|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate,
Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article.
I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure.
|
On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record.
In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media.
|
I mean, he would go on to repeatedly refer to asylum seekers as an "invasion", so I'm not really sure what you want us to think. That poor Donald Trump is being mischaracterized? What a hard go of it he's getting.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for.
Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week?
Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there.
|
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 11:25 NewSunshine wrote: I mean, he would go on to repeatedly refer to asylum seekers as an "invasion", so I'm not really sure what you want us to think. That poor Donald Trump is being mischaracterized? What a hard go of it he's getting. And as said here.
Yes the media got it wrong here, does it ultimately matter as it pertains to the guy’s rhetoric in its totality? No, not really.
He still said that, he still said ‘some I assume are good people’ and he’s been happy to dogwhistle for years.
I’m still against bad reporting and journalistic standards, I’m accepting of partisanship if it revolves around interpretation of information rather than pushing stuff that isn’t factually accurate.
So if he didn’t actually say x, don’t report it as the truth. On that yes I don’t think how that story was disseminated was fair at all.
|
On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. The criticism is valid. The problem is when Danglars tries to wave it around like it means Trump isn't actually racist as shit. Like he hasn't also done a ton of other shit to merit the description.
The media isn't perfect. It has its own problems. But so do you, if you give Fox News a pass, while painting the rest of them the enemy of the people. That kind of rhetoric has not garnered a positive light, historically speaking. Espouse it at your own risk.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 11:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. The criticism is valid. The problem is when Danglars tries to wave it around like it means Trump isn't actually racist as shit. Like he hasn't also done a ton of other shit to merit the description. The media isn't perfect. It has its own problems. But so do you, if you give Fox News a pass, while painting the rest of them the enemy of the people. Trump does enough bad stuff anyway you don’t need to be inaccurate, at all. Any time you do just gives fodder to the ‘I’m really the victim’ crowd, who will point to some conspiracy or another.
I personally prefer Fox News to some of the alternatives that have sprung up in the Facebook era, at least Fox is subject to certain laws regarding veracity, libel etc despite their obvious bias.
Maybe I don’t consume much Fox so I might be wrong, it’s not that platform that promulgates the insane shit like Pizzagate or that Clinton kills everyone (except Anthony Weiner)
It’s not complicated with Trump. If you had a person come into your life who basically everyone you asked said they were full of shit and not to be trusted, and their response was ‘everyone but me is a liar’ you’d give that person a wide berth. Apparently if they’re the President some don’t apply that rule of thumb.
That Trump can somehow wield the ‘fake news’ charge as a weapon while simultaneously being the biggest provable bullshitter that’s ever come close to such an office in my time being aware of such things is bizarre. Like it’s honestly not even close at all.
|
Its sort of amazing this discussion continues to be about the news media when that out of context(but still terrible) clip is being circulated by non news media people on twitter. There is no news agencies involved with Danglers fake news. Just me posting something like a dumb ass, for the second time. Trump is still racist, just to be clear.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 11:48 Plansix wrote: Its sort of amazing this discussion continues to be about the news media when that out of context(but still terrible) clip is being circulated by non news media people on twitter. There is no news agencies involved with Danglers fake news. Just me posting something like a dumb ass, for the second time. Trump is still racist, just to be clear. You should rename yourself to Plannine for Ed Wood Kudos
Are you trying to be sensible in current year? This is the year where CNN, the WSJ, NYT, the BBC are all Marxist shills trying to destroy Western civilisation and Trump
Far as I could tell you recognised your mistake and fessed up to it, pretty early.
I disagree on Trump being a racist. He’s probably something worse than that, which is an egoistical lunatic with no principles whatsoever and no real sense of how to be a decent human being, so he just blows whatever way the wind blows, which kind of fits him as he’s a windbag himself.
If Mexicans (for some reason) became a big supporting part of his base, he’d start talking about how great they are, black folks the same etc etc
It’s an experiment in having a guy who is basically pure ego and zero anything else running a major country, and I can’t say I’m a fan.
I mean I’m pretty darn left wing myself, I can still at some level respect someone like Ron Paul who is further from me politically than Trump is theoretically because, basically I believe that he believes in his platform, as wrong as I think it might be, if nothing else Ron Paul is a libertarian, and consistently has acted on that basis throughout his political career.
What is Trump?
|
Ron Paul is just a feckless coward that talks like he is a libertarian. But he has ceded so much power to the executive branch without batting an eye it’s hard to take him seriously any more.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 12:17 Plansix wrote: Ron Paul is just a feckless coward that talks like he is a libertarian. But he has ceded so much power to the executive branch without batting an eye it’s hard to take him seriously any more. Well be that as it may you get the basic point. One might hate his ideas but at least we know what Bernie Sanders actual ideas are. Or whoever you want to name really
|
On April 07 2019 11:59 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:48 Plansix wrote: Its sort of amazing this discussion continues to be about the news media when that out of context(but still terrible) clip is being circulated by non news media people on twitter. There is no news agencies involved with Danglers fake news. Just me posting something like a dumb ass, for the second time. Trump is still racist, just to be clear. You should rename yourself to Plannine for Ed Wood Kudos Are you trying to be sensible in current year? This is the year where CNN, the WSJ, NYT, the BBC are all Marxist shills trying to destroy Western civilisation and Trump Far as I could tell you recognised your mistake and fessed up to it, pretty early. I disagree on Trump being a racist. He’s probably something worse than that, which is an egoistical lunatic with no principles whatsoever and no real sense of how to be a decent human being, so he just blows whatever way the wind blows, which kind of fits him as he’s a windbag himself. If Mexicans (for some reason) became a big supporting part of his base, he’d start talking about how great they are, black folks the same etc etc It’s an experiment in having a guy who is basically pure ego and zero anything else running a major country, and I can’t say I’m a fan. I mean I’m pretty darn left wing myself, I can still at some level respect someone like Ron Paul who is further from me politically than Trump is theoretically because, basically I believe that he believes in his platform, as wrong as I think it might be, if nothing else Ron Paul is a libertarian, and consistently has acted on that basis throughout his political career. What is Trump?
Been a while, so I'm not sure, is this
Are you trying to be sensible in current year? This is the year where CNN, the WSJ, NYT, the BBC are all Marxist shills trying to destroy Western civilisation and Trump
sincere or sarcasm?
and are we supposed to be talking about Ron Paul or Rand?
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
Sarcasm, apologies if I didn’t make it clear.
My sole point re invoking Ron Paul was at least one vaguely knows what he stands for, be you in vehement disagreement or on his page, or in between.
As a counterpoint to Trump who I don’t think actually has deep convictions on basically anything and bends whatever way that suits him, was the first example I could think of, perhaps there are better.
So while I don’t necessarily agree that he’s a horrible racist who wants to do x y and z, but a pure opportunist who will be racist if he thinks it suits him, or ‘egalitarian’ when it does.
He’s a wrecking ball who doesn’t care who gets sacrificed between actualising his egotism or not, can be minorities, can be the media, can be basically anyone.
|
He also doesn’t give a shit about anything but his gut feeling on a subject and will spend hours finding someone for tell him he is right. And that leads to a lot of racist stereotypes being reinforced or going unchallenged.
|
On April 07 2019 12:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Sarcasm, apologies if I didn’t make it clear.
My sole point re invoking Ron Paul was at least one vaguely knows what he stands for, be you in vehement disagreement or on his page, or in between.
As a counterpoint to Trump who I don’t think actually has deep convictions on basically anything and bends whatever way that suits him, was the first example I could think of, perhaps there are better.
So while I don’t necessarily agree that he’s a horrible racist who wants to do x y and z, but a pure opportunist who will be racist if he thinks it suits him, or ‘egalitarian’ when it does.
He’s a wrecking ball who doesn’t care who gets sacrificed between actualising his egotism or not, can be minorities, can be the media, can be basically anyone. To be fair, racism is defined, in part, by its systemic nature, which involves people taking advantage of it when it suits them. So yeah, you can argue that that's what Trump really is, but it doesn't really make him not a racist. He's doing what just about every other racist has done with it.
|
On April 07 2019 12:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Sarcasm, apologies if I didn’t make it clear.
My sole point re invoking Ron Paul was at least one vaguely knows what he stands for, be you in vehement disagreement or on his page, or in between.
As a counterpoint to Trump who I don’t think actually has deep convictions on basically anything and bends whatever way that suits him, was the first example I could think of, perhaps there are better.
So while I don’t necessarily agree that he’s a horrible racist who wants to do x y and z, but a pure opportunist who will be racist if he thinks it suits him, or ‘egalitarian’ when it does.
He’s a wrecking ball who doesn’t care who gets sacrificed between actualising his egotism or not, can be minorities, can be the media, can be basically anyone.
No problem, probably easier to tell for people who have read more of your posts. On Ron Paul I agree, I didn't follow him closely or anything but to the best of my limited knowledge he was consistent while in office. Pretty sure he sold out somewhat after leaving but I'm not sure if it would actually conflict with his views/positions since he is a private citizen now.
Rand, (which I think P6 was referencing) is another story. He talks a big game but he's more like Trump than his dad when it comes to principle. There's a lot of overlap between his obnoxious self-interest and the appearance of adhering to Ron's political legacy so they can be easily conflated imo.
I mostly agree on Trump too but would add that beyond his egotism there's the underlying racial dynamics of the US (as I understand them) that doesn't make him especially more racist than your typical wealthy white guy, however, the default is pretty racist already.
That's just to say having discriminated in housing, ran one's mouth about the guilt of Black kids, exploit undocumented workers, etc... are things many wealthy white guys have done, but just because it's popular and largely accepted, doesn't mean it's not all racist.
I've said (probably before you were here [posting frequently anyway]) that I don't think racism is his animus though, more like a lens.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 12:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 12:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Sarcasm, apologies if I didn’t make it clear.
My sole point re invoking Ron Paul was at least one vaguely knows what he stands for, be you in vehement disagreement or on his page, or in between.
As a counterpoint to Trump who I don’t think actually has deep convictions on basically anything and bends whatever way that suits him, was the first example I could think of, perhaps there are better.
So while I don’t necessarily agree that he’s a horrible racist who wants to do x y and z, but a pure opportunist who will be racist if he thinks it suits him, or ‘egalitarian’ when it does.
He’s a wrecking ball who doesn’t care who gets sacrificed between actualising his egotism or not, can be minorities, can be the media, can be basically anyone. To be fair, racism is defined, in part, by its systemic nature, which involves people taking advantage of it when it suits them. So yeah, you can argue that that's what Trump really is, but it doesn't really make him not a racist. He's doing what just about every other racist has done with it. I think that’s absolutely fair, and to me being willing to dogwhistle and appeal to racist forces is just as bad anyway.
I wasn’t meaning to downplay that aspect of him, more to draw attention to the flagrant opportunism and lack of real convictions of the man.
Apologies if i seemed to be downplaying the seriousness of his racial baiting.
|
Northern Ireland23910 Posts
On April 07 2019 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 12:36 Wombat_NI wrote: Sarcasm, apologies if I didn’t make it clear.
My sole point re invoking Ron Paul was at least one vaguely knows what he stands for, be you in vehement disagreement or on his page, or in between.
As a counterpoint to Trump who I don’t think actually has deep convictions on basically anything and bends whatever way that suits him, was the first example I could think of, perhaps there are better.
So while I don’t necessarily agree that he’s a horrible racist who wants to do x y and z, but a pure opportunist who will be racist if he thinks it suits him, or ‘egalitarian’ when it does.
He’s a wrecking ball who doesn’t care who gets sacrificed between actualising his egotism or not, can be minorities, can be the media, can be basically anyone. No problem, probably easier to tell for people who have read more of your posts. On Ron Paul I agree, I didn't follow him closely or anything but to the best of my limited knowledge he was consistent while in office. Pretty sure he sold out somewhat after leaving but I'm not sure if it would actually conflict with his views/positions since he is a private citizen now. Rand, (which I think P6 was referencing) is another story. He talks a big game but he's more like Trump than his dad when it comes to principle. There's a lot of overlap between his obnoxious self-interest and the appearance of adhering to Ron's political legacy so they can be easily conflated imo. I mostly agree on Trump too but would add that beyond his egotism there's the underlying racial dynamics of the US (as I understand them) that doesn't make him especially more racist than your typical wealthy white guy, however, the default is pretty racist already. That's just to say having discriminated in housing, ran one's mouth about the guilt of Black kids, exploit undocumented workers, etc... are things many wealthy white guys have done, but just because it's popular and largely accepted, doesn't mean it's not all racist. I've said (probably before you were here [posting frequently anyway]) that I don't think racism is his animus though, more like a lens. I just recall Ron Paul at some debate and he said that US interventionist foreign policy and 9/11 had some link and he got hardcore booed but he stuck by his point regardless.
Again he’s basically at the opposite end of the political spectrum to me, but I respected that, I can respect folks I see as honest political interlocutors (well, to some degree)
I’d rather be dealing with an odd libertarian fellow than someone who has zero political convictions whatsoever.
Look honestly I’d considered Trump a horrible human being anyway through his general conduct with anyone who doesn’t suck him off, some of the stuff I’ve seen here is new to me so I’ll have to go hunt it out.
On the ‘well he employs x people’ I mean Donald Stirling employed black people, doesn’t mean he didn’t hold them in contempt
|
On April 07 2019 11:28 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 11:14 Danglars wrote:On April 07 2019 07:12 m4ini wrote:I’m going to continue to use the term to describe articles based on falsehoods, or articles whose primary objective is to mislead or obfuscate, Just quoting this here for the inevitable walkback once FOX articles get cited. Pretty much any political FOX news article. I'm absolutely convinced you'd call them fake news too, since they're designed to mislead, whatabout or obfuscate - i'd just like to make sure. Just to make sure, what do you call the original poster's tweet alleging Trump had called asylum seekers "animals?" Like you, I'm confident you'll use a condemning term for it, but I've gotten so much "Never mind about that bit, the real news is Trump is still a racist!" that I'd like to hear you on the record. In America, it fooled several politicians and several members of the media. Ok so the media fucked up there, by the looks of my googling around that was a poor job on their part on this, and one politicians shouldn’t have fallen for. Trump said wind turbines cause cancer and kill birds what, this week? Again, the media didn’t do a good job there, they were suckered in by ‘well it is Trump so he probably did say that’ without doing their job properly, and it’s perfectly right to criticise them, no arguments there. You've gotten to my essential point. He says enough moronic stuff on a regular basis to ensure his reputation and character doesn't improve by regular journalistic malpractice. The media have an institutional reputation to try to build, if preserving it at this point is untenable. Trump's gone after two or six years, but we're stuck with a media that will spread stupid lies that are too good to check out.
+ Show Spoiler +
The only truly noteworthy thing is the story only stood out to me because some national news source like CNN edited out the question to make it look like he was referring to all immigrants instead of MS-13 gangs. A year ago the fake news was on illegal immigrants, today it's about asylum seekers. The biggest hope for the future is to check out the stories before retweeting to millions of followers who think you must've checked it out to circulate it.
|
|
|
|