Trump's War on the First Amendment

[Kishkumen]

Markk is making a trivial point to avoid having to discuss the role of the Trump regime in Kimmel's firing. The FCC chairman called for action to be taken against Kimmel, suggesting firing or suspension by ABC. He threatened FCC action against ABC and the owners of local stations affiliated with ABC. Many of those stations were owned by Nexstar, which plans a merger that will have to be approved by the FCC. It was only after these threats by the FCC chair that local stations and ABC took Kimmel off the air. The FCC chair's statement that ABC and owners of local stations could "do this the hard way or the easy way" reflects the mob mentality of the regime.

Exactly. I appreciate you laying it out like this. Some of these points have been raised along the way, but Markk just insists that Brendan Carr's threats had nothing to do with anything. It was all about these companies making the smart choices. We can half agree on this. ABC would want to avoid trouble with the FCC, just as Nexstar and Sinclair want their monopolies that require FCC approval. So, yeah, the money is the issue on the corporate side. Getting Trump's approval and attention is Brendan Carr's motivation, and his desire to look like a tough guy to his phony tough guy boss is what set this in motion. Of course, behind it all is Trump's publicly stated desire that Kimmel be taken off the air.

[Whiskey]

Maybe we can agree that it is all about the money and move on.

Money, Marketing, Messaging.

Moving on.

[Markk]

You are just avoiding backing up your assertions, with any evidence.

No, I'm not.

Then simply show what your evidence is.

[Markk]

My issue is not whether you know corporate crap from working at the university or not. For all I know, your wife is in house counsel to a fortune 50 company and you have been immersed in this for decades.

I suppose you are free to choose to believe that academia has not been imitating corporate rhetoric for some time. I have seen it mostly in working with administrators in the university, while my spouse has seen it mostly in her contacts across the university and business world. We have often commented over the years to each other without any reference to any silly online arguments. It is just part of our lived experience.

My issues are:

what you pretend to know about Markk's expertise,

I can only go by the fact that his response to me seemed irrelevant to the point I was making. Markk has never struck me to be the corporate type in the way he presents himself. A person can work for a corporation and not be a creature of its administrative messaging rhetorical habits.

how in the everloving hell would you have inside information to know what Disney was doing/saying?

Is it that hard to guess? Disney has no reason to cop to the fact that they were being manipulated by Brendan Carr. In fact, they have every reason not to admit it. The best thing a corporation can do in this situation is to maintain the fiction that they made their own moves for their own reasons. But corporations very infrequently do anything but operate according to their financial interest in the moment. To have the hassle of the FCC on your back is something they will avoid. The only reason they relented from their position is that they saw a big drop in their stock.

But since about the year 2000, corporations have tended to impersonate good citizens making ethical choices. I just think that this is bogus.

Maybe we can agree that it is all about the money and move on.

LOL...it is all about money...bingo, which is nothing to do with what you wrote in the OP. You made a very ignorant and emotional assertion before you even knew the facts. When the facts came out you could have said oops, I messed that one up and it would have been over. But you can't for whatever reason do that, although I have a guess or two as to why.

Now you are creating a strawman with my asking you your corporate experience and having to survive in that arena after you implied because I am in construction (blue collar), I am ignorant of the corporate world where people have to actually prove their value to that corporation or they are gone.

Read your OP, that is what this about, it is not my experience in working as a manager in a corporation, for 30 some years, vs your experience in education.

Yes it is about the money, the politics, and in the end power and money....but that has nothing to do with your now erroneous OP.

[Res Ipsa]

Markk is making a trivial point to avoid having to discuss the role of the Trump regime in Kimmel's firing. The FCC chairman called for action to be taken against Kimmel, suggesting firing or suspension by ABC. He threatened FCC action against ABC and the owners of local stations affiliated with ABC. Many of those stations were owned by Nexstar, which plans a merger that will have to be approved by the FCC. It was only after these threats by the FCC chair that local stations and ABC took Kimmel off the air. The FCC chair's statement that ABC and owners of local stations could "do this the hard way or the easy way" reflects the mob mentality of the regime.

Exactly. I appreciate you laying it out like this. Some of these points have been raised along the way, but Markk just insists that Brendan Carr's threats had nothing to do with anything. It was all about these companies making the smart choices. We can half agree on this. ABC would want to avoid trouble with the FCC, just as Nexstar and Sinclair want their monopolies that require FCC approval. So, yeah, the money is the issue on the corporate side. Getting Trump's approval and attention is Brendan Carr's motivation, and his desire to look like a tough guy to his phony tough guy boss is what set this in motion. Of course, behind it all is Trump's publicly stated desire that Kimmel be taken off the air.

Remember, Markk was the guy who insisted that a visit by Devon Archer and Hunter Biden to the White House to give Devon's kid a tour was slam dunk proof that Joe Biden was on the take. He has yet to retract that accusation despite the fact that two committees in the House spent two years trying to find any evidence no matter how tenuous that Joe Biden was corrupt. Despite the Relief Society bold claims at the outset of the investigations that they would impeach Biden, they couldn't find any evidence sufficient to persuade Congressional Relief Society to vote for a bill of impeachment.

Yet, Markk has nothing to say about Trump's corruption, which is appearing right in front of his eyes.

This is what motivated reasoning looks like. Markk has an entirely inconsistent picture of what constitutes evidence, depending on which side of the political divide we're on.

[Markk]

Exactly. I appreciate you laying it out like this. Some of these points have been raised along the way, but Markk just insists that Brendan Carr's threats had nothing to do with anything. It was all about these companies making the smart choices. We can half agree on this. ABC would want to avoid trouble with the FCC, just as Nexstar and Sinclair want their monopolies that require FCC approval. So, yeah, the money is the issue on the corporate side. Getting Trump's approval and attention is Brendan Carr's motivation, and his desire to look like a tough guy to his phony tough guy boss is what set this in motion. Of course, behind it all is Trump's publicly stated desire that Kimmel be taken off the air.

Remember, Markk was the guy who insisted that a visit by Devon Archer and Hunter Biden to the White House to give Devon's kid a tour was slam dunk proof that Joe Biden was on the take. He has yet to retract that accusation despite the fact that two committees in the House spent two years trying to find any evidence no matter how tenuous that Joe Biden was corrupt. Despite the Relief Society bold claims at the outset of the investigations that they would impeach Biden, they couldn't find any evidence sufficient to persuade Congressional Relief Society to vote for a bill of impeachment.

Yet, Markk has nothing to say about Trump's corruption, which is appearing right in front of his eyes.

This is what motivated reasoning looks like. Markk has an entirely inconsistent picture of what constitutes evidence, depending on which side of the political divide we're on.

LOL, Is that all I said about Devon Archer? what about the timing of Ukrainian monies going into the business accounts of Archer and Hunter Biden, and timing with his white house visits. But how is going back and taking a tiny proof of many evidences about the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden connection to the Ukraine and Hunters employment under a Russian backed oligarch and mobster, dealing with Kish's lack of ability to produce the evidence for his assertion?

Time after time Kish puts his foot in his mouth, and time after time he just doubles down on his emotional rants. Like above in Kish saying I insist that Brendan Carr's threat had nothing to do with anything. Did I even mention Carr, he is just making that up.

O'well, carry on.

[Kishkumen]

Remember, Markk was the guy who insisted that a visit by Devon Archer and Hunter Biden to the White House to give Devon's kid a tour was slam dunk proof that Joe Biden was on the take. He has yet to retract that accusation despite the fact that two committees in the House spent two years trying to find any evidence no matter how tenuous that Joe Biden was corrupt. Despite the Relief Society bold claims at the outset of the investigations that they would impeach Biden, they couldn't find any evidence sufficient to persuade Congressional Relief Society to vote for a bill of impeachment.

Yet, Markk has nothing to say about Trump's corruption, which is appearing right in front of his eyes.

This is what motivated reasoning looks like. Markk has an entirely inconsistent picture of what constitutes evidence, depending on which side of the political divide we're on.

The phrase “willfully blind” comes to mind.

[Markk]

Remember, Markk was the guy who insisted that a visit by Devon Archer and Hunter Biden to the White House to give Devon's kid a tour was slam dunk proof that Joe Biden was on the take. He has yet to retract that accusation despite the fact that two committees in the House spent two years trying to find any evidence no matter how tenuous that Joe Biden was corrupt. Despite the Relief Society bold claims at the outset of the investigations that they would impeach Biden, they couldn't find any evidence sufficient to persuade Congressional Relief Society to vote for a bill of impeachment.

Yet, Markk has nothing to say about Trump's corruption, which is appearing right in front of his eyes.

This is what motivated reasoning looks like. Markk has an entirely inconsistent picture of what constitutes evidence, depending on which side of the political divide we're on.

The phrase “willfully blind” comes to mind.

Kish, like most always in our back and forths, when you stick your foot in your mouth and can't back up your emotional rants with any real evidence, and after you double down and take your original assertion all over the place. And after you attempt to take snippets of things I said, trying to divert attention from your original blunder....you start talking about me with other members of your tribe, and not the issue at hand. It is interesting to watch, expected, and amusing.

All I am asking you to do is show me the evidence and back it up, that supports your assertion that it was ultimately Trumps decision to suspend Kimmel. If you are correct I will admit it. Both ABC/Disney and Kimmel refuted what you asserted. So if the Trump administration was behind the suspension, then ABC/Disney and Kimmel are lying, all I am asking you do is to explain this and provide your evidence for it.

And as to Res, he is just misremembering or lying as to the reasons I believed, and still believe that Biden, and his family were on the take....I presented them and many reasons and evidences were discussed why I, and many others believe it. For him to say that I believe that one visit to the white house is a slam dunk reason is just blatantly false in a rather vain attempt to help pull your foot out of your mouth. I am actually slightly surprised other members of your tribe have not attempted to come to your rescue.

Carry on.

[Whiskey]

The phrase “willfully blind” comes to mind.

Kish, like most always in our back and forths, when you stick your foot in your mouth and can't back up your emotional rants with any real evidence, and after you double down and take your original assertion all over the place. And after you attempt to take snippets of things I said, trying to divert attention from your original blunder....you start talking about me with other members of your tribe, and not the issue at hand. It is interesting to watch, expected, and amusing.

All I am asking you to do is show me the evidence and back it up, that supports your assertion that it was ultimately Trumps decision to suspend Kimmel. If you are correct I will admit it. Both ABC/Disney and Kimmel refuted what you asserted. So if the Trump administration was behind the suspension, then ABC/Disney and Kimmel are lying, all I am asking you do is to explain this and provide your evidence for it.

And as to Res, he is just misremembering or lying as to the reasons I believed, and still believe that Biden, and his family were on the take....I presented them and many reasons and evidences were discussed why I, and many others believe it. For him to say that I believe that one visit to the white house is a slam dunk reason is just blatantly false in a rather vain attempt to help pull your foot out of your mouth. I am actually slightly surprised other members of your tribe have not attempted to come to your rescue.

Carry on.

Sometimes "I don't know" is the truth. We should allow those words again.

[Res Ipsa]

Markk, your entire argument was based on the timing of that White House tour — insisting that it was that “meeting” was the occasion where Joe Biden struck a corrupt deal. Your whole claim about that meeting was based on the fact that occurred shortly before Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine.

Kish is presenting the same type of evidence: the FCC Chair threatened ABC and Nexstar shortly before both took him off the air. But now, simply because it involved Trump, you claim that the same type of evidence when applied to show Biden is not even evidence as to Trump’s FCC.

This isn’t just willful blindness — it’s irrational.