Posted on 04/24/2016 2:58:24 AM PDT by markomalley
I've started to see Breitbart host more and more pro-Cruz propaganda items on their sites. If they're going to continue posting anti-Trump lies and deception, they should go the way of "Right Scoop" and not be allowed to be posted on this site.
For example, this morning I come across a scurrilous piece by Dr Susan Berry, Donald Trump Foundation Donated $20K to Public School LGBT Activist Group GLSEN. Not saying that it's true, but even if it was, since when would Donald Trump have day-to-day management control on each and every donation made. Besides, it was 4 years ago. What relevance is this to today?
This just shows that it may not be a reliable news source any longer. I think articles from this source should be banned from FR.
Thanks... most excellent article...
It’s going to be a bumpy ride, to say the least. I don’t expect a peaceful or smooth transition of power next January.
I could understand the position being taken after the conventiona. When we have a nominee. The truth is we do not have a nominee at this time. Shutting down opposition and discourse at this time is inappropriate. There will be a time to sing kum ba ya when the party has picked the nominee just like they have going back to Lincoln
“This isn’t about free speech. This is about being in campaign mode until after the election is done and over with. “
So if it gets to a second ballot and Cruz wins that, everybody here is going to support him ?
Just askin.
One thing that I need to be 100% absolutely clear about: I DO NOT LIKE DONALD J. TRUMP.
I am taking the positions I'm taking strictly out of an attitude of cynicism (realpolitik). The fact of the matter is that he is the presumptive nominee and is the one who will be selected to keep the Hildabeast out of office. Period. I am not a Trump fanboi in any way, shape or form.
Having said that, we have to do what we have to do in order to accomplish the mission: to keep Hillary out of the WH. So I will hold my tongue on things that could help her win. But that is a deliberate decision to do so and does not reflect a change in my opinion about the (presumptive) Republican nominee.
To the contrary, I think FReepers are some of the smartest people on the web. But we are an impassioned crew and such an article as the one I linked to is likely to cause an impassioned argument and promote division amongst the troops.
So what were you doing this AM at Breitbart then?
I was doing my normal daily news surfing. I was getting ready to post the article and then thought about it: why was this being published at Breitbart? Then I recalled a few items from yesterday (which I didn't choose to post BTW). Then looked back a while longer and recognized that they are starting to post some pretty vile stuff mixed in with their normal coverage.
Believe it or not, I am not trying to suggest people don't go to Breitbart nor am I suggesting that site be taken down. I am suggesting that, until the election, it is probably not appropriate to post to FR because of the questionable content.
thats why c-sections invented. no need to pierce the baby’s skull, suck out brain so it can be crushed for extraction.
In regards to your graphic (Emperor’s new clothes), will being the little boy in the story help defeat Hillary? And isn’t that the goal here?
I am just learning the zotting terminology of FR. But, I think that I get it. They are saboteurs of the goals of FR. They deserve to be cast out after they relentlessly and rudely undermine the goals of the forum.
There are some great minds on Free Republic and they enlighten the forum with well-founded news and opinions.
———>And there are dead carcasses, that were culled<-——
They twist words into outright lies and project like a leftist.
They are insanely vested in their man like a Jim Jones cultist.
They litter posts with derogatory juvenile comments directed at FRiends.
They use profanity and vulgar comments about candidates or FRiends.
-——> And there are low-IQs that are tolerated <—————
They never back up biased opinions with links to factual information.
They attack new posters: insisting longevity = infallible credibility = god-like status.
They attack voting stats that contradict their pre-established talking points and failures.
They attack articles from particular sources that contradict their POV if they reveal ugly truths.
They can’t muster a defense of their opinions and so they always resort to ad hominem attacks.
Last time I checked, this was a political advocacy site that promoted a certain point of view. According to the staff and management of this site: We will unite behind our nominee and we will win this coming election (with or without you) and we will get a handle on this divided forum very soon.
If I want news, I go to news sites. When I want political advocacy, I come here.
In reality, the site owner could do that, but not sure what good an echo chamber would be.
See what I wrote in post #170. I think that answers your question as well.
If that hypothetical would happen, or for that matter no matter who the GOP nominates in July, I would hope that we would rally around that person.
Not because any of us like him, but because it would be necessary to keep the Hildabeast out.
I understand what you’re trying to accomplish. I do. This has been a frustrating half-year on FR.
But I don’t think political advocacy is healthy if it means we ignore the warts and focus on rah-rah. The warts are there whether we discuss them or not, and millions of voters out there see them. We should discuss and be aware.
Maybe the answer would be to have a “political advocacy safe zone” on FR.
They have produced as many negative articles about Cruz as they have about Trump.
And positive too.
It's not a matter of trying to offend me or not offend me. I wouldn't have survived on FR for the past 12 years if I didn't have a pretty thick skin.
Here's the point: a LOT of people look at FR and use what they see on this site as a reference from which they will base their thoughts about the conservative base. A lot of people who are wondering as well as a lot of people who would wish harm upon conservatism.
My opinion is that we need to base our actions on this site with that understanding. We need to have an ABSOLUTELY unified front.
If a slanderous article from a libtard site like WaPo, HuffPo, etc, gets posted, that's one thing: blame the source. No problems. It's always been that way.
But if a slanderous article gets posted from a supposedly good site, then there's the possibility of confusion...and then long, drawn-out disagreements.
The point is not to protect myself or any other FReeper, but to help with that unified front presented to the rest of the world.
If Joe gets the zot, I go too.
I got a better idea...
go to china where free speech is not allowed...
Yes we will unite behind the nominee
There isn’t one yet
You must have missed the intro page. Perhaps if you reread it it will help you
My problem with Cruz is that he wasn’t born in the USA, and being born out of the USA, it was not to a patriot father or even a lover of the USA or even one who desired to be a US citizen. He would not have been eligible in the eyes of George Washington.
It is a horrible precedent. We shouldn’t do it.
He might be the most conservative person on the planet, but I won’t consider him an acceptable nominee.
Argue for someone else. Argue for Huckabee, Santorum, Kasich,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.