Democrats colluded with The Press

Who's the biggest threat to our constitutional order? It is not President Trump.

Ever since Donald Trump took office, Democrats have been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the electoral college and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.

No wonder Democrats don't like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election results — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.

Thanks to the Electoral College, Democrats have no choice but to try to win at least some of those voters back if they want to win the presidency. But if we got rid of the Electoral College, Democrats could write off voters in “flyover” country and focus on turning out large numbers of their supporters in big cities and populous liberal states such as New York and California. Unburdened by the need to moderate their platform to appeal to centrist voters, they would be free to pursue full socialism without constraint. If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government takeover of the health care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.

The Electoral College protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more

Democrats want to get rid of it. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution required super-majorities for amendments — another wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.

But Democrats would have no such obstacles in dealing with another impediment to their radical agenda: the Supreme Court. Thanks to Trump's Electoral College victory, Republicans have been able confirm two Supreme Court justices and secure a conservative majority. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their judicial predicament. They were the ones who announced that they would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during George W. Bush's final year in office, setting the precedent for Republicans to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. And they were the ones who eliminated the filibuster for federal circuit court judges — setting the precedent for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.

Democrats have miscalculated at every turn, and now their solution is to break precedent yet again — by packing the Supreme Court. There have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for the past 150 years. No matter, Democratic candidates including Beto O'Rourke; South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) have all said that, as president, they would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court to secure a left-wing majority. The last president who tried this, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was stopped only because members of his own party rebelled. The Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by the Democrats, correctly declared his plan "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country."

It seems unlikely a Democratic president would face such a rebellion today. But unless Democrats win not only the presidency but also a 60-vote Senate majority, they would have to eliminate another minority protection — the legislative filibuster — to pass a court-packing bill. I suspect they would not hesitate to do so.

Taken together, the Democrats are proposing what amounts to a systemic assault on the foundations of our federal system. Democrats are freely pursuing a tyranny of the majority. We'll see how it plays in Middle America. But if they do, then spare us the overwrought complaints about Trump. You can't defend the Constitution while trying to tear it up at the same time.

Washington Post Writers Group

Oh boy, a wall of text has appeared, gotten from the Washington Post. How this has anything to do with your meme, I would like to know what nations they colluded with =)

The President deserves bad press, when he does stupid shit and lies through his teeth like no one in verifiable history. You can cry all you like about bad press, but when a idiot says "grab em by the pussy" on a hot mike, he definitely deserves bad press in my book. As is said: What you reap, you sow.

Try doing some of your own research oh lazy one. Prove me wrong, if you can.

That being nothing more than an editorial based on one person's pov.

I was going to ask if you were remotely capable of original thought, but given that your post is copied, obviously not.

Absolutely! You're a liberal asshole!

Have yourself a lollipop to make up for the distraught condition you're now in.

Take your lollipop and shove it up any orifice you can think of. I'm sure you'll enjoy it wherever to stick it.

Your inability to read and comprehend led you to miss these references:

1) Washington Post Writers Group
2) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/
3) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/29/dershowitz_its_been_harder_for_me_to_get_on_anti-trump_networks_like_cnn.html
4) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/
5) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/
6) https://www.wibc.com/blogs/chicks-right/cnn-your-1-source-fake-news

Your face leaves a lot to be desired.

Also where is your collusion with the media, all you have mentioned is that the media is according to your sources biased against Trump.

Yup, when they're all against him it's called "collusion." DUH.

Koppel, now a senior contributor to CBS's "Sunday Morning," has left the impression from previous comments that he's not a Trump fan. And yet he felt compelled to declare that the president is right that "the establishment press is out to get him."

What's more, Koppel called out two of the country's most influential papers for their coverage of the president, which has left him "terribly concerned."

At a Carnegie Endowment forum this month, Koppel unloaded on The New York Times and Washington Post, saying the papers are not what they were 50 years ago.

"We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States," he said. "'We have things appearing on the front page of The New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago."

Koppel argued that analysis and commentary didn't creep onto the front pages the way they do in the Trump era.

"I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and The New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of The New York Times. I turned to my wife and I said, 'The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.'"

Wait, he's not done.

The president is "not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts. That's the kind of language that's used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States."
That is a searing indictment from a man who has long been a member in good standing of the media establishment.

For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.

But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.

Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.

Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said he is no longer invited by "anti-Trump network" CNN in an interview with on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal.'

DERSHOWITZ: More and more I'm getting called on only by people who misunderstand and think I'm pro-Trump. I'm not pro-Trump, but it's been harder for me to get on anti-Trump networks, not that I'm craving to be on television all the time...

I used to be, for example, on CNN more often than on FOX. I was a regular, not paid, just a person who was on all the time debating with [Jeffrey] Toobin, debating with others. I haven't been on CNN, now, since the summer. FOX calls me all the time.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/29/dershowitz_its_been_harder_for_me_to_get_on_anti-trump_networks_like_cnn.html

Koppel, now a senior contributor to CBS's "Sunday Morning," has left the impression from previous comments that he's not a Trump fan. And yet he felt compelled to declare that the president is right that "the establishment press is out to get him."

What's more, Koppel called out two of the country's most influential papers for their coverage of the president, which has left him "terribly concerned."

At a Carnegie Endowment forum this month, Koppel unloaded on The New York Times and Washington Post, saying the papers are not what they were 50 years ago.

"We're talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States," he said. "'We have things appearing on the front page of The New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago."

Koppel argued that analysis and commentary didn't creep onto the front pages the way they do in the Trump era.

"I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and The New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of The New York Times. I turned to my wife and I said, 'The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.'"

Wait, he's not done.

The president is "not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts. That's the kind of language that's used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States."
That is a searing indictment from a man who has long been a member in good standing of the media establishment.

For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.

But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.

Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.

Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said he is no longer invited by "anti-Trump network" CNN in an interview with on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal.'

DERSHOWITZ: More and more I'm getting called on only by people who misunderstand and think I'm pro-Trump. I'm not pro-Trump, but it's been harder for me to get on anti-Trump networks, not that I'm craving to be on television all the time...

I used to be, for example, on CNN more often than on FOX. I was a regular, not paid, just a person who was on all the time debating with [Jeffrey] Toobin, debating with others. I haven't been on CNN, now, since the summer. FOX calls me all the time.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/29/dershowitz_its_been_harder_for_me_to_get_on_anti-trump_networks_like_cnn.html

Who's the biggest threat to our constitutional order? It is not President Trump.

Ever since Donald Trump took office, Democrats have been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the electoral college and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.

No wonder Democrats don't like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election results — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.

Thanks to the Electoral College, Democrats have no choice but to try to win at least some of those voters back if they want to win the presidency. But if we got rid of the Electoral College, Democrats could write off voters in “flyover” country and focus on turning out large numbers of their supporters in big cities and populous liberal states such as New York and California. Unburdened by the need to moderate their platform to appeal to centrist voters, they would be free to pursue full socialism without constraint. If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government takeover of the health care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.

The Electoral College protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more...

Democrats want to get rid of it. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution required super-majorities for amendments — another wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.

But Democrats would have no such obstacles in dealing with another impediment to their radical agenda: the Supreme Court. Thanks to Trump's Electoral College victory, Republicans have been able confirm two Supreme Court justices and secure a conservative majority. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their judicial predicament. They were the ones who announced that they would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during George W. Bush's final year in office, setting the precedent for Republicans to block President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. And they were the ones who eliminated the filibuster for federal circuit court judges — setting the precedent for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.

Democrats have miscalculated at every turn, and now their solution is to break precedent yet again — by packing the Supreme Court. There have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for the past 150 years. No matter, Democratic candidates including Beto O'Rourke; South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) have all said that, as president, they would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court to secure a left-wing majority. The last president who tried this, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was stopped only because members of his own party rebelled. The Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by the Democrats, correctly declared his plan "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country."

It seems unlikely a Democratic president would face such a rebellion today. But unless Democrats win not only the presidency but also a 60-vote Senate majority, they would have to eliminate another minority protection — the legislative filibuster — to pass a court-packing bill. I suspect they would not hesitate to do so.

Taken together, the Democrats are proposing what amounts to a systemic assault on the foundations of our federal system. Democrats are freely pursuing a tyranny of the majority. We'll see how it plays in Middle America. But if they do, then spare us the overwrought complaints about Trump. You can't defend the Constitution while trying to tear it up at the same time.

Washington Post Writers Group

You must lead a sad, lonely life if you're counting.

copy pasted*

You find proof where ever.

Journalism legend Ted Koppel mocked CNN’s Brian Stelter to his face on Monday, telling the “Reliable Sources” host that “CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump.”

While on stage for a National Press Club panel discussion, Koppel attempted to make a point that many media executives admit Trump is good for ratings, as viewers on both sides of the aisle tune in to see the round-the-clock drama unfold.

Stelter responded by asking, “That means what? If ratings are up, that means what?”

Koppel – who anchored ABC News’ “Nightline” for 25 years and has been a working journalist for over four decades -- quickly answered.

“The ratings are up, it means you can’t do without Donald Trump. You would be lost without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as Stelter shook his head in disagreement.

“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.

“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as the audience laughed.

“You know that’s not true. You’re playing for laughs,” Stelter shot back before explaining it would be “Okay” if CNN lost significant viewership during the next administration.

“I reject the premise that these networks are making so much money off of Trump,” Stelter said.

Koppel noted that it was clearly a “sensitive subject” and pointed out that MSNBC also spends most of its coverage on Trump. Stelter has emerged as a prominent figure on CNN during Trump’s political rise and often questions the president’s fitness for office. CNN and Trump have an on-going feud, as the network is loaded with anti-Trump programming and the president often responds by mocking CNN as “fake news.”

For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.

But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.

Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.

Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/how-much-does-cnn-hate-trump-93-of-coverage-is-neg/

Dershowitz: It's Been Harder For Me To Get On "Anti-Trump Networks" Like CNN
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said he is no longer invited by "anti-Trump network" CNN in an interview with on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal.'

DERSHOWITZ: More and more I'm getting called on only by people who misunderstand and think I'm pro-Trump. I'm not pro-Trump, but it's been harder for me to get on anti-Trump networks, not that I'm craving to be on television all the time...

I used to be, for example, on CNN more often than on FOX. I was a regular, not paid, just a person who was on all the time debating with [Jeffrey] Toobin, debating with others. I haven't been on CNN, now, since the summer. FOX calls me all the time.

CNN: Your #1 Source for Fake News
Progressive Poodles of CNN Reject Local Border Coverage That Strays From The Liberal Narrative
Brian Baker
Jan. 11, 2019

Alright, before we embark on this fabulous journey into the fascinating world of network journalism we need to establish some ground rules:

1) DO NOT CALL CNN FAKE NEWS. CNN hates being called fake news. They are not fake news and in no way whatsoever do they EVER engage in fake news, the curation and distribution of fake news, nor the creatively fulfilling practice of designing their own handsomely crafted fake news.
2) CNN is totally fake news.
KUSI, a TV station in San Diego, claims CNN withdrew an earlier request for their reporters to provide local coverage on the border after it learned the station had previously aired reports indicating a wall would be effective.

KUSI claims it directed CNN toward Dan Plante, one of its journalists who has covered the topic of a border wall extensively in the past, when the initial request was made. The network added it thought Plante best suited for the job, as one of its stories had been published on DrudgeReport.com and retweeted by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

However, the offer was allegedly turned down by CNN after KUSI informed the news channel that the Border Patrol Agents it had interviewed had highlighted the wall was effective in preventing illegal migrants from entering the U.S.

CNN issued the following statement in response to criticism and public outrage: "CNN provide fair, balanced and legitimate news coverage of the most crucially-important political issue in America today? Nonsense poopy pants!" https://www.wibc.com/blogs/chicks-right/cnn-your-1-source-fake-news

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

I don't think it is a big secret the America has 1,000's of media outlets and only 6 owners.
so while trump may decry "fake news",and he is not necessarily wrong,he is just accusing those who specifically target him.
but the agenda of the establishment media is to serve their owners,and the powered elites of this country.
americans are one of the most propagandized and surveilled.
so your criticism of CNN is accurate,but so to would be the criticism leveled against FOX,or WaPo,or NYT.

so when I say "magical thinking" maybe I should be more accurate "partisan thinking".

there is no "fair and balanced" mainstream media.
it is only propaganda serving whichever master they serve.
the equation is not democrat versus republican.
it is power vs powerlessness.
guess where you land on the spectrum?

When a duly elected President is vehemently attacked everyday it is the powerful media attempting to "dumbify" their readers/viewers. I support a President who is duly elected and accomplishing a great many things despite the hatred whipped up against him. Why won't the Democrats (and RHINOs) in Congress work with him? Simply put, they hate him because he is not a professional politician like them. And, that is the very reason I voted FOR him.

your argument is losing ground the more you speak.

HA HA HA! "Fox’s senior vice president for programming, Bill Shine, says of the criticism from the OBAMA White House, “Every time they (Obama) do it, our ratings go up.” Mr. Obama’s first year is on track to be the Fox News Channel’s highest rated." Your meme has it backward!!!! https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html

Did you make this meme? HA HA HA

meh../shrugs.
whatevs

no