2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or the White House and/or the Capitol Building. Not like either of them are doing any good right now.....
Those are more debatable depending on your outlook. The federal level of education and energy are pipelines for pure awfulness.

  1. Be genuinely interested in improving education and clean, cost-effective energy.
  2. Support the continued existence of the Departments of Education and Energy.
  3. Have a mental capacity exceeding a yucca plant.
pick two
 
The neo-Nazis marching around at night was a subset of the people who showed up for the day time protest. Now which of those events - the tiki torch march the preceding night or the day time protest turned violent - was Trump asked about? The latter. But the media instead shows images of neo-Nazis with tiki torches shouting about Jews and then accuse Trump of calling neo-Nazis fine people.
You're trying to say the media is cherry picking to make Trump look bad. This is wrong. For one, showing images of the Unite the Righters marching on the UVA lawn is not cherry picking, it's showing a big piece of what happened that weekend. The two days were barely separate events. They were a few miles from each other, separated by less than 12 hours, organized by the same people, and represented the same cause, which you call neo-Nazism. Yes, the tikki torch guys were a subset, but a large and representative subset, considering a big chunk (roughly 200) of the ~500 Unite the Righters were on the UVA lawn on the 11th, including the organizers of Unite the Right. Two, no one is actually cherry picking in this way. Everyone also always shows images of the Unite the Righters in/around Emancipation Park. Watch Biden's video and keep your eyes peeled for swastikas. Watch the news or BlacKKKlansman and keep your eyes peeled for a gray Dodge Charger. The media isn't instead showing the 11th, they show both days. Three, Trump also defended the tikki torch guys in that same press conference: "There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones." Four, you're holding onto the belief a bunch of relatively innocuous traditionalists showed up just because they had a soft spot for old Bobby Lee or thought TJ statues would come down next. That's not what happened. The vast majority really were overt white supremacists, affiliated with white supremacist groups, and organized in Spencer and Kessler's Discord channels. And for any hypothetical fine people who were there, you really have to question if they were in fact very fine people given who they were with.

Is it fair when Fox News and right wing blogs et al smear left wing protesters by blaming them for rioters and looters who show up at their protests? Left wing politicians go on TV to tell us it isn't fair to blame protesters when violence erupts.
A better comparison would be if some protest organized and they stood for nothing and all they did was destroy crap. And then we hypothesize there existed a few decent chaps in their ranks and become indignant at the cruel double standards.

This notion Trump with an orthodox Jewish son-in-law thinks neo-Nazis are fine people defies logic.
Well, if you don't accept racism motivated his comments, then you have to accept he had an easy way out and he squandered it out of stupidity and immaturity. Regardless, the ability of our president to see and express crucial moral distinctions matters.
 
Last edited:
You're trying to say the media is cherry picking to make Trump look bad.
You're talking to the user who considers that Hillary is EVUL for voting for the Iraq War but the man who funded her campaign with full awareness of what she was doing deserves being voted over her because of her having voted for that war.
 
Only if the sky is green
Strange place you live.

On this planet antifa meets almost any reasonable definition of neo-fascist because they seek to suppress a political view through violence. Symbolism is different, but that's superficial.

You're trying to say the media is cherry picking to make Trump look bad.
This should go without saying. We have had nothing else for the last four years. For example, they not only took the dossier at face value, they bent rules to get it published.

If it's on Fox, there is only a 75% chance a story is anti-Trump, so Fox gets accused of favoritism. CNN's idea of a round table is eight anti-Trump activists because seven of eight isn't enough.

J
 
Last edited:
Regardless of onejayhawk's latest display of amalgamated wilful ignorance and half-witted dishonesty (see post 2875), I've just found an interesting little piece on the Grauniad:

Sanders is far from a perfect candidate. He could do with being less arrogant. He could do with listening to communities of colour more. He could do with realizing that you need to talk about race as well as class. Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to claim that he doesn’t connect with women of colour, and that he is beloved purely by arrogant white bros. A recent poll from Morning Consult found that Sanders leads all the other candidates, save Joe Biden, when it comes to support from black voters and female voters. The only demographic that Sanders really doesn’t connect with, according to the Morning Consult poll, is Democrats who make more than $100,000 per year. Which, one imagines, overlaps with the demographic who are constantly smearing Sanders by advancing the narrative that his base consists of sexist morons.

(full article)​

(this coupled with Kim Kardashian's new law career - thankfully only Jesus himself can come back from the dead, or her father's spectre would be haunting her)
 
This should go without saying. We have had nothing else for the last four years. For example, they not only took the dossier at face value, they bent rules to get it published.

If it's on Fox, there is only a 75% chance a story is anti-Trump, so Fox gets accused of favoritism. CNN's idea of a round table is eight anti-Trump activists because seven of eight isn't enough.

J
For the purposes of my post, I don't care about any of this. Showing footage of the tiki torch guys is not cherry picking.
 
Well, they could not narrow the focus onto the Nazis and show the full panorama of vaccine-deniers, climate-change deniers, justifiers of slavery, genocide apologists, NRA, etc. who are united behind him.
 
You don't care that a major media source is trying to do character assassination? Why not?

J
The "for the purposes of this post" meant that wrt to the post you quoted, the broader issue of Trump vs media isn't relevant. The first sentence of my post was meant to state berzerker's position, not signal willingness to have a Trump-vs-the-media discussion. I entered the thread to talk about Unite the Right.
 
Because it didn't happen.
Congratulations, you just complimented President Trump. How does it feel?

CNN was among the leaders of the move to sabotage Trump before the election and to depose him since. As you say, it has not worked but not for lack of effort.

This is a textbook example of projection if I ever saw one.
More like a textbook case of CNN et al trying unsuccessfully to do what they suceeded in doing to GW Bush. In the large sense, they were attempting to do what the Washington Post did to Richard Nixon over far less than the Obama DoJ and FBI did to Trump.

J
 
The media, or specifically, a media outlet, can pick and choose what to stand on and who to **** on. This isn't such a damn big deal. Should we bash Fox for thirty+ years of poisoning the well and advocating conservative positions? (yes). But when CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etal go all Liberal and anti-trump, stop the breaks? Screw that. The Right's getting a taste of their own medicine, I say, and good that they are. Hell, it's diluted and toned down Medicine. If the Left-Centrist Media even went as low as Fox did, it'll be mutual embarrassment.
 
The media, or specifically, a media outlet, can pick and choose what to stand on and who to **** on. This isn't such a damn big deal. Should we bash Fox for thirty+ years of poisoning the well and advocating conservative positions? (yes). But when CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etal go all Liberal and anti-trump, stop the breaks? Screw that. The Right's getting a taste of their own medicine, I say, and good that they are. Hell, it's diluted and toned down Medicine. If the Left-Centrist Media even went as low as Fox did, it'll be mutual embarrassment.
What do you mean, "go all liberal"? That's where they live. They have always presented centrist views as conservative and mainstream conservative views as radical. Fox occasionally gives both sides and you claim they are advocating conservative positions as if that were a bad thing.

One cavaet before we go further. My views are based on what existed in 2015 when I cut the cable. I doubt it has changed much, but I do not currently indulge in any of them, except the occasional clip or story.

J
 
Last edited:
One cavaet before we go further. My views are based on what existed in 2015 when I cut the cable. I doubt it has changed much, but I do not currently indulge in any of them, except the occasional clip or story.

J
If you haven't actually watched either Fox News or CNN/MSNBC for 3.25 years, then you you have missed the action completely. Fox went 100% Trump Worship on its political views and were balanced by reciprocal anti Trump by MSNBC. Fox, however, just follows the Trump party line and spouts whatever is on the menu for the day. MSNBC, while anti Trump, actually tries to show real facts and build a case that supports their position. Fox has become just a Trump propaganda outlet as they trade staff back and forth. They have no competition on the right. On the left there is competition and differentiation between outlets as they seek both ratings and access to newspaper reporting they rely on. What has surprised me over the years is the frequency with with the WSJ has reported anti Trump articles that are breaking news on CNN and MSNBC.

Typically, Fox reports the Trump party line. they have only one actual source of stories. MSNBC relies on newspaper or other news outlets to write stories, they then report on those stories and have guests who comment and elaborate on those stories through interviews, etc. MSNBC rarely breaks news with its own reporting.
 
If you haven't actually watched either Fox News or CNN/MSNBC for 3.25 years, then you you have missed the action completely. Fox went 100% Trump Worship on its political views and were balanced by reciprocal anti Trump by MSNBC. Fox, however, just follows the Trump party line and spouts whatever is on the menu for the day. MSNBC, while anti Trump, actually tries to show real facts and build a case that supports their position. Fox has become just a Trump propaganda outlet as they trade staff back and forth. They have no competition on the right. On the left there is competition and differentiation between outlets as they seek both ratings and access to newspaper reporting they rely on. What has surprised me over the years is the frequency with with the WSJ has reported anti Trump articles that are breaking news on CNN and MSNBC.

Typically, Fox reports the Trump party line. they have only one actual source of stories. MSNBC relies on newspaper or other news outlets to write stories, they then report on those stories and have guests who comment and elaborate on those stories through interviews, etc. MSNBC rarely breaks news with its own reporting.

Fox newsroom contributors on August 15, 2017 reacting to Trump's press conference following the rally. Since that is what's being discussed at the moment.

Trump doubles down on response to Charlottesville | Fox News Video

To save you twelve minutes, one of the panelists described several "unfair assessments" by the media of what the president had said. This was all of 30 seconds versus 11:30 worth of harsh condemnation of everything they heard during his press conference. Not a word is said directly in defense of Trump or the points he was making.

Maybe @onejayhawk was being a bit optimistic when he suggested Fox's coverage of the president might be as low as 75% negative. I just saw 96%, about as rough as everywhere else. With this, and the united chorus from other outlets, parroted in this thread, that Trump effectively supports the Neo-Nazis, I am wondering what grounds you have for believing that the other outlets are intellectually competitive and have any substantial differentiation. Everyone seems to be thinking and repeating the same garbage. Criminal, bigot, Russian agent (and how is that compatible with alt-right sympathies?). The stupider it is, the more obsessive and myopic your diverse media outlets get over it, and the more parroting here at the ground level.
 
Did there need to be?
Only in an open and free society.

In a police state only one opinion matters. This is why Anifa is neo-fascist. They seek to silence any opposing views.

If you haven't actually watched either Fox News or CNN/MSNBC for 3.25 years, then you you have missed the action completely. Fox went 100% Trump Worship on its political views and were balanced by reciprocal anti Trump by MSNBC. Fox, however, just follows the Trump party line and spouts whatever is on the menu for the day. MSNBC, while anti Trump, actually tries to show real facts and build a case that supports their position. Fox has become just a Trump propaganda outlet as they trade staff back and forth. They have no competition on the right. On the left there is competition and differentiation between outlets as they seek both ratings and access to newspaper reporting they rely on. What has surprised me over the years is the frequency with with the WSJ has reported anti Trump articles that are breaking news on CNN and MSNBC.

Typically, Fox reports the Trump party line. they have only one actual source of stories. MSNBC relies on newspaper or other news outlets to write stories, they then report on those stories and have guests who comment and elaborate on those stories through interviews, etc. MSNBC rarely breaks news with its own reporting.
You are correct when you phrase it, "Fox reports the Trump party line." Reporting is what they are supposed to do. So should they all and it is damning that they do not. It is what they claim to be doing. Instead they provide a platform exclusively for critics, "to elaborate." If they were truly reporting they would also ask Trump supporters to elaborate.

J.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, wrong answer. The correct answer was, "no."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom