|
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. |
So I guess we add to our list of conflicting signals: Trump, Mattis, Tillerson, Pence, and now McCain. Hopefully Bannon becomes #6. Then the best way to understand what the US is looking to do with FP is to roll a 6-sided die and listen to the person who that number corresponds to.
Hooray!
|
Bannon needs to be removed as of yesterday, he is the true threat.
|
On February 19 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:
His actions are contradictory as well. Remember China?
well, all of a sudden he did get a trademark he spent quite awhile pursuing...
|
On February 19 2017 02:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:
His actions are contradictory as well. Remember China? well, all of a sudden he did get a trademark he spent quite awhile pursuing...
Yea but maybe tomorrow someone from China will tell Trump that his nose is a little too ugly or something.
|
On February 19 2017 00:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 17:20 ChristianS wrote:On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Since I think I'm the one being accused of insinuating that Trump is probably a fascist, let me say that while I'm not clear on the precise definition of fascism, I certainly don't think we should start searching for where he's hiding the camps or installing lead-lined trap doors in our homes for hiding Jews. There's plenty wrong with what's going on right now to worry about without trying to anticipate every possible nightmare scenario in the next four years. The point of the comparison is that these propagandistic tactics are unprecedented, and there is no innocent scenario for them. He's actively attacking whatever democratic mechanisms can challenge his power. He's directly pitting people's willingness to question the administration against their patriotism and loyalty to the American people, and trying to rally public rage against anyone who chooses to question the administration. No good comes from this. Contrary to what xDaunt claims, unconstitutionality is not the only legitimate basis for objecting to the government's actions. Telling baldfaced lies, calling journalists liars for demonstrably true stories, and calling on people's patriotism to take his side against the media that challenge him is unacceptable behavior that, if successful, enables authoritarianism. Given all that, we don't need to argue about whether or not he'll be New Hitler someday; there's plenty to object to in the here and now. I simply think you should stick to attacking him on his (de)merits rather than trying to make the comparison. Not necessarily saying you made the comparison - but you did bring it up and I thought the general point needed to be made. And the "innocent" explanation is this: he's a man with delusions of grandeur, in a position he doesn't belong in, copying the tactics of Fox and such, who commonly question the patriotism of people they don't agree with. It's certainly not unprecedented in the US to question patriotism based on little more than a partisan divide. Nor is having a completely tangential relationship with the truth. And frankly I've seen a lot of attacks on judges in the past, though perhaps never quite that high in the chain of command. Long story short, it's troubling, but he's cut from the same cloth as non-fascists who do the very same. And making the comparison kind of takes away a lot of the usefulness of calling him out because calling someone a fascist (or making a comparison insinuating as such) or comparing them to Hitler is a time-honored way to use hyperbole to claim someone is doing bad things.
Questioning opponents' patriotism, attacking branches of government that challenge him, and a completely tangential relationship with the truth are more meaningful together than they are separately. And I don't watch much Fox News, but some of his stuff goes beyond even them. There's a big difference between talking about "biased media" and "fake news;" Fox generally does the former, Trump the latter. Similarly there's a big difference befween "my opponent must not love America as much as I do" and "They're the enemy of the American people."
To reiterate, that shit is scary all on its own. We can separately ask whether we think it will go in a Hitlerian direction, and that can be scary too, but even if Trump's just a fool with delusions of grandeur, then he's tripped and stumbled his way into a blatantly authoritarian direction. At this point when failures happen and he gets criticized, his impulse is to get defensive, and he does that by doubling down on this propaganda and authoritarianism. The vicious cycle that creates alone is sufficient for alarm.
Add to all that, I don't think it's terribly implausible that a guy like Bannon has some undemocratic aspirations, as well as, wuite possibly, some anti-Semitic ones. And Trump himself probably plans ahead more than he seems; he certainly looks like a dog chasing cars who finally somehow caught one, but looking at some of the stuff apparently in Megyn Kelly's book about him currying favor with journalists months before he announced, it seems like he was planning this one for a while. Less implausible, then, that thevpush in an authoritarian direction is a conscious plan on his part, not just the ravings of an idiot given the world's largest soapbox.
|
On February 18 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez. [citation needed]
Again you need to spend more time on progressive internet. There is no debate about Ellison vs Perez going on, the only debate going on is if Ellison is enough to trust the Democratic party again or not, and the people who are on the other side of that debate tend to be the Bernie or bust people that you mention. It's also logically consistent: when Schumer decides to back Ellison, it's a gesture to show Bernie's side of the party that they are heard. In general people tend to like being heard, politically, that's a good thing. I'm interested in why you would expect most Bernie people to be fine with Perez, do you have some citation of your own?
|
On February 19 2017 02:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez. [citation needed] Again you need to spend more time on progressive internet. There is no debate about Ellison vs Perez going on, the only debate going on is if Ellison is enough to trust the Democratic party again or not, and the people who are on the other side of that debate tend to be the Bernie or bust people that you mention. It's also logically consistent: when Schumer decides to back Ellison, it's a gesture to show Bernie's side of the party that they are heard. In general people tend to like being heard, politically, that's a good thing. I'm interested in why you would expect most Bernie people to be fine with Perez, do you have some citation of your own?
internet discussions tend toward the extreme/loud wings, rather than being highly representative of the actual bulk of the people.
|
I mean as long as you do a better job than dws, which isn't a very high bar, does it really matter if it's Ellison or Perez?
|
On February 19 2017 03:00 biology]major wrote:
I mean as long as you do a better job than dws, which isn't a very high bar, does it really matter if it's Ellison or Perez?
not to me, but it matters a lot to some people. internal disputes and fights for power/position are a common occurrence in politics.
also, it should of course matter who would do a better job in general; but this dispute isn't really about that.
|
On February 19 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2017 02:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez. [citation needed] Again you need to spend more time on progressive internet. There is no debate about Ellison vs Perez going on, the only debate going on is if Ellison is enough to trust the Democratic party again or not, and the people who are on the other side of that debate tend to be the Bernie or bust people that you mention. It's also logically consistent: when Schumer decides to back Ellison, it's a gesture to show Bernie's side of the party that they are heard. In general people tend to like being heard, politically, that's a good thing. I'm interested in why you would expect most Bernie people to be fine with Perez, do you have some citation of your own? internet discussions tend toward the extreme/loud wings, rather than being highly representative of the actual bulk of the people.
This way that you have of getting into conversations to say mundane things about the people's premises and absolutely nothing else, as if the people didn't know that, is starting to be a little annoying.
If there was a significant chunk of Bernie voters who were fine with Perez, that would also reflect on internet, cause there'd be a discussion going on. There is none. I'm sure there are a lot who don't really care about the subject and don't have an opinion because they haven't looked it up, but that's different from not caring because both candidates are just as fine in your view.
|
On February 18 2017 21:13 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 16:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. I'd say attacking judges who rule against him is a much better reason to call him a fascist. Fascism always inherits an ideology by definition (ik there are many definitions, but they all have this aspect in common). An ideology however always has a goal, a so called "endgame szenario" and quite frankly I don't think Trump thinks that far ahead. I mean come on the guy is the very definition of "wingin it", so calling him a fascist is not just straight out wrong, it's hilarious! 
He has a very clear goal. He does not have the capacity of planning or thought to reach that goal effectively, but his goal is very clearly a nationalistic America, and his desire is very obviously for himself to have an absolute level of authority (and again, he doesn't have the methodology to do so other than whining and lashing out when he doesn't get his way).
And while, as you said, there are many definitions, unless your definition of fascism includes succeeding in your ideological goals or being competent, I'm not sure what other ideology would better match Trump.
|
On February 19 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 21:13 thePunGun wrote:On February 18 2017 16:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. I'd say attacking judges who rule against him is a much better reason to call him a fascist. Fascism always inherits an ideology by definition (ik there are many definitions, but they all have this aspect in common). An ideology however always has a goal, a so called "endgame szenario" and quite frankly I don't think Trump thinks that far ahead. I mean come on the guy is the very definition of "wingin it", so calling him a fascist is not just straight out wrong, it's hilarious! He has a very clear goal. He does not have the capacity of planning or thought to reach that goal effectively, but his goal is very clearly a nationalistic America, and his desire is very obviously for himself to have an absolute level of authority (and again, he doesn't have the methodology to do so other than whining and lashing out when he doesn't get his way). And while, as you said, there are many definitions, unless your definition of fascism includes succeeding in your ideological goals or being competent, I'm not sure what other ideology would better match Trump.
I don't know. I don't think Trump's goal is a nationalistic America. I think his narcissism doesn't allow for someone to criticize him or his plans. So everyone who does becomes the enemy, be it judges, the press or the people he works with.
The goal isn't authoritarianism, it just looks that way because Trump needs to always be right.
And no, that doesn't make it any less dangerous.
|
On February 19 2017 03:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2017 02:57 zlefin wrote:On February 19 2017 02:55 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez. [citation needed] Again you need to spend more time on progressive internet. There is no debate about Ellison vs Perez going on, the only debate going on is if Ellison is enough to trust the Democratic party again or not, and the people who are on the other side of that debate tend to be the Bernie or bust people that you mention. It's also logically consistent: when Schumer decides to back Ellison, it's a gesture to show Bernie's side of the party that they are heard. In general people tend to like being heard, politically, that's a good thing. I'm interested in why you would expect most Bernie people to be fine with Perez, do you have some citation of your own? internet discussions tend toward the extreme/loud wings, rather than being highly representative of the actual bulk of the people. This way that you have of getting into conversations to say mundane things about the people's premises and absolutely nothing else, as if the people didn't know that, is starting to be a little annoying. If there was a significant chunk of Bernie voters who were fine with Perez, that would also reflect on internet, cause there'd be a discussion going on. There is none. I'm sure there are a lot who don't really care about the subject and don't have an opinion because they haven't looked it up, but that's different from not caring because both candidates are just as fine in your view.
I disagree on your claim at the start of your second paragraph;
they might just not say anything because they don't care that much, and they don't want to get into it with anybody.
and making sure everyone is being careful with their premises and rigor is important, even if people mostly knew that already. the internet needs more bland voices anyways.
|
On February 19 2017 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:
The goal isn't authoritarianism, it just looks that way because Trump needs to always be right.
And no, that doesn't make it any less dangerous.
I'm pretty sure "I always want to be right" is how most crazy authoritarianism starts. I don't think anybody ever explicitly started out with the goal to end up as a mad king.
Like Erdogan it basically starts out kind of reasonable and then they start to lose it about five to ten years into their reign
|
|
|
The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
|
On February 19 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray".
McCain, a known Trump critic, told the Munich Security Conference that the resignation of the new president's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
"I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do," said McCain, even as he praised Trump's defense secretary.
"The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself. So we've learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says," he said.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from NATO and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration. SourceGreat job, John Rambo McCain. Might as well have just gone there and said, "you can go ahead and start panicking now."
Ah, yes. The naive europeans, what a shock that was to hear that the white house is in disarray. No one would've expected that, after it, well, was in so much disarray that it couldn't have been worse if you'd dub everything in the last weeks with the benny hill theme.
Believe me, europeans are able to form their own opinions based on (admittedly, fake) news from overseas.
All McCain did was to take the opportunity to take another jab at trump. If you assume that somehow him stating "the white house is in disarray" is different from "the white house showing that it's in disarray", well. Can't help you there.
|
Some people in Europe are already in panick mode,though the majority is still asleep. Panick mode for me started with the euro crisis 2012,and became urgent when the uk decided to leave. Trump itself is not that much reason to panick but it is another sign that the traditional elite is starting to loose control which makes for an uncertain future.
Most people in the Netherlands seem to think everything will turn out fine,just like it always has. But I seriuously fear for the lifestyle of continental Europe,they have a lot to loose. The south lost so much already,the same will happen to the north I think.
5-10 years max,then hell will break loose in Europe.
|
On February 19 2017 05:42 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray".
McCain, a known Trump critic, told the Munich Security Conference that the resignation of the new president's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
"I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do," said McCain, even as he praised Trump's defense secretary.
"The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself. So we've learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says," he said.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from NATO and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration. SourceGreat job, John Rambo McCain. Might as well have just gone there and said, "you can go ahead and start panicking now." Ah, yes. The naive europeans, what a shock that was to hear that the white house is in disarray. No one would've expected that, after it, well, was in so much disarray that it couldn't have been worse if you'd dub everything in the last weeks with the benny hill theme. Believe me, europeans are able to form their own opinions based on (admittedly, fake) news from overseas. All McCain did was to take the opportunity to take another jab at trump. If you assume that somehow him stating "the white house is in disarray" is different from "the white house showing that it's in disarray", well. Can't help you there.
I don't care if it's blindingly obvious that Trump's administration has no idea what it is doing, so obvious that even a European can see it. Going out and saying it sends the wrong message. Beyond saying "our government is incompetent" it also says "we're not willing to put on the face of a unified front." It's externalizing an internal disagreement and basically tattling to Europeans, a shameful thing for an American senator to do.
|
On February 18 2017 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 11:34 biology]major wrote:
xdaunt, I'm generally with you on the media bashing and that declaring them an "enemy" is not facism, but it's a cheap shot. Also, what is your opinion on Trump's bromance with Putin in light of recent leaks? Do you find it problematic?
I have confidence that Mattis will be independent in running DoD and will resign if it comes to worst case scenario, and so far he is holding ground and flat out saying Russia and USA are not ready to work together on the ground. How is criticizing the press a "cheap shot?" This day of reckoning for the press is long overdue. Only a few members of the press understand what's happened. CBS's John Dickerson seems to be one of them:Show nested quote +"Yes, it's true, and it's not because of anything obviously Donald Trump did. The press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own, and we can have a long conversation about what created that," Dickerson said.
"Part of it, though, is what you mentioned about the local weather report, which is to say a lot of hysterical coverage about every little last thing that doesn't warrant it," he added. As for the bromance with Putin, I'm not going to be concerned until I see some concrete proof of misconduct. Coincidentally, I had drinks today with a guy who spoke with someone from Capitol Hill who is unequivocally in the know on this stuff, and it seems like there may be fire to go along with the smoke. But I'll wait and see what's there before jumping to any conclusions.
I also saw the Dickerson piece. The media establishment has these glimpses of light that peek through. I thought it would be a quick and obvious course correction to widely admit fault, pause the narrative news and resume news, and continue on. The election was a distinctly big wake up call that everybody apparently had their ear plugs too deeply buried to hear. Trump lies and exaggerations, born out of a defensive ego I wager, are a fertile ground for reporting. All it takes is a little internal cleaning (try it!) to show they know the difference between reporting the news and telling everyone what they should think about the news. Reporters vs columnists.
But the news media, as exemplified in that press conference and most Russia stories, may be the ones with the bigger ego ala 'how dare you attack this wonderful institution and call us enemies.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
