|
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 October 18 2017 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:
In my humble opinion, Sanders got wrecked at the last go-around, but somehow thought a new match was a good idea. lol, remind me which one of those guys is the most popular politician in the country? Remind me again who the most popular GOP politician is right now? I wouldn't be putting too much stock in popularity these days.
|
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness.
|
On October 18 2017 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:lol, remind me which one of those guys is the most popular politician in the country? If only debates were popularity contests. Socialism has enduring popularity, lost debates notwithstanding.
|
What do you think about the good faith claim that if the establishment media lost its bias, it would be harsher to republicans than it is today, Danglars?
|
There has to be more to this... Is there a Transcript?
|
In feel good story of the year, this happened
|
On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness. You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say.
If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with.
|
On October 18 2017 11:09 Nebuchad wrote: What do you think about the good faith claim that if the establishment media lost its bias, it would be harsher to republicans than it is today, Danglars? Troll claim from start to finish. It might be more accurate in its criticism (a lot of the attacks, as just said, are bullshit), I'll give you that. Otherwise, you might as well believe the earth is flat and communism hasn't failed every time it's been tried.
|
On October 18 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness. You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say. If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with. You should pay more attention. I read what you and others say in the forum to determine if I should waste time laying out a case. If you show the patterns, and dare I say objectively bad faith trolly patterns, then I know you aren't willing to be convinced of anything you don't already believe in. I'll merely outline the opposing point of view because this thread serves as a constant reminder that you haven't a clue what conservatives believe or why. The parodies of the other side are breathtakingly ignorant. We've had some reformed posters in the last nine thousand pages, so you can show that from your actions. Anyone can, not just you. In case it isn't abundantly clear, there's usually only one or two at a time coming at issues from the American right and roughly fifteen to twenty against ... so I have to be a little picky with trolls and shitposters so my time is spent productively.
|
On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?
You can't be serious.
|
On October 18 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 11:06 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. I don't really have it in me to presume such good faith that a European member of the center or left is just waiting for studies and evidence to turn against the media establishment in America. Aka to go from believing bias to be present but routine into believing that it has picked sides and misled and fabricated stories to hurt Republican political influence and candidate elections. In fact, your past participation on several issues has revealed to me how unwilling you are to allow for even small encroachments on your existing views. It's run the gamut from asking bullshit questions (and presuming bad faith when conservatives don't play along), not replying substantively on almost any points (but taking the discussion immediately into alternate lines), and playing purposefully dense or outright trolling. So that lowers my inclination to collect the studies from think tanks that highlight the easily observable trends. I'll respond to PMs if you want books or topics to expand your historical awareness. It really has to come from within and it will involve more openness. You can call me names, but you're not only talking to me - everybody who reads this thread sees what you have to say. If you're interested in convincing any of them, then it seems to me that you would be best served by providing evidence for assertions that other posters in the thread disagree with. You should pay more attention. I read what you and others say in the forum to determine if I should waste time laying out a case. If you show the patterns, and dare I say objectively bad faith trolly patterns, then I know you aren't willing to be convinced of anything you don't already believe in. Where you lose me here is that sitting on my side of my keyboard, I know for certain what my actual motivations are... and they are not what you claim them to be. If you provided evidence for this claim, or any of the other claims you've presented without evidence and I've subsequently dismissed, I'd take it seriously. If you believe otherwise then you are, quite simply, wrong.
I'll merely outline the opposing point of view because this thread serves as a constant reminder that you haven't a clue what conservatives believe or why. The parodies of the other side are breathtakingly ignorant. Proclaiming your opinions as fact, claiming that anybody who disagrees with them is on the level of a flat-earther, and not providing any evidence to support your opinions, seems like a near-optimally bad way to change that.
edit:
On October 18 2017 12:01 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? You can't be serious. I'm perfectly serious. Can you provide (non-anecdotal) evidence to support that claim?
|
On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. When Danglars refers to "media" he is not talking about Fox news or Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative media apparatus. He means Hollywood and CNN.
|
On October 18 2017 12:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote: The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish. Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim? Not any evidence you would like  if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews. As somebody who doesn't reside in your country, I don't have my finger on the pulse of American media as a whole. I expect I can find somebody else in this thread who would say "if you didn't observe that 'right-wing media' lies a lot more about Democrats than 'left-wing media' does about Republicans, then the problem is your cognitive dissonance". As such I require solid (and in particular non-anecdotal) evidence that any systematic trend you (or anybody else) claim exists actually does exist before I attach any meaningful weight to any such statements on the matter. It seems likely that anybody else you might hope to convince here would require a similar standard of substantiation. The mere fact that you have one of "two worldviews" is not a meaningful statement about the worth of your worldview. When Danglars refers to "media" he is not talking about Fox news or Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative media apparatus. He means Hollywood and CNN. I'll quite happily stipulate that there are quite biased media sources in any given direction. I don't think that is the point, though.
|
On October 18 2017 12:10 Aquanim wrote: I'm perfectly serious. Can you provide (non-anecdotal) evidence to support that claim? http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-newspaper-endorsement-count-clinton-57-trump-2 Does that count?
Don't be mistaken though, just because I think the overall media is biased doesn't mean that I don't think that bias is well deserved. In fact I think it's necessary. Trump is abhorrent and breaks societal norms for the worse. Any criticism he receives for his poor performance and behavior can be properly justified.
|
If you want to talk about credibility problems a good place to start would be with the fact that right-wing criticisms of the "media" implicitly disqualify Fox and conservative talk radio as "media" per se.
|
|
"Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about."
|
It's a data point, at any rate. Thank you.
I do not think that what you're describing even counts as bias (or perhaps more accurately, prejudice) though. By definition, if somebody's actions deserve a certain level of criticism, and then they receive that level of criticism, then *even though they were treated differently to people who were not criticised* there was no prejudice or bias involved.
That being said, if the degree of criticism given was more or less than deserved, then prejudice or bias enters the picture. Quantifying that is difficult, especially through personal or anecdotal experience, which is why I'm asking for evidence one way or the other.
On October 18 2017 12:31 Buckyman wrote: "Hey, media? This is the Republicans speaking. We know you think our presidential candidate is disgusting and rude. You know what? You're right. We tried running a polite and honorable candidate last time and you slandered him right out of the election. So if you call anyone we put forward a literal Nazi, don't be surprised when we run a candidate you can't make this stuff up about." Can you provide evidence vis-a-vis systematic bias against Romney by the media?
(To clarify: I will stipulate that individual media outlets were biased against both Romney or Obama. The question is asking about systematic bias across the media as a whole.)
|
Donald Trump on Tuesday doubled down on his claim that Barack Obama did not routinely call the families of servicemen and women killed in battle. He also warned John McCain, a decorated war hero with whom he has clashed before, that he might “fight back” after the senator said America’s “leadership and ideals are absent”.
Regarding Obama’s contacts with the families of fallen troops, Trump directed inquiries to his chief of staff. John Kelly’s son, like the retired general a US marine, died in Afghanistan in 2010.
“I think I’ve called every family of someone who’s died,” Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Radio. “As far as other representatives, I don’t know. You could ask General Kelly, did he get a call from Obama?”
A White House official told the Associated Press Obama did not call Kelly. The official did not immediately respond to questions about whether the former president reached out in another fashion.
The AP also reported, however, that White House visitor records showed Kelly attended a breakfast Obama hosted for Gold Star families six months after his son died. A person familiar with the breakfast – speaking on condition of anonymity because the event was private – said the Kelly family sat at Michelle Obama’s table.
Obama aides said it was difficult to determine whether he had also called Kelly, and when. But the former Obama spokesman Ned Price reacted angrily to Trump’s comments.
“Kelly, a man of honor & decency, should stop this inane cruelty,” Price tweeted. “He saw up-close just how – & how much – Obama cared for the fallen’s families.”
Trump first made the claim in a press conference in the White House Rose Garden on Monday, when he was asked why he had not yet commented publicly about four special forces soldiers who were killed in Niger last week. “If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,” Trump said. “A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate.”
Pressed, he softened his claim a little. “President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes, and maybe sometimes he didn’t,” he said. “I don’t know. That’s what I was told. Other presidents did not call, they’d write letters. And some presidents didn’t do anything.”
Former Obama aides were quick to criticise Trump. Eric Holder, one of Obama’s attorneys general, said on Twitter: “Stop the damn lying – you’re the president.” Alyssa Mastromonaco, Obama’s former deputy chief of staff, responded strongly. She wrote: “That’s a fucking lie. To say President Obama (or past presidents) didn’t call the family members of soldiers KIA – he’s a deranged animal.”
The former White House press secretary Josh Earnest, now an MSNBC commentator, told the network past Republican and Democratic presidents had recognized their duty to honor soldiers’ sacrifices and not highlight their own actions.
Source
|
"Media was mean to Romney so that makes me spinning for Trump's incompetence, insanity, lies, and malevolence is okay". Could you be more of a crybaby snowflake? Why not own your own positions and say you support Trump because you support him. The media being mean to Romney excuses none of Trump's behavior. Even if you could somehow prove the media was mean to Romney, even making that kind of a sorry excuse for Trumplicking just reveals your bottomloss bad faith Bucky.
|
|
|
|