CNN is involved in one merge while not in the other.

wel I'm just a psuedo critical thinker, I'm looking into trump building all the concentration camps he was going to throw all the minorities and LGBTQRS+++ people in. I'm currently trying to see if the budget for the wall is going to actually partially be used to build the camps, so it would make sense that this hitleresque nazi fascist would allow mergers left and right since all the media does it talk about how great he is, a move right out of mien kampf

Maybe he can save money by using the FEMA camps obama built for all the militias and gun owners and white people instead of building new camps.

Just a thought.

Maybe he can save money by using the FEMA camps obama built for all the militias and gun owners and white people instead of building new camps.

That's the most racist nazi alt-right comment you could have made. Obama was brilliant Intellectual and best President we ever had who gave poor people tax funded Obama phones and Obama care which is pretty close and one step away from single payer when no one else did shit because white privilege, and the city I live in has had a massive influx of Muslim refugees which is the best for Diversity and to even out the white privilege folks and we now have record numbers of beautifully built mosques everywhere because America needs to be diverse no mater what racists say.

Obama was the bomb

"Obama was the bomb"

I assume you mean the vest type?

You mean like this? https://i.redd.it/xfvk65fvdrp01.png

Similar but taller and more angry.

Naw Obama was God tier worship level President who only did good things and a Pulitzer leave prize at that, fucking epic legend who will go down in history as God incarnate

Assuming you hate America, Democracy and the Constitution...you might be able to find people on reddit who agree.

I love all those things, but I also believe e the deepstate faked Obama's birth certificate so they can have their Manchurian candidate

I mean it has in his biography for 7 years that be was born in Kenya and everything was fine then, cut to 1:40

https://youtu.be/KFMfaovzCSQ

*Well

Because the ATT deal is a $90 Billion dollar deal vs. The Tribune deal is $4 billion. One is literally 20+ times larger than the other one in market cap and hence monopolization.

Doj attempts to stop merger and a Trump tweet are two incredibly different things. One is a social media post.

Why should I defend a tweet? Even if it is from the president? We are not beholden to his tweets, but the DOJ's urging has more clout.

Trump’s tweets are “Official statements of the President of the United States”

Do tweets equal action?

Is that true when they come from his personal account and not the official POTUS account? People often forget that the vast majority of these tweets are coming from @realDonaldTrump, which is his personal account and not @POTUS (the official account).

Also - Is everything Trump says an "Official Statement of the President of the United States"? Has that always been the case or is this a new thing in the last year and a half? Is this something we're going to retroactively apply to presidents? How about all those "hot mic" moments from past presidents, are those official statements?

This is a mostly-honest question (the second half is kinda snoody, I agree). I'm really curious if we're now considering things the president says when not acting in an official capacity (on his personal account) as official statements. I'm really curious, if true, when and where (and why) this started.

These are all very good questions.

Is everything Trump says an "Official Statement of the President of the United States"?

Yes and it doesn't matter what Twitter account it comes from.

Yes and it doesn't matter what Twitter account it comes from.

So how does that apply to other things, as I've asked? Are hot-mic moments also official statements, if they are made public? How about a speech given to WH employees which is then leaked (thus made public)?

And also, can you cite the source of this law? I don't, frankly, care what you think is true. I'm actually really curious about the law here and how that's going to be applied historically and in the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

(1)

The term “documentary material” means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2)The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably seg­regable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2201

So yeah tweets from the president are considered official records. You're welcome for doing your research.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 167465}

I know the records act, thanks :)

in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President

This is the problem. Is talking on his personal twitter account "constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President"? Has that ever been tested and tried?

I'm not arguing "documentary material" -- documenting what the president says is vastly different from being "Presidential Record" or an "Official statement of the President of the United States".

Has that ever been tested and tried?

Look it up yourself. You'll learn more that way. Have a good day.

I have and I've found nothing. Just looking to learn, but apparently that's impossible if you need help. Shrug

Keep looking

Sean Spicer did a press conference where he said that tweets are official WH statements from the POTUS.

http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-statements/

I'm aware of that, as well. But again, that doesn't make them actual official statements.

The claim here is "What Trump tweets are official White House statements". I don't really care how people think of his tweets. That doesn't really concern me. I'm far more interested in the legality (can we call it legality? I'm not sure of the right word) of if his tweets are actually official statements or not.

It's a very interesting topic, IMO.. how the internet is going to shape future presidencies. So far, I haven't been able to find an answer (and I've been looking). The most I could find is people saying that the Presidential Library is "documenting" his tweets. But again, documenting is a lot different than official statements.

Sinclair and Tribune are much smaller than ATT and Time Warner. Obviously you can’t even do basic thinking you obtuse brainlet.

Yet you were name calling posts above mine so I decided to return the favor. Guess you can dish it but not take it.

That moment when youve gotten a whole bunch of reasonable replies and haven't responded to any of them...

There is very little substan e to anything you just wrote.

The bottom line is that you made the statement that your post would be met with a "deafening silence"... it wasn't.

I dont need 9 years on reddit to see what your refusal to acknowledge that you were wrong (not just wrong but pretentious and condescending about it) says about you, dick.

I kinda love the fact your knee jerk reaction is to check my account age. That tells me that had my account age been below some threshold you alone deem appropriate, you'd have immediately called me a shill or troll.

Again, I don't need 9 years on reddit to understand what that says about you.

Drumpfh is surely done for now, you guys. Any day now.

That's a Bingo!

You should post this in /r/AskThe_Donald or something, not r/conspiracy.

Questions like this get you banned from that reddit. Not a good idea.

From /r/AskThe_Donald? Somehow I doubt it. Now if you asked that on /r/The_Donald I would agree.

Dude, I've seen this shit fly in askthedonald..I only recently dropped out of the sub because I'm just getting sick to my stomach with partisanship.

The difference is very simple. In the former you have a content provider trying to merge with content maker. In the latter, they are both content makers. It really is as simple as that.

Very simple - look at the anti-trust laws and fair competition.

One's a vertical merger (ATT/Time Warner) which means it's danger to US power, while the Sinclair deal strengthens a mostly non-vertically structured holding company in one struggling industry: local media.

It's like if a rock band replaced its singer with a better singer who got famous as a solo act;

vs

the White Stripes and the Black Keys became a 4 pc known as the Gray Strikes.

But really they are both negative for society, but the greater danger in terms of corporate power vs state power is supply chain monopolization of TW-ATT. The sinclair merger is more related to media control in the us. Since it's currently controlled entirely by rapists and assholes, the ultimate impact is fewer assholes with more industry control, so basically a push in terms of quality corporate reporting: definitley not better, but probably not worse.

Idk, but we probably should being asking my the US decided to deregulate the telecommunication industry which has lead us to these kind of megers. Can't wait to hear these media outlets are to big to fail and need a bail out.

OPEN QUESTION:

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL?

This is not the role of government.

free markets are too risky for the cabal

Government trust-busts because free markets cannot truly be free when they are dominated by a few, consolidated firms (oligopoly). In those situations, the captains of industry can abuse their power to extort payment, reduce competition, and squeeze every last dime out of their customers

Actually not true.

First off anti-trust laws are completely arbitrary, you're being lied to about the real reason for them, which is government control. Let me explain:

Oh you're selling a product really really cheap? DUMPING - ILLEGAL! Oh you're selling a product much higher than competitors? YOU MUST HAVE MONOPOLY - ILLEGAL! Oh you have same price as your competitors? COLLUSION - ILLEGAL!

Study history. Historical facts do not match up with what you're describing (typical econ theory). Standard Oil had 90% of the market share and it was in a free market (no regulation). Now according to your theory about how monopolies work, the price of oil should have gone up and the quality of oil should have gone down. What actually happened? The prices decreased and the quality increased.

Why?

Because Rockefeller understood that if he jacked up prices or decreased quality he opened himself up to competition, which he didn't want. The truth is that companies that EARN monopolies in free markets, by producing at lower cost but higher quality, not only deserve it, but that its a good thing.

It's when you have governmental interfere to FAVOR a company (subsidies, tax breaks) and then it creates a monopoly, where other companies CANNOT compete fairly. The government interference ruins the market.

Fun fact - what was the competitor who beat out Standard Oil? Electricity... god damn the free market is awesome

I'm sorry, what the fuck kind of an-cap libertarian Koch brother Heroin are you smoking?

Standard Oil Co of New Jersey v. United States was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The Court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.

What the fuck are you talking about, the competitor who beat out Standard Oil? Two remnants of Standard Oil are ExonnMobil and Chevron, two of the largest corporations in the world.

And to refute your more general incomprehensible "free markets only" rabble, I'll refer to Adam Smith himself (the father of capitalism):

On cartels:

“people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

On monopoly:

“monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate.”

Smith’s words are the philosophical backbone of our antitrust laws. Anyone with the capacity to fucking read a book should have the ability to sniff through your batshit-insane interpretation of our nation's anti-trust laws

Ok so read and comprehend this time since it escaped you the first time...

Found guilty under the Sherman Antitrust Act... which I already explained to you is a completely arbitrary law used as a club against companies... remember this: "Oh you're selling a product really really cheap? DUMPING - ILLEGAL!

Oh you're selling a product much higher than competitors? YOU MUST HAVE MONOPOLY - ILLEGAL!

Oh you have same price as your competitors? COLLUSION - ILLEGAL!"

That is how the Sherman Antitrust Act works, so the fact Standard Oil was considered illegal under it is not an argument, its just proof of governmental abuse to control companies... LOL

Also, you've completely ignored what ACTUALLY happened, historically and factually TRUE data - which is that even with the Standard Oil monopoly prices DECREASED and quality INCREASED.... which is exactly opposite of what you are imagining would happen when you said: "the captains of industry can abuse their power to extort payment, reduce competition, and squeeze every last dime out of their customers" - you are wrong, this does not and has never happened in a free market, ever. This is a theoretically made up premise that has never actually happened historically.

The only REAL monopolies that have ever been detrimental are the ones that the government enforces through subsidies and tax breaks, therefore manipulating the market. Monopolies in the free market do not do what you are imagining, and its proven historically.

Tell me, my friend, have you ever heard of the company store? Were those good for the coal miners who had to shop there?

It's important to remember that not everything is politically motivated and the President is not actively controlling all government organizations.

Because trump is using his executive authority the same way obama used the IRS. As his personal army to help his friends and inhibit his detractors.

Yeah he has lost $400 million in revenue to be president and also donates his salary.

He didn't lose $400 million because he is President. He lost $400 million because he is a shitty businessman.

He is like when I go to Las Vegas for a business conference and get too drunk on the last night. I always blow way too much money on the tables. Sometimes I walk out with a ton of cash because I just happened to get lucky but other times I lose a fuckton. That is like his last 40 years in business. He is like a drunk jasenlee in Vegas veering and wobbling back and forth to making a bunch of quick cash and then losing it but somehow never fucking up enough that he has to live in a gutter.

He is a billionaires and you say he is a shitty business man.

He would have been richer had he just invested in index funds and hung out on a golf course all the time.

You should be his financial advisor. I'm sure he will read this and make you a handsome proposition.

He's too busy tweeting to see this.

Good one /s

Hey I saw that meme, too.

Source?

Sinclair is a 3 billion market cap. They are a tiny company compared to the big guys. For example, Disney is 152 billion.

AT&T is a 220b market cap. Time Warner is 74b

This is being made a big deal over because they are conservative.

Are you implying that you want the AT&T merger to happen? They’ve already lobbied and passed laws in 15 states making it illegal for a state to have it’s own municipal broadband service, or for counties to creat one using state funds. That’s just in the past 3-4 years. This merger is awful for consumers in a very real financial way — not the ideological/theoretical way that the Sinclair merger poses.

Because if Sinclair and tribune merge it’ll be that much easier to release the info that will be dropped shortly across all media platforms...

And doesn't Sinclair media run all the news channels who all shit talk trump daily? I feel like blocking them would be something Trump would push for just out of spite.... but who knows, maybe he is doing that but privately while looking like he supports it publicly.