Trump II

[Alan Klein]

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:
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.

/

Why am i shocked by the false narrative you present  using a Pew study.  My  Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided.  My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post,  the readership and news is biased left and Democrat.   Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican.  The point is the news is biased,  most of it is anti Trump.  And he is a guy who takes no prisoners and fights back.     
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy

[Farmer]

Because that wouldn't be fair? To Jeff...stealing his thunder? 

Fair enough :-)

[Farmer]

He is a guy who lies and isn't used to being held accountable.

[Alan Klein]

47 more months to go. 

[Schewe]

47 more months to go.

Not so sure he's gonna last. I suspect he'll either resign, get impeached or have a heart attack or stroke and die.

Any of the above works for me...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

He is a guy who lies and isn't used to being held accountable.

The latter is probably true. I am not sure about the former. Someone who is more qualified than me in psychology would probably correct me if wrong, but my view is that lying presupposes a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't think that is the case with Trump. I think he honestly believes that what he says is true. In a broad-brush, big-picture manner, of course. His speech is more like a stream of consciousness, i.e., "a style in which a character's thoughts, feelings, and reactions are depicted in a continuous flow uninterrupted by objective description or conventional dialogue."

[Schewe]

Someone who is more qualified than me in psychology would probably correct me if wrong, but my view is that lying presupposes deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't think that is the case with Trump. I think he honestly believes that what he says is true.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure Trump does not "honestly believe that what he says is true". I don't think he even thinks about it...I think he is either blatantly lying or just spewing forth bullshit. And I use the term bullshit because it popularly denotes what Trump engages in...and this is an adult forum and I'm not using the term to describe anybody here, I'm using it to describe what Trump does if he's not outright lying. So, can we be adult about using that word?

From The word LIE From Wikipedia. (oh, wait is that #FAKE NEWS?)

Bullshit
Bullshit does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication. While a lie is related by a speaker who believes what is said is false, bullshit is offered by a speaker who does not care whether what is said is true because the speaker is more concerned with giving the hearer some impression. Thus bullshit may be either true or false, but demonstrates a lack of concern for the truth which is likely to lead to falsehoods.

So, what did he say when he was called on for claiming the widest margin of electoral votes since Reagan? He said "well, that's what somebody told me". In fact he often says things with a qualifier like "somebody told me" or "I've heard" or whatever lame-ass bullshit deflection or dodge.

But I think letting Trump off as a bullshitter is disingenuous. I honestly think he's a pathological lier...from the Lie article:

Pathological lying
In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called compulsive lying, pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying. It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck. Although it is a controversial topic, pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime". The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.

The bolding in the last sentence is mine...

You can not dispute that Trump, when fact checked by any reasonable manner repeatedly and consistently says things that are not true. Right? Can you in good conscience dispute that? So, then if we can agree that a lot of what Trump says isn't proven out to be true, we need to figure out why he can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Is he lying to intentionally deceive or is he just bullshitting? Does it really matter? If what Trump says turns out to usually be wrong then claims he makes like the media is the enemy of the American people should not be acceptable...allowing "alternative facts" or outright lies to be what comes out of Trump's mouth can not become the new normal.

[ppmax2]

/

Why am i shocked by the false narrative you present  using a Pew study.  My  Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided.  My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post,  the readership and news is biased left and Democrat.   Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican.  The point is the news is biased,  most of it is anti Trump.  And he is a guy who takes no prisoners and fights back.     
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy

>>My  Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided

Had you not tacked on "and one sided" there would have been no disagreement between your summary and the result reported in the study. However by your add on you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was reported.

Of particular note is the fact that conservatives overwhelmingly believe the media is biased; liberals less so. Bias can be expressed in many different dimensions, not jut toward liberal or conservative political views, so it is not very surprising that people responded in this manner. It is also important to note that this study isn't reporting whether that bias supports one particular political perspective or another.

Also, notice the nuance used to differentiate between the 74% that think news media "tend to favor one side" and conservative republicans who are most likely to think that news media "are one sided." Those are very different statements. Of course, conservative media serve a steady diet of how conservatives are being attacked on all sides by the "liberal establishment" so it's no surprise to see conservatives parrot this view when asked. If conservatives feel left behind by a dynamic changing world, maybe they should try to catch up?

>>My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post,  the readership and news is biased left and Democrat.  Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican.  The point is the news is biased,  most of it is anti Trump.

Criticism does not imply opposition. Trump and his supporters would do well to learn the difference between the two. But, there are myriad reasons to oppose Trump, so I'll grant that this is probably a distinction without a difference in this case.





 

[laughingbear]

The latter is probably true. I am not sure about the former.

On the former....

In the 35 days so far, we’ve counted 133 false or misleading claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/

[kers]

Everyone knows that business is best when the political climate is steady and calm.
When rules remain unchanged so companies are able to make plans for the future,
and that silent diplomacy works.

What Trump does is the opposite. He offends, disrupts, does not communicate, makes statements that his own ministers later have to weaken or deny. Damage control.
Maybe Trumps way of leading the US works to get the support from the people that voted for him, to show a strong America in a King Kong Fashion.
But internationally it will not work.
America First may become America Alone.

Take the relation with Mexico.
In his attempt to close the Mexican border he did not negotiate with the Mexican Government and without reason or function he offended Mexico’s national pride.
Just pure uncontrolled undiplomatic behaviour.
It forces the Mexican government to step up, not to lose face.
Now Mexico says it refuses to accept illegal immigrants from the US that are not Mexican.
A thing they accepted under Obama.

[laughingbear]

Just pure uncontrolled undiplomatic behaviour.

In deed Pieter. What worries me equally is the submissive brownosing of Germany and others when it comes to Trump demands concerning Nato and the political game to induce public fear of Russian aggression. In no time Minister for defense v.d. Leyen, and Finance Minister Schäuble agreed to more spending and moving Tanks and Troops within 100 kilometers to the Russian border.

Hey, if you want to declare war on Russia, there is an easier way I could suggest. Just twitter to Putin.

Intelligent diplomacy appears to be lost these day.

Oh, and Pineapple Pizza is sad. Total looser. Very sad! We will sort Pineapple out. Sort it. It will be great. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/europe/pineapple-pizza-iceland.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Rob C]

Don't know about you, but it happens to me occasionally: when previewing a draft response, especially a long one, or when quoting, I sometimes start highlighting (for bolding, italics, etc.) not inside the draft window, but inside the preview one. Highlighting works, but then nothing happens when trying to, say, bold it. I then have to move to the draft window and it works there, of course. But that's just me, you might have the same issue, or an intirely different one.

Have you thought of progressing, and moving on from Mac?

;-)

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You are welcome to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure Trump does not "honestly believe that what he says is true". I don't think he even thinks about it...I think he is either blatantly lying or just spewing forth bullshit.

I tend to agree, in many cases, he is just parroting what others say because he 'thinks' it supports his case. Take the recent Sweden riot case, where he saw a Fox propaganda show, mistook it for serious journalism and thought it supported his case where in actual fact it had little if anything to do with his point, maybe even proofs the opposite. A similar thing with crime rates by (illegal) immigrants in the USA, they are in fact lower than the crime rate by US citizens. But facts be damned if they are unraveling the phony fictions he has been peddling.

I've come across an interesting book, as far as the reviews suggest (I have it on order to read and form an opinion of it myself), called "What Is Populism" by Jan Werner Müller. This Professor of Politics at Princetown University, analyses the current rise of Populism in the USA and Europe and he tries to define it more clearly. His conclusions (plural), seem to point in the direction that populism is anti-democratic and leads to partisanship.

With the lessons learned from history, and although I'm not old enough to have personally suffered from WWII but my parents did, there are just too many parallels with events in those years to not be very concerned and worried. Any anti-democratic movement in society/politics raises big red flags with me, and that has nothing to do with political preferences because populists come in all flavors, left wing and right wing ... The only thing they have in common is that they are a threat to Democracy while claiming that they are speaking on behalf of the silent disenfranchised 'majority'. When in power, they further destroy social cohesion and they promote division and partisanship. They thrive on chaos because they can claim that 'the elite caused it' (no need t prove it, facts be damned) and only they can fix it (if they do not have to play by the rules their opponent have to). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption.

You can not dispute that Trump, when fact checked by any reasonable manner repeatedly and consistently says things that are not true. Right? Can you in good conscience dispute that? So, then if we can agree that a lot of what Trump says isn't proven out to be true, we need to figure out why he can't be trusted to tell the truth.

It looks from a distance that it is a mix of pathology and populism (inspired by his alt-right advisors). A dangerous cocktail.

Cheers,
Bart

[laughingbear]

Cicero comes at no better time to re-read Bart.

I think that Trump may turn out to be a modern version of Publius Clodius Pulcher, another populist demagogue, who ultimately brought down the Republic of Rome. Another similarity, the more abusive and ridiculous he behaved, the more the public loved him.

Although he was killed, the forces he unleashed now favoured Gaius Julius Caesar, who engulfed
Rome in civil war 49 BC. With Caesar's murder, an autocratic empire came to power, and the Republic was gone forever.

http://classics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-1686

Hopefully the civil war aspect does not repeat itself, having said that, it is somewhat scarey to consider the humongous shitload of weapons and ammo distributed in the US amongst your average family.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..."tend to favor one side" and ... "are one sided." Those are very different statements...

Oh, boy!

...so I'll grant that this is probably a distinction without a difference in this case.

Ah, ok then.

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Intelligent diplomacy appears to be lost these day...

Indeed... after working wonders the last eight years.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

FACT:  Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers.  Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson.  One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

On the former....
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/

I just went through a bunch of those "fact checks." Almost every one is a lie, weaseling out, or a spin in itself.

[JoeKitchen]

FACT:  Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers.  Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson.  One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.

The problem though Alan, is that we have entered into a era of all news being biased, one way or the other. 

I remember watching a video (long before this past election season) of the dean of journalism at Columbia (I believe) pick apart so-called news stories, on what we would perceive as being un-biased sources, by pointing out how biased they are.  The obvious ones are easy for anyone to point out, but he was looking at clips from "very reliable" sources. 

The subtlety in the diction used was so well hidden that you did not pick up on it, until he started to pointing out words in the story that should not be used.  Words that clearly showed how biased (for or against) the reporter is once you started to think about it. 

It's not just about whether the story is true or false, but also what diction is used.  Is the diction neutral, like true reporting should be, or is it positive or negative? 

Basically, he was pointing out how almost all news stories today (or at least what "news" is consumed today) are nothing more then opinion pieces and commentary on what happened, instead just stating what happened like it used to be.  (Or at least was from when Joseph Pulitzer instilled standards into the industry to, I'd say, about 8 or 10 years ago.)   

[ppmax2]

I just went through a bunch of those "fact checks." Almost every one is a lie, weaseling out, or a spin in itself.

And this is precisely why you folks are so hopeless: you simply refuse to acknowledge reality and therefore can't engage in a rational debate. At the end of the day all you're able to do is call people names or slap labels on things. It must take extraordinary effort to navigate within a world where down is up and everything you don't agree with is a lie.


Meanwhile, more bad news for Trump; new poll finds more people trust the media than trust him.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431

And voters trust the media more than Trump 52 - 37 percent "to tell you the truth about important issues."

"The media, so demonized by the Trump Administration, is actually a good deal more popular than President Trump," Malloy said.