|
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 |
On May 30 2018 07:27 Womwomwom wrote:
The media isn’t explicitly anti-Trump. The best example is the New York Times, they’ve been pretty tolerant of Trump despite Trump’s Twitter outrage about them. Their Whitehouse reporting often straight up punts out Whitehouse endorsed leaks and spin, as expected of today’s access journalists. Let’s not even get started on their opinions page. That’s the end result of their change of editorial staff and company-wide purging of journalists.
What you’re correct on is that the media isn’t reporting or analysing institutional failures and it’s pretty obvious why. It’s an incredibly incestuous profession where all of these people have worked with each other, known each other, went to the same schools as each other and are often friends with each other. The vast majority of them are also white and have not faced the same experiences as minority Americans and don’t really care. For every Kareem reporting on racial injustice in the New Yorker, you have 10 Joe Scarboroughs on cable TV getting away with whitewashing his racial experiences growing up in Alabama.
Given the journalists in the field, what do you report on? There really isn’t much to report on because, in theory, everything is going good for the United States domestically. Everyone got a nice fat tax return, the economy still looks good and we’re seeing historic runs in the NBA and NHL. The economy is so good that Trump should be 20 points more popular if we look at past presidents and their economies. For most of white America, corruption (and foreign influences) are what you can easily report on without spending a whole lot of effort or offending their world view too much.
I agree, I was more referencing the media I presume P6 consumes based on his posts. NYT is the pinnacle of the incestuous ambivalence toward maintaining the status quo and reckless 'objectivity' in confronting growing sentiments of white supremacy and the increasing violence/terrorism we've seen in this country as a result.
That economic point is an important one going into 2018 elections. Additionally, Danglars point is also going to play an important role. How will left leaning media outlets frame the economic situation? Who will they blame for which problems?
Not sure Republicans really need anything more than to run against the specter of "Speaker Pelosi" though to get the votes they need
EDIT: I have to agree a bit with Danglars as well. Trump is terrible and you don't have to do the stories about it the way any of these publications do but you do have to do them that way if you want to exculpate certain actors of their own culpability. That's why the most biting critique from the WHCD of the media had them defending Sanders' from imagined attacks about her appearance instead of dealing with the stinging criticism of themselves.
|
5930 Posts
It will depend on commodity prices and how bad the flow effects of Trump's boner for tarrifs are. Like I said in an earlier post, smaller boutique US manufacturers like Caselabs are suffering from Trump's trade war because there has been an extraordinary large increase in both US aluminium prices as well as a large decrease in available quality. They're definitely not the only manufacturer suffering right now.
While the economy is going good, health rate premiums are expected to continue their spike, fuel prices are increasing, and so forth. Easy stuff to report on.
EDIT: I have to agree a bit with Danglars as well. Trump is terrible and you don't have to do the stories about it the way any of these publications do but you do have to do them that way if you want to exculpate certain actors of their own culpability. That's why the most biting critique from the WHCD of the media had them defending Sanders' from imagined attacks about her appearance instead of dealing with the stinging criticism of themselves.
All the people defending Sanders were access journalists like Maggie Haberman and Mika Brzezinski. In the case of Maggie Haberman, she's got a future book that is dependent on her staying in the Whitehouses' good graces. Plenty of journalists and TV personalities defended Michelle Wolf and her obvious reference to the Maybelline slogan.
There's a reason why the New York Times' Whitehouse reporting is so dreadful. They pretty much axed their old Whitehouse staff to bring on old Politico alumni who had shown time after time that they were willing to put out Whitehouse leaks and PR in a quid pro quo arrangement.
|
On May 30 2018 07:27 Womwomwom wrote:
The media isn’t explicitly anti-Trump. The best example is the New York Times, they’ve been pretty tolerant of Trump despite Trump’s Twitter outrage about them. Their Whitehouse reporting often straight up punts out Whitehouse endorsed leaks and spin, as expected of today’s access journalists. Let’s not even get started on their opinions page. That’s the end result of their change of editorial staff and company-wide purging of journalists.
What you’re correct on is that the media isn’t reporting or analysing institutional failures and it’s pretty obvious why. It’s an incredibly incestuous profession where all of these people have worked with each other, known each other, went to the same schools as each other and are often friends with each other. The vast majority of them are also white and have not faced the same experiences as minority Americans and don’t really care. For every Kareem reporting on racial injustice in the New Yorker, you have 10 Joe Scarboroughs on cable TV getting away with whitewashing his racial experiences growing up in Alabama.
Given the journalists in the field, what do you report on? There really isn’t much to report on because, in theory, everything is going good for the United States domestically. Everyone got a nice fat tax return, the economy still looks good and we’re seeing historic runs in the NBA and NHL. The economy is so good that Trump should be 20 points more popular if we look at past presidents and their economies. For most of white America, corruption (and foreign influences) are what you can easily report on without spending a whole lot of effort or offending their world view too much.
Reporters like Sam Sanders of NPR talked about the difficulty of reporting on politics during this time. He pointed out that the biggest problem that the reporters face in the US right now isn't a lack of stories, its is only reaching 50% of the population at any given time. If they report on institutional failures or racism, a good chunk of the population is going to tune them out. NPR has an entire news section called Code Switch, that reports on race in America. But that is only going to reach people who seek out those stories. And if they are only reaching 50% of the country, they have failed as reporters.
That isn't to say that the political reporting in the US isn't lack luster. But people take shots at the Times and forget about the Post's reporting. People complain about CNN, but forget that NPR also reports on the same subjects. People complain about the White House briefings when that is a small portion of the coverage in DC. It is easier to heckle than to praise good reporting when it happens.
|
On May 30 2018 08:22 Womwomwom wrote:It will depend on commodity prices and how bad the flow effects of Trump's boner for tarrifs are. Like I said in an earlier post, smaller boutique US manufacturers like Caselabs are suffering from Trump's trade war because there has been an extraordinary large increase in both US aluminium prices as well as a large decrease in available quality. They're definitely not the only manufacturer suffering right now. While the economy is going good, health rate premiums are expected to continue their spike, fuel prices are increasing, and so forth. Easy stuff to report on. Show nested quote +EDIT: I have to agree a bit with Danglars as well. Trump is terrible and you don't have to do the stories about it the way any of these publications do but you do have to do them that way if you want to exculpate certain actors of their own culpability. That's why the most biting critique from the WHCD of the media had them defending Sanders' from imagined attacks about her appearance instead of dealing with the stinging criticism of themselves. All the people defending Sanders were access journalists like Maggie Haberman and Mika Brzezinski. Plenty of journalists and TV personalities defended Michelle Wolf and her obvious reference to the Maybelline slogan.
Easy to report especially in that they lend themselves into clearly divided political camps. "Gas prices are high" means "More EVs!" or "Drill baby Drill". Better yet, both camps find themselves arguing for the interests of the billionaire capitalists that represent the relevant industries, rather than their collective self-interest as a class exploited by those billionaires.
You're right that some did, though few engaged with the critique of why their bosses (and many of themselves) love having a President Trump, both personally and professionally.
|
On May 30 2018 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 07:27 Womwomwom wrote:
The media isn’t explicitly anti-Trump. The best example is the New York Times, they’ve been pretty tolerant of Trump despite Trump’s Twitter outrage about them. Their Whitehouse reporting often straight up punts out Whitehouse endorsed leaks and spin, as expected of today’s access journalists. Let’s not even get started on their opinions page. That’s the end result of their change of editorial staff and company-wide purging of journalists.
What you’re correct on is that the media isn’t reporting or analysing institutional failures and it’s pretty obvious why. It’s an incredibly incestuous profession where all of these people have worked with each other, known each other, went to the same schools as each other and are often friends with each other. The vast majority of them are also white and have not faced the same experiences as minority Americans and don’t really care. For every Kareem reporting on racial injustice in the New Yorker, you have 10 Joe Scarboroughs on cable TV getting away with whitewashing his racial experiences growing up in Alabama.
Given the journalists in the field, what do you report on? There really isn’t much to report on because, in theory, everything is going good for the United States domestically. Everyone got a nice fat tax return, the economy still looks good and we’re seeing historic runs in the NBA and NHL. The economy is so good that Trump should be 20 points more popular if we look at past presidents and their economies. For most of white America, corruption (and foreign influences) are what you can easily report on. I have to disagree with you on the NYT side. Even just recently: + Show Spoiler +The NYT is an important player in delegitimizing press coverage of Ttump. It might be the most important player, but CNN and the Washington post are pretty close. Trump will call anything and everything fake news. The NYT’s job is to keep that from being true a third to a half of the time. They have failed in that responsibility. This includes inaccurately characterizing remarks, and doubling down on them, only to be proven wrong by raw audio. It includes reporting that the DoJ paid an undercover informant to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign, yet arguing that it didn’t amount to spying. It was also reported that the FBI feared that if they informed Trump on the spying, it would lend credence to his claims that the election was rigged against him. Yet spying is a conspiracy theory. And since you mentioned the tax cuts, earlier the NYT posited a fictional couple that would stand to be hurt by the Trump tax cuts, only to error in the tax burden by over $5000, to make them too save money. It’s really in the pattern of deception, outright lies, and badly reported stories that erodes trust in media. The people that document these in major liberal-biased news organizations have grown tired of being summarily ignored as they try and bring back honor to the profession. Trumps bad and you don’t have to promote false narratives to make him look bad. Journalism is really in a bad place right now and nobody should trust journalists to have the credibility to hold power to account in the future.
What spying? Trump has made that claim a few times now over the past year only to walk the claim back after having nothing to show. This time is different?
|
Danglars claim that the DOJ paid someone to spy on the Trump campaign is false. They used an informant to collect information from some Trump affiliates and campaign staff before seeking warrants or other investigative tools. It was the FBI taking a light touch with the investigation due to the election. Calling it spying is a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump himself.
|
“F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims,” read the headline on a lengthy New York Times story May 18. “The Justice Department used a suspected informant to probe whether Trump campaign aides were making improper contacts with Russia in 2016,” read a story in the May 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
So much for those who dismissed charges of Obama administration infiltration of Donald Trump’s campaign as paranoid fantasy. Defenders of the Obama intelligence and law enforcement apparat have had to fall back on the argument that this infiltration was for Trump’s — and the nation’s — own good.
It’s an argument that evidently didn’t occur to Richard Nixon’s defenders when it became clear that Nixon operatives had burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in June 1972.
Until 2016, just about everyone agreed that it was a bad thing for government intelligence or law enforcement agencies to spy — er, use informants — on a political campaign, especially one of the opposition party. Liberals were especially suspicious of the FBI and the CIA. Nowadays they say that anyone questioning their good faith is unpatriotic.
NY Post
This treatment is about the due deference that should be allowed people that think covertly informing for the justice department without the knowledge of the person surveilled isn’t spying. The full piece is worth a read. And Trump’s not going to be careful with his words to distinguish this from the FISA matter or others—he’s definitely his own worst enemy. From the quoted NYT piece, he eavesdropped on Trump affiliates. But in no way may you call that spying on the Trump campaign. The DoJ has been leaking like crazy to friendly media outlets ahead of the IG report of the covert counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign (counterintelligence division using informants not to be confused with spying).
The Washington Post leaks also described national security letters, secret subpoenas, against Trump campaign personnel. Just wiretaps on aides has turned into wiretaps, national security letters, and at least one informant in a counterintelligence investigation. This amount of covert surveillance is properly called spying and I don’t care which way you slice it. The IG report on the investigation of the Trump campaign must be fairly radical to have all these leaks try to spin it into something more tame. They spied on Trump and they better have more than what we know up to now to justify it.
|
The opinion peice you cited attempts to link Watergate to this spygate without engaging with the facts of the matter. The person in question who gathered information was not embedded into the Trump campaign. Further more, calling the action covert is a knowing mistatement of the facts. This is a criminal investigation and any evidence collected by the FBI would be subject to review by the defense. They couldn’t with hold the identity of the informant and wouldn’t. No criminal activity took place and there wasn’t never an intent to conceal the information. The only reason the DOJ resisted is because the investigation is ongoing.
You also provide zero evidence to back up your claim that the DOJ has been leaking information to the media. From all reports the leaks are coming from the White House and House Republicans. Carri Johnson at NPR has said that the House Republicans have been leaking information almost as soon as they have it from the DOJ, which has lead to the fraught relationship between the House and DOJ.
Finally, your claims about the wire taps are vague and without specifics. A pin register(record of phone numbers called) is a much easier to obtain and is commons mistaken for a wire tap.
|
Also, dubbing the whole thing spygate is hilariously dumb considering the 2005 superbowl.
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 30 2018 09:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +“F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims,” read the headline on a lengthy New York Times story May 18. “The Justice Department used a suspected informant to probe whether Trump campaign aides were making improper contacts with Russia in 2016,” read a story in the May 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal.
So much for those who dismissed charges of Obama administration infiltration of Donald Trump’s campaign as paranoid fantasy. Defenders of the Obama intelligence and law enforcement apparat have had to fall back on the argument that this infiltration was for Trump’s — and the nation’s — own good.
It’s an argument that evidently didn’t occur to Richard Nixon’s defenders when it became clear that Nixon operatives had burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in June 1972.
Until 2016, just about everyone agreed that it was a bad thing for government intelligence or law enforcement agencies to spy — er, use informants — on a political campaign, especially one of the opposition party. Liberals were especially suspicious of the FBI and the CIA. Nowadays they say that anyone questioning their good faith is unpatriotic. NY PostThis treatment is about the due deference that should be allowed people that think covertly informing for the justice department without the knowledge of the person surveilled isn’t spying. The full piece is worth a read. And Trump’s not going to be careful with his words to distinguish this from the FISA matter or others—he’s definitely his own worst enemy. From the quoted NYT piece, he eavesdropped on Trump affiliates. But in no way may you call that spying on the Trump campaign. The DoJ has been leaking like crazy to friendly media outlets ahead of the IG report of the covert counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign (counterintelligence division using informants not to be confused with spying). The Washington Post leaks also described national security letters, secret subpoenas, against Trump campaign personnel. Just wiretaps on aides has turned into wiretaps, national security letters, and at least one informant in a counterintelligence investigation. This amount of covert surveillance is properly called spying and I don’t care which way you slice it. The IG report on the investigation of the Trump campaign must be fairly radical to have all these leaks try to spin it into something more tame. They spied on Trump and they better have more than what we know up to now to justify it.
In your opinion do you think the FBI should have investigated central Trump campaign figure and known foreign agent, Michael Flynn? You're alleging there was some kind of witch-hunt, does the presence of witches change your feelings on that?
|
The argument at hand is the “spying” poisoned the well, so the existence of criminal activity is not a defense in this matter. That’s is the power of the argument, that the investigations roots are rotten, so all fruit is poisoned.
The problem with the spying argument is the justice department always intended to come clean. They were gathering evidence to be submitted in a public trial. That is the opposite of spying.
|
A CNN reporter spent a year wandering around the White House and now we have to pretend the FBI actually has to put effort into getting information from the Trump campaign.
Though I have to admit it would be hilarious if the Trump team ended up being like Conservapedia. One legit crazy at the top and a whole boat-load of plants trolling the leader.
|
I feel like half an interview with Carter Page is enough for probable cause. I would have bigger concerns if I found out the the FBI wasn’t investigating him.
|
United States41995 Posts
Honestly there's only so much treason you can do before you have to stop complaining about people investigating you for treason.
|
Treason requires the US to be at war with someone. This is good old fashion violations of campaign laws and maybe accepting money from foreign powers.
|
Honestly, I was reading this article by Glenn Greenwald on the subject of that spying business a few days ago, and while I'm not sure what the fuck Glenn's point was, I remember thinking to myself "how can you hang out with Stefan Halper and not expect to be spied upon by the FBI?" What a fucking creep.
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 30 2018 11:29 Plansix wrote:
Treason requires the US to be at war with someone. This is good old fashion violations of campaign laws and maybe accepting money from foreign powers.
You're talking the constitutional definition, I'm using the popular understanding of the word, ie a public official who forsakes their duty to serve another nation.
Flynn, who was secretly on the payroll of the Turkish government, intervened in US military operations in Syria at the behest of the Turkish government. The man's a traitor.
|
On May 30 2018 11:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:29 Plansix wrote:
Treason requires the US to be at war with someone. This is good old fashion violations of campaign laws and maybe accepting money from foreign powers. You're talking the constitutional definition, I'm using the popular understanding of the word, ie a public official who forsakes their duty to serve another nation. Flynn, who was secretly on the payroll of the Turkish government, intervened in US military operations in Syria at the behest of the Turkish government. The man's a traitor.
Yes. But people get very picky about that term. Especially lately. But Flynn was out to make himself as much money as possible abusing the access this position as a general had earned him.
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 30 2018 11:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:32 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 11:29 Plansix wrote:
Treason requires the US to be at war with someone. This is good old fashion violations of campaign laws and maybe accepting money from foreign powers. You're talking the constitutional definition, I'm using the popular understanding of the word, ie a public official who forsakes their duty to serve another nation. Flynn, who was secretly on the payroll of the Turkish government, intervened in US military operations in Syria at the behest of the Turkish government. The man's a traitor. Yes. But people get very picky about that term. Especially lately. But Flynn was out to make himself as much money as possible abusing the access this position as a general had earned him.
People on 4chan get pretty picky about the term paedophile too, and explain that strictly speaking they're ephebophiles or whatever. Whether you're fucking kids or betraying your country, there's only so much "well technically speaking it's..." that I care to listen to.
|
On May 30 2018 11:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:40 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2018 11:32 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 11:29 Plansix wrote:
Treason requires the US to be at war with someone. This is good old fashion violations of campaign laws and maybe accepting money from foreign powers. You're talking the constitutional definition, I'm using the popular understanding of the word, ie a public official who forsakes their duty to serve another nation. Flynn, who was secretly on the payroll of the Turkish government, intervened in US military operations in Syria at the behest of the Turkish government. The man's a traitor. Yes. But people get very picky about that term. Especially lately. But Flynn was out to make himself as much money as possible abusing the access this position as a general had earned him. People on 4chan get pretty picky about the term paedophile too, and explain that strictly speaking they're ephebophiles or whatever. Whether you're fucking kids or betraying your country, there's only so much "well technically speaking it's..." that I care to listen to.
It's not this really bad thing, so your objection doesn't matter despite it being something I deem less bad so lalalalalalala.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
