All say now, "Hail King Trump!"

You simply can't arrest an entire Government, present and past, especially not under a law that is 118 years old and that has been revised exactly once. There was no telecommunications in 1799. You're never going to reach back and try an American President for "war crimes," either. If you want "the Israeli" lobby to register, you'd have to register anyone and everyone who is not on American soil and who is willing to spend money concerning American politics. (And wouldn't we be expected to register with every other country on Earth?) These notions might feel warm-and-fuzzy but they're just not realistic.


It might surprise you that China was just about the first negotiators to show up, followed very quickly by Russia. The United States is there, too. We must bear firmly in mind that we are dealing with psychopaths, not any sort of legitimate regime that represents, say, "the People of North Korea." Because no one until now would actually confront the situation there, it turned into a festering pool of pus, and a very small group of very, very dangerous men found themselves in control of it. These men don't care if they start World War III, and neither do they care how many of their own people would perish. But, the World has seen tyrants like this many times before. There are alternatives to war. Never underestimate the power of United Nations.

We haven't had a coup d'etat in this country since John F. Kennedy was blown-away by his successor, and that didn't go too well for anyone concerned. We elect Presidents around here, and we can throw them out of office, too, sending them to a "comfortable retirement of utter disgrace," but nevertheless sending them home alive. After all, Donald Trump became famous for that line: "Yer fired!" I'm quite sure that he knows full well that the same thing could happen to him.

We don't rule our country using guns and sticks and stones, and it is dead-wrong IMHO to make any such threats no matter how "couched" the language might be. If you're not doing your job, to the continued satisfaction of the people who hired you to do it, you can be fired.

It might sound strange, also, for me to point out that "Donald Trump didn't have to step up." He certainly didn't need the money ... so far as I know, he isn't taking his paycheck ... and he had no prior political career. He stepped up because he apparently wanted to make a difference. The office of POTUS grinds-up young men and spits-out old men. And yet, he stuck his neck out, campaigned for the position, and won it, fair and square. He hasn't been sitting on his roses, since. In so many ways, "this man is completely unprecedented," and yet I predict that he will be the first of many. I didn't elect him, and I don't understand him, but I am driven to respect him. I really do think that a sea-change occurred in American politics, here at the cusp of the 21st Century, and that this Officeholder will re-define the Office. In a great many ways, and in barely a year, he has already done so.

Its better than going to war for them. People who work for a foreign government should register. Flynn registered. He works for Turkey which is another country that steals American nuclear technology. Maybe Mueller will find them in violation of the Logan Act.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut...t_b_31113.html

http://original.antiwar.com/prather/...ster-jennings/

Its amusing today that Turkey is openly hostile to Israel and the United States. At least Douglas Feith registered as a foreign agent for Turkey eventually. I don't think he has for Israel yet. He pumped out the lies to justify the Iraq war with Israel (but not with Mossad) and the Iraqi opposition. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

Whose fault that there is a psychopath ruling North Korea? *Looks over at China and Russia*

China gave North Korea a war guarantee if it is attacked first. North Korea will at least get a first nuclear strike according to China. If China was serious they would go in and remove the nukes with their huge army. I have little faith in the United Nations to achieve anything. I hope they come through. I hope you are right about China and Russia.


If Fox News, Netanyahu, and Pat Buchanan had a baby. Trump would be that contradictory baby. It is refreshing to have an oligarch rather than a puppet of oligarchs like Hillary Clinton even though he does things for his peers which harm the US. I'm worried we will lose Tillerson who is interested in using diplomacy instead of militarism.

There is a coup against Trump underway. The coup supporters say that 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia meddled in the US election. Actually it was hand picked members from 3 agencies by the Obama administration: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-...ies-falsehood/

There are people who dislike everything about Trump that know that the Obama administration was out to set him up because they haven't given us proof.

Chalmers Johnson figured that the military wouldn't do a coup. They'll get nice jobs in the private sector after leaving government. He said instead of a military coup the US will go bankrupt. I'm hoping for a soft landing.

Who did you vote for? Gary Johnson, Jill Stein? Vermin Supreme? He was real big on ponies and he was more real than the puppets paraded before us during the election.

Regarding the BBC: It's not simply "state owned" and certainly not "state TV". It's not 'that simple'. It's quite often the thorn in the side of the current regime. It has been accused of being "leftist" by successive Conservative governments and sporting too many right wing types by Labour.

It's far from perfect, but when it comes to so called "Independent Television", a public company subject to the whims of shareholders (many of these global multinationals and/or dubious financiers), it's the lesser of two evils at least.

The year before the 2010 General Election, the Cameron led Conservative party secured the support of (Murdoch) News Corporation on one particular condition, among others, that it would deny the BBC any increase in the licence fee (to boost News Corps SKY TV). The deal was of course struck and quite predictably the leading Murdoch "red top" tabloid switched allegiance back to the Tory party.

When a state's so called "independent" or "commercial" media is in the hands of such people it's not really so different to state media, just not so in your face. When that media becomes a global 'news' empire, it could be argued that it threatens sovereignty. But despite all this, for some it's not OK for Russia to have a news broadcast in the US...

There is a difference between "State Owned" and "Shareholder Supported". Corporations may have to answer for fails to stockholders but it is exceedingly rare that shareholders heavily influence policy. Most corporations love the concept - "It is easier/smarter to ask for forgiveness than permission".

So major shareholders of a given public company have no influence, either direct or indirect...?

Not "none"... just "little". It certainly varies from company to company but shareholders rarely agree among themselves so The Board of Directors treat them as a block, a nebulous entity, and figure they will be kept happy (and relatively silent) as long as dividends rise and beyond that are very jealous of their administrative power and don't wish to share that with anyone.

I would argue that major shareholders exert considerably more influence than you'd imagine. Voting powers are just one aspect, but they also can use their stake as leverage, i.e. acquiring shares which just fall short of a controlling interest.

Even if that were so in some cases, that doen't rule out that there is still a difference between "State Owned" and "Shareholder Supported". Additionally, while nobody has direct experience with all corporations, mine is real, if limited, and not "imagine"d. I have been an officer on a Board of Directors and I've met with several Boards and many more officers of corporations. These are most often "alpha males" and a few alpha females (sometimes even more ruthless) and they have a few things in common and most common is lust for control. Underlings are commonly brushed off with "need to know" litanies, kept in the dark, and fed what they want to hear to keep them docile and quiet. In most cases, as long as they are making money, most underlings, including shareholders are happy with that arrangement. It's only when performance falls short that someone's head must fall. Even then it is usually some sacrificial scapegoat and business-as-usual contimues.

Someone holding a major stake in a public company, often sits on the board, or has a controlling interest or just falls short of a controlling interest. This may be an individual or a rep from a company which holds a stake.

I don't think whether either of us has served on a board is relevant to the discussion at hand. I would say that we disagree as to whether major shareholders exert influence over the direction of the organisation - in particular media organisations.

Leaving the interests of stakeholders aside for now: Do you agree that media corporations can also still have a political bias/agenda? Or in your opinion, is it only state controlled media which is biased/influenced?

I think that we are right-now seeing "the last gasp of fifty-year old attitudes," held by seventy- and eighty-year old men (and women) who are still in power in the US Congress." Most importantly, they take it for granted that the USA is "an empire," and that every other country in the world should pay obeisance to them. (I guess they haven't figured out that both China and Russia, say, have multi-thousand year histories, and in comparison to these the USA is a kid not too far beyond diapers.)

Other nations throughout the world are looking at them strangely: "The world has moved on. Don't they get it yet?"

Unless and until the USA imposes term limits on all elected offices (and judgeships, and justices), these fossilized war-hawk attitudes will continue until the fossils who hold them are finally reaped by Father Time. But, it really shouldn't be this way.

(For instance: "sorry to let you know, but World War II didn't end in the East because of your precious atomic bombs. It ended because Russia declared war and announced that it would be invading the home islands from the west... a very short distance across one small stretch of water ... within ten days.")

The Cold War is Over. So is World War II. There is no more "USSR."

"There is no 'American empire." There is no Hegemony. USA is neither the oldest, nor the richest, nor the baddest, nor the morally-superior nation in this world-wide community. While this nation is powerful, it is not all-powerful. The biggest thing holding my country back right now, IMHO, is those worn-out, cocky attitudes. Diplomats from many other nations are speaking patiently in response to America – and, they're making perfect sense. Why not try it their way?

Is that a loaded question? Of course media, as all organizations do, have agendas or at least a general "bent". First and foremost, being corporations and mainly concerned with Profit, IMHO the term "Liberal Media" is an oxymoron. They are corporate and by nature conservative and only vary in degree, somewhat mitigated by those who were attracted to actual Journalism instead of propaganda. Some corporations and their boards are very focused and single-minded but many are wide-ranging and diffuse. However they are all subject to Supply and Demand ... and survival.

Bottom Line - One can't just assume State Owned and Shareholder Supported are equivalent.

It was a few questions.

I did not use the term "equivalent". I used the phrase "When a state's so called "independent" or "commercial" media is in the hands of such people it's not really so different to state media". The conditional "such people" and "not so different", are far away from a simple "equivalent".

You seem to have read my post as "state media and public media are the same". That's not the point I was trying to make.

I suggest reading up on News Corp, particularly in the UK and about it's reps popping in and out of the back door of Number 10. It's not just biased media, it's about people with vested interests in multiple public companies, some media, some investment, etc sitting on various boards and holding shares.

Then there's London Evening Standard, former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne, Blackrock and Uber... lots of pies and fingers.

But anyway "agree to disagree" is fine by me...