Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 914921 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump II
« Reply #900 on: February 26, 2017, 08:59:37 am »

In itself, nothing, but if those minds are being changed because they now believe something that is a pack of lies, then the consequences are serious. As you will shortly find out.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/25/fox-news-interview-fake-expert-sweden-baffles-swedes/

Indeed, as was mentioned earlier. This again demonstrates that FoxNews propaganda is not to be mistaken for journalism, or news (other than inventing it, AKA Fake news).

One can only hope that people will come to realize, sooner than later, that the toxic cocktail of Populism and a Narcissistic personality with little know-how of running a pluriform Nation like the USA, is going to hurt everybody.

Populism is anti-democratic.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. “Bill O’Reilly will further address this on Monday night’s The O’Reilly Factor.”
Oh, this is going to be as much fun as when Bill was confronted with his moronic depiction of Amsterdam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 09:28:39 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #901 on: February 26, 2017, 09:34:55 am »

Thanks for supplying the links, I knew you could do it. It also answered my question of why it was difficult to find, all three articles seem to refer to a single incident.

I find it difficult to see how you'd want to compare that incident with what's going on right now though.

What happened before was that under a barrage of defamatory and made up propaganda, the White House decided that they were not dealing with a news agency, but more of a propaganda machine against the government. Like the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

To make it clear once more, FoxNews is not a news agency. It's more akin to Talkradio. So when it came to a series of presidential interviews, it was decided by WH aids to exclude “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network. “We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,”

I'm not sure if that was a wise choice, but I can imagine that one would prefer serious journalists for such interview sessions, instead of talk-show hosts.

However, it seems to escape some folks what the difference is with what is happening now; the exclusion of serious news networks. It seems like perception bias is getting in the way of seeing things for what they're worth; Censorship, and a deliberate attack on the First Amendment.

I do not have too much of a problem with some of the news agencies that exhibit some bias in their reporting (by accentuating certain events, and keeping a low profile on covering others). That's how the (American) commercialized system works. One can only hope, maybe against better judgment in an entrenched and growing community divide, that people make an effort to inform themselves by following different information sources.

But I do have a problem with penalizing networks for exposing falsehoods, especially when coming from the President and his aides/advisors. All serious networks are exposing them, but some get selectively cut off from asking for firsthand clarification, and pose questions that others may not want to (to keep sponsors happy). All the more troubling because what does come out later officially is riddled with falsehoods, which proves that there is A NEED for a free press.

Cheers,
Bart

What you want to do is silence free speech that you don't agree with. And that includes the President pushing back.  Having a boisterous, loud, and intense debate is exactly what our Constitution wanted when it included Article 1 in our Bill of Rights.  During Obama, only Fox and a few others criticized him.  The rest were in his corner swooning over him and supporting his policies regardless off how damaging they might be.  Better to have a critical press and a lot of noise. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18087
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #902 on: February 26, 2017, 10:43:41 am »

THIS for all of you who take Fox News seriously!

You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news? It is like mistaking the  Borowitz Report for the New York Times news section.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump II
« Reply #903 on: February 26, 2017, 11:22:57 am »

You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news?

Isn't the real question, does Donald Trump know the difference?

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

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #904 on: February 26, 2017, 11:45:35 am »

You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news? It is like mistaking the  Borowitz Report for the New York Times news section.
Yes, but Fox News is an oxymoron.  Also, you need to read more.  Andy Borowtiz is a New Yorker writer, not New York Times (this is a fact).
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18087
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #905 on: February 26, 2017, 11:53:19 am »

Yes, but Fox News is an oxymoron.  Also, you need to read more.  Andy Borowtiz is a New Yorker writer, not New York Times (this is a fact).

Correct, my bad. But the point stands. I remember there was recently a case when his satire was mistaken for a real news and caused a twitter storm and numerous reposts.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #906 on: February 26, 2017, 12:07:31 pm »

I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions.  So is news, especially political,  really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point?  Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light.  Those are facts.  But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off.  The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see?  And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us. 

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Trump II
« Reply #907 on: February 26, 2017, 12:19:13 pm »

I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions.  So is news, especially political,  really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point?  Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light.  Those are facts.  But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off.  The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see?  And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us. 

Why don't you admit that you are really a democrat and you have in reality been stirring it? ;) :(

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #908 on: February 26, 2017, 01:29:40 pm »

Why don't you admit that you are really a democrat and you have in reality been stirring it? ;) :(

Shucks!  I've been caught.  OK the truth is Trump is an orange-haired tyrant.  The people who voted for him lost their way.  The media like MSNBC, CNN, NY Times and the Washington Post have on-board the smartest, most clairvoyant staff who place country before politics, who see through Trump and the alt-right's misogyny and bigotry.  And those brainwashed miscreants at Fox who wouldn't know a 2 by 4 board if it hit them on the head, and continue to support Fascists and other fellow travelers.  They should all be locked up.   If I wasn't such a fair-minder lad, I would really let them have it. 

Wow, I feel better already.   :)

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4758
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #909 on: February 26, 2017, 02:30:28 pm »

Interesting read: the funding
Logged
--
Robert

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Trump II
« Reply #910 on: February 26, 2017, 03:33:37 pm »

What you want to do is silence free speech that you don't agree with.

Eh? You seem to have mixed up Bart with Trump - this is exactly what he wants - to silence the press who are looking at the facts and replace them with the endless blaring noise from Breitbart and Fox. Then he will have emulated his hero Putin, who is "democratically" elected time after time and presides over the enrichment of a small group of cronies at the expense of the country, while the populace is fed a non-stop diet of fabricated news, which they know to be false but are powerless to combat. An inspiring achievement.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump II
« Reply #911 on: February 26, 2017, 03:53:12 pm »

Interesting read: the funding

Yes, fascinating and scary. I've mentioned Cambridge Analytica in this post.

And the sheeple still think they have not been, and are not being, played ...
It's '1984' all over, but this time it's not fiction.

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

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #912 on: February 26, 2017, 04:05:19 pm »

I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions.  So is news, especially political,  really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point?  Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light.  Those are facts.  But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off.  The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see?  And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us.
I think you're right Alan, but I've also noticed that in these 47 pages we haven't seen many ad-hominem attacks. The discussion has been on facts, alternative fact and opinions about these. I think that is valuable by itself, and a key attribute why I am still interested in following the thread. We might not agree but we hopefully understand this whole complex matter a little better and the many links and references given have mostly been interesting (even if I don't agree with all of them).
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #913 on: February 26, 2017, 04:09:04 pm »

.....Having a boisterous, loud, and intense debate is exactly what our Constitution wanted when it included Article 1 in our Bill of Rights.  .......  Better to have a critical press and a lot of noise.
I agree, but while we have a critical press and a lot of noise I don't see a boisterous, loud, and intense debate. I see a US president bullying and shutting out a lot of mainstream media and I think that's very unhealthy and only leads to more problems.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #914 on: February 26, 2017, 05:42:38 pm »

There's never been so much debate as there has since Trump.   Everyone is taking a renewed interest in politics.  Nothing is being shut down.  Stop listening to the biased press and think for yourself.

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #915 on: February 26, 2017, 08:26:34 pm »

“Bill O’Reilly will further address this on Monday night’s The O’Reilly Factor.”
Oh, this is going to be as much fun as when Bill was confronted with his moronic depiction of Amsterdam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78

Been there.  Definitely a swamp.  Canals.  Too much water.  Needs to be drained.  Sad.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18087
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #916 on: February 26, 2017, 08:37:47 pm »

Isn't the real question, does Donald Trump know the difference?

A good one, Bart :)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #917 on: February 27, 2017, 02:23:35 am »

Stop listening to the biased press and think for yourself.
Alan, here I disagree with you. All press is biased, left, right, mainstream etc. You have to read/listen to both sides and then think for yourself. Shutting out one side is the first step of becoming brainwashed. Are you sure that's not what happened to you?
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Trump II
« Reply #918 on: February 27, 2017, 03:37:12 am »

I think you're right Alan, but I've also noticed that in these 47 pages we haven't seen many ad-hominem attacks. The discussion has been on facts, alternative fact and opinions about these. I think that is valuable by itself, and a key attribute why I am still interested in following the thread. We might not agree but we hopefully understand this whole complex matter a little better and the many links and references given have mostly been interesting (even if I don't agree with all of them).


Nothing to understand: it's glaringly obvious that another dream's been bought, and as with all of them that deny that life is about winning and losing, it will inevitably turn to dust shortly after it turns sour.

Democracy selling equality is as absurd as communism doing it.

Survival of the fittest is why we exist today; it's a scheme not about to be altered by any election: it's how it always was, is, and shall remain.

Rob C

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump II
« Reply #919 on: February 27, 2017, 05:16:40 am »

Been there.  Definitely a swamp.  Canals.  Too much water.  Needs to be drained.  Sad.

LOL. As a matter of fact, it is being drained continuously, although with care for the consequences (which apparently would be a novel concept for the Trump administration).

Lots of the original (brick) buildings, since the first half of the 13th century, were built on a wooden pole foundation. For a more 'recent' example, the Palace on the Dam square was built in 1665 on 13659 wooden poles as foundation. To avoid wood rot and fungus, the waterlevels are continuously being monitored and adjusted.

So draining the swamp without care for earlier achievements will result in collaps. We've known that for ages.

Facts carry weight. They provide a much better foundation than Falsehoods could ever do.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 331   Go Up