|
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 |
We'll see how this turns out in the future.
I'd say Clinton and Bush coverage look fine to me in that pie-chart. Obama being so positive is an issue but let's be real here, even if you disagree with everything the guy did you just have to admit that he was incredibly good at looking good the way he presented himself through speech and all. It's quite hard to dislike Obama if you go into things without knowing anything about him and just listen to him.
Trump is the opposite. He's incredibly unpopular and his presentation is far from the best, hell even far from being just decent and his tribal take on things make it very easy to not like him. Especially if you're not part of "his" people.
I do think if a republican other than Trump had run and won, be it Rubio, Bush or anyone who isn't called Ted Cruz they would not be getting as much negative coverage as Trump does. But I don't have anything to back that up other than my personal opinion that Trump is just such an ... outstanding President.
|
On August 03 2018 06:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think people complain about the right doing a better job at being politicians then the left too much and it ends up just being a lot of nothing.
The right has gotten very good at winning elections with the help of some very wealthy billionaires and a black president to turn into a cartoon villain. Their skills at governing are about on par with what they were during the Bush administration. And I expect this one to end with people feeling about the same as they did about the Bush administration.
On August 03 2018 06:04 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:59 Sermokala wrote:On August 03 2018 05:54 Slaughter wrote:
As to the whole Star Wars thing. Hilariously a lot of the same criticisms about SJW stuff were also hurled at the original trilogy, just obviously before the term SJW existed. With the lack of black people and women involved? How is that even the same? A decent argument is that they replaced akbar with holdo so they could have a purple haired woman make the sacrifice play instead of an alien. Because the original had a mixed group fighting against the empire which was basically all white men so people were like "oh so white men are evil". The kinds of people who get hung up on "sjw shit ruining movies" will be triggered by almost anything.
The "SJW ruin movies" people are not triggered by anything. They are just a group of outrage peddlers that jump on the next hot thing to be angry about and keep that flame alive as long as possible. They stoke the anger that would normally die out in a week.
|
TLJ, while obviously typecast, has tons and tons of issues. Being totally type/market-cast isn't one of them. The FIlm is basically an insult to anyone that tought TLJ was kinda cool (or better). Its so damn bad on just about every level. Its story makes no sense, the action of the characters make no sense... The whole movie makes no sense.
On the internet its a big shitshow of the mgtow/anti-sjw/whatever morons that mix/blend in with all the other, normal, critics.
|
On August 03 2018 06:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 06:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think people complain about the right doing a better job at being politicians then the left too much and it ends up just being a lot of nothing. The right has gotten very good at winning elections with the help of some very wealthy billionaires and a black president to turn into a cartoon villain. Their skills at governing are about on par with what they were during the Bush administration. And I expect this one to end with people feeling about the same as they did about the Bush administration.
Bush got two terms though. That's not good news for Democrats.
|
One president receiving worse coverage than another does not, it itself, say anything about whether that coverage is true or false.
Did that argument seriously just get made?
If the country somehow elected a literal tantrum-throwing 2-year old to make its decisions, I would hope that 95% of the ensuing coverage would be negative, but that would not make that coverage incorrect.
|
On August 03 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 06:09 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 06:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think people complain about the right doing a better job at being politicians then the left too much and it ends up just being a lot of nothing. The right has gotten very good at winning elections with the help of some very wealthy billionaires and a black president to turn into a cartoon villain. Their skills at governing are about on par with what they were during the Bush administration. And I expect this one to end with people feeling about the same as they did about the Bush administration. Bush got two terms though. That's not good news for Democrats.
Bush had 9/11 and the war on terror to carry him through. Up until that point, that administration was facing some strong headwinds.
|
On August 03 2018 06:44 Belisarius wrote:
One president receiving worse coverage than another does not, it itself, say anything about whether that coverage is true or false.
Did that argument seriously just get made?
If the country somehow elected a literal tantrum-throwing 2-year old to make its decisions, I would hope that 95% of the ensuing coverage would be negative, but that would not make that coverage incorrect.
Well, I literally just finished reading an article by CNBC fear-mongering about the non-existent threat of the national debt and blaming Trump. Adding misinformation about the taxpayer burden and unironically pointing out reactionary moves by the market. Must have been contributed to by a quack like Paul Krugman.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-trump-administration-is-headed-for-a-gigantic-debt-headache/ar-BBLpXHd?ocid=spartandhp
|
|
|
5930 Posts
xDaunt might not read the NYT but it’s clear to anyone that has read it that half the “leaks” provided to the NYT are from the Trump Administration themselves to get ahead of scandals. In fact, it can be argued that Maggie Haberman has done more interference for Trump than any other journalist and probably a big reason for getting him elected.
That’s not a paper that’s ideologically unfriendly to conservative viewpoints.
|
Unsurprisingly, negative language will permeate with a president who routinely insults the press, denigrates war heroes, answers to conspiracy theories, has a track record of suspicious business deals, says incredibly off-putting words about women, lies, lies, and lies, and has one of the worst approval rates of any president. Are journalists supposed to shrug and go "Well, that's our Donald!" and pretend like this is normal?
Ideally the press would all follow in that quest for objectivity and unbiased coverage, but it's real challenging to avoid being non-hyperbolic about Trump. If journalism's real purpose is to aid the afflicted and challenge the powerful, it can't be blasé about this guy. Why should there be an equal level of positive, neutral, and negative coverage for every president? Should the news media play nice because he's the president, and never raise their voice when they see alarm bells ringing? I won't deny the TV news networks, newspapers, and magazines do tend to reflect a coastal urban liberal mindset, but sometimes Trump just makes the news all by himself with little spin required.
Also on the topic of poor history teaching, this is a rather relevant read. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/history-education-post-truth-america/566657/
|
I find that to be a perfect example about the recent rightwing mentality.
"The press writes more bad things about this president than about previous ones, that means that the press is unfair and biased." The idea that that president might just be really bad and the reporting might be actually warranted does not even cross their minds, because he is the one they elected, and they obviously couldn't be wrong.
This is a clear result of interpreting all observations to fit with one preconceived notion (Trump is good). Just start at that baseline and take it as axiomatic truth, and everything starts to make sense.
|
On August 03 2018 07:40 Womwomwom wrote:
xDaunt might not read the NYT but it’s clear to anyone that has read it that half the “leaks” provided to the NYT are from the Trump Administration themselves to get ahead of scandals. In fact, it can be argued that Maggie Haberman has done more interference for Trump than any other journalist and probably a big reason for getting him elected.
That’s not a paper that’s ideologically unfriendly to conservative viewpoints.
The Times has conservatives on its editorial staff, just not ones that are conservative enough for folks like dauntless. A conservative friendly publican must also openly attack other political. It isn’t about the exchange of political through, but domination.
|
5930 Posts
On August 03 2018 07:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 07:40 Womwomwom wrote:
xDaunt might not read the NYT but it’s clear to anyone that has read it that half the “leaks” provided to the NYT are from the Trump Administration themselves to get ahead of scandals. In fact, it can be argued that Maggie Haberman has done more interference for Trump than any other journalist and probably a big reason for getting him elected.
That’s not a paper that’s ideologically unfriendly to conservative viewpoints. The Times has conservatives on its editorial staff, just not ones that are conservative enough for folks like dauntless. A conservative friendly publican must also openly attack other political. It isn’t about the exchange of political through, but domination.
Australia deals with the same problems, the conservative media keeps complaining about far left media being dominant and how liberals are shutting out conservative thought but let's just say the standard newspaper you find at any doctor's office or cafe is the conservative Herald Sun and not anything like The Sydney Morning Herald or The Guardian.
The question to me at this point is how conservative is conservative enough if they're going to gatekeep reporting like this. Is the Wall Street Journal conservative enough or is it still considered a pusher of the left wing agenda and thus an enemy of the state? Is Breitbart sufficiently conservative and what conservative publications should aspire to? If the NYT is deemed left wing (not even liberal but actually left wing) to these people, where the hell are they getting their news from?
|
On August 03 2018 08:07 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 07:50 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 07:40 Womwomwom wrote:
xDaunt might not read the NYT but it’s clear to anyone that has read it that half the “leaks” provided to the NYT are from the Trump Administration themselves to get ahead of scandals. In fact, it can be argued that Maggie Haberman has done more interference for Trump than any other journalist and probably a big reason for getting him elected.
That’s not a paper that’s ideologically unfriendly to conservative viewpoints. The Times has conservatives on its editorial staff, just not ones that are conservative enough for folks like dauntless. A conservative friendly publican must also openly attack other political. It isn’t about the exchange of political through, but domination. Australia deals with the same problems, the conservative media keeps complaining about far left media being dominant and how liberals are shutting out conservative thought but let's just say the standard newspaper you find at any doctor's office or cafe is the conservative Herald Sun and not anything like The Sydney Morning Herald or The Guardian. The question to me at this point is how conservative is conservative enough. Is the Wall Street Journal conservative enough or is it still considered a pusher of the left wing agenda? Is Breitbart sufficiently conservative and what conservative publications should aspire to? If the NYT is deemed left wing (not even liberal but actually left wing) to these people, where the hell are they getting their news from?
There are endless conservative publications. They dominate YouTube and Facebook by a wide margin. But it isn’t enough. Conservative views must be everywhere and cannot challenged, I mean, attacked.
It is a tactic. The endless refrain of repression gives a sense of being under siege. It allows things like the religious freedom task force to appear justifyed. Laws enshrining religion as a reason to refuse services to a gay couple to get passed. It is about justifying bringing to the power of government against the “left” parts of the culture. And once that power exists, they can use it to assure their conservative views persist. It’s about dominance.
|
On August 03 2018 05:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:27 Slaughter wrote:On August 03 2018 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:21 Toadesstern wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. just because something isn't friendly, doesn't mean it turns into your enemy oO. The press isn't even supposed to be friendly to any one president in the first place. Assuming you're the government it's their job to criticize you when you do something wrong. There's a difference between holding a politician accountable and consistently pursuing a one-sided political agenda. The mainstream American press is guilty of the latter. Would you group Fox News in with them? Sure, Fox News is the conservative reflection of the mainstream media.
With that in mind, would you mind telling us where exactly do you get your news from?
|
|
|
NPR, the Times, the Post, Boston globe for local news, the journal and national review(print) if I want to read something from a different angle. I don’t watch broadcast news or even cable TV.
|
I don't think there is a single good place to use or rely on. I think it is more important to mix up mainstream and independent media, rather than "left" or "right". Otherwise, it just leaves you with the corporate neoliberal narrative usually. I find the Intercept to be of good quality most of the time- more old school investigative and in-depth style. It really depends on the subject though. If it is something I have a good understanding of, it makes it easier to sift much of the bs.
|
I get their ads more than a few times on youtube regarding this.
But the short answer is no. The Koch bros aren't changing anything about what makes them shit. They're used to having politicians they are in the pocket of singing their tune. The Koch brothers are not happy with the tarrifs, because it hurts their businesses, and it is coming from somebody they thought they bought. They are trying to peel moderate Rs off the Trump crazy train.
|
On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly.
What do you think should be done about this 'enemy'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
