i find it hilarious that people think that Obama was welcomed with open arms and not criticized before he was inaugurated or signed one law. He started under extreme criticism from many/some (whatever) on the right. Short short memories.

 

To be fair it's been 8 years. I barely remember last week.

CNN was endorsing Trump's assassination?

 

Did I say that?

Are you sure?

 

I'm sure CNN had a segment describing what would happen if Trump died before being sworn in. I'm also sure one Fox news contributor made an awful comment about President Obama.

Wait, are we saying CNN "endorsed" the assassination of Trump and Pence? Or were they just pointing out what could happen, given the level of opposition to Trump and the fact that some left-wingers are acting way crazy and might act on those impulses?

 

Caveat: I've not watched CNN on any kind of basis beyond occasional for a good 17 years, ever since my brother joined the Army and got sent to Afghanistan and Iraq soon after.

 

Who said they endorsed it?

Trump is basically hated by most of the media...

 

Trump is "hated" by the media because he is a childish buffoon that doesn't know how to talk to people. That is nobody's fault but his own.

I'm sure CNN had a segment describing what would happen if Trump died before being sworn in. I'm also sure one Fox news contributor made an awful comment about President Obama.

 

So you don't believe that CNN actually endorsed such an awful thing, based on an earlier post in this thread. That being said, what is wrong with them pointing out the situation that could occur if such an awful thing happens? Again, we both agree that there are some deeply butt-hurt people about Trump's election. We also agree that the reaction we've seen has led to some really stupid reactionary behavior. In that light, why is it so wrong to point out the situation that would come into play if the worst possible scenario — an assassination — were to occur?

 

In no way would I ever defend CNN on its face. But I can't necessarily argue with the newsworthiness of such a story, regardless of what media outlet forwarded it to the public. Unless you think all those liberal crazies are incapable of actually following through with such an awful thing.

Did I say that?

 

I didn't know what you were saying. That is why I asked the question. I thought CNN could have done without the story but I didn't think they endorsed his assassination. Fox News had one person endorse assassinating Obama during a live broadcast and continues to have another analyst on air who has endorsed assassinating Obama. The poster said they didn't recall anything like this done with Obama and that poster was correct. No one discussed the protocol of what would happen if Obama was assassinated. They just endorsed assassinating him directly or indirectly with people affiliated with their network. Two different things? Yes. Discussing the assassination of the sitting POTUS on a major news network is unacceptable in any shape form or fashion. I'm not sure why we all can't agree on that.

Who said they endorsed it?

 

I don't know. I'm just asking questions. I addressed this more in post #36.

I didn't know what you were saying. That is why I asked the question. I thought CNN could have done without the story but I didn't think they endorsed his assassination. Fox News had one person endorse assassinating Obama during a live broadcast and continues to have another analyst on air who has endorsed assassinating Obama. The poster said they didn't recall anything like this done with Obama and that poster was correct. No one discussed the protocol of what would happen if Obama was assassinated. They just endorsed assassinating him directly or indirectly with people affiliated with their network. Two different things? Yes. Discussing the assassination of the sitting POTUS on a major news network is unacceptable in any shape form or fashion. I'm not sure why we all can't agree on that.

 

From a "people's right to know" standpoint, I'm not sure I agree with that. I believe in the American public being informed on everything, ugly or not. I had no idea what the succession protocol calls for in that situation until this came up. I guarantee 95 percent of Americans didn't either. They should be aware of such things in their governmental machinery.

From a "people's right to know" standpoint, I'm not sure I agree with that. I believe in the American public being informed on everything, ugly or not. I had no idea what the succession protocol calls for in that situation until this came up. I guarantee 95 percent of Americans didn't either. They should be aware of such things in their governmental machinery.

 

I do agree somewhat but coming from CNN it gives the same optics as if Fox had done the exact same thing about Obama. And I believe both networks would know how that type of story would affect the masses. It is good information to know but I'd rather Fox News run this story than CNN.

I do agree somewhat but coming from CNN it gives the same optics as if Fox had done the exact same thing about Obama. And I believe both networks would know how that type of story would affect the masses. It is good information to know but I'd rather Fox News run this story than CNN.

 

I guess the difference between us is that I stopped watching the 24hr news networks nearly two decades ago and don't much care about such optics, as they all suck. Damn, I'm getting old.

I guess the difference between us is that I stopped watching the 24hr news networks nearly two decades ago and don't much care about such optics, as they all suck. Damn, I'm getting old.

 

Nah I never watch 24hr news networks. I watch sports and TV shows. I very very very rarely watch any news.

 

When folks complain about how one news network is acting I use the Google machine to show them that there are others doing the same thing.

Keep 'em real PP92. They think the world, the media, everyone else is conspiring against them.

 

Some of our memories stretch way back to the deeps of time. Pre-2009.

So you don't believe that CNN actually endorsed such an awful thing, based on an earlier post in this thread. That being said, what is wrong with them pointing out the situation that could occur if such an awful thing happens? Again, we both agree that there are some deeply butt-hurt people about Trump's election. We also agree that the reaction we've seen has led to some really stupid reactionary behavior. In that light, why is it so wrong to point out the situation that would come into play if the worst possible scenario — an assassination — were to occur?

 

In no way would I ever defend CNN on its face. But I can't necessarily argue with the newsworthiness of such a story, regardless of what media outlet forwarded it to the public. Unless you think all those liberal crazies are incapable of actually following through with such an awful thing.

 

So to be clear, you're OK with the story?

Keep 'em real PP92. They think the world, the media, everyone else is conspiring against them.

 

....but it's posts like this that make me keep a vigilant outlook. Nothing like lumping an entire group together. How does that make you so much more superior in your ethical approach ?

 

...at least we don't have people lighting themselves on fire for no apparent reason.