Trump Cancels All Admins' NYT, WaPo Subs: "Will Save 100s Of 1000s Of Taxpayer Dollars"

[The4thEstate]

Only problem with that, 4E is that the Democrats and the Republicans have exchanged names, symbols and policies over the last 150 years. Which of course means that the Democrats of today are the Republicans of yesteryear and so for the Republicans being the Democrats. So, before throwing mud, make sure you know who you're throwing it and where you're getting it.

Nahhh ... you're just parroting Democrat-authored revisionist history. They'd love to convince everybody that the KKK was a Republican organization from day one.

I'm no card-carrying Republican, but it's not as if today's Republican Party embraces the KKK any more than it originally did.

The KKK has long been a separate organisation, controlled and organised by it's own members. Out of a matter of interest, did you watch the movie, "Blackkkklansman"? Very funny. Very damning. I'd heartily recommend it to you.

Can't say I have.

I'd also recommend "Mississippi Burning" about the murder of several white activists in that state in the early-mid-1960s. Very damning, very telling. Is that something you, as a member of the Right are proud of?

Even if you believe the KKK represents the far right, that doesn't make everyday right-wingers any more responsible for the Klan's actions than you're responsible for the millions of people who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao.

Then we have "Good Night, and Good Luck", all about Ed Murrow and Joe McCarthy. Another icon of the Right. Proud of him and his efforts to create a police state in the US?

You're obvious a fan of the golden oldies. But hey, as long as we're strolling through mid-20th century history, let's talk about the way the leftist New York Times downplayed the Holocaust and even won a Pulitzer Prize for Walter Duranty's fawning coverage of Stalin during the deliberate famine in Ukraine.

As a lefty, don't you just feel horrible about all that? Particularly the famine.

These are not fake stories, made up in some scriptwriters' minds. They are based on facts. I'm sure there are others I could dig up.

As could I. There's such an assortment of murderous leftist dictators to choose from. (I haven't even gotten to Castro yet.)

There are problems with the extreme elements on both sides of politics. The middle is what concerns me, 4E. What about you or are you so committed to destroying the Left that you'd like to dress in a black uniform and open concentration camps?

You obviously aren't a student of today's American left, which is a huge fan of free speech, just as long as it agrees with theirs.

For instance, take a look at the antics of Antifa, the hilariously misnamed "anti-fascist" group, whose members beat journalist Andy Ngo so badly that he suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage. The same bunch vandalized the University of California at Berkeley to the tune of $100,000 damage -- because the college had dared to book a speaker whom they didn't agree with.

And I haven't even touched on the restrictive leftist speech codes that have taken hold at American universities and, coming soon, American cities.

No such behavior occurs on the right in any routine manner.

Personally, I'd be divorcing myself from the Right toute sweete if I subscribed to it's idea of politics.

Sorry, I prefer individual liberty to government control.

[brian ross]

Only problem with that, 4E is that the Democrats and the Republicans have exchanged names, symbols and policies over the last 150 years. Which of course means that the Democrats of today are the Republicans of yesteryear and so for the Republicans being the Democrats. So, before throwing mud, make sure you know who you're throwing it and where you're getting it.

Nahhh ... you're just parroting Democrat-authored revisionist history. They'd love to convince everybody that the KKK was a Republican organization from day one.

And you'll need to convince everybody that murder, lynching, church burning, church blowing up, rape, all the other tactics used by the KKK regularly were out of the Democrat's playbook, 4E. They aren't from the Republican one either but they are typical of many extreme organisations trying to silence opposition to their rule. As much as you attempt to paint the mainstream Democrats as being extremist, it doesn't work. All it does is paint yourself as being an extremist.

I'm no card-carrying Republican, but it's not as if today's Republican Party embraces the KKK any more than it originally did.

And you have evidence that the mainstream Democrats of today have attempted to embrace the KKK?

The KKK has long been a separate organisation, controlled and organised by it's own members. Out of a matter of interest, did you watch the movie, "Blackkkklansman"? Very funny. Very damning. I'd heartily recommend it to you.

Can't say I have.

Do so, It shows how stupid the KKK was. It is a very funny movie and it is based upon real life.

I'd also recommend "Mississippi Burning" about the murder of several white activists in that state in the early-mid-1960s. Very damning, very telling. Is that something you, as a member of the Right are proud of?

Even if you believe the KKK represents the far right, that doesn't make everyday right-wingers any more responsible for the Klan's actions than you're responsible for the millions of people who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao.

I have never claimed that the KKK is representative of anybody, other than itself, 4E. Unlike you, who attempts to claim that I am responsible for the excesses of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and the Kims of North Korea. I've never claimed you're personally responsible for what Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang, Pinochet, etc. did. Your Government might have been but I don't think you even own your Government. No one seems to admit to owning the US Government.

Then we have "Good Night, and Good Luck", all about Ed Murrow and Joe McCarthy. Another icon of the Right. Proud of him and his efforts to create a police state in the US?

You're obvious a fan of the golden oldies. But hey, as long as we're strolling through mid-20th century history, let's talk about the way the leftist New York Times downplayed the Holocaust and even won a Pulitzer Prize for Walter Duranty's fawning coverage of Stalin during the deliberate famine in Ukraine.

As a lefty, don't you just feel horrible about all that? Particularly the famine.

"Golden Oldies"?

I've never even seen a copy of the New York Times, let alone purchased one so I doubt I'd feel particularly guilty about a story published in the 1930s. Perhaps we should talk about Time's Man of the Year for 1938, Adolf Hitler? We can throw headlines/stories/etc, back and forth all year if you really desire. I prefer to talk about politics and politicians. What about you?

These are not fake stories, made up in some scriptwriters' minds. They are based on facts. I'm sure there are others I could dig up.

As could I. There's such an assortment of murderous leftist dictators to choose from. (I haven't even gotten to Castro yet.)

Oh, please, yes, lets do Castro! I studied the Cuban Revolution back as an undergraduate at Uni and during my Honor's Year. I loved all the contradictions between what the US Government claimed and what the Fidelistas were actually doing in Cuba and in the Caribbean. I mean, lets look at the Gulag on Pine Island for example. It was actually a youth camp. The US had exploited Cuba for generations. They had installed a succession of right-wing dictators who oppressed the Cubans for the Mafia and the US. The US didn't like the mild reformist programme that Fidel took to Washington and rejected him. Guess who stepped in? The fUSSR. Looks like Washington shot itself in the foot and created the supposed threat from Cuba on it's doorstep.

There are problems with the extreme elements on both sides of politics. The middle is what concerns me, 4E. What about you or are you so committed to destroying the Left that you'd like to dress in a black uniform and open concentration camps?

You obviously aren't a student of today's American left, which is a huge fan of free speech, just as long as it agrees with theirs.

Anerica's Left? Or are you talking about the extreme Left? The two are very different beasts, despite what you appear to believe.

The normal Left is concerned with all the things that you appear to believe are inconvenient.

I suppose you prefer to see workers' exploited, underpaid and overworked? I suppose you prefer the environment to be wrecked by industrialists who don't care about the water or air that their workers breath? I take it that you prefer that the poor be neglected and consigned to the scrap heap of society? I take it that you prefer that crime be encouraged? That gun massacres are even more of an everyday occurrence than they are because of the insane Right's belief that the only solution to guns are more guns...

For instance, take a look at the antics of Antifa, the hilariously misnamed "anti-fascist" group, whose members beat journalist Andy Ngo so badly that he suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage. The same bunch vandalized the University of California at Berkeley to the tune of $100,000 damage -- because the college had dared to book a speaker whom they didn't agree with.

They are the mirror image of the Fascists they oppose. I oppose both groups. Fascists believe that it is perfectly acceptable to drive cars into demonstrations and kill demonstrators. Fascists believe in carrying shields, clubs, helmets, gas masks. There is fault on both sides at the extreme ends of politics and always will be.

And I haven't even touched on the restrictive leftist speech codes that have taken hold at American universities and, coming soon, American cities.

Of you go. Personally, I believe in being polite and caring about the feelings of others. You obviously believe in being rude and disrespectful. Perhaps it's 'cause I was raised in a good household and served in the military.

No such behavior occurs on the right in any routine manner.

*YAWN* Yeah, tell that to the Civil Rights leaders who were beaten, murdered and raped. Tell that to the student leaders who were beaten and murdered. You really do have selective vision, don't you, 4E? You call yourself a journalist? Really?

Personally, I'd be divorcing myself from the Right toute sweete if I subscribed to it's idea of politics.

Sorry, I prefer individual liberty to government control.

You can believe in what every fairy tales you want, 4E. It is a shame when you try and push others to believe in them, though.

[The4thEstate]

And you'll need to convince everybody that murder, lynching, church burning, church blowing up, rape, all the other tactics used by the KKK regularly were out of the Democrat's playbook, 4E. They aren't from the Republican one either but they are typical of many extreme organisations trying to silence opposition to their rule. As much as you attempt to paint the mainstream Democrats as being extremist, it doesn't work. All it does is paint yourself as being an extremist.

Actually, the mainstream Democrats ARE extremist when it comes to policies like open borders, free healthcare for illegal immigrants and "Medicare for all," which will result in a $52 trillion expense over 10 years. Try selling that bag of lunacy to the American voters.

As for the KKK, my point was that they trace their history to the Democrats. Since you're fond of citing decades-old sins and expecting nations and political parties to own up to them, it doesn't seem inconsistent to expect the Democrats to publicly express their remorse for having anything to do with this violent racist organization.

After all, they're the party that's pushing reparations for black Americans. Why not pay them out of the Democrat campaign treasury?

I'm no card-carrying Republican, but it's not as if today's Republican Party embraces the KKK any more than it originally did.

And you have evidence that the mainstream Democrats of today have attempted to embrace the KKK?

Strawman alert!

Show me where I ever said that.

I have never claimed that the KKK is representative of anybody, other than itself, 4E.

Hmmm ... really? So why do I find the following post under your name:

I'd also recommend "Mississippi Burning" about the murder of several white activists in that state in the early-mid-1960s. Very damning, very telling. Is that something you, as a member of the Right are proud of?

Can't say I feel especially responsible for it, since I was in elementary school at the time.

Unlike you, who attempts to claim that I am responsible for the excesses of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and the Kims of North Korea. I've never claimed you're personally responsible for what Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang, Pinochet, etc. did. Your Government might have been but I don't think you even own your Government. No one seems to admit to owning the US Government.

I simply stated that if you genuinely believe right-wingers like me are responsible for the KKK, then it's not unfair to expect left-wingers like you to feel guilty about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.

I've never even seen a copy of the New York Times, let alone purchased one so I doubt I'd feel particularly guilty about a story published in the 1930s. Perhaps we should talk about Time's Man of the Year for 1938, Adolf Hitler? We can throw headlines/stories/etc, back and forth all year if you really desire. I prefer to talk about politics and politicians. What about you?

Well, you brought up the KKK, not me. Feel free to walk the talk whenever you see fit.

As could I. There's such an assortment of murderous leftist dictators to choose from. (I haven't even gotten to Castro yet.)

Oh, please, yes, lets do Castro! I studied the Cuban Revolution back as an undergraduate at Uni and during my Honor's Year. I loved all the contradictions between what the US Government claimed and what the Fidelistas were actually doing in Cuba and in the Caribbean. I mean, lets look at the Gulag on Pine Island for example. It was actually a youth camp. The US had exploited Cuba for generations. They had installed a succession of right-wing dictators who oppressed the Cubans for the Mafia and the US. The US didn't like the mild reformist programme that Fidel took to Washington and rejected him. Guess who stepped in? The fUSSR. Looks like Washington shot itself in the foot and created the supposed threat from Cuba on it's doorstep.

And if you'd like to gloat over what Cuba has since become, under the significant influence of the Soviet Union/Russia, I'll happily allow you to express that sentiment.

Here's the latest assessment from Human Rights Watch:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/c ... pters/cuba

The Cuban government continues to repress and punish dissent and public criticism. The number of short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others was significantly less in 2018 than in 2017, but still remained high, with more than 2,000 reports of arbitrary detentions between January and August. The government continues to use other repressive tactics, including beatings, public shaming, travel restrictions, and termination of employment against critics.

Ah yes, those brutally oppressive Americans. Viva la revelucion!

There are problems with the extreme elements on both sides of politics. The middle is what concerns me, 4E. What about you or are you so committed to destroying the Left that you'd like to dress in a black uniform and open concentration camps?

You obviously aren't a student of today's American left, which is a huge fan of free speech, just as long as it agrees with theirs.

Anerica's Left? Or are you talking about the extreme Left? The two are very different beasts, despite what you appear to believe.

The normal Left is concerned with all the things that you appear to believe are inconvenient.

Not in America. The number of moderate Democrats in Congress can be counted on one hand. We now have Democrat candidates endorsing wacky, blatantly socialistic policies such as the Green New Deal.

I suppose you prefer to see workers' exploited, underpaid and overworked? I suppose you prefer the environment to be wrecked by industrialists who don't care about the water or air that their workers breath? I take it that you prefer that the poor be neglected and consigned to the scrap heap of society? I take it that you prefer that crime be encouraged? That gun massacres are even more of an everyday occurrence than they are because of the insane Right's belief that the only solution to guns are more guns...

See, that's the problem with you lefties: You talk a big game, but when it comes to governing, your results fall considerably short of your promises.

For instance, under Obama, the number of food stamp (government assistance) recipients increased from 26 million to 44 million in 8 years. Whereas under Trump, it's fallen to 38 million while the unemployment rate has reached its lowest level in 50 years.

But that's the left for you: Instead of growing the economy and lifting all boats, including the impoverished, they'd rather take money from working people and redistribute it, the better to create a plantation of government-dependent voters.

As for guns, there are about 400 million in the hands of American civilians. Go ahead, try to collect them all! Anyway, most gun owners are law-abiding, and there's nothing wrong with using a firearm for self-defense, especially when you're protecting your own home and family.

I have no idea what you mean by "crime being encouraged." It's the Democrat-run cities and states that are ignoring "petty" crimes (such as stealing up to $950 in California) and releasing illegal immigrants who are charged with crimes instead of turning them over to federal immigration authorities.

For instance, take a look at the antics of Antifa, the hilariously misnamed "anti-fascist" group, whose members beat journalist Andy Ngo so badly that he suffered a life-threatening brain hemorrhage. The same bunch vandalized the University of California at Berkeley to the tune of $100,000 damage -- because the college had dared to book a speaker whom they didn't agree with.

They are the mirror image of the Fascists they oppose. I oppose both groups. Fascists believe that it is perfectly acceptable to drive cars into demonstrations and kill demonstrators.

That's more a tactic of jihadists, but I also oppose both groups.

Fascists believe in carrying shields, clubs, helmets, gas masks. There is fault on both sides at the extreme ends of politics and always will be.

Indeed.

And I haven't even touched on the restrictive leftist speech codes that have taken hold at American universities and, coming soon, American cities.

Of you go. Personally, I believe in being polite and caring about the feelings of others. You obviously believe in being rude and disrespectful. Perhaps it's 'cause I was raised in a good household and served in the military.

If by "polite" you mean calling people names like "extremist," "Islamophobe" et al. Was that part of your military training?

No such behavior occurs on the right in any routine manner.

*YAWN* Yeah, tell that to the Civil Rights leaders who were beaten, murdered and raped. Tell that to the student leaders who were beaten and murdered. You really do have selective vision, don't you, 4E? You call yourself a journalist? Really?

You call yourself an English speaker? Really?

If so, note that the word "occurs" is present tense. I'm unaware of any civil rights leaders getting beaten, murdered and raped in 2019.

Earlier in this same post, you railed against discussing news events of the 1930s ... yet apparently you have no qualms about bringing up events that occurred in the 1950s. Do try to keep your centuries straight.

You can believe in what every fairy tales you want, 4E. It is a shame when you try and push others to believe in them, though.

Nah, I don't push anybody to believe anything. I state my opinions for others to consider, reject or ignore as they may choose. Whatever the outcome, I won't lose a nanosecond of sleep over it.

[Nom De Plume]

"Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving for taxpayers — hundreds of thousands of dollars," she said in a statement.
It's unclear exactly how much agencies spend on the publications, but The Washington Post is free to anyone with a government or military email address. It's also unclear whether agencies will follow through with the White House's order to cancel the subscriptions.
First published on October 24, 2019 / 3:43 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-hous ... 019-10-24/

So, how much is being spent on subscriptions?

[brian ross]

Trump obviously doesn't like his “Cocoon of His Own Mistruth” should be challenged.

[Nom De Plume]

"Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving for taxpayers — hundreds of thousands of dollars," she said in a statement.
It's unclear exactly how much agencies spend on the publications, but The Washington Post is free to anyone with a government or military email address. It's also unclear whether agencies will follow through with the White House's order to cancel the subscriptions.
First published on October 24, 2019 / 3:43 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-hous ... 019-10-24/

So, how much is being spent on subscriptions?

[The4thEstate]

It's unclear exactly how much agencies spend on the publications, but The Washington Post is free to anyone with a government or military email address.

The ONLINE version is free to anyone with a government or military email address -- not the print version, according to this report.
https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/10/25/age ... gton-post/

And Axios says Trump's move will, in fact, cost the two newspapers even more than the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" cited by the White House press secretary. Here's why:
https://www.axios.com/white-house-new-y ... 0dbd9.html

(T)he Post and the Times each make around $20 million annually by selling political and issue ads (mostly issue ads) that are geared toward reaching policy makers and opinion leaders at key D.C. institutions, including the White House and federal agencies. Hundreds of copies of the two newspapers are distributed to the White House and agencies.

* These are expensive ads, and they’re typically the only types of ads with pricing that can’t be negotiated or bartered down.
* In fact, the Times touts its reach into the White House when selling ads. It even created a separate D.C. edition of its paper printed out of Springfield, Virginia, just to make it cheaper to target federal agencies with ads that could be locally inserted.

The bottom line: This move, if the White House follows through on it, will have an advertising impact on the newspapers at a time when the issue advocacy market is really hot.

No reason the Trump administration should financially support two newspapers that have been bent on taking him out since the day he took office. Let them eat newsprint!

[Nom De Plume]

Thankyou 4E

In my opinion, all media should be digital within govt and corps alike. Save the paper edition for private citizens.

[The4thEstate]

Yep, especially if governments can subscribe for free.

Axios appears to have nailed what's really at stake here: advertising dollars. Trump, being a businessman, almost certainly knows this ... and why this move would hurt the NYT and WaPo a lot more than they'd care to admit.

See, average observers think subscriptions, in and of themselves, are where the money is ... but they're mistaken.

Advertising revenue is what fuels the print media. That's why Life magazine went out of business in 1972 despite having 5 million subscribers.