|
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 11:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I can assure you it's not a troll claim, I genuinely believe it. It's a pretty easy claim to back up btw. All you have to do is identify that the bias of the media is one of establishment, not one of "leftism". I don't know if I have to demonstrate that to you but you can easily see it in the coverage of Sanders and progressives in general.
A big part of the establishment is the republican party. So because of the proestablishment bias that the media has, a big part of the criticism that ought to fall on the republican party, were it unbiased, is toned down. You do not hear enough about the intellectual bankruptcy of the party because of this bias.
So were we to lose the bias of the media, we would lose some of the criticism of Trump (connected to him being an outsider) but we would keep the main problems that are there due to his pathological lying, his narcissism, his thorough ignorance of everything and his lack of intellectual curiosity, and whichever of his many flaws cause you to dislike him as much as you do; and we would on top of those earn a massive load of criticism on reaganomics, on complete obedience to lobbyists at the expense of common sense, honest discourse and even sometimes american lives, on gerrymandering and voter suppression, on dogwhistling, and so on.
|
On October 18 2017 13:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 11:52 Danglars wrote: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. I can assure you it's not a troll claim, I genuinely believe it. It's a pretty easy claim to back up btw. All you have to do is identify that the bias of the media is one of establishment, not one of "leftism". I don't know if I have to demonstrate that to you but you can easily see it in the coverage of Sanders and progressives in general. A big part of the establishment is the republican party. So because of the proestablishment bias that the media has, a big part of the criticism that ought to fall on the republican party, were it unbiased, is toned down. You do not hear enough about the intellectual bankruptcy of the party because of this bias. So were we to lose the bias of the media, we would lose some of the criticism of Trump (connected to him being an outsider) but we would keep the main problems that are there due to his pathological lying, his narcissism, and whichever of his many flaws cause you to dislike him as much as you do; and we would on top of those earn a massive load of criticism on reaganomics, on complete obedience to lobbyists at the expense of common sense, honest discourse and even sometimes american lives, on gerrymandering and voter suppression, on dogwhistling, and so on.
Agreed, and I would apply Danglars "if you can't see this it's your fault" addendum
|
NFL to allow players to kneel during anthem without penalty
The NFL will continue allowing players to kneel during the national anthem at games, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced Tuesday, according to Reuters.
“We spent today talking about the issues that our players have been trying to bring attention to. About issues in our communities to make our communities better,” Goodell said at a news conference following a meeting between officials and team owners in New York.
he meeting included officials from the NFL and the NFL Player's Association, as well as 11 team owners and 13 NFL players who have protested during the national anthem.
“Today’s discussion with our players was very productive and very important. It reflected our commitment to work together with our players on issues of social justice,” Goodell stated.
According to Reuters, the NFL representatives did not press upon players not to kneel, but instead talked about ways to help them in their activism.
Goodell had previously said that "everyone should stand" for the national anthem, amid growing pressure for the NFL to take an official stance on the controversial protests.
Malcolm Jenkins of the Philadelphia Eagles said after the meeting that there was no talk of penalties against players who protested, according to the New York Times.
President Trump has repeatedly slammed the protests as unpatriotic and disrespectful, calling on NFL owners to fire or suspend players who take part in the protests and for fans to boycott games if players continue to kneel.
The president's ire only sparked more protests, as entire teams began to kneel in protest of racial discrimination and disproportional police violence toward racial minorities.
“Our players are men of great character," Goodell said at the conference. "They have a very deep understanding and tremendous knowledge of the issues that are going on in all of our communities, and their commitment to addressing these issues is really admirable.”
Goodell said the officials, players, and owners would likely meet again within the next two weeks.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/355944-nfl-to-continue-to-let-players-kneel-during-national-anthem-without
Can't wait for this humdrum battle to continue
|
Hot take:
The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay:
(CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldier
EDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for".
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 18 2017 13:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +
NFL to allow players to kneel during anthem without penalty
The NFL will continue allowing players to kneel during the national anthem at games, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced Tuesday, according to Reuters.
“We spent today talking about the issues that our players have been trying to bring attention to. About issues in our communities to make our communities better,” Goodell said at a news conference following a meeting between officials and team owners in New York.
he meeting included officials from the NFL and the NFL Player's Association, as well as 11 team owners and 13 NFL players who have protested during the national anthem.
“Today’s discussion with our players was very productive and very important. It reflected our commitment to work together with our players on issues of social justice,” Goodell stated.
According to Reuters, the NFL representatives did not press upon players not to kneel, but instead talked about ways to help them in their activism.
Goodell had previously said that "everyone should stand" for the national anthem, amid growing pressure for the NFL to take an official stance on the controversial protests.
Malcolm Jenkins of the Philadelphia Eagles said after the meeting that there was no talk of penalties against players who protested, according to the New York Times.
President Trump has repeatedly slammed the protests as unpatriotic and disrespectful, calling on NFL owners to fire or suspend players who take part in the protests and for fans to boycott games if players continue to kneel.
The president's ire only sparked more protests, as entire teams began to kneel in protest of racial discrimination and disproportional police violence toward racial minorities.
“Our players are men of great character," Goodell said at the conference. "They have a very deep understanding and tremendous knowledge of the issues that are going on in all of our communities, and their commitment to addressing these issues is really admirable.”
Goodell said the officials, players, and owners would likely meet again within the next two weeks.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/355944-nfl-to-continue-to-let-players-kneel-during-national-anthem-withoutCan't wait for this humdrum battle to continue
Well now that the NFL has announced itself as on-board with the protesters, the only ones losing anything are the people who got upset and tried to make it about flag and country. Maybe some of them will open their eyes, but I doubt it. It's a thoroughly ridiculous position to maintain, in any case.
Also Trump is a galactically self-centered bellend who has no concept of anything but stroking his own ego, at the expense of people who are suffering. We knew this already, but it deserves calling out again. And again. Until he stops.
|
On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: Show nested quote +(CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler +
In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad.
I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility.
|
On October 18 2017 13:42 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: (CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler + In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad. I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility.
A few scenarios.
(1) your jerkwad libertarian friend says military guys know what they signed up for.
(2) your jerkwad libertarian friend in the military says the other guys in the military know what they signed up for.
(3) The President of the United States who committed a soldier to the mission in which he dies says "he knows what he signed up for" in order to get out of the buck stopping at his desk, and says this to the dead soldier's widow.
(1) and (2) are jerks. (3) is a catastrophe.
EDIT: so my point is clear, we hold our jerkwad friends to massively lower standards than the President of the United States on grieving widow phone calls. Any claims that Trump "supports the military" are now demonstrable lies. That woman leaning over the coffin will be shown every time a Trumplicker tries to pretend Trump gives a rat's ass about our soldiers.
|
On October 18 2017 13:42 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: (CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler + In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad. I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility.
Nobody is mad at Trump because he said something false. The guy knew what he signed up for, and that it had risk. Nobody thinks that statement is false.
BUT YOU DON't FUCKING SAY IT TO THE MANS WIDOW! it is just.... holy shit it is so stupid to say that
|
On October 18 2017 14:01 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 13:42 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: (CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler + In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad. I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility. Nobody is mad at Trump because he said something false. The guy knew what he signed up for, and that it had risk. Nobody thinks that statement is false. BUT YOU DON't FUCKING SAY IT TO THE MANS WIDOW! it is just.... holy shit it is so stupid to say that
My point is I think it's possible to say something which is
- entirely respectful
- very high praise of the soldier
- similar to the words reported as having been said, and if you read the article carefully it was probably a paraphrase
- even possibly, if you had a good grip on what the widow's emotional state was, a useful thing to say
Now if I read a transcript of the conversation the odds are pretty good Trump would come off sounding like an ass - but I think that isn't necessarily so based on the details reported so far.
edit: You might say that there are better things to say anyway - but the only thing I know about the man is that he died for his country, and Trump probably doesn't have many more personal details than that. When that's the only material you have to work with, I'm not sure there's anything else to say about the soldier in question.
|
On October 18 2017 14:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 13:42 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: (CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler + In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad. I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility. A few scenarios. (1) your jerkwad libertarian friend says military guys know what they signed up for. (2) your jerkwad libertarian friend in the military says the other guys in the military know what they signed up for. (3) The President of the United States who committed a soldier to the mission in which he dies says "he knows what he signed up for" in order to get out of the buck stopping at his desk, and says this to the dead soldier's widow. (1) and (2) are jerks. (3) is a catastrophe. EDIT: so my point is clear, we hold our jerkwad friends to massively lower standards than the President of the United States on grieving widow phone calls. Any claims that Trump "supports the military" are now demonstrable lies. That woman leaning over the coffin will be shown every time a Trumplicker tries to pretend Trump gives a rat's ass about our soldiers.
Trump's not wrong though. He almost certainly did know what he signed up for.
|
On October 18 2017 13:23 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 13:12 Tachion wrote:
NFL to allow players to kneel during anthem without penalty
The NFL will continue allowing players to kneel during the national anthem at games, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced Tuesday, according to Reuters.
“We spent today talking about the issues that our players have been trying to bring attention to. About issues in our communities to make our communities better,” Goodell said at a news conference following a meeting between officials and team owners in New York.
he meeting included officials from the NFL and the NFL Player's Association, as well as 11 team owners and 13 NFL players who have protested during the national anthem.
“Today’s discussion with our players was very productive and very important. It reflected our commitment to work together with our players on issues of social justice,” Goodell stated.
According to Reuters, the NFL representatives did not press upon players not to kneel, but instead talked about ways to help them in their activism.
Goodell had previously said that "everyone should stand" for the national anthem, amid growing pressure for the NFL to take an official stance on the controversial protests.
Malcolm Jenkins of the Philadelphia Eagles said after the meeting that there was no talk of penalties against players who protested, according to the New York Times.
President Trump has repeatedly slammed the protests as unpatriotic and disrespectful, calling on NFL owners to fire or suspend players who take part in the protests and for fans to boycott games if players continue to kneel.
The president's ire only sparked more protests, as entire teams began to kneel in protest of racial discrimination and disproportional police violence toward racial minorities.
“Our players are men of great character," Goodell said at the conference. "They have a very deep understanding and tremendous knowledge of the issues that are going on in all of our communities, and their commitment to addressing these issues is really admirable.”
Goodell said the officials, players, and owners would likely meet again within the next two weeks.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/355944-nfl-to-continue-to-let-players-kneel-during-national-anthem-withoutCan't wait for this humdrum battle to continue Well now that the NFL has announced itself as on-board with the protesters, the only ones losing anything are the people who got upset and tried to make it about flag and country. Maybe some of them will open their eyes, but I doubt it. It's a thoroughly ridiculous position to maintain, in any case. Also Trump is a galactically self-centered bellend who has no concept of anything but stroking his own ego, at the expense of people who are suffering. We knew this already, but it deserves calling out again. And again. Until he stops.
It's a shame that Trump will never read the judge's opinion issued in Hawaii vs Trump, because it starts like this:
Professional athletes mirror the federal government in this respect: they
operate within a set of rules, and when one among them forsakes those rules in favor
of his own, problems ensue. And so it goes with EO-3.
Download here
|
On October 18 2017 14:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 14:00 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 18 2017 13:42 Aquanim wrote:On October 18 2017 13:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:Hot take: The media was mean to Romney, so that makes what Trump says to grieving military widows okay: (CNN)President Donald Trump told the widow of a US serviceman killed in the ambush in Niger that "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson.
"Basically he said, 'Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt,' " Wilson said, adding that she listened to part of the call on speaker phone while in a vehicle with the family.
"That's what he said," she added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/frederica-wilson-widow-fallen-soldierEDIT: she should have known that "he knew what he signed up for". + Show Spoiler + In the context of "this man was a hero because he signed up to do a dangerous job where he might die for something bigger than his own self-interest", the statement that "he knew what he signed up for" isn't necessarily bad. I have no idea whether Trump put it in any context of that kind. It is the kind of thing that one might also say to minimise one's own responsibility. A few scenarios. (1) your jerkwad libertarian friend says military guys know what they signed up for. (2) your jerkwad libertarian friend in the military says the other guys in the military know what they signed up for. (3) The President of the United States who committed a soldier to the mission in which he dies says "he knows what he signed up for" in order to get out of the buck stopping at his desk, and says this to the dead soldier's widow. (1) and (2) are jerks. (3) is a catastrophe. EDIT: so my point is clear, we hold our jerkwad friends to massively lower standards than the President of the United States on grieving widow phone calls. Any claims that Trump "supports the military" are now demonstrable lies. That woman leaning over the coffin will be shown every time a Trumplicker tries to pretend Trump gives a rat's ass about our soldiers. Trump's not wrong though. He almost certainly did know what he signed up for.
There are two distinct lines of criticism here.
(1) Trump is an insensitive monster with a sociopathic lack of empathy
(2) Trump is trying to wriggle out of responsibility for this soldier's death (by blaming the soldier since "he knew what he signed up for"**) even though as Commander in Chief, Trump was the sole elected representative responsible for committing this man to the mission on which he died.
Saying "but he isn't wrong" is a failed effort at trying to excuse Trump's (1) sociopathic lack of empathy. It is no answer to Trump's (2) shirking of his responsibilities for deaths under his command as Commander in Chief.
** Also. No. He didn't know what he signed up for. This soldier was in an elite detachment in an off the books ?Nigerian? deployment. He for sure didn't sign up and get trained up to get such a deployment in the last 7 months. Previous Commanders in Chief accepted the awesome responsibility that comes with being the sole person elected in America with the power to order state violence using American lives. Bush2 and Obama regularly went to flag draped coffin ceremonies and managed to keep their shit together while talking to widows. Trump looked for a way to blame the soldier for his own death to minimize Trump's own responsibility. Soldiers who signed up under previous Presidents could have rightfully expected future Presidents to not shirk like Trump. But what do you know, shirker in chief tries to deflect onto the soldier since "he knew what he signed up for".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It wouldn't be that hard to frame that same thing quite respectfully. "He knew what he signed up for, and he is a hero for doing it anyways." Trump's wording is foot-in-mouth but that's basically what he was saying.
|
On October 18 2017 14:30 LegalLord wrote:
It wouldn't be that hard to frame that same thing quite respectfully. "He knew what he signed up for, and he is a hero for doing it anyways." Trump's wording is foot-in-mouth but that's basically what he was saying.
How much deflection of blame onto the dead soldier is acceptable in a Commander in Chief who orded the soldier into the mission on which the soldier died? Some? Lots if it triggers the Libs? Perhaps some tastefully worded deflection? Try to imagine President Truman saying "he knew what he signed up for, should have gone Air Force and maybe he wouldn't have died at Chosin".
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It is possible to imagine that quote being connected to some other words of comfort that could come off as empathetic. We don't have the transcript though, so I think deferring to the widow herself is the best bet for how his quote was interpreted.
"It's so insensitive. He should have not have said that. He shouldn't have said it."
She definitely was not appreciative of the sentiment.
|
On October 18 2017 12:10 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
I'm just pointing out the state of affairs as I see it because it's unfair to just never engage without explanation. I can't read your mind to see your motivations are a lot less spurious than what you type.
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."
This is more or less what I'm talking about. The other side chose the no holds barred approach a very long time ago and now the chickens have come home to roost. I see some people stuck between seeking comity without admitting fault and dismissing R's outright with whatever slander's in vogue. Oh well.
On October 18 2017 13:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 11:52 Danglars wrote: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. I can assure you it's not a troll claim, I genuinely believe it. It's a pretty easy claim to back up btw. All you have to do is identify that the bias of the media is one of establishment, not one of "leftism". I don't know if I have to demonstrate that to you but you can easily see it in the coverage of Sanders and progressives in general. A big part of the establishment is the republican party. So because of the proestablishment bias that the media has, a big part of the criticism that ought to fall on the republican party, were it unbiased, is toned down. You do not hear enough about the intellectual bankruptcy of the party because of this bias. So were we to lose the bias of the media, we would lose some of the criticism of Trump (connected to him being an outsider) but we would keep the main problems that are there due to his pathological lying, his narcissism, his thorough ignorance of everything and his lack of intellectual curiosity, and whichever of his many flaws cause you to dislike him as much as you do; and we would on top of those earn a massive load of criticism on reaganomics, on complete obedience to lobbyists at the expense of common sense, honest discourse and even sometimes american lives, on gerrymandering and voter suppression, on dogwhistling, and so on.
I can't help laughing at the casual slip from saying the Republican is part of the establishment to claiming the media has a generic proestablishment bias. I see the absolute opposite in play and it's bright as day. The media establishment, which includes all the big-name legacy players, has habitually shilled for the Democratic party and left-wing causes for decade without shame. There's now a bad liar in the White House that gets away with quite a bit, since his journalistic checks lack historical credibility. Habitual lying and half truths met wild lying, media narcissism met a playboy reality TV show personality narcissism, journalists echo a different version of ignorance, intellectual disengagement, and common sense. They've never been about honest discourse or saving American lies. The list goes on. I find very different parties guilty of the things you point out.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 18 2017 14:36 Tachion wrote:
It is possible to imagine that quote being connected to some other words of comfort that could come off as empathetic. We don't have the transcript though, so I think deferring to the widow herself is the best bet for how his quote was interpreted.
"It's so insensitive. He should have not have said that. He shouldn't have said it."
She definitely was not appreciative of the sentiment.
Yeah, that's perfectly fair.
|
If I read the story correctly, the widow hasn't said anything. This is the interpretation of the Democratic rep that overheard it.
|
On October 18 2017 14:45 Introvert wrote:
If I read the story correctly, the widow hasn't said anything. This is the interpretation of the Democratic rep that overheard it.
You're right, I got the names mixed up. That quote isn't attributed to the widow.
|
The Widow and the Congresswoman were in the limousine and the Congresswoman heard Trump talk over the speakerphone. Give this 24 hours. Trump will confirm all the elements.
“He said to the wife, ‘Well, I guess he knew what he was getting into,’” recalled Rep. Frederica Wilson, who was in the car with Myeshia. “How insensitive can you be?”
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/10/17/trump-insensitive-call-soldier-widow/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/16/16-truman.w710.h473.2x.jpg)
