 and 2018 in the life of a Liberal.
5. Acceptance ----- That sensation foreign to a Liberal that they will experience in early November of 2018 when they realize that life goes on rather well, even with non-Liberals in charge.
Anyone cared to verify content of actual speech? The actual transcript?
This GD forum is rife with the kind of inaccuracies that would get it shut down in a hurry elswhere here on technical forums for being just horseshit unsubstantiated oldwivestales.
Getting a bit old.
Do your due diligence! Stop using this as yet another perpetuator of fake news.
Finding it harder and harder to take anything serious in this area any more. Too bad, used to be a good place to share thoughts.
The whole thing is on Youtube but I can't sit through 45 minutes of him talking. Tried to find a transcript but so far, nothing. It was 2 days ago so it should be someplace.
Anyone cared to verify content of actual speech? The actual transcript?
This GD forum is rife with the kind of inaccuracies that would get it shut down in a hurry elswhere here on technical forums for being just horseshit unsubstantiated oldwivestales.
Getting a bit old.
Do your due diligence! Stop using this as yet another perpetuator of fake news.
Finding it harder and harder to take anything serious in this area any more. Too bad, used to be a good place to share thoughts.
wouldn't it be more effective for you to watch the entire speech, transcribe it and prove the OP wrong? In other words, jump if you feel froggy! ;)
Uh, Trump campaigned on a platform of LESS US military involvement overseas. The libs are just drawing at straws. Telling US service members that the 2a enables terrorism? Good grief, talk about a complete lack of understanding of his audience. What an asshole. Good F'ing riddance, don't let the door hit you on your way out.
wouldn't it be more effective for you to watch the entire speech, transcribe it and prove the OP wrong? In other words, jump if you feel froggy! ;)
Here is the transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/06/remarks-president-administrations-approach-counterterrorism
I read it without moving my mouth so that may disqualify me from commenting, but, I didn't see what the folks have been ranting about re Trump's authority.
I think ol' WARNER TODD HUSTON 7 Dec 2016Tampa, FL10,221, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER, whoever the heck he is made a mountain out of a mole hill.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." William Shakespeare; Macbeth
Here is the transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/06/remarks-president-administrations-approach-counterterrorism
I read it without moving my mouth so that may disqualify me from commenting, but, I didn't see what the folks have been ranting about re Trump's authority.
I think ol' WARNER TODD HUSTON 7 Dec 2016Tampa, FL10,221, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER, whoever the heck he is made a mountain out of a mole hill.
So it wasn't even that hard. Thank you for doing the work!
Dienekes and glocktogo: Actually, if you read it you might agree the guy has a pretty good speech writer. I like the organization structure.
He makes a good point in this:
First of all, a sustainable counterterrorism strategy depends on keeping the threat in perspective. The terrorist threat is real and it is dangerous. But these terrorists want to cast themselves as the vanguard of a new world order. They are not. They are thugs and they are murderers, and they should be treated that way. Fascism threatened to overrun the entire world -- and we had to wage total war in response. Communism threatened not only to overturn a world order, but threatened nuclear holocaust -- so we had to build armaments and alliances to contain it. Today’s terrorists can kill innocent people, but they don't pose an existential threat to our nation, and we must not make the mistake of elevating them as if they do. That does their job for them. It makes them more important and helps them with recruitment.
But shit like this:
We are a nation that won World Wars without grabbing the resources of those we defeated. We helped them rebuild. We didn't hold on to territory, other than the cemeteries where we buried our dead. Our Greatest Generation fought and bled and died to build an international order of laws and institutions that could preserve the peace, and extend prosperity, and promote cooperation among nations. And for all of its imperfections, we depend on that international order to protect our own freedom.
and this:
In other words, we are a nation that at our best has been defined by hope (note he didn't add 'and change'), and not fear. A country that went through the crucible of a Civil War to offer a new birth of freedom; that stormed the beaches of Normandy, climbed the hills of Iwo Jima; that saw ordinary people mobilize to extend the meaning of civil rights. That's who we are. That's what makes us stronger than any act of terror.
Remember that history. Remember what that flag stands for. For we depend upon you -- the heirs to that legacy -- our men and women in uniform, and the citizens who support you, to carry forward what is best in us -- that commitment to a common creed. The confidence that right makes might, not the other way around.
That’s how we can sustain this long struggle. That's how we’ll protect this country. That's how we’ll protect our Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic.
I trust that you will fulfill that mission, as you have fulfilled all others. It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your Commander-in-Chief. I thank you for all that you've done, and all that you will do in the future. May God bless you. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.
Crazy talk.
Here is the transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/06/remarks-president-administrations-approach-counterterrorism
I read it without moving my mouth so that may disqualify me from commenting, but, I didn't see what the folks have been ranting about re Trump's authority.
I think ol' WARNER TODD HUSTON 7 Dec 2016Tampa, FL10,221, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER, whoever the heck he is made a mountain out of a mole hill.
This seems to be the quote at issue.
So let my final words to you as your Commander-in-Chief be a reminder of what it is that you're fighting for, what it is that we are fighting for. The United States of America is not a country that imposes religious tests as a price for freedom. We're a country that was founded so that people could practice their faiths as they choose. The United States of America is not a place where some citizens have to withstand greater scrutiny, or carry a special ID card, or prove that they’re not an enemy from within. We’re a country that has bled and struggled and sacrificed against that kind of discrimination and arbitrary rule, here in our own country and around the world.
We’re a nation that believes freedom can never be taken for granted and that each of us has a responsibility to sustain it. The universal right to speak your mind and to protest against authority, to live in a society that’s open and free, that can criticize a President without retribution -- (applause) -- a country where you're judged by the content of your character rather than what you look like, or how you worship, or what your last name is, or where your family came from -- that's what separates us from tyrants and terrorists.
And while some of that is clearly a criticism of things Trump has advocated, Trump was not named specifically nor was the next administration referenced, especially not in relation to the "you can criticize your President without retribution" comment. In fact Trump isn't President yet so that could be easily a reference to criticisms against Obama.
Thank you for taking the time to find that, I'm greatly relieved that the claims in the OP were not true. While I don't share all the opinions that Obama expressed, I don't see too much that is terribly out of line or that he hasn't already expressed several times. Glad to see he specifically credited the military with the gains that have been achieved in the last 8 years.
Breitbart, and the others, really took that ball and ran with it in a way that would make HuffyPo proud.
ramairthree
12-08-16, 23:58
Yes, we were founded where you could practice your faiths as you chose.
You could go to a church that symbolically ate the flesh and drank the blood of Christ, or one that magically transformed wafers and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ. You could say to hell with it and not go to church. No Church of America was formed you were expected to go to.
But your laws, social norms, families, etc. were based on Christian morals.
We put guys in jail for having more than one wife.
Now we let guys surgically changed into women marry other women and import people that hate christians and are down with mutilating little girls and buggering little boys. While they argue that times have changed and the 2A was never intended to let people own machine guns, they argue that times have changed and religious freedom never meant what it actually meant.
SteyrAUG: While I don't agree with a lot of his policies, parts of that speech resonated with me. He plays up his administrations accomplishments, some of which many, me among them, would question. Things like the following paragraphs, even though he is calling out Congress are things I firmly agree with:
Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war. That’s not good for our military, it’s not good for our democracy. And, by the way, part of the reason that’s dangerous is because today, with our outstanding, all-volunteer force, only one percent of the population is actually fighting. Which means that you are carrying the burden. Which means that it is important for us to know what it is that we’re doing and have to explain what we are doing to the public, because it becomes too easy to just send one percent of the population out to do things even if they’re not well thought through.
If a threat is serious enough to require the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, then members of Congress should at least have the courage to make clear where they stand -– not on the sidelines -- (applause) -- not on cable TV shows, but by fulfilling their constitutional duty and authorizing the use of force against the threats that we face today. That’s how democracies are supposed to work.
SteyrAUG: While I don't agree with a lot of his policies, parts of that speech resonated with me. He plays up his administrations accomplishments, some of which many, me among them, would question. Things like the following paragraphs, even though he is calling out Congress are things I firmly agree with:
Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war. That’s not good for our military, it’s not good for our democracy. And, by the way, part of the reason that’s dangerous is because today, with our outstanding, all-volunteer force, only one percent of the population is actually fighting. Which means that you are carrying the burden. Which means that it is important for us to know what it is that we’re doing and have to explain what we are doing to the public, because it becomes too easy to just send one percent of the population out to do things even if they’re not well thought through.
If a threat is serious enough to require the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, then members of Congress should at least have the courage to make clear where they stand -– not on the sidelines -- (applause) -- not on cable TV shows, but by fulfilling their constitutional duty and authorizing the use of force against the threats that we face today. That’s how democracies are supposed to work.
I didn't say I took issue with everything he said. I agreed with more than a bit of it, I agree with the part you reference. Mostly I am thankful that the comments that were attributed to Obama, never actually happened.
I think the only serious issue with this whole story is Breitbart, and everyone that linked them, just lost a shitload of credibility. In the past they have always had a strong conservative bias to counter the leftist mainstream, but this story or at least the clickbait headline, is imaginary news based upon statements presented in a context that never existed.
I guess after pizzagate, you can just start reporting anything and a disturbing number of followers will accept it as truth. I guess the right finally has their moonbats.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-16, 02:18
Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war.
Wow, Barry and Victor Davis Hanson agree on something. We shouldn't be constantly at war. Western culture is based on shock, decisive warfare. Enemies outside of western culture have learned that they cannot compete in these kinds of wars, so we have the highly asymmetrical nature of current conflicts. While some would argue that we want perpetual war, they should slap themselves. Till we finally figure out better counters or learn to accept this level of barbarity- or more likely until the people in the ME get tired of the Sunni/Shia geopolitical BS and go effectively secular there will still be a this slow motion meatgrinder.
Barry is also right that these attacks, as they are currently, are not existential threats to us. AQ took almost ten years to bring down the WTC, while POTUS can take down any building on the planet in under 10 hours. The problem is that this was an order of magnitude larger than any other previous terrorist attack. If they flip that decimal one more row over, then we are talking about if not existential threats, at least profound changes in the way we run our country.
Barry isn't always wrong, just mostly wrong and if right, usually for the wrong reasons or he doesn't actually believe it, remember he was 'against' gay marriage at one point.
I still think in hundred years, people of that time will struggle to understand why he was elected and also so popular at the time.
Business_Casual
12-09-16, 06:12
Hey, look at that - we didn't need a government agency to tell us what was fake news and what was real.
Whooda thunk?
I have to say, in some strange way I feel sorry for obama. He was the most powerful man in the world and by the end of February most of what he did will be wiped out.
Don't misunderstand me to think I support obama in any way. I despise him for the evil that he believes in and for the damage he did to the Republic.
skywalkrNCSU
12-09-16, 08:07
Hey, look at that - we didn't need a government agency to tell us what was fake news and what was real.
Whooda thunk?
And how many Breitbart readers are going to take the time to find the original transcript to determine if it's fake news or not? That's why these non MSM sources can be just as dangerous if not more than the MSM. They have no problem peddling clearly fabricated stories because they know people will eat it up.
Just because the MSM is bad doesn't mean anything the alternative puts out is therefore good.
Also, this wasn't necessarily directed at you, more a comment in general.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-16, 08:16
It will be interesting to see if laces like Breitbart become more responsible or if the MSM moves further in this direction.
Outlander Systems
12-09-16, 08:27
Pretty much this.
All media outlets have an agenda. Doesn't matter whether it's Crazy Karl's Conspiracy Playhouse, or ABCNNBCBS.
There are these amazing things called search engines where one can quickly slice through bullshit like a laser.
Given it's 2016, the amount of legitimate OSINT floating around is mountainous.
What all real/fake news has in common is that:
1) They're trying to sell you something
2) They all have an agenda
3) Everything is spun in a partisan fashion (see also: Agitprop and Clickbait)
4) The truth usually is somewhere in the middle
5) Turn your freaking brains on, and think for yourselves
And how many Breitbart readers are going to take the time to find the original transcript to determine if it's fake news or not? That's why these non MSM sources can be just as dangerous if not more than the MSM. They have no problem peddling clearly fabricated stories because they know people will eat it up.
Just because the MSM is bad doesn't mean anything the alternative puts out is therefore good.
Also, this wasn't necessarily directed at you, more a comment in general.
Adios mother****er.
Shit stain did more to move the military left than any one else by bringing in all of his progressive shit.
Doc Safari
12-09-16, 09:37
This is an absolutely laughable attempt by Obama to preserve his legacy and hopefully protect his Islamic buddies in ISIS from being annihilated by Trump.
I bet the first thought on the mind of every military person who heard his little speech was "SHAAAAAADDDDAAAAAAAAP!"
What Obama IS shouts so loudly that I can't hear his beautifully written speeches.
I just want it to be OVER.
Regardless of article is bs. F that guy......
While I may not be able to criticize his words, I can criticize the dichotomy presented between what he says and what actually happened under his watch. American citizens were absolutely persecuted for disagreeing with him. He described IS as "JV", which is utterly untrue. Most of the DoD was undermined and many great leaders disposed of on his watch. So forgive me if I might've been momentarily inclined to believe he'd utter such nonsense, because I've paid far more attention to what he's done that what he's said. It was quite believable that he would throw such a temper tantrum, because he's done it before. :(
SomeOtherGuy
12-09-16, 11:03
Anyone cared to verify content of actual speech? The actual transcript?
This GD forum is rife with the kind of inaccuracies that would get it shut down in a hurry elswhere here on technical forums for being just horseshit unsubstantiated oldwivestales.
Getting a bit old.
Do your due diligence! Stop using this as yet another perpetuator of fake news.
Finding it harder and harder to take anything serious in this area any more. Too bad, used to be a good place to share thoughts.
It's 45 minutes long and nothing but "pizza this" and "hot dog that", "extra sauce", "DEFCON 1 in my pants", etc. etc. Pretty boring.
/sarc
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-16, 11:15
Wanna get drunk? Do a shot of beer everytime he uses I, me, my personal pronouns in his speeches.
It's 45 minutes long and nothing but "pizza this" and "hot dog that", "extra sauce", "DEFCON 1 in my pants", etc. etc. Pretty boring.
/sarc
Actually, it took 45 minutes to give the speech, probably less than 15 minutes to read the entire transcript. :)
Wanna get drunk? Do a shot of beer everytime he uses I, me, my personal pronouns in his speeches.
Actually, I kind of looked for that. A lot of 'we' and 'you' much more than the 'I.'
On the other hand, you aren't going to want to lay down that challenge in anything regarding President-elect Trump.
you can say all you want but his actions are what he should be judged by
SteyrAUG: While I don't agree with a lot of his policies, parts of that speech resonated with me. He plays up his administrations accomplishments, some of which many, me among them, would question. Things like the following paragraphs, even though he is calling out Congress are things I firmly agree with:
Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war. That’s not good for our military, it’s not good for our democracy. And, by the way, part of the reason that’s dangerous is because today, with our outstanding, all-volunteer force, only one percent of the population is actually fighting. Which means that you are carrying the burden. Which means that it is important for us to know what it is that we’re doing and have to explain what we are doing to the public, because it becomes too easy to just send one percent of the population out to do things even if they’re not well thought through.
If a threat is serious enough to require the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, then members of Congress should at least have the courage to make clear where they stand -– not on the sidelines -- (applause) -- not on cable TV shows, but by fulfilling their constitutional duty and authorizing the use of force against the threats that we face today. That’s how democracies are supposed to work.
you can say all you want but his actions are what he should be judged by
As I've said before, we have enough legit stuff to be upset about without making up stuff.
Obama: for war when war just happens to help the most radical Muslims, against war when war just happens to harm the most radical Muslims.
Purely coincidental.
As for these doubts about the veracity of what I posted, it is pretty obvious at this point that Breitbart has more credibility than the rest of the MSM combined.
I'm seeing a lot of imbibing of this "fake news" trope.
No. Fake news is what clowns like Brian Williams does.
As for these doubts about the veracity of what I posted, it is pretty obvious at this point that Breitbart has more credibility than the rest of the MSM combined.
I'm seeing a lot of imbibing of this "fake news" trope.
No. Fake news is what clowns like Brian Williams does.
Then if you wouldn't mind, please go to the transcript and show me where "Obama Urges Soldiers to Question Trump’s Authority."
Should be easy to do, the entire transcript has been posted, just copy / paste. I couldn't seem to find where he actually did that.
I didn't say I took issue with everything he said. I agreed with more than a bit of it, I agree with the part you reference. Mostly I am thankful that the comments that were attributed to Obama, never actually happened.
I think the only serious issue with this whole story is Breitbart, and everyone that linked them, just lost a shitload of credibility. In the past they have always had a strong conservative bias to counter the leftist mainstream, but this story or at least the clickbait headline, is imaginary news based upon statements presented in a context that never existed.
I guess after pizzagate, you can just start reporting anything and a disturbing number of followers will accept it as truth. I guess the right finally has their moonbats.
They didn't "just' lose a lot of credibility - it's been gone for a long time.
That's kind of a touchy way he presented those comments.... I agree Brietbart is milking it for all it worth, but still.
So let my final words to you as your Commander-in-Chief be a reminder of what it is that you're fighting for, what it is that we are fighting for.
...
Redacted commentary about what America is not.
...
The universal right to speak your mind and to protest against authority, to live in a society that’s open and free, that can criticize a President without retribution ...
Redacted commentary about what America is and various comments on history.
.....
I trust that you will fulfill that mission, as you have fulfilled all others
Now read that as a Commander addressing Soldiers.
So let my final words to you as your Commander-in-Chief be a reminder of what it is that you're fighting for, what it is that we are fighting for.... The universal right to speak your mind and to protest against authority, to live in a society that’s open and free, that can criticize a President without retribution.... I trust that you will fulfill that mission, as you have fulfilled all others.
Again regardless of how Brietbart presented things, and granted there is a lot more content in the speech. But that is very Barry_like, to give a final order to his Soldiers and conflate being a soldier under orders and an American civilian citizen. I've never heard of a Commander giving a mission to Soldiers and that mission be to protest and criticize the Commanders. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and it is tied to his incoming replacement.
If I believed Barry was an honest man, I would give him a pass, but honestly I don't trust him and that is very much in his character to try to 'rule from the grave' so to speak. Not out of line with his staying in Washington. He could just as easily have said I want to present this to you now, not as your Commander but as your equal in being a Citizen. Then all the Military aspect of the specific comments Brietbart latched onto would have been clear. I just don't trust the guy and I could easily believe he was trying to deliver more than one message.
I don't read Brietbart, not defending them, but as for Barry... he has forever been all about Barry and keeping himself in the limelight as the superior being.
41 days and counting.
They didn't "just' lose a lot of credibility - it's been gone for a long time.
Honestly, I'm not a regular reader. Only read a couple things recently but they were also picked up by the MSM.
Honestly, I'm not a regular reader. Only read a couple things recently but they were also picked up by the MSM.
The credibility of Drudge and Breitbart were two of the biggest causalities of this past election. They essentially became arms of a political campaign and actual coordinated stories with the campaign. I'd lump them in with InfoWars, Salon, HuffPo, and the Daily Kos at this point.
skywalkrNCSU
12-10-16, 16:11
I've been an everyday Drudge reader for the last 10+ years and he is definitely going down the path of fake news. I can't tell you how many times I've read one of his headlines only to then read the actual story and realize they had nothing to do with one another.
The credibility of Drudge and Breitbart were two of the biggest causalities of this past election. They essentially became arms of a political campaign and actual coordinated stories with the campaign. I'd lump them in with InfoWars, Salon, HuffPo, and the Daily Kos at this point.
Thankfully I don't get most of my news from the internet, and I'm pretty good at sifting out opinions from facts. Seems everything is just "clickbait" now anyway. No longer is anyone reporting "what happened", almost all of it is "what somebody thinks is happening." It's no longer just a political slant or bias, we have imaginary news now and it's on both sides.
When I was a kid I used to laugh at Weekly World News in the supermarkets and wonder who actually purchases that nonsense and actually believes any of it. Now I have my answer and it's kinda scary.
That's kind of a touchy way he presented those comments.... I agree Brietbart is milking it for all it worth, but still.
...
Redacted commentary about what America is not.
... ...
Redacted commentary about what America is and various comments on history.
.....
Now read that as a Commander addressing Soldiers.
Again regardless of how Brietbart presented things, and granted there is a lot more content in the speech. But that is very Barry_like, to give a final order to his Soldiers and conflate being a soldier under orders and an American civilian citizen. I've never heard of a Commander giving a mission to Soldiers and that mission be to protest and criticize the Commanders. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and it is tied to his incoming replacement.
If I believed Barry was an honest man, I would give him a pass, but honestly I don't trust him and that is very much in his character to try to 'rule from the grave' so to speak. Not out of line with his staying in Washington. He could just as easily have said I want to present this to you now, not as your Commander but as your equal in being a Citizen. Then all the Military aspect of the specific comments Brietbart latched onto would have been clear. I just don't trust the guy and I could easily believe he was trying to deliver more than one message.
I don't read Brietbart, not defending them, but as for Barry... he has forever been all about Barry and keeping himself in the limelight as the superior being.
41 days and counting.
Thanks, tb-av.
The credibility of Drudge and Breitbart were two of the biggest causalities of this past election. They essentially became arms of a political campaign and actual coordinated stories with the campaign. I'd lump them in with InfoWars, Salon, HuffPo, and the Daily Kos at this point.
Ah, well, no. You see, Breitbart (I can't speak for Drudge as I haven't been on there in years) hasn't been pushing Islamopologists, attacks on the 2nd Amendment and generally treasonous activities.
So, it would be unfair to lump them in with Salon, HuffPo, Vice, Vox, etc.
Any news you get is always someone else's second hand horseshit.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-12-16, 00:04
I've been an everyday Drudge reader for the last 10+ years and he is definitely going down the path of fake news. I can't tell you how many times I've read one of his headlines only to then read the actual story and realize they had nothing to do with one another.
This is true of many sources and yes, sadly Drudge. That is the problem with our ADD 2 second attention span society. Even people that bill themselves as being involved and informed tend to only want to just read headlines and skim. Most people never take the time to read the article and see what it's really about.
The credibility of Drudge and Breitbart were two of the biggest causalities of this past election. They essentially became arms of a political campaign and actual coordinated stories with the campaign. I'd lump them in with InfoWars, Salon, HuffPo, the Daily Kos, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc. at this point.
Fixed it for ya. The only thing different is the delivery style. It's all manufactured, synthetic BS. :(
The credibility of Drudge and Breitbart were two of the biggest causalities of this past election. They essentially became arms of a political campaign and actual coordinated stories with the campaign. I'd lump them in with InfoWars, Salon, HuffPo, and the Daily Kos at this point.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water with Drudge. His "headlined" articles have most definitely gone south, but the bottom half of his page is a great clearinghouse of all links to all sorts of media outlets. I usually scroll right past the top-half "stories" and go to the links on the bottom half.
Software capability to choose what the owner prefers also skews opinion--ours and theirs.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.