EPTExactly.
I mean when a guy robs your house once, go to the police, but after the 5th day in a row they just won't care any more.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8818
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9512 Posts
Exactly. I mean when a guy robs your house once, go to the police, but after the 5th day in a row they just won't care any more. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On September 25 2017 06:18 LegalLord wrote: I'm saying they get knee-deep in shit trying to prove that Trump is soooo baddddd! They might be right but they become shit in the process. I mean, a lot of media figures have certainly gotten dirty up to the elbows mocking Trump, but there is a world of difference between criticizing the president for any number of perceived flaws and reeking of shit. You could go as far as to dig up statements from the 90s and early 00s and throw them up on a billboard or a TV show of your choice without becoming shit in the process. I assume you mean maliciously portraying (cherry picked?) evidence that paints the guy in an unfair light -- which I would agree is cheap -- but even then I think you're reaching. Most news media is reeling from trying to handle a president that behaves nothing like any other president. Surely there have been missteps, but the notion that floats around some circles that a news outlet becomes dirty or untrustworthy because one or a group of reporters cannot for the life of them handle the president acting bizarrely is absurd. No outlet that has responded to the president's attacks on their credibility have stooped to the same lows that their self-styled opponent has. Honestly, I'm most interested in knowing what news outlets that have butted heads with Trump you think have handled the situation well. No matter one's stance on the subject, surely you agree that it is a unique situation to be in as an American reporter/media outlet. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42296 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 25 2017 06:47 Zealously wrote: I mean, a lot of media figures have certainly gotten dirty up to the elbows mocking Trump, but there is a world of difference between criticizing the president for any number of perceived flaws and reeking of shit. There is. But "going political" and devoting yourself to trying to convince people that Trump is the worst thing to happen to the world since Hitler are closer to the latter. And there is no shortage of organizations that have pretty much devoted themselves to that. On September 25 2017 06:47 Zealously wrote: You could go as far as to dig up statements from the 90s and early 00s and throw them up on a billboard or a TV show of your choice without becoming shit in the process. Parody and finding comedic context don't put you over the edge, that's for sure. On September 25 2017 06:47 Zealously wrote: I assume you mean maliciously portraying (cherry picked?) evidence that paints the guy in an unfair light -- which I would agree is cheap -- but even then I think you're reaching. Most news media is reeling from trying to handle a president that behaves nothing like any other president. Holy fuck, no, this is way off base. It was pretty much decided a long time ago that there would be no acceptance of Trump no matter what in much of the mediaverse. Hillary courted big organizations and received unprecedented endorsement from newspapers all around. And the general consensus after that among those who really stuck their necks out for Hillary was to keep on truckin' that way. Criticize Trump for shit he did wrong, for shit he did right but could be framed wrongly, and just make shit up if they had to. Yes, on the aggregate your WaPos and your CNNs and your Newsweeks make him look bad, but they make themselves look like shitty organizations in the process as well. On September 25 2017 06:47 Zealously wrote: Surely there have been missteps, but the notion that floats around some circles that a news outlet becomes dirty or untrustworthy because one or a group of reporters cannot for the life of them handle the president acting bizarrely is absurd. No outlet that has responded to the president's attacks on their credibility have stooped to the same lows that their self-styled opponent has. The organizations that let their journalists run wild and publish putrid yellow press crap because it gets good ratings are at fault for not keeping their shitmakers on a leash. A good example of a shitty reporter is Kurt Eichenwald, a shitmaker of the highest order who goes on bizarre petty rants on every topic he can get his hands on, making fake news in the process, should be kept in line by Newsweek, rather than promoted because he makes lots of noise. Because it generates a lot of traffic, but so does the boy who cried wolf. Until it actually matters. On September 25 2017 06:47 Zealously wrote: Honestly, I'm most interested in knowing what news outlets that have butted heads with Trump you think have handled the situation well. No matter one's stance on the subject, surely you agree that it is a unique situation to be in as an American reporter/media outlet. Pretty much every news outlet that "butts heads" with Trump in a very aggressive, "let's pick a fight" fashion ends up worse for it. In terms of ones he isn't fond of, BBC handled the attacks fairly maturely by just politely shrugging it off. NYT is kind of ok; they tend to have a style of printing that is fairly conservative in the sense that they prefer not to overreach in how much they print. A lot of other news orgs that don't get directly into fights with Trump (because their paths really just never crossed) go about their business as if he were any other president. But your WaPos, your CNNs, your Newsweeks, among others - they decided that their entire purpose in life is to bash on Trump, and in the process they started to slowly but surely develop that ugly stench of shit that they were trying to prove Trump has. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44064 Posts
Also, A good example of a shitty reporter is Kurt Eichenwald, a shitmaker of the highest order who goes on bizarre petty rants on every topic he can get his hands on This sounds exactly like Trump... | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 25 2017 08:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: LL, are you seriously blaming Hillary for the media's views on Trump, rather than blaming Trump himself? I think the course of the campaign made this a more permanent reality. Which of course does involve Hillary to some extent. On September 25 2017 08:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, This sounds exactly like Trump... Birds of a feather. Deflecting to "Trump is shit" doesn't mean they can't have co-shittiness. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 25 2017 06:26 Jockmcplop wrote: Exactly. I mean when a guy robs your house once, go to the police, but after the 5th day in a row they just won't care any more. He seems convinced that because Trump's shitness is part of the "status quo", per se, it's a waste of time to even mention it, because that somehow makes you just as bad as him. No. That's not how it works. If he's shit, and he continues to be shit, people are going to continue calling him on it until he stops. That's how it works. On September 25 2017 08:16 LegalLord wrote: I think the course of the campaign made this a more permanent reality. Which of course does involve Hillary to some extent. Birds of a feather. Deflecting to "Trump is shit" doesn't mean they can't have co-shittiness. You're right, but there's an important difference. One of the 2 men is our president. The other can just be ignored. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
Aides who have exchanged emails with Kushner on his private account since President Donald Trump took office in January include former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and spokesman Josh Raffel, according to emails described to or shown to POLITICO. In some cases, those White House officials have emailed Kushner’s account first, said people familiar with the messages. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071 | ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
It is refreshing to see pro athletes acting (or trying to) like role models. Keep fighting the good fight. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On September 25 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote: I don't like Trump's statement about the NFL for the same reason that I didn't like Google canning the guy who circulated that memo a couple months ago, but the reality is this new faux pas is going to amount to nothing for him. Nothing else he has done has really mattered, and I see no reason why this would be any different. As for the NFL, they already have had some major PR problems due the Kaepernick-spawned protests. The majority of people who watch football are very patriotic and disapprove of the national anthem protests. Perhaps more than anything else, they want to keep politics out of sports. The NFL already has a ratings problem from a variety of factors, including the national anthem protests, the concussion issues, and cord cutting. The NFL getting tied up in this new political fight is only going make matters worse for them. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 25 2017 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote: People keep repeating this nonsense? Politics have always been a part of sports. No one wants to "keep politics out of sports" if they think they "want to keep politics out of sports" they are just lying to themselves (or too ignorant to realize it's always been a part of sports). Similar to the "they need to respect the flag" these are arguments created by people smart enough to know they are bullshit and then repeated by people who aren't or don't care. The ratings thing is only problematic because of the whole "we should grow every year" idea. It's ratings still demolish most of television and certainly any other sport. If they can't stand for what is right I'd be happy to see them gone anyway. That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. EDIT: You admit it's far worse for the president to encourage than it is for a company to make their own decision right? Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:... The nation should be defended. Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote: That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. I'm at a bit of a loss. Do you think politics shouldn't have crept into sports? When did this happen and when did it stop, or has politics always been a part of sports? I think you're mistaking not wanting politics they disagree with in sports, and "politics", as has been pointed out several times now. You're kidding about the NFL players "start[ing] the fight" right? I don't even know where to begin in pointing out how egregiously wrong that perspective is. The one thing I think makes sense in that is that you did vote for Trump to fight these "cultural battles". | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote: That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. I like you xDaunt, but your perspective on what is or isn't American is imagined. Your fear of white western culture being under threat is unfounded. And your obvious contempt for anyone or anything not agreeing with your "conservative" politics is saddening. This paragraph alone speaks monstrous volumes and while I would love to take you to task for the most distasteful display of opposition politicking, "those idiot NFL players did the "hands up, don't shoot," I won't. I'll leave this one alone and allow others to attempt a discussion. On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote: Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? The question you should have asked is "Who's nation needs defending." It's obvious we are not living in the same USA. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote: Against what? What threat does any of this pose to the "nation"? As far as I can tell, the threat is that some NFL players decided, boldly, to step out of their lane and protest on a political matter. They're purely entertainers, and as such have no right to make such a statement where conservatives have to look at it. It should be done on their own time, where nobody else is around, and so that the people who would be made uncomfortable by such a protest don't have to deal with it. Sprinkle in something about disrespecting the flag and the nation for good measure. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote: That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. at the end of the day they're normal people like everyone else though, aren't they? What do you propose to change here? Not allow them to state their opinion while working? It's essentially the same thing with hollywood actors etc who are criticised for being too political as well, isn't it? Sure, someone with 100k+ followers on twitter has a bigger reach but I don't think that's something you want to change | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On September 25 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote: That politics has a history of creeping into sports does not mean that there is not a large segment of people who really don't want to see politics in sports. Yes, it is worse for the president to tread into these waters given the power of his office. To be honest, I'm quite torn on what Trump has done. On the one hand, I really don't like him further politicizing things and deepening divisions in the country. On the other hand, I fully recognize that I voted for Trump to fight these types of cultural battles. Trump didn't start this fight. Some of the NFL players did, and various media elements and other leftist figures encouraged it as part of their larger agenda. And let's be quite clear: Kaepernick wasn't the first incidence of this type of behavior. Remember that time when those idiot NFL players did the "hand up, don't shoot" thing after Ferguson? I certainly do. This kind of nonsense has been allowed to fester for a long time. The bottom line is that conservatives really shouldn't be silent on this stuff any longer, and conservatives desperately need someone with a megaphone to lead the charge. For all of his imperfections, Trump does have this capability. The nation should be defended. Listen to Trump's words. How do you keep your biases intact in the face of Trump starting this fight? He called them sons of bitches. That is starting the fight. Kapernick was already fired and conservatives had actually won and settled a culture war issue. Trump reopened it to get some applause. That is starting the fight. EDIT: spoilered the video cause it was too big. But even further, how do you think that Trump reopening this issue and LOSING on it terribly is a good thing? Because at least 200 players took a knee today. Even Tom Brady locked arms with guys that were taking a knee. Bill Belichick himself came out and took the player's side. DJT started this fight yesterday (on an issue conservatives had won) and lost it today. And further, why do you want a President to fight culture war issues? Isn't that a job for Hannity? EDIT2: If your cultural causes are so great, why do they need the powers of the Presidency to win? Shouldn't they be able to win the marketplace of ideas without the most powerful man in the world to force it on the Republic? Why aren't conservative cultural causes winning even though they have the power of the Presidency, the Legislative Branch, and the Judiciary? + Show Spoiler + | ||
| ||
