Wonder What Went Wrong with Journalism?

September 19, 2016

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough famously promoted Donald Trump throughout the primaries with copious interview and call-in sessions, then had a public falling-out after what appeared to be a come-to-jesus moment and some actual criticism of Mr Trump by Scarborough and his co-host Mika Brzezinski.

Well, that’s all over now.  If you had a wtf moment over Joe’s defense of Trump’s new not-so-subtle threat against Clinton, monday morning (above) – and wondered what was up – well, this is what.

(Scarborough even brought climate change into the discussion briefly)


Joe Scarborough wants to make nice with Donald Trump.
Last week, Scarborough and his “Morning Joe” co-host, Mika Brzezinski, visited the Republican presidential nominee at Trump Tower to rekindle a once-rosy relationship that has turned bitter and adversarial, sources with knowledge of the meeting told CNNMoney.

The three also discussed the possibility of conducting an interview for “Morning Joe,” though nothing was decided or finalized, one of the sources said. Scarborough did not respond to a request for comment.


The meeting, which NBC and the Trump campaign both declined to comment on, comes after a summer of barbs and insults. Trump has repeatedly slammed Scarborough and Brzezinski on Twitter and even spread a rumor that the two were romantically involved. Meanwhile, Scarborough and Brzezinski have been increasingly outspoken in their criticisms of Trump. Just three weeks ago, Scarborough released a song and music video he made in which he mocked Trump as “a soft and flaccid man” with “tiny little hands” and referred to him as “Amnesty Don,” a nickname he’d given Trump earlier.

The need for any rapprochement is surprising, given how close Scarborough and Trump used to be.

Throughout the Republican primaries, Scarborough was one of Trump’s biggest media boosters. He praised and defended him on the show, offered campaign and debate advice in private, and even refused to rule out the idea of one day being Trump’s running mate.

“You guys have been supporters, and I really appreciate it,” Trump told the co-hosts after he won the New Hampshire primary. “Not necessarily supporters, but at least believers.”

41 Responses to “Wonder What Went Wrong with Journalism?”

  1. Ron Voisin Says:

    The last significant Supreme Court decision regarding the 2nd amendment was a 5-4 decision. Four of the jurists were prepared to affirm that the words of the 2nd amendment don’t mean what they so obviously say. And if those words don’t mean what they say, what other words can be adulterated?

    Gingerbaker, I get the sense that you too might be on the verge of coming out of the closet as Mother Nature cancer. You might coordinate your demise with dumboldguy who plans acrion soon.

  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    ” Four of the jurists were prepared to affirm that the words of the 2nd amendment don’t mean what they so obviously say.”

    Bullshit. Each case is about a specific series of facts. Those facts are what the vote was about, not the validity of the 2nd Amendment.

    The Supreme Court – like every court – adheres to a certain little principle you might want to familiarize yourself with – it’s called “legal precedent”.

    There is no effing way they would have voted to abrogate individual gun ownership rights. None.

    You might want to investigate the First Rule of Holes.

    • Ron Voisin Says:

      Wow, you speak with such authority someone might think you knew something. The question before the court was whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right or a group right.

      Four of the jurists thought it articulated a group right. i.e. they asserted that on a prioritized list of individual rights, in 2nd place priority, the Founding Fathers meant to admonish us not to send of military as a group into a gun fight armed with knives. That by all means…they should be armed with guns.

      Four of the jurists were prepared to affirm that the words of the 2nd amendment don’t mean what they so obviously say.

      And if those words don’t mean what they say, what other words can be adulterated?

      Now is that a hole or are you an “a” hole?

      • Ron Voisin Says:

        On 2nd thought…at least you didn’t take the demise bate whole like dumboldguy did.

        Sorry about my last comment above.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          CRS at my age. Will someone please remind me? Have I measured Ron for his
          Demented Rooster Suit yet? Because, if not, I need to do so soon—-his terrific job of “strutting around the barnyard crowing like a demented rooster over his imagined victories” has certainly earned him one.

          I seriously doubt he knows what the First Rule of Holes is, because he’s STILL digging. Even if he did know, the Second and Third Rules are far beyond his capabilities.

          Ron is one of those rare individuals who brings a (dull) knife to a gunfight or tries to fight battles of wits even though he’s only half armed. We are lucky to have him.

          • Ron Voisin Says:

            Keep on diggin’

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Keep on diggin’, says Ron. I wonder what he means by that? It’s hard to say, since he lives in a world of foggy irrationality and self-delusion. If he’s in “demented rooster” mode, he is probably crowing about his imagined victories in our exchanges. LMAO!

            Perhaps he is stating for us his credo, his own personal “Semper Fidelis”? That must be it. Go for it, Ron—-have some T-shirts, bumper stickers, and baseball caps made up with your motto and give them to your moronic buddies like Cantman. It takes a certain kind of fool to glory in their own stupidity, so yes—-keep on diggin’

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Here’s Ron, the holder of a 1978 Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering who thinks he’s a climate scientist, now demonstrating his vast knowledge as an authority on the Constitution.

        The conservative morons on today’s SCOTUS may be into “prioritizing” the Amendments in the Bill of Rights to please their masters, but that is NOT what the founders intended. Yes, the First Amendment is probably the most important, because it lays out the most fundamental rights, but the Second is NOT second most important because it is in second place.

        Brian Palmer answered the question “Are the Bill of Rights ranked in order of importance?” in terms that Ron might understand—-he said:

        “No. James Madison, who whittled down the long list of amendments proposed during constitutional ratification, argued that all changes to the Constitution should be incorporated into the text itself rather than tacked on the end. Connecticut’s Roger Sherman disagreed and won the argument, giving us the numbered list of 10 amendments we have today. The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified”.

        Ron can look that up in his copy of the Constitution, if he has one. If not, I’ll be glad to send him one—-the ACLU keeps sending me pocket-sized versions faster than I can give them away.

        (And I just love “Four of the jurists were prepared to affirm that the words of the 2nd amendment don’t mean what they so obviously say”. If Trump gets elected and DOESN”T appoint Ron to the Supreme Court, he OBVIOUSLY should be impeached).

        • Ron Voisin Says:

          They come in the same order as the (prioritized) sections of the Constitution that they would have modified.

          All you need to do now is pass the hook, line and sinker with your next bowel movement.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        “Wow, you speak with such authority someone might think you knew something. The question before the court was whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right or a group right.

        Wrong. Completely.

        McDonald had to do with extending the rights affirmed in Heller beyond D.C. The 14th Amendment’s provision that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The question before the Court was whether the right to bear arms was one of those “privileges or immunities” that states could not abridge.

        McDonald vs Chicago established that the gun rights recognized in the District of Columbia because of Heller must also be respected by states and cities outside the purview of the federal government.


  3. mbrysonb Says:

    The gun-rights fanatics have always want to ignore the first clause of the second amendment– that thing about why there’s a right to bear arms, viz. the importance of a well-ordered militia. The SC always kept those two connected until this last ruling; now there’s decision (dubious given the text) that treats the second clause as the whole thing. And that decision also recognized that not any and every type of weapon is covered, and that some types of regulation can be imposed. The US has an extremely high rate of homicide, and guns are a big part of the problem: all the stats show that having a gun in the house increases the risk of suicide and of killing family members (both accidentally and deliberately)– and by a larger margin than any protection it provides against burglars or attacks.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      “The SC always kept those two connected until this last ruling”

      That is simply not true. If you look over the entire history of the SC 2nd Amendment cases, you will see that about half the time, the 2nd was interpreted as the last 3 SC cases have ruled – that the 2nd protects the rights of individual people to own and use guns and that the first clause was mere historic preamble.

      It bears to mind the fact that there has NEVER been a time when individual gun ownership rights were abridged in this country – the SC never came anywhere near that idea, and it was NEVER even countenanced by the Founders.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        What was surely never “countenanced” by the founders 240 years ago was the idea of modern weaponry and how easy and quick it was to deploy it. I chuckle when I hear all these arguments about what THEY meant in a time so far removed from the present—-a time when you had to “keep your powder dry” and make your own bullets, it took 30 seconds to load and fire one shot, and the weapons were so inaccurate that opposing lines had to stand 50 yards apart in order to hit anything (which is why so many battles ended in bayonet charges while the other guys were reloading). If any of our present day “shooters” tried to use a black powder musket to shoot up a mall, they’d get off ONE shot before the “listless teenagers” or “old farts” hanging out in the food court charged and stabbed them to death with plastic utensils.

        Anyone who has ever fired a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon, either clip or belt fed, will agree with me that doing so evokes a smile and a “WOW”, and is a “fun” experience that is surpassed only by the “fun” of firing hand-held rocket launchers. Fun when shooting at targets, that is—-firing at living human beings is another thing, and far more sobering. Don’t be so sure of what the founders would have thought about the Second Amendment if they were sitting on today’s SC, GB.

        (And all this talk about guns has got me pumped!—-think I’ll run over to the range and blow some holes in some paper! Maybe I’ll take the shotgun and destroy the cardboard target backer—-then the range attendant can give me the stink-eye again because he had to replace it before its time—-all those 9mm’s and .223’s don’t do anywhere near the damage that 15 OO buck pellets and .76 cal. rifled slugs can do with each shot).

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “Don’t be so sure of what the founders would have thought about the Second Amendment if they were sitting on today’s SC, GB.”

          What I object to is the increasingly-encountered rhetoric that the history of 2nd Amendment cases is one in which the gun ownership rights of American citizens was ever in doubt. People argue that colonial gun rights were in place only because militias were in use then. And that SC 2nd Amendment cases revolve around parsing the two clauses.

          But the truth is that there was zero interest in the idea that individuals might, could, or should not have gun ownership rights. It wasn’t even contemplated; indeed, it would be fair to say it (the use of weapons in personal defense) was considered a “natural right” deriving from English law.

          As far as I can recall, there has never been a SC case which actually revolved about the issue Ron V claims McDonald was about – whether individual gun ownership rights should exist.

      • ubrew12 Says:

        ” there has NEVER been a time when individual gun ownership rights were abridged in this country” Tell you what: to celebrate this amazing reality, you fire off your machine gun in an empty field, and I’ll fire off my bazooka similarly!

        • dumboldguy Says:

          You jest, of course. Or didn’t you know that in this land of the free lots of people own and regularly fire machine guns and cannons of various sizes and types? There are a number of big “meets” held every year in places like TN, OK, and AZ. You can even rent an MG and fire it yourself (if you’re 16 or older)—-the one to go for is the “Ma Deuce”, the .50 caliber M-2—-that’s the main one you see in this video. Be prepared to spend maybe $300 for a belt of 30 rounds, and learn to use the “single shot” or “slow” methods to prolong your “fun”—-if you just hold down the trigger, the 30 rounds will be gone in under 4 seconds.

          • Lionel Smith Says:

            After a few years of using a bolt action .303 SMLE my first shoot on the butts with an FLN (or SLR in our parlance) was interesting. Because of the cost of ammunition the SLRs had been modified for single shot. I lay on the firing point took aim at the target 1000yds away and gently squeezed the trigger. The result was a rapid short burst with the aim drifting off target so unexpected was this. The gunner came across, kicked me in the ribs and asked ‘What the **** do you think you are doing chief’? I handed him the weapon, he checked there were still rounds in the magazine and then lay on the fire point himself, took aim and squeezed the trigger with exactly the same result. He stood up visibly reddening and agreed that there was something wrong. As he did not apologise I informed him that I would not kick him in the ribs but might just mention the episode.

            The point is that automatic weapons in untrained hands are massively lethal and certainly need special provision under any amendment. But then I am a Brit, who am I to tell Americans how to run their country?

            What did not escape me is that many I came across recently on social media spouted this second amendment nonsense in support of the NRA stance (who lets face it look after those who make a living out of weapons) at the same time as pushing strong Christian messages and pro-Life propaganda. The logic escapes me there except that maybe with more automatic weapons more live targets are needed. When I pushed back against this thinking I was ‘un-friended’. Truth hurts I guess even if you don’t want to hear it.

  4. I suspect the people who scream that Clinton is trying to take their gun ownership rights away (she’s not) are the same people who deny Newtown even happened. Vile and disgusting people who DO NOT CARE about the cost in lives of doing nothing. They DON’T CARE, that’s the bottom line. If they did, they would view the subject with nuance, and realize crazy people probably shouldn’t be allowed to buy a platoon’s worth of guns for themselves, because “rights”. Then again, maybe they wouldn’t be able to get guns themselves, should background checks be tightened and/or actually enforced.

    Trump doesn’t care about anything except furthering his own personal fortunes, so by corrolary he doesn’t care about the consequences of riling up the extremists in his party. Or saying whatever it takes to manipulate them into false anger and false outrage. His lack of care is evident in everything he does and says.

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    (I’m posting my reply to this comment of Ron’s as a new comment because of its length—-it often takes quite a few words to undo stupidity).

    Ron Voisin Says: September 21, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    “They come in the same order as the (prioritized) sections of the Constitution that they would have modified”.

    “All you need to do now is pass the hook, line and sinker with your next bowel movement”.

    My reply:

    Ron again demonstrates his delusional belief that he possesses expertise on the Constitution, stating “They (meaning the first 10 Amendments) come in the same order as the (prioritized) sections (meaning the 7 Articles) of the Constitution that they would have modified”. Ron is WRONG!!!!! WRONG!!!!! WRONG!!!!! yet again. For those who don’t have a copy of the Constitution handy, it is organized into seven Articles (listed below).

    Article I deals with the legislative branch of government
    Article II concerns the executive branch of government
    Article III establishes the Supreme Court as the highest judicial power in the U.S.
    Article IV defines the relationship between the states
    Article V describes the procedure for amending the Constitution
    Article VI declares itself, the Constitution, as “the supreme Law of the Land”
    Article VII ratifies the Constitution

    Those Articles are not “prioritized”” in any way, other than by logic and common sense as they first establish the three branches of the government and enumerate their organization, duties, and powers (taking 17 pages to do so in my pocket copy). The mainly “housekeeping” items in Articles !V through VII take only 4 pages, the Bill of Rights takes 3 pages, and the rest of the later Amendments take 13 pages.

    Article 1, Section 8 is rather long, a bit over two pages—-here it is in its entirety:

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.

    The two sentences I set apart with lines of XXXXXXXXXXXX’s above and below are the parts of Article 1 that the Second Amendment was intended to modify. Looking at their position within in Section 8, they would appear to have been WAY down the “priority” list of Powers given to Congress. Yes, Ron DOES continue to disregard the First Law of Holes.

    (And please note that Ron is now talking about “bowel movements”. If he had any self awareness, he would realize that he provides nothing here on Crock BUT “bowel movements”—-in the form of mental and mandibular diarrhea).

  6. Ron Voisin Says:


    I’m just trying to help your planned demise along with a more dignified blood-pressure related stroke/heart attack.

    If you don’t want the help just say so.

    PS. Would still be willing to eulogize you, if you like, even as you pursue your demise on your own without my help.

    • dumboldguy Says:


      I made a joke about getting you a copy of “Humor for Dummies”, but I’m afraid it’s too late—-you have committed to memory the worst lessons in that other well-known “humor” book, “Things Said By Low-IQ Flaming Anal Orifices”.

      It’s full of things that only seem funny or clever to assholes like you and your hero Trump. You know, “second amendment folks will take care of Hillary”, “Hillary’s bodyguards should stop carrying weapons and see what happens to her”, and Asshole Junior’s “warm up the gas chamber”. Now you want to “help” me have a stroke or heart attack? As if anything you say could raise my blood pressure? You may not be aware, Ron, but I spent 23 years as a school administrator at the high school level, and all YOUR antics do is make me laugh. You would have trouble “keeping up” with most high school sophomores.

      Since I have NOT “planned” my demise, your attempts at humor there are just plain stupid—-just an attempt to make something out of one of your many logic fails—-and “helping me along with a stroke/heart attack” is something only a sicko would say—-it’s called a “death wish” among more educated folks, Ron, and it’s something normal people don’t do to strangers—-would get you slapped silly in most places (and I’d bet that HAS happened to you more than once—-if you are allowed out in public by whoever “minds” you, that is).

      If you outlive me, which seems unlikely even though you’re probably 15 years younger, and DO show up at my funeral, I will rise from my coffin and rip your throat out, and that will be the LAST thing I do. GFYS, Ron—-wear your Demented Rooster Suit and strut around clucking—-that’s all you’re good for since you haven’t made any intelligent contributions or won a single argument with anyone on Crock.

      • Ron Voisin Says:

        OK. I now understand that you do want my help after all. Your demise will be appreciated by many. And I’m honored to be part of it.

        Please specify a time and location.

        If you like, I’ll make your eulogy available for your approval prior to the event.

        My god bless your soul.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: