|
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 August 03 2018 20:52 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 15:39 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2018 22:56 iamthedave wrote:On August 02 2018 22:38 Velr wrote: Uhm... Because the countries at about similar development levels fought 2 World Wars on their own soil losing immense amount of Infrastructure and like 2 Generations of able bodied males? I think that might have played a small role, too. But then America did have Vietnam, which killed a shit ton of America's youth. The decade in Vietnam was proportionately equivalent to the first day of the Somme, for reference. Huh. I thought Vietnam was a lot bloodier than that.
It was bloodier, in terms of what happened out there in forests. The Viet Cong didn't really care how you died from the stories my dad has told me, and every story he talked about was worse the the last one. From rape to cannibalism, Viet Cong's were ruthless, my dad never wanted to discuss how his bestfriend died, but I do know his bestfriend died next to him. He would cry mostly through the stories, turned into a raging alcoholic while working for a very high position in US Customs & Immigration. And then left my family when I was 12. A lot of people were affected by this war before, and after, and I feel till this day, where the government has kinda left Vietnam War vets linger there, not really providing the necessary mental help they really needed.
So Vietnam was very bloody in a sense of what happened, and how it happened. There were also a lot more causalities on all sides than the Battle of Somme. If you look at the numbers in casualties, Vietnam War had overall, including civilian deaths 1,326,494–4,249,494 dead. And WWI had 15,486,153 to 19,174,335.
I think the reference Kwark is discussing is the total number of US soldier deaths. Then at that point, the first day of Somme reference is totally valid.
|
On August 03 2018 20:52 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 15:39 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2018 22:56 iamthedave wrote:On August 02 2018 22:38 Velr wrote: Uhm... Because the countries at about similar development levels fought 2 World Wars on their own soil losing immense amount of Infrastructure and like 2 Generations of able bodied males? I think that might have played a small role, too. But then America did have Vietnam, which killed a shit ton of America's youth. The decade in Vietnam was proportionately equivalent to the first day of the Somme, for reference. Huh. I thought Vietnam was a lot bloodier than that. @Jock: Even excluding the basic historical ignorance they normally demonstrate when those arguments emerge (like you said, there were black people in the Roman Empire; consequence of conquering most of the known world right there), they're strangely silent when only white people are cast in a movie about the Egyptian Gods, or a white person is cast as the lead in a movie set entirely in medieval China or Japan, or the Russians/French are left out of a game about WW 1 (one or the other faction was cut out of Battlefield 1's release, can't remember which). Consistency isn't something those sorts of people are good at.
Some of them include that in their list of grievances, they will say that it's a cultural marxist plot because when a white person is replaced by a black person the leftists complain less than when a black person is replaced by a white person, ignoring the clear logical differences between the two situations.
|
Well, this is probably not going to end well. We have a history of violence between the two groups. One thing I have to admit, I watched a stream of one of their rallies in Seattle and they had an open mic platform for anyone to speak... liberal, far left whatever. On the other hand, I absolutely despise what they are about and feel like they are purposely targeting very liberal and progressive cities to antagonize. Since Seattle though, they have escalated to being more and more violent.
+ Show Spoiler +Fears of violent protest are rising ahead of this weekend’s rally in Portland, Oregon, by the conservative group Patriot Prayer. Almost a year on from the death of the activist Heather Heyer, as she protested a gathering of white nationalists in Virginia, some groups are warning the protest on Saturday risks turning into “another Charlottesville”. And as a Trump-era wave of rightwing street protest continues, it is not clear that American cities, or police forces, are willing or able to prevent the violence that accompanies them, some experts and activists say. Patriot Prayer was founded by the rightwing Senate candidate Joey Gibson and its stated beliefs are not neo-Nazi or white supremacist. Like the Proud Boys group, with whom Patriot Prayer’s membership often overlaps, Gibson’s positions are best described as conservative Republican, or Trumpian. But his critics say his events have attracted white supremacist elements and have frequently brought serious violence to the streets of Portland, and other cities in the region. The last Patriot Prayer rally, held on 30 June, was declared a riot by Portland police after counter-protesters and rally-goers exchanged missiles, officers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fired nonlethal rounds and the march through downtown Portland degenerated into ugly brawls. Video from the event shows large groups of rightwing protesters kicking and punching lone, prone counter-protesters. One video, widely shared online by rightwingers, shows the Proud Boy Ethan Nordean flooring an anti-fascist assailant with a single punch. As in previous rallies, Patriot Prayer claimed leftwing provocation. In the weeks since that rally Gibson has promised that buses carrying attendees from Washington state to Portland for their “freedom march” will be manned with armed guards. He has also warned that just as at previous Patriot Prayer rallies in the Pacific north-west, participants will be carrying firearms, saying “it’s not a big deal to have guns”, and “we’ve always had guns”. A still from the Nordean video has been used by the Proud Boys on their official, verified Twitter account to encourage members to go to Saturday’s rally in Portland. The picture of Nordean flattening an anti-fascist is accompanied by the promise that the event has “more of everything you’re looking for”. Violence, and the threat of violence, has long attended Gibson’s events, where clashes between anti-fascist and counter-protesters have been the norm. A rally on 3 June also featured a series of running brawls. Rallies last June and August in the waterfront area – the planned venue this weekend – also led to an afternoon of punch-ups and mace attacks. A rally last September was followed by an alleged car attack on counter-protesters. The violence has also moved beyond protests. On 8 June a Proud Boy closely associated with Gibson’s movement, Tusitala “Tiny” Toese, allegedly attacked a stranger in broad daylight on a Portland shopping strip. The previous month he allegedly attacked a teenager outside a Vancouver mall. Despite this history, the city of Portland has said that there is nothing it can do to prevent the rally going ahead. A spokesperson for Portland’s mayor Ted Wheeler pointed out that while the mayor has previously criticized Patriot Prayer’s events, “federal law and first amendment protections have consistently found that a jurisdiction cannot deny permits, based on free speech, and a protest cannot be preemptively banned based on the occurrences at a prior protest”. But experts suggest that local authorities can do more to moderate the behavior of armed protesters. Mary McCord, a professor and senior litigator at Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Protection and Advocacy, recently authored a report which shows how local authorities can proactively respond to potentially violent protest. “There are provisions under Oregon’s law that would allow authorities to prohibit paramilitary conduct,” McCord said, pointing to a statute defining “unlawful paramilitary activity”. The first amendment protects speech, MccCord said, but not “violence, threats of violence, and incitement to violence”. The second amendment protects the bearing of arms, but “it does not protect the coordinated use of arms”. “You can carry a firearm for personal defence,” McCord says. “But you can’t gather together in groups of two or more and use firearms together in furtherance of a civil disorder.” She added that organized use of weapons across state lines may break not only Oregon’s anti-paramilitary laws, but related federal statutes. Portland’s police bureau and the Oregon US attorney would not comment specifically on the Oregon paramilitary statutes, but earlier confirmed that carriers of an Oregon concealed handgun license would be able to go armed down to the waterfront. Ted Wheeler’s office, the Portland city attorney, and the Oregon’s US attorney did not respond to requests for comment. Groups organizing Saturday’s counterprotests to Gibson’s rally, meanwhile, have evoked Charlottesville, and Heyer, in their own statements about the rally. In a statement, Rose City Antifa, who have consistently organised counter-protests against Gibson, said: “We will continue to stand by our policy of no-platforming to prevent fascist and white supremacist from organizing in our community.” www.msn.com
|
On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught 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 wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.![[image loading]](https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2d6e29f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/415x413+0+0/resize/415x413!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Fd1%2Fa1%2F66a0df135db923bbc6655795b341%2F122717-trump-pew-coverage.png) And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them.
I think we need to take a few steps back and settle on some truths about this president. Can we all at the very least agree that he lies, a lot? Can we also agree that he attacks the press and has done so since the very beginning? Based on these facts, how exactly are you expecting the press to report on him? If he claims something which isn't true while simultaneously claiming all media as "fake news", do you expect them to hold him up as their lord and saviour?
And while we're at it, if we agree on the fact that he lies a lot, more than any other president has, why in the absolute duck do you want a president which lies so much? Why is he claiming victories for things he haven't done and excuses things he finds negative, if he's such a good president? Shouldn't he let his actions speak for him?
|
Well I think we know what next week will be about... on Cable News, and of course Social Media. This also relates to pretty much every adviser and insider that has left calling him stupid, but also worrying about his mental health overall.
But she did have to be escorted out by security. So...
Omarosa Manigault Newman, the reality TV star and former White House official, claims she spotted “mental decline” in her former boss.
An excerpt of her upcoming book, Unhinged, which was obtained by the Daily Mail, described her reaction to seeing President Donald Trump’s May 2017 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt.
“Donald rambled. He spoke gibberish. He contradicted himself from one sentence to the next,” Manigault-Newman wrote.
Trump had been prepped to say former FBI Director James Comey was fired on the recommendation of the Department of Justice and not because of the Russia investigation, Manigault-Newman claimed, but that’s not what he said in the interview.
“I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election.’”
In the book excerpt, Manigault-Newman wrote:
“While watching the interview I realized that something real and serious was going on in Donald’s brain. His mental decline could not be denied. Many didn’t notice it as keenly as I did because I knew him way back when. They thought Trump was being Trump, off the cuff. But I knew something wasn’t right.”
Manigault-Newman served as director of communications for the office of public liaison for the White House for much of last year, but was fired by Chief of Staff John Kelly in December. She had to be “physically dragged and escorted off the campus,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
Manigault-Newman later appeared on the reality show “Celebrity Big Brother” and said she would never vote for Trump again “in a million years.”
Unhinged will be released on Aug. 14.
Source
|
But his doctor’s report said he was the peak of human health. Literally the perfect human.
|
On August 04 2018 00:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Well I think we know what next week will be about... on Cable News, and of course Social Media. This also relates to pretty much every adviser and insider that has left calling him stupid, but also worrying about his mental health overall. But she did have to be escorted out by security. So... Show nested quote +Omarosa Manigault Newman, the reality TV star and former White House official, claims she spotted “mental decline” in her former boss.
An excerpt of her upcoming book, Unhinged, which was obtained by the Daily Mail, described her reaction to seeing President Donald Trump’s May 2017 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt.
“Donald rambled. He spoke gibberish. He contradicted himself from one sentence to the next,” Manigault-Newman wrote.
Trump had been prepped to say former FBI Director James Comey was fired on the recommendation of the Department of Justice and not because of the Russia investigation, Manigault-Newman claimed, but that’s not what he said in the interview.
“I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election.’”
In the book excerpt, Manigault-Newman wrote:
“While watching the interview I realized that something real and serious was going on in Donald’s brain. His mental decline could not be denied. Many didn’t notice it as keenly as I did because I knew him way back when. They thought Trump was being Trump, off the cuff. But I knew something wasn’t right.”
Manigault-Newman served as director of communications for the office of public liaison for the White House for much of last year, but was fired by Chief of Staff John Kelly in December. She had to be “physically dragged and escorted off the campus,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
Manigault-Newman later appeared on the reality show “Celebrity Big Brother” and said she would never vote for Trump again “in a million years.”
Unhinged will be released on Aug. 14. Source
xDaunt said it best. Its about results. Republicans would be happy releasing a convicted murderer and rapist from a mental hospital if they thought he would win an election and get them the result they wanted (as long as they are a white man of course).
|
I'd recommend against taking anything Omarosa says seriously.
|
Agreed. If you are not familiar with her, just watch a youtube video of her doing literally anything and you will understand.
|
On August 04 2018 00:08 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught 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 wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.![[image loading]](https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2d6e29f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/415x413+0+0/resize/415x413!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Fd1%2Fa1%2F66a0df135db923bbc6655795b341%2F122717-trump-pew-coverage.png) And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I think we need to take a few steps back and settle on some truths about this president. Can we all at the very least agree that he lies, a lot? Can we also agree that he attacks the press and has done so since the very beginning? Based on these facts, how exactly are you expecting the press to report on him? If he claims something which isn't true while simultaneously claiming all media as "fake news", do you expect them to hold him up as their lord and saviour? And while we're at it, if we agree on the fact that he lies a lot, more than any other president has, why in the absolute duck do you want a president which lies so much? Why is he claiming victories for things he haven't done and excuses things he finds negative, if he's such a good president? Shouldn't he let his actions speak for him?
For reference, the first 60 days of Trump's presidency (what's in that pie chart) included 1) lying about the weather on his inauguration day, 2) lying about the crowd size on his inauguration day, and 3) the disastrous initial version of the travel ban which included green card holders because they were too dumb to think the thing through to even that degree. Oh, and Flynn resigns. And Trump manufactures a claim that he was wiretapped that was debunked by the FBI. As well as Conway manufacturing the Bowling Green Massacre.
He also abandoned his campaign promise about letting Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prescription drug prices because the CEOs were nice to him.
I struggle to imagine how the media could cover any of those events without having more negative than positive comments in an article. I don't think even xDaunt could manage it.
|
We dont need that book to tell us what is already self evident: Trumps mental faculty is failing. The way he repeats himself constantly, how he struggles to complete his sentences before losing his train of thought and moving on, and his constant shifting of positions (sometimes within the same sentence!) are not normal. These are symptoms of an addled mind, not a speaking style or strategy. I wouldnt be surprised if we learn soon after he is run out of office that he has alzheimers or dementia, or something like that. Like Reagan.
It hasn't really been discussed here, but I'm not 100% confident he actually survives till 2020 (or 2024 if reelected). The guy is 72 years old, in horrible shape, with a bad diet, and in the most stressful job in the world. And that stress will only get worse with the investigation ramping up. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that he croaked one day.
|
I doubt he has the same stress like other Presidents, he can spend up to 10-12 hours a day watching TV while Pence does the daily work.
|
On August 04 2018 00:20 On_Slaught wrote: We dont need that book to tell us what is already self evident: Trumps mental faculty is failing. The way he repeats himself constantly, how he struggles to complete his sentences before losing his train of thought and moving on, and his constant shifting of positions (sometimes within the same sentence!) are not normal. These are symptoms of an addled mind, not a speaking style or strategy. I wouldnt be surprised if we learn soon after he is run out of office that he has alzheimers or dementia, or something like that. Like Reagan.
It hasn't really been discussed here, but I'm not 100% confident he actually survives till 2020 (or 2024 if reelected). The guy is 72 years old, in horrible shape, with a bad diet, and in the most stressful job in the world. And that stress will only get worse with the investigation ramping up. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that he croaked one day. iirc I did look at a more reasonable health assessment aways back, and the odds of him surviving are pretty good based on the actuarial data and typical health outcomes for old people. ofc there'd be no reason for 100% confidence anyways, as there's always a considerable death risk for presidents.
|
On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all.
It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015?
In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
|
On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
There's at least a difference in that a person who says "Fox News is the enemy" can't include that in a process of trying to institute a fascist media, while there is a legitimate doubt when it comes to the other scenario.
|
On August 04 2018 00:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I doubt he has the same stress like other Presidents, he can spend up to 10-12 hours a day watching TV while Pence does the daily work.
Previous presidents also likely had magnitudes more mental fortitude though.
|
On August 04 2018 00:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement? There's at least a difference in that a person who says "Fox News is the enemy" can't include that in a process of trying to institute a fascist media, while there is a legitimate doubt when it comes to the other scenario. Saying “Fox is the enemy” denotes a specific company, whose offending actions can be cited. Even then I am not comfortable with labeling such a large group of people as the enemy. Saying the “media” is the enemy as a place holder for the press is an attack on an entire professional field.
There isn’t much difference between calling the press the enemy and saying Mexico are sending their rapists and criminals. The softer, nicer version of that statement can always be justified. But it just another form of dog whistle politics.
|
On August 04 2018 00:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I doubt he has the same stress like other Presidents, he can spend up to 10-12 hours a day watching TV while Pence does the daily work.
Spectacularly failing at your job is actually very stressful. You've convinced yourself that you're fit for the dream job and aren't able to prove it. It's about the worst feeling in the world
|
On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement? Sure, the sentiment becomes coherent if you drop the pretense of positive, iterative signification in pursuit of objective description, but that's the Saussurean path towards admitting that political speech is inherently detached from the circumstances that ostensibly give rise to colloquy in the first place. That admission totally destabilizes the basis for Trumpist apologism of the sort practiced by folks like xDaunt, however, because it's clear that while they'd be fine admitting that terms like "the media" and "fake news" serve as floating semantic targets, the likes of which needn't be pinned down in the way anti-Trumpers insist they ought to, they would not and do not make the same admission with regards to fundamentally similar floating signifiers a la terms like "racism" and "SJW." Thus, the game of allowing folks to justify Trump in terms of the destabilization of linguistic signifiers is to let them have their cake and eat it while driving the wrong direction on a one way road.
"Fox News is the enemy" is a fine thing to assert, but when someone insists Trump is fighting "the media as a whole" while ignoring the extent to which Trump cozies up to and coddles specific segments of "the media as a whole," explaining away the difference in terms of floating signifiers doesn't do justice to what is actually going on.
|
On August 04 2018 00:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 22:28 farvacola wrote: It's also an incoherent take; Trump doesn't attack "the media as a whole," he only attacks those segments of the mediascape that are hostile or at least indifferent to him and the ideas he represents. The notion that he's taking on "the media" only makes sense if you regard "the media" as a group that does not include the dominant television news provider and a host of other sources. It's also silly to overlook the extent to which the Crossfire epoch and the Internet fundamentally changed the way news started working around the mid 90s; any sweeping description of "generations of media" that fails to account for this isn't an accurate description at all. It's not incoherent if you consider "the media" to be a floating signifier filled in with particular content by the person enunciating it. And isn't that why "MSM" has become so popular a term since 2015? In any case I don't feel particularly uncomfortable with a statement like, "Fox News is the enemy," even though I believe there are probably some decent people that work at Fox News. Is "Fox News is the enemy" so different a statement?
I'd be more comfortable with it if they called "the media" enemies of the administration, or better yet adversaries. Labeling "the media" the enemy of the people is creepy.
|
|
|
|