Media/Journalism Cringe Megathread - Hot off the Presses

#Hillary for prison

67u6W1wn.jpeg
 
Shipmaster Sane said:
So... America.
Click to expand...

America isn't interested in conquering the world, so for other nations they need to consider who and what they'd be fighting.

By that standard, there's plenty of nations capable of defending themselves. If you count in defensive agreements and the like, there's even more. For example, even in a fantasy world where the US doesn't get involved, if China decided to go for Taiwan, it's entirely feasible that Japan & Vietnam would jump in on the side of the Taiwanese. India might even jump in as a matter of opportunity.

The JSDF could put some serious hurt on the PLA's sea and airlift capability, and the CCP cannot afford not to take Taiwan once they actually make an effort to do so; it would do more damage to their legitimacy than they could take. They'd have to keep pushing in spite of losing significant chunks of every wave of supplies and reinforcements they tried to send, while the Vietnamese attacked up out of the South, forcing them to fight a two-front war. The Vietnamese don't even have to push very far across the border, all they have to do is force China to respond and commit forces.

If India jumped in on the Western border then, they could either take, liberate, or 'liberate' Tibet before China could do much of anything about it, simply because they were over-committed.

All of these nations wouldn't stand a chance against the US in a conventional military conflict. They are still very much capable of winning fights against actual credible threats to their national sovereignty.

China is, at this point, the only nation in the world that could reasonably stand up to the US in a direct military conflict, and even that would have to be purely defensively, and the US would have to be stupid enough to actually try to just attack until we won, rather than choke off their shipping and conducting the largest siege in the history of the world. Block all shipping to and from China, and they'd collapse internally within months or years.

But, outside of the US getting involved, a reasonably large proportion of other nations in the world are very much capable of protecting themselves either solitarily, or with allies, from other nations that might actually try to invade. India and Pakistan's perpetual pissing match is a good example of this.
 
Bacle said:


So Olberman is straight up talking about a social purge of anyone who has supported Trump.

And people wonder why the Right feels this is a battle for survival, not simply another election.

Edit: Accidently put the wrong name in.
Click to expand...

How long do you think it will be before antifa starts to commit mass shootings?
 
LordsFire said:
If they cross that line, shit will get real very, very quickly.

And no amount of censorship will be able to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Start? I mean, I guess technically it was a burnie bro, but we already had an attempted mass shooting of Republican congressmen. And I believe there was an Ohio mass shooter who got strangly swept under the rug. And treating Antifa/BLM as basically the same thing at this point, I believe we had at least one case where a guy shot 3 police to death. I think that's happened twice actually. Then of course we had the one Antifia who shot a Trump supporter in the head.

The problem we have is that there will never be an antifa mass shooting, because the Left will never reconize leftist violence as leftist violence. It will fall totally on us outside the establishment to hold in memory the crimes they already do, and try to hold their violence against them and keep them from repeating rediculous lies like "no left wingers have killed anyone!'
 
This is a CRINGE Media, thread, not a general news thread
  • Staff
    • Just a general notice. This thread is meant for posting cringe media journalism, as in general dishonest journalism, yellow journalism, shitty takes by journalists and everything else that we can archive and save here to illustrate just how shitty our mainstream and internet journalists are nowadays.

    This isn't a general news thread or anything like that. Feel free to take the time to look for the appropriate threads if they already exist and if not and you feel it's worthy or merits a discussion, open a thread for it! Thanks!

    This thread is meant to be a landmark to journalistic idiocy.
     
  • Staff
    • LTR said:
    Just a general notice. This thread is meant for posting cringe media journalism, as in general dishonest journalism, yellow journalism, shitty takes by journalists and everything else that we can archive and save here to illustrate just how shitty our mainstream and internet journalists are nowadays.

    This isn't a general news thread or anything like that. Feel free to take the time to look for the appropriate threads if they already exist and if not and you feel it's worthy or merits a discussion, open a thread for it! Thanks!

    This thread is meant to be a landmark to journalistic idiocy.
    Click to expand...
    To be fair, a lot of if not all dishonest journalism involves the Leftards, Democrats, and their politicians these days. They do tend to blur together like ice-cream and syrup in a blender.
     
    Only 15% of Americans believe Anonymous sources should be used for news sources outside of special circumstances.

    www.pewresearch.org

    Most Americans see a place for anonymous sources in news stories, but not all the time

    A majority (82%) say there are times when it is acceptable for journalists to use anonymous sources, with 67% saying it is acceptable only in special cases.
    www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

    Well I guess we know where journalists fall in regarding this question.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)
    Back
    Top