|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 22 2016 19:10 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2016 16:14 Leporello wrote: The idea that CNN is the problem with the media is fucking absurd. Did Trump ever say what CNN so egregiously lied about that warrants singling them out?
Fox News was anti-Trump for most of the election cycle, .
It's pretty ironic how biased people reveal themselves to be when they rail against the biased media.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite.
I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.")
Trump does Trump things... Breitbart is also not my news source of any choice...
But on the Bannon position; Bannon more than anyone represent the neglected middle america and the populist working class that brought him to power. If Bannon carries too much baggage, Trump would have to dig up someone else to champion that cause. Bannon is also the one guy that most represents a break from the Reagan coalition of limited government and social conservativism. There are a lot of 80's Democratic policy platforms in the Bannon arsenal. He's the most interesting guy in the Trump leadership for all the right reasons and for all the wrong reasons.
|
On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite.
How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent.
I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.")
You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians.
|
On November 22 2016 23:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2016 19:10 zeo wrote:On November 22 2016 16:14 Leporello wrote: The idea that CNN is the problem with the media is fucking absurd. Did Trump ever say what CNN so egregiously lied about that warrants singling them out?
Fox News was anti-Trump for most of the election cycle, . It's pretty ironic how biased people reveal themselves to be when they rail against the biased media. Are you implying Fox was shilling for Trump during the Republican primaries? Are you implying Fox wasn't the mouthpiece of the Republican establishment when they tried to throw Trump under the bus after pussygate?
|
xdaunt -> it's hypocritical because it involves attacking one source for being biased, poor quality, and lying; while promoting favoring another source that is biased, poor quality, and lying.
do you have any proof/evidence/research on the claim that "the media" has been torpedoing "your guys" for decades? in particular using clearer definitions of those very vague groupings. for a so-called stacked deck, they seem to have been doing fine in the elections for a long time, which makes me doubt your claim.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, eight years later, what do people think about the bailout that occurred during the peak of the recession, in its entirety (i.e. all of the programs associated with that bailout)? Was it a necessary program that prevented another Great Depression, or an expensive debt addition that just pushed the crisis into the future?
Might as well spare some effort on considering the outgoing president and where he did and didn't go wrong.
|
legal -> i don't remember all such programs in enough detail to say with high reliability. I think on the whole it was decent; the programs that got paid back in full or almost full seem very worthwhile. some of the stimulus was probably worthwhile, but I think it was overdone for too long. It does seem like some of the debt issuance just displaced the crisis in time rather than fixing it; in part because government is incapable of properly doing countercyclical policies.
|
On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite.
I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.")
I agree whole heartedly. The fact that Trump attacks obviously true stories as examples of a dishonest media means he has no moral authority on the issue.
The press aren't going away. Rather, with Trump as president I imagine they will make more money than ever. Yes most need to improve, but all those people getting giddy in this thread about Trump trying to take them down or limit their access need only look at countries like Turkey and the Philippines to see how dangerous a weak and subservient press is.
Yall should feel pity and sadness at these developments, not glee.
Good thing Trump is shaping up to be incompetent like we thought he would. Just got to tough it out 4 years.
|
it should have been bigger. i would have been fine with dumping more money into new deal-style programs.
|
On November 23 2016 00:25 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2016 23:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 22 2016 19:10 zeo wrote:On November 22 2016 16:14 Leporello wrote: The idea that CNN is the problem with the media is fucking absurd. Did Trump ever say what CNN so egregiously lied about that warrants singling them out?
Fox News was anti-Trump for most of the election cycle, . It's pretty ironic how biased people reveal themselves to be when they rail against the biased media. Are you implying Fox was shilling for Trump during the Republican primaries? Are you implying Fox wasn't the mouthpiece of the Republican establishment when they tried to throw Trump under the bus after pussygate?
I hope you realize that Fox covering the rape tape doesn't constitute them being anti-Trump. If you had been paying attention you would know the Fox website has been a Trump cheerleading portal for a long time.
|
There would be a double standard in tolerating the appointment of Bannon if the same people who accepted Bannon criticized a democrat for appointing a liberal media figure solely because that person is a media figure. Bannon's appointment really has nothing to do with Breitbart, and the fact that Bannon was its CEO is collateral.
|
On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:] But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians.
Your degree of support for Trump seems to shift with the winds. What is incredible is that you had to find a person who is less honest than the media to deliver that message to the media.
|
It need not be that exact to be hypocritical; a perfect mirror is not necessary for it to clearly be hypocrisy. Alternately, the hypocrisy is in pretending that Bannon and breitbart aren't doing the bad things Trump alleges the rest of the media do.
|
On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite. How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent. Show nested quote +I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.") You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians. Look, there are two possible positions:
1- You attack the media for doing a bad job. That's ok. But then, I ask you to start with Breitbart and Fox, because they are the number one provider of desinformation, intellectual dishonesty and brutal propaganda. Otherwise I simply call you a hypocrite.
2- Second option, you attack medias when they are not on your side. That's an attack on plurality of opinions, on free speech and on democracy. That's what Trump is doing by the way, attacking the NYT for stories that are obviously true. And the problem is that independent journalism is essential to a democracy. If you are part of a democracy you have to accept the voice of people who don't like you. And it should REALLY worry you if the president uses his power against people who express skepticism and report on the crap he says.
Now you will ask me: oh, but the media is liberal. That's not true. The media goes from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post. And the high end in terms of quality, fact checking and simple honesty is not in favour of the conservative media. Should I remind you the amazing way Fox News helped GWB to basically steal an election?
Then you say ok, but the media is against Trump, even when it's conservative or neutral. But mate, look, Nobel Prize winners are against Trump, scientists are against Trump, highly educated people are against Trump, artists are against Trump, and the whole rest of the world is against Trump. Trump has 9% approval in Europe. 9 fucking percents.
All those people are against Trump not because of another bizarre conspiracy or because they are all sold to some shadowy interest, but because he is a proto-fascist serial liar with a narcissistic personality disorder rarely seen outside of psychiatric institutions.
You attack the press for being generally hostile to your horrendous guy. And then what? Are you gonna attack the artists, nobel prize winners, scientists, educated people and the rest of the world? Or juste accept that in a free society, it may happens a lot of people think that your guy is horrendous.
It's not because the media is sold to the liberals that no serious newspaper endorsed him. It's because he is fucking terrible. And you are not doing a service to your country by cheering for a future president when he attacks one of the absolute cornerstones of democracy (if you care at all about that).
|
Gotta keep those foreign lobbyists in the inner circle.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 23 2016 00:26 LegalLord wrote: So, eight years later, what do people think about the bailout that occurred during the peak of the recession, in its entirety (i.e. all of the programs associated with that bailout)? Was it a necessary program that prevented another Great Depression, or an expensive debt addition that just pushed the crisis into the future?
Might as well spare some effort on considering the outgoing president and where he did and didn't go wrong.
Bush produced the EES and TARP and Obama inherited it and duly carried that out. Bush got a temporary bailout of the auto industry that Obama turned into a comprehensive solution, which eventually worked out. Obama got "shovel-ready" jobs in the ARA which turned out to get caught in a miserable mess of red tape. Obama's ACA "Obamacare" which was supposed to cut health insurance premium has inflating premiums and insurance agencies are pulling out
What other stuff got done in that first two years?
|
On November 23 2016 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite. How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent. I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.") You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians. Look, there are two possible positions: 1- You attack the media for doing a bad job. That's ok. But then, I ask you to start with Breitbart and Fox, because they are the number one provider of desinformation, intellectual dishonesty and brutal propaganda. Otherwise I simply call you a hypocrite. 2- Second option, you attack medias when they are not on your side. That's an attack on plurality of opinions, on free speech and on democracy. That's what Trump is doing by the way, attacking the NYT for stories that are obviously true. And the problem is that independent journalism is essential to a democracy. If you are part of a democracy you have to accept the voice of people who don't like you. And it should REALLY worry you if the president uses his power against people who express skepticism and report on the crap he says. Now you will ask me: oh, but the media is liberal. That's not true. The media goes from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post. And the high end in terms of quality, fact checking and simple honesty is not in favour of the conservative media. Should I remind you the amazing way Fox News helped GWB to basically steal an election? Then you say ok, but the media is against Trump, even when it's conservative or neutral. But mate, look, Nobel Prize winners are against Trump, scientists are against Trump, highly educated people are against Trump, artists are against Trump, and the whole rest of the world is against Trump. Trump has 9% approval in Europe. 9 fucking percents. All those people are against Trump not because of another bizarre conspiracy or because they are all sold to some shadowy interest, but because he is a proto-fascist serial liar with a narcissistic personality disorder rarely seen outside of psychiatric institutions. You attack the press for being generally hostile to your horrendous guy. And then what? Are you gonna attack the artists, nobel prize winners, scientists, educated people and the rest of the world? Or juste accept that in a free society, it may happens a lot of people think that your guy is horrendous. It's not because the media is sold to the liberals that no serious newspaper endorsed him. It's because he is fucking terrible. And you are not doing a service to your country by cheering for a future president when he attacks one of the absolute cornerstones of democracy (if you care at all about that).
This is a really important set of points. A lot of people seem to equate unbiased and neutral.
Sometimes the media isn't biased, sometimes the facts are biased: sometimes people are just wrong and/or dishonest, a lot, very often. This is a situation that can easily be thought of, especially in the context of american republicans and especially in the context of the Tea Party.
A part of a biased liberal media that people seem to forget is that it's also a media biased against progressive ideas. If progressives had a bigger influence on the narrative, I really don't think you would be all that offended by liberal coverage...
|
On November 23 2016 01:07 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 00:26 LegalLord wrote: So, eight years later, what do people think about the bailout that occurred during the peak of the recession, in its entirety (i.e. all of the programs associated with that bailout)? Was it a necessary program that prevented another Great Depression, or an expensive debt addition that just pushed the crisis into the future?
Might as well spare some effort on considering the outgoing president and where he did and didn't go wrong. Bush produced the EES and TARP and Obama inherited it and duly carried that out. Bush got a temporary bailout of the auto industry that Obama turned into a comprehensive solution, which eventually worked out. Obama got "shovel-ready" jobs in the ARA which turned out to get caught in a miserable mess of red tape. Obama's ACA "Obamacare" which was supposed to cut health insurance premium has inflating premiums and insurance agencies are pulling outWhat other stuff got done in that first two years?
I honestly think Obama thought the ACA was a stop gap and a temporary solution towards at least the discussion of single payer.
There was no political will at the time for single payer at the time (cuz lol socialist) even though it is the solution for this mess.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I knew there was a big one I forgot in Obama 1st term: Frank-Dodd.
I think at some point Trump was talking about reviving Glass-Steagal. I would actually prefer Glass-Steagal over Frank-Dodd, but if they aren't bringing back Glass-Steagal, don't touch Frank-Dodd.
If Obama really wanted single payer long term, ACA should have kept its public option. I can only say that ACA was the worst solution possible, elevating the importance of health insurance industry in delivering health care.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the ACA(and medicaid expansion that came along) was mostly about expanding coverage, particularly for poor americans. in evaluating the ACA your view of how important providing healthcare to that segment is pretty important.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q0Pg6Hp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zfRxndO.jpg) source
should expanding healthcare to poor people be a high priority? recent discussion on the plight of working class white americans seems to suggest so. the ACA also had a bunch of tax increases, including on capital gains, higher level pay payroll taxes and steeper penalty for large employers that do not offer insurance coverage. these explain the political resistance to the ACA because the republican agenda is largely written by a few large donors supporting these tea party organizations.
|
|
|
|