After ~4 days at the lake checking in on FOX News shows like The FIVE occasionally. I totally understand how people who watch that stuff on a regular basis have been indoctrinated into a paranoid state of mind where NPR's simple regular communication confused them. NPR Declaration Of Independence Misunderstanding
I mean the hosts of the FOX News shows spend most of their time preaching what their viewers want to hear..
I mean the hosts of the FOX News shows spend most of their time preaching what their viewers want to hear..
- All other news outlets are in collusion against Trump and Conservatives
- In doing so they lie and are unethical / unprofessional.
- Trump is an honest and unfairly maligned hero of the people
- Trump is accomplishing many important things
83 comments:
Here is an excellent example of some of the red meat The Five were happily dishing out. They were having a great time feeding their starving audience all the information of how CNN was tormenting the "innocent 15 year old boy"... I wonder if they will ever get back to being journalists and make a retraction of their error...
MSN Trump CNN Feud
"The president's son, Donald Trump Jr., also waded into the action: "So I guess they weren't effective threatening the admin so they go after & bully a 15 (year old)? Seems in line w their 'standards' #CNNBlackmail," Trump tweeted.
CNN stepped forward to explain Wednesday, saying it had concealed the user's identity to protect his safety and that there was no coercion.
"The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year-old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter," a CNN spokesperson said in a statement. "CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the user's identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal."
By that time, though, neo-Nazis were rushing to the Redditor's aid. The popular white supremacist site Daily Stormer demanded that CNN fire several journalists and endow a scholarship on behalf of the Redditor, or else CNN would face payback from "jackboots on the ground in every major metro area in the world."
And this was even stranger given all the time Trump spends "punching down" at private citizens from the POTUS position... And the most disturbing / interesting psychological mystery is that the folks who watch this stuff don't see Trump doing anything wrong when he "punches down" at people who don't like him or who disagree with him...
"CNN "committed the only real sin on the internet, which is that you don't dox people," Mike Cernovich, a right-wing media personality, said in an interview.
"You're not some heroic person, the underdog. You're working for a big corporation, and that comes with consequences, one of which is that you can't punch down," Cernovich said of the network. "We now have the story of CNN as Goliath going after the Reddit user David. ... That's always going to trigger a massive backlash."
At this point, Fox really underestimates the extent of media opposition to Trump. It is literally everywhere, and it is literally all the time. There is no pretense of balance. Fox News is the only place, where there is even a pretense of balance toward Trump, and even on Fox, negative voices are beginning to be heard. I have never seen anything like it.
--Hiram
Hiram, I like your take on this one. And I don't much like the meme about "punching down," as if that were some mortal sin. How about "punching up" in such an unprecedented and essentially unprovoked way? And really, who has the bigger punch, one Presidential podium, or thousands of biased media outlets? It isn't even a fair fight because the media has the megaphone.
If we want something to worry about, we should worry about all of the "opinion polls" asking people what they think about various excerpts from the Bill of Rights. Very rarely do they find even majority agreement. We don't seem to teach civics anymore, and I think NPR just proved it. Again.
who has the bigger punch, one Presidential podium, or thousands of biased media outlets? It isn't even a fair fight because the media has the megaphone.
It's a matter of how polarized our society is. From where I sit, the stream of anti Trump messaging is constant.
A saw a clip of Abby Huntsman, a Fox News personality, pointing out that throwing Trump out of office was more popular than Kate's Law. And of course she was right. I really don't know any Democrats at all who don't think Trump is mentally unstable, and unfit for office. And since Kate's Law is a Fox News thing, the Cheshire cat smile that's all that left from the O'Reilly era at Fox, few Democrats even know what it is. What surprised me about Huntsman's comment was not that it was true, but that she viewed it as surprising. Was she unaware that very little of what Fox says makes it into the Democratic consciousness?
--Hiram
If we want something to worry about, we should worry about all of the "opinion polls" asking people what they think about various excerpts from the Bill of Rights.
I was amused by that. For one thing, I think people are unaware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not the same thing, the same document even. They don't understand that they are separated by time and circumstance, and represent two different and arguably conflicting views of what America should be. Also, by taking the Declaration of it's context, unexamined assumptions are suddenly brought to the fore. Is it morally justified to rebel against lawful authority? Did the grievances listed in the Declaration really provide a moral justification for going to war? We ordinarily ask questions like that because history is written by the winners, and the events of our founding as a nation have always shrouded by a veneer of patriotism. NPR, accidentally, opened those questions up.
--Hiram
I find it more interesting that I find it hard to make sense out of what the FOX commentators say, and I am a relatively fiscal Conservative who votes Republican.
Their views that:
- Trump is "accomplishing so much"
- Trump is stimulating jobs growth
- Trump has kept jobs here
- Trump is the innocent victim
- CNN is not accountable and accurate when they fired 3 personnel for violating internal standards.
I am just waiting to see if FOX fires any of their staff for the inaccurate statements that are made there often.
John, this is the administration you voted for.
jerry, you never turn down a chance to insult our educational system, when perhaps the simplest answer is that Republicans are uneducated.
Moose
Hopefully most Americans still trust CNN and NBC over Fox... I mean Trumps denial of Russian involvement in our election seems an important issue from my view.
FOX News Home Page
CNN Home Page
And of course Trump is continuing his attack on CNN instead of focusing on his trip...
Moose,
Let's remember that technically I voted against the "near Democratic socialist"...
And technically I am fine with most of what Trump has done regarding policy, etc. It is this immature narcissistic lying side show that frustrates me. And all the "True Believers" who accept and reinforce Trump's behaviors.
No, John. Technically, you marked the oval next to Trump's name.
Moose
Yes, given 2 viable winners. I voted for the better of 2 really bad choices.
Neither of whom I would have trusted for any position in my personal life.
Unfortunately they were the only viable candidates. Hopefully 2020 is better, however it is not looking good as the parties become more extreme in their positions.
You voted for someone than any intelligent person knew did not have the mental capacity for the job. I'm not sure I'd trust you to hire someone competent.
Moose
Sorry but I don't think I would have been any more satisfied listening to Hillary complaining about needing to have the rich pay more as Bill, Chelsea and herself were lining their pockets through the undertaking of ethically questionable activities.
Hopefully the Democrats will choose to move fiscally to the right so I could consider voting for their candidate. Unfortunately that seems unlikely since the Progressives (ie Democratic Socialists) seem to have a lot of clout with the party. It seems they will want to double down on "robbing the Peters and giving to the Pauls" instead of actually implementing policies to help the Pauls...
"Hopefully the Democrats will choose to move fiscally to the right so I could consider voting for their candidate."
That is the most illogical thing for the party that prefers the Liberal label to do. Progressive policies are the only ones that will work and are favored by a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, it's the neo-Liberals who are running the Democratic party.
Moose
That is an interesting concept, I assume this Guardian piece is what you are talking about.
That we should double down on government control, higher taxes, and government handouts.
That seems to be the plan that Paul over at MP loves. I keep telling him that the Democrats should really pursue that plan... Then they will never control the country again.
Given the following I am guessing the DEMS are going to stay quite a ways Left.
538 Perez and Ellison
"as Bill, Chelsea and herself were lining their pockets through the undertaking of ethically questionable activities."
Dude, you voted for Donald Trump. You don't get to play this card.
I see the Trumps and Clintons as similar in having a definite lack of character...
Here is a timely report...
CNN Ethics Director Quits
I find this quote most troubling...
"But tensions between the two sides remained. After Shaub called one of the waivers "problematic" because it was not signed or dated, the White House fired back: "The Office of Government Ethics needn't be concerned with how the White House implements its own conflicts of interest policy, over which it has zero authority."
Kind of like a fox watching the hen house.
And of course I am free to play the "both parties are failing America terribly" card !!!
This is America!!!!
You prattle on and on about Hillary's supposed ethically questionable activities but dodge Trump's -- which continue to this very second as he is the President of the United States.
I think I am plenty critical of our President's abysmal lack of character and his childish feuds. What else would you like me to say?
If you want to see him impeached and removed from office it will take some real flames to make that happen. The continual stream of smoke is not going to do it with the GOP controlling the House and Senate.
2 questions, one John can answer and the other one I don't think anyone knows the answer right now.
#1(for John) Do you try to persuade your parents that if they only watch Fox news they will have a very limited understanding of current events, especially related to politics? If you do, are they open to your suggestion that they get news from other sources?
My second question is who is right? Bernie and his supporters who believe that people would like the country to move in the direction of greater democratic socialism, or is John right, that a candidate, such as Bernie that ran on a democratic socialist platform would lose an election big time.
My answer to question 2 is that the popularity of a democratic socialist message varies greatly from district to district. In a national election for president I think a candidate who ran on moving in that direction, but not as far as Bernie would like us to go, would win the election, especially some one who is deemed, trustworthy, authentic, and is a bit charismatic.
As we all think we have the right views I think my perfect candidate is the one who would get the most votes. My perfect candidate would advocate for more affordable college rather than free college. My plan would make getting training for older nontraditional students especially affordable in careers where there are shortages of workers.
They would also want some form of universal healthcare that includes private insurance supplements, some form of medicare or medicaid for all. They would take more of an incrementalist approach to get there.
More Democrats embrace universal coverage — and the GOP goes on the attack
Laurie,
Given my devil's advocate personality... Really??? :-)
Yes, much to their frustration I note that they would have a broader and more informed perspective if they watched multiple news sources. And like here, I ask them for sources when they make claims that just seem too questionable to be true. Finally I pose complicated questions to which they have no good answers. (what happens to poor people if ACA funding is repealed?)
It is a good thing that I am their only son and their child who does a lot for them... Otherwise they may disown me...
On the other hand I love them just the way they are !!! Even if it is a bit like entering the Twilight Zone when I visit.
Here is an explanation. PT Why are older people more conservative? Since my Parents are ~77 years old, I think they like to keep things simple...
"You voted for someone than any intelligent person knew did not have the mental capacity for the job."-- Moose
Sorry, but I cannot let that one go. I must ask for proof that Trump is mentally defective just because he disagrees with YOU. From where I sit, that looks pretty smart.
And did you just call half the country stupid? Is that different than "deplorable"?
Seems to me it is hard to win elections that way.
Wouldn't a single payer health care system be a lot simpler than the old way?
Moose
"I must ask for proof that Trump is mentally defective just because he disagrees with YOU."
When did I say that?
One needs only to listen to him speak and pay attention to the things he does to know that he doesn't have the mental capacity for the job. Where he falls on the political spectrum is almost beside the point.
Moose
"And did you just call half the country stupid?"
Of course not. He doesn't have the support of half the country.
Moose
A single payer health care system is "simpler" only because there are one set of rules-- a one-size-fits-all solution for everybody. Its desirability rests on the belief that a few "brilliant" bureaucrats in Washington can make better decisions for 300 million different individual Americans they do not know, than those 300 million directly impacted could make for themselves.
Laurie, you ask the interesting question of "who is right" and then offer a good answer. Assuming the country is polarized in a binary fashion, with Democrats leaning socialist and Republicans leaning away from it, we have the answer. Republicans control the House and Senate.
Jerry,
Actually only ~63 Million citizens were "stupid enough" to vote for Trump. Where as ~66 Million citizens were "stupid enough" to vote for Hillary.
Many citizens understood that it really wasn't worth the effort because both the choices were just that bad...
"One needs only to listen to him speak and pay attention to the things he does to know that he doesn't have the mental capacity for the job."
Odd, I've listened to him a lot and he makes eminent good sense. Everything I see says he is smarter than the average bear. He's actually accomplished a lot in reduced regulations, which is GOOD, and he is outsmarting the press at every turn. I just don't see how you can see it otherwise. Who is this "one" doing the listening, and might their biases matter?
So instead of insulting half the country, you have only insulted 45%?
Moose,
I don't mind the idea of single payer, except for the major problem that "monopolies" are bad news...
If you doubt this just look at the US Social Service and Public Education systems. The citizens of the USA spend a HUGE amount of money on these systems and still millions of kids are left behind each year.
Remember that Medicare and Medicaid are successful in part because America's Private Sector healthcare drive competition and people to care of their health.
"So instead of insulting half the country, you have only insulted 45%?"
Only if you count those who voted. The number, I'm sure, is much lower than that.
Moose
Are we sure? Weren't there 5 million fraudulent votes cast for Hillary? Those don't count.
And I still question how many of those total 129 million votes were actually /informed/ and /for/ one or the other candidate. How many were voting against the other candidate, and how many were misinformed on the merits of the two candidates? With everybody but Fox firing both barrels at Trump and hiding every Hillary misstep, was the electorate really making an informed choice?
"The number, I'm sure, is much lower than that."-- Moose
You sound almost like a liberal there-- absolutely certain of something for which there is no evidence.
Jerry,
Are you 70+ years old yet? Just Curious... :-)
Source please... "He's actually accomplished a lot in reduced regulations"
NPR Trump's Slow Start
PF Trump's Claims Ring Hollow
Jerry, Maybe you are 80+... :-) Source please...
"Are we sure? Weren't there 5 million fraudulent votes cast for Hillary? Those don't count."
BI Trump's Hiring Problem
"An attorney who represents potential executive branch nominees also told Politico that three clients said they were not interested in working for Trump after former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed as a special prosecutor to spearhead the FBI's Russia probe.
"There's no doubt in my mind that people are being very cautious, to put it mildly," the attorney said. If people continue to drop out from consideration, "you're going to have a situation where they're going to have trouble getting A-list of even B-list people to sign up," the lawyer added."
I mean who in their right mind would want to work under Trump given his inconsistency...
Source for accomplishments? You provided them. Maybe it depends on the definition of "a lot."
As for the "hiring problem," that's a GOOD thing. Already Trump has staffed the White House and basically eliminated 1/4 of the positions there, saving money. I suspect it is even tougher for those looking for a sinecure when what is being sought (and needed) is somebody willing to actually do a "public service" JOB. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the Trump Presidency.
I am not sure I would see all these positions as unnecessary...
The unfortunate reality is that Trump enjoys golfing, sparring with the media/ private citizens and getting accolades /cheers from his true believers more than the tedium of doing the job of POTUS... Being POTUS is hard work and it is likely that Trump is not used to it.
This is typical of many people who are given that silver spoon early in life...
I mean who in their right mind would want to work under Trump given his inconsistency...
For attorneys, a real problem is that Donald doesn't follow legal advice. It's very hard for an attorney to advise a client who does not take the attorney's advice.
Many of Donald's problems are rooted in the fact that he is now an employee, something he has never been before in his lifetime. He doesn't understand that while he is a boss, unlike in the private sector, none of the people he works with, works for him. They work for the country.
--Hiram
Here is a story about the real life problems of not being able to hire qualified experienced staff... VOX Where to Stay?
"They work for the country." Really, that is naive bordering on hilarious. They work for THEMSELVES. Everybody does. But only in certain high political circles does it become a self-sustaining delusion that they are "serving the people."
Jerry,
I think we are into the semantics realm now...
People choose to work to provide for their wants / needs.
However I think they are considered to be working for their employer in exchange for money & benefits.
And in this case the employer is the US Government which is indirectly controlled and paid for by the voters / citizens.
In short... I think Hiram is directionally correct.
However along those lines, I wonder what motivates Trump and who he believes he is accountable to?
And given his tendency to be somewhat delusional... It would be fascinating to know. Unfortunately I doubt if he even knows for sure.
I mean I am sure he got into the POTUS mess to feed his narcisstic obsessions, however now that the job is harder than he thought I wonder what is rolling around in the head of his?
You have a very odd analysis of our President, when to me his motivations are abundantly clear. First of all, he has reached an age when all rich men want to insure their place in history, if not in Heaven. They have more money than they can possibly spend and therefore set about doing "good works." Think Carnegie Library, Rockefeller donations to the Parks, the Gates Foundation. Trump is a problem-solver and businessman, and has seen many times over how "broken" the government is-- inefficient, wrong-headed, spendthrift-- and thinks he might be able to fix it with a little common business sense. Conceptually he is absolutely correct, and deserves our gratitude for even trying. That it is more difficult in practice to drain the swamp than to just live with the rot, doesn't make it wrong. He seems to be approaching it in a determined, businesslike manner, despite the wailings of the "establishment."
Jerry,
You give Rich people a lot of credit for being "wise and benevolent".
I would argue that for every Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Buffett there are 10 wealthy people who can never have enough fame or money because someone out there is always richer and/or more famous than them... Or their habits are so engrained after pursuing wealth for decades that they simply can not break them.
And we can tell that Trump is one of the 10 since his benevolent giving is so LOW, he shows no sign of humility, etc.
"They work for the country." Really, that is naive bordering on hilarious
It's why he had the problem with Comey. It's what sent in motion the independent prosecutor process that threatens to destroy Trump's presidency. Has any president been as easy to manipulate as Trump was by Comey?
It's also why Trump is so nervous about relying on people outside his immediate family. He knows that if push comes to a very modest shove, the rest of his White House staff will cooperate with special prosecutor. There loyalty simply isn't to Donald Trump, and I find it moderately surprising that people think that it is.
--Hiram
First of all, he has reached an age when all rich men want to insure their place in history,
Trump's problem is hubris. And the result is a presidency hanging by a thread. Given what we know about Trump's business dealings, what happens if Mueller expands his investigation beyond the parameters of the Russian matter. We do know that just recently settled a consumer fraud case for 25 million dollars. Was that an isolated incident, or is it an indication of a larger problem with Trump's very complex business dealings? What more could a determined and capable investigator with an unlimited budget find? Does even Trump know?
--Hiram
"I would argue that for every Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Buffett there are 10 wealthy people..."
Argue all you want, but you have no evidence for your argument. All I hear are biased assertions, not backed by Maszlow or other knowledge of human nature. Empathy, sir.
"...what happens if Mueller expands his investigation beyond the parameters of the Russian matter."
Most likely they will find that Clinton and Obama had FAR more to hide than Trump ever did. Now, a determined prosecutor "can indict a ham sandwich," but all that proves is a determination to twist the truth on the one side and to hide the truth on the other. Really, it's a pointless exercise and precisely what Trump says it is-- a witch hunt. If it's honest it will come to exactly nothing.
"He shows no signs of humility..." You really think that people running for President should have no ego? Impossible! Trump just finished donating his Presidential salary to charity. We haven't seen his tax returns to know what donations he made. Really, when can we stop with the character assassination and consider actual progress? I think Fox viewers understand that the (rest of the) major media are out to destroy Trump, driven entirely by blind and unreasoning hatred.
"Most likely they will find that Clinton and Obama had FAR more to hide than Trump ever did."
Neither of which currently occupy the Oval Office.
Moose
"Really, when can we stop with the character assassination..."
When he shows that he has some. Take this little gem, for example:
"I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf."
If he can't be taken at his word for such a minor thing as golf, for which he repeatedly lambasted President Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim from Kenya, why should anybody take him seriously about anything?
At this point, it appears he may golf more than all the previous Presidents combined.
Moose
Jerry,
WP Trumps Lack of Philanthropy
I liked this quote.
In advance of this article, The Post sent more than 70 questions to the Trump campaign.
Those questions covered the individual anecdotes and statistics contained in this article, including the tale about Trump crashing the ribbon-cutting in 1996, as well as broader questions about Trump’s life as a philanthropist.
Exactly when, before this spring, did Trump last give his own money to charity?
What did Trump consider his greatest act of charity in recent years?
Trump’s campaign did not respond until Saturday afternoon, after this article was published online; it sent a written statement saying that Trump “has personally donated tens of millions of dollars . . . to charitable causes.”
Trump officials did not respond when asked to provide evidence of the tens of millions of dollars in gifts.
The result of The Post’s examination of Trump’s charity is a portrait of the GOP nominee, revealed in the negative space between what he was willing to promise — and what he was willing to give.
“All of this is completely consistent with who Trump is. He’s a man who operates inside a tiny bubble that never extends beyond what he believes is his self-interest,” said Tony Schwartz, Trump’s co-author on his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal.” Schwartz has become a fierce critic of Trump in this election.
“If your worldview is only you — if all you’re seeing is a mirror — then there’s nobody to give money to,” Schwartz said. “Except yourself.”
Jerry,
Why again would the major media be out to destroy Trump?
His antics and missteps are generating record ratings for them...
Ironic, isn't it? As ironic as the fact that their rabid coverage of him pre-election, intended to insure his defeat, was probably what gave him the election.
Do you really believe that Obama's or Hillary's "antics and missteps" drew, or would have drawn, even a fraction of the daily hysteria the MSM is putting forth today?
Those who view Trump as somehow unfit for the office he holds will find all manner of things to support that view-- confirmation bias. Those with no such bias simply sit back and marvel at the hyperbole, vitriol and high dudgeon. It's almost entertaining. As I keep hearing, "keep it up, snowflakes, you will guarantee his second term."
Personally I find it a lot like how you treated Obama...
As for how the press would treat Obama and Hillary... I don't think they ever gave them any real reason to practice daily hysteria, where as:
- Trump or Staff lie often
- Trump or Staff attack them often
- Trump or Staff keep making B Team mistakes
- Trump or Staff have had questionable relations with Russian personnel
- etc
If you don't want to draw the negative attention of the press:
- Be ethical, professional, prepared, honest, etc...
Do you really believe that Obama's or Hillary's "antics and missteps" drew, or would have drawn, even a fraction of the daily hysteria the MSM is putting forth today?
Trump seems to be repeating some of Hillary's missteps on a much larger scale. Hillary's husband has a brief tarmac medium with the AG. Trump has private dinners with FBI director.
But the fact is, the media circus surrounding Trump is much larger, and to a large extent, that's because the media doesn't respect Trump, as we all know. I don't think even Trump's supporters respect Trump. Trump did lose the popular vote, and his popularity has declined since then, so the media know they won't pay a price for ridiculing him. That's simply the way things are.
Can they change? Should we make a choice to respect Donald? Can we choose who we respect? Can we decide to be serious about such a deeply sad and profoundly ridiculous human being? Anyone? Anyone?
--Hiram
I hear a lot of subjective assessments, obviously based on an almost fatally jaundiced view of the last election outcome. There is no way I will accept such baseless assertions over judgments reached through my own eyes and ears.
And we were not talking about the way /I/ treated Obama. I believe I clearly said, at the outset, that "everything he does or says will be wrong," and later, "I have not been disappointed." Hyperbole, obviously, but almost the opposite of the way Obama was treated in the media. Greek columns, "you didn't build that," "electricity rates will skyrocket," "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" "you will save $2500 per year," lavish WH parties, expensive travel, ties to anarchists, blatant discrimination, prejudice and civil rights problems.... need I go on? Exactly none of it resulted, for the most part, in any criticism from media, except perhaps Fox news commentators.
Fox is, as Rush Limbaugh sometimes says, "no need for balance on this program, I AM balance."
So does that mean you regard Trump as something other than a reality tv clown?
--Hiram
I don't see anything subjective about NYT's list of Trump lies linked above. They provide sources and everything.
Rush saying "he is balance" is kind of like Keith Ellison saying he is balance...
But in fairness to Trump, everyone knew he was a liar going in. It was something his supporters were ok with. None of his supporters in the electoral college seemed to mind all that much either.
--Hiram
Rush says he is balance to the rest of the MEDIA. Please keep it straight that THEY is not US, contrary to Pogo's pronouncements.
As for the NYT list, I got only as far as the third one: "'Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.' (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)" Then I stopped. If all the rest are as false as that LIE by the NYT, the meme is busted. And why the obsession with Trump lying, anyway? At least he didn't hurt anybody with such grandstanding, if it was even that.
Jerry,
The NYT piece is correct, Trump said that 3 million illegals voted with NO proof.
The reality is that Trump hurts our country's standing in the world with every falsehood he utters. He is not just some silly American exaggerating and stating untruths. He is the President of the USA and the character of our country is unfortunately tied to his for the next 3.5 years.
Hopefully he starts learning and improving.
"- Be ethical, professional, prepared, honest, etc..."
The NYT cannot be both prosecutor and the trusted source of evidence. As for voter fraud, absence of proof is not proof of absence, in general. And there are many, many proven cases of voter fraud, some right here in Minnesota, and rampant evidence of the possibility. Just look at the Harvard study-- the numbers Trump quoted came directly from it. How is it a lie to accurately quote a Harvard study?
The reality is that those claiming Trump is a liar hurt our country far more than any pronouncement he makes. While the harpies here continue to harp over trivial imaginings, he is getting rave reviews almost everywhere else on the planet.
The reality is that the NYT is just a source of knowledge, they don't prosecute anyone.
It is us citizens who listen to Trump and read news sources and decide who is more believable and trustworthy. Unfortunately Trump's continual stream of exaggerations, embellishments and out right lies have eroded the ability for most people to believe anything he says.
Fact Checker 3 Million
Please feel free to keep trusting him blindly, I'll keep looking for facts and data.
CNN Money How is Job Growth. Trump vs Obama
"...the NYT is just a source of knowledge, they don't prosecute anyone."
Sorry, I used the wrong word. It's "Persecute." If you want to read "news sources" I suggest you rely on something other than biased rags like the NYT or CNN (aka FNN). Truth is where you find it, and looking at liars and fact-twisters is harder than with "fair and balanced" Fox news. I've long said the NYT slogan should be "all the news that's fit to wrap fish in."
Are you seeing the CNN report as a NEGATIVE for Trump? The "facts and data" would seem to be otherwise. I'm a bit surprised CNN even seemingly reported them in a balanced manner, though I didn't watch to the end.
The NYT cannot be both prosecutor and the trusted source of evidence.
Prosecutors do provide evidence. And we do trust prosecutors, not absolutely, but a lot. If we don't trust a prosecutor, he needs to be fired.
The problem can be viewed as one of logic, something that has a lot of fans.
If someone has a point of view, then what he says cannot be believed.
All people have a point of view.
Then nothing, anyone says can be trusted.
I would submit that the logic of the syllogism is sound. But is the conclusion acceptable? Isn't it an attack on the very notion of trust and truth itself?
--Hiram
I think it is simply a fascinating data point.
Trump and his True Believers said that things were going terrible last year under Obama.
Trump and his True Believers say that everything is much better now.
And yet the numbers prove that job growth is slowing somewhat.
Now if Trump and the True Believers were correct... I would expect to see an increase in job and wage growth...
The reality is that Trump has pretty much accomplished nothing that would help our economy since he was sworn in.
- No Tax Reductions
- No Infrastructure Funding
- etc
"The reality is that Trump has pretty much accomplished nothing..."
The reality is that many people have that same OPINION. And if we put all of the "facts" out here on the table, people would pick out those that supported their opinion and discard the rest. calling some True Believers simply denies the reality that the other side are True Believers, only different. Fox viewers "misunderstand" only from the view that they do not believe what the True Believers watching CNN believe.
And just to test the premise that CNN watchers get facts and truth, while Fox watchers get all-politics and no "real news," I checked the websites of each, and categorized the "top news" stories into: Trump, Entertainment, Other, Human Interest, World, Politics and Opinion. Fox had 35 articles and CNN had 16. In almost every category, Fox had roughly twice the stories, exactly as one would suspect. Only in the "politics" category was there a big difference-- Fox 5 and CNN 1. But of course the impressions left-- that is the opinions "confirmed"-- differ greatly depending on how the "news" is presented. For example, Fox covered the Trump-Putin meeting with quotes and reactions, while CNN "covered" it by raising new suspicions about collusion between the two.
Jerry,
Obama had his True Believers like Laurie who saw pretty much only truth, good intent and positive accomplishments in him.
Trump has True Believers like my Parents and yourself who see pretty much only truth, good intent and positive accomplishments in him.
I have no idea why humans on the Left and Right are prone to see the world in this "Hero" / "Villain" way. The good news is that I'll be here to remind both of you that they are just men who make mistakes and sometimes speak untruths.
And before Laurie jumps on me... From my Centrist analytical view Obama was much more truthful than Trump. Of course he did not communicate to the general public nearly as much as Trump does... And he wasn't a "man of action" so they are a little challenging to compare.
I'm glad we have your "central analytical view" to separate the truth from the biases of the opposing poles of raw opinion. Of course, it was Obama who won the "Lie of the Year" award, so I think your credentials may be a tad tarnished.
And I would like to propose an objective means of ascertaining the import of any particular charge of lying, which would be whether or not the statement advances a desirable outcome, or hinders it. Unfortunately it seems that 98% of the charges of lying are simply partisan sniping, creating far more smoke than light and, for the most part, having nothing whatsoever to do with good policy.
I think "desirable outcome" and "good policy" are going to be a bit challenging to use as a measure of truth.
Besides the fact that they have nothing to do with determining the truth.
Truth:
- the quality or state of being true.
- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
- a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
Looks like you are stuck with me. I will continue striving to challenge the perception of both sides...
On the upside, given the rate and magnitude of Trump's lies. He will likely have the "Lie of the Year" honor soon.
Odd. I haven't heard a lie yet, at least one that mattered. A few exaggerations or misremembering of facts, perhaps.
I don't mind being "stuck with you." I would just like some understanding that "truth" is where you find it. And that while your opinion or my opinion is an absolute fact, neither may be the "TRUTH."
And here's an example. "And yet the numbers prove that job growth is slowing somewhat." The numbers may be a fact, but there are lots of numbers that one might reference regarding job growth, and some of them might be contrary to others. Therefore such conclusions come from bias and cannot represent TRUTH as an absolute. Now if you want to say something about ONE of the numbers and assume the government comes up with that number accurately, you have a truth, but it does no good without the context of all the others, does it? Obama drove the "unemployment rate" down, but that number doesn't account for millions dropping out of the labor force and being actually unemployed.
We succeed here when we get all the "facts" out on the table, and then we draw conclusions from them, though we may still differ markedly on those conclusions. It isn't that Fox or CNN viewers misunderstand; they simply receive a lot of carefully-chosen information and opinions perceived as fact. Like "Trump is a liar." It sells to CNN viewers. It is dismissed or dissed by Fox watchers.
Usually CNN, NYT and WAPO are more polite than to call Trump a liar. They just fact check Trump's statements and prove them to be incorrect.
Then it is up to the reader to decide if Trump is incompetent or lying.
Here are some of the whoppers...
TP Trump Defends 3 Lies
And apparently Trump already won 2 lies of the year.
Well technically he only won 2015, and only strongly supported the 2016 Lie of the Year
Just curious why is it hard for you to acknowledge that he lies often?
I mean it looks like you have already decided that lying is not a problem as long as it is done in pursuit of a platform that you support...
"import of any particular charge of lying, which would be whether or not the statement advances a desirable outcome, or hinders it." Jerry
Is that the criteria you use in your personal life?
It is fine to lie and manipulate people as long as it helps you to attain your goal?
"They just fact check Trump's statements and prove them to be incorrect."
It isn't often that I get to use "LOL" in these discussions, but here we are. The only thing I can say about these "fact checkers" is I admire them for their ability to torture the language and logic with such extreme ease that one must wonder "who fact checks the fact checkers?"
I am not fine with dishonesty as a general rule, but it seems that the Left has decided it is the trump card they can play against any and all policies, no matter how desirable they might be. In other words, if they can convince you that "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" and that those telling you the truth, that you can't, are lying, they can win the policy debate. The Big Lie actually works, even if that lie is that the Truth is the lie.
What I'm trying to explain is that if you disagree with the policy, explain why, don't just call proponents liars. "You just want to give tax cuts to the rich." "You just want poor people to die." "You're pushing Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair." Do these sound like rational arguments to anybody?
Post a Comment