Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 915347 times)

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1052
    • JNB54
Re: Trump II
« Reply #740 on: February 22, 2017, 11:33:47 am »

Ok, Quinn is gone and we have McMaster. So?

Perhaps you mean Flynn?

While anyone can have detractors, it would appear that the choice of McMaster to NSA is being applauded by many on both sides of the political spectrum. The issue will be whether Trump puts his confidence in him, or continues to rely on Bannon for national security advice. McMaster and Bannon have a fundamentally different view of ISIS/ISIL and terrorism, for example. McMaster views ISIS and similar organizations as groups using a perversion of Islam to foment hatred, and justify violence against innocents. Bannon and others tend toward a radical anti-Islam world view (although it appears to be selective when economic interests are in play).

McMaster will also need to pull all the security and intelligence agencies together and restore their confidence. A tall order, especially if the President continues to "tweet" his mind.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump II
« Reply #741 on: February 22, 2017, 11:59:43 am »

Perhaps you mean Flynn?

While anyone can have detractors, it would appear that the choice of McMaster to NSA is being applauded by many on both sides of the political spectrum.

Yes, that seems to be the general consensus.

Quote
The issue will be whether Trump puts his confidence in him, or continues to rely on Bannon for national security advice.

We'll see whether McMaster will become a regular participant for the Security Update briefings. Sofar, not.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #742 on: February 22, 2017, 03:03:54 pm »

Preaching to the choir:

Quote
Statistician Nate Silver, editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight and a special correspondent for ABC News, published an in-depth analysis of the anti-Trump Woman’s March. In his report, Silver finds that “80 percent of march attendance came in states that Clinton won.” By comparison, 58 percent of the Tea Party protests were in states that Obama won in 2008.

How to use the above stats: according to each side's confirmation bias ;)

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #743 on: February 22, 2017, 03:29:44 pm »

Preaching to the choir:

How to use the above stats: according to each side's confirmation bias ;)
But it is really not surprising at all and remember Clinton did win the popular vote! ;D  I think a more interesting phenomenon is the current town hall meetings that Republican members are having to deal with.  A fair number of them cancelled the meetings when they knew they would get hard questions on topics that they don't have answers for right now.  This is really too sad as the members are first and foremost supposed to be responsive to their constituents.  There was a story on the radio this afternoon about Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen refusing to meet with constituents over the healthcare issue.  We'll see what happens in the mid-term election in 2018 whether this has an impact.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #744 on: February 22, 2017, 04:16:37 pm »

Phil, salaries are going up for those that do computer assisted manufacturing.  There is a pretty steep learning curve here; it's not the same as putting door panels on cars or riveting things on airplanes.

Of course - those are effectively trades.  They're also not the majority and they are potentially at high risk of redundancy as the computers require less input (or can do more from the input of one operator).
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #745 on: February 22, 2017, 05:01:48 pm »

The president isn't violating the constitution when  he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing.   Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president.  He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Trump II
« Reply #746 on: February 22, 2017, 06:02:08 pm »

The president isn't violating the constitution when  he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing.   Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president.  He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.

Good point!
Logged

ppmax2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Trump II
« Reply #747 on: February 22, 2017, 06:46:32 pm »

The president isn't violating the constitution when  he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing.   Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president.  He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.

Sure, he can criticize the press and sometimes they need to be criticized. I don't think there's any contention about that. But it misses the larger point.

What he's actually doing (intentionally?) is undermining the trust between the press and the citizenry...which will create a scenario where no one knows what to believe...which will make all rational discourse all but impossible. Of course, this is the fundamental issue between facts and alt-facts (lies, fabrications, untruths, conspiracy theories, etc), and why some people believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #748 on: February 22, 2017, 06:57:43 pm »

...What he's actually doing (intentionally?) is undermining the trust between the press and the citizenry...which will create a scenario where no one knows what to believe...

Just as the press (and citizenry) should be rightly sceptical about government and politicians, citizenry should be sceptical of the press as well. There is no need to idolize anyone in this game, or demonize just one side. The press has itself to blame for the lost credibility as much as blaming Trump for it.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #749 on: February 22, 2017, 08:29:50 pm »


The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat.  What's happened is that Trump is the first politician willing to take them on and hit back at their bias giving no quarter.   Rather than it being bad for Democracy,  sharp debate is its essence. 

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #750 on: February 22, 2017, 08:33:17 pm »

The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat.  What's happened is that Trump is the first politician willing to take them on and hit back at their bias giving no quarter.   Rather than it being bad for Democracy,  sharp debate is its essence.

Are you calling what's going on now "sharp debate"? While evading a question, he points a finger and snears "fake news". That's what passes for debate now, is it?
Logged
--
Robert

ppmax2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Trump II
« Reply #751 on: February 22, 2017, 08:36:19 pm »

Just as the press (and citizenry) should be rightly sceptical about government and politicians, citizenry should be sceptical of the press as well. There is no need to idolize anyone in this game, or demonize just one side. The press has itself to blame for the lost credibility as much as blaming Trump for it.

How exactly has the main stream press lost credibility? Other than trump saying so? please, specific examples demonstrating your assertion.

Politifact.com is a Pulitzer Prize winning organization. Do you think they are promoting an agenda?



Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #752 on: February 22, 2017, 08:50:07 pm »

And this the problem.  Trump says the media is wrong, but doesn't provide any proof.  When someone outright shows him he's wrong (claiming greatest EC victory), he just keeps shifting the goal posts until he eventually blames someone else.  No admission of being wrong.

Of course you need to check sources and not accept the media just because it's the media, but you need to be able to actually show when and where they are wrong instead of just claiming it anytime you disagree with them.  Trump's not used to having to tell the truth and even less used to having someone check and hold him to account.
Logged
Phil Brown

ppmax2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Trump II
« Reply #753 on: February 22, 2017, 08:55:47 pm »

The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat.

You're just regurgitating conservative radio talking points. You believe this because you've been convinced that you're a victim, and that the liberals, and the press and the government and the immigrants and the minorities are all out to get you.

Off the top of my head:
Wall Street journal, Chicago tribune, Dallas morning news are traditionally conservative republican leaning.

The Arizona republic has backed every single republican presidential candidate since 1870...but not Trump.

The Dallas morning news backed every republican presidential candidate since 1940...but not Trump.

30 seconds of research...you should try it sometime.



Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #754 on: February 22, 2017, 09:05:56 pm »

How exactly has the main stream press lost credibility?...


You GOT to be kidding?!

ppmax2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Trump II
« Reply #755 on: February 22, 2017, 09:10:16 pm »

You GOT to be kidding?!

I'll confess to being a complete moron. Educate me.

Burden of proof is on you, bro.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #756 on: February 22, 2017, 09:20:39 pm »

I'll confess to being a complete moron. Educate me.

Burden of proof is on you, bro.

Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."

Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").

ppmax2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Trump II
« Reply #757 on: February 22, 2017, 09:43:22 pm »

Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."

Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").

Silly me, I thought you were going to provide...links to some real information, not just...anecdotes.

Here's my link:
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/

A Pew study examining trust, sources of news and political alignment. A key finding:
Quote
Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet—Fox News—to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group

In other words conservatives tend to get their news from a single source and also tend not to trust other sources (color me shocked!). On the other hand liberals tend to get their news from multiple sources and tend to trust multiple sources of news. 

This pretty much refutes your claim that the media has lost all credibility...and also illuminates what many in the real world already knew: that conservatives are an incurious lot and apparently can't stomach information that doesn't fit their world view...that they got from Fox.

It's ok to be skeptical of the media...but that's not an excuse to be blind to the truth.


Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #758 on: February 22, 2017, 10:19:44 pm »

Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."

Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").

The first example is basically what Trump has been doing - why aren't your lambasting him for it?  There are, no doubt, examples of some press doing the wrong thing sometimes.  That's a far cry from Trump doing the wrong thing most of the time.

Your second example - if that was the first stupid thing Trump had said, I bet that's the response you would have seen - but since he's made a habit of constantly saying and doing stupid things that are demonstrably wrong, well, it does flavour how you read what he says.
Logged
Phil Brown

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #759 on: February 22, 2017, 10:53:54 pm »

...why aren't your lambasting him for it?...

Because that wouldn't be fair? To Jeff...stealing his thunder?  ;)
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 331   Go Up