|
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 August 23 2017 22:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 22:40 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 13:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 23 2017 12:59 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 11:51 Plansix wrote:
He loves America, except for the heart of our democracy.
Brace yourselves:
I guess if you think democracy means thou shalt not criticize. Which, to be honest, is a mistake many reporters choose to make. There's a huge difference between criticizing and declaring the free press an enemy, labeling your supporters as true Americans with legit heritage is very very dangerous and even anti-democratic. The press took it to that level and now they're reaping the consequences. The vast majority took a no-holds-barred approach to expressing political opposition behind ostensible reporting jobs. Now them and their allies pretend they can have it both ways. Tip the scales too much and you're DNC affiliates and America is waiting for a new free press to unshackle themselves from ideology and report the news. And who would that new free press unlimited by ideology be? Fox News? Breitbart? I wouldn't say unlimited rather than seeking good journalism despite their ideology. The famous A.M. Rosenthal that transformed the New York Times pushed his paper right knowing his reporters leaned left ... and his gravestone reads "He kept the paper straight."
|
Its not the press's job to create unity. When that happens, we have the NYT and Fox News all pushing the Iraq war narrative.
|
On August 23 2017 22:48 Plansix wrote: But when they do, you will just claim they are biased. Because journalists already report the news now and you don't like the content. The cycle of attacking the press is self sustaining. You can't see the problem ("when they do" implies a future change to the status quo, but "journalists already report the news now" shows you don't think there's a problem to change). I'm more interested in people that saw the shift, saw the reaction, and in a generation can create their own media institutions from the ground up knowing that separate, partisan news outlets is not the path forward in a unified country.
|
On August 23 2017 22:57 Plansix wrote: Its not the press's job to create unity. When that happens, we have the NYT and Fox News all pushing the Iraq war narrative. Apparently it's its job to advance the cause of the Democrat party, and when that happens people will defend it to world's end while the country burns. Shortsighted view.
|
If you are talking about MSNBC and Fox, I'm on the record saying they are bad. But that isn't all press. That is two channels. This criticism must be targeted.
Edit: really? Because they covered 200000 hours of Clinton emails. How did that help democrats?
|
On August 23 2017 22:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 13:47 IgnE wrote:On August 23 2017 13:24 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2017 12:59 Danglars wrote:I guess if you think democracy means thou shalt not criticize. Which, to be honest, is a mistake many reporters choose to make. ? Is this some kind of meta thing? Who do you think is being critical here? Trump of the press coverage or the press of Trump's response to the press? Please clarify because the normal idea is that in a democracy the press should be free to attack the government but it seems an awful lot like you just argued that it's actually the other way around. Danglars often gets his antecedents mixed up. The veneer is exposed, and the underbelly is not a pretty sight. It seems everybody is confident a President can act so flippantly and narcissistically to cause real harm, but when conservative posters apply the same rational analysis to the role of the press in a democracy, everybody has trouble putting two and two together. They should've had more wisdom to know rooting for your gal will inspire backlash that is more retributive than balanced, and it should surprise nobody. From a political digest for the sense of thought process the belies this state of affairs: Show nested quote +“The lesson from Charlottesville is not how dangerous the neo-Nazis are. It is the unmasking of the Republican party leadership. In the wake of last weekend’s horror and tragedy, let us finally, finally rip off the veneer that Trump’s affinity for white supremacy is distinct from the Republican agenda of voter suppression, renewed mass incarceration and the expulsion of immigrants… “Words mean nothing if the Republican agenda doesn’t change. Governors and state legislatures were so quick to embrace people of color in order to avoid the impression, they too share Trump’s supreme affinity for the white race. But if they don’t stand up for them they are not indirectly, but directly enabling the agenda of those same racists that Republican members were so quick to condemn via Twitter.” The implication here is simple: if you are a conventional Republican, you are a Nazi. And Nazis, as we all know, deserve whatever they get when they go in public. “CNN described the rally as “mostly peaceful,” and celebrated the so-called counter-protesters. Every anchor and guest for six straight hours praised the counter-protesters as people who are just there to oppose hate, bigotry, and violence. CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield literally described the Left’s presence as being about “Peace and love.” Yes. Really. See for yourself. It’s teed up here. “What was once simple bias from media personalities like Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd has become explicitly dangerous. Rather than report on now-normalized leftist violence, the media inspire more of it by insisting President Trump and the Right in general are racists and fascists. Rather than expose Democrats for manufacturing racism and disparity by using identity politics as a political weapon, the media helps manufacture more by falsely blaming the Right for both.” The GuardianThe FederalistI think there's reason to hope a new generation brings more unity (and thanks OnSlaught for showing the hatred of the counterprotestors and mob mentality of the Trump supporters at the rally).
Is the liberal portion of the media more influential and popular than the conservative portion? That's the only way you would have a point, since 100% of your criticism targets the liberal portion and those who opposed Trump and supported Hillary.
|
On August 23 2017 11:16 Plansix wrote: The times article about McConnell has more meat to it. The GOP needs to kiss their agenda goodbuy because they won't get shit done with Trump. Time for veto proof bills.
This is the big story. Cooperation between Trump and Congress is in tatters right now. Judging by Trump's rally, he has resorted to appealing to his base within an alternate reality bubble, in which he has passed more legislation than any president since Truman. In other words he has more or less given up on legislation with the intention of blaming Congress, and maintaining his base so he can get reelected.
|
United States42008 Posts
Danglars, if everyone looks like a leftist from where you're standing then the odds are good that you're standing pretty far right. Consider the logical implications of the alternative. Half the press would need to be as far right as the furthest right person and the other half would need to be as far left as the furthest left person. Only then would all people see an equally divided press. The fact that you don't see them as equally divided does not show the system has failed, it shows that you're not standing above the central fulcrum.
|
President Donald Trump’s approval rating has hit a new low following a week in which a majority of voters believe he did more to divide the country than unite it, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows.
Only 39 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing in this week’s poll — conducted entirely following the president’s various scripted and impromptu reactions to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia — down from 44 percent just a week ago. Fifty-six percent of voters disapprove in the new poll, up from 52 percent last week.
Much of the decline in Trump’s approval rating appears to have come from self-identified Republican voters — 73 percent, down from 81 percent last week. By contrast, the president’s approval rating slid just a single point among Democrats and independents.
Trump’s previous overall low — a 40 percent rating — was two weeks ago.
The poll was conducted last Thursday through Saturday, all following Trump’s comments on the violence that claimed the life of a woman protesting against white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but before his address Monday night outlining his strategy for the war in Afghanistan.
With the poll going into the field five days after the violence in Charlottesville, 52 percent of voters say they have heard a lot about the events there, and half say they have heard a lot about Trump’s responses.
Despite the slide in the president’s approval rating, much of the reaction to the events in Charlottesville and his responses tracks closely with views of the president’s job performance. A 43 percent plurality of voters blame the white nationalist protesters most for the violence, but nearly as many, 36 percent, say both the white nationalists and the counterprotesters are equally to blame. Nine percent blame the counterprotesters most.
Among those who approve of Trump’s job performance, only 15 percent assign more blame to the white nationalists. Fifty-six percent of voters who approve of Trump’s job performance blame both groups equally, and another 15 percent blame the counterprotesters.
Among those who disapprove of Trump, however, 65 percent assign more blame to the white nationalists.
More respondents think Trump’s reaction to the events — condemning hate groups but also citing good and bad people on both sides of the protests — was inappropriate than those who think it was appropriate. But it’s not overwhelming: 37 percent of voters call Trump’s reaction appropriate, compared with 46 percent who say it was inappropriate.
At a minimum, however, Charlottesville was a missed opportunity for Trump, said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult’s co-founder and chief research officer. Fifty-three percent of voters say Trump’s reaction did more to divide the country.
“Responding to national tragedies often provides presidents ground to rise above politics and demonstrate leadership,” Dropp said. “In his remarks on Charlottesville, President Trump missed that opportunity to appeal to constituencies who don’t already side with him, according to our polling. A large majority of Democrats, 71 percent, found his reaction to be inappropriate. And just 16 percent of voters overall say that his response was unifying.”
Trump is at the lowest point of his presidency, but the poll also shows — on some measures — that majorities of voters have low opinions of his character and competence. Fifty-one percent of voters say Trump is not a strong leader. Fifty-three percent say he is not moral. Fifty-five percent say he isn’t stable. Fifty-eight percent of voters call him reckless. Fifty-two percent say he isn’t honest. Fifty-two percent say Trump doesn’t care about people like them. Fifty-six percent say he can’t unite the country.
The president’s standing isn’t much better on other questions. Only 41 percent say he is knowledgeable, compared with 47 percent who say he isn’t. Just 35 percent say he keeps his promises; 49 percent say he doesn’t. Forty-one percent say he is capable, but 48 percent say he isn’t.
On Trump’s political future, only 26 percent of voters say they think he will win reelection. A narrow majority, 51 percent, say he won’t. The remaining 23 percent have no opinion.
Trump opponents are fairly confident in his ouster: 79 percent of those who disapprove of his job performance say he won’t be reelected. By comparison, 58 percent of Trump approvers think he’ll win reelection — though 79 percent of those who strongly approve of Trump think he’ll capture a second term.
Asked whom they would rather see as president, voters overall pick Vice President Mike Pence over Trump, 34 percent to 30 percent — with a 35 percent plurality undecided. But a majority of GOP voters, 58 percent, would rather have Trump as president, compared with 28 percent who picked Pence.
The poll surveyed 1,987 registered voters and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Source
|
Trump is helping his negotiation team quite a bit with his "we're pulling out of NAFTA" talk. kudos to "the donald" on that.I really hope NAFTA goes away and there is just a Canada//USA Free Trade deal a la Reagan/Mulroney era deal. i don't want "free trade" with mexico. i don't trust mexico to enforce proper workplace standards.
|
Trump is at the lowest point of his presidency, but the poll also shows — on some measures — that majorities of voters have low opinions of his character and competence. Fifty-one percent of voters say Trump is not a strong leader. Fifty-three percent say he is not moral. Fifty-five percent say he isn’t stable. Fifty-eight percent of voters call him reckless. Fifty-two percent say he isn’t honest. Fifty-two percent say Trump doesn’t care about people like them. Fifty-six percent say he can’t unite the country. Seems about right, although I would expect higher numbers.
|
|
Responsible reaction in my book. Albeit a bit convenient.
|
United States42008 Posts
They need to learn how to handle PR better. If anything gets onto Twitter before your official story then the shit on Twitter is what "actually happened" and nobody will ever change the minds of most of the people who heard it.
|
On August 23 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote: They need to learn how to handle PR better. If anything gets onto Twitter before your official story then the shit on Twitter is what "actually happened" and nobody will ever change the minds of most of the people who heard it.
I think their way of handling it was to just keep it a secret. And it failed so hard
|
The US navy is to relieve the commander of the 7th Fleet of duty following a series of collisions in Asia according to multiple reports.
Three star admiral Joseph Aucoin will be removed from his role, an official told Reuters.
“An expedited change in leadership was needed,” the official said, explaining the thinking behind the decision.
The Navy declined comment on any plans to relieve Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal and has since been carried by multiple US outlets.
The news comes after a collision involving the USS John McCain last week that left ten sailors missing. In June the USS Fitzgerald crashed into a cargo ship, leaving seven US sailors dead.
US navy divers have found human remains inside the sealed compartments of a warship that was hit by an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore, the commander of the US Pacific fleet has said.
Admiral Scott Swift said the Malaysian navy, which is helping with the search, had also reported finding a body. He said the US navy was in the process of establishing whether any of the remains could be identified as one of 10 sailors reported missing after the incident.
The USS John S McCain and the Alnic MC tanker collided as the warship was nearing Singapore for a routine port call. The collision tore a hole in the ship’s port side at the waterline, flooding compartments that included a crew sleeping area.
On Tuesday, ships and aircraft from an international search-and-rescue operation were still looking for the missing sailors in an area to the east of Singapore and the Malaysia peninsula near to where the accident took place.
With the ship now docked in Singapore, US navy and marine divers joined the search, moving into rooms of the ship that had been damaged and sealed off.
Source
|
On August 23 2017 23:21 KwarK wrote: Danglars, if everyone looks like a leftist from where you're standing then the odds are good that you're standing pretty far right. Consider the logical implications of the alternative. Half the press would need to be as far right as the furthest right person and the other half would need to be as far left as the furthest left person. Only then would all people see an equally divided press. The fact that you don't see them as equally divided does not show the system has failed, it shows that you're not standing above the central fulcrum. If everybody looks like a leftist, it might be because only 7% polled identify as Republicans, and the precipitous decline happened in the modern era. Statistics show unhappy logical implications. Science can do that sometimes.
|
i'm certain it didn't feel convenient for either parties involved..
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 24 2017 00:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 23:21 KwarK wrote: Danglars, if everyone looks like a leftist from where you're standing then the odds are good that you're standing pretty far right. Consider the logical implications of the alternative. Half the press would need to be as far right as the furthest right person and the other half would need to be as far left as the furthest left person. Only then would all people see an equally divided press. The fact that you don't see them as equally divided does not show the system has failed, it shows that you're not standing above the central fulcrum. If everybody looks like a leftist, it might be because only 7% polled identify as Republicans, and the precipitous decline happened in the modern era. Statistics show unhappy logical implications. Science can do that sometimes. ..... So the middle is always in the middle. That's how it works. It's in the name. Then there is left of centre, and right of centre. These are two equally sized blocs, because, as the name suggests, the centre is in the middle.
What you have just done is attempted to define the right as "Republicans" and then, by showing that there are not many Republicans, attempted to prove that there are far more people left of the centre than there are right of the centre.
That's not just an unhappy logical implication, that's an impossible logical implication. If there is more on one side of the where you think the middle is than there is on the other side, you're wrong about where the middle is.
I'm going to go ahead and propose a rival explanation for you. The political right is bigger than the Republican party. It includes people who don't agree with you on everything. You're just further right than they are and therefore from your perspective they look left to you. This would be fine if we used right and left as individual subjective terms. But we don't. So it's not fine. So you need to stop.
|
The fact that fewer people identify as Republicans is absolutely not the press's problem. That is a Republican problem.
|
|
|
|