**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Oh wait, Trump mistook a documentary for news.

If you want the President to not be hateful toward the media, you gotta stop fueling narratives like this.

All he did was confuse his wording somewhat between what he 'saw last night about what's happening in Sweden', and 'what's happening in sweden last night'. That's common for a guy who is bombastic, hyperbolic, and doesn't read the teleprompter. It was a minor slip, he corrected it the next morning. It really shouldn't be a big deal.

Instead, the MSM and others are going bonkers. Did he invent a terrorist attack? Did he deliberately lie to distract from something else? What is he smoking? That's all a symptom of a butt-hurt press that wants to play "gotchya". It's not cool.

The same goes for the business about crowd size, or his claim during last week's press conference that he had the 'largest electoral college victory'. He's an egotistical, stubborn, eccentric old man. Who cares if he thinks his margin of victory was bigger than George W's. What does that matter to anyone?

This "style" that Trump has, is not new. He's done it his whole life, he's done it the whole campaign, and he still won the election. That means that the general public doesn't care enough about this stuff. Yet the press seems intent on trolling the president over it at every turn.

[Jack Sawyer]

If you want the President to not be hateful toward the media, you gotta stop fueling narratives like this.

All he did was confuse his wording somewhat between what he 'saw last night about what's happening in Sweden', and 'what's happening in sweden last night'. That's common for a guy who is bombastic, hyperbolic, and doesn't read the teleprompter. It was a minor slip, he corrected it the next morning. It really shouldn't be a big deal.

Instead, the MSM and others are going bonkers. Did he invent a terrorist attack? Did he deliberately lie to distract from something else? What is he smoking? That's all a symptom of a butt-hurt press that wants to play "gotchya". It's not cool.

The same goes for the business about crowd size, or his claim during last week's press conference that he had the 'largest electoral college victory'. He's an egotistical, stubborn, eccentric old man. Who cares if he thinks his margin of victory was bigger than George W's. What does that matter to anyone?

This "style" that Trump has, is not new. He's done it his whole life, he's done it the whole campaign, and he still won the election. That means that the general public doesn't care enough about this stuff. Yet the press seems intent on trolling the president over it at every turn.

Alraight alright alright, bananastand, look. Let's try to reach a consensus here. Would you agree with me that if you were the president, what you say and do would matter a hell of a lot more than if you were a regular joe?

[BananaStand]

Alraight alright alright, bananastand, look. Let's try to reach a consensus here. Would you agree with me that if you were the president, what you say and do would matter a hell of a lot more than if you were a regular joe?

Well, I would argue that Trump was never a regular joe. But I think I get what you mean. However...

Trump stopped being a regular joe when he announced his candidacy. After that, everything he said and did mattered a hell of a lot more. So yes, I agree with you. It matters more.

But after 15 months of it, the American public decided that it doesn't matter enough to keep him from being a good president. To me, that should be the end of it. After that, every time he does or says something that is totally consistent with his character and behavior to this point....the non-Trump fans need to just suck it up. Playing "gotchya" on minor, hair splitting, details on irrelevant matters is petty, sore-loser-ness.

We have people like Poop running rampant through the MSM who like to zero-in on literal inconsistencies and blow that up into an accusation of stupidity, insanity, or delusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...cold-sane.html

[Poopadoop]

The reason people hone in on his falsehoods is that the guy is constantly raving about Fake News, all the while continuously generating it. And when he isn't, his team is. It's beyond hypocritical at this point. Pointing that out isn't playing 'gotcha', it's simply pointing out a serious and ongoing issue with the guy's credibility.

If Trump were an honest broker being unfairly vilified by Fake News, he might have a case to make. But to many people, it appears instead that he is trying to discredit the press for his own gain, which many compare to the actions of a wannabe dictator.

And sorry, the argument that people knew what they were getting and enough still voted for him to give him the election, and therefore you can't complain about him now, is just bullshit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you want the President to not be hateful toward the media, you gotta stop fueling narratives like this.

The link between a forum post to the media is tenuous.

The conclusion does not follow the premise.
The notion that the media could do its job w/o holding politicians accountable for their every action is absurd.

The notion that it's excusable for the President to be hateful toward Americans doing their job as deemed necessary to a free state is not a good sign for democracy.

Sure, in 4 or 8 years, after he's off the clock, then I don't care one bit, but he literally asked for perhaps the most scrutinized job in the world. Bristling at the extent of the scrutiny is OK, but embracing hate toward the scrutinizers is another thing. They are, after all, members of a free press, which is deemed necessary to a well-informed public and thus to democracy.
\
As the figurehead of democracy, you gotta let some annoying side-effect thereof slide.

All he did was confuse his wording somewhat between what he 'saw last night about what's happening in Sweden', and 'what's happening in sweden last night'. That's common for a guy who is bombastic, hyperbolic, and doesn't read the teleprompter. It was a minor slip, he corrected it the next morning. It really shouldn't be a big deal.

"All he did" seems hyperbolic at best. It's a plausible explanation, but he's too smart to write any mistake off as "just a mistake."
Sure, he will make mistakes which were "unscripted." The genius of him is that he can play off the unscripted ones to his advantage after the fact, so they look basically the same as the scripted ones.

He's not an idiot. I think your analysis is oversimplifying the man.
...
but it could have been a simple mistake, with no forethought to it, so maybe you're right that this is a simple case.

Instead, the MSM and others are going bonkers. Did he invent a terrorist attack? Did he deliberately lie to distract from something else? What is he smoking? That's all a symptom of a butt-hurt press that wants to play "gotchya". It's not cool.

The reactions sound dumb.
Why are you watching dumb people get hysterical about stuff that is nothing to bat an eye at?
Why are you seeming to get hysterical about their hysteria?

I mean... it's one thing to disagree with a melodramatic fool, it's another to cite their behavior as representative of your greater opposition.
At the very least, it means that your opposition is a bunch of silly people who are borderline senseless in their fanaticism.
What does it say about you that your opponents are so lame?
Exactly.
Your positions are not lame, and your true opponents are not the lame ones making a fuss on TV.

(Opponent may not be the right word, but I hope you know what I mean.)

The same goes for the business about crowd size, or his claim during last week's press conference that he had the 'largest electoral college victory'. He's an egotistical, stubborn, eccentric old man. Who cares if he thinks his margin of victory was bigger than George W's. What does that matter to anyone?

The bigger question is that since this line of reasoning is obviously childish, why are you spending so much mental energy on it?
Some people are paid to say controversial things. Other people are either playing along or too foolish to know it's a game and are actually caught up in the us/them.

This "style" that Trump has, is not new. He's done it his whole life, he's done it the whole campaign, and he still won the election. That means that the general public doesn't care enough about this stuff. Yet the press seems intent on trolling the president over it at every turn.

What it means vis a vis the general public is decided on an individual by individual basis. Even taken as an agglomerated whole, there was close to a 50/50 split on the vote. Even if it was a 75/25 landslide, I don't see how that matters. What people care about can change on a minute by minute basis. So the fact that he's been elected is no long-term endorsement of his "style." Many self-identified republicans voted for Trump while actively disliking him / his style. They were upset at the greater Republican Party for putting up such a poor choice as their candidate, but they were certainly not voting for anyone else.

The notion that criticism of the President is somehow being rude or trolling is too far. Sure... some people are nothing more than trolls when it comes to political commentary, but, again, if these are your opponents, then you're a self-declared intellectual lightweight (no hate.. that's a fun game, too).

His style is his. Some like it; some don't. The notion that he's above criticism because he asked to be the most criticized employee in America doesn't make sense to me.
The notion that he should care about or listen to people who are obviously embracing their childish entitlement and whiney side is just wrong

[BananaStand]

The notion that the media could do its job w/o holding politicians accountable for their every action is absurd.

Of course they could. Politicians are people too. And people are imperfect. If their flaws are exposed as part of a fair, open, and public election process.....and they still win, then that means that the consensus accepts those flaws. To continually call them out in mostly petty and irrelevant circumstances is NOT the media's job, and has nothing to do with accountability.

Bristling at the extent of the scrutiny is OK, but embracing hate toward the scrutinizers is another thing. They are, after all, members of a free press, which is deemed necessary to a well-informed public and thus to democracy.

Free, sure. But ethical? Independent? Impartial? Aren't those things also deemed necessary for the public to be well-informed? Do you really think we have that right now?

He's not an idiot. I think your analysis is oversimplifying the man.
...
but it could have been a simple mistake, with no forethought to it, so maybe you're right that this is a simple case.

Sometimes people are just people.

The reactions sound dumb.
Why are you watching dumb people get hysterical about stuff that is nothing to bat an eye at?
Your positions are not lame, and your true opponents are not the lame ones making a fuss on TV.
The bigger question is that since this line of reasoning is obviously childish, why are you spending so much mental energy on it?

If you're asking me to leave the forum, just say so. I enjoy robust debate. You make it sound like I'm on a mission here or something.

When those 'dumb' people comprise some 80% of the mainstream media, they have influence. That makes their dumb-ness dangerous.

If the press is incessantly lacing into Trump with reactions that you've agreed are "dumb", it IS something to bat an eye at. If Putin sees that Trump can't manage to get through the day without someone in prime time calling him a retard, then that weakens America's position.

That's the media's agenda here. They are actively seeking to undermine a president and create a narrative that says the vast majority of the public sees him as a punchline, even if that narrative is false. That's great if you're planning to hold signs for Elizabeth Warren in 2020. But if your job is affected by the value of the dollar, or America's interest in a trade treaty, or anything else within the Presdent's purview over the next four years......it's really really fucking bad.

So the fact that he's been elected is no long-term endorsement of his "style." Many self-identified republicans voted for Trump while actively disliking him / his style.

There's no law requiring a President to 'behave' a certain way. So his election is most definitely a 4-year endorsement of his style.

[Jack Sawyer]

If you're asking me to leave the forum, just say so. I enjoy robust debate. You make it sound like I'm on a mission here or something.

No one here would ever ask you to leave. In all of my tenure around here, I've only seen that happen to iopq, but that was some sort of grandstanding and had nothing to do with debate.

I personally hate ecochambers. I hate people telling me something, and then having to take their word as fact because they said so. Which is why I'm not religious. Which is why I present my points with actual facts and sources backing it up, not just some rando's blog or pastebin. But even if it is a place which has credence, I don't fully take their word as gospel either. I'm skeptic as fuck as you can see. I like to form my own opinions, and I like to play devil's advocate.

I would never ever ask for you to leave. In fact, if we were ever in the vicinity I'd buy you a beer. Any beer as long as it's not Budweiser nor Heineken

[BananaStand]

I would never ever ask for you to leave. In fact, if we were ever in the vicinity I'd buy you a beer. Any beer as long as it's not Budweiser nor Heineken

I'd like to order a vodka tonic....but I'd be worried about a perceived connection to the Russians.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'd like to order a vodka tonic....but I'd be worried about a perceived connection to the Russians.

Hahaha, I used to drink vodka too but then I saw the light. Vodka does have the nice side benefit of never giving you the breath, so you can have as much as you like and as long as you can handle it no one will ever know you are drunk. Unlike Buchanan’s/ Dewar's etc..


Belgian beer man. Hoegaarden, Palm. Taste that shit and you will never go back. I keep the liquor for when I really want to go FUBAR.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Of course they could. Politicians are people too. And people are imperfect. If their flaws are exposed as part of a fair, open, and public election process.....and they still win, then that means that the consensus accepts those flaws. To continually call them out in mostly petty and irrelevant circumstances is NOT the media's job, and has nothing to do with accountability.

That's not what it means.
To be petty and irrelevant is, agreeably, not the media's job. The tone is not their job, the scrutiny is their job.

And yes, if by continually, you mean, throughout the course of his Presidential term, his every action will be scrutinized. That's the nature of the job.

It is exactly because people are imperfect that this is a necessarily role of the free press.

That's not what consensus means. Even if it did mean that barely over 50% of the people are OK with his flaws, that still leaves the other half of the people for whom those flaws are a big deal. Winning an election doesn't mean you have only half a constituency. The whole of Americans is still Trump's constituency, and that constituency has every right to determine if they think his actions are mistakes or not on a case by case basis.

Free, sure. But ethical? Independent? Impartial? Aren't those things also deemed necessary for the public to be well-informed? Do you really think we have that right now?

What I think is not relevant in any way. I've already abandoned any patronage of American "News" agencies aside from the occasional curiosity.
I have already come to your conclusions that the trash we are being offered is not news. It's hysteria, usually laughably predictably oriented along partisan lines.

What's relevant is that you're further making my point that you find the news sources to be fully lacking in recognizing the dignity and humanity of an adult audience who want to make sense of the world, and not get caught up in melodramatic wastes of time.

I don't get why, given that we agree that American "News" is anything but a sensible way for adults to learn about current events, do you patronize American news sources so regularly.

I think you'll find more robust, comprehensive and non-partisan sources if you get away from the TV, and frankly, get away from US News sources. I agree with you that the state of news in the US is utter shit right now, but I don't understand why, if you think that, do you still patronize them.

I don't understand why, given their ineffectual pandering to a biased audience you let them get under your skin.
Can you explain this?

Sometimes people are just people.

Exactly why we have a right to discern when the President has made a statement which is "on the clock" vs. a personal opinion or knee-jerk reaction to something.

If you're asking me to leave the forum, just say so. I enjoy robust debate. You make it sound like I'm on a mission here or something.

If I wanted you to leave the forum, you would not need to ask me for clarity on my position.

Rest assured.

I enjoy your posts, and I do not want you to leave over anything that I've said or done. If that changes, you will be perfectly clear on exactly what my gripe is and why I am not willing to forgive the offense. (Not likely to happen. Unless I've completely misjudged you, I like you. We disagree on a lot, but you favor a reasoned explanation and a grounding in facts. We may disagree on the facts, but we agree that facts are the shizzle wizzle.)

***
I mean:
GTFO with that noise.

When those 'dumb' people comprise some 80% of the mainstream media, they have influence. That makes their dumb-ness dangerous.

Do they, though?
Does it, though?

I am not convinced that there is a direct link between shitty reporting and policy changes.

If the press is incessantly lacing into Trump with reactions that you've agreed are "dumb", it IS something to bat an eye at. If Putin sees that Trump can't manage to get through the day without someone in prime time calling him a retard, then that weakens America's position..

I don't think Putin's that naive. Naive isn't a word that comes to mind when I think of Putin, anyway.

If you and I can suss out that the trash America is putting out there as "news" is really current events entertainment, then the Russians can suss it out, too.

If Putin thinks Trump is weak because of some, lets face it, privileged blowhards, then my money is on Trump walking all over him in trade negotiations by playing off of that naivety.

That's the media's agenda here. They are actively seeking to undermine a president and create a narrative that says the vast majority of the public sees him as a punchline, even if that narrative is false. That's great if you're planning to hold signs for Elizabeth Warren in 2020. But if your job is affected by the value of the dollar, or America's interest in a trade treaty, or anything else within the Presdent's purview over the next four years......it's really really fucking bad.

Bill Clinton was impeached over a scandal involving a blowjob. He lied under oath about getting a blowjob from someone who's not his wife. The House of Representatives impeached him for it and made him say he's sorry.

Nothing any President has faced since has been a bigger waste of American's time or the President's time.

(Inb4 Clinton was never impeached. Google it before you make the claim.)

There's no law requiring a President to 'behave' a certain way. So his election is most definitely a 4-year endorsement of his style.

Agree about the law. As I understand it, the President is immune to any prosecution of any law unless they are first impeached.

I couldn't disagree more about the election endorsement.

It says, "Geez, out of these 2 total ass hats, that one is a more criminal-seeming asshat. The other one is a bit of a jerk sometimes, but at least not already a corrupt insider."

Even if it means what you said it means, it only means that to barely more than half the people and the other half don't have any law saying that they have to behave a certain way, either.

[Poopadoop]

The long and the short of it is that the MSM is definitely anti-Trump, but he himself provides them with most of their ammunition through his own behavior.

[BananaStand]

The long and the short of it is that the MSM is definitely anti-Trump, but he himself provides them with most of their ammunition through his own behavior.

Agree with the first part, not so much with the second part.

Trump's "behavior" (we'll just use that word for brevity's sake) is exactly what got him elected President. The only way he makes it to office is by doing and saying exactly what he did for the entire year and a half campaign. Trump didn't create that situation, he just worked within it, and leveraged it to his advantage. In other words, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

If the press is pissed off now that they realize that their own negativity actually transformed into Trump support...that's on them. Trying to correct that mistake through a campaign to de-legitimize a sitting President is sour grapes.

[Poopadoop]

Agree with the first part, not so much with the second part.

Ok.

Trump's "behavior" (we'll just use that word for brevity's sake) is exactly what got him elected President. The only way he makes it to office is by doing and saying exactly what he did for the entire year and a half campaign. Trump didn't create that situation, he just worked within it, and leveraged it to his advantage. In other words, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

That's one interpretation. Another is that Trump won despite a lot of his behavior, not because of it. He also had a lot of help from the incompetence of the other side.

If the press is pissed off now that they realize that their own negativity actually transformed into Trump support...that's on them. Trying to correct that mistake through a campaign to de-legitimize a sitting President is sour grapes.

If their own negativity transformed to Trump support, then more negativity doesn't seem like their best option.

I think the press never liked him, covered him mostly because he sold newspapers, and continues to cover him for the same reasons. The fact that it's not implausible to most people that he's a scandal-ridden figure only encourages them to pursue that angle, again because it sells newspapers.

I could be wrong, but I think the idea that the press is actively trying to ruin his presidency is a bit of a stretch. They're certainly not his friend anymore that's for sure. But he has definitely had a large role to play in that transformation through his treatment of them.

[BananaStand]

Winning an election doesn't mean you have only half a constituency. The whole of Americans is still Trump's constituency, and that constituency has every right to determine if they think his actions are mistakes or not on a case by case basis.

I truncated your quote, but I agree with what you're saying in principle. Ideologically, it makes sense that a President represents all americans, not just the ones who voted for him. However, in reality 2017, Trump is a hugely polarizing figure. And no matter what he does, people on the opposite pole will not be happy.

Trump backed off a muslim-ban long ago during the campaign and instead moved to a middle-of-the-road policy that focuses on a small number areas deemed dangerous by two separate administrations. Not one of his detractors came out and said "that's a nice compromise". Instead, they took him to court.

Students in NYC walked out of class to protest. Some were interviewed on TV and asked simple questions like "Do you know what countries are affected by the ban?" *crickets*.

A compromise by Trump only loses support from his base, and gains no support from the other side. What do you expect him to do? Again, don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think I drifted off topic here, but if you want things evaluated on a case by case basis, fine. Trump's personality was already evaluated during a 15 month campaign. It was deemed less than tasteful, but acceptable. He can change his tie, he can change his hair color, but he can't change who he is. Trump being himself is not a cause for scrutiny. We already know how that movie ends.

I don't get why, given that we agree that American "News" is anything but a sensible way for adults to learn about current events, do you patronize American news sources so regularly.

We don't agree.

Do they, though?
Does it, though?

I am not convinced that there is a direct link between shitty reporting and policy changes.

Huh? Everyone who consumes this 'shitty reporting' has a vote. That means what they believe, even if it's erroneous, matters. Trump owns nothing in Russia. He owes no one money in Russia. He has nothing more to gain from a cozy relationship with Putin than he does from a cozy relationship with say, the president of Argentina. Yet the New York times reported, shitty-ly, that the Trump campaign had phone calls with Russian people. The times doesn't say what those calls were about. Below the fold the mention that it's entirely plausible that the phone calls had nothing to do with the campaign at all.

Yet now we have member of congress, who's salary we pay, convening a committee to investigate Trump's ties with Russia.

Of course the media has influence. They played a HUGE role in getting both of our last two presidents elected. Though only one on purpose.

I don't think Putin's that naive. If Putin thinks Trump is weak because of some, lets face it, privileged blowhards, then my money is on Trump walking all over him in trade negotiations by playing off of that naivety.

I guess that remains to be seen. But Putin isn't going anywhere, and Trump has to win an election in 4 years time. If Trump looks weak, that undermines any promises or assurances he could make in negotiations. If Trump has a political interest in showing results, that gives Putin more leverage.

Remember when Obama was caught on a hot mic talking to the Russian Ambassador? Most people probably don't because the MSM only covers fuck-ups by Republicans. This wasn't speculation about phone calls. This wasn't circumstantial evidence. Obama was caught on audio AND video saying to the Ambassador "Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election". And he had a friendly press on his side. Imagine how much 'flexibility' Trump has right now?

I don't understand why, given their ineffectual pandering to a biased audience you let them get under your skin.
Can you explain this?

I just did. They aren't just hurting Trump, they're hurting America

[MadMojoMonkey]

However, in reality 2017, Trump is a hugely polarizing figure. And no matter what he does, people on the opposite pole will not be happy.

Trump is polarizing, I agree.

So was Obama. So was Bush. So was Clinton. So was Reagan.

I don't remember Carter, but every I hear about him, I am humbled and realize that he is a better man than I.
I'm pretty much never the correct spokesman for my group, though, so prob a lot of disagreement there, too.

I don't see how other people's happiness is any motivation for a grown man... unless the other people are his family, I guess.

Trump backed off a muslim-ban long ago during the campaign and instead moved to a middle-of-the-road policy that focuses on a small number areas deemed dangerous by two separate administrations. Not one of his detractors came out and said "that's a nice compromise". Instead, they took him to court.

Not one?
Fake news.

Students in NYC walked out of class to protest. Some were interviewed on TV and asked simple questions like "Do you know what countries are affected by the ban?" *crickets*.

not sure your point.
Idiots are idiots?
Kids are kids?

People looking for an excuse to be angry will always find one, whether or not they are informed about the thing.

***
I don't have time for the rest of the hyperbole and other superlative language you've used in this post.

***
In what way do you and I not agree about American news.

I thought you were basically saying what I'm saying.